Didi sued a company for maliciously attaching trademarks. Does this incident constitute unfair competition? With the progress of the times, many trademarks have homophones or comrades, but Didi taxi company has such a thing. Didi taxi should be said to be a well-known ride platform in China, which is used by many people every day. But the higher the popularity, the more likely it is that there will be a world imitating famous brands. Didi hit the ball once recently. 20 1 16 Beijing yirongxin consulting service co., ltd changed its name to Beijing Didi scratch ball management technology development co., ltd, and went to court with Beijing Xiao Ju technology co., ltd after Didi was discovered.

The defendant's subjective malice in the brand recognition of Didi is obvious, which violates the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics and constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ordered the defendant to stop the trademark infringement involved, stop using the enterprise name containing dd, and awarded compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

Due to the increasing protection of trademarks by many enterprises in recent years, many counterfeiters have come up with crooked ideas to turn other people's well-known trademarks into their own firms and register them in different places. Although there are some differences between No.3 infringement and trademark infringement, it is undeniable that when No.3 and trademark are similar or even the same, it will lead to public misunderstanding, which will lead to losses for enterprises. Therefore, if No.3 maliciously uses another registered trademark and highlights it, it will also be treated as trademark infringement.

Some people also say that Didi has no trademark. Why are companies with similar names also accused of infringement? Then looking down, Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that Didi trademark reached a well-known level on 20 16, which constituted a registered well-known trademark.

Well, the defendant Beijing Didi Bowling Butler Technology Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Didi Bowling Butler Company, not only changed the company name, but also used the logo containing Didi in the business card of the official account of WeChat on the website, which constituted the reproduction and translation of Didi's well-known trademark as a whole. This kind of behavior is easy to mislead the relevant public, so it constitutes unfair competition.