Recently, a product on the market claiming to be “Tencent’s first wireless Bluetooth headset” was declared by the court of first instance to have infringed on Tencent’s registered trademark rights. For more trademark information, welcome to visit Bajie Intellectual Property Trademark Transfer Network!
Recently, the Intermediate People’s Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province (Jinan Intermediate Court) sued Shenzhen Xiaofeiyu Mobile Technology Co., Ltd. (Xiaofeiyu Company), Shenzhen Fengchi Animation Co., Ltd. (Fengchi Company), The first-instance judgment was made in the trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case of Jinan Lixia Shangyou Electronic Products Sales Department (Shanghang Youshang Sales Department).
The Jinan Intermediate People’s Court determined that the product “Tencent’s first wireless Bluetooth headset” produced and sold by the three defendants infringed Tencent’s exclusive rights to the registered trademarks of “Tencent” text and “Tencent graphics”. The three defendants immediately Stop producing and selling headphone products that infringe the exclusive rights of the "" registered trademark. The word "Tencent" must not be used in the promotion of headphone products, and the company name "Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd." must not be used on headphone products; Xiao Feiyu Company and Feng Chime The company needs to compensate Tencent for economic losses and other damages totaling 20 million yuan.
It is understood that the defendant has filed an appeal.
Tencent filed a lawsuit with the Jinan Intermediate People's Court, claiming that it had discovered "Tencent Wireless Headphones" produced and sold by Xiaofeiyu Company and Fengchi Company on the market, and that the two companies had "wireless headphone" products, The "" logo is prominently used on the company's website, Tmall Mall, JD Mall, Taobao, and product advertising videos, and the copyright owner is marked as "Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd." on the product packaging.
According to the investigation, the sales channels of wireless headsets produced by the two companies involve online and offline, with a wide sales range, with sales prices ranging from 199 yuan to 899 yuan. In addition to offline sales in 12 provinces and cities including Beijing, Jinan, Tai'an, Chengdu, and Zhengzhou, the defendant also conducts online sales on Taobao, 1688, JD.com and other platforms, and promotes infringing products through websites, WeChat and other channels. .
The sales department above is the Shandong regional agent for Xiaofeiyu Company’s full range of wireless headset products.
In addition, Tencent also found that during the promotion and sales process, the above two companies used a large number of "Tencent" related words, such as using "Tencent Qbuds Wireless Headphones" in the "Product Introduction" of their company websites, "Tencent Strategic Partner" and other words are used to introduce products; and when promoting and selling products on Taobao, Jingdong Mall, and Tmall Mall, "Tencent Headphones", "Tencent's first wireless Bluetooth headset" and "Tencent launches the first wireless Bluetooth headset QbudsW1" are widely used "Tencent Qbuds wireless headphones" and other words.
Tencent believes that in the process of producing and selling headphones, Xiaofeiyu Company and Fengchi Company prominently used the "" logo and used a large number of "Tencent" related words, causing confusion among the relevant public about the source of the products. Mistakenly believe that the headphones are produced by Tencent, or are related to Tencent. The sales department above serves as the Shandong regional agent for the headphone series. It sells a large number of headphones and needs to bear corresponding infringement liability.
It is reported that Tencent sued the three companies and relevant responsible persons to the Jinan Intermediate Court, demanding that the defendants immediately stop the infringement.
During the trial, the three defendants denied infringement.
Xiao Feiyu Company argued that it obtained the license to use the trademark involved from Fengchi Company. Its use of the trademark involved had factual and legal basis and was not a malicious infringement, let alone infringement.
In 2015, Tencent, Xiaofeiyu Company and Fengchi Company reached a cooperation in the "Tencent Children" watch project to produce and sell "Tencent Children" watches with the trademark "Penguin Graphics Tencent Children" (a combination of graphics and text) ). Tencent issued a letter of authorization to Xiao Feiyu Company, authorizing Xiao Feiyu Company to serve as the general agent of the national physical channel for "Tencent Children" watches.
During the production process, the trademark actually used was the penguin graphic, that is, the trademark involved in the case No. 5101945. It has been used as the trademark of Tencent's children's watch. Tencent also agreed and did not raise any objection. Xiao Feiyu also participated in the Tencent organization A series of morning events, the project received widespread media coverage.
In October 2015, Fengchi Company was authorized to produce and sell Tencent children’s and other brand electronic products. In November 2016, Fengchi Company authorized Xiao Feiyu Company to produce and sell Tencent children’s headphones, and the contract was signed in June 2017. The cooperation agreement stipulates that Fengchi Company will provide the Tencent trademark of the products and provide authorization certification for production and sales. Later, Fengchi Company provided the trademark No. 5101945 involved in the case to Xiao Feiyu Company as the trademark of Tencent children’s headphones. Based on the trust of the actual controller of Wind Chime Company as director of copyright operations of Tencent Company, and also because of its cooperation with Wind Chime Company and Tencent Company in the Tencent children's watch project, Xiaofeiyu Company has sufficient reason to believe that the trademark provided by Wind Chime Company has been Tencent’s consent was obtained.
The operation department responded above by arguing that Xiaofeiyu Company clearly promised to sell products with legal authorization, and its business manager issued a written authorization. The operation department was never aware of the case involved during the purchase and external sales of the products. Products may infringe upon trademark exclusive rights and shall not be held liable for infringement. The wind chime company and others did not respond or provide evidence of price increase.
Jinan Intermediate People’s Court held that Tencent enjoys the exclusive right to the registered trademark "Tencent" involved in the case according to law, and also enjoys the right to the corporate name "Tencent". The trademark involved in the case and the corporate name "Tencent" have been used for a long time, have won many social honors, and have high brand value, popularity and reputation. The trademarks involved in the case and the "Tencent" corporate name should receive a higher level of protection.
The defendant prominently marked the "Tencent" logo on the product and during the advertising process, and used the words "Tencent Qbuds Wireless Headphones", which will confuse the relevant public as to the source of the product, and the relevant public will mistakenly believe that the The alleged infringing product was provided by Tencent, or the defendant obtained permission from Tencent to use the trademark, or the defendant had some specific relationship with Tencent. It constitutes an infringement of Tencent’s registered trademark rights. At the same time, the defendant extensively used the corporate trade name "Tencent" and the corporate name of "Tencent" for publicity and promotion, with the obvious subjective intention of clinging to the goodwill of well-known companies, which will make the relevant public think that the accused infringing products are products of Tencent. Or there is some specific connection between the two. Therefore, the defendant's conduct constituted unfair competition.
According to this, the court ruled in the first instance that the defendants Xiaofeiyu Company and Fengchi Company should immediately stop infringing the exclusive rights of Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.’s registered trademark "Tencent", that is, immediately stop producing and selling headphones. P infringed the above-mentioned registration. products with exclusive trademark rights; the defendants Xiaofeiyu Company and Fengling Company immediately ceased operations. Unfair competition means that the word "Tencent" must not be used in the promotion of headset products, and the name "Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd." must not be used in headset products, in order to compensate Tencent for economic losses of 20 million yuan. The defendant's electronic product management department immediately stopped infringing on Tencent's registered trademark rights and unfair competition, and immediately stopped selling the headphone products involved.