The Tianxin District Court of Changsha City held after hearing that the plaintiff Haidilao Company proposed that the "Hedilao" logo used by the defendant Hedilao restaurant was similar to the approved and registered "Haidilao" trademark. According to Article 9, paragraph 2, of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Trademark Civil Dispute Cases" and Article 52, Paragraph 1 of the Trademark Law, trademark similarity refers to the trademark that is accused of infringement and that of the plaintiff. Compared with registered trademarks, their fonts, pronunciations, meanings, compositions, colors, or the overall structure of the combination of their elements are similar, or their three-dimensional shapes and color combinations are similar, which may easily cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the goods or think that the source of the goods is the same as that of the plaintiff. Products with specific associations with registered trademarks. Whether trademark words are similar or not generally requires a comprehensive appraisal based on pronunciation, form, meaning, etc.

1. There are some differences in the overall font of the characters:

First of all, the "Hedi Lao" trademark and the "Haidilao" trademark both have the word "Dilao". There are some differences between them in terms of the overall font of the characters. The registered trademark "Haidilao" of the plaintiff Haidilao Company is the Founder Huali font. Judging from the "Hedi Lao" logo, it is composed of artistic words. The character "河" is the artistic form of the river, and the character "河地拉" is the dots below it, which are composed of the image of artistic fish. In terms of pronunciation, "Ta" and "Haidilao" are pronounced similarly. However, the pinyin letters start with H, which is consistent with the Mandarin pronunciation and Hunan dialect pronunciation. There is no similarity in composition and color between Hedi Lao and Hedi Lao Hot Pot Restaurant. There is no similarity in the overall structure, three-dimensional shapes and color combinations.

? 2. Reject the plaintiff:

Secondly, the menus sold by all Haidilao Company stores are Sichuan hot pot series, while the menus of Heidilao Restaurant are typical Hunan cuisine series. Although Hedilou Restaurant has hot pot dishes, there are certain differences between the hot pot and the hot pot operated by Haidilao Company, with Hexian hot pot being the main dish. It can be seen from the menu and posters at the entrance of the store that its Hunan cuisine series are promoted on the signboard and menu posters at the entrance. Judging from the font, pronunciation, composition, color, and the dishes sold by the plaintiff and defendant, ordinary consumers will not misunderstand the source of goods of Hedi Lao Catering Service, nor will they think that the source of goods has a specific connection with the plaintiff's registered trademark "Hai Dun Lao". Therefore, the defendant and Di Lao Restaurant do not constitute an infringement of the trademark rights of the plaintiff's registered trademark "Hai Dun Lao". The Tianxin District People's Court of Changsha City rejected the plaintiff's claim against Sichuan Haidilao Catering Co., Ltd. After the first-instance verdict was announced, both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

3. Rights need to be protected and should not be abused:

Peng Dingyun, the president of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Tianxin District People’s Court of Changsha City, which handled the case, believes that rights need to be protected and should not be abused. should be abused. In judicial trials, laws based on the national intellectual property strategy must strictly protect intellectual property rights to promote social innovation. It is undeniable that in the field of trademark rights and copyright rights, there are some batch commercial rights protections that focus on the interests of small store operators and do not care about tracing the source of anti-counterfeiting. Some people abuse their rights and intend to monopolize certain industries and fields, which runs counter to the purpose of protecting intellectual property rights and promoting social innovation. Intellectual property trials must focus on rights protection and prevent excessive rights protection; guide rights holders to achieve leapfrog development through innovation, and must promote society to enjoy the fruits of the development of the times on the basis of innovation.