Internet celebrity brand "Cha Yan Yuese" has once again been on Weibo's hot search list. On January 4, the "unfair competition" case brought by "Cha Yan Yuese" against "Cha Yan Guan Se" was held in a public trial. More than four hours later, the court announced that it would set a date for the verdict. One trademark was registered first, and the other is a popular internet celebrity milk tea shop. Which one has trademark infringement? Is there unfair competition between them? Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter interviewed experts. Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter Xu Jing
Both milk teas have registered trademarks
During the public hearing on January 4, Cha Yanyuese believed that she had national trademarks The influential milk tea shop has been reported by well-known media across the country and has a high influence. However, Cha Yan Guan Se's use of decorations similar to those of its own store is confusing and constitutes unfair competition. Cha Yan Guan Se Milk Tea Shop was opened after its reputation was already very high. After Cha Yan Guan Se used the trademark, he should have an obligation to avoid it, but the defendant completely failed to perform it.
Chayan Guanse believes that he does not use decorations similar to Chayan Yuese. Even if there are similar elements in the decoration, it is still using its own registered trademark, and the teahouse decoration of ladies pictures also has a right basis.
Public information shows that the "Cha Yan Yuese" milk tea shop opened its first store in Changsha in December 2013 and has nearly 200 branches. In May 2019, the "Cha Yan Guan Se" milk tea shop, which is just one word different from "Cha Yan Yuese", opened in Changsha. The two sides then fell into a protracted battle over intellectual property rights and competition disputes.
"Cha Yan Guan Se" and "Cha Yan Yuese" are both registered trademarks. Although "Cha Yan Guan Se" opened its store later, its trademark was registered first. According to the China Trademark Network, the "Cha Yan Yuese" trademark was first registered by Hunan Cha Yue Catering Management Co., Ltd. on October 8, 2013. The "Cha Yan Guan Se" trademark was registered on March 14, 2008. The trademark changed hands several times and was acquired by Guangzhou Luoqi Catering Management Co., Ltd.
The focal point of the dispute between the two is the similarity of trademarks. Not only are their names different by one word, but the pictures of both houses are of ladies with braided hair. The difference is that the maid with a "tea-faced look" has a square face and is holding a fan; the "tea-faced" maid has an oval face and is holding a teapot. In response to this, some netizens joked: "One looks like a rich man, and the other looks like a maid."
Dong Xinrui, an expert from the Beijing Intellectual Property Expert Database, told the Yangzi Evening News/Ziniu News reporter that strictly speaking, "Tea Yan Guan Se" does not involve trademarks if it does not use the trademark "Cha Yan Yuese" infringement. Specifically, "Cha Yan Guan Se" because many of its flagship products are similar to "Cha Yan Yuese" and more of them copy the copyright or appearance intellectual property rights of "Cha Yan Yuese", but if "Cha Yan Yuese" "If there is no protection for the relevant copyright and appearance, it does not involve infringement from a legal perspective, but more imitation of the business model. As for whether there is unfair competition, it is difficult to draw a conclusion, because apart from intellectual property protection, it is more of a market behavior, unless there is vicious competition that hinders the normal development of the market.
Industry insiders bluntly said that the special feature of this "unfair competition" case is that the defendant "Cha Yan Guan Se" uses its own registered trademark, so the plaintiff's claim for "Cha Yan Yuese" is It is difficult to obtain support unless the defendant's trademark is revoked first.
In fact, this is the second time the two sides have "played against each other." Two years ago, "Cha Yan Guan Se" sued "Cha Yan Yuese" for trademark infringement. On April 8, 2020, the Yuelu District Court of Changsha City ruled that "Cha Yan Yuese" did not constitute trademark infringement. The court pointed out that although the trademark "Cha Yan Guan Se" was registered first, if the interests of the first registrant were taken as the only consideration and a simple determination of trademark infringement of "Cha Yan Yuese" would be inflicted on the continuous and honest use of the unique name and Undue damage is caused to the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark operator and its accumulated goodwill, which also violates the principle of market fairness.
Many Internet celebrity brands suffer from copycats
Copycats are a problem faced by many Internet celebrity brands. Some companies have taken up legal weapons to fight to the end, while others have used "Tolerant policy".
After Lujiao Alley became popular in 2017, it became the target of imitation by copycat stores. After opening 136 directly-operated stores, it is said that there are as many as 3,000 copycat stores, which means that 95% of Lujiao Alley on the market are Copycat store. In December 2019, after Lujiaoxiang secured the most critical Class 43 trademark representing food and beverage services, it began to focus on eliminating the remaining copycat stores. On the one hand, for online stores, Lujiaoxiang cooperates with Meituan to remove infringing stores; on the other hand, for offline infringing stores, Lujiaoxiang launches a small store cooperation model to focus on collection and rectification.
In addition to Internet celebrity brands, well-known companies are also deeply troubled by "famous brands". On January 6, "Ele.me" sued "Ele.me" with new results, and was finally compensated 10,000 yuan. The verdict shows that the Beijing Chaoyang People's Court ordered Ele.me to immediately change its company name and not use words that are the same or similar to "Ele.me".
A company that provides golf, boxing and other training not only uses the "Didi Golf Butler" logo extensively in publicity, but also changed the company's name to Beijing Didi Golf Butler Technology Development Co., Ltd. The owner of the "Didi" trademark sued Didi Playing Company to court. On October 28 last year, the first instance of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ordered Didi Playball Company to stop infringement, stop using the company name containing the word "Didi", and compensate the plaintiff for losses of 700,000 yuan.
In addition, "Today's Toutiao" also took the catering brand "Today's Youtiao" to court, while "Haidilao" sued "Hedi Lao". In order to protect their trademarks, more companies have registered all the trademarks they can think of in one go. "Lao Gan Ma" has applied for as many as 117 trademarks, including "Lao Gan Dad", "Lao Aunt", "Lao Qian Ma", etc. The registered trademarks of Wang Shouyi Thirteen Fragrances include "Sixteen Fragrances", "Seventeen Fragrances", "Twelve Flavors", etc. JD.com even applied for trademarks such as “Dongge” and “Qiangdong”.