Didi housekeeper was awarded 700,000 yuan in compensation for economic losses by the court for maliciously attaching to Didi. Since the development of society, as long as there are manufacturers rising, there will be many cottage versions. There are many things that rub the trademarks and brands of well-known companies. We are all familiar with Didi taxi software, and suddenly a Didi butler appeared on the Internet. Then I think our first impression must be that Didi has new software, so it has the influence of Didi taxi. Many netizens will definitely try Didi Ball Butler. But in fact, Didi playing ball has nothing to do with Didi. However, without permission, Didi Travel Bowling Butler uses a lot of butler logos including Didi, Didi, and so on in mobile phone applications, official WeChat accounts, websites and other corporate decoration offices. It also provides booking services such as golf, fighting, go-karting, coaching courses and cultural and sports training.

What is the original name of Didi Ball Manager? Beijing Chen Hao Yi Rong Information Consulting Service Co., Ltd.? Later, in March of 20 16, 1 was changed to? Beijing Didi Ball Manager. In view of this, the plaintiff sued the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for two reasons. The court thinks? Didi? The trademark has reached a well-known level at the time of the alleged behavior, which constitutes a registered well-known trademark. And what is the drip ball problem? Misleading the public, so that the interests of well-known trademark registrants may be harmed? In this case, the plaintiff's? Didi? Exclusive right to use a registered trademark. For commercial purposes, it insists? Didi? Brand awareness is obviously subjective and malicious, which violates the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics and constitutes unfair competition.

Finally, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ordered the defendant to stop the trademark infringement involved and stop using the trademark? Didi? In the name of the enterprise, and ordered to compensate the economic losses and reasonable expenses * * * 700,000 yuan. Neither party has filed an appeal and the judgment has come into effect.