You are talking about a trademark dispute
Tencent and Chery: Cross-border dispute over QQ trademark
The number of trademark dispute cases has increased in recent years. , the influence is getting bigger and bigger, and the parties involved in the dispute are mostly industry giants, so it has attracted more and more attention from the society.
Recently (July 2013), the case of Tencent and Chery competing for the QQ trademark in the automotive field has become the focus of media reports. Because the "QQ" trademark registered on automobiles and other goods was revoked, Tencent took the National Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark Review and Adjudication Board") to court. Chery participated in the lawsuit as a third party. The case was concluded on July 16, 2013. The trial was held at the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court on the morning of the same day.
Why should Tencent sue the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board
Readers who don’t know the reason may wonder why Tencent and Chery are competing for the “QQ” trademark, why not sue Chery directly but sue the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board instead? This has to start with the whole incident. A brief review of the case: In May 2005, Tencent applied to register the "QQ" trademark on Class 12 automobiles and other products, and the registration was approved by the National Trademark Office in March 2008. In November 2009, Chery applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to revoke the trademark on the grounds that the trademark infringed upon its prior rights. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believed that the registration of the disputed trademark constituted "preemptive registration of a trademark that was already used by others and had a certain influence", so it revoked the registered trademark. Tencent was not convinced and took the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to court.
There are multiple relief procedures for trademark registration. If it is rejected by the Trademark Office due to similarity or other reasons, the applicant can apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for review within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the rejection notice. If he is not satisfied with the review decision, Administrative litigation can also be filed; for a trademark that has passed preliminary examination, within three months from the date of announcement, anyone can file an objection with the Trademark Office. If he is not satisfied with the objection ruling of the Trademark Office, he can also apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for an objection review. If you are still dissatisfied with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's review ruling, you may file an administrative lawsuit in court. Refusal review and opposition procedures are for unregistered trademarks. If a trademark is registered, the relevant right holder can still apply for cancellation of the trademark through the dispute procedure or the withdrawal procedure.
Articles 41 to 43 of the "Trademark Law" stipulate that if a registered trademark violates the provisions of Articles 13, 15, 16 and 31 of this Law, Within five years from the date of trademark registration, the trademark owner or interested party may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to rule on canceling the registered trademark. For cases registered in bad faith, the owner of a well-known trademark is not subject to the five-year time limit. If the party concerned is dissatisfied with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's ruling, he or she may file a lawsuit in the People's Court within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. The people's court shall notify the other party in the trademark adjudication procedure to participate in the litigation as a third party.
Therefore, after Chery successfully revoked Tencent’s “QQ” trademark registered on automobile products, Tencent could not directly file a civil lawsuit against Chery for the revocation because the revocation ruling was made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. , so Tencent can only file an administrative lawsuit against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board in accordance with the provisions of the Trademark Law, requesting the court to rule that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board revoke its ruling, while Chery can only participate in the lawsuit as a third party.
What are Tencent’s considerations in competing for the QQ trademark in the automotive field?
One is the Internet giant Tencent, and the other is the domestic automobile giant Chery. The two companies' businesses have nothing to do with each other and there is no competitive relationship. Why did the two spend nearly 10 years competing for the QQ trademark?
As for Chery, it is understandable. After all, it is in the automobile industry and it produces QQ mini cars. It is natural for it to compete for the "QQ" trademark on automobile products. However, for Tencent, many people find it difficult to understand why an Internet company wants to compete with automobile companies for the QQ trademark in the automotive field? Is Tencent going to switch to making cars? Lots of doubts.
In fact, Tencent’s fight for the “QQ” trademark in the automotive field is not a whim and has no reason. I believe that based on Tencent’s wisdom, there must be careful considerations behind it. As an outsider, I would like to share some humble opinions here for the time being, in order to teach you.
First, the era of the Internet of Vehicles or the Internet of Things is gradually approaching. The integration of network and hardware is accelerating. Various automotive software applications are continuously developed. Cars are increasingly dependent on computers and sensors, and the Internet Service plays a key role in this, and the market prospects are infinitely broad.
As China’s largest integrated Internet service provider, Tencent’s products and services cover all aspects of communications, information, entertainment and e-commerce. Facing the coming era, its products and services will inevitably It will involve the field of Internet of Things, so it is not ruled out that Tencent will enter related industries such as automotive electronics or spare parts in the future. At this time, taking the lead in registering trademarks in the field of automobiles and other related products not only highlights Tencent's forward-looking vision, but also pave the way for its future development.
Second, maintaining the unity and exclusivity of the QQ brand and preventing trademark dilution is also a need for Tencent’s brand strategy and intellectual property protection. As the core brand of Tencent, "QQ" is registered and used in almost all areas of Tencent's business. First, it is for the sake of trademark defense strategy. Second, it strengthens the exclusivity between the QQ brand and Tencent and maintains a unified brand. image. After years of use, "QQ" has actually formed the only corresponding relationship with Tencent. If other companies obtain the registration of the "QQ" trademark in other product categories, it will inevitably break the current unity and exclusivity, and to a certain extent It will dilute Tencent’s “QQ” trademark.
Third, Tencent’s legal department’s unwillingness to admit defeat will also affect the development of the case to a certain extent. According to media reports, Tencent’s legal department has achieved an undefeated record of 29 lawsuits, winning many lawsuits ranging from traditional enterprises such as humidifiers and shoe factories, to Internet companies such as Sogou and 360, and even ordinary QQ users. The winning rate is extremely high. High and famous. Having such a glorious record ahead of time will inevitably put pressure on Tencent's legal department, forcing it to do its best to pursue a win.
Fourth, competing with Chery for the “QQ” trademark in the automotive field will also bring additional benefits. With abundant manpower, strong financial resources and strong will to protect rights,
Dare to go head-to-head with giants outside the industry, which can not only demonstrate Tencent's strong determination and strength to protect its own intellectual property rights and establish a powerful corporate image, but also deter potential opponents to a certain extent and prevent them from easily infringing on Tencent's rights and interests.
Malicious registration or protective registration?
In the battle between Tencent and Chery, Tencent claimed that its registration of the "QQ" trademark in many fields was a protective registration for the QQ brand, and before Chery Automobile used the "QQ" trademark, Tencent The "QQ" trademark has become a well-known trademark; Chery believes that Tencent's registration of the "QQ" trademark in the automotive field is malicious. Chery used the "QQ" trademark in the automotive field earlier than Tencent and spent huge advertising expenses. It should be protected. That is, Chery believes that Tencent constitutes malicious registration, while Tencent believes that it is a protective registration and is subject to cross-class protection of well-known trademarks.
Whether it constitutes squatting should be judged from the following aspects: someone else’s trademark has been used before the application date of the disputed trademark and has had a certain influence; the disputed trademark is the same or similar to someone else’s trademark; the goods used for the disputed trademark /Services are in principle identical or similar to the goods/services used by others’ trademarks; the applicant for the disputed trademark has bad faith.
If Chery believes that Tencent constitutes malicious registration, it should prove that it has used the "QQ" trademark before the application date of Tencent's QQ trademark in the automotive field and has certain influence, and it must prove that Tencent has malicious intent.
The former is relatively easy to prove, as long as relevant evidence of use and publicity can be provided; for bad faith, it is more difficult to prove, and it is necessary to comprehensively consider whether the applicant for the disputed trademark has any trade or cooperative relationship with the prior user; whether it is *** Are located in the same region or the goods/services of both parties have the same sales channels and geographical scope; whether there have been other disputes, and the prior user's trademark can be known; whether there have been internal personnel relationships; whether the applicant of the disputed trademark has any For the purpose of seeking improper benefits, use the reputation and influence of the prior user's trademark to conduct misleading publicity, coerce the prior user to engage in trade cooperation with the prior user, and demand high transfer fees or license use from the prior user or others. fees or infringement damages; whether other people's trademarks have strong originality and other factors.
If Tencent requires cross-class protection of a well-known trademark, it should prove that its "QQ" trademark was already well-known before Chery Automobile used the "QQ" trademark. However, Tencent's "QQ" trademark was only recognized as a well-known trademark in 2009. Well-known trademark, and Chery launched the mini car Chery QQ as early as 2003. Therefore, it is difficult for Tencent to prove that its "QQ" trademark has become well-known before this.
Although the lawsuit between Tencent and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has been heard in court, the final verdict still needs time to test. Compared with the lengthy litigation process, the collaborative communication between the parties involved in the trademark dispute is more important. Importantly, we hope that Tencent and Chery can find the best solution and achieve mutual benefit.