BOBDOG and BOBDOG HOUSE belong to different brands of Babdog (China) Children's Products Co., Ltd. The differences are as follows:

1. Different LOGOs

Generally, bobdog house will mark the LOGO and cartoon LOGO of "bobdog house" on the surface of products, while Babudou will mark the logo and cartoon logo of "bobdog". Please refer to the actual situation for specific products.

2. The birth time is different

Babudou (English name is Bobdog) set up the first Babudou counter in Shanghai in 1994, and won the title of "Shanghai Famous Brand", "China Famous Brand", "Most Popular Cartoon Brand" and "National Market Safe Consumer Brand".

BOBDOG HOUSE is a sub-brand of Babudou, and has set up several stores in China. In 211, Baopai (China) was authorized to operate BOBDOG HOUSE.

3. Different positioning

The quality and process comfort of Bobdog is slightly higher than that of bobdog house. Bobdog house brings more consumers to first-,second-and third-tier cities at affordable prices, and launches multi-category brand stores with children's wear and children's shoes as the core, providing products with stable quality and high cost performance.

There is only one word difference between "Babu Bean" and "Babu Dog". Who is likui jy and who is Gui Li? Recently, the final judgment of Beijing Higher People's Court (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Higher People's Court) gave the answer, that is, the original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's ruling on the request for invalidation of trademarks was revoked, and nine "Babu Dog" related trademarks should be declared invalid.

during the trial, nine trademarks, including Babu Dog, were deemed to have been registered by "other improper means". The court ruled that Quanzhou Babu Dou Children's Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Quanzhou Babu Dou Company), the third party in the original trial, applied for the registration of a large number of trademarks similar to other people's well-known trademarks and sold them on the Internet, which had no real use intention and should be invalid.

some experts pointed out that at present, there are similar cases in the judicial policy of trademark confirmation and authorization that trademark registration is malicious. The judgment of this case is a wake-up call for cracking down on trademark hoarding, and it also reminds enterprises not to cling to the goodwill of other people's well-known trademarks, but to invest energy in building their own brands.