Case review
From August 20 16 to June 20 1 19, Alibaba Group Holdings Limited was approved by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and obtained registered trademarks such as "Box Horse" and "Box Horse Lively". The plaintiff Box Horse Company was established in June 2065438+2005. Operating a number of large-scale chain fresh supermarkets with well-known domestic brands, it is the legal user of a series of registered trademarks such as Box Horse and Box Horse Fresh Life. With its high quality, Box Horse Fresh Life Store has attracted a large number of loyal customers.
However, with the rising popularity of "Boxma Xiansheng", some shops have also begun to "brand-name". The plaintiff Box Horse Company found that there was a seafood restaurant named Box Horse Fresh Life in Taixing (hereinafter referred to as Taixing Seafood Restaurant), which used the words "Box Horse Fresh Life" in its name without permission, and used it as a trademark in its operation and publicity, and also used the plaintiff's unique "door head".
The plaintiff box horse company thinks
The word "box horse" is a coined word with obvious uniqueness. Taixing Seafood Store used the same and similar trademarks as "Box Horse" and "Box Horse Fresh Life" without authorization, and its series of actions were enough to make the public think that there was a specific connection between it and Box Horse, which was unfair competition and constituted trademark infringement, so Taixing Seafood Store was sued to the court.
Jingjiang court held through trial that
Registered trademarks such as "Box Horse" and "Box Horse Fresh Life" are all approved and registered according to law, and they are all within the validity period and should be protected by law. The defendant highlighted the words "box horse seafood" at the door of his shop and used the words "box horse fresh" in the collection interface, which has the function of identifying the source of goods and belongs to trademark use. These signs are exactly the same as the "box horse" in the registered trademark involved in the case in terms of text composition and pronunciation. At the same time, it is used in the above-mentioned trademark approval services, which is easy to confuse the relevant public and constitute an approximation. Therefore, the defendant's behavior constitutes a trademark infringement of Box Horse Company.
At the same time, Jingjiang Court held that the word "Box Horse" used in the name of the defendant's shop was the same as or partially the same as the trademark involved, which easily caused the general public to confuse the specific source of its services, and its behavior constituted unfair competition according to the Trademark Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and other relevant provisions.