Recently, @ Hunan Satellite TV issued a statement on the illegal use of the word "Hunan Satellite TV" by Hunan Satellite TV Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Culture Communication Company"):
The statement said that Hunan Satellite TV Culture Communication Co., Ltd. used the enterprise name or abbreviation with the words "Hunan Satellite TV" without authorization. It has been judged as infringement by Changsha Intermediate People's Court (case number: (215) Chang Zhong Min Wu Chu Zi No.732), Hunan Higher People's Court (case number: (216) Xiang Min Zhong No.793) and the Supreme People's Court Retrial (case number: (217) Supreme People's Shen No.1314).
In addition, @ Hunan Satellite TV also said that the company has no relationship with Hunan Radio and Television Station (hereinafter referred to as Hunan Satellite TV) and does not belong to its subsidiaries. For example, a cultural communication company claims that it is a subsidiary of Hunan Satellite TV or that other affiliated enterprises carry out contact, exchange or cooperation with the general public, which is a deceptive act that seriously misleads the general public, seriously infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of our station and the general public, and has been suspected of committing crimes.
I was a little dumbfounded after reading the statement.
Look at the introduction of Baidu Encyclopedia and the signs next to it. Anyone will think that Hunan Satellite TV and the cultural communication company are related by blood, right?
not only that, but also other netizens came out of Hunan Satellite TV to make a face-to-face statement, only to know that these two companies are not related to each other.
Let's take a look at how the court ruled. According to the recently released retrial in the Supreme People's Court (case number: (217) Supreme People's Court No.1314), after review, the court, based on the existing evidence and the facts ascertained in the first and second trials, combined with the reasons for the retrial application of the cultural communication company and the opinions of Hunan Radio and Television Station and Hunan Satellite TV Channel, The following conclusions are made:
(1) Is there an inheritance relationship between Hunan Radio and TV Station and the original Hunan TV Station
Article 174 of the Company Law stipulates: "When a company is merged, the creditor's rights and debts of the merging parties shall be inherited by the surviving company or the newly established company after the merger."
(omitted here, please read it carefully in the judgment document)
According to relevant documents and other evidence, the first and second trials concluded that Hunan Radio and Television Station was formed by the merger of the original Hunan TV Station and other units, and there was no improper relationship between Hunan Radio and Television Station and the original Hunan TV Station. As the newly established Hunan Radio and Television Station has an inheritance relationship with the cancelled original Hunan TV Station, Hunan Radio and Television Station naturally inherited the rights and interests of the original Hunan TV Station, including the right to exclusive use of trademarks and the unique names of well-known services, and can also claim the rights enjoyed by the original Hunan TV Station.
the cultural communication company claims that Hunan Radio and Television Station should not inherit and enjoy the relevant rights and interests of the original Hunan TV Station on the grounds that Hunan Radio and Television Station was established only in 21, and has not provided evidence to overturn the above-mentioned determination of the historical inheritance relationship between Hunan Radio and Television Station and the original Hunan TV Station. This claim is not well founded and our hospital does not support it.
(II) Does the relevant behavior of a cultural communication company constitute unfair competition and infringement of trademark rights
1. The nature of the use of its company name by a cultural communication company limited and whether it constitutes unfair competition
First of all, it is reasonable to use its company name when it is established. On the one hand, according to the evidence on file, the original Hunan TV station knew that it invested in the cultural communication company of its subordinate Hunan Satellite TV program company, and the cultural communication company used the name with the words "Hunan Satellite TV" when it was established, which had been approved by the original Hunan TV station; On the other hand, because Hunan Satellite TV Program Company is a subordinate unit of the original Hunan TV Station, the use of "Hunan Satellite TV" by cultural communication companies truly reflects its relationship with the original Hunan TV Station, so it has certain rationality.
Secondly, after Hunan Satellite TV Program Company transferred 3% of its shares in the Cultural Communication Company to a third party through the procedures such as the Share Transfer Agreement, and the subscribed 15, yuan was taken as the consideration, the Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. and the original Hunan TV Station and its successor, Hunan Radio and Television Station, no longer had an equity relationship, and the continued use of the company name by Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. violated the principle of good faith.
Finally, it has been more than two years since Hunan Satellite TV Program Company transferred its shares to others. On October 21, 213, Hunan Radio and Television sent a lawyer's letter to the cultural communication company, asking the cultural communication company to change its corporate name, stop the infringement and delete the suspected infringing content on the website on the grounds that the name of the cultural communication company still contains "Hunan Satellite TV" and the company's official website still uses the logo of Hunan Radio and Television Station. Since then, the cultural communication company has not changed its corporate name and continues to highlight the use of the words "Hunan Satellite TV".
Therefore, our court believes that the judgment of the second instance found that the cultural communication company used Hunan Satellite TV prominently in its website and business premises, and used its corporate name in combination with mango icon, etc., and maliciously attached to the goodwill of Hunan Satellite TV, which was obviously subjective and malicious, violated business ethics, violated the principle of good faith stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and constituted unfair competition of unauthorized use of the unique names of well-known services stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
(The rest is omitted, please read it carefully in the judgment document)
2. Whether the relevant behavior of the cultural communication company constitutes an infringement of trademark rights
The logo used by the cultural communication company in the upper left corner of the prominent position played in the small window on the homepage of its website has the function of identifying the source and is a trademark use. The logo is slightly different from the registered trademark No.616189 "Hunan Satellite TV" in font, but there is basically no difference in vision between them, which constitutes the same trademark.
the business scope of a cultural communication company includes designing, producing, publishing and acting as an agent for all kinds of domestic advertisements. The registered trademark of Hunan Satellite TV No.616189 belongs to the 35th category, including advertisements, advertising planning, etc., and the service categories are the same.
based on this, the judgments of the first and second instance concluded that the cultural communication company's behavior of highlighting the alleged infringing mark ""on its website infringed the exclusive right to use registered trademark No.616189, and there was nothing wrong with it.
The logos used by cultural communication companies at the top of their web pages, such as before the company name and company profile, all have the function of identifying the source. They are trademark uses, and all have one of the main identification parts in No.61619, which is similar to No.61619..
based on this, the judgments of the first and second instance found that the behavior of the cultural communication company in using the relevant logo on the website violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No.61619, and the facts were clear and the applicable law was correct, which was supported by our court.
(The rest is omitted, please read it carefully in the judgment document)
(III) Whether the determination of the amount of compensation by the court of first instance is appropriate
The cultural communication company applied for a retrial and said that the first and second instance judgments determined that the economic loss of Hunan Radio and Television Station was 1.2 million yuan, and there was no calculation basis.
In this regard, according to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 63 of the Trademark Law and the first and second paragraphs of Article 16 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes, the Court of First and Second Instance considers comprehensively the popularity and goodwill of the trademarks and the unique names of well-known services involved, the subjective fault of the infringer, the nature, duration and consequences of the infringement, and determines that it is not improper for the cultural communication company to compensate Hunan Radio and Television Station for 1, yuan.
(The rest is omitted, please read it carefully in the judgment document)
In summary, the reasons for the retrial application of the cultural communication company cannot be established, which does not conform to the provisions of Article 2 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
according to the first paragraph of article 24 of the civil procedure law and the second paragraph of article 395 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law, the verdict is as follows:
The retrial application of Hunan Satellite TV Culture Communication Co., Ltd. is rejected.
In short, this ruling can be summarized in one sentence: the cultural communication company lost the case and paid a large amount of compensation to Hunan Satellite TV according to the original judgment.
speaking, cultural communication companies have not done a good job in protecting other registered trademarks.
do you know the dancing space? In the variety shows "Happy Camp" and "Everyday Up" broadcast by Hunan Satellite TV, you can always see the little brothers and sisters dancing together for the host and guests.
Maybe they always perform on Hunan Satellite TV, so many mango fans feel that this dance troupe belongs to this TV station.
In fact, Qiwu Space is indeed the royal brand of Hunan Satellite TV. It is said that it has more than 2 games of resources every year, including Tencent, Iqiyi, Youku, Idol Trainee and Creation 11. It can be said that it is a valuable dance company.
since it is so valuable, how can it not be registered as a trademark?
let's take a look at the actions of cultural communication companies first. Through trademark search, we can see that the company has only applied for five trademark registrations of "Qiwu Space", which covers 41, 38, 16, 25 and 9 categories.
however, these trademarks are either invalid or their registration applications have been rejected.
interestingly, in the decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, it was seen that the earliest registered trademark of the cultural communication company was revoked because it stopped using for three consecutive years, so the trademark was finally owned by Hunan Qiwu Space Company.
if the cultural communication company wants to register the trademark in other categories, it can only be said: it's too late!
Because there is a cultural development company in Hunan, from May 18th, 217 to November 8th, 219, a total of 14 trademarks of "Qiwu Space" have been registered, and most of them are registered.
Unless this company is also run by a cultural communication company, this trademark related to Hunan Satellite TV still does not belong to them, let alone for commercial promotion.
apart from "dancing space", the cultural communication company has no other trademark registration application record. This means that the company has no belief in maintaining brand value, nor can it form a unique brand image, let alone create a certain sense of market identity.
For cultural communication companies, perhaps the mango skins of Hunan Satellite TV can shake their prestige in front of their peers and earn some gold by the way, but this cannot hide the fact that they are essentially lemons.
The case that a cultural communication company was convicted of infringement tells us that instead of deceiving others, we should build our own brand and use our own technology to open up our own road. If you want to apply for a trademark or encounter intellectual property problems, please contact Bajie Intellectual Property Trademark Agency Platform. We have a first-class business team and the concept of serving customers wholeheartedly, which will help you avoid all kinds of trademark disputes.