Hello, respected poster

I will give you a case for your reference and you will understand

How to deal with unauthorized use of well-known trademarks as signboards

Case Facts

On January 9, 2009, the Industrial and Commercial Bureau of a certain county received a complaint from Zhengzhou Haier Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., claiming that Li from the county had opened a business in Haier Group without permission. The home appliance sales department used the well-known trademark Haier as a store sign and used the words "Haier·Haier Exclusive" on the store's product display. This infringed on Haier Group's exclusive trademark rights and requested the Industry and Commerce Bureau to stop it.

After receiving the complaint, law enforcement officers from the Industrial and Commercial Bureau of a certain county went to investigate. After investigation, the store opened on January 7, and Haier home appliance series products were displayed in the store. Li, the party involved, claimed that the business signs and product display stands in the store were made by Zhang from XX City Home Appliance World, and he did not know whether he had the permission of Haier Group. Law enforcement officers also found out that Li had not applied for an industrial and commercial business license.

Disagreement

There are different opinions within the case-handling agency as to how the case should be qualitatively punished.

One opinion is that: the State Administration for Industry and Commerce's "Notice on Prohibiting the Unauthorized Use of Others' Registered Trademarks as Company Names and Business Signs of Specialty Stores (Specialized Repair Shops)" (Industrial Trademark Zi [1996] No. 157) It was abolished on June 30, 2004. Article 13 of the "Regulations on the Recognition and Protection of Well-known Trademarks" stipulates: "If a party believes that others have registered its well-known trademark as a business name, which may deceive the public or cause misunderstanding to the public, it may apply to the competent authority for business name registration to cancel the registration of the business name. , the enterprise name registration authority shall handle it in accordance with the "Enterprise Name Registration Management Regulations" Article 9 (2) of the "Enterprise Name Registration Management Regulations" stipulates that enterprise names contain content and words that may cause deception or misunderstanding to the public. Prohibitive regulations. In this case, the Haier corporate name (trade name) used on the party’s business sign has not yet been approved for registration, so there is no conflict between trademark rights and corporate name rights. If a party uses an unregistered business name on a business sign, it should be deemed to be operating without a license, and the party's business behavior will be punished in accordance with the provisions of the "Measures for the Investigation, Punishment and Ban of Unlicensed Business".

The second opinion is that: the "Joint Recommendations on the Protection of Well-known Trademarks" (September 1999) jointly formulated by the Paris Alliance for the Protection of Industrial Property and the World Intellectual Property Organization stipulates that as long as the use of the enterprise's logo If it would imply that there is some connection between the enterprise using the corporate logo and the owner of the well-known trademark, and may harm the interests of the owner of the well-known trademark, it should be considered that the corporate logo conflicts with the well-known trademark, and the competent authority should "shall" when exercising the right of prohibition. A person who is considering registering or using a corporate mark that conflicts with a well-known trademark knows or has reason to know the well-known trademark when applying for registration, obtaining registration, or using the corporate mark." In this case, Mr. Li, who is engaged in the distribution of home appliances, should have known that Haier was a well-known trademark, but he used it on the business sign of a specialty store without authorization. Mr. Li used the Haier trademark as a corporate logo, that is, a trade name, to distinguish it from other commercial entities, implying that The store is a specialty store under the Haier Group, causing a conflict between the corporate name and the well-known trademark. In the Paris Convention, a manufacturer's name is an industrial property right like a trademark. Article 8 of the Paris Convention stipulates: "The name of the manufacturer shall be protected in all countries of the Union without the obligation to apply or register." Since this document is not mandatory for Paris Convention countries and TRIPS Agreement members (including China), In practice, the use of unapproved enterprise names should be characterized as "using unapproved enterprise names to engage in production and business activities" as specified in Article 26 of the "Enterprise Name Registration Management Measures" .

In addition, Article 50 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law" stipulates that on the same or similar goods, a mark that is identical or similar to another person's registered trademark is used as a trade name or decoration of goods to mislead the public. , which is a trademark infringement.

Article 3 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law" stipulates: "The use of trademarks as referred to in the Trademark Law and these Regulations includes the use of trademarks on commodities, commodity packaging or containers and commodity transaction documents, or the use of trademarks for advertising, exhibitions and In other commercial activities. "In this case, the party Li used Haier's well-known trademark on the product display stand and business sign of the specialty store. This is a trademark use behavior that can easily make the relevant public think that the store has obtained the permission of Haier Group, causing Consumer misunderstanding and confusion.

To sum up, the behavior of the party Li violated the provisions of the "Enterprise Name Registration Management Measures", the "Trademark Law" and the "Trademark Law Implementation Regulations", constituted imaginary competition, and should be dealt with in accordance with one of the above In principle, in accordance with the provisions of Article 52 of the Trademark Law and Articles 50 and 52 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, the party Li was ordered to immediately stop the trademark infringement and a fine was imposed.

Hope this helps. .