What are the cases about trademark infringement? What are the analyzes of the cases? The editor will share with you the analysis of trademark infringement cases. Welcome to read, for reference only! Convenience food double white How should similar trademarks be identified?

Baixiang and Baijia engaged in a year-long lawsuit over the trademark dispute, which was called the convenience food? Double White? dispute by the media. The focus of the case is whether the two trademarks are similar. So, how should similar trademarks be determined?

Case Brief:

In September 2007, the Bai Company claimed that Zhenglong Company? Bai Xiang? Brand Convenient Fans maliciously counterfeited the outer packaging of Baijia vermicelli, infringing its design patent rights, and stated that it would file a complaint with the industrial and commercial department of Zhenglong Company for this behavior.

In October 2007, Zhenglong Company’s vermicelli products were removed from the shelves in major shopping malls and supermarkets in Zhengzhou City, Southern Province. Zhenglong Company believed that the unregistered vertical trademark "Baijia" used on the packaging of Baijia Company's "Baijia" instant vermicelli products sold in a supermarket in Zhengzhou was similar to its "Baixiang" registered trademark, so it filed a complaint with the Zhengzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Government. The court (hereinafter referred to as the Zhengzhou Intermediate Court) filed a trademark infringement lawsuit.

Court Judgment:

The Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court held that the trademark "White Elephant" was approved and registered by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in accordance with the law, and the owner of the trademark enjoys the exclusive rights to the trademark in accordance with the law. . The first character of the two trademarks is "白", which has exactly the same pronunciation, glyph shape and meaning; the "home" and "image" are both in an up-and-down structure, with the lower half being the same, and the upper half due to the difference in writing between the Bai family and the company. The trademark used by the company is similar to that of "Xiang". At the same time, the two are completely identical in terms of marketing channels and consumer groups. It is determined that Baijia Company's use of the registered trademark "Baixiang" by Zhenglong Company on similar products is similar. The "Baijia" logo constitutes an infringement of Zhenglong Company's "Baixiang" trademark. Bai's company subsequently appealed to the Henan Provincial Higher People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Henan High Court).

The Henan Provincial High Court made the final decision in November 2008 that Baijia Company failed to act in good faith in its operations to avoid using the registered trademark "Baixiang" with exclusive rights, which actually caused confusion among consumers. admitted, and the original judgment of the first instance was upheld.

Lawyer’s analysis:

The so-called similar trademark refers to a trademark that is not exactly the same as a registered trademark, but is the same or similar to a registered trademark in terms of shape, pronunciation or meaning, and is used in A registered trademark is a trademark that is likely to cause ordinary consumers to misunderstand the source of the goods on the same or similar goods.

The following criteria are mainly used to judge similar trademarks:

1. Human standards. That is, the level of attention of most consumers is used as the standard.

2. Ground standards. The determination of similar trademarks should vary according to various regional differences.

3. Standards of things. The corresponding standards vary depending on the nature and value of the goods.

4. The time mark is similar to the judgment time of the trademark. When judging whether trademarks are similar, differences in time, season, etc. should be taken into account and should vary from time to time.

According to the above judgment standards, the character "白家" used by Baijia Company in writing is similar to "白香". Since the two are similar products, it is difficult for most consumers to notice the difference between the two. difference between. Therefore, it was reasonable and legal for the court to rule against Bai's company. Recognition of the well-known trademark Digital China, cross-class protection of well-known trademarks

Case brief: Use of educational technology? Digital China? Infringement of well-known trademarks

The plaintiff Digital China has been Started using the "Digital China" and "Picture" trademarks, and obtained registered trademarks in September 2004, approved for use on Class 9 computer-related products. In 2008, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had used the "Digital China" and "Image" trademarks in computer training services in the form of websites, newspapers, student certificates, etc. without permission. The plaintiff believed that the trademarks "Digital China and Tu" have become well-known trademarks, and the defendant's use of the trademarks on dissimilar services will also lead to confusion and misunderstanding, thus constituting trademark infringement. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff submitted evidence such as the market share and sales area of ??software products using the "Digital China" and "Digital" trademarks, as well as evidence such as the method, duration, extent and geographical scope of the trademark's publicity or promotional activities.

The court ruled that the defendant should stop using the plaintiff’s trademark and compensate for economic losses

The court held that the plaintiff had invested in the promotion of the trademark involved since using the “Digital China” and “Picture” trademarks. A large amount of advertising expenses were spent, and through long-term, continuous and extensive publicity and use of the trademark involved, the goods marked with the trademark involved have increased sales, and the trademark involved has become a well-known trademark widely known to the relevant public in China. The defendant’s use of the trademark in the case in the form of websites, newspapers, student certificates, etc. in computer training services that are not similar to but related to the computer products approved for use with the trademark involved in the case will cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the plaintiff is providing training services. If it causes confusion among the relevant public about the service provider and constitutes an infringement of the trademark rights of the well-known trademark registrant, it shall bear corresponding legal liability in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the judgment is made: the defendant immediately stops using the plaintiff's "Digital China" and "Digital" trademarks, and Compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses of 20,000 yuan.

Lawyer’s analysis:

This case is a typical case of judicial identification and protection of well-known trademarks. The cross-class protection of a well-known trademark is not "all-class protection". The degree of connection between the goods or services using the well-known trademark and the goods or services using the accused trademark should be considered. Although the products approved for use by the plaintiff’s “Digital China and Tu” trademarks are Category 9, that is, computer products, and the defendant is using the trademark involved in Category 41, that is, computer training services, there is a certain correlation between the two, which may easily lead to related issues. The public was confused and mistakenly thought that the plaintiff was a provider of training services, so the court found infringement. According to relevant judicial interpretations, in civil dispute cases involving the protection of well-known trademarks, the people's court's determination of a well-known trademark is only used as the facts of the case and the reasons for the judgment, and does not need to be included in the main body of the judgment.

The above is the analysis of trademark infringement cases provided by the editor. I hope you will like it!