When "Liufu" meets "Golden Liufu", which one-character difference is true or false? The court found that "Golden Liufu" was guilty of infringement and awarded RMB 60,000 in compensation for mentioning jewelry. The name of the store contains "福,金,大" The words "Liu Fook" are familiar to everyone, and I believe everyone is familiar with the brand name "Liu Fook". So, have you heard of "Golden Lek Fook Jewelry"? There is such a store with the word "Golden Lek Fook" in its name, but it was sued by Luk Fook Group Co., Ltd. to the court. What is going on? □ Basic case facts: "Lukfook" sued "Golden Liufook" for infringement Lukfook Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lukfook Company) was founded in 1991. After more than 20 years of sales promotion, "Lukfook" brand jewelry has gained a high reputation. Since 1997, Lukfook Company has registered trademark No. 944398 "Lukfook" and trademark No. 18695105 "Lukfook Jewelry", both of which are approved for use in Category 14, including jewelry, gemstones, precious metal ornaments, etc. Among them, the registered trademark "Luk Fook" was recognized as a well-known trademark by the State Trademark Office on December 31, 2012. ("Lukfook" trademark pattern) In December 2019, Lukfook Company discovered that Liu had opened a "Golden Lukfook Jewelry" store somewhere in Guangzhou City, selling gold and silver jewelry, and prominently used "Golden Lukfook" on store signboards, store decorations, and merchandise. Words such as "Lukfook Jewelry" and "Hong Kong Golden Lukfook Jewelry Co., Ltd." are prominently used on product price tags, shopping receipts, jewelry boxes, and bags. The above words and characters completely include the two words "Lukfook" and "Lukfook Jewelry" The logo constituted trademark infringement, so a lawsuit was filed in court. (The appearance, interior decoration and goods sold of the store operated by Liu) The plaintiff Luk Fook Company claimed that Liu’s above-mentioned behavior infringed on the exclusive rights of registered trademarks of “Luk Fook” and “Luk Fook Jewelry”, and requested Liu to compensate for economic losses and Reasonable expenses for rights protection. Defendant Liu argued that the products he sold came from legal sources and he did not know that they were infringing products. Moreover, there is no intentional infringement, no subjective fault, and no liability for infringement compensation. □ Awarded a compensation of RMB 60,000 for trademark infringement. After trial, the court held that the "Luk Fook" trademark involved in the case had been approved for registration as early as February 14, 1997. The main identifying part of the registered trademark "Luk Fook Jewelry" was also the word "Luk Fook". "The Six Blessings" as a made-up word has strong significance. According to the "Lukfook Jewelry" store opening and trademark licensing status submitted by Lukfook Company, it is confirmed that Lukfook Company has placed advertisements through TV stations, newspapers and magazines, and Internet publicity reports, etc., and has covered all parts of the country, making the "Lukfook" and "Lukfook Jewelry" trademarks It has a high reputation; at the same time, Luk Fook Company defended its rights through litigation against the infringement of the registered trademark involved in the case, which made the registered trademark involved in the case have a high reputation among the relevant public in the jewelry industry through actual use, and the "Luk Fook" trademark was approved in 2012 It was recognized as a well-known trademark on December 31, 2017, so it can be confirmed that there is a specific correspondence between the "Luk Fook" trademark and the products produced and sold by Luk Fook Company. The logo "Golden Luk Fook Jewelry" used on the accused infringing goods and the signboards and store decorations of the stores involved in this case has the same text composition and call as the "Luk Fook" and "Luk Fook Jewelry" involved in the case. There is no difference in the overall visual effect, and the overall composition of the trademark logo is similar. Combined with the extremely high popularity of the trademark involved, the above-mentioned use of the accused infringing goods can easily lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the accused infringing goods have a specific connection with the registered trademark involved, causing confusion and misunderstanding. It can be determined that Liu has used The use of the word mark "Jinliufu Jewelry" infringed the exclusive rights of the two registered trademarks involved in the case. For this reason, Baiyun Court ruled that Liu should compensate Lukfu Company for its economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 60,000 yuan. □ The judge explains: How to determine trademark similarity? Trademark similarity is one of the important types of trademark infringement cases. To determine whether trademarks are similar, three principles should be followed: (1) The general attention of the relevant public should be used as the standard; (2) Both the overall comparison of the trademarks and the comparison of the main parts of the trademarks should be carried out. It should be done separately with the comparison objects isolated; (3) The distinctiveness and popularity of the registered trademark requested for protection should be taken into consideration. For registered trademarks with stronger distinctiveness and higher market visibility, the broader and stronger the protection scope will be. In addition, special attention should be paid to the reasonable grasp of the judgment principle of "taking the general attention of the relevant public as the standard".

"Relevant public" should refer to consumers related to a certain type of goods or services identified by the trademark and other operators closely related to the marketing of the aforementioned goods or services, rather than a broad and general public. . When determining the relevant public, factors such as the nature, type, and price of the goods should be considered. The "general attention" here should refer to the general attention exerted by the relevant public when purchasing and selecting goods or services, rather than the higher attention possessed by professionals. However, if the goods involved are relatively expensive and expensive, the relevant consumers’ attention when purchasing the goods will be significantly higher than when purchasing general goods. Therefore, higher standards must be applied when judging trademark similarity. For example, when purchasing bulk commodities such as elevators, the transaction can easily cost several million yuan. Consumers usually carefully check the relevant information when purchasing. At this time, the possibility of confusion due to similar trademarks is relatively low.