“Babu” vs “Babu Dog”? Pay attention to the company’s “Bian famous brand”: the company has been fined 5 million

Sun Kewen/Photo, Chief Reporter of Henan Business Daily

“Babu Dou” vs “Babu Dog”, the company “Before the brand”, how will the court judge? Posted false news online, “Black” competitors, what are the rights?

On the occasion of the “April 26” World Intellectual Property Day, on April 22, Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court held a press conference to report the work of intellectual property trial in 2020 and announced typical cases.

【number】

In three years, the courts of Zhengzhou accepted 12,000 cases of various types of industries

On March 2, 2018, the Zhengzhou Intellectual Property Court was established. At the press conference, a reporter from Henan Commercial Daily learned that in the past three years, Zhengzhou City Court has accepted 12,693 cases of various types of intellectual products, and a total of 12,669 cases were concluded.

What are the characteristics of these cases?

Zhao Jianliang, president of the Integrated Trial of the Intellectual Property of Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court, said that these cases involved a wide range of industry fields, and the types of intellectual property rights that the parties claimed to protect the types of toys, clothes, food, medicine, communications, machinery, agriculture, etc. field.

In addition, the case and social impact of the case have also increased year by year. Zhao Jianliang said that there were 23 cases in 2018, which claimed that the infringement compensation exceeded 1 million yuan in the first instance of infringement compensation in 2018, 67 in 2019, and 90 in 2020.

【Case】

A. “Babu Dou” vs “Babu Dog”, the company “Before the brand”, was sentenced to 5 million yuan

At the press conference, Zhao Jianliang also announced several typical cases.

The plaintiff’s children’s supplies Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a child supplies company) is an enterprise for production and sales of children’s clothing and children’s shoes. It enjoys 8 registered trademark rights such as “Babu Dou”. After years of continuous publicity, the company’s “Babu Doudou” related series of brands have a certain reputation. From 2003 to 2012, it was rated as “Shanghai Famous Trademark” for nine consecutive years.

“巴布豆”VS“巴布狗”?企业“傍名牌”要注意:已有公司被罚500万

A company of Shanghai, a company of Jinjiang, a shoe and clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinjiang), Fujian Jinjiang. After the authorization, Jinjiang Shoes and Food Co., Ltd. and another affiliated company Pabu Doudou Children’s Products Co., Ltd. (a certain city Pabu Dou Company) have registered a large number of registrations containing “Babudog” and “Babu Dog” and other elements. The trademark was used, and the later trademark was identified as an improper means to grab the trademark.

From June to October 2019, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Zhengzhou Intermediate Court in a notarized purchase of children’s shoes in many regions such as Zhengzhou City and requested to order the defendant to stop the defendant Jinjiang’s shoe service company and a city Babu. Production and sales behavior; stop using the name of the “Babu Doudou Company” company, and compensate for economic losses of 10 million yuan.

After trial, the Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court determined that the behavior of the defendant such as Babu Dou Company and a shoe and clothing company of Jinjiang constituted a trademark infringement and improper competition. The decision of a city Papu Doudou and a shoe and clothing company in Jinjiang compensated the economic loss of 5 million yuan, and stopped using the word “Babu Dou” in the name of the enterprise to stop using the domain name on the corporate website.

After the sentence, the city’s Pabu Dou Company appealed. The Henan Provincial High People’s Court maintained a trial of the first trial.

significance:

This case is a typical case of “stealing trademarks” and “brands”. According to the law, the registered trademark obtained by improper means was not effective after being declared invalid.

In this case, a trademark registered by a shoe and clothing company in Jinjiang and a city Papu Dou Company is an act of using improper means to grab trademarks. After being declared that the trademark has been declared invalid, it has not enjoyed the dedicated right of the trademark. The use before the complaint of the trademark that was declared invalid also infringed the trademark rights of a registered trademark involved in a child’s supplies company, constituted infringement, and should be liable for compensation.

B. Posted false news online, “black” competitors, they “planted”

A Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a agricultural company in Heilongjiang) in Heilongjiang Province (hereinafter referred to as a agricultural company in Heilongjiang) and Gaizhou (hereinafter referred to as a company in Gaizhou) are also the main operating fertilizer.

In 2020, a agricultural company in Heilongjiang discovered that a company in Gaizhou published an article entitled “Exposure of a certain agricultural scam! See who recruits your side?” The “ten sins” committed by the agricultural company, subsequently, a agricultural company in Heilongjiang claimed to the court on the grounds that the anti -unfair competition law was violated by the anti -unfair competition law.

The first trial of the Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court determined that an article published by a company in Gaizhou has damaged the reputation and product reputation of a agricultural company in Heilongjiang, and its behavior has constituted improper competition. A company in Gaizhou stopped fabrication and spread the false information that harmed the commercial reputation and product reputation of a agricultural company in Heilongjiang. A statement of influence.

After the verdict, a company in Gaizhou filed an appeal, and the Henan Higher People’s Court maintained a first trial judgment.

The benign competitive behavior between enterprises helps promote economic development and prosperity. In order to improve their own competitiveness and maliciously slander the business reputation of competitors, false propaganda will not only destroy a good business environment, but also bear corresponding civil liability.

The people’s court gives full play to judicial functions, correct bad competition, guide enterprises to carry out benign competition, actively play a role in maintaining a good business environment, allow more enterprises Essence

(Edit: Liu Mengge Lu Ruitian)

significance:

About the Author

You may also like these