Why can Nanjing big name file win the two "big name files" in Anhui?Where is the lawyer interpreting the trademark registration boundary

Fengkou Finance reporter Wu Si

Recently, the trademark dispute between Nanjing's big name file and Anhui "big -name file" was floated on the surface because of the former prosecution judgment.

Earlier, the owner of Nanjing Big Brave Nanjing Daisai Enterprise Development Co., Ltd. ("Nanjing Daisai") brought the two restaurants "Heba Big Brands" and "Chaozhou Big Brave" to court, because the other party existed Invading its trademark rights and improper competition. On July 11 and August 31, 2022, the Hefei Intermediate People's Court sentenced Nanjing Dahui to win the lawsuit in two judgments. The court requires the defendant to change the name of the enterprise. It is not allowed to use the word "big -name file". At the same time, the economic loss and reasonable expenses of Daishui Company are 200,000 yuan and 300,000 yuan, and the corresponding litigation costs and premiums will be assigned.

On September 22, Fengkou Finance interviewed the heads of the two defendants. The "Chaozhou Big Brand" stated that it had appealed, and the "Heba Big Brand File" also stated that the appeal will be filed, and both are operating normally.

"Big name file" battle battle

The battle for this trademark dates back to the beginning of this year. In May of this year, Nanjing Dahui brought two restaurants in Anhui restaurants "Heye Big Brands" and "Chaozhou Big Brands" to court.

The indictment shows that Nanjing Dahui pointed out that the signboards, restaurants decoration, business cards, publicity posters, such as the restaurant stores that are operated by the restaurant stores that are operated by the Chaozhou Big Bravings Hotel, etc. The charged infringement logo violated the "Nanjing Big Brand File" to the registered trademark rights enjoyed by the trademark involved in the case. At the same time, the two registered and used the individual industrial and commercial account names that are similar to the plaintiff's trademark involved in the case, which constitutes improper competition.

In the judgment announced in July and August, the court believes that in this case, the evidence provided by Dahui Company can prove that its claims of the protection of No. 3008805, No. 10887721 trademarks, and trademarks No. 17276085 have been promoted for a long time. Obtain certain significant and influential, with trademark recognition functions.

The court believes that the defendant's business scope is the same as the scope of the trademark approval, and the "big -name file" used by its offline stores and online platforms can play a role in identifying the source of goods or service sources, which belongs to trademarkability. use. After comparison, the above -mentioned accused infringement logo is similar to the trademark involved in the case that causes consumers to confuse the source of goods or services. The defendant's acts that were accused of infringement logos were used by the plaintiff's permission, and it was infringement of infringement of the special rights of trademark registered trademarks involved in the case.

The court judged the two restaurants for compensation for economic losses and rational expenditures of 200,000 yuan and 300,000 yuan in the first instance, and requested the defendants to immediately stop infringing the special rights of the plaintiff Dahui Company's registered trademarks. The word "big -name file".

Part of the content of the judgment (the interviewee confession)

On September 22, Fengkou Finance contacted the Chaozhou big -name hotel. Mr. Wang, the person in charge, said that the three branches have closed one, and the remaining two have been renamed, and they have been changed to "Chaohu City Ximeifang Restaurant" and "Chaohu City Chao City Chaohuo". Prefecture Restaurant ". "We have already filed an appeal and are expected to start in the near future."

Mr. Gao Gao, the person in charge of Hexuan Daji file, said, "If you cannot accept the results of the judgment, we will not change the name, and will appeal to the Provincial High Court." Applying for the trademark registration of the "Heada Big Brand" and "淝 淝 淝 申", but all ended in invalid processing.

The general name attracted controversy, legitimate registration can protect rights protection

Although in the two judgments of Hefei Intermediate People's Court, the court did not demonstrate whether the "big name" was a general name, whether the "big -name file" belonged to the general name still became the focus of the two parties.

Public information shows that the "big -name file" originated from the dialects in Hong Kong, referring to the street stalls. In this lawsuit, the defendant believes that the "big -name file" belongs to the agreed universal name and is widely used by the public in the industry. It does not have the functions of different producers and operators' products or services.

The plaintiff Nanjing Dahui believes that the "big -name file" is non -general vocabulary. By verifying many dictionaries such as the "Modern Chinese Standard Dictionary" and "Xinhua Dictionary", it proves that the authoritative dictionaries and dictionaries published in mainland China have no big names in the dictionary. At the same time, in areas that use traditional characters such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, the "big -name file" is not a universal name contained in the authoritative dictionary.

Lawyer Kong Zhongliang, a law firm in Beijing China Banking (Qingdao) Law Firm, told Fengkou Finance that "the essence of the trademark lies in differentially opening other goods in the public market and making the goods have significant characteristics. There are significant features that are easy to identify. Article 11 of the Trademark Law stipulates that only the common name, graphics, and models of this product shall not be registered as a trademark. Therefore, whether the registered trademark belongs to ","

Judging from the judgment, in this trademark dispute, Nanjing Dahui's victory in the "big -name file" is its legitimate and effective registered trademark, and there is no controversy. Although the defendant Chaozhou has applied for the "Chaozhou Big Brand" trademark, it is not approved for registration due to similar identification. And the parties belong to the 43rd dining service category, which belongs to the same similar service.

Lawyer Zhang Baoqing, Shandong Chuanjia Law Firm, told Fengkou Finance, "According to the provisions of Article 3 of the Trademark Law, Article 57 (2) (2), the special rights of registered trademarks are protected by law and without trademarks without trademarks without trademarks. The power person licenses, using the same trademark as its registered trademark or the trademark that is similar to its registered trademark on the same product, which is easy to cause confusion, is a behavior that violates the exclusive rights of registered trademarks. "Trademark disputes frequently out of frequent disputes , Careful registration

Fengkou Finance combed and found that as of September 22, a total of 259 catering companies in the country used the "big -name file" as the name of the enterprise, of which 138 have been canceled. At present, only the Nanjing big -name file has trademark information. It is worth noting that Nanjing Dahui, which belongs to Nanjing big name file, has applied for 296 related trademarks around the "big -name file", of which 198 registered effectiveness, most of them registered from 2014 to 2016. In addition to the two prosecutions, Nanjing Dahui also prosecuted five prosecutions due to trademark issues.

In recent years, from the "green pepper pepper" trademark infringement dispute, to the "Xiaoyao Town Hu Spicy Soup", "Tongguan Meat Faber", "Korla Xiang Pear", etc. Trademark infringement disputes, including trademarks that contain daily vocabulary such as geographical names, raw materials, and universal names occur from time to time. It can be seen that the awareness of mass intellectual property protection has increased, and there is also a loopholes in registered trademark registration.

Lawyer Kong Zhongliang told reporters that "public goods cannot register as trademarks or registered trademarks without violation of the" Trademark Law "before registering."

According to Article 11 of my country's Trademark Law, the following signs cannot be registered as trademarks: the universal name, graphics, and models of this product; it only means the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weights, quantities and quantities, and Other characteristics; lack of significant features.

Fengkou Finance has noticed that the Hexuan big -name file and Chaozhou big -name stalls who have lost in this lawsuit have all applied for relevant trademarks, but they were all invalidated.

As for the reason, Lawyer Zhang Baoqing said that the trademark applied for by the enterprise passed the review and registration, and it may be objected by others or announced invalid. Therefore, enterprises should fully consider the significance of trademarks when registering, and do not register trademarks at randomly with luck.

- END -