INQUIRY

Tag

painting

IP NEWS

There is also intellectual property in rice, which cannot be ignored!Featured

September 22, 2015

October 16, 2023 is the 43rd World Food Day. Grain is the lifeblood of the people and the treasure of the country. Food security is the foundation of people’s livelihoods. Grain is one of the bulk agricultural products. To enhance the brand benefits of grain and increase the added value of agricultural products, it is necessary to promote farmers’ income, assist rural revitalization, and better meet consumers’ demand for high-quality agricultural products. Geographical indications are an important support for the growth and strength of agricultural product brands. Since the implementation of the identification of agricultural product geographical indications, the protection of agricultural geographical indications has been widely valued. Due to its higher market popularity and better economic benefits, it is more prone to the phenomenon of false, false, and malicious attachment. Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court has concluded a trademark case involving food related geographical indications.

Brief Introduction to the Case

N Agricultural Products Professional Cooperative has applied for the registration of the trademark “Chongming Island Rice” (hereinafter referred to as the involved trademark) with No. 33550738 on the 30th category of “rice” goods. Company S filed a request for invalidation of the trademark with the China National Intellectual Property Administration on the grounds that the trademark was deceptive and violated Item 7, Paragraph 1, Article 10 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China (revised in 2013) (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law of 2013).

N Agricultural Products Professional Cooperative: Why is my “Chongming Island Rice” trademark invalid? Give me a reason to kiss~

Company S: After years of operation, the public brand “Chongming Rice” in this area has been widely popular in the market. If you want to do high imitation, you still need to see if you can pass the legal barrier!

After examination, the China National Intellectual Property Administration made a ruling concerning the case and determined that the trademark in dispute constituted the situation referred to in Item 7, Paragraph 1, Article 10 of the Trademark Law of 2013. N Agricultural Products Professional Cooperative disagreed with the ruling and filed a lawsuit with the court. The court upheld the ruling in both the first and second instances, and the trademark involved was declared invalid.

Legal analysis

According to the provisions of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Trademark Law of 2013, any mark that is deceptive and may cause the public to misunderstand the quality or origin of the goods shall not be used as a trademark. To determine whether the mark applied for trademark registration belongs to the mark that cannot be used as a trademark as stipulated in the preceding paragraph, one should start from the general level and cognitive ability of the public, and combine with the goods designated for use of the mark to determine whether the meaning conveyed by the disputed mark in the application for trademark registration is inconsistent with the quality, function, and other characteristics or origin of the designated goods, Is it sufficient to create a misconception among the public about the characteristics or origin of the product.

The trademark involved in this case is the text “Chongming Island Rice”. As is well known, Chongming Island is an island located at the mouth of the Yangtze River in the northern part of Shanghai, China. Due to its unique natural environment, its agricultural products, including rice, have high consumer recognition and market awareness.

According to the evidence in this case, “Chongming Rice” has been registered as a geographical indication certification trademark on Class 30 rice products. The relevant geographical indication management rules also reflect the close relationship between Chongming Rice products and the geographical location, climate and other natural conditions of Chongming Island. The trademark logo in question was designated to be used on the “rice” product in the form of a place name on Chongming Island and a rice product name, but the trademark registrant failed to prove that its product met the standards of “Chongming rice”. Therefore, the trademark involved in the case can easily lead consumers to misunderstand the quality and origin of their products, and is classified as a deceptive trademark within the meaning of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Trademark Law of 2013.

Judge’s reminder

Geographical indications are an important intellectual property right that serves as a common commercial identifier for specific products within the relevant production area. They typically have high commercial value and have positive significance in promoting the development of regional characteristic industries.

The dispute in this case is related to the provision of Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Trademark Law regarding deceptive marks. The specific quality of geographical indication products is closely related to their place of origin. If the business entity of the product outside the place of origin registers and uses the mark, it will not only harm the interests of the geographical indication place of origin operator, but also cause confusion and misidentification of the product’s source, quality, and other characteristics by consumers. This is a deceptive situation as stipulated in Article 10, Paragraph 1, Item 7 of the Trademark Law.

Note: Source “Zhichan Beijing”

Continue reading
3 Comments
IP NEWS

Huawei has launched “Petal Payment” and the trademark has been applied for!

September 22, 2015

Recently, Huawei’s payment business has made new progress – its payment institution “Xunlian Zhifu” has been renamed “Huaban Payment”.

‘Petal payment’ has been planned for a long time

It is understood that Xunlian Zhifu was established in June 2013 with a registered capital of 200 million yuan. It obtained a payment license in 2014 and was initially affiliated with ZTE Communications. Subsequently, its equity was transferred.

In March 2021, Xunlian Zhifu changed ownership again and became a payment institution under Huawei. Huawei also became the second mobile phone manufacturer after Xiaomi to have a payment license.

It is worth mentioning that Huawei had a plan for this renaming earlier. According to the official website of the National Intellectual Property Office, Huawei applied for the petal payment trademark in October 2020. In June 2022, petal payment was approved for registration.

640 (2).png

640 (3).png

Huawei wants to go to war with WeChat and Alipay?

According to Southern Metropolis Daily, regarding Huawei’s goal of entering the mobile payment market, Ma Chuanyong, President of Huawei’s Terminal Cloud Service Payment BU, introduced at a media exchange that Huawei has been engaged in payment business for 10 years.

Starting from December 2011, Huawei’s in app payment was launched, and by September 2021, “Huawei Pay” online payment was officially launched. Huawei’s payment business is constantly evolving, mainly to improve payment capabilities within the framework of partners and hardware ecology.

In the eyes of the outside world, Huawei’s entry into the payment field may become a strong competitor to WeChat Pay and Alipay in the future, impacting the “duopoly” pattern of payment.

Ma Chuanyong stated that Huawei Pay is not about competing with WeChat and Alipay to grab market share, nor will it engage in price subsidy wars, but rather hopes to provide a good payment experience.

Nearly trillion yuan of research and development investment in the past decade

As a leading global communication technology company, Huawei has always attached great importance to innovation and intellectual property protection, ranking first in the number of patents applied in China for five consecutive years. In 2022, Huawei submitted 8440 patent applications, of which more than 90% were invention patents, involving multiple fields such as electronic communication, optical technology, switching routing, Hongmeng operating system, computing storage, photography, smart cars, etc.

In this era of technological progress and innovation, Huawei is undoubtedly a shining star. As a leading global provider of information and communication technology solutions, Huawei has achieved many breakthrough innovation achievements in recent years and continues to promote innovation in various fields.

Enterprise development cannot be separated from innovation, and each enterprise should attach importance to product and technological innovation. However, while innovating, do not forget to protect intellectual property rights.

Note: The images and text are sourced from the internet. If you have any valuable suggestions, please feel free to contact us for updates and revisions!

Continue reading
5 Comments
IP NEWS

Why did Adidas object to LIV Golf’s trademark application?

September 22, 2015

LIV Golf is a professional golf tour sponsored by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF), one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds. It is reported that the name LIV originates from the Roman numeral 54, representing the number of birdies caught on each hole on a par 72 field, as well as the number of holes to be played in LIV competitions.

After the establishment of LIV Golf in May last year, the organizers of the event collaborated with the London design studio Territory Studio to develop a professional visual recognition system for the event.

Inspired by Bauhaus aesthetics, the three letters “LIV” in the logo are composed of four parallel and equally spaced stripes. The folded stripe letters evoke grooves on the surface of the golf club, can also be interpreted as neatly trimmed lawn lines on the golf course, or involve various angles and geometric shapes in this sport. Next to it is the ‘Golf’, which features ultra tight spacing and highly curved letters, creating a sharp contrast with the ‘LIV’ and conveying a strong sense of sportiness.

Trademark obstructed by Adidas

Since its launch in the 1950s, almost all Adidas products have been equipped with the ‘Three Bars’. Due to the large number of counterfeiters of this logo pattern worldwide, Adidas has also been filing lawsuits worldwide.

Note: The images and text are sourced from the internet. If you have any valuable suggestions, please feel free to contact us for updates and revisions!

But surprisingly, LIV Golf was blocked by Adidas when it applied to register this trademark with the US Trademark and Patent Office this year. According to Front Office Sports, Adidas has submitted a notice of objection to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, claiming that the LIV Golf logo “contains three bars in a confusing way that are similar in appearance and overall commercial impression to the Adidas logo.

Some lawyers believe that Adidas is unlikely to win this lawsuit. The final outcome is likely to reach an agreement that restricts the use of LIV’s “L” logo on certain products.

Adidas has filed multiple lawsuits over the “Three Bars” trademark

In recent years, Adidas has filed multiple trademark lawsuits, including Tesla, Nike, Puma, Skechers, Forever21, Shoe Branding Europe, and Marc Jacobs, in order to maintain the uniqueness of the “Three Bars” trademark. Some have been successful, while others have been declared invalid. There have been too many lawsuits, to the extent that some netizens refer to Adi as a “bar spirit”.

On March 27th of this year, Adidas also submitted a document to the US Patent and Trademark Office requesting them to reject a trademark application from the “Black Lives Matter” Global Network Foundation. Adidas believes that the trademark contains a “three bar” design with three parallel lines, which can easily be confused with Adidas’ iconic “three bar” design. For this reason, Adidas attempted to prevent the foundation from using this stripe design on its products.

Since its launch in the 1950s, almost all Adidas products have been equipped with the ‘Three Bars’. Due to the numerous counterfeiters of this logo pattern worldwide, Ah

Continue reading
3 Comments
Travel

‘Hongxing Erke’ sued ‘Hongxing Erke’ for trademark infringement!

September 22, 2015

In brand competition, some companies often play tricks such as “hitchhiking” and “getting close to famous brands”. Would using text similar to others’ registered trademarks as a company name constitute infringement? Recently, the People’s Court of Baqiao District, Xi’an City tried a dispute over infringement of trademark exclusive rights in accordance with the law.

640.jpg

Case Review

Fujian Hongxing Erke Sports Goods Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongxing Erke Company) was established on June 8, 2000. Its business scope includes the production, wholesale, and retail of sports clothing and various types of sports shoes. It is a large clothing enterprise, and its registered “Hongxing Erke” series trademarks have been used for a long time and widely promoted, with high visibility.

On December 14, 2020, Hongxing Erke Company entrusted an agent to log in to a certain treasure website and found an online store called “Hongxing Erke” selling the “Hongxing Erke” series of products while browsing the webpage. After investigation, it was found that “Hongxing Erke” extensively used the “image” and “Hongxing Erke” trademarks in product titles, product display images, and product details pages. On April 4, 2022, Hongxing Erke Company entrusted an agent to purchase Hongxing Erke coconut shoes at a certain “Hongxing Erke” store, priced at 328 yuan. At that time, 95 pieces had already been sold.

640 (1).jpg

Hongxing Erke Company believes that the infringing products sold by the “Hongxing Erke” store are highly overlapping with the “Hongxing Erke” brand products operated and licensed with trademark exclusive rights in terms of functions, purposes, sales channels, consumer groups, and other aspects. They constitute the same products as the products operated by their own party, causing confusion among relevant consumers about the source of the goods and infringing on their legally enjoyed trademark exclusive rights. The “Hongxing Erke” store heavily uses the “Hongxing Erke” logo to promote and sell infringing products, with subjective intent of free riding. So he filed a lawsuit with the Baqiao Court on the grounds of infringing on the exclusive right to use a trademark. Require the defendant to stop the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the impact, compensate for economic losses of 50000 yuan, and bear litigation costs.

During this period, Hongxing Erke Company applied to a notary office for preservation and notarization, and the evidence collection process was preserved. The notary office later issued a notarization certificate, which preserved the evidence documents and related electronic data.

Court Trial

After accepting the case, the Baqiao Court confirmed the status of trademark rights in accordance with the law. After trial, it was found that civil subjects enjoy trademark rights in accordance with the law, and trademarks approved and registered by the Trademark Office are registered trademarks, including commodity trademarks, service trademarks, collective trademarks, and certification trademarks; The trademark registrant has the exclusive right to use the trademark and is protected by law. The plaintiff is the registrant of the “Hongxing Erke” trademark and enjoys trademark rights in accordance with the law. The defendant used the plaintiff’s registered “Hongxing Erke” name on the same product without the plaintiff’s permission, which is enough to mislead consumers and infringe on the plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the trademark.

Taking into account factors such as the popularity of the trademark involved, the defendant’s infringement behavior, subjective fault, the defendant’s sales volume, and the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff to stop the infringement behavior, the defendant is judged to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) of 20000 yuan, and other litigation claims of the plaintiff are rejected. After the judgment was made, neither party filed an appeal.

Judge’s statement

Trademarks solidify the reputation of enterprises, carry the quality of goods or services, and are important intangible assets. This “trademark attachment” behavior not only seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of brand enterprises and consumers, but also disrupts the market economic order and undermines the fair competition market environment.

The use of registered trademarks in the company name that already have corresponding market awareness and reputation, and whose business scope also belongs to the same industry or directly related industries, clearly has the subjective intention of “free riding” and “standing by famous brands”.

Here is a special reminder that the majority of market operators must enhance their awareness of intellectual property rights, be honest and trustworthy, and operate legally. As operators and producers, please actively carry out trademark registration and put on the “coat” of intellectual property protection for innovative achievements. As product sellers and service franchisees, they should exercise reasonable care obligations, choose formal channels for cooperation, and participate in competition in a legitimate manner. At the same time, it is reminded that consumers should choose to purchase from merchants authorized by the brand when purchasing goods.

Source: Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court

Continue reading
2 Comments