Li Xiaolongs daughter sued Zhen Kungfu over 80percent respondents: the trademark is Li Xiaolong

category:Hot
 Li Xiaolongs daughter sued Zhen Kungfu over 80percent respondents: the trademark is Li Xiaolong


On December 26, 2019, the event pushed the two sides to the summit of discussion. Wechat index data is quite intuitive: Real Kung Fu rose 3107 times on a month on day basis, while Li Xiaolong rose 2013 times on a month on month basis!

Wechat index data

More than 80% of the netizens interviewed thought that the real Kungfu trademark character was Bruce Lee: always thought it was Bruce Lee? Not authorized?

Wearing a yellow sweatshirt and waving arms, the character is under the word Kung Fu, which is the real Kung Fu logo of the catering company. However, such a combination of words and image transmission, you think of a generation of martial arts master Li Xiaolong, or the real Kung Fu of catering chains all over the streets?

Do you think the real Kungfu brand is Bruce Lee? According to the survey, 81.9% of the respondents gave positive opinions.

However, in support of the real Kungfu side, netizen @ Limons point of view is also representative. You can make a statement, you cant use a picture that looks like Bruce Lee. You cant say that any picture that looks like Bruce Lee is an infringement, he said. Its not just Bruce Lee who knows Kung Fu. Chen Guokun is like Bruce Lee, so sue him?

It is understood that before 2004, the main body of real Kungfu operation was called 168 steamed fast food restaurant, later renamed double seed, but no matter how, it is still tepid. So the companys founder, Cai Danqi, spent 4 million yuan to invite marketing planning agency and famous advertiser ye Maozhong to plan for it and change the companys brand image.

In April 2004, the real Kungfu trademark came into being. With the image similar to Bruce Lee and the three words of real Kungfu, it was combined into its use trademark. In the next few years, three changes have been made, including changes in writing and composition. Although the main design of the logo is a male image using Chinese Kung Fu, the description of the face is more vague.

On the official website of Ye Maozhongs conflict strategy, the case description directly points out Bruce Lee.

On ye Maozhongs official website, Li Xiaolong was named for the case of true Kung Fu

Some netizens said they didnt understand. They questioned why the real Kungfu trademark had been used for 15 years, but Li Xiangning didnt find it, and now came out to sue? Netizen @ asked when his nickname could not be used all day long: without this news, I really thought Bruce Lee was the spokesman. Why did he protect his rights so late?

In fact, this is not the first time for Li Xiangning to protect her rights. As early as 2010, Li Xiangning bought back the ownership of Bruce Lees films and trademarks in the United States. She plans to integrate these resources again to make Bruce Lee a global brand. In 2011, Li Xiangning intended to sue Zhen Kungfu for infringement, but did not start the judicial process.

70% of the netizens interviewed believed that real Kung Fu should pay compensation: the law should safeguard justice and rights

So do you think real Kung Fu should be compensated? According to the survey, 71.1% of the netizens thought the compensation should be paid.

The law has to uphold justice, not be exploited. Netizen @ aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah said. Netizen @ hope near ~ road far also appeal, do things must have bottom line consciousness, dont always want to drill holes.

No infringement, I eat Kung Fu because I think its the ancestral fast food of Bruce Lee! It turns out that peoples portraits are their own. Netizen @ nuomi Leon said.

Netizen @ big fish doesnt eat the sea and doesnt agree: Im just a law student who doesnt master the art, but Ive turned over the trademark law. Theres no significant support for his daughters terms. Since the trademark is not against the rules, it can be used normally, even if theres a problem of frivolity in registration, but only by this, its determined to violate the principle of good faith, even if its calculated.

Yang Jingan, the trademark professional director and lawyer of Beijing Chaocheng law firm, pointed out in an interview with Nandu that although the real Kungfu graphic trademark is an effective registered trademark, referring to the existing judicial policy documents, if Li Xiaolongs infringement claim is established, the real Kungfu company is likely to bear the liability for compensation. There is still room for debate as to whether it is necessary to assume the responsibility of discontinuing use.

50% of the netizens interviewed think that the real Kung Fu is a big winner: like but cant be proved, and the application period of 5-year invalidity has expired

Although 70% of the respondents think that real Kungfu should be compensated, 52.3% of the respondents choose real Kungfu in the question of who do you think will win more.

According to Article 45 of the Trademark Law of the peoples Republic of China, the application for a trademark shall not damage the prior rights of others, such as copyright, enterprise name right, portrait right, etc., but the prior right holder shall file an application for invalidation of the trademark with the national trademark review and Adjudication board within five years from the date of trademark registration.

Some netizens think that the reason why real Kung Fu dares to be hard and rigid is that he applied for the trademark first in the catering service category, and has gained popularity through years of use, while Li Xiaolong did not apply for the trademark first, after many years, beyond the time limit of five years, it is unable to declare the invalidation of the trademark claim of real Kung Fu, so it is impossible to confirm the trademark right through administrative procedures.

It is worth noting that according to relevant laws, the right of portrait belongs to the right of personality in the right of person, which starts from birth and ends in death. The right of personality belongs to the exclusive right. In principle, it can only be enjoyed by the obligee himself and cannot be transferred, abandoned or inherited. However, in 2001, the interpretation on determining the liability for mental damage in civil tort clearly stipulated that the close relatives of the deceased had the right to sue because of the mental suffering of others who infringed on the name, portrait, reputation and honor of the deceased. If real kungfu is deemed to infringe on the rights and interests related to Bruce Lees portrait, there is still a greater risk of losing the lawsuit.

Review of similar cases the results of this case deserve attention

Jordan trademark dispute

The Supreme Court ruled that Jordans personal characteristics are not reflected and cannot be identified. Therefore, his trademark did not damage Jordans portrait right.

Cartoon Zhao Benshan infringement case

Case of Zhang Jinlai suing langang company

The picture on the left shows the game image of blue harbor company

The biggest difference between two losing cases and one winning case is that the purpose of the case is different. Jordan and Zhang Jinlai lie in the degree of difference, while Zhao Benshan focuses on public reliability.

The development of the case of real Kung Fu suspected of infringement depends on where the court finally settled. But from the changes of the real Kung Fu logo in recent years, its intention is to blur the facial features of the trademark characters. Its not easy to play just from the point of differentiation.

(function() {vars = + Math. Domain(). ToString (36). Slice (2); document. Write (< divstyle = id = + S + > < div > ); (window. Slotbydup = window. Slotbydup| []. Push ({ID: u5811557, container: s});)));); to this end, netizen @ miaoyan thinks: the judgment standard of infringement should be whether to make profits with the influence of the infringed. Now, the problem is that Jordan sports, real Kung Fu and so on are all making money with the help of celebrity effect, mistaking this store for Jordan or Bruce Lees endorsement, making everyone think that this store is related to the celebrities involved, so as to promote profits. But now only because of the loopholes in the name and trademark, there is an advantage in the process, leading to the loss of the victim. She also pointed out that the focus of such cases is that businesses still make profits with the influence of victims after the completion of the lawsuit. Its true that in todays law, real Kung Fu may not infringe, but is that right? To stick to dogma is not to insist on justice. Justice comes from justice. Therefore, the final outcome of this case is worthy of follow-up attention. Source: responsible editor of Southern Metropolis Daily: Li Chao, nb12814

To this end, Zhihu netizen @ miaoyan thought: the judgment standard of infringement should be whether to make profits with the influence of the infringed. Now, the problem is that Jordan sports, real Kung Fu and so on are all making money with the help of celebrity effect, mistaking this store for Jordan or Bruce Lees endorsement, making everyone think that this store is related to the celebrities involved, so as to promote profits. But now only because of the loopholes in the name and trademark, there is an advantage in the process, leading to the loss of the victim.

She also pointed out that the focus of such cases is that businesses still make profits with the influence of victims after the completion of the lawsuit. Its true that in todays law, real Kung Fu may not infringe, but is that right? To stick to dogma is not to insist on justice. Justice comes from justice.

Therefore, the final outcome of this case is worthy of follow-up attention.