Haidilaos lawsuit against hedilao infringement rejected Court: no misunderstanding

 Haidilaos lawsuit against hedilao infringement rejected Court: no misunderstanding

Hedilao restaurant was approved and registered on September 20, 2018. Its business scope is Chinese food service. Its business address is at the west end of the second floor, 105 Renmin Road, Yuhua District, Changsha City, Hunan Province. The billboard above the front door of hedilao restaurant is hedilao home cooked dishes. The publicity sign on the right side of the front door is hedilao, go to hedilao after eating Dongting fresh fish, and the wooden sign at the front door is hedilao good taste There are six words for Dao. Among them, hedilao as a whole is in the form of artistic characters, of which the three points of water in the word River present the artistic form of river, and the points under the word bottom are replaced by a fish shaped image. And theres an image of a fish on top of the sign.

Information map

Haidilao thinks that hedilao restaurant uses hedilao logo on the plaque and service supplies of its hotel without authorization, and uses hedilao brand name in the enterprise name. The hedilao logo used by hedilao restaurant is similar to the Haidilao trademark approved and registered by Haidilao company. The use of hedilao trademark by hedilao restaurant in its business premises is a typical trademark use behavior in hotel service industry, which constitutes the use of similar trademark in the same service, which infringes the exclusive right of Haidilao trademark of Haidilao company.

Therefore, Haidilao was sued to Tianxin District Peoples Court of Changsha.

The defendant, hedilao restaurant, argued that:

First, the hedilao logo of the defendants hedilao restaurant and the trademark of the plaintiffs Haidilao company are not similar trademarks. Similar trademark refers to the similarity of font, Pinyin, meaning, color and composition of words or the overall structure of words and graphics between two trademarks, which is easy to confuse the source of goods or services for consumers. The similar trademark is investigated from two aspects, one is word trademark, the other is graphic trademark, and the other is combination sound Form and meaning. According to the complaint, the plaintiff Haidilao company believes that the words of hedilao in the defendants hedilao restaurant infringed the exclusive right of Haidilao trademark. Whether the words and trademarks are similar or not should be compared from the sound, shape and meaning. In this case, we believe that the pronunciation of river and sea is different, and the font is even more different. The plaintiff thinks that there may be similarity in this meaning. The similarity between sea and river is water, one is salt water, the other is fresh water. In life, there is not only water in the river, but also in the lake and river. According to the logic of the plaintiff Haidilao company, as long as the name of the river and lake with water is used, the plaintiffs trademark exclusive right is infringed. Therefore, for the so-called river bottom fishing, well bottom fishing is an infringement of the plaintiffs trademark exclusive right.

Second, from the perspective of the services and catering products provided by both sides, the only thing they have in common is catering. Haidilao hotpot has a high social awareness. Everyone who knows Haidilao hotpot knows that Haidilao is for Sichuan cuisine and hotpot. Hedilao restaurant is mainly engaged in the river fresh of Hunan cuisine series. We also have hotpot, but hotpot is not our main business. We mainly deal in Hunan cuisine. The two are quite different in terms of the series of dishes and the way of providing services.

Information map

After hearing the case, the court of Tianxin District of Changsha City held that the plaintiff Haidilao company proposed that the hedilao logo used by the defendant hedilao restaurant was similar to the Haidilao trademark approved and registered. However, according to the second paragraph of Article 9 of the interpretation of the Supreme Peoples Court on several issues concerning the application of law in the trial of civil disputes over trademarks, Article 52 (1) of the trademark law is stipulated The trademark similarity refers to the trademark accused of infringement is similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark in terms of font shape, pronunciation, meaning, composition and color of graphics, or the overall structure after the combination of its elements, or its three-dimensional shape and color combination are similar, which may cause the relevant public to misunderstand the origin of the goods or think that its source is the same as that of the plaintiffs registered trademark Products have a specific connection. In terms of word trademark, whether it is similar or not needs to be comprehensively identified in terms of sound, shape and meaning.

Secondly, all the recipes operated by Haidilao companys stores are all hot pot of Sichuan cuisine series, while those of hedilao restaurant are typical Hunan cuisine series. Although there are hotpot dishes in hedilao restaurant, there are some differences between the hotpot operated by Haidilao company and the hotpot operated by Haidilao company, most of which are River fresh hotpot, which can be publicized through its menu and poster at the door of the shop It can be seen that in the door signs and menu posters are aimed at its Hunan series of publicity.

Therefore, no matter from the font shape, pronunciation, composition and color, or from the dishes operated by the plaintiff and the defendant, the general consumers will not misunderstand the source of hedilaos catering service, or think that there is a special connection between the source and the plaintiffs registered trademark Haidilao. Therefore, the defendants hedilao restaurant does not constitute the registered trademark of the plaintiff Haidilao company Dilao trademark infringement.

The peoples Court of Tianxin District of Changsha City rejected the plaintiffs claim of Sichuan Haidilao catering Co., Ltd. After the judgment of the first instance, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appealed.

Information map

However, it is undeniable that in the field of trademark rights and copyright, there are some batch commercial rights protection, focusing on the interests of small shop operators, and not concerned about tracing the source of anti-counterfeiting. Some even abuse their rights to monopolize certain industries and fields, which is contrary to the purpose of protecting intellectual property rights to promote social innovation.

Intellectual property trial should not only pay attention to the protection of rights, but also prevent excessive protection of rights; it should not only guide the right holders to achieve leapfrog development through innovation, but also promote the society to share the development achievements of the times based on innovation.

(function(){( window.slotbydup=window .slotbydup||[]).push({id:u5811557,container:ssp_ 5811557, async:true }Li Kui meets Li Gui? Haidilao sued hedilao for trademark infringement, which was rejected by the court in the first instance: there will be no misunderstanding. Source: Legal weekend paper author: Fang Gu responsible editor: Li Tianyi_ NN7528