In 2013, the Supreme Peoples court held that the trademark of Yu Fu Bridge yufuqiao and the rich overseas Chinese and map trademark could be distinguished by the public, and there would be no confusion. The claim of the Chongqing rich overseas Chinese company on the approximate trademark was not established. A statement of trouble Shortly afterwards, Chongqing Fu Qiao posted a statement on the front page of its website, saying that the Supreme Courts decision was not the final conclusion. After seeing Yu Fu Bridge, he was brought to court on the grounds of commercial slander, claiming 500 thousand yuan. Chongqing rich overseas and Yu Fu Qiao, two well-known Sichuan and Chongqing region foot washing shops, once again settled after the trademark dispute settled. The reason is that a statement issued by the Chongqing rich overseas on the official website has been regarded as a commercial slander by Yu Fu Qiao. In April 24th, the Sichuan Provincial High Court announced the case for the first time at the press conference on judicial protection of intellectual property rights. Although the statement did not obviously fabricate the facts, the case was judged by the two court court, and the court finally ordered the overseas Chinese to be defamed and to compensate for the Yufu bridge of 100 thousand yuan. Chongqing rich overseas Chinese company (hereinafter referred to as Chongqing rich overseas Chinese) and Sichuan Yufu Bridge Company (hereinafter referred to as Yufu bridge) are mainly engaged in foot bath health care operators, both in the country have a number of branches and franchises. 16 years ago, Chongqing rich overseas Chinese approved the registration of rich overseas Chinese and map in November 29, 2002, and Yu Fu Bridge in December 23, 2002 from the legal representative Yang Shiqun to the State Trademark Office to apply for the registration of Yufu bridge yufuqiao trademark. After hearing the rich overseas Chinese in Chongqing, they raised objections to the State Trademark Office. In 2008, the Trademark Office of the State Trademark Bureau made an approval to register the trademark Yu Fu Qiao yufuqiao in the absence of an approximation. Chongqing rich overseas Chinese was not satisfied with the application of the Trademark Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and commerce administration. In 2010, the latter made the opposite ruling and did not approve the registration of the dissenting trademark. Yang Shiqun, the head of Yu Fu Bridge, refused to accept the case and filed an administrative lawsuit against the court. However, the Chongqing rich overseas refused to accept the case and appealed to the court of second instance. The court of second instance revoked the first instance judgment and upheld the ruling that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board did not approve registration. Yang Shiqun refused to accept the two adjudication and applied to the Supreme Peoples court for retrial. In 2013, the Supreme Peoples court held that the trademark of Yu Fu Bridge yufuqiao and rich overseas Chinese and map were different. And when the trademark of Yufu bridge yufuqiao was also high known, the trademark of Yufu bridge yufuqiao and rich overseas Chinese and map trademark could be used in massage, health care and other services. The corresponding popularity and related consumer groups have been formed, and the public can distinguish between them, and there will be no confusion. The proposition that the Yufu bridge yufuqiao trademark of the Yu Fu Bridge yufuqiao is similar to the rich overseas Chinese and the map trademark is not established. The adjudication committee of the Supreme Peoples court does not approve the adjudication of the trademark of Yufu bridge yufuqiao, and orders the Trademark Review Committee to redecide. A statement triggering a lawsuit Yu Fu Bridge claims the claim of rich overseas Chinese 500 thousand The verdict of the supreme law was reached, but the dispute between the two foot shops remained unchanged. In February 20, 2014, the Chongqing rich overseas Chinese company launched the statement on the trademark case of Yufu bridge on the home page of its website (hereinafter referred to as the statement), saying that the supreme law was not the final conclusion. The statement said that since the rich overseas Chinese trademark has been approved and registered, there has never been any right disputes or disputes. The exclusive right of trademark is rock solid, and the trademark of Yufu bridge has not been registered and does not enjoy the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. This case is only a simple and clear case of trademark objection. Although it is final but not terminated, if the Trademark Review Committee makes a ruling for registration, our company will bring an appeal and even appeal to the adjudication. The final conclusion of this case will still be completed through a long legal process. In addition, the last part of the statement mentioned that all kinds of infringements and famous brands are confused and misleading to consumers, which have damaged the interests of consumers and the legitimate rights and interests of the rich overseas Chinese. Whatever the conclusion of this case, our company will continue to fight against counterfeiting and protect the purity of trademarks. The final hearing of the supreme law is not the end of the case! The Chongqing rich overseas Chinese company will use all the rights endowed by the law and safeguard the legitimate trademark rights and interests of the company according to law. Yufu bridge has taken note of the statement. In the view of Yufu bridge, this is the insult and defamation of the Chongqing Yufu Bridge Company to Sichuan Yufu Bridge Company, so the court is brought to the court on the grounds of commercial defamation, asking the court to order the Chongqing rich overseas Chinese to delete the statement and make an apology, and to compensate for the economic loss of 500 thousand yuan in Sichuan Yufu Bridge Company. Declarations constitute commercial defamation The court verdict: rich overseas Chinese lost the claim to lose money In the trial, the Chongqing rich overseas Chinese company said that he never said that the application of the registered trademark of Sichuan Yufu bridge was a tort and a famous brand. In the statement, there was nothing involved in the nature of the enterprises of Sichuan Yufu Bridge Company, the quality of the products (service), and the fact that there was no falsehood and insult, and there was no defamation and insult. He also argued that the statement did not refer to the Sichuan Yufu Bridge Company. Its contents were all facts. In this regard, the court believes that, through the analysis of its wording, it is not difficult to see that the Declaration on Sichuan Yu Fu Bridge Companys application for registration and the use of the Yu Fu Bridge yufuqiao trademark is the meaning of a famous brand. In addition, the court also believed that, in December 2014, the Yufu bridge yufuqiao trademark had been granted registration, but the Chongqing rich overseas Chinese company did not delete or modify the content of Yufu bridge not registered in the statement for nearly a year after the approval of the registration. The court of second instance also pointed out that the conclusion of the trademark dispute case was a few times, but that the final decision of the national trademark review committee could only be the decision to grant the registration after the supreme law had made the final judgment. The final conclusion of the case will still be more than the final conclusion of the case. The long legal process can not be completed does not conform to objective reality. Accordingly, the case was judged by the two - level court in February 2017 and ordered the rich overseas Chinese in Chongqing to form a commercial defamation, withdraw the statement and apologize and compensate for the loss of 100 thousand yuan. Yang Li, deputy president of the three tribunal of the high peoples Court of Sichuan, said that most of the business in real life is not a clear, naked factual or flagrant propaganda of false facts, but similar to the case, with the case of legal propaganda, and the purpose of false propaganda and evil defamation. This also gives the merchants a wake up, judging whether a certain act is a falsified fact, and its basic premise is to see whether the content of the propaganda is in conformity with the objective reality and whether it is easy to misunderstand. Yang Li said.