When it comes to jewelry, the name of the store contains the words "Fu, Jin, Da and Liu", which can be described as familiar, and the brand name "Liu Fu" is believed to be familiar to everyone.
So, have you ever heard of "Jinliufu Jewelry"? There was a shop that read "Golden Six Fuks", but it was sued by Liu Fu Group Co., Ltd. to the court. What the hell is going on here?
□ Basic case: Liu Fu v. Jin Liufu for infringement.
Liu Fu Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Liu Fu Company) was established in 199 1. After more than 20 years of sales promotion, "Liu Fu" brand jewelry has gained a high reputation.
Since 1997, Liu Fu Company has successively registered the No.944398 "Liu Fu" trademark and No.8695105 "Liu Fu Jewelry" trademark, both of which have been approved for use as 14, including jewelry, precious stones and precious metal ornaments. The registered trademark of Liu Fu was recognized as a well-known trademark by the State Trademark Office on 20 12 12 3 1.
("Liu Fu" trademark pattern)
On 20 19, 12, the company found that Liu opened a "Jinliufu Jewelry" shop in a certain place in Guangzhou, selling gold and silver jewelry, and highlighted the words "Jinliufu Jewelry" on the signboard, interior decoration and merchandise of the shop, and highlighted the use of "Hong Kong Jinliufu Jewelry Co., Ltd." on the price tag, shopping receipt, jewelry box and handbag.
(Liu Store Appearance, Interior Decoration and Commodity Sales)
The plaintiff company claimed that Liu's above-mentioned behavior violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Hehe Jewelry Company, and demanded Liu to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights.
Defendant Liu argued that the products he sold had legal sources and did not know that they were infringing products. Moreover, there is no intentional infringement, there is no subjective fault, and there is no need to bear tort liability.
-infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark awarded 60000 yuan.
After hearing the case, the court held that the Liu Fu trademark involved in the case had been approved for registration as early as1February 4, 1997, and the main identification part of the registered trademark of Liu Fu jewelry was also the word Liu Fu, which had strong significance as a fictional text. According to the opening of the store and the licensed use of trademarks submitted by Liu Fu Company, it is confirmed that Liu Fu Company has placed advertisements in various ways such as TV stations, newspapers, magazines and online reports, and the advertisements have covered all parts of the country, making the trademarks of Liu Fu and Liu Fu jewelry have a high reputation. At the same time, Liu Fu Company defended the rights of the infringement of the registered trademark involved in the case through litigation, which made the registered trademark involved in the case have a high reputation among the relevant public in the jewelry industry after actual use, and Liu Fu trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark on 20 12 12 3 1, so it can be confirmed that there is a specific correspondence between Liu Fu trademark and the goods produced and sold by Liu Fu Company.
In this case, the accused infringing goods and logo "Jinliufu Jewelry" used in the signboard and interior decoration of the shop involved are the same as those of "Liu Fu" and "Liu Fu Jewelry" involved, with no difference in overall visual effects and similar overall composition of trademark logos. Combined with the high popularity of the trademark involved, the above-mentioned use of the accused infringing goods can easily lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there is a specific connection between the accused infringing goods and the registered trademark involved, resulting in confusion and misunderstanding. It can be concluded that Liu's use of the word logo of "Jinliufu Jewelry" infringes on the exclusive rights of the two registered trademarks involved.
To this end, Baiyun Court ruled that Liu compensated the company for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection * * * totaling 60,000 yuan.
□ Judge's explanation: How to judge the similarity of trademarks?
Trademark approximation is one of the important types of trademark infringement cases. To judge whether it constitutes trademark approximation, three principles should be followed:
(1) Based on the general concern of the relevant public;
(2) If it is necessary to compare the trademark as a whole with the main part of the trademark, it shall be compared separately in the state that the object of comparison is isolated;
(3) Consideration should be given to requesting protection of the distinctiveness and popularity of a registered trademark. For registered trademarks with stronger distinctiveness and higher market awareness, the wider the scope, the greater the protection.
In addition, special attention should be paid to the principle of "taking the general concern of the relevant public as the standard". "Related public" should refer to consumers related to a certain kind of goods or services identified by trademarks and other operators closely related to the marketing of the above goods or services, rather than the general public. When determining the relevant public, we should consider the nature, type and price of the goods. The "general attention" here should refer to the general attention exerted by the relevant public when purchasing or selecting goods or services, rather than the higher attention of professionals.
However, if the goods involved are expensive, the attention of relevant consumers will be significantly higher than that of ordinary goods, so at this time, when judging the similarity of trademarks, higher standards should be applied. For example, when buying goods such as elevators, the transaction is often several million yuan, and consumers generally check the relevant information carefully when buying. At this time, the possibility of confusion caused by trademark approximation is relatively low