The case of "hello" bicycle trademark infringement and unfair competition in commodity packaging and decoration was recently adjudicated by the people's Court of Binjiang District, Hangzhou, which found that the defendant Hangzhou Qilin Information Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, and ordered it to stop infringement, make an apology, and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses.
The plaintiffs Shanghai Junzheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Junfeng Network Technology Co., Ltd. are the operators of the "Hello travel" platform, and legally enjoy the exclusive right to use the trademark of "picture". Hello travel's comprehensive businesses include Hello bike, hello moped, hello electric vehicle service, hello power exchange and hello hitchhiking. It is a professional mobile travel platform that provides convenient, efficient and comfortable travel tools and services, It has won relevant honorary awards for many times, and has high enterprise popularity and market share in the industry.
The defendant Hangzhou Qilin Information Technology Co., Ltd. was established in May 2020, and its business scope covers technology development, technical consulting, electric bicycle sales, battery leasing, information system integration services, etc. As the operator of the intelligent shared tram travel platform and the "Xiaoliang travel" shared vehicle, the defendant's Xiaoliang travel shared motorcycle claimed that it could enable users to enjoy a convenient and low-cost travel experience, which has been put into 60 cities in 10 provinces across the country.
"Without permission, Qilin company uses trademark marks, packaging and decoration similar to and similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark on Xiaoliang travel shared motorcycles with similar goods and services, which is very easy to cause confusion and misunderstanding among consumers." Junzheng company and Junfeng company claimed in the court trial.
Qilin company argued that: "The graphics used on the shared motorcycles released by our company are a combination of the two initials of 'Xiaoliang' Pinyin, which is different from the plaintiff's registered trademark, and the packaging and decoration of the shared motorcycles of both parties are also different. The defendant's model is different from the plaintiff's, and the body and scanning place are attached with graphics different from the plaintiff's registered trademark. Although the color of the defendant's shared motorcycles is similar to the plaintiff's vehicle, there are also areas Don't. "
Then does the graphic logo used by Qilin company on shared motorcycles infringe the exclusive right to use registered trademarks?
The court held that Qilin company infringed the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark. From the overall and partial comparison, the trademark image used by the defendant is more prominent in the overall body, accounting for the main part, and the shape, design elements and actual use color of the trademark are similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark image, and its constituent elements are very close, which is easy to cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the goods.
The trademark pictures printed by the defendant on the shared motorcycles placed by the defendant are consistent with the salient features of the plaintiff's registered graphic trademark in terms of shape, design elements and actual colors. Comparing the trademark used on the sued shared motorcycles in this case with the registered graphic trademark of the plaintiff involved in the case, although the graphic used by the sued motorcycles is a combination of the letters "X" and "L", rather than the letter "H", this letter is also a hollow letter composed of three lines, and also has a similar inclination to the plaintiff's trademark.
Not only that, the letter "L", a component of the defendant's trademark, is similar to the slash on the right side of "H", which is deliberately designed by combining the letters "X" and "L" in a way similar to the letter "H". As a result, the defendant's unregistered graphic trademark is similar to the plaintiff's graphic trademark as a whole.
Moreover, the actual color of the defendant's trademark is white, which is the same as that of the plaintiff's trademark. The defendant's prominent use of a trademark that is consistent with the plaintiff's trademark on shared motorcycles and small programs belongs to the use of a trademark similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark on the same or similar goods, which is easy to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public.
Does the behavior of Qilin company constitute unfair competition?
In this case, Junzheng company, Junfeng company and Qilin company, as operators, have the same or similar business scope and belong to operators in the same industry of shared travel, so there is a competitive relationship between them. Through comparison, it can be seen that there are high similarities between the defendant and the plaintiff in terms of packaging design, overall color and decoration combination, pattern composition, etc., which should be deemed to be substantially similar. Although there are certain differences in the packaging and decoration of electric vehicles shared by both parties, the overall high similarity between the two has been enough to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that there is a specific relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, thereby causing confusion.
After hearing, the court held that Qilin company constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and it should bear the tort liability of stopping the infringement, eliminating the impact and compensating for losses. Taking into account the plaintiff's registered trademark, the popularity and use of the packaging decoration, the defendant's infringement plot, the degree of fault and other factors, the court noted that the defendant actually put a small number of infringing shared motorcycles, and the geographical scope of the infringement is small, the time of the infringement is short, and the infringing trademark used by the defendant on the shared motorcycles is not exactly the same as the plaintiff's registered trademark. Due to the high degree of homogeneity of shared motorcycle services, in addition to the trademarks and packaging decoration attached to the vehicles, the relevant public will consider more convenient factors such as the distance of the vehicles when choosing shared motorcycle services. Therefore, the defendant's infringement does not contribute much to his profit.
The Binjiang court ruled that Qilin company should immediately stop the infringement and unfair competition of the trademarks and packaging decoration involved, remove the infringing graphic signs on the shared motorcycles and change the body color. At its discretion, Qilin company should compensate a total of 200000 yuan for economic losses, and publish an apology statement for no less than 7 days in a prominent position on the front page of the official website and the wechat official account "Xiaoliang trip" to eliminate the impact.
At present, all parties have not appealed the first instance judgment, and the case has taken effect. Under the supervision of the judge in charge, Qilin company will actively implement the judgment.
Note: the pictures and texts come from the network. If you have any valuable suggestions, please feel free to contact us for correction and update!
One on one service for appointment experts