A trademark not only reflects the reputation of the enterprise, but also concerns the protection of consumer rights. For some time now, "borderline trademarks" and "scheming trademarks" have caused trouble for consumers, and incidents of "riding on famous brands" and "free riding" behavior that harm the rights and interests of enterprises have occurred from time to time. How to crack down on the use of "borderline trademarks" in word games? Where is the boundary between protecting innovation and legitimate use? On the occasion of World Intellectual Property Day, the Supreme People's Court disclosed several cases to this newspaper to clarify the judicial position and respond to social concerns through judgments. Declare the "Heart Machine Trademark" invalid, maintain registration and use order, and hang "Hand Strike" noodles. "Hand Strike" is not related to handicrafts, but only a registered trademark. Similarly, there are "Qianhe 0", "Yihao Tu", "120W", "Duoduo"... At first glance, this may seem like a description of product features, but in fact, they are just trademarks and have nothing to do with actual quality. Recently, this phenomenon has attracted attention. What should consumers do if they encounter the situation of "scheming trademarks"? In one case, Ms. Shen, a consumer, believed that the "real" trademark was approved for use in instant noodles, vinegar, soy sauce and other commodities, which could easily mislead relevant consumers that only the products using the trademark were authentic and high-quality, so she filed an application for invalidation with the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Due to lack of support, Ms. Shen chose to file a lawsuit in court. Should a 'genuine' trademark be declared invalid? According to the Trademark Law, signs that are deceptive and easily lead the public to misidentify the quality or origin of goods shall not be used as trademarks. If a registered trademark violates relevant provisions of the Trademark Law, other units or individuals may request to declare the registered trademark invalid. The disputed trademark 'truly' has the meaning of 'substantial and nominal conformity', and when used on approved goods, according to the general public's cognitive level and ability, it is usually easy for the public to believe that the approved goods have a high degree of quality, or for the relevant public to understand it as a direct description of the quality and other characteristics of the approved goods, without recognizing it as a trademark. ”Judge Wu Yuanmei of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court introduced that the registration of a "genuine" trademark violates the provisions of the Trademark Law. Based on this, the court found that the disputed trademark used on the approved goods was deceptive and could easily cause confusion among the public, and should be declared invalid. The "borderline trademark" and "scheming trademark" are essentially cognitive traps set by trademark applicants through word combinations, semantic design, and other word games, deliberately guiding consumers to misunderstand the source, quality, function, etc. of designated goods, in order to seek unfair competitive advantages and commercial benefits. Strict examination shall be conducted on trademark registration behaviors that disrupt the order of trademark registration, harm public interests, improperly occupy public resources, or seek improper benefits in other ways. Based on their actual usage, context, industry practices, and consumer cognition, a comprehensive judgment shall be made to explore whether they are deceptive as a whole, thereby causing the public to misidentify the quality, characteristics, or origin of goods. ”Li Jian, the chief judge of the Third Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court, stated that the people's courts protect public interests and public order and good customs through judicial judgments. In the field of online literature, a large number of apps and websites named "Biqu Ge" have been spreading pirated novels for a long time, even mixed with pornographic and violent information, which has a negative impact. A certain company has applied for registration of the "Biqu Ge" trademark, which has been approved for use in books, printed publications, and other goods. A company in Shanghai and others requested to declare the aforementioned trademark invalid on the grounds that it has caused adverse effects. The 'adverse effects' clause of the Trademark Law aims to protect the public interest and public order. ”Judge Zhu Lei of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court said that a large amount of evidence in the case shows that before the filing date of the disputed trademark application and during the trial of the case, "Biqu Ge" had been regarded as a "gathering place for pirated online literature" or a "search term for pirated online literature". The registration and use of "Biqu Ge" on the main presentation carriers of online literature works such as books and printed publications would have a negative and adverse impact on the public interest in the field of online literature and the public order of copyright management. Registering the pirated mark in the field of online literature as a trademark in the relevant category of online literature does not have a legal basis. Ultimately, the aforementioned trademark was declared invalid in accordance with the law. Cracking down on the profiteering of "luxury brands" and maintaining fair and honest business practices is a "blue girl", not a "blue charm"! With the final verdict of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, a company's unfair competition behavior of maliciously attaching goodwill has been punished. Since 2001, Blue Company has applied for registration of the "Blue Sister" and "Blue Sister Gold Dress" series of trademarks, approved for use in beer and other products. Through continuous promotion and advertising, the "Blue Sister" series of trademarks has gained a certain level of popularity. A certain company is also a beer operator. From 2017 to 2022, it has repeatedly entrusted a certain agency to apply for the registration of more than 10 trademarks, including "Blue Charm Beer", "South Korean Blue Sister", and "Blue Flavor Gold Can". Lan Company believes that its application to register a trademark that is identical or similar to Lan Company's trademark, as well as the provision of agency services by a certain agency, constitutes unfair competition. It has filed a lawsuit with Yuexiu District People's Court in Guangzhou, Guangdong, demanding that the other party bear responsibility. Can we still register trademarks such as "Lanmei" even though we already have the "Lanmei" trademark? "The China National Intellectual Property Administration's ruling and earlier judgment found that the series trademarks applied for registration by a company and the 'Lanmei' series trademarks constituted similar trademarks used on the same or similar goods, and the earlier judgment found that the company's application for registration of 'Lanmei' and other trademarks had obvious intention to copy and plagiarize other people's well-known trademarks, violated the principle of good faith, and obviously disrupted the normal order of trademark registration, use and management, which belongs to the situation of obtaining registration by improper means as stipulated in the Trademark Law. ”Judge Li Wenjun of Yuexiu Court introduced that the above-mentioned series of trademarks applied for registration by a certain company have been rejected, not allowed to be registered, or declared invalid. How to determine the responsibility for a company's malicious large-scale registration despite a previous ruling that it should not be registered? As a business operator in the same industry, a certain company, knowing that the 'Blue Sister' series of registered trademarks of Blue Company, continues to repeatedly apply for registration of trademarks similar to Blue Company's registered trademarks, and licenses two of the trademarks to others for use, which clearly exceeds the normal production and operation needs and has the purpose of attaching to Blue Company's reputation and seeking improper benefits. This constitutes malicious trademark registration and hoarding for profit. ”The Yuexiu Court ruled that the trademark registration application of a certain company constituted unfair competition and ordered it to compensate Lan with 500000 yuan. Should a certain agency be held responsible? As a professional trademark agency, a certain agency located in the Guangzhou area should be aware of the popularity of the 'Lanmei' series of registered trademarks. After the 'Lanmei Beer' trademark registered on behalf of the agency was rejected, it continued to apply for as many as 15 similar trademarks for the company, and acted as an agent for the defense of the opposition and invalidation procedures of the similar trademarks involved, which had obvious faults and constituted aiding infringement. "Li Wenjun introduced that the court ultimately ruled that the agency should bear joint and several liability with the company for 100000 yuan. This case is a typical case of using the Anti Unfair Competition Law to regulate the continuous and repeated malicious registration of trademarks. The judgment result can effectively curb malicious trademark registration behavior and maintain a fair competition market order. ”Li Jian introduced that at the same time, this case clearly holds the trademark agency responsible for participating in the malicious registration trademark chain, targeting an important link in the malicious registration industry chain, which helps to force the trademark agency to improve its mechanism and practice prudently, and has positive significance for building a healthy and orderly trademark ecosystem. Punishing counterfeiting and promoting innovation driven development by renovating well-known trademark products for resale, is it considered infringement? The case heard by the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing has served as a wake-up call for business operators. The "Huawei", "HUAWEI" and graphic trademarks registered by a certain technology company on Class 9 program-controlled telephone exchange equipment and other products have been recognized as well-known trademarks. Zhou and others, for profit, purchased second-hand Huawei switch equipment and components at a low price, organized multiple people to carry out refurbishment activities such as disassembly, cleaning, replacement of components, changing serial numbers, painting and packaging, and affixed Huawei brand labels to sell under the name of new equipment. The Haidian Court held that Zhou and others manufactured and sold counterfeit "Huawei" switches, constituting the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and were sentenced to corresponding penalties. A certain technology company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Zhou and others for their business of infringing intellectual property rights, resulting in huge profits and economic losses to the enterprise, and claimed the application of punitive damages. Zhou and others, without the permission of a certain technology company, refurbished second-hand products and attached commercial logos that are basically the same or similar to the registered trademarks of a certain technology company series, and sold them as new equipment, infringing on the trademark rights enjoyed by a certain technology company. ”Wang Qiluan, Deputy Chief Judge of the Intellectual Property Trial Division of Haidian Court, said that the defendants had planned and organized division of labor and cooperation, forming a complete chain of infringement, and the infringement methods were concealed and malicious; The scale of the infringement is large and the profit is high. Its behavior belongs to malicious infringement and the circumstances are serious, and punitive damages should be applied. Can we claim a reduction in punitive damages liability for the same infringement that has already been fined and executed? Implementing the rule of parallel application of punitive damages and criminal fines for intellectual property rights, the court does not support the defendant's defense, but can consider it comprehensively when determining the multiple of punitive damages, "said Wang Qiluan. Finally, the Haidian Court ruled that three times punitive damages should be applied to each defendant, fully supporting the lawsuit request of a certain technology company. The defendants should jointly compensate for economic losses of 20 million yuan and pay reasonable expenses of 100000 yuan. According to Li Jian's analysis, this is a typical case involving the issue of "criminal civil intersection" in trademark infringement disputes. After the same infringement behavior is determined to constitute a crime, it is legally judged that the behavior constitutes civil infringement, and punitive damages are applied to make high judgments. This not only provides strong protection for the core competitive products of high-tech enterprises, but also has a deterrent and warning effect on potential counterfeiters and sellers, achieving the coordinated governance effect of criminal civil responsibility of "punishing crimes, compensating losses, preventing recidivism, and guiding compliance", and providing judicial assistance for the innovation driven development of high-tech industries. How can consumers protect their rights when encountering "scheming trademarks" in extended reading? In daily life, how can consumers protect their rights if they are deceived by the "scheming trademark" and accidentally purchase the product? According to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, if a business operator engages in fraudulent behavior while providing goods or services, it shall increase the compensation for the losses suffered by the consumer at their request, and the amount of the increased compensation shall be three times the price of the goods purchased or the cost of the services received by the consumer; If the increase in compensation amount is less than 500 yuan, it shall be 500 yuan. If businesses mislead and falsely advertise to consumers, infringing on their right to know and choose, and the circumstances are serious, it may constitute fraud. Consumers can claim punitive damages of 'refund one, compensate three'. ”Gao Yanzhu, Judge of the First Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court, suggested that consumers could also complain or report through the 12315 hotline or request the China National Intellectual Property Administration to declare the trademark involved in the case invalid. Judge Fu Lei of the Supreme People's Court reminds consumers to avoid pitfalls when shopping and carefully distinguish whether the packaging description is a "trademark" name or a descriptive feature of the product. If there is an unregistered trademark mark "?" or a registered trademark mark "?" in the suffix of expressions such as "hand strike", then the table