Is "Haining Leather City" A Trademark Or A "Non Significant Name"?

< p > > a href= "http://sjfzxm.com/news/index_s.asp" > plaintiff < /a > Haining China Leather City Limited by Share Ltd claims that Wuhan Zhong Fang Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Zhong Ruida Operation Management Co., Ltd. used the "Haining leather city" as the market name, whose behavior was suspected of unfair competition and infringed its trademark right.

< /p >

< p > time: Thursday May 22, 2014, < /p >.

< p > location: Wuhan intermediate people's Court of Hubei province < /p >

< p > "Haining China Leather City" and "China Haining leather city" are on trial today.

< /p >

At P 9 today, the Limited by Share Ltd of China Leather City, Haining, filed a lawsuit with Wuhan intermediate defense Real Estate Company and Wuhan china anti Ruida company for unfair competition and infringement of trademark rights in Wuhan City Intermediate People's Court of Hubei province.

< /p >

< p > plaintiff < a href= "http://sjfzxm.com/news/index_x.asp" > Haining < /a > China Leather City Limited by Share Ltd claims that Wuhan Zhong Fang Real Estate Development Co. Ltd. and Wuhan Zhong Ruida Operation Management Co., Ltd. used the "Haining leather city" as the market name, whose behavior was suspected of unfair competition and infringed its trademark right.

< /p >

< p > two defendants entrusted the same agent.

Wuhan intermediate defense Real Estate Company said that the Wuhan anti Haining leather city is responsible for the operation of Wuhan anti Ruida company and has nothing to do with it.

Wuhan China Defense Ruida company argues that it has not infringed the trademark exclusive right of Haining Leather City company, nor does it constitute unfair competition.

< /p >

< p > can "Haining leather city" monopolize the use of < /p >?

< p > August 2012, the "anti Haining leather city", located in Zhong Jia village, Hanyang District, Wuhan, is open for business.

In October 2013, Wuhan Haining Leather City, located in Hanyang District of Wuhan City, was officially opened in Guandu. The project is known as Haining China Leather City's only sub market in Wuhan.

< /p >

< p > plaintiff agent proves that the Haining leather city of China is the only leather market in Haining city of Zhejiang province. Since September 22, 1994, the name of Haining leather city has been used abroad since the beginning of the year. Although the name of the headquarters has been marked "Haining China Leather City" from 1999, it still uses the "Haining leather city" at the same time, and the name of Haining leather city is used in all the markets in the country.

< /p >

< p > plaintiff agents believe that from 2009 to 2013, the advertising investment in the headquarters market of China Leather City company of Haining amounted to 160 million yuan. The "leather city of Haining" has certain popularity in the industry and consumers. "Haining leather city" as a well-known service name has its own characteristics, and the plaintiff should have exclusive rights to it.

The defendant used the name "Haining leather city" to create market confusion and bring economic losses.

< /p >

< p > the defendant agent said in the reply that the Haining Leather City company of China registered the trademark of "Haining China Leather City" instead of the "Haining leather city" brand. "Haining leather city" is not a specific service name. The combination of these five words only indicates "leather products from Haining". The plaintiff failed to register the trademark of Haining leather city because it is not significant.

Haining is an administrative division name, leather belongs to the industry name, and "city" only refers to a certain number of aggregates, the plaintiff has no right to use the name of "Haining leather city".

< /p >

< p > whether there is a false propaganda in the industry? < /p >

< p > plaintiff agent claims that the Wuhan intermediate defense Real Estate Company, without the authorization of the plaintiff, named the "anti Haining leather city" without authorization by the plaintiff, and highlighted the "Haining leather city" in a prominent position.

< /p >

< p > plaintiff agent proves that in order to emphasize the relevance between the "leather city" of Wuhan and the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the Haining anti flood company in Central China wrote in the introduction of "Investment Manual", "Honest in China and Haining Leather City..."

And other content; Wuhan China Defense Ruida company also publicized on the Internet media that "Haining China Leather City has first worked with Wuhan central Honest street."

The company in the "video: Honest business street in the opening ceremony," then called "Haining leather city and China Honest to join forces this year."

< /p >

< p > the plaintiff believes that the above acts of Wuhan anti pirate company violate the provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law on counterfeiting and false propaganda, and shall bear corresponding legal liabilities.

< /p >

< p > for this reason, the defendant's agent retorted that the false propaganda was aimed at consumers and was not applicable to competition among the same businesses. In addition, the two defendants' introduction to the general names of the origin and commodities of commercial goods was true information, without any false propaganda, and did not constitute false propaganda against unfair competition law.

< /p >

< p > two should the defendant be jointly liable? < /p >

< p > the plaintiff asked the court to order the two defendants to pay their economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 287 yuan.

< /p >

< p > for this purpose, in the court trial, if the two defendants constitute infringement, whether they should bear joint and several liability will also become the focus of dispute between the two sides.

< /p >

< p > the defendant's agent has issued the management agreement for the use of the Hanyang Zhong Jia Village civil air defense project and the usual use certificate of the civil air defense works, so as to prove that the civil air defense works are operated by the Wuhan anti Ruida company. The name "Haining leather city" used in this case is not related to the Wuhan central defense Real Estate Company. There is no infringement and should not be held responsible.

< /p >

< p > plaintiff agents believe that the evidence shows that the development and business operators of Honest Honest street in Wuhan are all Real Estate Company in Wuhan, and that the company only provides property services, which is a joint infringement with the former.

< /p >

At the end of the court hearing, the plaintiff agent agreed to the court mediation in court, and the two defendant's agent said that he could seek the consent of the two company before deciding on the P.

The case was not pronounced in court.

< /p >