The State Intellectual Property Office issued a document, and said no to "malicious trademark protection"

In the future, the trademark "malicious rights protection" may have no way to go.

On June 7, the State Intellectual Property Office announced the revised "collective trademarks, certification trademark management and protection methods (drafts for comments)", which added a variety of provisions to clarify the boundaries of rights and say no to malicious rights to trademarks.

According to the "Trademark Law", collective trademarks and certification trademarks have a certain scope of applications, and cannot be accepted by the border at will. What is more important is that the protection of these rights is to protect intellectual property rights, not to deprive some goodwill users of goodwill users. The legitimate rights disrupt the normal operation of the market economy.

Earlier, the trademark "malicious rights protection" caused by "Tongguan Meat Crisis", "Xiaoyao Town Hu Spicy Soup", "Korla Xiang Pear", "Blue Pepper Fish", etc., caused a question of questioning, and many rights protection moves were questioned by the public. " Knock Bamboo ".

According to media reports, the vendors who have operated the "Xiaoyao Town Hu Hot Soup" have been operated for more than ten years, and they were suddenly sued by the Hu Spicy Soup Association of Xihua County, Henan Province to violate the trademark right of "Xiaoyao Town", which caused controversy.

When the trademark of the "Xiaoyao Town Hu Spicy Soup" has not subsided, the Tongguan meat clip complaint incident has been searched again. Due to the word "Tongguan", Shaanxi's "Tongguan Meat Clear Association" will be shown to the court in 18 provinces, more than 300 snack bars, fast food companies, and even the State Intellectual Property Office.

The "trademark dispute" that seemed to have known each other, like the same hunting routine, also occurred on the "blue pepper fish" trademark. As the holder of the trademark of the "blue pepper fish" trademark, Shanghai Wancuitang Catering Management Co., Ltd. sued dozens of restaurants in Sichuan and asked the other party to lose money. This kind of fishing for porcelain -type rights protection was reprimanded by professionals as "hard -working drilling the law."

In the liquor industry, there is also a typical case. Guizhou Guijiu insists that he is a "Gui" trademark holder, and uses administrative or legal means to "Guizhou Kirin Wine Industry", "Guizhou Guide", "Shanghai Guijiu" and other "Guizhou wine". Stop using "Gui" as the core font of the enterprise name and compensate its economic losses.

In the past two years, Guizhou Guijiu has also submitted a large number of trademark registration applications around "Gui" and "Guijiu", such as "Guijiu 1950", "Gui", "Guijiu Golden Bottle", "Guijiu Winchu", " "Guigou", "Guigou", "Sea Pai Guijiu", "Star of Guijiu", "Colorful of Guijiu", etc., most of them have not been registered and approved.

Interestingly, in Guizhou Guijiu's recently submitted to the registered trademark, "Gui Sauce" and "Sea Pai Guijiu" are similar to Shanghai Guijiu's products that have been sold for many years. It is similar to the core font name of the company name of Guizhou Guijiu Star Wine Group, Guizhou Cultivation Guijiu Company and other wine companies.

Some experts in the industry pointed out: "Gui" related trademarks are not unique to Guizhou Guijiu. Among the 33 types of alcohol trademarks, many companies have registered a total of 182 "Gui" trademarks, while Guizhou Guizhou is registered with others. Products and corporate names are highly similar to trademark behaviors, and there are suspicions that want to monopolize the exclusive rights of "expensive" and "expensive wine" trademarks. It is also a waste of administrative or legal means to use administrative or legal means.

It is a good thing to have a sense of trademark rights protection, but a point of consensus requires all corporate operators to remember. To curb this kind of rights protection is the best "protection" for trademarks. Trademark holders should bear public responsibility, and should not implement the name of the Baling type to suppress their rights in the name of maintaining the right to trademarks. This not only harms the order of fair competition in the market, but also misunderstand the protection of intellectual property rights.

- END -