On April 21, according to BBC reports, French luxury brand Chanel lost a trademark dispute with Huawei. This dispute began in 2017, when Huawei applied to the trademark agency the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for approval to register its computer hardware trademark. The trademark is composed of two vertical semicircles intersecting. Chanel objected to this, saying that the design was similar to its “double C” trademark. Since then, the Trademark Office rejected Chanel’s objections in 2019, saying that there are no similarities and it is unlikely to cause confusion in the public mind. Subsequently, Chanel again challenged the ruling in the Luxembourg court. The court rejected its appeal in Wednesday’s ruling. The EU General Court ruled that the disputed trademarks have some similarities, but their appearance is quite different. (Whale video)
People who eat melons received various articles about “Huawei defeats Chanel” on the official account in the morning, which is actually a dispute over intellectual property logos. In fact, the trademark dispute itself can be regarded as a relatively professional identification. Although the public’s fault finding is too limited and detailed, it can reflect the judgment of the relevant public in the trademark comparison. Under the “Paris Convention” and “TRIPS Agreement”, the standards for determining similarity of trademarks are now becoming consistent, and my country’s trademark law is basically adopted, and the right is compared to this case. “The Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes” Article 9, paragraph 2: The trademark similarity provided in Article 57 (2) of the Trademark Law refers to the trademark accused of infringement and the plaintiff Compared with registered trademarks, the font, pronunciation, meaning or composition and color of the graphics, or the overall structure of the combination of its elements are similar, or the three-dimensional shape and color combination are similar, which will easily cause the relevant public to be aware of the source of the goods Misunderstanding or thinking that its source has a specific connection with the goods whose trademarks are registered by the plaintiff. Article 10 The People’s Court shall, in accordance with Article 57 (1) (2) of the Trademark Law, determine that the trademarks are identical or similar to each other in accordance with the following principles: (1) Take the general attention of the relevant public as the standard; (2) Both the overall comparison of the trademark and the comparison of the main parts of the trademark should be carried out. The comparison should be carried out separately in a state where the comparison objects are isolated; (3) To determine whether the trademarks are similar, consideration should be given to the protection of registered trademarks. Saliency and popularity. Generally speaking, the State Intellectual Property Office of my country also judges similarity of trademarks mainly to judge that the goods or services applied for by the two are identical or similar, and the marks are identical or similar. That is, the so-called same trademarks on the same goods, similar trademarks on the same goods, and the same or similar trademarks on similar goods. Between Huawei and Chanel, Huawei applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for the registration and protection of its computer hardware trademarks. It is said that Chanel filed objections to the trademarks on perfumes, cosmetics, jewelry, leather goods, and clothing. Many The answerer immediately responded that Huawei is a computer and Chanel is a perfume. The goods and services of the two are not related. This is the so-called “different and similar goods or services.” Generally, in the case of dissimilar products, the issue of label approximation is less discussed, but based on the topic itself, more attention is paid to judgment of label approximation. The respondent’s comparison of the details of the logo itself cannot be said to be wrong, but too detailed, it can only be said that it is a game of “finding the difference”, not a standard for trademark similarity judgment. Even if visible to the naked eye, Chanel’s trademark curve is rounder and thicker, and the direction is horizontal, while the Huawei trademark is vertical. Generally speaking, it is necessary to consider the popularity of the cited trademark when determining that the trademark is similar. This actually involves a very broad concept “possibility of confusion”, that is, whether consumers will misunderstand the use of related products. Huawei computers and Chanel perfumes It seems clear at a glance. However, the “Paris Convention” and “TRIPS Agreement” also agreed on the protection of well-known trademarks, that is, you can claim rights against “different or dissimilar goods”, sue or raise objections to registration. Chanel is in Regarding whether Huawei’s trademark claims a “well-known trademark”, it’s not known, but it can be seen from reports that the EU General Court concluded that there are still differences between the two, which involves an opposite logic in the identification of well-known trademarks, the general logo If there is a difference or the identification is not similar, there is no need to discuss that the trademarked goods are not similar but related. That is, from the point of view that there are differences in the EU general court, it is relatively meaningless to discuss well-known. Moreover, well-known is not a full-type protection, and the premise is that there is a certain connection between the goods. Returning to the public’s point of view, the two seem to be unrelated. Therefore, from the perspective of intellectual property practitioners, the logos of Huawei and Chanel seem to be similar, but there are certain differences. They are more based on the difference between goods and services, and will not cause consumers to misunderstand, rather than Perform “find the difference” for comparison.