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.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 months ago

One is for perfume and the other is for computer hardware, which is irrelevant, so it is not surprising to lose the case. I personally feel that although the evidence submitted by Chanel can prove that its trademark has a high reputation in perfume products, there are certain differences between the disputed Huawei trademark and its trademark in terms of text composition and design, and it is difficult to determine the copying and imitation of the cited trademark. What’s more, the Chanel trademark is on perfume, and the Huawei trademark is on computer hardware. Taking 10,000 steps back, ordinary consumers with a general level of knowledge would think that when they buy Huawei products, they are buying Chanel products?

6 months ago

From a professional point of view, the most important difference is that the gap between the two logos is still so large that ordinary people will not be ambiguous. The European Union General Court held that the disputed trademarks of the two are not similar, their appearances are very different, and their directions are different. Chanel’s LOGO lines are thicker and more rounded. The answer given by the European Union is also very straightforward, with big gaps, different directions, and inconsistent lines. Where the sky is round, circles and lines are the most basic concepts, such as Da Vinci’s painting eggs that we memorized by heart. The foundation of all logos is lines. A simple logo, like Huawei Chanel, has smaller strokes. Complicated logo, Versace counts as one, directly on the head of the goddess. Taking the concept of copyright as an example, the object of copyright is a work, which refers to an intellectual achievement that is original in the fields of literature, art, and science and can be reproduced in some tangible form. The same applies to this logo. The biggest special thing about the logo is to represent the brand. First, Chanel’s logo is simple and clear. You have to say how creative she is. Then, it’s really a matter of opinion. The big sound is loud, the elephant is invisible. Just use the circular shape, it will bloom everywhere. Versace and Starbucks should be the most beautiful ones. I can see who dares to pirate a goddess head at a glance. The portrait of Haechi from the Law Publishing House. The portrait of the scale of the People’s Court Publishing House also won my heart.

6 months ago

This reminds me of the old news of “Starbucks suing Shanda Shabuck”. Starbucks thinks that “Shabuck” and “Starbucks” are similar. At that time, I was confused, okay? Anyone who has played the legend knows that there is a “Shabak City”, a city that the major guilds are fighting for. And Shanda registered the “Shabac” trademark in this regard, which is also irrelevant to Starbucks. Now Chanel has also exerted its imagination, so that my router will also become a Chanel trademark?

6 months ago

Does this look like? Obviously it’s not like it! It is understood that 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, which is composed of two vertical semicircles intersecting. Chanel objected to this, saying 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 this ruling in the Luxembourg court. The court rejected its appeal in Wednesday’s ruling and stated that the two signs have different semicircular directions and visually significant differences. H (Huawei) HiLink is interconnected to form a chain shape. If you understand it, you will feel a sense of design and connotation. But why does Chanel look for Huawei? Is it a business touch porcelain? Both brands are big brands. Chanel wants to increase its visibility in this way? To be honest, if that’s the case, then I’ll register a stinky tofu to sell stinky tofu. Once it collides with Chanel’s name, maybe I’ll be at the pinnacle of my life (dog head). By the way, this logo is usually in On the router

6 months ago

Appeal 3 times in 4 years. Why is Chanel obsessed with suing Huawei? I personally think that there are two reasons: 1. Disgusting Chinese companies: It shows to Western countries that we can make Chinese people’s money and make them uncomfortable. It doesn’t matter whether we win or not. Hey, it’s just fun. Isn’t Huawei a national-level enterprise in China? I will engage you. Anyway, everyone has nothing to lose. 2. Porcelain: Conflicting luxury products favoring brand culture or product value generally have to represent a certain lifestyle and quality value before they can gradually establish a luxury brand effect. Huawei’s products, including mobile phones and various communication software and hardware products, may be recognized internationally as cost-effective. Then luxury goods can’t talk about cost performance. Whether you and I have conflicts of interest in the market is not important, but you cannot affect the values I represent and my status in the hearts of luxury consumers. In short, I feel that I want to set up an archway to show the so-called “chaste.”

6 months ago

This wave is very obvious. Chanel is taking advantage of Huawei’s enthusiasm. It seems that other brands do not sue. Instead, they sued a high-end manufacturing giant across industries. How can you not think of why, a luxury seller who dares to compare with high-end manufacturing companies? It may be that the GPS of the mobile phone is broken and I can’t find my location. I just finished reading Weibo and I got a lot of kneelings. I am also drunk. In terms of real enterprise value data, luxury goods are a younger brother. For society , The technology is “noble” n layers than clothing.

6 months ago

Using two distinct trademarks to repeatedly sue Huawei for infringement. This is the extremely distorted hatred of the deceased towards the newcomers. Although this is just a case of a Tsundere brand, it can also be seen from small to large to see some deep-seated problems. In the next few decades, China needs to take seriously the challenges and obstacles facing the world outlook. Among European and American countries, Europe is relatively friendly to China. After all, Europe is the birthplace of Marxism. The left-wing political parties have always had a certain influence (of course, this left-wing is just relative and opposite. This makes Europe’s hostility towards socialism much lower than that of the United States. Even so, there are a lot of anti-China voices, especially in Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, while the United States is even more unbearable. Because the United States’ worldview is extremely backward and religious, it is extremely narrow. The four words that belong to fundamentalist Christianity are a bit strange, are they actually “fundamental”) This makes Americans like jihadists enthusiastically oppose socialism. In the eyes of Americans, these four words are like scourges and Satan. The United States is anti-China and anti-socialist. Only a very small number of intellectuals occasionally dare to say a few objective words. In the future, it is estimated that these people will also shut up. Conservative religion. The country that is based on religion removes the cloak of liberalism and plays with McCarthyism. We all know how proficient it is. After that, because China has developed to the stage of direct competition in the United States, soft power competition, including ideology, will become increasingly acute in the future. This is not based on our will. Of course, the science of social development tells us that socialism has a high probability. The inevitable direction of the development of human society. The hostility to socialism in Europe and the United States is only the resistance that any historical process will encounter during the development period. We need to actively and step by step to deal with this challenge on the basis of full confidence, and reduce China’s development. Unnecessary resistance

6 months ago

Chanel’s sales have been greatly reduced during the epidemic, and then it has found other ways to fill in the sales volume, right? It’s not Huawei’s fault that it’s not making money. Who caused the epidemic to come? The blame is for the ineffective fight against the epidemic in Europe, and the economy is in a state of restlessness. Western brands could have made money, but they feel that they are too comfortable to live. They have to jump out of the comfort zone and do things, brush up on their sense of existence, find the meaning of living, and prove that they hold the privileges and play big. Like Dolce & Gabbana and H&M, I make myself very ugly. Is it interesting? Have! Of course there is. Chanel’s touch porcelain and other foreign brands insult China are actually responding to the call of the country and promoting the formation of an internal circulation in the domestic market. They lead by example, so that the Chinese people’s impression of it will deteriorate, and they will abandon the purchase of the brand and reduce the domestic market share, thereby allowing domestic brands to come up. …

6 months ago

The following sentence can be interpreted in depth: The EU General Court ruled that the disputed trademarks have some similarities, but their appearance is quite different. In my country’s trademark law[1], the judgment of whether a trademark is infringement is closely related to the judgment of the similarity of trademarks. In other words, if they are similar, they may constitute infringement. In trademark law, there are two types of similarities, one is the same trademark, and the other is similar trademark. The European Court of Justice held that Huawei’s trademark and Chanel’s trademark were similar, indicating that Chanel’s litigation was not entirely against porcelain, and I disagree with those emotional responses. But approximation, there are global approximations, and local approximations. Generally, the overall approximation is used as the criterion, and partial approximation or element approximation does not necessarily constitute infringement. Because the language, characters and patterns are limited, the constituent elements of trademarks are also limited, and similar elements and partial similarities are unavoidable. Therefore, the overall approximation is a more important criterion. The judgment of the similarity of a graphic trademark generally mainly judges its appearance. If the overall appearance is similar, it constitutes a similar trademark. If the appearance difference is relatively large, then it is not considered as a trademark infringement. The judgment of trademark similarity is generally carried out by judges and trademark examiners. However, judges and trademark examiners generally make judgments from the perspective of the relevant public. What is the relevant public? That is, the general public who may consume this product, as well as their distributors. Generally speaking, people who can afford Huawei and Chanel should have a certain degree of judgment and would not think that the two trademarks are similar in overall appearance. Taking into account that their industry categories are also different, their dealers, it is also difficult to equate the two trademarks. Therefore, the European Court of Justice said that there are some similarities between the two (the composition is a circle and the letter C), but the overall appearance is very different, so it does not constitute trademark infringement.

6 months ago

Will Audi have any opinions? [Crying and laughing] Under Armour: I am not worthy of being prosecuted? What kind of confusing operation is Chanel? I can’t tell if I don’t say it. It’s too far-fetched. Besides, Celine’s logo is more similar. Why not sue Celine and Under Armour? It’s better to use black and white. The similarity is 100%. Ru was in pain. Chanel can also sue paper clips. . . Trouble Chanel not to rub Huawei’s heat.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x