This article is reprint from the WeChat public account: Intellectual Property Hotspot Information
When it comes to Pinduoduo, many people will think of its advertising song immediately. A logo focus on "Pin" emerged in front of our eyes. However, the emergence of the "Pinduoduo" shopping platform has confused some users: there were so many similar logos and similar websites, and who was the real "Pinduoduo"?
A few days ago, the Shanghai Xhihhuequ Court of China made a judgment in a case of trademark infringement and unfair competition. The defendant "Pindoudou" company was identified with constituting infringement and unfair competition, and the plaintiff should be compensated RMB 70 thousand.
Users are confused by the two shopping platforms
The "Pinduoduo" company was established in 2014, and its trademark was registered in China on November 7, 2017. With active operation and publicity, it has accumulated a large number of users and won many honors. Among the shopping platforms for group purchase, the influence is great.
The defendant "Pindoudou" company was established in 2014 and is also an e-commerce platform that provides group purchase services. Its original name was "wòwòPin", and was renamed "Pindoudou" on November 14, 2017. Then displayed profusely its logo which focus on "Pin".
During the operation of the two platforms, users gradually began to reflect: when shopping with "Pindoudou", they mistakenly thought that they were shopping in "Pinduoduo", or thought "Pindoudou" was the new platform opened by "Pinduoduo".
"Obviously, when I placed an order to buy an eyebrow pencil, the order turned into an phone for elder. What the hell?" The user Xiao-xin thought that he had encountered a careless service in "Pinduoduo" shopping, and posted an article on Weibo to complain. But he didn't notice that the page of the screenshot was actually "Pindoudou".
Such phenomena have attracted the attention of "Pinduoduo". In order to protect the company's legitimate rights and interests, it sued Pindoudou for Infringement.
In the trial, the two companies held their own statements
During the trial, the "Pinduoduo" company believed that the defendant adopted a logo similar to the "Pinduoduo" trademark and used the similar service names, which constituted an infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition. It misdirected the public, and causing losses to the them. The defendant is required to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact and compensate the loss.
"Pindoudou" argued that its company had no actual operations since its establishment, and was recognized as a shell company by the SAIC in China in 2015. The platform has been under online testing. Although technically, merchants can freely enter the mall, but in fact no merchants have settled in, there is no revenue, and it has not caused the plaintiff company to cause losses. The visual difference between the defendant's logo and "Pinduoduo" trademark is obvious. The appearance and meaning of the text "Pindoudou" are also significantly different from the "Pinduoduo".
Defendant "Pindoudou" was awarded a compensation of RMB 70 thousand
After trial, the court affirmed that the defendant "Pindoudou" constituted infringement of trademark. The defendant used the logo which indicates the source of the service and constitutes the use of the trademark. And its logo was similar to "Pindoudou" trademark. The "Pin" was in the middle with geometric figure and texts; the pattern of daily necessities to fill many color blocks and background was dark color. It was also used on online group purchase platforms. It was enough to be confused with the "Pinduoduo" trademark. The defendant used "Pindoudou" has constituted unfair competition. The company "Pindoudou" changed the successfully registered "wòwòPin" to "Pindoudou" which similar to the influential trademark "Pinduoduo" in a short time. And a lot of imitations appeared on the "Pindoudou" website. Even directly copied the content of the website of "Pinduoduo". The intent to climb was obvious. To mislead the public and affect consumers’ trading decisions enough.
Because the plaintiff couldn't provide direct evidence to the court the actual losses or illegal gains and the unfair competition caused by the defendant.
The court determined the compensation according to the statutory compensation method. The defendant "Pindoudou" was sentenced to stop unfair competition and publish a statement in the Chinese newspaper and media to eliminate the impact. Needed to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 60 thousand, and reasonable expenses of RMB 10 thousand to stop infringement. Total amount was RMB 70 thousand. (about NTD 300 thousand)
