Millet e credit infringement trial: representatives of millet grain, must not restrict others from using-millet, millet e loan-IT information

Beijing Hua Zhong science and technology limited unauthorized use millet trademarks, and trademarks used in connection with millet′s "millet′s financial" exactly the same business "millet e loan", leading to consumer confusion, millet Hua Zhong science technology limited liability company to court, claim 1 million. This morning, the case in the Haidian District Court. In court, the defendant felt no infringement and said it cannot restrict fair use as food by others "millet" term.

Technology limited liability company claims plaintiff millet, millet company shall enjoy "millet", "MI" and "XIAOMI" series, such as rights to exclusive use of registered trademarks. The trademark approved for services including financial services, and so on. Meanwhile, millet, the company also introduced a comprehensive financial services platform-"millet finance", to provide users with millet Bao Bao, funds and other financial services, loans, current.

Millet said the defendants started operation "millet e loan" Web sites and prominently on the site, millet was unauthorized use of trademarks and other advocacy, run exactly the same business Internet banking business with millet, lead to confusion for consumers mistook, according to seek illegitimate interests.

Trial defendant: representatives of millet grain must not restrict the use of

9:30 A.M., millet company by two Agency lawyers, Manager of defendant company pan, court litigation, and has commissioned a lawyer to appear.

In court, defendant does not agree with the plaintiff′s claim. Mr Poon said, the defendants "millet e loan", and millet company′s registered trademarks is markedly different. Millet company trademarks is limited to "millet" two words and phonetic "MI" Variant, the accused identified with millet trademarks are quite different.

Defendant, Hua Zhong science and technology "millet e loan" LOGO icon is used for graphics, words and letters, and millet company MI logo in the font style, graphics, color and combined the various elements of the overall structure is completely different, less likely to cause mistake or confusion to the public.

Mr ban said food of millet as grains fruits after shelling in the North, is the northern region on a diet staple. Have a bowl of millet congee for breakfast, a lot of the choices and preferences of the people in Beijing. " Millet, a vocabulary, is a common human heritage thousands of years of Chinese civilization, in millet company outside the scope of trademark rights, does not constitute a confusing case, rational use of the word must not restrict others to millet, nor limiting others ′ millet ′ extended use of the term. Huang Xiaomi, Silver Gold millet, millet, and Hua Zhong science and technology service name ′ millet e loan ′. ”

The defendant believes that business lending information platform for the network run by the company, an intermediary service platform launched millet millet and millet company financial current treasure treasure and millet Fund service objectives, content, methods, objects are not the same. As of press time, the case is still under trial.

小米e贷侵权案庭审：小米代表粮食，不能限制他人使用 - 小米,小米e贷 - IT资讯

认为北京华忠科技有限公司未经许可擅自使用小米商标，并将商标用于与小米公司的“小米金融”完全相同的业务“小米e贷”，导致消费者混淆，小米科技有限责任公司将华忠科技诉至法院，索赔100万。今天上午，此案在海淀法院开庭审理。在法庭上，被告认为自己没有侵权，并称不能限制他人合理使用作为粮食的“小米”一词。

原告小米科技有限责任公司诉称，小米公司依法享有“小米”、“MI”及“XIAOMI”等系列注册商标的专用权。上述商标核定的服务项目主要包括金融服务等内容。同时，小米公司也推出了个人综合金融服务平台——“小米金融”，向用户提供小米贷款、活期宝、基金宝等金融服务。

小米称，被告开办运营“小米e贷”网站，并在该网站的显著位置，擅自使用了小米商标等进行宣传，运营与小米公司互联网金融业务完全相同的业务，导致消费者混淆误认，据此谋取不正当利益。

庭审被告：小米代表粮食，不能限制他人使用

上午9时30分，小米公司由两位代理律师出庭，被告公司经理潘先生出庭应诉，并委托一位律师到庭。

法庭上，被告不同意原告的诉讼请求。潘先生表示，被告的“小米e贷”，与小米公司的注册商标具有明显的不同。小米公司的商标权仅限于“小米”二字及拼音“mi”的变形，被告标识与小米商标有明显不同。

被告表示，华忠科技的“小米e贷”使用的LOGO图标为图形、文字和字母组成，与小米公司的MI商标在字形、图形、颜色及各要素组合后的整体结构完全不同，不容易引起相关公众误认或者混淆。

潘先生说，小米作为北方谷物果实去壳后的粮食，是北方地区长期食用的主食。早餐喝一碗小米粥，是很多北京人的选择和喜好。“小米这一词汇，是汉语几千年来所传承的人类共同文明成果，在小米公司的商标权之外的范围，不构成混淆的情况下，不能限制他人对小米一词合理利用，也不能限制他人对‘小米’一词的延伸扩展使用。如黄小米、金小米、银小米，以及华忠科技的服务名称‘小米e贷’。”

被告认为，该公司开办的业务为网络借贷信息平台，属中介服务平台，与小米公司的小米金融推出的小米活期宝和小米基金宝的服务目的、内容、方式、对象都不相同。截至记者发稿时，此案仍在进一步审理中。