Tencent suing "Guangdong app" won: the latter for renaming would also like to pay 80,000-IT information
When you hear "micro-companies in Guangdong Province" when will immediately associate this is "micro" Guangdong Branch? In fact, Guangdong Shunde company is just a micro-letter registration of enterprises, with Tencent and the app has no relationship. Tencent then suing the micro-companies in Guangdong province over the Court. Reporter learned yesterday from the Foshan intermediate court, the courts make a final judgment on the case in recent days, maintaining the first-instance ruling. After the judgment of the Court of final appeal, "Guangdong micro-company" business name will be changed, and compensation of 80,000 yuan for company.
Case review
Tencent suing "Guangdong micro letter" claim millions
Guangdong micro from Internet Services Ltd (hereinafter "micro-companies in Guangdong Province") in January 2014, in the Foshan Shunde be allowed to register, its scope for the transmission of information, software and information technology services.
Earlier this year, Tencent technology (Shenzhen) Limited (hereinafter "the company") take micro-companies in Guangdong to court due to micro-companies in Guangdong "app" as font size registered business name, and its Web site, Office space, external commercial activities and promotional use in many places "micro" logo. Tencent, requesting an action include: micro-company ordered the Guangdong stopped used on Web sites, business sites "micro-letter words" stop in the name of the company using "micro-letter" words and change procedures, and compensation of 1 million yuan of economic loss and reasonable costs.
SHUNDE Court a trial think, Guangdong micro-letter company in business places, and website publicity Shang highlight using "Guangdong micro-letter" words, which "Guangdong" for regional name, not has recognition function, the company of font size "micro-letter" is its core vocabulary, the "micro-letter" text and Tencent company of registered trademark in the of text part same, according to China consumers on Chinese text of cognitive habits, both can finds for approximate. Identify and micro-companies in Guangdong to highlight "Guangdong app" violated the company's right to exclusive use of registered trademarks, Guangdong micro-and ordered the company to stop highlighting "Guangdong micro-letter" words, micro-companies in Guangdong to appeal against this judgment does not.
Meanwhile, a verdict that Tencent company "micro" constitutes a well-known commodity (service) unique name, micro-firms are Guangdong website, site contains "micro-letter" word of company name, while Tencent micro visibility on the subjective objective, easily led consumers to believe that link between the two companies, constituted unfair competition. Accordingly, Shunde Guangdong micro-companies to pay 80,000 Yuan Court, stops in its company name, use "micro" size, and name change procedures. Guangdong micro company is not satisfied with this decision and appeal to the Foshan intermediate court.
Recently, micro-Guangdong, Foshan intermediate court rejected the company's appeal and upheld.
Focus
Not the same "channel" no competition?
Court: causing public confusion constitutes unfair competition
"Everyone knows, ' micro ' is Tencent, rather than micro-companies in Guangdong Province, will not cause public confusion. "In the second instance, Guangdong micro letter said Tencent as" Big Mac ", direct competitors are large companies such as Alibaba, instead of them.
Guangdong micro-letter company also said, they company of business range for "software and information technology service", Tencent company not in 42nd class "technology research, and computer programming, and design", category Shang registered trademark, only in 9th, and 38, and 39 class registered has "micro-letter and the figure" trademark, former is software service, which is hardware commodity, both belongs to different category, fundamental not a "channel".
Foshan in the hospital think, Guangdong micro-letter company in its website of introduced text displayed its actual carried out of business including using Tencent company "micro-letter" software in the of micro-letter public, function for related marketing, reflect has Guangdong micro-letter company actual by provides of service and Tencent company using "micro-letter" registered trademark of software exists close relationship, easy makes related public think its by provides of service and Tencent company exists specific of associated relationship, enough to caused related public confusion or errors recognize. Tencent is not 42nd product or service category registered trademarks on the facts, did not prevent them from bases in the 9th class registered trademark on goods, arguing that Guangdong micro from the company's actions constitute unfair competition.
Are not referred to as micro-credit can save enterprises in Guangdong?
Court: company names cling to Tencent's purpose
Guangdong after micro-companies in the second trial said they could not "Guangdong micro" abbreviation, but want to keep the "Micro-Internet service, Ltd, Guangdong" the company logo, this is because they use this name with many clients before signing the contract. Once the name change, they will bring losses. Micro-companies in Guangdong Province also pointed out that they received the Tencent to the registration management complaints, had stopped in the business place, Web site highlights such as "Guangdong app" for short.
Foshan Intermediate Court said corporate names and trademarks are the business marking, they overlap in functionality. Operators in choosing its business name should follow the principle of good faith to others at a certain well-known registered trade marks for reasonable to avoid, avoid registering the use of a registered trade mark of name caused public confusion and misidentification.
Foshan intermediate court through the trial, believes that micro-companies, Guangdong enterprises engaged in computer software-related industries, in the establishment of the register should be aware of "micro" brand visibility. Micro-companies in Guangdong "micro" registration for its corporate font size, apparently clings to the company trademark goodwill is subjective intent, a micro-company immediately cease its trial in Guangdong enterprises used in names "micro" size of judgment in law have.
腾讯状告“广东
微信”胜诉：后者需改名还要赔8万 - IT资讯
当你听到“广东微信公司”时，是否会马上联想到这是“微信”的广东分公司？而事实上，广东微信公司仅仅是一家顺德注册的企业，与腾讯公司和微信没有半点关系。腾讯公司后来也因此将广东微信公司告上了法庭。记者昨日从佛山中院获悉，法院近日对此案作出终审判决，维持一审原判。终审判决后，“广东微信公司”的企业名称将要变更，并且要赔偿8万元给腾讯公司。
案情回顾
腾讯状告“广东微信”索赔百万
广东微信互联网服务有限公司(以下简称“广东微信公司”)于2014年1月在佛山顺德获准注册，其经营范围为信息传输、软件和信息技术服务。
今年年初，腾讯科技(深圳)有限公司(以下简称“腾讯公司”)将广东微信公司告上了法庭，原因是广东微信公司将“微信”作为字号注册企业名称，并在其网站、办公场所、对外商业活动及宣传推广中多处使用“微信”的logo。腾讯公司提出的诉讼请求包括：判令广东微信公司停止在网站、经营场所使用“微信”字样，停止在公司名称中使用“微信”字样并办理变更手续以及赔偿100万元的经济损失及合理开支。
顺德法院一审认为，广东微信公司在经营场所、网站宣传上突出使用“广东微信”字样，其中“广东”为区域名称，不具有识别功能，该公司的字号“微信”是其核心词汇，该“微信”文字与腾讯公司的注册商标中的文字部分相同，根据中国消费者对中文文字的认知习惯，两者可以认定为近似。据此认定，广东微信公司突出使用“广东微信”字样的行为侵犯了腾讯公司的注册商标专用权，并判令广东微信公司停止突出使用“广东微信”字样的行为，广东微信公司对此项判决内容并未提出上诉。
同时，一审判决认为腾讯公司的“微信”构成知名商品(服务)特有名称，广东微信公司在网站、经营场所使用包含“微信”二字的企业名称，在主观上具有攀附腾讯微信知名度的目的，容易使消费者误认为两公司存在关联，构成不正当竞争。据此，顺德法院判决广东微信公司赔付8万元，停止在其公司名称中使用“微信”字号，并办理名称变更手续。广东微信公司不服此判决内容，上诉至佛山中院。
近日，佛山中院驳回了广东微信公司的上诉请求，维持原判。
焦点
不是同一“频道”没有竞争关系？
法院：造成公众混淆就构成不正当竞争
“任何人都知道，‘微信’是腾讯公司的，而不是广东微信公司的，不会造成公众混淆。”二审中，广东微信曾表示，腾讯作为“巨无霸”，直接竞争者应该是阿里巴巴等大公司，而不是他们。
广东微信公司还表示，他们公司的经营范围为“软件和信息技术服务”，腾讯公司未在第42类“技术研究、计算机编程、设计”等类别上注册商标，仅在第9、38、39类注册了“微信及图”商标，前者是软件服务，后者是硬件商品，二者属于不同类别，根本不是一个“频道”。
佛山中院认为，广东微信公司在其网站的介绍文字显示其实际开展的业务包括利用腾讯公司“微信”软件中的微信公众号功能进行相关营销，反映了广东微信公司实际所提供的服务与腾讯公司使用“微信”注册商标的软件存在密切关系，易使相关公众认为其所提供的服务与腾讯公司存在特定的关联关系，足以造成相关公众混淆或误认。腾讯公司未在第42类商品或服务类别上注册商标的事实，并不妨碍他们依据在第9类商品上注册的商标，主张广东微信公司的行为构成不正当竞争。
不简称广东微信能否保住企业名？
法院：企业名称有攀附腾讯公司的故意
广东微信公司在二审后曾表示，他们可以不用“广东微信”的简称，但希望保留“广东微信互联网服务有限公司”这个企业名号，这是因为他们之前用此名号与不少客户签了合同。一旦改变名号，将为他们带来损失。广东微信公司还指出，他们在接到腾讯公司向企业登记管理部门投诉时，已经停止在经营场所、网站等处突出使用“广东微信”的简称。
佛山中院表示，企业名称与商标均属于商业标识，二者在功能上存在重合之处。经营者在选择其企业名称时应遵循诚实信用原则，对他人在先具有一定知名度的注册商标作合理避让，避免因注册使用含他人注册商标的企业名称而造成相关公众的混淆误认。
佛山中院经审理认为，广东微信公司作为从事计算机软件相关行业的企业，在登记成立时应当知悉“微信”商标的知名度。广东微信公司将“微信”注册为其企业字号时，其主观上明显具有攀附腾讯公司商标商誉的故意，一审判令广东微信公司立即停止在其企业名称中使用“微信”字号的判决于法有据。