The case of Barry Beatrice touching porcelain has attracted attention. What information is worth paying attention to in this case?

Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded this case. Paris baguette? In the case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute, the defendant Beijing Bali Beitian Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was sentenced to stop using it? Paris baguette? Unregistered well-known trademarks, including suspension of use? Barry Baten? The name of the enterprise, and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaled 6.5438+0.5 million yuan. ?

Paris baguette? It is a well-known fast food brand directly operated by ESPI Investment Co., Ltd. and a well-known trademark in this field. Barry Beitian Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. was established on 20 15, and its business scope includes: enterprise management; Catering management; Hotel management; Technology development; Computer technology training; Educational consultation, etc. According to the enterprise survey, how many applications for registration of Beijing Bali Beitian Enterprise Management Co., Ltd.? Did Barry bake sweet? 、? Barry Baten? The trademark of.

Court debate In court, Paris Betting thinks that Barry Betting Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. is a registered company? Barry Baten? Other trademarks are similar to their own trademarks, and they are publicized and used in official website without permission? Paris baguette? Trademarks, etc., infringe on the relevant rights of Paris Bate's unregistered well-known trademarks. Moreover, Paris Beitian Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. took a series of civil actions against plaintiffs and franchisees for the purpose of compulsory trademark transfer, which seriously affected the normal operation of Paris Beitian, constituted unfair competition and caused huge economic losses to itself. ?

And then what? Barry Baten? Think Paris is sweet? Paris baguette? And then what? Paris baguette? The trademark belongs to illegal use and cannot be recognized as an unregistered well-known trademark. Moreover, the normal use of legally registered trademarks by Balibertin does not constitute infringement, and the warnings and complaints made by Balibertin are normal acts of safeguarding rights and do not constitute unfair competition.

The court held that, based on a large amount of evidence submitted by Paris Bate, after comprehensively considering factors such as advertising intensity and geographical influence, it can be concluded that? Paris baguette? It has become a household name among the relevant public and belongs to an unregistered well-known trademark. Balibetin has been significantly used on platforms such as WeChat official account? Paris baguette? This trademark is enough to make the relevant public misunderstand the service source and infringe upon the relevant rights and interests of Paris Beitian on unregistered well-known trademarks. And then what? Barry Baten? Not for the purpose of use, a large number of registrations? Barry Baten? After the trademark, it was transferred to the plaintiff at the asking price of 6.5438+million. After being rejected, it interfered with the normal operation of the plaintiff by sending a warning letter to Paris Beitian and its franchisees and stores, and suing the judicial authorities.