Key Holdings
Determination of Rights
Commercial signs, including trademarks, product names, and product packaging and decoration, may acquire distinctiveness not only from their inherent features in wording and graphics, but also through use in the market.
Through extensive promotion and use of the disputed “果子熟了/Guo Zi Shu Le” trademarks, product names, and packaging and decoration, Guo Zi Shu Le Company enhanced the market awareness of both the company and its products and further strengthened the distinctiveness of the relevant commercial signs.
The evidence on file supports the finding that the “果子熟了/Guo Zi Shu Le” wording has in fact achieved strong public recognition, and that the “Guo Zi Shu Le” trademark enjoys a high level of distinctiveness and reputation. “栀栀乌龙/Zhizhi Oolong” constitutes a product name with certain market influence. The overall design of Guo Zi Shu Le Company’s sugar‑free tea product, including the flat rectangular bottle and L‑shaped label, possesses distinctive features in terms of identification and aesthetic appeal, is capable of distinguishing the source of goods, has formed a stable association with Guo Zi Shu Le Company, and enjoys a high level of market recognition. It therefore constitutes product packaging and decoration with certain market influence. In addition, the “果子熟了/Guo Zi Shu Le” trade name has formed a stable correspondence with Guo Zi Shu Le Company and constitutes an enterprise name with certain market influence.
Determination of Infringement
The signs accused of infringement are similar to the product names, packaging and decoration, and other trade names involved in the case, and are likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among relevant consumers, thereby constituting acts of unfair competition.
In essence, trademarks, packaging and decoration, and product names are all commercial signs, and the criteria for assessing similarity should be consistent across these categories.
The scope of protection afforded to commercial signs should be commensurate with their distinctiveness. Generally, the stronger the distinctiveness of a commercial sign, the more prominent its identifying function, and the broader and stronger the scope of protection it should enjoy. The higher the reputation of a commercial sign, the greater its market influence and consumer awareness, and the more likely it is that consumers will be confused or misled even by commercial signs that are not highly similar.
For trademarks with relatively high reputation and distinctiveness and for packaging and decoration with significant market influence, a broader scope of protection should be applied, with a lower tolerance threshold in the determination of similarity. In comparing signs, more weight should be given to the overall visual impression and the main elements, while minor differences should not unduly affect the overall similarity assessment.
In this case, the “果子肥猫/Guo Zi Fei Mao” word mark was found to be similar to the “果子熟了/Guo Zi Shu Le” mark. Its use on identical or similar goods is likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding among relevant consumers. Guo Zi Fei Mao Company and others used the identical product name “栀栀乌龙/Zhizhi Oolong” and similar packaging and decoration on the same type of sugar‑free tea products, which is likely to mislead consumers and constitutes unfair competition in violation of Article 6(1) of the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law.
Furthermore, Guo Zi Fei Mao Company used a trade name similar to that of Guo Zi Shu Le Company, and on the same type of goods used signs infringing Guo Zi Shu Le Company’s trademark rights, as well as identical product names and similar product packaging and decoration. Taken together, these cumulative acts further increased the likelihood of confusion among relevant consumers and constituted unfair competition in violation of Article 6(1) of the Anti‑Unfair Competition Law.
Case Commentary
Against the backdrop of strict judicial protection of intellectual property rights, opportunistic business operators have evolved their “free‑riding” and “brand‑parasitism” practices from direct copying to more sophisticated overall imitation. Although each individual commercial sign may appear to differ in certain details when viewed in isolation, the copying behavior in fact extends across all aspects of commercial signs, including trademarks, product names, product packaging and decoration, enterprise names, and domain names. When all these imitative elements are combined on a single product, consumers are easily confused or misled as to the true source of the goods at the point of purchase.
The second‑instance judgment in this case faithfully implements the concept of the strictest protection and a systemic approach, striking an appropriate balance between the strength and the scope of intellectual property protection. It holds that the level of protection for intellectual property rights should be commensurate with the intrinsic value of those rights, providing strong protection to IP with a high degree of innovation and significant commercial value, and imposing precise and stringent sanctions on pervasive infringement. This approach effectively safeguards fair market competition and represents a meaningful judicial effort to foster a sound and orderly competitive ecosystem.
