Starbucks prosecution judges prevent Shanda from registering Shabak trademarks

[TechWeb report] on April 16, Starbucks, a US coffee chain, took the business judges to court on the grounds that "Shabak is similar to Starbucks." It is understood that Weibo did not claim compensation in the lawsuit, which aims to prevent Shanda Games (Starbucks) from registering Shabak trademarks in "restaurants, beer drinks, coffee, etc."

It is understood that Starbucks did not file a claim for compensation in this lawsuit, but only a lawsuit confirming its rights. If Starbucks wins the case, Shanda will lose its registered trademark in "restaurants, beer drinks, coffee, etc."

Shanda Games said that the company registered the "Shabak" trademark in all 45 trademark categories as early as 2003 and actually used it in many categories, and this time it was dragged into the lawsuit for no reason and will organize lawyers to actively respond to the lawsuit. protect your own intellectual property rights and interests.

Shanda Game applied for the registered trademark of "Shabak" in "restaurant, beer beverage, coffee, etc." in 2003, which was announced by the Trademark Office after examination; but Starbucks raised an objection, believing that "Shabak" was similar to "Starbucks" and asked the Trademark Office not to support it. The Trademark Office ruled that it did not constitute an approximation and rejected Starbucks's objection.

Starbucks once again put forward an objection to the commercial judges for review, and the commercial judges confirmed that it did not constitute an approximation and rejected it again. As a result, Starbucks complained to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate people's Court, asking the No. 1 Intermediate people's Court to withdraw the distributor judge to rule that the two trademarks were similar, and Shanda Game became the third person in the law in this case. At present, the case is still under trial, and if the first Intermediate people's Court still does not support it, Starbucks has the right to appeal to the Beijing High Court, that is, the final judgment.

News Review: Starbucks refers to "Shabak" hitchhiking

A few days ago, Starbucks took the National Business Review Committee to court because the Business Review Committee approved a mineral water manufacturer to register the "Shabak" trademark, believing that the Shabak trademark and the "Starbucks" trademark constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods, and are prone to adverse effects, in violation of the Trademark Law. The Shanda game has also been listed as one of the plaintiffs because of its success in obtaining the "Shabak" trademark.

It is understood that Chinese "Shabak" is the name of a virtual castle fortress in Shanda's online game "Blood Legend". In this game, players can form a guild, and the president of the guild will apply to capture the castle of "Shabak". Once the attack is successful, the president of the guild will become the highest-ranking person in the game, and the guild will also enjoy special treatment. Therefore, the battle against "Shabak" is the most classic guild war in the game "Blood Legend", and "Shabak" has the supreme position in the minds of countless legendary players. For this reason, as early as 2003, Shengqu Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Shanda Games) registered the "Shabak" trademark in all 45 trademark categories.

For Starbucks suing "Shabak", the business judges believe that "Sha" and "Xing" have significant differences in pronunciation, shape and meaning, and will not cause confusion and misunderstanding to the relevant public. it is not enough to believe that it is a plagiarism and imitation of the Starbucks trademark. At the same time, it is not enough to prove that the "Starbucks" trademark has reached a well-known level in China before the date of application for the "Shabak" trademark. Therefore, the objection raised by Starbucks was rejected. At present, the case is still under trial.

The lawyer's view: Shanda has a better chance of winning.

"Blood Legend" is operated by Shanda game agent, and it is also the first successful online game in China. In November 2001, the Legend of warm Blood was officially listed in China and quickly topped the list of software sales. In October 2002, the maximum number of people online at the same time in the Legend of warm Blood exceeded 600000. "Shabak" is the name of the castle fortress in "Blood Legend". In view of the high popularity of "Blood Legend" and "Shabak" in the industry and player groups, Shanda Game was registered in 2003. Shanda game said that "Shabak" is the symbol and symbol of "blood legend", but also a classic in the minds of countless players, the company will actively strive to protect its rights.

In the face of the trademark dispute between "Starbucks" and "Shabak", some people in the legal profession pointed out that there is indeed a big difference between the two names "Shabak" and "Starbucks". First of all, it is quite different in meaning. Shabak is the name of a castle in online games and a specific regional concept, while Starbucks is the Chinese translation name of "STARBUCKS" in English. Secondly, the difference in pronunciation is also very obvious. In terms of character shape, one word is "sand" and the other is "star". It is obvious that ordinary consumers will not confuse the two. He suggested that many multinational corporations bring lawsuits without an in-depth understanding of the origin of Chinese trademark names, which is disadvantageous to the public image of their own brands. it is suggested that multinational corporations should give more full consideration to localization factors, including language and language habits, when safeguarding their trademark interests.

The person said that judging from the current situation, the Commercial judges' decision on "Shabak" and "Starbucks" does not constitute a similar review ruling that the facts are clear, the applicable law is correct, the procedure is legal, and Shanda has a better chance of winning.

The escalation of the struggle between China and Foreign countries behind the Trademark dispute

Starbucks is not alone in suing Shabak. Recently, a number of Chinese companies or business judges have been sued one after another for "trademark infringement", from Apple to Jeremy Lin to Jordan, setting off a trademark war between Chinese and foreign brands.

Us basketball star Michael Jordan filed a lawsuit in a Chinese court on February 23, accusing Chinese sportswear maker Jordan Sports Co., Ltd. of using his name without authorization. With Jordan facing the same problem is the hot American NBA player Lin Shuhao, a sports company in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, saw the business opportunity for Lin a year and a half ago, and was approved to register the "Lin" trademark at a price of 4460 yuan in August last year. Because the trademark right of our country follows the principle that whoever registers first, it is a headache for Lin himself and his business partner Nike.

In this series of events, the most high-profile is the case in which Apple and Proview compete for the trademark right of ipad in China.

Proview Taipei and Proview Shenzhen registered a number of iPad trademarks overseas and mainland China in 2000 and 2001 respectively. In 2010, Proview Shenzhen sued Apple in China, accusing it of commercial fraud and unfair competition in purchasing the iPad trademark. Proview produced evidence that it never transferred the iPad trademark right of Chinese mainland to Apple or its subsidiaries. As a result, Proview asked Apple to compensate for losses and deprive Apple of profits from unfair competition, as well as a court injunction to prevent Apple from continuing to use trademarks obtained through fraud. The case is still under trial.

In addition, similar to the "Shabak" dispute, the disputes arising from the cross-border registration of trademarks are also continuous. Chivas, a foreign wine brand, was registered as a clothing trademark by a Wenzhou citizen because of its English logo "CHIVASREGAL" a few days ago, suing the business judges to the first Intermediate people's Court on the grounds that copyright infringement and the English trademark was a well-known trademark should be protected, demanding that the trademark registration of Wenzhou citizens be revoked. However, an intermediate people's court ruled that the evidence provided by Chivas could not prove the prior copyright in the work and rejected Chivas's claim.

Some enterprise personages have pointed out that in recent years, the trademark war between foreign-funded enterprises against Chinese enterprises has become increasingly fierce, and national brands need to establish a complete legal awareness and know how to take up legal weapons to safeguard their own rights and interests. The dispute between VS and Starbucks reflects the deep competition between Chinese and foreign brands, and its final ownership is worth looking forward to. Industry insiders said that the dispute also revealed a gratifying side, indicating that after years of accumulation, domestic brands began to walk out of the initial stage of barbaric growth, more and more conscious growth. (Wei Pu)

(responsible Editor: Leo)