Shanghai Precision Scientific Instruments Trademark Rights Protection

Introduction: China's first spectrophotometer, the first balance instrument, the first PH meter and the first rotary meter were known to domestic instrumentation practitioners. Their birthplace was the well-known state-owned Shanghai Precision Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Jingke Company). After years of cultivation, the company's short name "Shanghai Jingke" and "Qianke" have become synonymous with quality. However, this “precision” sign was almost because of the cybersquatting of Chengdu Kexie Instrument Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Jingxue Science Instrument Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chengdu Kexie Company and Shanghai Jingxue Company), and the alleged infringement could not be used. . The People's Court of Pudong New Area, Shanghai judged that the two defendants had formed unfair competition and the two defendants refused to accept the appeal. The reporter learned recently that the second instance court upheld the original verdict.

Case Introduction In the late 1980s, Shanghai Jingke Company was formed by the merger of 14 domestic analytical instrument companies, including Shanghai Analytical Instrument Factory, Shanghai Tianping Instrument Factory, and Shanghai Lei Magnetic Instrument Factory. According to reports, since 1996, Shanghai Jingke Co., Ltd. has started to use the “Qianke” brand but has not registered it; in 2006, it began using the “Shanghai Jingke” abbreviation on products and promotional materials.

In April 2010, Shanghai Jingke received a subpoena. Chengdu Kexie Instrument Complete Co., Ltd. stated in its complaint filed with Chengdu Intermediate People's Court that in 2002, the company obtained the exclusive right to use registered trademarks of the “Qianke” word mark and requested the court to order Shanghai Jingke Company to stop using the trademark. Stop the sale of goods marked with "Qianke" registered trademarks and compensate for the losses.

Chengdu Science Analysis Company has become a distributor of Shanghai Jingke Company since 2001, and it does not have the ability to produce products. The company applied for the "Qianke" trademark in August 2001, and also registered the "three points", "heaven", "object light" trademark, and these are the abbreviation of the well-known enterprises that merged to establish Shanghai Jingke Company. In 2009, Shanghai Jing Xue Scientific Instrument Company was founded. On its website, the company abbreviation is also “Shanghai Jing Ke”. In the same year, Chengdu Science Analysis Company authorized the use of the “Qianke” trademark on related products and entrusted outsiders with production.

After active response and proof, on June 10, 2011, the Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu made a first-instance judgment, dismissing all the lawsuit requests of Chengdu Science Analysis Company. In November 2010, Shanghai Jingke Company also sued Chengdu Science Analysis Company and Shanghai Jingxue Company to Pudong Court for unfair competition.

In this case, the trial site has two major focuses. One is: Is the abbreviation of a well-known company protected by law? Second: Does the use of the "Shanghai Jingke" logo constitute unfair competition?

The court held that due to historical reasons, Shanghai Jingke Company does not have the same name as many state-owned enterprises. For convenience, short names are usually used. Evidence shows that "Shanghai Jingke" and "Qianke" are short-term use of the company's abbreviation, which has enabled the relevant public to establish a direct link with Shanghai Jingke Co., Ltd., and has played a role in identifying the source of goods, and actually has the role of a business name. Although Chengdu Science Analysis Co., Ltd. has obtained the exclusive right to use the “Qianke” registered trademark in accordance with the law, and has obtained the right to disable it, the use of the “Qianke” trademark still cannot conflict with the prior rights of others. According to the "Unfair Competition Law" and related regulations, "Shanghai Jingke" and "Qianke" should be treated as enterprise names to be protected. Based on this, the court found that the actions of the two defendants constituted unfair competition.

The reporter learned that although Chengdu Kexie Company owns the “Qianke” trademark, it will no longer be able to use the trademark in accordance with the judgment that has already entered into force, while Shanghai Jingke Company does not have the exclusive right to use “Qianke” registered trademark. However, it can be used as an abbreviation for the company and marked on its own product. There are two ways to resolve this “defective” situation, or the parties negotiate that Chengdu Kexie Company will transfer the trademark to Shanghai Jingke Company; or Chengdu Kexie Company will not renew the registered trademark after it expires, and will automatically invalidate it.

In foreign countries, large companies pay special attention to these intellectual property rights. As a state-owned enterprise with a long history, even if it did not keep its own "precision" signs, this case caused deep thinking. In response, the trial judge, Du Lingyan, said that the abbreviation of the company was caused by another person's cybersquatting. This was the first time in the Pudong court and it was relatively rare in Shanghai. From the understanding of the case in the case, the protection of intellectual property rights of Shanghai Jingke Company is basically “undefended”, so people can take advantage of it. Followed by the lack of attention to intellectual property rights monitoring. After analyzing the “Qianke” trademark in August 2001, Chengdu Science Analysis Company did not use it for many years. In this case, Shanghai Jingke Company was unaware of it. “We missed the proposal within three months from the date of the announcement of trademark registration. Opposing opportunities have missed the opportunity to apply for the cancellation of the registered trademark within five years from the date of trademark registration, and also missed the opportunity to apply for the cancellation of the registered trademark on the ground that the registered trademark ceased to be used for three consecutive years." The court suggested that domestic enterprises should focus on improving the enterprise intellectual property management system.