Sino-Singapore Jingwei, August 25th (Yan Shuxin intern Chen Shiqing) On the 25th, the topic of #Bruce Lee's daughter claiming 210 million from Real Kung Fu Fast Food# caused heated discussions among netizens on Weibo.
According to media reports, the case of Bruce Lee Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Real Kung Fu Fast Food Management Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Real Kung Fu Catering Management Co., Ltd., and Guangzhou Real Kung Fu Fast Food Chain Management Co., Ltd. was filed at 9:00 a.m. on the 25th in Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court. Court hearing.
The legal representative of the plaintiff company is Li Xiangning, the daughter of Bruce Lee.
According to the company's previously disclosed lawsuit, it asked "True Kung Fu" to immediately stop using Bruce Lee's image, clarify on the media page for 90 consecutive days that it has nothing to do with Bruce Lee, and compensate 210 million yuan for economic losses.
Real Kung Fu was claimed for 200 million yuan
It is worth mentioning that as early as December 2019, some media said that the American company Bruce Lee Enterprises, LLC (Bruce Lee Co., Ltd., hereinafter referred to as Bruce Lee Company) had sued the real kung fu to the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court, claiming that its use The icon that resembles Bruce Lee's image has been in existence for 15 years, and he wants to claim 200 million yuan and 88,000 yuan for reasonable expenses for rights protection. At the same time, he asks Real Kung Fu to immediately stop using the image of Bruce Lee and clarify on the media page for 90 consecutive days that he has nothing to do with Bruce Lee.
According to the data, Real Kung Fu is a well-known Chinese fast food brand in China, founded in 1990.
According to public reports, before 2004, real kung fu was not called "real kung fu", but "168 steamed fast food restaurant"; The three words "Kung Fu" have been combined into its new trademark.
It is understood that Li Xiangning had previously pointed out that the real kung fu trademark was suspected of infringing on Bruce Lee's image and tried to defend his rights, but it failed.
In response to the alleged infringement, on December 26, 2019, True Kung Fu responded through its official Weibo, saying that the True Kung Fu series of trademarks were applied for by the company and authorized by the State Trademark Office after strict review, and the company had used it for 15 years.
Whether the company's trademark is infringed has been disputed many years ago, but there has been no administrative or judicial conclusion that it has been determined to be infringed or revoked.
"We were also very puzzled when we were prosecuted after many years." At that time, Zhen Kungfu said that the matter had been filed by the court and had not yet been heard in court. The company was actively studying the case and preparing to respond.
After the news of the court hearing came out, the incident once again triggered heated discussions among netizens: "I thought it was Bruce Lee at first sight", "I always thought it was authorized" and "supported rights protection".
Who has the better odds?
Bruce Lee's lawsuit against Real Kung Fu is also reminiscent of previous disputes between sports star Michael Jordan and Jordan Sports.
It is understood that Jordan Sports registered the "Danqiao" trademark in 1991 and changed its corporate name to Jordan Sports in 2000.
In 2012, Michael Jordan sued Jordan Sports for infringing his name rights and requested the cancellation of many of its trademarks.
However, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that its application was rejected, and Michael Jordan filed an administrative lawsuit, and the two sides fought for eight years.
In October 2019, the Supreme People's Court concluded the Jordan Sports trademark dispute case, arguing that its trademark did not reflect Michael Jordan's personal characteristics, was not identifiable, and did not constitute damage to portrait rights, which brought the dispute to an end.
Today, Bruce Lee is suing Real Kung Fu for infringement, and many people worry that it may end up the same as Michael Jordan.
In this regard, Yang Baoquan, senior partner of Beijing Zhongyin Law Firm, pointed out that in terms of the content of the lawsuit filed by Bruce Lee, Zhen Kung Fu was sued for infringement for using an icon that resembled Bruce Lee's image, and the right directly related to its appeal is the portrait right. A legal right is the exclusive right that a natural person enjoys based on his own image, and the commercial use of another person's portrait requires the consent of the party concerned, otherwise it constitutes an infringement."
Yang Baoquan told Sino-Singapore Jingwei that a portrait is the reproduction of the external image of a natural person, and the key lies in its recognizability. Its carriers include portraits of people, life photos, stills, etc.
"As a famous public figure, Bruce Lee's icon used in real kung fu is Bruce Lee's classic martial arts movements, which reflect Bruce Lee's personal characteristics and are recognizable to a certain extent. In addition, his trademark is 'real kung fu', which makes it easy for the general public to perceive 'real kung fu'. When 'Kung Fu' is associated with Bruce Lee's own physical features, there is a risk of being identified as a violation of portrait rights," Yang Baoquan said.
Zhao Zhan, a lawyer from Beijing Yunjia Law Firm and a special researcher at the Intellectual Property Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, also mentioned that, from the specific content of the pattern, whether it is the character's hairstyle, character movements, clothes color and style, etc., are very similar to Bruce Lee's image. It is similar, and from the remarks in the registration of the trademark pattern and the expression in the external publicity, it can be seen that the company also believes that the character in the pattern is Bruce Lee.
"Real Kung Fu used Bruce Lee's portrait as an integral part of the trademark, which is suspected of infringing on the interests of Bruce Lee's daughter in the portrait of Bruce Lee. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law, if a registered trademark infringes the prior rights of others, you can apply for revocation of the trademark. "Zhao Zhan said to Sino-Singapore Jingwei.
In addition, Yang Baoquan added that the right to portrait belongs to the personality right in personal rights, which begins at birth and ends at death.
Personality rights are exclusive rights, which in principle can only be enjoyed by the obligee himself, and cannot be transferred, abandoned or inherited.
However, in 2001, the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning Determining Liability for Compensation for Mental Damage in Civil Torts clearly stipulates that the close relatives of the deceased have the right to sue due to the mental suffering suffered by others for "infringing upon the name, portrait, reputation and honor of the deceased".
"Real Kung Fu has a high risk of being identified as infringing on the rights and interests of Bruce Lee's portrait, and the company has a high risk of losing the lawsuit." Yang Baoquan said.
(Sino-Singapore Jingwei APP)
All rights reserved by Sino-Singapore Jingwei. Without written authorization, any company or individual may not reproduce, extract or use in other ways.