The first case in Sichuan!
Internet celebrity hot pot was "one-to-one copy" Court: malicious infringement, compensation of 4.46 million
On October 13, the Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News reporter learned from the Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court that recently, the court concluded a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute involving the Internet celebrity hot pot brand "Daddy Frying" in accordance with the law. The court's first instance The plaintiff’s request for double punitive damages was supported in accordance with the law, and the defendant was judged to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of more than 4.464 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 60,000 yuan.
It is understood that this is the first case in Sichuan Province where punitive damages were applied for malicious infringement of intellectual property rights.
Internet celebrity hot pot brand was "copied", imitators made a profit of more than 3.71 million yuan
On October 20, 2018, the plaintiff, a catering company in Chengdu, opened the first direct-operated restaurant "Daddy's Fried Steak Old Hot Pot (Jiaotong University Store)".
As of the end of November 2020, the company has grown to 4 directly-operated stores and 64 franchise stores in 51 cities across the country.
In 2019, "Dad Fried Steak Hot Pot" won the local "2019 Popular Hot Pot Brand", "2019 Most Valuable Catering Brand for Commercial Investment" and other titles. In the short term, it quickly won many honors in the same industry in Chengdu. Hard to find.
In May 2020, the related text and graphic trademarks of "Papa Fried Ingredients" were approved and registered by the State Intellectual Property Office, and the Plaintiff Catering Company exclusively enjoyed the exclusive rights to these two registered trademarks.
The defendant once ran another catering company next to the plaintiff’s catering company Jiaotong University. He was able to clearly understand and contact the plaintiff’s hot pot restaurant’s operating methods, service names, and decoration styles.
On August 22, 2019, the defendant Wang and his wife established a Chengdu Dad Frying Food Service Co., Ltd. with their two shareholders as shareholders, and established three branches in December of the same year, July and December 2020. Open three hot pot restaurants at the same time.
Copying and imitating the shop logo, decoration, service name, etc. of "Dad Fried Ingredients", causing consumers to believe that the shop opened by the defendant is a franchised store or directly operated shop of the plaintiff.
It was verified that as of June 3, 2021, the total revenue of the above three stores exceeded 27.05 million yuan and the total profit from infringement reached more than 3.71 million yuan in less than two years.
The plaintiff sued for more than 4.46 million yuan in compensation
Court: It was a malicious infringement and was punished with punitive damages
The plaintiff stated that the defendant’s act of seeking illegitimate benefits from the brand-name constituted an infringement. Knowing that the brand of "Daddy Frying Ingredients" was originally created by the plaintiff’s company, he specifically established a company that was very similar to the plaintiff's "Daddy Frying Ingredients" brand name. , And copying all-round, one-to-one, similar shops with the plaintiff’s service name, in-store decoration and oil packaging, and the use of the plaintiff’s propaganda articles in foreign investment and franchising is a malicious infringement.
Therefore, the defendant Wang and his wife, the infringing company and the three branches are required to immediately stop the infringement, and apply double punitive damages in accordance with the law to compensate the plaintiff’s company for economic losses of more than 4.464 million yuan and reasonable expenses of more than 110,000 yuan.
The Chengdu Intermediate Court held that in the case, the wife of the defendant Wang was the legal representative, and Wang handled external business affairs on behalf of the company.
Since he had opened a shop next door to the plaintiff’s Jiaotong University store, the defendant Wang and others were fully aware of the plaintiff’s hot pot restaurant and the fact that it was in good business conditions, and were able to clearly understand and contact the plaintiff’s company’s business methods, service names, decoration styles, and other information, and then opened branches And the shops used the same or similar trademark logo, the same service name and similar decorations as the shops opened by the plaintiff company, which caused confusion among consumers.
The court held that, from a subjective point of view, the above-mentioned actions were obviously deliberately imitating and deliberately clinging to the goodwill and operating resources that the plaintiff company had already obtained, thereby achieving the purpose of profiting for itself, and belonged to other circumstances that could be determined as deliberate in intellectual property infringement, and The profits are huge and the circumstances are serious, and punitive damages should be applied in accordance with the law.
One-half of the profit from infringement can be used as the basis for calculating the punitive damages for the defendant’s trademark infringement, and the defendant’s company should pay more than 5.57 million yuan in total.
Because the plaintiff’s claim was only more than 4.464 million yuan and did not exceed the total amount of compensation, the plaintiff’s claim was supported in accordance with the law, and based on the facts of the case, the plaintiff’s reasonable expenses were determined to be 60,000 yuan. The above-mentioned judgment was made in accordance with the law.
It is understood that this is the first case in Sichuan Province where punitive damages were applied for malicious infringement of intellectual property rights.
Wang Xincheng Zhiquan Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News reporter Dai Jiajia and intern Guo Wenyi