转自：毕节市场监管 2025年3月3日，七星关区市场监管局接到消费者投诉 【下载黑猫投诉客户端】，称七星关区某烟酒店 经营的标称"贵州茅台集团天朝上品酒"不是由贵州茅台酒厂（集团）技术开发有限公司生产的商品，属 于假冒注册商标的商品。七星关区市场监管局立即对该烟酒店进行现场核查。 经查，该烟酒店共购进59瓶标称为"贵州茅台集团天朝上品酒"，已销售8瓶。上述商品经商标权利人贵 州茅台酒厂（集团）技术开发有限公司鉴定非其公司生产，属假冒注册商标商品。 现向社会公布 7起商标侵权典型案例 案例一 七星关区某烟酒店销售侵犯"天朝上品"注册商标专用权的白酒案 当事人销售侵犯"天朝上品"注册商标专用权的白酒的行为，违反了《中华人民共和国商标法》第五十七 条第三项之规定。依据《中华人民共和国商标法》第六十条第二款之规定，七星关区市场监管局对当事 人进行行政处罚。 案例二 为进一步发挥典型案例的示范引导作用 增强全市知识产权保护意识 黔西市某干货店销售侵犯"太太乐""双桥""莎麦"注册商标专用权的味精和鸡精案 2024年1月19日，黔西市市场监管局接到黔西市森林公安局移送案件线索：黔西市某干货店从生产假 冒"太太乐""双桥" ...

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the protection of an unregistered well-known trademark, specifically the "奔富" (Penfolds) brand, against malicious registration attempts by other companies [1][2][3]. Summary by Sections Basic Case Facts - 南某公司 is the rights holder of the well-known wine brand "Penfolds" and has used "奔富" as its Chinese name since the 1990s, achieving significant recognition among consumers [2]. - The brand "奔富" has been widely recognized and reported in various media, establishing a strong association with "Penfolds" [2]. Trademark Registration Attempts - Due to the commercial value of the "奔富" trademark, there were attempts by third parties to maliciously register similar trademarks, leading to a legal dispute [3]. - 南某公司 faced rejection from the trademark office when attempting to register "奔富" due to similarities with existing trademarks, prompting a series of legal actions that ultimately led to a favorable ruling from the Supreme People's Court [3]. Infringement Actions - 淮安华某公司 attempted to register similar trademarks and used them in their products, which led to a lawsuit from 南某公司 for trademark infringement [4]. - The court ruled in favor of 南某公司, ordering the defendants to cease their infringing activities and to compensate for damages [5]. Legal Reasoning - The court identified three main issues: whether "奔富" qualifies as an unregistered well-known trademark, whether the defendants' actions constituted trademark infringement, and the civil liabilities of the defendants if infringement was established [7]. - The court concluded that "奔富" could be recognized as an unregistered well-known trademark due to its established market presence and consumer recognition [8]. - The defendants' actions were deemed to constitute trademark infringement, as they knowingly used similar trademarks to benefit from the established reputation of "奔富" [9]. Legal Responsibilities - The court mandated the defendants to stop their infringing activities and to compensate 南某公司 for economic losses, affirming the legal rights of unregistered well-known trademarks [10]. Judicial Principles - The court established that unregistered trademarks widely known but not registered due to malicious attempts can be recognized and protected based on various factors, including duration of use and promotional efforts [12]. - It emphasized that actions taken in bad faith to register similar trademarks can lead to legal consequences, including the obligation to cease use and compensate the rightful trademark owner [12].

1993年起，来自新加坡的仁某置地集团在中国上海、南京、成都等地落子，陆续成立三家公司，凭 借"仁某滨江园""仁某广场"等高端项目迅速打响品牌。 远在西北地区，另一家"仁某公司"悄然成立。2004年起，一批高档住宅楼陆续落地甘肃省兰州 市，"国际""晶城"等楼盘名称前，均冠有"仁某"字样。但喜提新房的业主们浑然不觉，自己的舒适港湾 正陷入一场商标侵权和不正当竞争风波。 此"仁某" 非彼"仁某" 2015年，花旗银行、德意志银行致函仁某置地（成都）有限公司，提出参观访问其在兰州的"仁某 美林郡"项目。 从未在兰州布局，何来楼盘项目？"乌龙"事件让一家名为"兰州仁某房地产有限公司"的企业，进入 成都仁某公司的视野。后经调查发现，这家兰州的"仁某公司"，早已在当地开发了"仁某国际""仁某美 林郡""仁某晶城"等楼盘，2002年至2016年累计获利超4亿元。 2016年3月，成都仁某公司申请注册成立"兰州仁某置地有限公司"，但因兰州仁某公司的企业名称 注册行为，市场监督管理部门以"字号重名"为由未予核准。成都仁某公司未能顺利在兰州地区设立关联 公司、拓展"仁某"品牌的市场空间。 2016年5月，成都仁某公司以及上海仁 ...

Core Viewpoint - The company "胖东来" has initiated legal action against a social media influencer for defamation related to claims about a product quality issue, specifically concerning red underwear that allegedly caused allergic reactions. The company is seeking damages of no less than 1 million yuan [1][3][8]. Group 1: Legal Actions - The lawsuit against the influencer, known as "两个小段," is based on claims that the influencer's video on Douyin (TikTok) led to significant negative publicity and customer complaints for the company [1][3]. - The company has reported a total of 7 ongoing lawsuits and 9 additional cases it plans to pursue, indicating a broader strategy to protect its brand reputation [2][3]. - The company is pursuing damages of at least 1 million yuan for the defamation case, reflecting the seriousness with which it views the impact of the influencer's statements [1][8]. Group 2: Company Response and Investigation - Following the initial claims, the company established a special investigation team and temporarily removed the affected product from shelves, demonstrating a proactive approach to customer concerns [6]. - A detailed investigation report was released, confirming that the product in question met quality standards, but the company acknowledged failures in handling customer complaints and has taken disciplinary actions against staff involved [6][7]. - The company has committed to compensating affected customers and has implemented measures to improve its complaint handling processes [6][8]. Group 3: Public and Media Reaction - The incident has sparked significant public interest and debate, with the founder of the company emphasizing the need for rational discourse and accountability in public statements [11]. - The influencer involved has since issued a statement denying malicious intent and expressing regret for the emotional nature of their comments, indicating a recognition of the incident's broader implications [13][14]. - The situation has led to a ripple effect, with other retailers reportedly removing the brand's products from their shelves, further complicating the company's market position [7][8].