近日，有消费者向澎湃公众互助平台服务湃反映，他在网购平台购物，发现一些标签含"胖东来""胖东来优选"等关键词的商品，想买却又心 存疑虑。 对此，有律师向智通财经指出，只要没有获得商标使用授权，无论这些商品是否在胖东来销售过，均构成侵权。 被各种商家营销套路侵害权益？买到的商品出故障投诉无门？ 黑猫投诉平台全天候帮您解决消费难题【消费遇纠纷，就上黑猫投诉】 智通财经记者 段彦超 这些标签含"胖东来"的商品是否获得胖东来商标使用授权？智通财经随机询问10家网店，均未获正面回应，更无一家表示获得授权。 9月16日晚，许昌胖东来生活广场值班店长向智通财经表示，对于这些线上商铺的侵权行为，胖东来一直在持续搜集证据。他表示，即使一些商品 曾在胖东来超市销售过，也不可以在线上销售中标注"胖东来"，具体的情况需要再进一步咨询法务，以法务的声明为主。 诸多网店卖货商品关键词含"胖东来" 例如商品为"胖东来官方旗舰店猴头菇猴菇饼干酥性小饼干代餐零食许昌超市"，显示"全网热销1万+"，店铺名为"货东来食品旗舰店"。该商品资料 页面包含胖东来商场门头照片。 智通财经以消费者名义咨询店铺客服，客服称，该款商品为胖东来商超同款的平替款， ...

Core Viewpoint - Wahaha Group has announced the launch of a new brand "Wah Xiaozong" starting from the 2026 sales year, due to compliance issues surrounding the use of the "Wahaha" trademark, which has a brand value of 91.187 billion yuan [1][3][4] Brand Change - The decision to switch to "Wah Xiaozong" is aimed at maintaining compliance with trademark usage, as the "Wahaha" trademark has faced legal risks due to unresolved historical issues [3][4] - The new brand will cover existing product categories and expand into new ones, including beer, as registered under the "Wah Xiaozong" trademark [4] Shareholder Dynamics - The complex shareholding structure of Wahaha Group involves three parties: Hangzhou Shangcheng Cultural Tourism Investment Holding Group (46%), Zong Fuli (29.4%), and the employee shareholding committee (24.6%), which limits Zong Fuli's control over trademark usage [5][6] - Internal conflicts among shareholders have led to the decision to rebrand, as Zong Fuli has faced challenges in managing the company since the passing of the founder [6][7] Legal Risks - The legal risks associated with the use of the "Wahaha" trademark have become apparent since Zong Fuli took over, as the macro beverage group operates under a separate entity, Macro Beverage Group, which has no direct equity ties to Wahaha Group [8][9] - Unauthorized use of the "Wahaha" trademark by Macro Beverage Group could lead to trademark infringement claims, as they lack the necessary authorization from Wahaha Group [9]

Core Viewpoint - Wahaha Group has announced the launch of a new brand "Wah Xiaozong" starting from the 2026 sales year, due to compliance issues surrounding the use of the "Wahaha" trademark, which has a brand value of 91.187 billion yuan [1][3]. Brand Change - The decision to change the brand was made to address legal risks associated with the "Wahaha" trademark, which cannot be used without unanimous consent from all shareholders of Wahaha Group [3][5]. - The new brand "Wah Xiaozong" will cover a wide range of products, including existing categories and new ones like beer, as registered by Hongsheng Beverage Group [4]. Shareholder Dynamics - The complex shareholding structure of Wahaha Group involves three parties: Hangzhou Shangcheng Cultural Tourism Investment Holding Group (46%), Zong Fuli (29.4%), and the employee shareholding committee (24.6%), limiting Zong Fuli's control over trademark usage [5][6]. - Internal conflicts among shareholders have led to the decision to create a new brand, as Zong Fuli has faced challenges in managing the company since the founder's passing [6]. Legal Risks - The use of the "Wahaha" trademark by Hongsheng Beverage Group has raised legal concerns, as it operates without direct equity ties to Wahaha Group, leading to potential trademark infringement issues [7][8]. - Legal experts indicate that Hongsheng's unauthorized use of the trademark could result in claims for damages and injunctions from Wahaha Group [8]. Company Response - Wahaha Group has not publicly responded to inquiries regarding the trademark compliance issues and the new brand launch [9].

近日，网络博主"反诈老陈"在社交平台发布视频称，自己在某购物直播间购买到了一款包装标注为"五星茅台"的 白酒，并喊话贵州茅台有限公司这"是不是正品"。 五星酒业表示，公司从未生产、销售或授权任何单位及个人生产、销售"五星茅台酒"。该产品涉嫌侵犯贵州茅台 酒股份有限公司相关注册商标权，同时也构成对公司企业名称的不正当竞争行为以及侵害商标权行为。 五星酒业称，公司早在2024年就已经就该款侵权产品（五星茅台酒）依法提起诉讼，并获得法院胜诉判决。任何 单位或个人擅自生产、销售冠以"五星茅台酒"字样产品的行为，均属违法，公司保留追究其法律责任的一切权 利，包括但不限于民事索赔、行政举报及刑事控告。 官网信息显示，贵州五星酒业集团有限公司创建于1993年，位于中国酒都——仁怀市，是"贵州民营企业100强"。 酒厂有传统发酵窖池600多个，年产优质酱香型白酒6000多吨。同时，有50000吨的储酒能力；配有5条现代化灌装 和包装生产线，单日产量可达30000箱，是一家集白酒生产、研发、销售于一体，员工600余人、总资产规模达30 亿元、品牌价值（2024年度）达158.55亿元的专业化、集团化公司。五星酒业有"五星"和" ...

Group 1 - The Dapeng Customs of the People's Republic of China announced an administrative penalty against Guangdong Chanyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. for exporting goods that infringed on the trademark rights of "SONY" and "LG" [1][2] - On June 24, 2025, the company declared the export of a batch of remote controls to the Netherlands, which included 3,024 units marked with the "SONY" trademark and 5,040 units marked with the "LG" trademark [1][2] - The total value of the infringing goods was reported to be 108,043.62 RMB, and the company was fined 16,220 RMB in addition to the confiscation of the infringing goods [1][2][3] Group 2 - Guangdong Chanyi Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. was founded in 2004 and successfully listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange's Growth Enterprise Market on December 28, 2023, with the stock code 301578 [5] - The company has been engaged in the research, development, manufacturing, and sales of various smart products, including remote controls, cameras, and microphones for over twenty years [5]

Core Viewpoint - The Jilin Provincial Market Supervision Administration is actively conducting the "Guarding Consumption" and "Thunder 2025" enforcement actions to address violations related to consumer safety and rights protection, focusing on key products and industries. Group 1: Enforcement Actions - The Longcheng District Market Supervision Bureau in Changchun investigated a clothing studio for selling goods that infringed on trademark rights, resulting in the confiscation of infringing products and a fine [2] - The Nanguan District Market Supervision Bureau in Changchun also took action against a clothing store for selling goods that violated trademark rights, leading to similar penalties [3] - The Longtan District Market Supervision Bureau in Jilin City found a liquor store selling goods that infringed on trademark rights, resulting in confiscation and fines [4] - The Lishu County Market Supervision Bureau investigated an electric bicycle shop for selling products that did not meet national standards, leading to penalties [5] - The Yalu River City Market Supervision Bureau found a company using misleading packaging and branding that closely resembled a well-known brand, resulting in penalties for unfair competition [6][7] - The Baishan City Market Supervision Bureau penalized a trading company for false advertising regarding health benefits of a product, which was found to be a regular food item [8] - The Songyuan City Market Supervision Bureau penalized an electric bicycle shop for selling non-compliant products, including discrepancies in vehicle coding [9] - The Meihekou City Market Supervision Bureau investigated an automotive maintenance center for selling goods that infringed on trademark rights, resulting in confiscation and fines [10] Group 2: Future Actions - The provincial market supervision departments will continue to conduct special enforcement actions against various illegal activities in the consumer sector, maintaining a high-pressure stance to protect consumer and business rights [10]

Core Points - A university student, Li, was held liable for trademark infringement after lending his personal information to register an online store that sold counterfeit goods [1][2] - The court ruled that Li, despite claiming he was registered without consent, knowingly provided his ID and participated in the registration process, thus facilitating the infringement [2] - The court ordered Li to compensate the trademark owner 200,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable legal fees [2] Group 1 - The case highlights the risks associated with sharing personal information for job opportunities, especially in the context of online platforms [1][3] - The court emphasized that individuals must be aware of the legal risks when lending their personal information, as it can lead to liability for facilitating illegal activities [2][3] - The ruling serves as a warning to the public about the importance of protecting personal information in the digital age [3]

Case Overview - On May 7, 2025, the market supervision bureau of Urumqi City, Xinjiang, conducted an inspection based on complaints and discovered counterfeit betel nut products being sold in a store [1] - The product in question was labeled as "Betel Nut Dry (Golden Stone Connection)" with a net weight of 48 grams per package, a selling price of 50 yuan per package, and was produced by Shaoyang Kouwei Wang Technology Development Co., Ltd. [1] - The inspection revealed that the product was not genuine, as confirmed by a report from Hainan Hecheng Tianxia Technology Development Co., Ltd. on June 1, 2025, which stated that the product infringed on the trademark rights of the company [1] Investigation Findings - The seller purchased five bags of the counterfeit product from a mobile vendor for 43 yuan per bag and had sold one bag by the time of the inspection [2] - The seller could only provide a purchase invoice that lacked supplier information and other necessary documentation, violating the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China [2] Penalty Outcome - On August 15, 2025, the Urumqi City market supervision bureau ordered the immediate cessation of the infringement, confiscated the counterfeit products, and imposed a fine of 1,000 yuan [2] Significance - The case highlights the risks associated with counterfeit products, which often compromise quality and safety, thereby endangering consumer health [2] - It emphasizes the importance of respecting intellectual property rights and encourages businesses to verify the trademarks of products they sell, promoting a safer market environment [2] - The case aims to enhance consumer awareness regarding counterfeit goods, reducing potential losses from purchasing such products and fostering a trustworthy consumption environment [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant trademark infringement case involving the "XGIMI Nut" brand, which has been found to violate the registered trademark rights of Chengdu XGIMI Technology Co., Ltd. The case spans across nine provinces and has resulted in a total illegal operating amount exceeding 1.28 billion yuan [1][4]. Group 1: Case Details - The infringement was initiated by Jiangxi Caiying Company and its affiliates, which sold "XGIMI Nut" projectors on various e-commerce platforms at prices less than half of the genuine products [2][3]. - The initial investigation revealed that the suspected sales amount for the infringement was not less than 1 billion yuan [2]. - The case prompted a coordinated response from the State Administration for Market Regulation, leading to a unified investigation across nine provinces [3]. Group 2: Enforcement Actions - Over 100 law enforcement officers from nine provinces conducted simultaneous inspections at over 30 suspected locations, seizing infringing products and key evidence [3]. - The investigation identified 10 core infringing companies, with Jiangxi Caiying Company’s actual controller registering 10 companies and operating 25 online stores [3][4]. - The Jiangxi Provincial Market Supervision Administration imposed penalties, including confiscation of illegal gains and fines totaling 192.869 million yuan, along with a settlement agreement requiring compensation to XGIMI [4]. Group 3: Lessons Learned - The case highlighted the importance of collaboration between government and enterprises, with XGIMI actively seeking protection of its rights and the regulatory body responding promptly [5]. - Regional cooperation was emphasized as crucial for handling large-scale trademark infringement cases, preventing potential flight of infringing parties [5]. - The involvement of e-commerce platforms in gathering evidence was identified as a key factor in the successful resolution of the case, proving essential for establishing the infringement and determining the illegal operating amount [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing efforts of market regulatory authorities in China to combat trademark infringement and counterfeiting, emphasizing the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining market integrity through the publication of typical cases [2]. Group 1: Case Summaries - Case 1: Li and others were found selling counterfeit "Nanfu" batteries, with a total purchase value of over 2.48 million yuan and sales amounting to over 1.39 million yuan from 2017 to 2024 [3][4]. - Case 2: A wedding car rental company was penalized for using counterfeit "Rolls-Royce" vehicles, resulting in fines totaling over 710,000 yuan for 15 companies involved [4][5]. - Case 3: A joint operation in Guangdong led to the dismantling of 27 counterfeit shoe production sites, resulting in the seizure of 21,000 pairs of counterfeit shoes and an estimated value of 216 million yuan [6][7]. - Case 4: A significant counterfeit case involving "Arc'teryx" jackets was uncovered, with over 300 million yuan in involved funds and 42 individuals arrested [10][11]. - Case 5: A business was penalized for using the "City Hero" trademark without authorization, leading to fines and confiscation of illegal gains totaling 49,000 yuan [13][14]. - Case 6: A company was found selling automotive parts with counterfeit "FAW" trademarks, resulting in a fine of 50,000 yuan [16][17]. - Case 7: The "Hilton" trademark was infringed upon by a karaoke hall, leading to an investigation and potential criminal charges [19][20]. - Case 8: A tourism company was fined 75,000 yuan for using a similar trademark to "Golden Peacock" on its vehicles, highlighting the unique nature of this infringement [22][24]. Group 2: Significance of Cases - The "Nanfu" case illustrates the challenges of collecting evidence over a long period and the importance of collaboration between market regulators and law enforcement [3][5]. - The "Rolls-Royce" case emphasizes the negative impact of counterfeit goods on brand value and consumer trust in the wedding service industry [5]. - The "HERMÈS" case showcases the effectiveness of integrated enforcement strategies between market regulators and police to combat large-scale counterfeiting [9]. - The "Arc'teryx" case highlights the innovative use of digital tools and social media in tracking and prosecuting counterfeit operations [12]. - The "City Hero" case serves as a warning against misleading branding practices that exploit established trademarks [15]. - The "FAW" case demonstrates the use of digital verification methods to enhance the accuracy of infringement identification [18]. - The "Hilton" case reflects the importance of seamless cooperation between administrative and judicial bodies in protecting foreign brands [21]. - The "Golden Peacock" case illustrates the need for strict enforcement against trademark similarities that can mislead consumers [25].