Core Viewpoint - Tsinghua University has initiated legal action against institutions allegedly infringing on its trademarks, highlighting ongoing concerns regarding the misuse of its name and brand [1] Group 1: Legal Actions and Outcomes - Tsinghua University has filed a civil lawsuit against entities suspected of trademark infringement, seeking legal accountability [1] - In a previous case, Jiangsu Education (Hong Kong) Company was ordered to pay 1.8 million yuan for trademark infringement and 800,000 yuan for unfair competition [2][3] - The university has registered over a thousand trademarks, including "Tsinghua," "Tsinghua University," and "清华园," to protect its brand [4] Group 2: Recent Infringement Cases - A recent ruling determined that the Beijing Tsinghua Yucai Experimental School violated trademark laws by using similar names, leading to confusion among the public [4] - In another case, Henan Tsinghua Yiyou Education Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. was ordered to cease using the name containing "Tsinghua" and compensate Tsinghua University 100,000 yuan for economic losses and 36,000 yuan for reasonable expenses [4]

Core Viewpoint - Bentley has clarified that it has no association with the co-branded betel nut gift box launched by "Hecheng Tianxia," emphasizing that the product and related activities were not authorized or recognized by the Bentley brand [1][3]. Group 1: Bentley's Response - Bentley stated that the co-branded product and related activities are not affiliated with the brand or its authorized dealers in China [1]. - The brand reserves the right to take legal action to protect its legitimate rights and interests due to unauthorized use of its branding [7]. Group 2: Hecheng Tianxia's Marketing Strategy - Hecheng Tianxia has previously collaborated with luxury brands such as Rolls-Royce, Mercedes-Benz Maybach, and Porsche for promotional events [5]. - The marketing campaign for the Bentley collaboration included actors dressed as historical figures, which sparked public debate regarding the appropriateness of the partnership [3]. Group 3: Regulatory Context of Betel Nut - Betel nut has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization, with significant links to oral cancer cases [7][8]. - Recent regulations in China have restricted the sale and advertising of betel nut products, with specific prohibitions on their classification as food and advertising [8].

图片来源： OpenAI OpenAI 已从其官网和 YouTube 页面撤下了一段备受热议的视频，该视频宣传了 CEO 萨姆·阿尔特 曼，与苹果传奇设计师乔尼·艾维的友谊。顺带提及了 OpenAI 以 65 亿美元，收购艾维与阿尔特曼的 设备初创公司 io 的交易 。 这是否意味着收购计划或艾维主导 OpenAI 设计工作的安排出现了问题？据彭博社马克·古尔曼报道 ，实际情况并非如此，他表示 " 交易正在推进中，并未取消或发生任何类似情况 " 。 真正原因是法院针对 io 名称发布了禁令，迫使公司撤下所有使用该名称的宣传材料。 参考资料 https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/22/openai-pulls-promotional-materials-around-jony-ive-deal/ 编译： ChatGPT 我们正在招募新一期的实习生 -----------END----------- 我们正在寻找有创造力的00后创业者 OpenAI 随后证实了这一情况，并在原公告页面更新声明： " 由于 iyO 公司就我们使用 'io' 名称提出 的商标投诉，根据法院命令，本页面暂时关闭。 ...

Core Viewpoint - A company in Hangzhou was penalized for misleading consumers by labeling tea products as "West Lake Longjing" without proper authorization, violating trademark laws and regulations [1][2][3] Group 1: Legal Violations - The company displayed and sold tea products with the label "Hangzhou Group West Lake Longjing Tea" without obtaining the geographical indication trademark authorization, violating Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China [2] - The use of "West Lake Longjing" in product names and descriptions aimed at attracting customers constituted a violation of Article 4 of the Advertising Law, misleading consumers [2] Group 2: Regulatory Actions - The company was fined 14,540 yuan for its illegal activities, as per Article 60, Clause 2 of the Trademark Law and Article 55, Clause 1 of the Advertising Law [2] - The enforcement actions taken by the market supervision bureau highlight the increasing efforts to protect intellectual property rights and maintain market integrity [3] Group 3: Market Impact - The rise in consumer trust regarding registered trademarks is attributed to increased awareness and enforcement against trademark infringement, which is essential for protecting consumer rights and the reputation of legitimate brands like "West Lake Longjing" [3] - Misleading labeling practices not only harm consumers but also negatively impact the brand image of "West Lake Longjing," emphasizing the need for strict enforcement against such violations [3]

Core Viewpoint - The launch of the Trump phone has raised significant concerns regarding its manufacturing origins, pricing, and potential trademark infringements, suggesting it may not represent a genuine American product despite its branding [6][7]. Group 1: Product Details - The Trump phone is priced at $47.45 per month, approximately 340 RMB, and offers features such as 24/7 roadside assistance, remote consultations, and free international calls to over 100 countries [5]. - The phone is manufactured by China's Wingtech Technology and is highly similar to the REVVL 7 Pro 5G, which retails for only $180 in the U.S., indicating a significant markup on the Trump phone [6]. Group 2: Market and Regulatory Concerns - There are allegations of trademark infringement regarding the "T1" name, which is similar to T-Mobile's branding, raising the possibility of legal challenges if consumers confuse the two brands [7]. - The Trump Group's entry into the telecommunications sector is under scrutiny, with concerns about potential regulatory favoritism due to Trump's influence over government appointments related to communication regulation [7].

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the legal implications of trademark infringement, particularly in the context of franchise agreements and the protection of brand identity [1][3]. Group 1: Trademark Infringement Case - A convenience store attempted to retain its original brand name by altering it slightly after its franchise agreement with Meiyijia expired in January 2023 [1]. - Meiyijia, a well-known convenience store brand, discovered the infringement in December 2024 and filed a lawsuit in May 2025, seeking a compensation of 10,000 yuan [1]. - The court found that the convenience store's modified name "美①佳" was similar enough to "美宜佳" to cause public confusion, violating the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China [3]. Group 2: Court Ruling and Settlement - The court ruled that the convenience store's actions constituted trademark infringement, as the modified name and logo were likely to mislead consumers regarding the source of services [3]. - The convenience store agreed to pay 4,000 yuan to Meiyijia as part of a settlement, and Meiyijia decided not to pursue further claims [3]. - The presiding judge emphasized the importance of trademark protection, stating that imitating well-known brands is not a legitimate business strategy and is subject to legal consequences [3].

Core Viewpoint - The lawsuit between Envision Energy and miHoYo highlights the conflict between a real-world company and a fictional game character, raising concerns about brand reputation and trademark rights in the gaming industry [1][2][3]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Envision Energy has filed a lawsuit against miHoYo for a character named "Envision Company" in the game "Honkai: Star Rail," claiming it closely resembles their name and logo, causing reputational damage [2][10]. - The character in the game is depicted negatively, engaging in unethical practices such as cost-cutting and violent demolition, which Envision Energy argues harms its public image [10][11]. - Envision Energy attempted to resolve the issue through communication with miHoYo but was unsuccessful, leading to the formal lawsuit for online infringement [3][9]. Group 2: Trademark and Competition Issues - In addition to the lawsuit against miHoYo, Envision Energy has also sued Envision Investment Group for trademark infringement and unfair competition, indicating a broader concern over brand protection [5][13]. - Envision Energy has a significant portfolio of registered trademarks, with 378 registered and 127 pending, while Envision Investment has also registered multiple trademarks, leading to potential confusion in the market [14][16]. - The conflict is exacerbated by the fact that both companies operate in overlapping sectors, particularly in renewable energy, which could lead to competitive disadvantages for Envision Energy [16][18].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issue of tea products being sold in packaging that closely resembles well-known cigarette brands, particularly "中华" (Zhonghua), which raises concerns about consumer deception and potential legal violations related to trademark infringement and misleading advertising [8][20][21]. Group 1: Product Description and Consumer Experience - The tea products are packaged in boxes that mimic the appearance of cigarette brands like "中华," "荷花," and "南京," with prices around 10 yuan or 9.9 yuan per package [4][6][19]. - Consumers have reported confusion and disappointment upon receiving the products, as they expected cigarettes but received tea instead, leading to negative reviews and claims of being misled [4][10][15]. - The tea quality has been criticized, with industry experts stating that the products do not meet the standards of the advertised types, such as "肉桂" (Rougui) and "大红袍" (Da Hong Pao) [22][24]. Group 2: Legal and Regulatory Concerns - Selling cigarettes online is illegal under Chinese law, and the use of similar packaging for tea products may constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition [8][20][21]. - The packaging of the tea products is argued to infringe on the trademark rights of "中华" cigarettes, as the design and branding are closely associated with the well-known cigarette brand [20][21]. - Legal experts suggest that the tea products' packaging could mislead consumers and harm the reputation of the "中华" brand, potentially leading to legal action [20][21]. Group 3: Market Implications - The article indicates a growing trend of using deceptive marketing practices in the tea industry, where low-quality products are sold at low prices, often misleading consumers [22][24]. - The presence of such products in the market raises concerns about consumer protection and the integrity of e-commerce platforms, as they may facilitate the sale of counterfeit or substandard goods [22][24]. - The situation reflects broader issues within the tea industry regarding quality control and the need for better regulation to protect consumers from misleading practices [22][24].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the ongoing efforts by market regulatory authorities in China to protect intellectual property rights, particularly focusing on trademark infringement cases, with significant actions taken against violators in various regions [1]. Group 1: Trademark Infringement Cases - In March 2024, the Jiangsu Province market regulatory authority investigated a case involving Suzhou Kaidong Clothing Accessories Co., which was found to be selling products infringing on the "YKK" trademark, leading to a criminal referral due to the severity of the case [2][3]. - The Shanghai Yangpu District market regulatory authority imposed a fine of 660,000 yuan on Shanghai Aidojun Cultural Communication Co. for facilitating trademark infringement by promoting counterfeit products on an internet video platform [4][5]. - The Guangdong Province market regulatory authority seized 3,448 boxes of counterfeit "Kayou" anime card products and imposed penalties on 12 individuals involved in the infringement [6][7]. - The Shandong Province market regulatory authority investigated a case involving a clothing studio that produced counterfeit "ERDOS" cashmere products, leading to a criminal referral due to the nature of the violations [8][9]. - The Shanxi Province market regulatory authority uncovered a scheme involving Shanxi Mingjia Paper Industry Co. that produced counterfeit "Vinda" sanitary products, with a total value of over 3.12 million yuan in infringing goods [10][11]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions and Strategies - The regulatory authorities are employing advanced methods, including cross-regional collaboration and the use of technology, to effectively combat trademark infringement and protect intellectual property rights [9][13]. - The article emphasizes the importance of cooperation between regulatory bodies, trademark owners, and online platforms to enhance the efficiency of enforcement actions against counterfeit products [5][12]. - The case involving malicious trademark registration by He Mousheng highlights the challenges of combating trademark squatting, with 102 trademarks registered without intent to use, showcasing the need for stricter regulations [12][13].

Core Viewpoint - The "MIXUE" brand has successfully won a trademark infringement case against "MINIANXUE," resulting in a compensation of 800,000 yuan for economic losses and 140,000 yuan for reasonable expenses [2][8]. Group 1: Case Background - The case involves a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit filed by MIXUE against Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE, which registered the "MINIANXUE" trademark and allowed others to use it for selling beverages [3][5]. - MIXUE claims that the actions of Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE and its franchise stores constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, seeking to stop the infringement and eliminate its impact through public announcement [3][7]. Group 2: Court's Findings - The court determined that "MIXUE" and "MINIANXUE" are similar enough to cause confusion among the public, especially given the use of similar colors in store signage and decor [5][6]. - The court noted that the public could easily misinterpret the relationship between the two brands due to the high degree of similarity in the main identifying parts of the trademarks [6][7]. Group 3: Legal Proceedings and Outcomes - The first-instance court ruled in favor of MIXUE, ordering Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE to cease its infringing activities and pay compensation totaling 940,000 yuan [8]. - Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE appealed the decision, but the higher court upheld the original ruling, confirming the findings of trademark infringement and unfair competition [8][9]. Group 4: Previous Disputes - This is not the first legal dispute between MIXUE and Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE; in 2023, Inner Mongolia MINIANXUE had previously filed an administrative lawsuit regarding the invalidation of its trademark, which was ruled against by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court [9][10].