Unauthorized Use Of "Forbidden City In Chinese" Caused Infringer RMB 330,000 In Compensation

BE
Beijing East IP Law Firm

Contributor

Beijing East IP Ltd. was founded in 2002 by Dr. GAO Lulin and a group of experienced Chinese and international attorneys to provide top quality intellectual property services in China.Together with Beijing East IP Law Firm, a registered law firm before the Justice Department of the People’s Republic of China in 2004, we offer a complete set of intellectual property services ranging from patent and trademark prosecution, litigation to other intellectual property rights protections and enforcements.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently concluded an unfair competition dispute between the Palace Museum, Sichuan Palace Wine Co., Ltd. (Sichuan Palace Wine)...
China Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently concluded an unfair competition dispute between the Palace Museum, Sichuan Palace Wine Co., Ltd. (Sichuan Palace Wine), Palace Museum Wine (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and sentenced the defendant to compensate RMB330,000 (USD4,657) for economic losses.

The court held that the Forbidden City used to be the imperial palace of the Ming and Qing dynasties, and later became the Palace Museum in Beijing. It is a national key cultural relic protection unit and a world cultural heritage. It has long been known to the public and enjoys a high reputation. When mentioning "Forbidden City in Chinese," people will first think of the Palace Museum, not other meanings. Beijing Forbidden City Company promoted wine products on its website and marks "Supervised by the Palace Museum" next to the displayed product pictures and displays a sign with "Supervised by the Palace Museum"; Beijing Forbidden City Company registered the "Forbidden City Liquor Brand Center" WeChat public account on February 21, 2017 to display the wine bottle and packaging pictures of the "Forbidden City Liquid" liquor, and the base showing the liquor bottle was marked with the words "produced by the Palace Museum in Beijing," etc. As of the hearing date of this case on June 9, 2022, the said Public Account still labeled the time as September 22, 201 and the content was marked with the words "supervised by the Palace Museum" on the base of the "Forbidden City Liquid" liquor displayed. The words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" contained the name of the original enterprise name, and "Forbidden City in Chinese" is a well-known and recognizable name in the enterprise name of the Palace Museum. Therefore, the above acts were enough to make the relevant public misunderstand the source of the goods. Even if the Beijing Forbidden City Company standardized and used its corporate name on its webpage, it was enough to cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the company has a close relationship with the Forbidden City, thereby damaging the competitive interests of the Forbidden City. The Beijing Forbidden City Company has violated the Palace Museum's rights and interests of the "Forbidden City in Chinese" name which constituted unfair competition. The words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" marked on the packaging box of the "Forbidden City Liquid" liquor bottle produced and sold by Sichuan Palace Museum Company contained the name of the Palace Museum. Therefore, the said behavior was enough to make the relevant public misunderstand the source of the goods, infringed on the rights and interests of the "Forbidden City in Chinese" name of the Palace Museum, and constituted unfair competition.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More