There are risks in riding on the popularity of Taobao. An old store used the Wandering Earth logo and was sued for 150,000 yuan

Now that the movie "The Wandering Earth 2" is a big hit, it has long been targeted by various businesses. Recently, a Taobao online store selling cake and baking supplies was sued by China Film Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "China Film Corporation") for infringement of registered trademark rights and unfair competition due to the use of the "The Wandering Earth" logo, and was asked to pay 150,000 yuan.

On January 28, the reporter learned from the plaintiff's attorney that the Yangpu District Court of Shanghai ruled at first instance that the defendant company's objection to the jurisdiction of this case was upheld and the case has been transferred to the Shanghai Pudong New District Court for handling.

It also stated that the Shanghai Pudong New District Court has filed the case and will hear it on a later date. The Taobao store involved in the case is a 9-year-old store with 260,000 fans and was ranked in the top three of the "Festival Surprise Atmosphere Store Fans List". At present, the disputed products in the case have been removed from the shelves.

According to the first-instance ruling published on the Judgment Documents Network, China Film Corporation believes that "The Wandering Earth" is a film organized and produced by it. As early as before the film was released in 2018, it had applied for trademark registration for the "The Wandering Earth" logo in multiple categories, covering most major categories of goods and services.

On October 14, 2019, it obtained the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 35101102A (hereinafter referred to as the "trademark in question"), and the approved use categories were 25 categories including Class 28 "Toys; toy dolls; toy figurines..."

China Film Corporation said that the authentic movie-related derivative products with the above trademarks received a warm response after being launched on the market. They are sold on major e-commerce platforms such as Tmall, Taobao, and JD.com, and have achieved good operating results.

However, it was discovered in October 2020 that a Taobao online store selling cake and baking supplies was selling a "birthday card insert" product. It directly used the "Wandering Earth" logo, which is similar to the plaintiff's trademark, in the title link and product category name of the product and set it as a search keyword. The product was also sold in its Tmall store, using a similar logo.

China Film Corporation stated that the behavior of the company to which the above-mentioned online store belongs misleads people to believe that the products it operates are genuine peripheral derivative products authorized by it or have a specific connection with "The Wandering Earth", and plays a role in attracting traffic during the search for products, which constitutes trademark use.

The defendant company used a similar trademark on the same goods without its permission, infringing its exclusive right to the trademark in question.

China Film Corporation also stated that the above-mentioned products were produced and sold by the defendant. The defendant Ming’s alleged infringing products had nothing to do with "The Wandering Earth" and had not been authorized by it, but he still used the "The Wandering Earth" logo and made money without doing anything by "riding on the popularity" and "free riding", causing confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the goods involved. He had subjective malice, violated the principles of honesty and trustworthiness and business ethics, and also constituted unfair competition.

China Film Corporation then asked the court to order the defendant to immediately stop using the "The Wandering Earth" logo in product title links, immediately stop unfair competition, and compensate for its economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 150,000 yuan.

During the defense period, the defendant company raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the case, believing that the Yangpu Court had no jurisdiction over the case and requested that the case be transferred to the Shanghai Pudong New District Court for trial.

After review, the Yangpu Court held that the defendant company’s objection to the jurisdiction of this case was valid and the case was transferred to the Shanghai Pudong New Area Court for handling.