论文部分内容阅读
11月26日,北京市朝阳区法院就宅急送告必胜客不正当竞争一案做出一审判决,驳回宅急送的诉讼请求,宅急送承担上诉案件受理费100元。今年9月,宅急送将必胜客告上法庭,认为必胜客开设的“必胜宅急送”暗示消费者必胜客与宅急送有必然联系,有不正当竞争之嫌。对此,法院认为,“宅急送”只是作为快运及运输服务的名称,并非特有名称。另外,“必胜宅急送”本身属于注册商标,且商标核准时间和必胜客公司取得该商标使用许可
On November 26, the Court of Chaoyang District of Beijing delivered a verdict of first instance on the case of unfair competition by delivering house deliveries to Pizza Hut, dismissing the claims for the house delivery, and handling the appeal fee of 100 yuan for home delivery. In September this year, home delivery will Pizza Hut to court, that Pizza Hut opened the “Pizza Hut delivery” implies that consumers Pizza Hut and home delivery must have a link, there is suspected of unfair competition. In this regard, the court held that “home delivery” is only used as the name of the express and transport services, not a distinctive name. In addition, “Pizza Hut Zijin” itself is a registered trademark, and the trademark approval time and Pizza Hut company to obtain the trademark license