Review of the case

Between August 2016 and November 2019, Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. was approved by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to obtain the registered trademarks of "Box Horse" and "Box Horse Fresh Life". " and other registered trademarks. Plaintiff Box Horse Company was established in June 2015, and operates a number of well-known "Box Horse Fresh Life" large-scale chain fresh food supermarkets, and is the legal owner of the registered trademarks of "Box Horse" and "Box Horse Fresh Life" and other registered trademarks. It is the legal owner of the registered trademarks of "盒马" and "盒马鲜生". With its high quality, the "Boxmart Fresh Life" stores have attracted a large number of loyal customers.

However, as the popularity of "Boxmart Fresh Life" increased, some stores also began to "associate with famous brands". Plaintiff Boxco found that a seafood store named "Boxco Fresh" in Taixing (hereinafter referred to as "Taixing Seafood Store") used "Boxco" and "Boxco Fresh" in the name of the store without authorization. Without authorization, it used the words "盒马" and "盒马生鲜" in the name of the store, and used "盒马" as a trademark in its business operation, publicity and other commercial activities, as well as the Plaintiff's distinctive "door header" and so on.

The Plaintiff, Box Horse Company, argued that

The term "Box Horse" is a made-up term with significant distinctiveness, and that Taixing Seafood Store had used the same and similar trademarks as "Box Horse" and "Box Horse Fresh Life" without authorization. The unauthorized use by Taixing Seafood Store of trademarks identical and similar to "BoxMa" and "BoxMa Fresh Sheng" was sufficient to make the public believe that there was a specific connection between it and BoxMa, which was an act of unfair competition and constituted trademark infringement, and Taixing Seafood Store was sued to the court.

Jingjiang Court held that

The registered trademarks of "盒马" and "盒马鲜生" were approved for registration in accordance with the law, and were within the validity period, and should be protected by the law. The Defendant prominently marked the words "Box Horse Seafood" on the front of its store and used the words "Box Horse Fresh" on the cashier interface, which had the effect of recognizing the source of the goods and belonged to the trademark use. These marks are identical to the registered mark "盒马" in terms of character composition and pronunciation, and are used in the services for which the said mark has been approved, which is likely to confuse the relevant public and constitutes similarity. Therefore, the Defendant's behavior constitutes a trademark infringement against Box Horse.

Meanwhile, the Court held that the word "Box Horse" used in the Defendant's store name was identical or partially identical to the trademark in question, which was likely to cause the general public to confuse the specific source of its services, and that according to the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, its behavior constituted an act of unfair competition.