In the era of rapid development in the cultural and entertainment industry, MCN agencies have emerged as a new industry force. AB Entertainment, a standout player in this field, has gained significant recognition through its successfully registered "AB Media" trademark, accumulating both fan base and commercial resources. However, the company recently faced challenges—— as multiple enterprises with names strikingly similar to "AB Media" have entered the market, including Beijing AB Culture Media Co., Ltd. and Guangxi AB Culture Media Technology Co., Ltd. These entities, most operating in industries related to AB Entertainment, have heightened the risk of consumer confusion. This raises critical questions: Do these seemingly legitimate registered names constitute trademark infringement? Can AB Entertainment demand name changes from them? This article will analyze these issues through the lens of Trademark Law and Anti-Unfair Competition Law, referencing relevant judicial precedents, while offering practical strategies for businesses to mitigate such legal risks.
I. The logic of infringement identification of trademark and business name conflict
(1) The legal foundation of tort identification
A trademark and business name conflict occurs when a companys name (business name) is identical or similar to a registered trademark, potentially causing consumers to confuse the source of goods or services. Legally, the Trademark Law of the Peoples Republic of China, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the Peoples Republic of China, and the Regulations on Enterprise Name Registration collectively form the key legal basis for determining whether such conflicts constitute infringement.
Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the Peoples Republic of China explicitly states that using identical or similar marks to others registered trademarks without authorization, which could easily cause consumer confusion, constitutes trademark infringement. Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the Peoples Republic of China specifically prohibits business operators from engaging in confusing acts that might lead consumers to mistakenly believe there exists a specific connection with others. Meanwhile, Article 27 of the Regulations on Enterprise Name Registration emphasizes that enterprises should avoid conflicts with others prior legitimate rights (such as trademark rights) when registering their names. These legal provisions work together to provide solid legal support for accurately identifying infringements in trademark and business name conflicts.
(2) The core factors to be considered in tort identification
In the actual judicial practice, the court usually comprehensively considers several key aspects when dealing with trademark and business name conflict cases to determine whether it constitutes infringement.
First and foremost, trademark recognition stands as a pivotal factor. The higher the brands visibility, the greater its market distinctiveness and influence, which in turn grants broader legal protection. AB Entertainments "AB Media" trademark has established significant recognition within the cultural and entertainment sector. This established reputation provides a solid legal foundation for resolving potential trademark and business name conflicts.
Secondly, the similarity between business names and trademarks serves as a crucial basis for determining infringement. This similarity encompasses multiple aspects including wording, pronunciation, and meaning. For instance, "AB Culture Media" and "AB Media" share identical core components in their "AB" designation, which significantly increases the lihood of consumer confusion. Article 13 of the Supreme Peoples Courts Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the Peoples Republic of China further clarifies the legal standards for recognizing such similarity scenarios in infringement determinations.
Furthermore, the interconnectedness of industries cannot be overlooked. When a business name operates in the same or similar domain as a registered trademark, consumers are more ly to associate them, leading to confusion. The aforementioned companies all operate in the cultural and entertainment sector, with their names overlapping significantly with AB Entertainments business scope. This direct overlap substantially increases the lihood of infringement determinations.
Moreover, subjective intent is also a key factor courts consider when determining infringement. If evidence shows that the business name registrant knowingly registered a similar name despite being aware of another partys trademark, such conduct is ly deemed to demonstrate malicious intent. In practice, many companies use name changes as a tactic to achieve the purpose of brand squatting, the intent to harm becomes particularly evident.
Ultimately, the lihood of confusion serves as the core criterion for determining infringement. This standard requires assessing whether the relevant public might reasonably assume a business relationship between companies due to similarities in trade names and trademarks. By synthesizing multiple factors previously discussed, it establishes a comprehensive and integrated framework for judgment.
The identification of infringement in the use of trade names in the second and third categories in enterprise names
In commercial activities, the infringement problem caused by trademark and business name conflict has become increasingly prominent. This paper analyzes three common situations in depth:
1. Infringement through exact identity with trademarks or well-known product names: When a companys core name element completely matches another partys registered trademark or distinctive product designation, and both belong to the same or similar industry sectors, this constitutes substantial infringement risk. According to Article 57 of Chinas Trademark Law, using identical or similar identifiers on identical or similar goods without authorization from the trademark owner, which is ly to cause consumer confusion, constitutes trademark infringement. Even if a company name has only completed business registration and not yet been commercially used, it may still be deemed as trademark infringement if there exists potential for consumer confusion.
In addition, Article 6, Item 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the Peoples Republic of China clearly stipulates that it is prohibited to use another persons influential enterprise name (including abbreviation, trade name, etc.) without authorization, which is enough to cause people to mistakenly believe that there is a specific connection with others.
Case: Little Fatty Sheep trademark infringement case
"Xiaofeiyang" is the renowned trademark of Inner Mongolia Xiaofeiyang Catering Chain Co., Ltd., widely recognized in the hot pot industry. After a catering company established itself, it adopted the name "XX Xiaofeiyang Catering Co., Ltd." and continued operating hot pot businesses. Inner Mongolia Xiaofeiyang Catering Chain Co., Ltd. claimed that this companys actions constituted trademark infringement, as consumers would easily confuse it with their own brand upon seeing "XX Xiaofeiyang Catering Co., Ltd." and mistakenly assume they are affiliated entities. The court ruled that the "Xiaofeiyang" trademark enjoys high recognition. Since the company used identical core name in the same industry, it could mislead consumers. Ultimately, the court determined the company committed trademark infringement, ordering it to cease using the relevant corporate names and provide corresponding compensation.
For companies identified by AB Entertainment, if the core part of a company name exactly matches the "AB Media" trademark (e.g., "AB Culture & Media Co., Ltd."), there is a high lihood of legal infringement. This occurs because consumers encountering their products or services might confuse them with AB Entertainment, mistakenly assuming the two entities are affiliated.
2. Infringement cases involving partial similarity with trademarks or business names: When the core components of a company name are not entirely identical to a registered trademark or business name, but exhibit high similarity in wording, pronunciation, or meaning across industries, the determination of infringement requires comprehensive consideration of factors including trademark reputation, similarity degree, and industry relevance. According to Article 57(2) of the Trademark Law of the Peoples Republic of China, unauthorized use of similar identifiers on identical or related goods that could cause confusion constitutes infringement. Additionally, Article 1(1) of the Supreme Peoples Courts Judicial Interpretation on Trademark Civil Disputes stipulates that using text resembling a registered trademark as a business name, if sufficient to cause confusion, also constitutes trademark infringement.
Case: Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Zhongshan Xiaomi Electric Appliance Co., LTD
"Xiaomi" is the core trademark of Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd., enjoying extensive influence in the smart electronics industry. Zhongshan Xiaomi Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. used "Xiaomi" as its business name to manufacture and sell electrical appliances. The court ruled that the "Xiaomi" trademark enjoys high recognition, and the companys business name is highly similar to the trademark. Both entities operate in the electrical appliance sector, making it highly ly for consumers to confuse them and mistakenly associate the two with each other. Therefore, the court concluded that Zhongshan Xiaomi Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. committed trademark infringement.
When analyzing corporate names provided by AB Entertainment, if a company name (such as "AB Culture Media Technology Co., Ltd.") shares a highly similar core component with the "AB Media" trademark in the same industry sector, the lihood of infringement becomes relatively high after comprehensive evaluation. This is because consumers might confuse the service provider due to name similarity, potentially undermining AB Entertainments market share and brand reputation.
3. Incomplete consistency with trademarks or business names but actual use of similar identifiers in operations: When the core part of a company name differs from its registered trademark or business name, yet highly similar identifiers are used in commercial activities, this constitutes trademark infringement. According to Article 48 of Chinas Trademark Law, trademark usage includes advertising and product packaging. The deliberate use of identifiers may be deemed as trademark- usage. Furthermore, Article 6(1) and (4) of Chinas Anti-Unfair Competition Law prohibits confusion of product sources or corporate names through packaging or decoration methods.
Case: Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan Sports Co., LTD. ("Qiaodan Sports")
Jordan Sports was founded in 1984 and has occupied a place in the domestic sporting goods market by continuously investing and expanding in products such as sports shoes and sportswear.
In the operation of Qiaodan Sports, it not only uses "Qiaodan" as a business name, but also extensively uses elements related to Michael Jordan in products, packaging and publicity, such as "Qiaodan" Chinese characters, pinyin and graphics similar to Qiaodans image.
The court held that Qiaodan Sports behavior was ly to make consumers mistakenly believe that it had a specific connection with Michael Jordan, which constituted infringement.
This case mirrors the "Starbucks vs. Shanghai Starbucks" precedent, numerous commercial identifiers—including store signage, interior decor, and employee uniforms—demonstrate striking similarity to the trademark of U.S.-based Starbucks. Key similarities include distinctive font styles, color schemes, the predominant green color scheme, and the use of unique mermaid graphic elements. Similar to how Qiaodan Sports prominently features Michael Jordan-related elements in product design, packaging, and marketing campaigns, these practical applications highlight how actual usage significantly impacts infringement determinations.
For enterprises identified by AB Entertainment, if the core part of a company name does not fully match the "AB Media" trademark but prominently displays the "AB" designation in business operations—such as through store signage, advertising, or product packaging—the lihood of infringement is relatively high. This deliberate use could mislead consumers forming incorrect perceptions about the companys relationship with AB Entertainment, thereby harming its commercial interests. Conversely, companies "Hui AB Media Co., Ltd." that primarily operate conference services without using any AB Media-related identifiers are less ly to be found liable for infringement according to preliminary legal analysis.
III. Overall conclusions
Through comprehensive analysis of the three scenarios mentioned above, we can draw the following conclusive conclusion regarding the multiple infringing enterprises listed by AB Entertainment: Although their business names differ from "AB Media," their core components exhibit high similarity to the "AB Media" trademark. Given that they operate in largely identical industry sectors, there exists a potential for infringement. However, when deciding whether to pursue legal action, AB Entertainment must carefully consider factors such as the severity of actual infringement circumstances, local judicial precedents, and adjudication standards. If the infringement is minor or local courts have historically imposed lower compensation awards in similar cases, AB Entertainment should weigh the costs against potential benefits. Conversely, when severe infringement causes significant damage to market interests and local judicial systems demonstrate favorable protection of intellectual property rights, AB Entertainment should decisively take legal action to safeguard its legitimate rights.
IV. Suggestions for enterprises to avoid risks
(I) Suggestions for AB Entertainment
1. Proactive Legal Action: AB Entertainment should take proactive measures against potentially infringing business names. The initial step involves sending a formal legal notice to notify the party of potential infringement, demanding immediate cessation of use and name modification. If this approach proves ineffective, AB Entertainment may pursue administrative or civil litigation as appropriate, using legal means to compel the name change and protect its legitimate rights.
2. Strengthen Monitoring to Prevent Incidents Before They Happen: Establish and improve trademark monitoring mechanisms by conducting regular comprehensive inspections of trademark registrations and business name registrations. Utilize professional trademark monitoring tools and market research methods to promptly identify potential infringement activities. When new business names are registered that may infringe upon your trademark rights, take immediate action to nip such risks in the bud.
3. Expanding Protection Scope and Building a Defense System: To prevent others from free-riding, AB Entertainment could consider registering defensive trademarks in relevant categories and derivative fields. While strengthening domestic trademark strategies is essential, given todays globalized business environment, expanding international trademark protection has become equally crucial. The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks serves as a powerful tool in this regard.
The Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks, established under the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, enables trademark registration across member states of the . By submitting a single application in one language (French, English, or Spanish) and paying a set fee, applicants can designate multiple member states for registration. This streamlined process significantly simplifies international trademark registration procedures, saving both time and costs.
For AB Entertainment, registering a Madrid trademark grants protection across designated member states. This means competitors cannot use similar identifiers in relevant categories or derivative fields within these countries, significantly reducing infringement risks in international markets. By combining Madrid trademark registration with defensive trademark registrations in domestic categories and derivative fields, AB Entertainment has established a comprehensive multi-tiered protection system. This enables effective safeguarding of brand equity globally while creating robust legal barriers for its international business expansion.
(2) Suggestions to other enterprises
1. Conduct prior trademark searches to prevent infringement risks: Before registering a business name, companies should proactively and comprehensively check for identical or similar existing trademarks. This can be done through the official website of the Trademark Office under the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) or specialized trademark search s. By doing so, businesses can ensure their chosen names wont infringe on others trademark rights, effectively avoiding potential legal issues at the source.
2. Create Unique Brand Names to Minimize Rights Conflicts: Prioritize originality in brand naming by using creative and distinctive identifiers. Avoid names that resemble well-known trademarks or existing business names to minimize risks of conflicting with prior rights. A unique brand name not only reduces infringement risks but also helps establish a distinctive corporate identity in the market.
3. Proactive Response to Warning Notices and Mitigation of Legal Liability: When enterprises receive infringement alerts, they should prioritize verification and take immediate action. If confirmation is made that their business name may constitute infringement, prompt name changes must be implemented. This prevents delays from escalating the infringement and avoiding greater legal consequences.
4. Leverage professional expertise to ensure legal compliance: Before registering a business name, companies should consult legal professionals for a comprehensive legal risk assessment. With their specialized knowledge and extensive experience, attorneys can help analyze potential legal risks associated with proposed names and provide reasonable modification suggestions, ensuring the names legality and regulatory compliance.
V. CONCLUSION
Trademark and business name conflicts are common legal issues encountered by enterprises during operations, particularly in highly competitive industries cultural entertainment. A thorough analysis of the AB Entertainment trademark infringement case reveals that under current legal frameworks, well-known trademarks enjoy substantial protection, while business names bearing close resemblance to them pose significant infringement risks. Therefore, companies should enhance their legal awareness, prioritize intellectual property protection, and avoid legal disputes caused by naming issues. Meanwhile, as market conditions evolve and corporate innovation advances, trademark and business name conflicts have become increasingly complex. This necessitates legislative bodies to further refine relevant legal regulations, providing clearer guidance for businesses to promote fair competition and healthy market development.
