echemi logo
Product
  • Product
  • Supplier
  • Inquiry
    Home > Food News > Food Articles > Who should own "Double Eleven" on JD.com or Ali?

    Who should own "Double Eleven" on JD.com or Ali?

    • Last Update: 2022-09-05
    • Source: Internet
    • Author: User
    Search more information of high quality chemicals, good prices and reliable suppliers, visit www.echemi.com

    On the afternoon of November 10, an administrative dispute over the re-examination of trademark revocation on "Double Eleven" was held in Beijing Intellectual Property Court


    Beijing Jingdong Sanbailu Shidu E-Commerce Co.


    A reporter from Beijing Youth Daily noticed that Alibaba and JD.


    Today, the dispute continues, and the two e-commerce giants are once again heading to court


    dispute

    Whose "Double Eleven"?

    On November 1, 2011, Alibaba applied for the registration of the word mark "Double Eleven" on the 35th category of advertising and other services, and was approved for registration on December 28, 2012


    After that, JD.


    In October 2014, a "Notice Letter" issued by Alibaba for rights protection came into public view, causing a thousand waves


    The "Notice" stated that "a few e-commerce companies" used "Double Eleven" in media advertisements, which was suspected of trademark infringement, and their "use of the influence of the "Double Eleven" activities to enhance their own popularity is disregard for intellectual property rights, in order to To achieve the purpose of taking advantage of the situation and even disregard the facts


    Since then, the competition between Alibaba and JD.


    In 2018, JD.


      After review, the State Intellectual Property Office believes that the evidence submitted by Alibaba is sufficient to prove that it has used the "Double Eleven" trademark authentically and effectively, and decided to maintain it


      In May of this year, the State Intellectual Property Office reexamined that Alibaba's "Double Eleven" trademark was used authentically and effectively in the services of "advertising; displaying goods on communication media for retail purposes; selling for others".


      A reporter from Beiqing Daily noticed that in the same decision, both JD.


      JD.


      "Double Eleven" should not fall into the monopoly of private rights

      On the afternoon of November 10, two cases were heard in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.


      First, JD.


      In court, JD.
    com said that when Alibaba held shopping festivals, it was often used in combination with other trademarks, such as the words "Tmall Double Eleven"
    .
    The common usage in the society is to add the company name or trademark before the "Double Eleven" to distinguish the shopping promotion activities of different companies
    .
    It believes that the essence of this use is to use the "Tmall" trademark instead of the "Double Eleven" trademark
    .

      In addition, the registered trademark is "Double 11" in full text, but Alibaba mostly uses "Double 11", "11·11" and other expressions in its use, which should not be regarded as the use of the trademark involved.
    In 2015 Between 2018 and 2018, Alibaba did not use the trademark involved, so it should be revoked according to law
    .

      The State Intellectual Property Office stated that the review decision was made in response to the actual use of the trademark involved by JD.
    com, and did not involve disputes over the distinctiveness of the trademark
    .
    After review, the trademark involved was used within the specified period, so that the relevant public could know the time of the promotion through the above-mentioned use, which played the role of advertising and promotion
    .
    The decision of the accused is based on the law and should be upheld
    .

      Ali

      Huge sum of money has been invested in creating "Double Eleven"

      Then, Alibaba sued the State Intellectual Property Office, and JD.
    com appeared in court as a third party
    .

      Alibaba claims that it is the founder of the "Double Eleven" shopping festival
    .
    In 2009, Alibaba used "Double Eleven" for the first time in online promotion activities, and in 2011, it applied for trademark registration and was approved
    .
    During each year's promotional activities, Alibaba will apply the words "Double Eleven" to the products participating in the promotional activities in advertising, business promotion agreements, store decoration and other links, enabling consumers to distinguish service sources and identify promotional items
    .

      Regarding the "Double Eleven" trademark, Alibaba said that it has continued to invest a lot of human, material and intellectual investment, and the annual promotion and marketing expenses are huge, which makes the shopping festival so influential
    .
    As for the specific use form of a trademark, no matter whether it is text or numbers, there is no difference in its calling and meaning.
    The company will use different methods to design in different scenarios to reflect the beauty and enhance the publicity effect
    .

      Alibaba agreed to maintain the part of the registration of the trademark involved in the reexamination decision of the State Intellectual Property Office, and for the part that was revoked, Alibaba submitted a number of promotion agreements and evidence related to marketing activities to prove that it is also "supporting business management; business information".
    ” and other services for trademark use of the disputed trademark
    .

      In the court, the State Intellectual Property Office explained that the use of services such as "business management assistance; business information" refers to business information services provided to industrial and commercial enterprises, and the evidence submitted by Alibaba is for promotion to consumers.
    , and no consideration was obtained from it, which is inconsistent with the requirements of the trademark category, and the defendant decided to revoke the trademark registration of this part of the service should be maintained
    .

      Neither case was sent to court
    .
    (Reporter Zhu Jianyong intern Tian Yiming)

    This article is an English version of an article which is originally in the Chinese language on echemi.com and is provided for information purposes only. This website makes no representation or warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness ownership or reliability of the article or any translations thereof. If you have any concerns or complaints relating to the article, please send an email, providing a detailed description of the concern or complaint, to service@echemi.com. A staff member will contact you within 5 working days. Once verified, infringing content will be removed immediately.

    Contact Us

    The source of this page with content of products and services is from Internet, which doesn't represent ECHEMI's opinion. If you have any queries, please write to service@echemi.com. It will be replied within 5 days.

    Moreover, if you find any instances of plagiarism from the page, please send email to service@echemi.com with relevant evidence.