[2] Compiled from: Red Star News, IP Beijing
 
Case review
[3] The brand DiDi Chuxing is household name. Xiaoju Company and DiDi Company are successive owners of the registered trademark "滴滴" (No. 14229622) for Class 39 services including "passenger transport; passenger carriage; traffic information; taxi transport."

 
[4] A company offering training in golf, boxing, and other activities not only extensively used the mark "滴滴打球管家" in its promotions but also renamed itself to Beijing DiDi Golf Butler Technology Development Co., Ltd. (DiDi Golf Company). Consequently, the owner of the "滴滴" trademark filed a lawsuit against DiDi Golf Company.
 
[5] Without authorization, the defendant DiDi Golf Company extensively used marks containing "滴滴" and "DiDi," such as "滴滴打球管家," on mobile apps, WeChat public accounts, websites, and company decorations, and provided services including venue booking, coach course booking and teaching appointments, cultural and sports training, and organizing sports events for activities like golf, boxing, and karting.
 
On March 31, 2016, the defendant changed its corporate name from "Beijing Haochen Yirong Information Consulting Services Co., Ltd." to "Beijing Didi Golf Butler Technology Development Co., Ltd."
 
The two plaintiff companies claimed that the defendant's actions involving Didi Golf Company infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the well-known trademark "Didi" under registration No. 14229622, and thus filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting the court to order the defendant to cease infringement, stop using the corporate name containing "Didi," and demand compensation of 3 million yuan.
 
 
Relevant legal provisions
Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 13
For a trademark well known to the relevant public, if the holder believes that its rights are being infringed, it may request protection as a well-known trademark in accordance with the provisions of this Law. Where a trademark applied for registration for identical or similar goods is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of another person's well-known trademark not registered in China and is likely to cause confusion, it shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited. Where a trademark applied for registration for dissimilar goods is a reproduction, imitation, or translation of another person's well-known trademark already registered in China, and is likely to mislead the public, thereby potentially harming the interests of the registrant of the well-known trademark, it shall not be registered and its use shall be prohibited.
 
Article 14
The determination of a well-known trademark shall be made based on the request of the party concerned, as a fact that needs to be ascertained in handling trademark cases. The following factors shall be considered in determining a well-known trademark: (1) the degree of knowledge of the trademark among the relevant public; (2) the duration of use of the trademark; (3) the duration, extent, and geographical scope of any publicity work for the trademark; (4) the record of protection of the trademark as a well-known trademark; (5) other factors contributing to the trademark's well-known status. During the examination of trademark registration and the handling of trademark violation cases by administrative departments for industry and commerce, if a party claims rights under Article 13 of this Law, the Trademark Office may determine the well-known status of the trademark based on the needs of examination or case handling. During the process of trademark dispute resolution, if a party claims rights under Article 13 of this Law, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board may determine the well-known status of the trademark based on the needs of case handling. During the trial of civil or administrative trademark cases, if a party claims rights under Article 13 of this Law, the people's court designated by the Supreme People's Court may determine the well-known status of the trademark based on the needs of case trial. Producers and operators shall not use the words "well-known trademark" on goods, packaging, or containers, or in advertising, exhibitions, or other commercial activities.

 
 

 
[1] Court Opinion
After comprehensively considering evidence such as the duration of publicity and use of the "Didi" trademark under registration No. 14229622, the geographical scope of its influence, the degree of knowledge among the relevant public, and records of recognition as a well-known trademark, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court determined that the trademark had reached a well-known status at the time of the alleged acts, constituting a registered well-known trademark. The defendant's prominent use of identifiers containing "Didi" or "DiDi" on its website, public accounts, employee business cards, etc., as a whole constituted a reproduction, imitation, or translation of the well-known "Didi" trademark, easily leading the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the above services were provided by the plaintiff, the owner of the "Didi" trademark, or that there was a specific relationship such as a licensing arrangement or affiliated enterprise, falling under the circumstance of "misleading the public, potentially harming the interests of the registrant of the well-known trademark," and infringing upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered "Didi" trademark.
 
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court also determined that the defendant, knowing the well-known status of the "Didi" trademark involved, changed its company name from "Beijing Haochen Yirong Information Consulting Services Co., Ltd." to "Beijing Didi Golf Butler Technology Development Co., Ltd." and used it commercially, showing clear subjective malice in leveraging the "Didi" brand's reputation, violating the principle of good faith and recognized commercial ethics, and constituting unfair competition.
 
Ultimately, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ordered the defendant to cease the trademark infringement, stop using the company name containing the word "Didi," and pay compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 700,000 yuan. Neither party appealed, and the judgment has taken effect.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
In my view, due to the fame and influence of well-known trademarks, they are highly likely to contain enormous commercial interests. Some unscrupulous companies, seeking to ride on the "tailwind" of the commercial value of well-known trademarks, use such trademarks as their corporate names. This behavior not only violates the principle of good faith, harms the market interests of the trademark owner, and disrupts normal market order, but may even constitute unfair competition.
 
It can be seen that the Trademark Law contains not only extensive administrative authorization and confirmation provisions but also infringement protection provisions, making it a law with both public and private law characteristics, reflecting both the protection of civil rights and the emphasis on maintaining social public order. The needs and functions of well-known trademarks in these two aspects undoubtedly exceed those of ordinary registered trademarks. Therefore, special protection and cautious recognition of well-known trademarks complement each other, ultimately aimed at better safeguarding the enormous economic value carried by well-known trademarks.