A business war that has lasted for several years has recently reached a crucial conclusion.
After the "Kudong KUDONG" trademark was upheld by the Supreme People's Court, Xiaoyangren Group once again reported good news in another round of confrontation with Danone Company - the Supreme People's Court recently ruled in the second instance that all of Danone Company's "bottle" design patents (patent number: ZL201930691222.6) were "not significantly different" from the existing design combination, and the decision to invalidate the patent was upheld.
This also means that the multi-dimensional confrontation of "packaging trademark patent" surrounding a bottle of beverage is gradually reaching its end.
A bottle of beverage triggers the 'Third Front Battle'
The dispute began at the end of 2021.
Danone Company believes that the "Kudong" vitamin drink launched by Xiaoyangren is highly similar in packaging and decoration to its "Pulse" product, and is suspected of constituting unfair competition. Therefore, it has filed a lawsuit.
As a counterattack, on the one hand, Xiaoyangren Group counterclaimed Danone on the ground of infringing trade secrets, on the other hand, it filed a request to the China National Intellectual Property Administration in March 2024, claiming that all the "bottle" design patents of Danone were invalid.
A dispute originally limited to packaging similarity quickly escalated into a "three front legal battle" involving trademark rights, patent rights, and trade secrets.
Why does the "Kudong" trademark stand firm?
On the trademark battlefield, Danone claimed that "Cooldown" is similar to its "Pulse" series trademarks, which is likely to lead to consumer confusion, and has raised objections and lawsuits to the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the Beijing Higher People's Court and the Supreme People's Court.
However, after four rounds of attack and defense, the "Kudong" trademark still stands firm.
The court unanimously determined that "Kudong" and "Pulse" have significant differences in text composition, call, meaning, and overall appearance, and can be distinguished by the relevant public with general attention, and do not constitute similar trademarks.
❸ One bottle, one sticker, unable to spell out 'obvious differences'
The core dispute of this patent invalidation case lies in whether Danone's bottle design meets the "obvious distinction" required by patent law.
The Xiaoyangren Group submitted multiple pieces of evidence in the invalidation process, including a bottle design that predates the Danone patent and a label design patent.
The China National Intellectual Property Administration, Beijing Intellectual Property Court and the Supreme People's Court all adopt the same view:
The shape of the Danone patent bottle is "completely identical" to the product appearance evidence provided by Xiaoyangren Group;
Compared with the product appearance evidence provided by the Xiaoyangren Group, there are only "slight differences" in the label design. In the case where there is a large design space for both the bottle body and the label, such a combination is not sufficient to produce an overall visual effect that is significantly different from the existing design.
Even if the bottle body and label can be combined, if this combination does not bring significant changes, it cannot meet the conditions for patent authorization. "This determination in the judgment sets a clear judicial red line for patent applications similar to" design collage ".
The inspiration behind the competition among giants
Although this case is a commercial dispute between two companies, its judgment has important reference value for the intellectual property layout and rights protection strategy of the fast-moving consumer goods industry.
On the one hand, it once again clarifies that the determination of trademark similarity requires comprehensive consideration of sound, form, meaning, and overall visual effects, and that partial similarity does not constitute infringement.
On the other hand, important explanations have also been made on the authorization criteria for design patents - simple combinations of existing design elements that do not produce a distinct overall visual impression from existing designs are difficult to obtain patent protection.
Some intellectual property experts have commented that such "combination design" is quite common in industries such as beverages and packaging. This ruling will encourage companies to pay more attention to the originality and integrity of design in product development, and avoid falling into the trap of "collage style innovation".
From successfully guarding the "Kudong" trademark to breaking through Danone's design patent, Xiaoyangren Group has demonstrated the mature application of legal rules by local enterprises in this highly anticipated multi-dimensional intellectual property confrontation.
The consecutive judgments of the Supreme People's Court in two cases also clearly convey the balanced concept of "protecting innovation in accordance with the law and preventing abuse of rights" in China's judicial protection of intellectual property rights. In the fierce market competition, only true innovation and standardized operation can achieve stability and long-term success.