In 2000, three British animators—Neville Astley, Mark Baker, and Phil Davies—tired of the trend of complex plots and special effects in animations at the time, decided to create a work that would "truly relax children." They based the character on a pink pig toy on Mark's daughter's bookshelf, designing Peppa with a round face, a snub nose, and a height of only seven heads tall.
This pink pig born in the British countryside conquered children in 180 countries worldwide through the "Peppa Pig" animation, but on China's intellectual property battlefield, it became embroiled in a "magical realism" tug-of-war—from stationery, children's clothing to snacks, its image has been printed on countless products, but 70% of them have never received official authorization. Recently, the "Peppa Pig" trademark infringement case has once again attracted attention: a Pinduoduo merchant was sued in court and asked for compensation for selling a desk lamp printed with the words "Peppa Pig." This case seems ordinary but hides the core controversy of trademark protection— How to define "cross-category infringement"? How to determine platform responsibility?

[Case]

The plaintiff, British entertainment company (Entertainment One UK Limited), is the trademark owner of "Peppa Pig," with the trademark registered in Class 9 (covering animations, game software, electronic publications, etc.) Since the global explosion of the "Peppa Pig" animation in 2003, authorized by the plaintiff, China's CCTV Children's Channel as well as major domestic video platforms such as iQIYI, Tencent, Youku, PPTV, Mango TV, and Douban have broadcast the animation, which is deeply loved by children, with cumulative views consistently ranking at the top of major video websites' popular charts. The plaintiff has authorized 17 domestic companies to produce related derivative products, with licensing covering dozens of fields including toys, clothing, and food. 。

The defendant Chen sold a "Creative Cartoon Peppa Pig LED Desk Lamp" on the Pinduoduo platform, directly using the words "Peppa Pig," and the product's shape is highly similar to the animation character. The plaintiff believes this easily misleads consumers into thinking the product is officially authorized, constituting trademark infringement, and thus sued the merchant and platform for 500,000 yuan in compensation.

The desk lamp belongs to Class 11 goods; does it constitute "similar goods" with the plaintiff's registered Class 9? Should the Pinduoduo platform bear joint liability?

Answer: The court believes that since the plaintiff's involved "Peppa Pig" trademark is registered in Class 9 for animations, electronic publications (downloadable), etc., and the lamp goods belong to Class 11, they are not the same or similar goods, nor related goods, therefore, the protection of the involved "Peppa Pig" registered trademark in this case is premised on the trademark being a well-known trademark. ， It is necessary to determine whether the trademark is well-known. According to Article 13 of the Trademark Law, well-known trademarks can receive cross-category protection; even if the product categories differ, if the use is sufficient to mislead the public and damage the rights holder's interests, it still constitutes infringement. Key evidence: the animation's cumulative views in China exceed 50 billion times, long occupying the top spot on the children's channel; derivative products cover 17 industries, with annual sales exceeding 1 billion yuan; "Peppa Pig" has been repeatedly recognized as a well-known trademark by administrative departments. The defendant Chen used the words "Creative Cartoon Peppa Pig LED Desk Lamp" in the product name on his online store page and on the packaging of the accused infringing product, and the first two acts copied the plaintiff's involved "Peppa Pig" trademark, and the latter imitated the plaintiff's involved "Peppa Pig" trademark, infringing the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the registered trademark "Peppa Pig." In this case,

the Pinduoduo operator Xun Company was not held liable, according to Article 42 of the E-commerce Law: if the platform fulfills the "notice and takedown" obligation and has no knowledge or should not have known of the infringement, it can be exempted from liability. Xun Company has taken measures to disable the involved product links, and there is no evidence proving it jointly committed the accused infringement with defendant Chen, and the platform removed the product after receiving the lawsuit. In summary, the court ruled that defendant Chen compensate the plaintiff 30,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. After the judgment, neither party appealed.

Legal provisions link

Article 13 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China

A trademark well known to the relevant public may request protection as a well-known trademark if its rights are infringed. A trademark applied for registration on the same or similar goods that copies, imitates, or translates a well-known trademark not registered in China, which is likely to cause confusion, shall not be registered and shall be prohibited from use; a trademark applied for registration on dissimilar or non-similar goods that copies, imitates, or translates a well-known trademark already registered in China, which misleads the public and damages the interests of the well-known trademark registrant, shall not be registered and shall be prohibited from use. Article 57

The following acts constitute infringement of the exclusive right to a registered trademark: (2) Using a trademark similar to the registered trademark on the same goods without the permission of the trademark registrant, or using the same or similar trademark on similar goods, which is likely to cause confusion; (7) Causing other damage to the exclusive right to a registered trademark of others. Article 64

Selling goods without knowing they infringe the exclusive right to a registered trademark, and proving that the goods were legally obtained and providing the supplier, shall not bear compensation liability. Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China

《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第六条 Operators shall not use identical or similar marks to those of others' product names, packaging, decoration, etc., that have certain influence, so as to mislead others into thinking they are someone else's products or have a specific connection with others without authorization.

Article 42 of the Electronic Commerce Law of the People's Republic of China Intellectual property rights holders who believe that operators on the platform infringe their intellectual property rights have the right to notify the platform to take necessary measures. If the platform fails to take necessary measures in a timely manner, it shall bear joint and several liability with the operator for the expanded damage.

Article 45 If the platform knows or should know that the operator is infringing and fails to take necessary measures, it shall bear joint and several liability with the operator.