Does adding Maotai to coffee without authorization constitute infringement? Is Maotai too "floating"

Can you just add it if you want?

On September 4th, according to a report by China News Service, Maotai staff told reporters that coffee shops are adding Maotai to their free drinks for sale without using it as a selling point, which is actually an infringement.

Some netizens have expressed their dissatisfaction with this! "Selling coffee and adding milk is also an infringement without authorization?"

"I still use oil to open a restaurant. Do I need to ask Lu Hua for authorization?"

Is Maotai taking its well-known product too seriously and being too superficial, or is there really a possibility of infringement in other coffee shops? Are those who want to "grab" the popularity of big brands suspected of infringement?

China News Agency (CNA) conducted direct interviews with experts, senior court judges, and lawyers to interpret whether adding "fine wine and coffee" is something that can be added if desired?

Jiamaotai is not infringing, it depends on what you say!

On September 4, the co branded coffee "Soy Sauce Latte" launched by Kweichow Moutai and Ruixing Coffee officially went on sale, becoming a focus of attention.

Moutai staff told reporters that this is the first joint cooperation between Moutai and coffee brands. But in reality, Maotai coffee has already appeared in the market.

Taking a coffee shop in Guiyang as an example, a concentrated coffee Martini drink with Maotai added is one of its signature products. This product is approximately 120ml, with 15ml of 43 degree Feitian Maotai added, and is priced at 198 yuan. In addition, you can also choose to add 53 degree Feitian Maotai, which is priced at 388 yuan.

"After purchasing Maotai liquor, whether for personal consumption or as a raw material added to the product for sale, there is no problem according to the provisions related to property rights in the Civil Code." Zhang Ming, a partner and lawyer at Beijing Jingshi Law Firm, stated in an interview with China News Agency's Guoshi Direct Bus that the purchased product has already obtained the property rights of the product. As for how to use it, the property owner has the right to autonomy, and others have no right to interfere. Generally, it does not constitute infringement. But if a well-known trademark like Maotai is used without authorization, there is a possibility of infringement.

Zhang Ming stated that the addition itself does not constitute infringement, and even if Maotai is added and sold externally, it cannot be arbitrarily classified as infringement. Of course, mandatory food safety management regulations cannot be violated when adding. But if well-known brands are used as clear labels or for external promotion, it is suspected of infringement. For example, the addition of "Baijiu" and "Maotai flavor Baijiu" to the label is not a problem in principle, and the addition of "Feitian Moutai" to the label is suspected of infringement.

Xie Hongfei, Director of the Civil Law Research Office and Doctoral Supervisor at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, stated in an interview with China News Agency's Guoshi Express that adding Maotai liquor to coffee and other beverages makes it difficult for businesses to avoid promoting it during sales due to cost considerations. But if there is really no external promotion, consumers are not aware of the addition of Maotai, and even Maotai manufacturers are not aware, this also does not involve infringement in principle. Usually, adding Maotai is to use its reputation for external promotion, which is suspected of infringement.

How to calculate "I didn't say"?

"Don't others know that Maotai has been added to coffee without saying it?"

Some netizens have expressed that if I were the owner of a coffee shop and had never publicly mentioned adding Maotai liquor to my coffee, but the employee took a selfie of the above operation and posted it on social media, everyone would come to taste the coffee directly added with Maotai liquor, which is not infringing, right?

Some even say that when wine and other condiments are placed together without deliberate arrangement, customers see me adding Maotai liquor and go to social media to say, "It's nothing to do with me, right?"?

From the perspective of results, it is a way of thinking whether the above actions may constitute infringement.

Xie Hongfei believes that whether there is factual misleading to consumers is an important criterion for determining whether it constitutes infringement.

At the same time, analyzing the specific circumstances of the behavior can also help everyone find a clear boundary between whether infringement has occurred.

Zhang Ming stated that for example, there is evidence to prove that coffee shop owners have clearly imposed relevant constraints and regulations on employees, and are not allowed to disclose the addition of Maotai in coffee to the public without authorization, and regulations have been made to punish such behavior. At this time, the employees still secretly filmed a video of adding Maotai to the coffee and posted it on the internet, but the coffee shop owner promptly stopped and demanded its deletion. And the employees continued to do so, and the boss punished them severely according to regulations.

The coffee shop owner has no subjective intention, and adding Maotai is not a problem. It has exhausted all possible measures to prevent such behavior and minimize its impact, so even if consumers come to consume after knowing that this coffee shop has added Maotai, it should not constitute infringement in principle.

But if the customer sees it themselves and secretly takes a video of the coffee shop adding Maotai and posts it on social media, is this considered infringement?

Zhang Ming stated that if merchants discover this issue, they actively seek out consumers who have posted the information and request them to delete it. At the same time, after discovering that someone had captured videos of raw materials including Maotai, adjustments were made in a timely manner to prevent such incidents from occurring.

Or Maotai may issue a reminder to the shop owner to make timely changes to prevent customers from continuing to "discover" that the shop owner has added Maotai to their coffee. In principle, all measures have been taken to avoid misleading or adverse effects. If there is no subjective fault, it should not be classified as infringement.

A judge who has been engaged in civil trial work in grassroots courts for many years said in an interview with China News Agency's Guoshi Zhitong that the court's judgments are more based on reality. Once it is discovered that the operator has intentional infringement and there are also consequences of infringement, it is highly likely that the infringing party will be judged to bear corresponding responsibilities based on the facts. For example, there is evidence pointing to customers or employees who posted videos adding Maotai being instructed or encouraged by coffee shop management personnel.

Don't be "clever" in front of the law!

From this perspective, one should not be "quick witted" in the face of the law, otherwise they will have to bear the consequences and lose more than they deserve. What are the laws related to this type of "riding on big names" and "gaining popularity"?

Whether it is possible to add "fine wine and coffee" depends on whether it can be added under the authorization of the brand, and how it can be added without infringement. Various situations are relatively clear. So, what are the laws that constrain behaviors like this?

Li Rui, a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Civil, Commercial, and Economic Law of China University of Political Science and Law, stated in an interview with China News Service that Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that operators shall not engage in the following confusing behaviors, leading people to mistakenly believe that they are the products of others or have specific connections with others:

Unauthorized use of identical or similar identification of product names, packaging, decorations, etc. that have a certain impact on others;

Unauthorized use of enterprise names, social organization names, and names that others have a certain influence on;

Unauthorized use of domain name entities, website names, web pages, etc. that others have a certain influence on;

Other confusing behaviors that can lead people to mistakenly believe that they are products of others or have specific connections with others.

Li Rui stated that if customers or employees are intentionally arranged to shoot videos or engage in the act of associating their products with other legally protected brands or well-known products, and this association is conveyed to the audience, it may constitute "other confusing behaviors that are enough to mislead people into thinking they are other people's products or have specific connections with others," and the risk of being recognized as infringement is very high.

The "wine and coffee" that has been "brushed" several times on the Internet is a successful marketing planning case. Learning this cross-border thinking mode and implementing it according to law is the key to business success. If one uses their mind to simply follow the trend and imitate, or even profit by playing the edge of the law, they often end up with disastrous losses.