Peppa Pig brings home the bacon in court ruling
“Peppa Pig” has been identified as a "well-known trademark" by the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, and the trademark owner was awarded 30,000 yuan (US$4,600) compensation in a trademark infringement case, the court announced today.
The British cartoon series “Peppa Pig” was created by eOne, or the Entertainment One UK Limited, in 2003. It was introduced in China in 2015 and has been authorized to broadcast on many channels, including China Central Television's children’s channel, streaming platform iQiyi and Tencent Video.
Recently, eOne discovered that a desk lamp with Peppa Pig's name and the character's image was sold on the platform of Xunmeng, an information technology company, which created the e-commerce platform Pinduoduo in 2015.
The cartoon character's trademark owner sued Xunmeng and the seller surnamed Chen for infringing on the trademark and asked for 500,000 yuan in compensation.
The illegal Peppa Pig desk lamp
Chen claimed the amount of compensation the plaintiff sought was excessive, because only three of the products have been sold. Xunmeng officials said the company merely provided the platform and was not involved in the sales. Therefore, it should not be held liable.
The court said the key to the case is whether or not Peppa Pig is a "wall-known trademark."
Normally, if a trademark is registered in only one category, such as a cartoon or electronic publication, it can be used by others for unrelated goods such as lamps and lanterns. But if it is a well-known trademark, the court ruled it cannot be used without prior authorization.
The ruling said only courts can determine what is and is not a well-known trademark, which takes into account its stature, publicity and usage time.
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and Xunmeng but awarded eOne significantly less than it sought.
The court said all three parties have accepted the judgment.
In a 2018 report, Niall Trainor, eOne's senior director at the time, said the company had lost tens of millions of dollars in China due to trademark infringement. Within three months that year, the company sued more than 30 Chinese companies.
