"Zhongyuan Petrochemical" copying the style of "China Petrochemical"? Such "riding on a famous brand" is legally unacceptable

Normalization of inspections cannot be weakened; the brand “visual imitation” must be included as a focus of daily regulation, punishing illegal infringement according to the law, increasing the costs of violations, and making speculators hesitant to engage.

Recently, a gas station named “Zhongyuan Petrochemical,” which closely resembles “Sinopec,” has attracted public attention. The appearance and decoration of the gas station, along with its red background and white lettering design, even the English logo, are highly similar to Sinopec. In response to the doubts, the involved party defended itself by stating that it completed its business registration in 2010 and holds a legitimate business license. The local market regulatory bureau has opened an investigation into this matter, and the gas station has begun to rectify and dismantle its signage (according to CCTV News on March 25).

At first glance, it appears to be “Sinopec,” but upon closer inspection, it’s “Zhongyuan Petrochemical.” Such visual misleading cannot be justified by the involved party’s claim of being “legitimate.” A business license is not a shield for “brand imitation”; completing business registration does not mean one can imitate others’ registered trademarks or replicate brand decorations.

In fact, “Zhongyuan Petrochemical” has passed business registration as a corporate name, but this does not mean there are no infringement risks. Trademark law clearly states that using a trademark similar to a registered trademark on similar goods without permission, which is likely to cause confusion, constitutes infringement of exclusive rights to the registered trademark. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law explicitly states that operators shall not engage in confusing behavior that misleads consumers into thinking it is someone else’s product or that there is a specific connection with others. “Zhongyuan Petrochemical” has completed business registration, but this only indicates that it has obtained the qualifications to operate; it does not mean it can freely use signage similar to someone else’s well-known brand in its operations. The signs, decorations, and English abbreviations it uses in practice fully mimic well-known brand identifiers, enough to confuse consumers. This “overall visual imitation” is not a legally protected legitimate use and may constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition.

It is worth pondering that the key issue lies not only in playing “close to the edge,” but also in why such obvious “close to the edge” behavior has persisted for so long. The physical gas station has existed for many years; such blatant misleading behavior should have been discovered and stopped by functional departments during routine inspections, yet it has not been effectively corrected for a long time, exposing weaknesses in regulation.

“Zhongyuan Petrochemical” is not an isolated case. Names like “Zhongwei Petroleum,” “Shenguok Petrochemical,” “Zhongdun Petrochemical”… these “twin brothers” names have also appeared in various places. Some imitating businesses, after tasting the benefits of “free-riding,” have made “visual deception and consumer confusion” a shortcut to operations, neglecting quality and supporting services. Over time, this will not only severely squeeze the living space of brand enterprises but also create a vicious cycle of “bad money driving out good,” disrupting the fair competition market order.

To address the chaos of “brand imitation,” one cannot always wait for public opinion to escalate before taking action. Normalization of inspections cannot be weakened; the focus must be on including “visual imitation” in daily regulation, punishing illegal infringement according to the law, increasing the costs of violations, and making speculators hesitant to engage.

Businesses should also realize that meticulously calculated “visual borrowing” is merely a shortsighted act that overdraws brand credibility. Instead of wracking their brains to “hitch a ride” on names, they should earnestly focus on “improving their quality.” After all, relying on “brand imitation” will not lead far; adhering to the bottom line of honest business is the fundamental path for long-term development.

Welcome to submit articles.

Submissions should focus on hot topics of the day, approach from a legal perspective, present clear viewpoints, logical clarity, and vivid expression. It is advisable to keep the word count within 1200 words.

Once published in this column, outstanding submissions will also be considered for publication in the “Procuratorial Daily.” Upon publication, a fee will be paid. Please indicate the title in the subject line of the email, and attach the author’s real name, occupation, ID number, phone number, and bank account information (including account name and branch name).

Submission email: pinglun109@jcrb.com

(Source: Procuratorial Daily · Legal News Edition Commentator: Fan Yuechi)