The court thought after hearing Baidu group company widely used and promoted, "xiaodu" as its intelligent speaker's trade name, belongs to the anti-unfair competition law article 6 of the first provision of a certain influence of the trade name; "xiaodu xiaodu" is an essential and frequent specific voice command when users use xiaodu smart speakers. This voice command has established a clear and stable connection with Baidu Online and its products, and has a high popularity and influence. It should be protected by Article 6 (4) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Combined with "xiaodu intelligent speaker" and "xiaodu xiaodu" fame and influence, The xiaodu intelligent speakers and du ya ya machine learning from the aspects of function, audience, sales channels and so on, its belong to the same products, Zile company to implement the behavior of the defendant, subjectively malicious, objectively and make the relevant public easily thought for du ya ya learning machine and its related services may be authorized by baidu group company or belong xiaodu intelligent speakers series or get Baidu group company supports on research and development, technical support, cooperation and specific contact, lead to confusion. The above behavior of the subsidiary company violates the provisions of Article 6, Item 1 and Article 4 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and constitutes unfair competition to Baidu Online Company. Jingwei company sales Du Yaya learning machine also lack of legal basis. Finally, the court made such a decision.
From this landmark case, we can see that the judicial system is rapidly implementing the national strategy of intellectual property protection and anti-unfair competition laid down by the CPC Central Committee.