“遇见小面”起诉“渝见小面”侵权，最新进展
双语君约 5 分钟A small noodle shop in Nanyang, Henan province, recently found itself at the center of a trademark dispute after receiving a court summons from the national chain "Yujian Xiaomian" (Meet Noodles). The lawsuit was filed against a local eatery using the Chinese name "渝见小面", which shares the same pronunciation as the chain's trademarked name "遇见小面" but uses a different first character, sparking heated debate online.
On Saturday, a representative of the chain told media that the company had taken note of public concern over the trademark enforcement action, which had been initiated by a third-party law firm. After reviewing the case, the company said it had requested the lawsuit be withdrawn and would re-examine its trademark enforcement procedures.
The brand also said it understood the challenges faced by small business owners, noting that it had itself grown from a single storefront and respected the efforts of entrepreneurs.
According to an earlier report by Henan Minsheng Channel, the owner of the Nanyang shop, surnamed Mao, said the law firm handling the case had offered to settle the dispute out of court for between 7,000 and 8,000 yuan (about $975–$1,115).
面对原告方面的说法，毛女士表示难以接受。她表示，自己和丈夫两年前在南阳开了这家重庆小面馆，夫妇二人都是重庆人，在店名中使用“渝”（重庆的简称）字，意在表达正宗重庆风味，完全没有攀附品牌的主观意图。毛女士表示：“我就是重庆人，字音、读音、字形都不一样，我没有刻意模仿你来赚钱。”
Mao said she and her husband, both from Chongqing, opened the noodle shop two years ago and chose the character "Yu", the commonly used abbreviation for Chongqing, to emphasize the restaurant's regional roots. She said they had no intention of imitating the well-known chain.
此外，毛女士认为，店铺的经营范围仅限于南阳本地，客户群体主要是周边两三公里的居民，不会对主营一线城市的“遇见小面”生意造成实际影响。
据了解，“遇见小面”是一个起源于广州的连锁餐饮品牌，截至2025年底已在全国开设数百家门店，并于2025年12月在香港交易所成功上市。
北京德和衡律师事务所副总裁、高级权益合伙人陈燕红告诉中青报·中青网记者，本案大概率不构成商标侵权。
依据《商标法》《商标侵权判断标准》相关条文来看，商标读音近似、部分文字重合，不直接成立商标侵权，商标近似判定，需结合音、形、义、整体标识、消费场景综合判定。司法裁判核心参考标准为消费者品牌来源混淆可能性，同时一般要求商户具备主观仿冒恶意，两项条件通常缺一不可，仅凭单纯文字、读音近似，大概率无法定性商标侵权。
Chen Yanhong, a senior partner at Beijing DHH Law Firm, told China Youth Daily that the case may not constitute trademark infringement. Under China's Trademark Law and related standards, phonetic similarity or overlapping characters alone do not automatically amount to infringement. A proper assessment requires consideration of pronunciation, appearance, meaning, overall branding and business context.
Courts generally look for evidence that consumers were likely to be confused and that there was intent to imitate an existing brand. Without clear evidence of both, similarity in pronunciation or characters alone is unlikely to be sufficient to establish trademark infringement.
本起事件中需要关注到：第一，“渝”为重庆市法定行政区划简称，属于商标法项下公共通用地理词汇，经营者善意使用地域简称标注菜品产地、籍贯，属于法定正当使用行为。“遇见小面”品牌可以把“遇见”注册为私有商标，但无权独占“渝”这个地域用字、垄断“yu”这个读音。
第二，“渝见小面”店铺所在地南阳并无“遇见小面”线下门店，品牌未形成本地市场知名度，本地餐饮消费公众可能没有品牌认知基础，大概率不存在关联关系、品牌来源混淆的客观基础。
第三，“渝见小面”这家夫妻小店门头、装修、菜品全盘独立，可能并不存在模仿、蹭热度行为。店主本就是重庆人，取名可能只是标注家乡风味，主观无侵权故意。
律师指出，“遇见小面”作为港股上市的大型企业有商标维权权利，这无可厚非，但维权要有边界，维权打击的是刻意山寨、高仿蹭流量的门店，而非本分经营、用地域简称取名的小微商户。
来源：中国青年报 潇湘晨报 河南民生频道 中国新闻社 网友评论
跟着China Daily
精读英语新闻
“无痛”学英语，每天20分钟就够！
↓↓↓
推 荐 阅 读