Summary of the Core Content
A small hotel named “Jinji Hotel” in Zhengding, Hebei (with just over 10 rooms and a daily rent of 60 yuan) was sued by Hanting Starry Sky, a subsidiary of the Huazhu Group, for trademark infringement and unfair competition due to the similarity of its name to the “Quanji Hotel” brand owned by the same group. The claim for compensation amounted to 100,000 yuan. The two parties eventually reached a settlement through mediation, with the compensation amount being less than half of the requested figure. The small hotel has changed its name and will now need to cancel its current license to register a longer one. This incident has sparked a debate about whether large companies should sue small businesses: some support brand protection, while others argue that it’s unfair for large corporations to use their power to intimidate smaller businesses.
The Incident in Detail: The Small Hotel Suddenly Receives a Lawsuit and Reaches a Settlement
Ms. Zhao, the owner of Jinji Hotel, said that in July this year, she suddenly received a court summons from Hanting Starry Sky, alleging that the name “Jinji” was similar to the “Quanji” trademark and thus infringed upon its rights. She was shocked, as the 100,000 yuan in compensation would represent more than a year’s worth of her income, and she almost considered closing the hotel. However, the other party took the initiative to mediate, and they reached a settlement without going to court.
Why the Lawsuit?
Huazhu Group, the parent company of Hanting Starry Sky, had applied for the “Jinji” trademark for accommodation services as early as 2017. Although the application was initially rejected, it was finally approved in July 2025. It’s important to note that Jinji Hotel opened in 2021, before the trademark was approved. According to lawyers, even if the names are similar, whether there is actual confusion is key to determining trademark infringement.
Compensation and Rectification
Ms. Zhao mentioned that the compensation amount was less than half of the requested 100,000 yuan, but she did not provide the exact figure. She has already changed the hotel’s name to “Xiang·Jingmei Hotel” and plans to cancel her current business license to register a longer name, as it’s becoming increasingly difficult to register two-character trademarks.
She also mentioned that the lawsuit cost her over 10,000 yuan in legal fees. She stated, “With elderly parents and a young child to support, dealing with a lawsuit was very exhausting,” and she had no way of checking trademark availability when registering the hotel.
Legal Key Points: Similar Names Don’t Necessarily Mean Infringement
Lawyers explained that there are two main criteria for trademark infringement:
1. The names must be used for the same type of service (both Jinji and Quanji are related to accommodation), which is met in this case;
2. The similarity must be likely to cause confusion among customers. If customers are unlikely to mistake the two brands, it may not constitute infringement.
For example, Hanting Starry Sky is a national chain with different decor, prices (much higher than Jinji’s), and customer demographics (Jinji mainly caters to long-term renters, such as migrant workers and college students). It’s unlikely that customers would confuse the small, 60-yuan Jinji Hotel with the larger Hanting Starry Sky. Therefore, while there is some uncertainty about whether Jinji truly infringed the trademark, the case was resolved through mediation.
Huazhu Group’s Record of Trademark Infringement Cases
According to Tianyancha, Hanting Starry Sky (as part of the Huazhu Group) has been involved in 159 trademark infringement cases. In addition to Quanji, this includes other Huazhu-owned brands such as Hanting and Juzi. For instance, in 2024, a “Jinji Hotel” in Jinshan, Shanghai, was ordered to pay 20,000 yuan in compensation.
This is not an isolated incident. In June of this year, “Yujian Xiaomian” sued “Yu Jian Xiaomian,” but the latter’s founder apologized, withdrew the lawsuit, and even donated the trademark to the former company. These cases also involved similar name discrepancies, but with different outcomes.
The Debate: Is It Legitimate Brand Protection or Intimidation?
Supporters of the lawsuit argue that counterfeit businesses can confuse consumers, potentially damaging the brand’s reputation through poor service or hygiene issues. They believe that brand protection is necessary to protect both the brand and consumers.
Critics argue that it’s unfair for large companies to directly sue small businesses without giving them a chance to rectify the situation. They point out that the 100,000 yuan in compensation is a significant blow to a small business and suggests that the large company may be overusing its legal rights.
Ms. Zhao’s statement reflects this debate: “I hope large companies would send a legal notice first, giving us a deadline to make corrections, rather than immediately filing a lawsuit. We small businesses are still struggling to make ends meet, while they are already listed on the stock market.”
Lawyers also remind that when well-known companies pursue trademark protection, they should consider public perception. Being seen as using their power to intimidate smaller businesses can lead to consumer backlash and harm their brand image.
Lessons from the Incident
For small businesses, it’s crucial to check trademark availability before opening (even if it means paying for a trademark agency) to avoid such issues. For large companies, while trademark protection is important, a more gentle approach (such as offering a chance to make corrections) can help protect their brand without causing backlash. After all, there is more to business relationships than just the law.