The independent music scene and the digital scene are at war. Recently, ABY_Official, the official Weibo account of the Orange Sea band management company, issued a statement stating that Huawei, despite knowing the ownership of its rights and interests (it had approached the company for cooperation but terminated it), still used "Orange Sea" as the core concept of color matching in the promotion of the Pura90 series, and used slogans such as "Let's go see the Orange Sea together", which is suspected of infringing on its name rights.
After the incident became public, most netizens and bloggers in the digital circle believed that the band was trying to gain popularity or create hype; many bloggers in the music circle also stood up and voiced their grievances for Orange Sea.
So, is "Orange Sea" trying to protect its rights reasonably, or is it really just as hypocritical as netizens say? When niche cultural symbols collide with giant commercial communication, how to balance legal principles, public opinion and industrial reality?
trademark bullying,
Or over-protecting your rights?
The statement released by Orange Sea Band's management company ABY_Official said roughly three things.
First of all, it is clarified that "Orange Sea" is the exclusive name of the band since it was founded in 2012 and has been used for many years. It is not a general term. After long-term development, it has formed a high market awareness and brand value, and it belongs to the band's unique cultural identity and intellectual property rights.
Secondly, the key details were pointed out. The two parties had previously negotiated cooperation. Later, Huawei Terminal unilaterally terminated the cooperation. Without any authorization from the band, it used "Orange Sea" as the color name and core promotional concept of the Pura 90 series mobile phones for large-scale commercial promotion across the country. This behavior constituted name rights infringement and unfair competition, and infringed upon the band's brand rights and commercial interests.
Finally, we made a clear request to Huawei, hoping that it would immediately stop all relevant commercial promotions, publicly apologize and complete the legal authorization process, and at the same time negotiate compensation for infringement losses. It also stated that if Huawei does not receive a formal response within seven working days after the statement is released, it will protect the band's legitimate rights and interests through judicial channels.
As of now, Huawei has not made any response to the controversy, but public opinion is clearly one-sided - most netizens favor Huawei and believe that Orange Sea Band's move is a ploy, hype, and to take advantage of Huawei's popularity. This, coupled with the slightly tough reply attitude of the band's official account, also makes this rights protection dispute more topical.
In the independent music circle, many practitioners generally express their understanding and support for Orange Sea. In their view, the band's protection of its name is a legitimate defense of the circle of IP and creative identity accumulated over the years.
Putting aside emotions and public opinion, from a legal perspective, my country's Trademark Law implements the principle of "registration + classification protection". Orange Sea Band only registered the "Orange Sea" trademark in categories such as education, entertainment, and furniture, and did not register it in Class 9 (electronic products) to which the mobile phones used by Huawei belong. Trademark law protects the exclusive right to register a trademark. If it is not registered in the corresponding category, Huawei cannot claim infringement according to the trademark law.
At present, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law should be the core proposition of the band, but it needs to meet two necessary thresholds. According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and relevant judicial interpretations, the band can claim that Huawei's unauthorized use of its "logo of certain influence" constitutes confusing behavior, and at the same time, it is satisfied that "Orange Sea" has a certain degree of popularity among the digital mobile phone community, and Huawei's use is enough to make the public mistakenly believe that it is related to the band.
The constitution of this confusing behavior can be referred to the previous MR.MISS rights protection case. In 2023, Shenzhen Hayin Technology Co., Ltd. sold a headset called "TIPSYMR.MISS" and was sued by MR.MISS under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In the end, the court determined that Hayin's behavior constituted unfair competition, and determined that Hayin should compensate Liu Lian and Du Kai for economic losses of 80,000 yuan.
A key point here is that the defendant repeatedly used "MR.MISS" on the headphone model packaging, labels, instructions, and thank you cards. This usage is very close to using it as a product identification, which is enough to make consumers mistakenly believe that there is a joint name, authorization, or other commercial connection between this headset and the band. This is what the court finally determined: MR.MISS as a stage name has already had a certain influence, and this use has caused confusion or misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the product.
In contrast, the core difference between the "Orange Sea" and Huawei's disputes lies in the usage scenarios. Huawei's current public usage scenarios are more like talking about color matching, imagery and slogans, rather than necessarily using "Orange Sea" as a logo to identify the source of mobile phones.
Assuming that Huawei launches not a mobile phone color scheme, but a music product, such as a smart speaker, music app, and headphones, and names it after "Orange Sea", then the legal evaluation may undergo fundamental changes. After all, in the field of music and related products, Orange Sea Band has established a relatively stable reputation in the circle after more than ten years of continuous creation, album release, national tours and media reports. The possibility of generating an association that "this product is related to the band" may be significantly increased.
Li Zhenwu, a lawyer at Shanghai Li Zhen Law Firm, mentioned in an interview that if the band currently wants to ban Huawei from using it in the mobile phone field, the most feasible legal path is to prove that "Orange Sea" has become a "well-known trademark." But this requires providing evidence of long-term, widespread use, being well-known to the relevant public, and enjoying a high reputation. With the band's current popularity, reaching a level of fame would be a huge challenge.
Overall, the Orange Sea Band's rights protection claims have a certain legal basis in theory, but are more difficult to implement in practice. Even if Huawei can prove its subjective knowledge through previous cooperation and contacts, it will still face the challenge of proving unfair competition. Therefore, it is not clear whether the rights protection can ultimately succeed.
Battle for the Band Name
In fact, this is not the first time Orange Sea has sued the brand over the band name.
Last year, Kankanyue (Shanghai) Culture Media Co., Ltd., the agency of Orange Sea Band, sued Shenggen Catering Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., which is related to Yidiandian Milk Tea, for unfair competition. The case has been heard in the Shanghai Putuo District People's Court.
Public information shows that when the new orange series products were launched little by little, they used "one bite of the trio is like being in a sea of oranges" for promotion. It is precisely because of the successive rights protection disputes against the brand that many people feel that the band is too pretentious and has various conflicts.
However, doubts from the outside world often ignore the survival difficulties and rights demands of independent musicians themselves.
From the perspective of an independent musician, the band's name will continue to appear on performance ticket pages, music platform entries, social media topics, and word of mouth from music fans. It will also be deposited in search results, recommendation algorithms, and circle recognition. In a sense, a name is an independent musician's most durable brand asset.
Strictly speaking, although "Orange Sea" is not an exclusive expression that refers only to the band in all contexts, at least in the context of independent music and related audiences, when it comes to "Orange Sea", many people's first association is indeed with this band. But the problem is that the stability of word meaning is also highly dependent on usage scenarios, communication frequency and distribution scale. Legal ownership is often still slowly being clarified; but communication ownership often changes faster.
For example, after the Orange Sea Band spoke out to defend their rights, multiple brands and local cultural tourism accounts such as Xizhilang, Youlemei, Lulian, and Wangwang Auto also began to intensively use the word "Orange Sea" on social media, linking it to scenes such as coffee, snacks, city sunsets, and seaside landscapes that are easier to consume and copy.
Once big brands continue to launch with higher frequency, larger budgets and stronger channel capabilities, the clear direction that the same word originally formed within the circle is likely to be quickly diluted. It may not immediately lose its association with the band, but in wider mass communication, the public's default association with it may indeed be gradually rewritten.
This is the most powerless point for independent musicians when facing big companies.
Legally speaking, both sides can continue to argue, but in the attention market, the difference in size often determines who has the ability to cover search results, rewrite platform associations, and reset public memory. This is also a point that completely defines this matter as an "infringement", which can easily lead to a biased discussion.
Looking at the global music industry, this kind of name conflict is actually nothing new. What really determines the outcome is usually not just who is more reasonable, but who can bear the costs better, choose a more clever strategy, and happens to be on more favorable rules.
For example, in 2023, the British brand incubation and licensing company easyGroup filed a lawsuit against the British band Easy Life, accusing the band of trademark infringement. Although the band argued that it was founded in 2015, earlier than easyGroup submitted an application for the "easyLife" trademark in 2020, it gave in because it could not bear the long and expensive litigation process. In the end, the band was forced to change its name to Hard Life.
Later, Luke McDonagh, an intellectual property law expert at the London School of Economics and Political Science, pointed out that this situation is called "trademark bullying", in which large companies use their resource advantages to force smaller companies that do not have enough resources to fight back to surrender.
There is another category that is more in line with the actual situation of domestic independent musicians. For example, the trademark applications of Jiulian Zhenren and Shaman Band were considered to involve religious terms and were rejected. The New Pants Band trademark was also rushed to register. Neon Sweetheart and Island Mood were both registered by Nantong Yuanyan Textile Technology Co., Ltd. Even though these names have already formed a clear identity among the music fan community, they lack stability at the institutional level due to issues such as obstruction of trademark registration, occupation by others, conflict of similar logos, etc.
Of course, there are also cases where both parties are happy and resolve the issue by taking a step back and working together. Such situations are often inseparable from mutual respect for each other's rights and values. For example, the trademark dispute between the American independent band The Postal Service and the United States Postal Service (USPS, United States Postal Service).
In 2003, the band received an early cease-and-desist letter from the USPS because its name was the same as the USPS name. After negotiation between the two parties, the band was not forced to give up its original name. Instead, it reached a licensing agreement. The band continued to use the name "The Postal Service" while performing for USPS events and participating in promotions; USPS sold the band's albums on its official website and even used the band's music for official promotion.
The collaboration also spawned some interesting follow-ups. For example, in 2020, the band's lead singer Ben Gibbard dedicated the band's classic song "Such Great Heights" during an online live broadcast to the USPS, which was facing operational challenges at the time, adding a warm sequel to this story that spanned nearly 20 years.
This also shows that legal confrontation is not necessarily the only way out. When there is room for dialogue between rights claims and commercial value, finding a solution acceptable to both parties through negotiation can not only avoid lengthy litigation costs, but also create new business cooperation opportunities. In practice, it is often more constructive than one party staying the course.
In other words, the battle to defend the name of independent musicians is not just to gain popularity and crazy rights protection as the public speculates. The awareness of safeguarding long-term accumulated cultural assets is a necessary lesson in the current commercialization process of independent bands. The name carries the band's identity, works and audience memory. Once it is used casually by the commercial communication system, its value and direction may be diluted.
Conclusion
Returning to the dispute between Orange Sea Band and Huawei, although the original intention of the band to protect their rights is understandable, compared to directly issuing a statement and overly tough confrontation, there are actually more flexible and convenient ways to deal with it, such as choosing a gentler and more constructive public relations path to leave room for value negotiation between the two parties.
For big brands, before using names or concepts that may involve the intellectual property rights of others, communicating in advance, obtaining authorization or clarifying the boundaries of use, doing adequate risk avoidance, and avoiding legal disputes as much as possible will also help maintain the brand image and reflect respect for the original ecology and the work of the creators.
The protection of the band name is not only a legal issue, but also a manifestation of industry consensus. It requires that the labor and identity of the creator be valued, and that business practices must be followed.