Civil judgment of Chancheng District People's Court, Foshan City, Guangdong Province

    Chancheng District People's Court, Foshan City, Guangdong Province

    Written judgment of civil affairs

    (2016) No. 5367, Early Republic of China, Yue 0604

    Plaintiff: Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., Address: No. 366, Guanghua 3rd Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province. Unified social credit code ××97C.

    Legal representative: Yao Liangsong.

    Attorney: Zhai Mingyue, lawyer of Shandong Changping Law Firm.

    Agent AD litem: Wang Ning, lawyer of Shandong Changping Law Firm.

    Defendant: Minmeng Electric Appliance Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan City; Domicile: Area 1, Floor 2, No. 14, Changbao East Road, Ronggui Huaguo Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province. Unified social credit code ×××36U.

    Legal representative: Zhang Deqiang.

    Defendant: Zhang Deqiang, male, Han Nationality, born on May 2, 1991, living in Rongchang County, Chongqing.

    The joint agent AD litem of the above two defendants is Ma Yuwen, a lawyer of Guangdong Guanghong Law Firm.

    The jointly appointed agent AD litem of the two defendants is Wu Jinying, a lawyer of Guangdong Guanghong Law Firm.

    Defendant: Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., address: 6-313, 3rd Floor, 22 Liitang Road, Shangjia, Ronggui Street Office, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province. Unified social credit code ×××294.

    Legal representative: Li Jian.

    Agent AD litem: Liang Zhengping, lawyer of Guangdong Bodao Jujia Law Firm.

    Agent AD litem: Lian Yan, lawyer of Guangdong Bodao Jujia Law Firm.

    Plaintiff opie household group co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, v. the defendant m receive electric appliance co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as m company covered), zhang deqiang, guangdong opie technology co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European technology companies) the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, in our hospital in 2016 to begin on June 2, in accordance with the applicable ordinary procedure, and shall be conducted by a Chen Yanfeng as the presiding judge, and people's assessors 何咏君, rui-fen li form a collegial panel. The defendants Mimon Corporation and Opie Technologies Corporation challenged the jurisdiction during the filing of the pleadings. Upon examination, the Court ruled to dismiss the objection of the defendants to the jurisdiction of the case. The defendant, Opai Technology, appealed to The Foshan Intermediate People's Court. On March 2, 2017, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan made a civil ruling [(2017) Yue06 Final 62], rejecting the appeal and upholding the original ruling. The case was heard in public on May 22, 2017. Wang Ning, the agent AD litem of the plaintiff, Wu Jinying, the agent AD litem of the defendant mimeng Company and Zhang Deqiang, and Liang Zhengping, the agent AD litem of the defendant, all attended the trial. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff files a lawsuit to the court: 1. Mimeng company immediately stops using the word "Guangdong Opai" when selling lampblack machines on its online store; 2. 2. The defendant Mimon Company and Opie Technology Company immediately stopped the production and sale of range hoods marked with the words "Guangdong Opie Electric Appliance Co., LTD"; Iii. The defendant Mimon Company and Opie Technology Company shall compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses of safeguarding their rights of RMB 1,000,000 yuan; 4. The defendant Zhang Deqiang shall bear joint liability for the compensation obligations of the defendant Mimeng Company; 5. The three defendants shall bear the costs of the case. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff makes it clear that the unfair competition behavior carried out by the three defendants is an infringement of the right of enterprise name.

    Facts and reasons: the plaintiff class 11 "" and" OPPEIN "registered trademark, the plaintiff since its inception, after decades of operation, has been" casting "has become household names, as is known to all of the country's household, electrical appliances, sanitary ware brand, the brand has won the" Chinese famous brand ", "China well-known trademark", such as reputation, in the public mind, "" not only has become the plaintiff products and on behalf of the symbol of the enterprise name, also become the instructions of the plaintiff and the plaintiff associated enterprises significant recognition of market main body and the sources of identity.

    In March 2016, the plaintiff found that the defendant Mimon Company used the words "Guangdong Opie" in its Online store on Alibaba, and sold a large number of range hoods marked with the words "Guangdong Opie Technology Co., LTD". The above products were marked with the names of the defendant Mimon Company and Opi Technology Company. To the above infringement, the plaintiff applied for notary office to preserve evidence. After further investigation, the plaintiff found that the alipay account tied to the online store of the defendant Mimeng company was owned by the defendant Zhang Deqiang, who was the legal representative of the defendant Mimeng Company.

    To sum up, the plaintiff that the defendant m company, European technology companies to clings to the plaintiff's enjoyment of the "" brand reputation, deliberately in the online store, products, enterprise name the illegal use of" European "words, the behavior is not only the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff, and violate the principles of honesty and credit and recognized business ethics, to the plaintiff constitutes unfair competition, and caused great economic losses to the plaintiff, shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility. Therefore, the plaintiff, in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law), the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-Unfair Competition Law) and other relevant provisions, appealed to the court for a judgment as requested.

    In the lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that the defendant Mimeng Company infringed the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of the registered trademark by using the word "Guangdong Opie" on the website page; The defendant Mimon Company and Opie Technology Company used the words "Guangdong Opie Technology Co., Ltd." on the package of the alleged infringing products, which is an unfair competition act that infringes the plaintiff's right of enterprise name.

    The plaintiff filed a claim is to prove the notarial deed "(2016), FengCheng card people word no. 347, no. 350, no. 348, no. 346, no. 352, no. 353, no. 357, no. 354, no. 355, no. 356, no. 440)," about that, "European" trademark for well-known trademark "(2009) 7 】 【 trademark chi words, notarial fees invoice and other supporting evidence.

    The defendant Mimeng Company and Zhang Deqiang jointly argue that: 1. The use of the terms "Guangdong Opai" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" by the defendant Mimeng Company is legal, and there is no violation of the rights and interests of the respondent. With the consent of Opie Technologies, the defendant Mimon Company was authorized to use its registered trademark No. 12124262 and its business name. "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." is the registered name of opai Technology Co., LTD. Therefore, the words "Guangdong Opai" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" on the website of the defendant Mimeng Company did not violate the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has no evidence to prove that the defendant Mimon company infringes its trademark right. In this case, the defendant Memon company only USES "Guangdong Opai" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" in its website, which is a legitimate use of the enterprise name and name of Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., and has never used the trademark of "Opai" of the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant Zhang Deqiang is only the legal representative of Mimeng Company. Zhang Deqiang has never committed any infringement on the trademark rights of the plaintiff. This case has nothing to do with Zhang Deqiang. Iii. (2016) Notarial Certificate Of Laifeng City Certificate No. 440 seriously violates legal procedures and cannot be used as the basis for ascertaining the facts of the case. Iv. The defendant Mimon Company only used the words "Opai" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" in March 2016, so the use time was short and did not cause any damage or loss to the plaintiff, and the amount of compensation claimed by the plaintiff was obviously too high. To sum up, for this reason, we earnestly request the court to reject all the plaintiff's claims according to law on the basis of finding out the facts.

    To prove the OPAICN claim, the defendants Mimo And Zhang Deqiang submitted a power of attorney and a copy of the trademark registration Certificate (No. 12124262 "OPAICN" trademark) as evidence.

    The defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. argues that there is no basis for the plaintiff to claim that "the three defendants intentionally illegally used the word 'Opi' on the online store and products in order to maintain the reputation of the 'Opi' brand enjoyed by the plaintiff, which infringes upon the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of the registered trademark". 1. Defendant OPie Technologies has not illegally used the registered trademarks or words of Plaintiff. First of all, the defendant Opie Technology company itself has never produced or sold any products. The online store involved in the case was set up by the defendant Mimon Company. There is no evidence to prove that the online store involved in the case has anything to do with the defendant Opie Technology Company. Therefore, all the behaviors on the online store involved in the case have nothing to do with the defendant Opie Technology Company; Secondly, the products involved are not manufactured by the defendant Opie Technology Co., LTD. The business premises of the defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. is a commercial office building with no conditions for the production of home appliances. The use of the word "Opie" on the products is a unilateral act of the actual producer and has nothing to do with the defendant Opie Technology Co., LTD. Third, the outer package, fuselage, product instructions, publicity materials, website promotion information and other materials of the products involved, whether or not infringing the rights and interests of the plaintiff, were not authorized by the defendant Opie Technology Company, for which the defendant opie Technology Company shall not bear legal liability. Finally, the products involved in the use of technology to the defendant opie company enterprise name is not "illegal", the company name is approved by the ministry of commerce and industry of the legitimate use, and the defendant opie technology company didn't authorize other defendants "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." enterprise size, the plaintiff's charges not based on facts. 2. The trademark used on the products involved is the registered trademark "OPAICN" No. 12124262, which was legally acquired by an outsider on July 21, 2014. It does not constitute any trademark infringement against the plaintiff. (1) The products involved are not manufactured by the defendant Opie Technology Company, but are counterfeit products. In this case, the products involved are counterfeit products of the defendant Opie Technology Co., LTD., and the infringement behaviors notarized by the plaintiff have nothing to do with the defendant Opie Technology Co., LTD. (II) The plaintiff and the defendant opie Technology Co., Ltd. belong to two different industries. There is no competitive relationship between the two enterprises, which has not caused any damage, let alone constituted unfair competition. The plaintiff is engaged in the furniture industry of category 20 of the trademark classification, and the products he produces and sells are cabinets and closets, while defendant 3 is engaged in the technology industry. The products involved are electrical products of category 11. The industries and products of both parties are different, and there is no peer competition, so there is no competitive relationship at all. The plaintiff accused the defendant European technology companies suspected of constituting unfair competition, an enterprise name which demand a ban on using the enterprise name, but through anti-unfair competition law to ban the use of enterprise name, must request the plaintiff's trademark or name in forbidden enterprise name used by industries and products have very high visibility and form the only correspondence. However, all the production, sales, publicity and promotion of the plaintiff are limited to the cabinet and wardrobe products of category 20. The plaintiff has no production, sales and promotion of the electrical products involved, and has not formed any popularity. The plaintiff is not qualified to require the defendant to prohibit the use of "European" font in the electrical industry. 4. The brand awareness of the plaintiff has not reached the unique height corresponding to the word "Opie" in the market, and the plaintiff has no right to prohibit the defendant Opie Technology Company from using its legally acquired enterprise names and shop names in different industries on the grounds of unfair competition. 3. Defendant Opie Technology Did not authorize other defendants to use the enterprise name of Opie Technology. Although the company name of guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. was marked on the products and online stores involved by the other defendants without the consent of opai Technology Co., LTD., there was no violation of laws or regulations in the way they used the company name and did not constitute any trademark infringement or unfair competition to the plaintiff. To sum up, since the defendant Opie Technology Company has no infringement in this case, the defendant opie Technology Company shall not bear any liability for infringement. The plaintiff's claim is unreasonable and groundless, so please reject it.

    To support the defense claim, the defendant OPpa Technology co., LTD., provided evidence such as a printout of the trademark registration Certificate (Trademark No. 12124262 "OPAICN").

    On the basis of admissible evidence and the parties' statements, the Court ascertained and confirmed the following facts:

    (I) Opie Group, founded on July 1, 1994, is a joint-stock company engaged in furniture manufacturing.

    On June 7, 2007, guangzhou opie ambry enterprise co., LTD., by the state administration for industry and commerce trademark office (hereinafter referred to as the trademark bureau) for approval the registration no. 4378572, "" a registered trademark shall use the goods of class 11 gas burner, microwave oven, kitchen utensils), electric cooker, baking equipment, cooking utensils, faucets, bathroom equipment, disinfect cupboard, water filter, basin of wash one's hands and sanitary equipment (components), steam bath, sitz bath tub and shower equipment, in the rain compartment, wash tub, sit implement, kitchen smoke lampblack machine machine, lamp (as), Registration is valid from June 7, 2007 to June 6, 2017. Then the name of the registrant of the trademark is changed to Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD.

    On December 21, 1997, guangzhou kang jie kitchen equipment co., LTD., approved by the trademark office registered no. 1137521 "" trademark, shall use commodities for 11 class kitchen stove, gas stove, electric cooker, cooker, refrigeration equipment, drying equipment, hot and cold drinking water filter, electric water bottles, refrigeration container, since December 21, 1997, valid until December 20, 2007. Then the trademark was approved by the Industrial and Commercial Bureau and extended to December 20, 2017, and the name of the trademark registrant was changed to Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD.

    In September 2007, Opai cabinet products were rated as China's famous brand by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. In October 2008, Opai cabinet products were rated as guangdong famous brand products by Guangdong Quality Supervision Bureau. In February 2008, the plaintiff's Trademark No. 1128213 "" was used as a famous trademark of Guangdong Province on the sideboard. On April 24, 2009, the trademark "" of the plaintiff on the category 20 sideboard goods was identified as well-known trademark by the Trademark Office.

    (II) On March 17, 2016, wang Shouzhen, the entrusted agent of the plaintiff, applied to Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province for evidence preservation. On March 28, 2016, under the supervision of the notary staff, Wang Shouzhen operated the computer of the notary office and purchased the gas stove and range hood sold by the online store of Foshan Shunde Minmeng Electric Appliance Co., LTD on the "Alibaba" website. Wang Shouzhen took screenshots of relevant pages during the operation and recorded the whole process. On April 8, 2016, under the supervision of a notary, Wang Shouzhen picked up one piece of goods each with intact outer package and the words "luxury range hood", "luxury range hood" and "household gas stove" at the business department of "An 'an Logistics" in the southeast Corner alley of Huaguanqiao, Laicheng District, Laiwu city, Shandong Province. After the above actions, the notarial personnel, under the supervision of shou-zhen wang to bring the goods to notarization, shou-zhen wang will be the above items are open, with a "household gas cooker" packing of the goods there are marked "opie OPAICN guangdong science and technology" of kitchen burning gas a, instructions, security quality warranty card a piece of toilet paper. Marked with the word "luxury oil absorption" packing of the goods there are marked "opie OPAICN guangdong science and technology" of oil absorption a, a, anti-counterfeit quality warranty card a specification, and marked as "luxury oil absorption" packing of the goods there are marked with "opie OPAICN guangdong science and technology co., LTD." on the oil absorption of the quality warranty card, a specification, anti-counterfeiting. Then the notary staff sealed the above articles with the notary office seal, and the sealed articles were kept by Wang Shouzhen. On April 8, 2016, the notary supervised the process of Wang Shouzhen browsing the transaction page and confirming the receipt of the gas stove and range hood sold by the online store of Foshan Shunde District Meimeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. on the "Alibaba" website with the computer connected to the Internet by the notary office. Wang Shouzhen took screenshots of relevant pages during the operation and recorded the whole process. Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province supervised the above purchase and receiving process and issued a notarial certificate [(2016) Fengcheng Notary No. 440).

    In trial, plaintiff opened the product that afore-mentioned notarization bought in court, plaintiff charges the tort product of this case is two lampblack machine. By comparison, the plaintiff think, first of all, the defendant meters of companies operating in the "alibaba" online (meters, shunde district, foshan city, Mongolia electric appliance co., LTD.), the extensive use of the word "guangdong", lampblack machine, kitchen burning gas, and other products sales, embodies the notarial deed the word no. 440 (2016) lai FengCheng card people 】 after screenshots page 22. Secondly, the packaging of the "luxury range hood" products is marked on all sides with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. Supervisor", the words "Guangdong Opai Technology co., LTD." on the product panel, the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." on the product manual, warranty card and inquiry card, and the energy efficiency label. On the outer package of another "luxury range hood" product, the words "Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD" are marked on all sides, and the words "Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD" are marked on the product manual, warranty card and anti-counterfeiting certificate. The words "Guangdong Opai" used by the defendant on the website and products are similar to the trademark "Opai" of the Plaintiff, No. 4378572. The font of "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd." used by the defendant on the products is the same as the enterprise name of the plaintiff, "Opai".

    M company, defendant zhang deqiang thinks, from the accused of infringement product, you can see that on the packaging, manuals and other physical products displayed on the European technology companies in guangdong, is the European science and technology company's name, and the m company does not highlight the plaintiff in a product of the "European" trademark, as a result, the "European" word on the goods belongs to the legitimate use. By using the word "Europa" on the website of the defendant Mimon Company, it is only using the corporate name of the defendant Europa Technology Company, which is not identical or similar to the trademark of the plaintiff. The defendant Mimeng Company did not use the word "Guangdong European faction" as a trademark, so there is no infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark.

    Defendant European technology companies believe that though two accused of infringement product in the packaging and product manual annotation "guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", but the defendant opie technology company did not authorize anyone to use its enterprise name, also there is no evidence that the defendant opie technology companies exist with anyone product producer and authorized the use of enterprise name, the defendant opie technology company's right of name is used, is accused of infringement product logo on the meters covered electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, and its business address and contact phone number, the information to prove the defendant is not three producers. The online store involved in the case was not set up by the defendant Opie Technology Co., LTD., nor was Opie Technology Co., Ltd. authorized by the defendant Memon Co., LTD. The promotional information of the online store was not authorized by the defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. and has nothing to do with Defendant 3.

    It is also found out that the outer packing boxes of the lampblack machine are printed with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. (supervision)" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD."; The sealing tape of the packing case is marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. OPAICN". On the outer packing, it is also marked "Manufacturer: Foshan Shunde Minmeng Electric Appliance Co., LTD., Address: No. 14, Changbao East Road, Rongguihuaguo Industrial Zone, Shunde, Foshan City, Tel: 0757-22903963". The two products were printed with the words "OPAICN Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" on their airbodies, instructions and insurance CARDS.

    (3) The defendant Opie Technology Company was registered and established on April 30, 2014, and its business place is No. 313 6-3, Building 3, No. 22, Licitang Road, Shangjia, Ronggui Street, Shunde District, Foshan City. The shareholders are Hongpai Electric Co., LTD., Lian Hanping. Our business scope covers the research and development of biotechnology products, household appliances, hardware products, electrical accessories, water purification equipment, air water heater, sanitary ware, daily necessities, household products, electrical materials and electronic products.

    The defendant Mimeng Company was registered and established on December 11, 2013, and its business place is Area I, Floor 2, No. 14, Changbao East Road, Rongguihuaguo Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City. The shareholders are Zhang Deqiang and Wu Zhongyang. Scope of business for the production, sales: kitchen appliances, household appliances, electrical electronic parts, accessories, sanitary ware, water heaters, kitchen.

    Another, find out the defendant opie technology co., LTD. To the defendant on April 18, 2016 meters accredit a power of attorney issued by the company, content is: "we have the guangdong opie technology co., LTD., authorize m receive electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, using 12124262 trademark processing production range hood, cooker, water heater, disinfection cabinet products and printing packaging, production and sales. The licensee shall lawfully use the licensed trademark in accordance with relevant Chinese laws and ensure that there is no illegal phenomenon during the use. The Licensee shall ensure that the product quality of the licensed trademark complies with the quality standards stipulated by relevant laws and regulations. All claims and liabilities, torts and legal liabilities of the authorized person arising from the production and business operation activities shall be borne by the authorized person and have nothing to do with the authorized party. Licensee shall only produce licensed Trademark products at the site agreed by Licensor in writing, and licensee shall not sublicense others to use such products in any way. The printing plant where the Licensee USES the packaging marks of the licensed trademark shall report to the Licensor for filing. This license expires on April 18, 2016, solstice on October 18, 2017."

    It was also ascertained that the OPAICN Trademark No. 12124262 was registered as Red Brand Electric Appliance Co., LTD., and was approved to be used in category 11: Lamps; Electric cooker. Fan (air conditioning); Disinfect cupboards; Electric heater; Solar water heaters; Water dispenser. Kitchen range hoods; Hair dryer. The water heater. The refrigerator; Bath bully; Personal electric fan; Exhaust fan; Fabric steam hanging ironing machine; Gas furnace; Mixed faucets for water pipes; Flush water tank; Non-medical electric blankets; Bed warmer (off). The registration period is July 21, 2014 solstice July 20, 2024.

    The court holds that this case is a case of infringement of the right to exclusive use of trademarks and unfair competition disputes. Combined with the plaintiff's allegations, the court makes the following comments on the disputes between the two parties:

    Whether the defendants Mimeng Company and Zhang Deqiang have violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the plaintiff's case No. 4378572 and No. 1137521. The plaintiff accuses the defendant Mimon Company of using the word "Guangdong European faction" on the website page, which constitutes trademark infringement; The defendant Mimon Company has no objection that the online store on "Alibaba" was set up by the defendant, but believes that the defendant's use of the word "Guangdong Eurogroup" on the website is not a trademark use and does not constitute infringement.

    Article 48 of the Trademark Law; "The use of trademarks as mentioned in this Law means the use of trademarks on commodities, packages or containers of commodities and trade documents, or the use of trademarks in advertising, publicity, exhibitions and other commercial activities to identify the sources of commodities." At the same time, according to the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases interpretation (1) the provisions of the first article, will be the same or similar registered trademark with others words as enterprise size in use highlights on the same or similar goods, the relevant public could produce misidentification, belong to the provisions of the trademark law of the behavior of the other damage to the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of others.

    According to already found out fact, plaintiff no. 4378572, no. 1137521 registered trademark in the 11th kind of goods is check and approve use scope to include gas stove, disinfect cupboard, kitchen to use lampblack machine, bathroom installation, bath to use equipment to wait, and this case is charged tort product is lampblack machine, both belong to congener commodity. The defendant meters of company in the online sales page shows kitchen burning gas, oil absorption, etc. Product pictures at the bottom of the text notes using the word "guangdong", "guangdong" is the geographical position, the core of the phrase is "Europe", and advocate for the rights of the plaintiff no. 4378572, no. 1137521 "registered trademark" compared to the pronunciation and meaning are the same, while the former is simplified Chinese which is traditional Chinese characters, but for the use of Chinese characters, no substantial difference, the relevant public to general attention easily confused between the two. Therefore, the court finds that the defendant Mimeng Company USES the word "Opai", which is similar to the trademark of the plaintiff no. 4378572 and no. 1137521, as the name of the enterprise, to prominent use on the same kind of goods, which has constituted the infringement on the exclusive right of the registered trademark of the plaintiff no. 4378572 and no. 1137521.

    About the question of whether the defendant zhang deqiang to the plaintiff constitute trademark infringement, according to find out the facts, the defendant zhang deqiang was accused of rice was the legal representative of the company, although the plaintiff claims online use pay treasure to account for the defendant zhang deqiang involved individuals to open accounts, but did not submit relevant evidence to prove it, and only by the opening of the pay treasure account status is not enough to prove that zhang deqiang implemented infringement is based on his personal name, claims against the plaintiff's the reason we will not be supported.

    Ii. Whether the defendant Mimon Company has unfair competition behavior.

    First of all, the business scope of the plaintiff opie group for furniture manufacturing, in September 2007, European brand of ambry of products by the state administration of quality supervision, inspection and quarantine rated as China famous brand product, in October 2008, European brand of ambry of products by the guangdong province quality supervision bureau rated as brand-name products in guangdong province, in February 2008, the plaintiff's 1128213th "European" trademark in the sideboard, is x x x x for famous trademarks of guangdong province, on April 24, 2009, the plaintiff on the sideboard commodity 20 "European" trademark by the trademark office identified as well-known trademarks, so we decided that After years of product sales and advertising, the plaintiff produced and sold cabinet products in the relevant public has a higher visibility. Although the plaintiff was once identified as a well-known trademark, it was not the trademark involved in this case, but because the name of the plaintiff was also "Europa", the good goodwill carried by the trademark of "Europa" was inseparable with the enterprise, and it was unquestionable that the logo of "Europa" had established a specific connection with the plaintiff. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Certain Issues concerning the Application of Law in The Trial of Civil Cases of Unfair Competition, the shop names of enterprises that have certain market popularity and are known to the relevant public may be identified as "enterprise names" as provided for in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Law against Unfair Competition. Therefore, the name of the "European faction" of the plaintiff can be identified as the "enterprise name" stipulated in article 5 (3) of the Anti-Unfair competition Law.

    Second, the defendants meters shop for sales of company m of company's production of kitchen burning gas oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, oil absorption generally used in the kitchen, and the kitchen appliances to form a whole machine is usually embedded ambry, reason of cabinet products of the above products with the plaintiff to have certain relevance, the defendant m companies compete with the plaintiff. Highlights on the defendant m pages of company in the online store using the wording "guangdong" behavior, the defendant meters by company is accused of infringement product packaging, specification used in the word "guangdong opie technology co., LTD.", have significant others lift deliberately, enough to make the relevant public to mistake the source of goods, infringement of the rights and interests of the plaintiff "European" font size, and constitutes unfair competition.

    Whether the defendant Opie Technology Company and the defendant Mimon Company constitute joint infringement.

    The European technology companies are defenses that its has nothing to do with online stores and is accused of infringing products involved, but according to the company. The defendant meters, according to the power of attorney to submit its exists and the defendant m company trademark licensing, but its license no. 12124262 of companies use red card "OPAICN" trademark registrant is its shareholders electric appliance co., LTD., and it isn't the trademark licensing behavior to the defendant m company collection corresponding to the price, so the European technology companies for m company's trademark licensing behavior, Under the guise of trademark licensing, Mimon is suspected of improperly using its business name on the website and on the products accused of infringement. The court does not support the defense claim of the defendant Opie Technologies. Article 8 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if two or more persons jointly commit a tort and cause damage to another person, they shall bear joint liability. In this case, the two defendants have the joint intention to carry out trademark infringement and unfair competition, constitute a joint infringement, should bear joint liability for compensation.

    Iv. Civil liability of the defendant Mimon Company and Opie Technology Company.

    According to Article 118 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, a citizen or legal person whose right to exclusive use of a registered trademark has been infringed upon shall have the right to demand that the infringement be stopped and that the loss be compensated for. The plaintiff sued the defendant Mimeng Company to stop using the word "Guangdong Opi" on the website page; The defendant Mimon Company and Opie Technology Company stopped the production and sale of range hoods marked "Guangdong Opie Technology Co., LTD"; The Court supports it.

    On the issue of the determination of the amount of compensation in this case. According to the provisions of The first and third paragraphs of Article 63 of the Trademark Law, "The amount of compensation for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the right holder due to the infringement; Where the actual loss is difficult to determine, it may be determined in accordance with the profits the infringer has gained from the infringement; Where it is difficult to determine the losses of the right holder or the profits of the infringer, a reasonable multiple of the licensing fee for the trademark shall be determined by reference to the said trademark. If it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement, the interests gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, or the licensing fee of the registered trademark, the people's court shall, in light of the circumstances of the infringing act, make a judgment to compensate the obligee not more than THREE million yuan ". At the same time, article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that if a business operator violates the provisions of this Law and causes damage to the injured business operator, it shall be liable for damages. The Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in article 17 of the regulation:" determined in article 5 of the anti-unfair competition law, article 9, article 14 of the regulation of damage compensation of ACTS of unfair competition, can consult to determine the use of a registered trademark infringement damage compensation method ". The actual loss the plaintiff to the case and the defendant of the illegal income derived therefrom are not sure, we consider the reputation of the plaintiff's popularity, integrated the defendant m company, European science and technology of the subjective intent, infringement plot, business scale, is accused of infringement product sales, and other factors, has decided the defendant meters covered company compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 200000 yuan, the compensation has been including reasonable expense for the rights to the case. The defendant Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. shall bear joint liability for the compensation liability borne by the defendant Foshan Shunde Mimeng Electric Appliance Co., LTD

    In conclusion, according to the provisions of article one hundred and eighteen of the "general principles of the civil law of the People's Republic of China" and "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China" in article 8, paragraph 1 of article 3 of the "trademark law of the People's Republic of China", article 57, paragraph 1 of article sixty-three, paragraph 3, "Chinese anti-unfair competition law" in article 2, (3) of article 5 of the first paragraph, the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases interpretation (1) the first article, the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in article 6, article 17, In the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

    I. Defendant Foshan Shunde Mimeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped using the word "Guangdong Opai" on the page of its "Alibaba" online store as of the effective date of this judgment;

    2. The defendant, Foshan Shunde Mimeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. shall immediately stop the production and sale of the range hoods marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd." as of the effective date of this judgment;

    Three, m receive electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, the defendant within 10 days from the date of this decision, compensate the plaintiff European household group co., LTD., economic loss of 200000 yuan (the plaintiff is included in the European furniture group co., LTD. To stop this case any reasonable expense incurred by the torts, including the notarial fees, legal fees, investigation expenses, etc., but not limited to);

    4. Defendant Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. shall bear joint liability for the compensation liability borne by defendant Foshan Shunde Mimeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. in the third judgment;

    V. Rejecting other claims of the plaintiff opai Furniture Group Co., LTD.

    If the defendant, Foshan Shunde Mimmeng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. fail to perform their pecunial obligations within the period specified in this judgment, they shall, in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, pay double interest on the debt for the delayed period.

    The receiving fee of this case is 13,800 yuan, 2,760 yuan borne by the defendant, Foshan Shunde Mimeng Electric Appliance Co., LTD. The defendant, Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., is jointly and jointly liable for the receiving fee paid by the defendant, Foshan Shunde Mimeng Electric Appliance Co., LTD. The plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishgroup Co., LTD., bears 11,040 yuan.

    If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may, within 15 days from the date of serving the judgment, file an appeal to this court, and make copies according to the number of the other party, and appeal to foshan Intermediate People's Court, Guangdong Province.

    Chen Yanfeng, Chief judge

    People's Juror Ho Wing Chun

    People's Juror Li Ruifen

    July 7, 2017

    Clerk Pan Xiaomei