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

    (2017) No. 136, Early Republic of China, Yue 0604

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

    Legal representative: Yao Liangsong, chairman of the board.

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

    Defendant: Foshan Shunde Jiarao Electric Appliance Co., LTD., Room 702, Building F4, Huaxia New Town, Block 46, Guizhou Avenue, Ronggui Zhenhua Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province. Registration number 440681000765318.

    Legal representative: Luo Biao.

    Agent AD litem: Qian Guobin, lawyer of Guangdong Zekang Law Firm.

    Agent AD litem: Gao Xuemei, lawyer of Guangdong Zekang Law Firm.

    Defendant: Hainan Jingdian Industrial Co., LTD., Room 501, Building C1, Bonnanyuan, 66 Bo Xiang Road, Longhua District, Haikou city, Hainan Province. Registration number 460100000680350.

    Legal representative: Fu Qi Hard.

    Defendant: Luo Biao, male, Han Nationality, born on November 21, 1987, residing in Xingning city, Guangdong Province.

    Agent AD litem: Qian Guobin, lawyer of Guangdong Zekang Law Firm.

    Agent AD litem: Gao Xuemei, lawyer of Guangdong Zekang Law Firm.

    Defendant: Zhongshan Wei Kitchen Electric Appliance Co., LTD., 1st floor, Factory Building no. 10, Jusheng Road, Anle Village, Dongfeng Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province. Registration number 442000001094073.

    Legal representative: Zheng Shanhe.

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European group) cats electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, v. the defendant (hereinafter referred to as domestic electric), hainan classic industrial co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the hainan etc.), Luo Biao, zhongshan kitchen electric appliance co., LTD (hereinafter referred to as zhongshan kitchen company) the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, in our hospital on January 4, 2017 to begin, form a collegial panel in accordance with the law, on April 24, 2017 in open trial, plaintiff attorney ZhaiMingYue opie group, The defendant domestic cat electric appliance company, Luo Biao jointly entrusted litigation agents Qian Guobin, Gao Xuemei, the defendant Zhongshan Wei Kitchen company legal representative Zheng Shanhe attended the court. The defendant, Hainan Jingdian Company, failed to appear in court after being legally summoned by the court. After the trial, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the lawsuit against the defendant's Domestic cat Electric appliance Company and Luo Biao by reaching a settlement with the defendant, and the court made a ruling to allow the plaintiff's application according to law. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff filed suit against the Court: 1. It was ordered that Hainan Jingdian Industrial Co., Ltd. immediately stop selling the range hood with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.", "Guangdong Opai Technology" and "OPAICN"; 2. 2. The defendant Zhongshan Weichuappliance Co., LTD was ordered to immediately stop producing and selling the lampblack with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD", "Guangdong Opai Technology" and "OPAICN"; 3. Order the two defendants to compensate the plaintiff's economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights in this case, totaling RMB 200,000 only; 4. The costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant.

    Facts and reason: the plaintiff is 11 classes, "European" and "OPPEIN" registered trademark, the plaintiff since its inception, after decades of operation, has been "Europe" casting 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, "Europe" has become not only 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 November 2016, the plaintiff found that the defendant, Zhongshan Weichu Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. used the word "Oupai" in its online store to sell range hoods marked with the words "Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD.". The products are marked with "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology Co., LTD.", "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology", "OPAICN", "Agent Hainan Jindian Industrial Co., LTD.", and "Manufacturing Base Zhongshan Weichuappliance Co., LTD." on the packaging and instructions of the products. The plaintiff entrusted the notary office to protect the evidence of the above-mentioned infringement. In addition, after investigation, the defendant Luo Biao is the online store involved in the Alipay account owner.

    What has been discussed above, the plaintiff that the defendant unauthorized unauthorized use of "European" words, production, sales, mark "guangdong opie technology co., LTD." on the oil absorption, not only the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff, and constitute the encroachment of right to enterprise name to the plaintiff, and violates the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, whose behavior constitutes unfair competition to the plaintiff. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition and other relevant provisions, we hereby appeal to the court to make a fair judgment in accordance with the law.

    To prove the claim, the plaintiff provides the court with the following evidence:

    1. (2016) The Notarial Certificate of Lai Feng City Certificate No. 347 certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 4378572.

    (2016) Laifengcheng Notarial Certificate No. 350 certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 1128213.

    (2016) Laifengcheng Notarial Certificate No. 346 certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 1137521.

    (2016) The Notarial certificate no. 348 of Laifeng City Certificate certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 7731876.

    (2016) The Legal notarial certificate no. 352 issued by Laofengcheng testifies that the plaintiff legally owns the copyright of "" fine art fonts. This work, created on August 10, 1996, is completely consistent with the contents of the registered trademarks No. 4378572, 1128213 and 1137521 of the plaintiff, and also proves that the plaintiff's" "brand has certain originality and a long history.

    The trademark [2009] No. 7 issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce proves that the registered trademark "" no. 1128213 enjoyed by the plaintiff had been recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on April 24, 2009.

    (2016) laifengcheng certificate no. 353 notarial certificate :(1) "China famous brand product certificate" issued by the general administration of quality supervision, inspection and quarantine on July 9, 2007; (2) "Guangdong Famous Brand Product" certificate issued by Guangdong Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision in October 2008; (3) The "Guangdong Famous Trademark Certificate" issued by guangdong Famous Trademark Recognition Committee in February 2008 proves that the registered trademark No. 1128213 was recognized as a Famous trademark of Guangdong Province in March 2005 and February 2008 respectively; (4) In December 2012, China building decoration Association kitchen and sanitation engineering committee issued by the plaintiff in 2012 was named "2012 Chinese kitchen and sanitation 100", "overall kitchen leading enterprises top 10" certificate; (5) The Certificate of Honor issued by guangzhou Municipal People's Government in September 2013; (6) Certificate issued by Brand Watch magazine on December 28, 2014; (7) In January 2015, the plaintiff issued by Guangdong Provincial Home Industry Federation and Guangdong Furniture Chamber of Commerce was awarded the honor certificate of "Top 10 Most Valuable Brands" in 2014; (8) Certificate of honor issued by Guangdong Provincial Home Industry Federation and Guangdong Furniture Chamber of Commerce in January 2015.

    (2016) laifengcheng certificate no. 357 notarial certificate :(1) the tax payment certificate issued by the national bureau of taxation in baiyun district, guangzhou no. 100014, certifying that the plaintiff paid taxes to the bureau on January 1, 2013 solstice on December 31, 2013, which was fourteen hundred thousand four hundred and seventy-nine thousand five hundred and thirty-three point seven. (2) the tax payment certificate no. [2014]100579 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid tax on January 1, 2014 solstice on June 30, 2014 to the tax bureau seven thousand five hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine yuan nine cents. (3) the tax payment certificate no. [2015] no. 100174 issued by the national bureau of taxation in baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid tax at nine thousand five hundred and nine thousand one hundred and twenty-two yuan sixty-eight cents to the bureau on July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. (4) the tax payment certificate no. [2015] no. 101552 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid tax on January 1, 2015 solstice on June 30, 2015 to the tax bureau seven thousand five hundred and twenty-two thousand six hundred and sixty-seven point four. (5) the tax payment certificate no. [2016]100274 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid a tax of twelve million two hundred and thirty-six hundred sixty-seven yuan nine cents to the tax bureau on July 1, 2015. (6) notice no. 00000724 issued by the tax administration bureau of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax of four thousand two hundred and two hundred and ninety nine thousand two hundred and seventy-eight yuan eighty six cents to the bureau on January 1, 2014. (7) notice no. 00001248 issued by the tax administration bureau of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax on July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 to the bureau, i.e., 36,558,999 yuan and seventy-two cents. (8) notice no. 00003448 issued by the tax administration of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax of four thousand two million four hundred and twenty-seven thousand one hundred and forty cents to the bureau on June 30, 2015 on January 1, 2015. (9) notice no. 00004591 issued by the tax administration bureau of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax twenty thousand nine hundred and eighty-one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three yuan forty seven to the bureau on July 1, 2015.

    9. (2016) The Notarial Certificate no. 354 of Leifeng City Certificate proves the audit department's audit of the profits obtained by the plaintiff by using the brand "OPPEIN" and "OPPEIN", which proves the high value of the brand "OPPEIN" and "OPPEIN".

    10, (2016), lai FengCheng card people word no. 355 is notarial deed, prove that the plaintiff by CCTV, hunan TV's "European brand" for the continuous publicity, specific content as follows: (1), October 30, 2012, the plaintiff and the Beijing international advertising co., LTD. Signed on time boiling "swap space" domestic outfit funded 2013 cooperation agreement, this agreement is agreed on January 5, 2013 to December 28, 2013, 2 sets in CCTV's "exchange space" brand publicity the plaintiff, advertising is wubai suhuang ten thousand yuan. (2), in July 2014, the plaintiff with hunan, hunan radio and television advertising corporation downwind media television project advertising co., LTD. Signed a contract, the contract on September 28, 2014 to October 12, 2014, in hunan TV's 10th golden eagle festival closing ceremony and awards section is relevant to the plaintiff, brand advertising for above ten thousand yuan. (3) on November 6, 2013, the TV advertisement release contract signed by the plaintiff and zhejiang zhimei auto advertising co., LTD., which stipulates that the plaintiff's brand shall be publicized on CCTV news channel on January 1, 2014 and the advertising fee shall be four thousand four hundred and sixty-three thousand nine hundred and seventy yuan. (4) on November 27, 2014, the sponsorship and cooperation agreement of 2015 "exchange space" home decoration fund signed by the plaintiff and Beijing ontime boiling international advertising co., LTD. The agreement agreed that on April 4, 2015 solstice on March 26, 2016, the plaintiff's brand would be promoted in the second set of "exchange space" column of CCTV, and the advertising fee would be six million yuan. (5) on October 22, 2014, the advertising agency contract signed by the plaintiff and kashgar yinsong culture media co., LTD., the agreement provides that on January 1, 2015, solstice, December 31, 2015, the advertising fee of the plaintiff shall be twenty-three million nine hundred and seventy thousand yuan for promoting the plaintiff's brand on the CCTV news channel.

    11. (2016) The Notarial Certificate no. 356 issued by Lifeng City Certificate, which proves that the plaintiff spent a huge amount of money to hire the star Jiang Wenli to speak for "Europa" products, which further proves that the plaintiff spent a huge amount of money to promote Europa brand.

    April 12, 2011, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, "linchuan evening news", published on August 26, 2011 issue of the "shenzhen special zone signs up for", on September 20, 2011, published on September 30, anqing daily, published in September 2010 years of the ambry in Shanghai ", published in June 2011, the sales and marketing management edition, published in April 2011 "ruili household", published in April 2014, decorate world magazine, prove that the plaintiff by the print media publicity, "European brand", It also proves that the plaintiff's original advertising slogan of "family, love and Europe" continues to use and publicize. The second group of evidence proves that the plaintiff's trademark has been widely known and well-known by the public.

    (2016) The notarial certificate no. 3804 of Xiaoluci Certificate, which proves the tort facts of the defendant.

    14. A notarization fee invoice with the amount of 25000 yuan, this case claims 500 yuan. Prove the plaintiff's reasonable expenses.

    The defendant Zhongshan Weichu Company certifies as follows: There is no objection to the authenticity and legality of evidence 1 to 4, but we believe that the above trademark is different from the trademark claimed by the plaintiff. There is no objection to the authenticity of evidence 5 to 12, but the existing evidence is insufficient to determine that the plaintiff's trademark and the outer packing of the products are the unique name, packaging and decoration. There is no objection to the authenticity of evidence 13 notarial certificate. I have no objection to the authenticity of evidence 14 notarization fee invoice, but I have objection to the relevance. I think the notarization fee paid is not necessary and reasonable. The alleged infringement is in Guangdong province, the plaintiff chooses the notary office in Shandong Province to notarize, which increases the extra cost; If the plaintiff has the original of the trademark registration certificate, he may directly submit the original of the trademark registration certificate. It is not necessary to notarize the trademark registration certificate. There is no objection to the plaintiff's claim that the notary fee in this case is $500.

    After being legally summoned by the court, the defendant Hainan Jingdian Company did not appear in court, nor did it submit its defense and evidence, which shall be deemed as waiver of its right of defense, proof and cross-examination.

    The court recognizes the authenticity of the evidence provided by the plaintiff as the basis for ascertaining the facts of the case.

    The defendant Zhongshan Weihutch Company has no reply.

    The defendant Zhongshan Weichen Company did not provide evidence to the court in the lawsuit.

    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 "European" registered trademark, shall use commodities for 11 class gas furnace, microwave oven (kitchenware), 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, "European" trademark, shall use commodities for 11 class kitchen stove, gas stove, electric cooker, cooker, refrigeration equipment, drying equipment, hot and cold water filter, beverage cooling equipment, 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 "Opai" was a famous trademark of Guangdong Province on the sideboard and was ×× ×. On April 24, 2009, the trademark "Opai" on the category 20 sideboard goods of the plaintiff was identified as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office.

    (II) On November 12, 2016, wang Shouzhen, the authorized agent of the plaintiff, applied for evidence preservation to Luxi Notary Office of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province. On November 14, 2016 in the notarial personnel, under the supervision of 13 shou-zhen wang in guangzhou baiyun district and the town and street "7 days inn" notarization to connect the Internet computer operation, in "alibaba" web site "cats electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city," the shop open in order for the "guangdong opie lampblack machine oil absorption european-style top type deep tower big suction absorption automatic cleaning" oil absorption. On November 19, 2016 in notarial personnel, under the supervision of 13 shou-zhen wang in guangzhou baiyun district and the town and street "7 days inn" signed "gravels express Courier delivered the lobby of the outer packing in good condition, marked" guangdong science and technology co., LTD. "of a goods, single number is" 350257399 ", shou-zhen wang will be open for the above goods, there is a range hood a, a specification, and shou-zhen wang photos of these items, then notarial personnel with notarization seals to seal of the above items, will be sealed after goods and logistics single cross kept by the shou-zhen wang. On November 19, 2016, Wang Shouzhen confirmed the receipt of the order no. 2682384301134885 on Taobao.com while operating the Internet computer connected to the Notary office at 7 Days Chain Hotel, No. 13, Renhe Street, Renhe Town, Baiyun District, Guangzhou. Shandong Liaocheng Luxi Notary Office supervised the whole process and issued the notary Certificate no. 3804 (2016).

    In trial, accuser opened the product that afore-mentioned notarization bought in court, accuser charges the tort product of this case is lampblack machine. The conversion of oil absorption smoke before and after the two sides of the wooden case marked "OPAICN" and "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." the words, the left and right sides marked "OPAICN" and "opie technology co., LTD. (producer) of guangdong province", and the bearing production base: wei kitchen electric appliance co., LTD., zhongshan city, address: dongfeng town, zhongshan city of happiness - road industrial zone, telephone: 0760-22639318. There is also a production date: October 10, 2016 label. Inside the packing case, there is a OPAICN book and a range hood machine. The OPAICN book contains the words "OPAICN" and "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology". Another delivery sheet; The OPAICN and Guangdong Opai Technology OPAICN are printed on the OPAICN machine. The plaintiff contends that the defendant has prominently used the word "Opie", which is the plaintiff's business name and trademark No. 4378572 of the Plaintiff, and that the defendant's actions constitute unfair competition.

    The plaintiff made it clear at the trial that the trademark infringement that he accused was caused by the defendant Zhongshan Weickitchen Co., Ltd. producing products with the words "OPAICN" and "Europa", which infringed the OPAICN No. 4378572 of the plaintiff. The use of the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" in the product accused constitutes unfair competition; The defendant Hainan Jingdian company is an agent, also constituted infringement.

    Domestic Cat Electric Appliance Company has no objection to the establishment of the online store on Alibaba as recorded in the notarial Certificate No. 3804 (2016). It recognizes that the accused infringing product is sold by it and comes from the defendant Zhongshan Weichen Company. The products approved by the defendant Zhongshan Weichen Company were produced and sold by them. The defendant, Hainan Jingdian Company, did not appear in court and did not submit evidence to deny that it was an agent of the alleged infringing products.

    (III) On July 20, 2013, the plaintiff Opai Group signed the Advertising Contract Renewal with Jiang Wenli, agreeing to invite Jiang Wenli to perform for the advertising production of cabinets, wardrobes and bathroom products produced by the plaintiff Opai Group. Subsequently, the plaintiff Opai Group used the advertisement containing Jiang Wenli's image in some magazines and newspapers in China, and also used the propaganda words of "There is a family, there is love and there is Opai".

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

    Whether the defendant Zhongshan Weichen Co., Ltd. and Hainan Jingdian Co., Ltd. violated the exclusive right to use the plaintiff's registered trademark No. 4378572. The plaintiff accuses the defendant Zhongshan Huickitchen Co., Ltd. of using the words "OPAICN" and "Guangdong OCo" in the production and sales of the products accused of infringement, the product packaging, and the instructions, but after the examination of the Court, "OPAICN" cannot identify the trademark that is identical with or similar to the registered trademark of "Oco" no. 4378572 claimed by the plaintiff. And products, product packaging, manuals, etc to use the "guangdong science and technology" in the "guangdong" does not highlight the use, it is not a trademark, so the defendant zhongshan wei kitchen company production, sales, is accused of infringement product, product packaging and instruction manual with the "OPAICN" and "guangdong science and technology", does not constitute infringement of trademark of the plaintiff's claim. The defendant Hainan Jingdian Co., Ltd. sold the products accused of infringement, and used the words "OPAICN" and "Guangdong Opai Technology" in the product packaging and instructions, which does not constitute the trademark infringement claimed by the plaintiff.

    Ii. Whether the two defendants conduct unfair competition.

    First, the plaintiff claims that the two defendants used the words "OPAICN" and "Guangdong Opai Science" in the production and sale of the products accused of infringement, the product packaging and the instructions, which constitutes a false propaganda and unfair competition. Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Law against Unfair competition stipulates that in market transactions, operators shall follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, good faith and abide by generally recognized business ethics. Article 9 The first paragraph stipulates that an operator shall not, by advertising or other means, falsely publicize the quality, sufficiency, performance, use, producer, term of validity or place of origin of the commodity, which is misleading.

    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 ambry products by quality supervision bureau of guangdong province famous brand products of 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" brand were identified as the famous trademark, the trademark office so we decided that after many years of product sales and advertising, The cabinet products produced and sold by the plaintiff have higher popularity in the relevant public. 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. The accused Zhongshan Weihutch company produces and sells the accused infringing product for the lampblack machine, which is generally used in the kitchen, usually embedded in the cabinet to form a whole, so the accused is accused of infringing the lampblack machine product and the plaintiff's cabinet product have a certain correlation, the accused Zhongshan Weihutch company and the plaintiff have a competitive relationship. According to find out the fact that the plaintiff is used in the advertisement "have family love the pie", and hired star "jiang wenli" as a propaganda image spokesperson, the plaintiff's "European" series of products as well as the "European" font size across the country has a higher visibility, "OPAICN" the plaintiff's "European" pronunciation is similar, and the plaintiff has no. 7731876 "" the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark in accordance with the law, the defendant zhongshan wei kitchen oil absorption is also accused of infringement product, product packaging and specifications used in the" OPAICN "and" guangdong science and technology ", Easy to make the relevant public mistakenly assume that its production and sales of oil absorption and there is a link between the plaintiff opie group, easy to make the relevant public source for products cause confusion and mistakes, so its subjective malicious clings to the plaintiff's reputation is very obvious, also known as "fake", the defendant to zhongshan wei kitchen company related consumer confusion and mistakes, improperly obtaining competitive advantage, in violation of fair and honest credit and the principle of fair competition, has constituted unfair competition. The plaintiff accused the defendant Of constituting unfair competition. Oil absorption after being accused of infringement product mark on the outer packing the defendant hainan classic company as agent, and marked with address and telephone number, the defendant hainan classic company by our legal subpoena, refuses to appear in court without justified reasons, we concluded that the defendant hainan etc. The company implemented a tort, also be concluded that the existence of unfair competition.

    The civil liabilities to be borne by the two defendants.

    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 Court supports the plaintiff's appeal to the two defendants to stop ACTS of unfair competition.

    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 case found that the defendant Zhongshan Weihuichu Company, the defendant Hainan Jingdian company constitute unfair competition. The actual loss the plaintiff to the case and the defendants zhongshan kitchen company, hainan etc. The company's illegal gains are not sure, we consider the reputation of the plaintiff's popularity, the defendants zhongshan kitchen company, hainan etc. The company's subjective intent, infringement plot, business scale, is accused of infringement product sales, and other factors, has decided the defendant zhongshan wei kitchen company compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 80000 yuan, the defendant hainan classic company compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 40000 yuan, the compensation has been including reasonable expense for the rights to the case.

    In conclusion, according to 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, the anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China, the first paragraph of article 2, article 9, article 20, the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases interpretation articles 9, 10 and 16, the civil procedure law of the People's Republic of China article sixty-four the provisions of the first paragraph, judgment by default is as follows:

    The defendant hainan Jingdian Industrial Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the unfair competition activities in its sales of range hood products, the product packaging and the words "OPAICN" and "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology" in the OPAICN instruction book as of the effective date of this judgment;

    Ii. The defendant, Zhongshan Wei Kitchen Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the unfair competition in its production and sales of range hood products, the outer package of the products, and the OPAICN label with "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology" in the OPAICN instruction book as of the effective date of this judgment;

    Three, the defendant hainan classic industrial co., LTD. Within 10 days from the date of this decision, compensate the plaintiff European household group co., LTD., economic loss of 40000 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);

    Four, the defendant in zhongshan kitchen electric appliance co., LTD within 10 days from the date of this decision, compensate the plaintiff European household group co., LTD., economic loss of 80000 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);

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

    If the defendant zhongshan Weichu Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and the defendant Hainan Jingdian Industrial Co., Ltd. fail to perform their obligations of payment of money 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 delay period.

    The receiving fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, which is borne by the defendant Zhongshan Wei Kitchen Electric Appliance Co., LTD., 1,800 yuan, the defendant Hainan Jingdian Industrial Co., LTD., 1,000 yuan, and the plaintiff Oupai Home Furnishgroup Co., LTD., 1,500 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 the court, and make a copy according to the number of the other party, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan, Guangdong.

    Chief Judge Wu Zhanhong

    People's Juror Ho Wing Chun

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    June 8, 2017

    Clerk Yan Yongyu