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

    (2018) Yue 0604, Early Republic of China No. 29678

    Plaintiff: Opai Furniture Group Co., LTD., domicile: No. 366, Guanghua Third 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: Longou Electric Appliance Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan City, one of the first floor and one of the second floor, No. 23, Huatian Road, Shunde High-tech Zone (Ronggui), Ronggui Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, with unified social credit code ××84D.

    Legal representative: Ye Chongchun.

    Defendant: Qingdao Oujia Electric Appliance Co., LTD., located 1 km south of The Neighborhood Committee of Jingkou Community, Chengyang Street, Chengyang District, Qingdao city, Shandong Province, unified social credit code ××85Q.

    Legal representative: Wan Xuetao.

    The two defendants jointly entrust agent AD litem: Xie Xiaoyang, a lawyer of Guangdong Longhao Law Firm.

    The two defendants jointly appointed an agent AD litem: He Jianshan, a lawyer of Guangdong Longhao Law Firm.

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. V. the defendant dragon, shunde district, foshan city, the electric appliance co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as dragon company), Qingdao jia electric appliance co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the company) the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, our hospital on December 19 2018 Hitachi decision, in accordance with the applicable ordinary procedure, on April 16, 2019 in open trial, plaintiffs entrust agents AD litem He Jianshan wang ning and two defendants to entrust agents AD litem to appear in court took part in the litigation. The case is now closed.

    1. The two defendants immediately stopped the infringement of the plaintiff's trademark right, that is, they stopped the production and sale of gas stoves marked with the words "Qingdao Oupai" and "Sci-Tech Oupai"; 2. 2. The two defendants immediately stopped the unfair competition, that is, stopped the production and sale of gas stoves marked with the words "Qingdao Opai Shijia Electric Appliance Co., LTD"; 3. The two defendants shall compensate the plaintiff a total of RMB 200,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights; The two defendants bear the costs of the case.

    Facts and Reasons: Founded in 1994, the plaintiff is a comprehensive domestic integrated service provider of modern integrated household, whose products cover the fields of integrated wardrobe, kitchen appliances, integrated bathroom, commercial kitchen utensils and so on. The plaintiff is the registered trademark owner of "Opai". After decades of painstaking operation, the plaintiff has turned "Opai" into a well-known and well-known brand in China. In the eyes of the relevant public, "Opai" has not only become the representative symbol of the plaintiff's products and enterprise names, but also become a significant identification mark indicating the market subject and commodity source of the plaintiff and its affiliated enterprises. In October 2018, the plaintiff discovered in luoyang los dragon district xin feng da hutch defends firm called "European" Smith of in-store sales marked "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD." "dragon's electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city," wording, kitchen burning gas, such as the kitchen burning gas panel, quality warranty CARDS are marked on the receipt, VIP card "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD.", which attached to the specification on a "European science and technology" "dragon, shunde district, foshan city, the electric appliance co., LTD.", etc. To afore-mentioned tort action, plaintiff applied for notary office to undertake evidence urges. Further investigation revealed that the product was jointly produced by the two defendants. In addition, it is found that Qingdao Opai Shijia Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. changed its enterprise name to Qingdao Oujia Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. in November 2018. To sum up, the plaintiff argues that the two defendants to clings to the reputation, do STH without authorization in the sales of the products involved with highlights on the "Qingdao opie" "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD." with the words "European science and technology", caused confusion related to consumer goods source, in violation of the provisions of the trademark law of the relevant laws, the infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff. At the same time, the infringement of the plaintiff's right of enterprise name constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff, according to the relevant provisions of the law, file a lawsuit, request the court to judge as requested.

    The two defendants jointly argue that the first and second defendants did not produce and sell the products involved. Before the plaintiff sued, the two defendants did not know xinfengda Huwei Firm, Luolong District, Luoyang, and had no business dealings with it, and had nothing to do with the two defendants. Ii. According to the evidence provided by the plaintiff, on page 10 of the notarial certificate, the telephone of the 400 switch in the packaging box of the products involved and the insurance card could not be connected, which was not registered by the two defendants. The two defendants do not know why the name of the defendant's company is on the package. Both the defendant that is likely to be printing by others before the sale, the above contact information after receiving the case the case materials contact two defendants to play in the past, some can get through, some are not able to get through, but not the defendant dragon European companies, including the fax number 0760 switch belongs to zhongshan city area code, the defendant dragon the company domiciled and were all in shunde district, foshan city, so at the beginning of 0760 the fax number and the two defendants had nothing to do. The two defendants think that the appearance of the gas stove packaging so rough, mistakes and mistakes, should belong to others fake, the defendant Longou company is also likely to exist by others fake production address possible. 3. The production and business address and the registered address shown on the receipt of the quality guarantee card on page 13 of the Notary certificate are one of the first and one of the second floors of No. 23, Huatian Road, Ronggui Huakou Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan city. The so - called production base shows vague general address, is not the defendant Long Ou company's registered address or production and operation address, the defendant long Ou company is a regular company, has its own production capacity, it is impossible to make such a mistake. Iv. The TWO-DIMENSIONAL code of the VIP card on page 14 of the notarial Certificate is not owned by the defendant Ojia Company, and cannot be scanned into, and cannot be shown to be associated with the defendant Ojia Company. To sum up, the two defendants believe that the evidence provided by the plaintiff cannot truly and fully prove that the two defendants are the subjects of infringement, so they request the court to reject all the plaintiff's claims.

    In the lawsuit, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to the court: 1.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 350 of Laifengcheng Certificate No. 2.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 346, Certificate No. 673, Certificate No. 673, Certificate No. 3.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 347, Certificate No. 675, Certificate No. 675, Certificate No. 4.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 348, Lifengcheng Certificate; 5. Trademark Chi Zi [2009] No. 7 issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce; 6. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 353, Lifengcheng Certificate; 7. (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 260 of Laifeng City; 8.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 357 of Laifeng City Certificate; 9.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 355 of Laifeng City; 10.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 356, Lifengcheng Certificate; 11.2011 years on April 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, published "linchuan evening news", published on August 26, 2011 zhuhai, dc, newspaper, 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; 12.(2017) Printed copies of The Notarial Certificate Of Laifengcheng Certificate Minzi No. 1015 and the Enterprise Credit information Publicity system; 13. (2018) Notarization Certificate No. 1074, Zhengmin Zi, Lulaiwu fengcheng; 14. Printed copies of production license inquiry information.

    As for the above evidence, the Court finds as follows: Evidence 1 to 10, 12 and 13 have original copies verified and are related to the facts to be proved in this case, and the court accepts them; Although the plaintiff can only provide part of the original evidence, the group of evidence can be mutually corroborated with evidence 10, and the defendant has no objection to its authenticity, so the court accepts it; Evidence 14 is consistent with the information shown on the relevant official website, and the defendant has no objection to its authenticity, which the court accepts.

    The two defendants failed to present evidence.

    On the basis of the admissible evidence and the parties' statements, the following facts may be ascertained:

    1. The plaintiff and his claims

    The plaintiff Opai Furniture Group Co., Ltd. was founded on July 1, 1994, and its business scope is furniture manufacturing industry.

    On November 21, 1997, Guangzhou Kangjie Kitchen Equipment Co., Ltd. was approved to register trademark No. 1128213 "", and approved to use goods in category 20, including furniture, sideboards, counters, etc. The registration was renewed and valid until November 20, 2027. On December 21, 1997, Guangzhou Kangjie Kitchen Equipment Co., Ltd. approved and registered the trademark "" no. 1137521, and approved the use of goods in category 11, including kitchen stoves, gas stoves, electric cookers, etc. The registration was renewed and valid until December 20, 2027. On June 7, 2007, Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. registered the trademark no. 4378572 "", approved the use of goods for the 11th category, including gas stoves, bathroom fixtures, bath equipment, kitchen range hoods, etc., and renewed the registration valid until June 6, 2027. On March 14, 2011, Guangdong Opai Group Co., Ltd. approved and registered the trademark "OPPEIN" No. 7731876, which was approved to be used in category 11, including cooking utensils, gas stoves, water heaters, kitchen range hoods, bathroom fixtures, bath appliances, etc. The registration is valid until March 13, 2021. The four registered trademarks above changed the name of the registrant to be the plaintiff on March 24, 2014.

    From March 2005 to February 2011, the trademark "" of Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. was recognized as a famous trademark of Guangdong Province on the sideboard and other commodities. From September 2007 to September 2010, Opai household cabinets produced by Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. were identified as China's famous brand products by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. From October 2008 to September 2011, Opai cabinets produced by Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. were identified as guangdong famous brand products by Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. On April 24, 2009, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce recognized guangzhou Oupai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. as a well-known trademark. From December 2012 to December 2013, Guangdong Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. was named "2012 China's top 100 kitchens overall kitchen leading enterprises". From January 2016 to December 2018, the trademark "OPPEIN" "used by the plaintiff on sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bathing equipment was recognized as a famous trademark of Guangzhou by the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Guangzhou municipality.

    From 2011 to 2016, the plaintiff continued to publicize its "Opai" brand by advertising in many newspapers such as Linchuan Evening News, Ruili Home Furnishing, Decorate the World, and media such as CCTV and Hunan TV.

    Ii. Facts of alleged infringement

    In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff authorized The Jindun Intellectual Property Service Center in Laicheng District of Laiwu City to notarize the preservation evidence on behalf of the Center and filed an application for the preservation evidence notarization to Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province on October 27, 2018. The next day, in the notarization notaries, notarial personnel under the supervision of, laiwu city, the city committed intellectual property service center of the entrusted agent shou-zhen wang came to the city of luoyang in henan province x x x x x x street, building materials market "opie Smith" stores, bought two sets of kitchen burning gas and a water purifier, one of the sets of kitchen burning gas, marked "OPERING" and "daily report", POS signed purchase order, each a piece of card, after the above actions, the notaries, notarial personnel, under the supervision of shou-zhen wang photograph the purchased items, notaries, notarial personnel respectively for storage of purchased items, The sealed items were kept by Wang Shouzhen. On November 13, 2018, the notary office issued the (2018) Lulaiwu Fengcheng Certificate No. 1159 notarial Certificate, certifying that the above purchase process, photos and sealed facts are consistent with the actual situation. The purchase price of the "D653 double Cooker" was 600 yuan, according to the daily Single in the notarial certificate.

    During the trial, the sealed items marked with "OPERING" in the above notarial certificate are opened in court, including a gas cooker (hereinafter referred to as the accused of infringing goods) and a manual. The white label on the outer packing box indicates that the product is "embedded household gas stove", the product model is JZT-A, the production license is XK21-077-02466, and the article number is D653 for extinguishing the gas stove. The white label on the side of the gas stove is consistent with the above information. The outer packing case, instructions and the gas range panel are marked "OPERING? Logo, packing, manual annotation is "dragon's electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city," the words, have back cover manual "opie life free of science and technology", kitchen burning gas panel using the "id", quality warranty card, VIP card marked as "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD.", at the same time, the outside packing and manual annotation with the dragon the company's industrial and commercial registration address, certificate label production date will be on May 12, 2018.

    After comparison, the plaintiff believes that the specification marked on the "Science and Technology Europe" words, gas stove panel label used in the logo contains the "Qingdao Europe" words, and the plaintiff enjoys the no. 4378572 trademark constitute similar, infringement of the above registered trademark exclusive right; The words "Qingdao Opai Shijia Electric Appliance Co., LTD." marked on the quality guarantee card and VIP card are unfair competition to attach the name and goodwill of the plaintiff.

    Two defendants confirmed physical and notarial deed opened the picture shows the product is consistent, but the telephone, fax, address on the packaging are not the dragon company, fax the area code for sun yat-sen, the defendant dragon company domiciled and premises for shunde, production license belongs to public information, cannot be concluded that the defendant dragon infringement evidence of the company; Quality warranty card, VIP card marked "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD.", the enterprise name is after the approval, is accused of infringing goods not highlight using the words, do not constitute infringement, do not violate the principle of good faith, even constitute infringement, Qingdao opie the jia electric appliance co., LTD., in November 2018 has change enterprise name, tort does not exist, Qingdao opie the word well enough to distinguish the source of goods, does not constitute a confusion. In addition, "sci-tech Opiates" are only propaganda words, not prominent use.

    Other ascertained facts

    The defendant longou Company was established on October 19, 2016. Its legal representative is Ye Chongchun. Its registered capital is 30,000 yuan.

    The defendant Ojia Company was established on December 29, 2014. Its legal representative is Wan Xuetao. Its registered capital is 500,000 yuan. It had in 2017 on August 24, was the case for the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes the plaintiff sued to our hospital, XinYong, guangdong shunde big pie electric co., LTD., as the defendant, we begin to (2017) guangdong 0604 early in 11609, and in 2018, made on April 10th, civil judgment, ruling that the defendant's good company production, sales, the case of gas water heater products constitute to the plaintiff "" no. 4378572, no. 7731876" OPPEIN "registered trademark infringement, its registered using include" European "text of the enterprise name, The civil judgment has taken legal effect on July 9, 2018. On November 22, 2018, the enterprise name of the defendant Oujia Company was changed from "Qingdao Oupai Shijia Electrical Appliances Co., LTD" to "Qingdao Oujia Electrical Appliances Co., LTD".

    The OPERING logo used on the alleged infringing goods is a registered trademark.

    In the trial, the plaintiff and the defendant Zhang jointly produce the goods accused of infringement, which constitutes joint infringement. The two defendants claimed that their legal representatives were friends, and Longou guessed that its enterprise name and business address were used falsely on the accused infringing goods, but said that it had not complained to the relevant administrative units. Plaintiff clearly its economic losses and rights reasonable spending a total of 200000 yuan, including major economic loss to consider "Europe" as the plaintiff's name and its popularity, infringement if the circumstances are serious, is accused of infringing goods already violated the trademark rights of the plaintiff, constitutes unfair competition and other factors at the same time, the reasonable expenses rights consider legal fees 10000 yuan, buy is accused of infringing goods cost 600 yuan, notarial cost 1000 yuan to 3000 yuan, travel and other factors, request the court has decided. There is no evidence to prove the above attorney fees, notary fees and travel expenses.

    The court holds that this case is a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute. As for the controversial focus of this case, the Court has analyzed and determined as follows:

    I. Whether the goods accused of infringement are produced and sold by the two defendants

    Accused of infringing goods outer packing and the directions are marked with the dragon's company's name and address, industrial and commercial registration and overwrapping white label labeled set forth the production license for the company's production license agreement with the defendant dragons, the dragon the company argues that its enterprise name or other information may be used on the accused of infringing goods, but its not proof that has not proven was reported to complain to the relevant administrative units, so this plea to its views on our college will not be believed; The business scope of the defendant Longou Company included the manufacture of gas appliances. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court identified the producer of the accused infringing goods as the defendant Longou Company.

    Panel accused of infringing goods, the quality warranty card, VIP card are marked as "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD." with the words, the defendant argued that the preferred company was accused of infringing goods, not the production of goods on the qr code can't sweep code into, has nothing to do with, but the good company to be accused of infringing goods on why can't make a reasonable explanation has its enterprise name, qr code can't sweep code in not prove that the company has nothing to do with the goods, therefore, in the case of no contrary evidence to overthrow, we concluded that the defendant the preferred company as producers accused of infringing goods.

    The plaintiff submitted to the court the (2018) Lulaiwu Fengcheng Notarial Certificate No. 1159 issued by Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province, and the shopping receipt and sealed articles obtained by notarization, which confirmed the process of the related personnel entrusted by the plaintiff to purchase the accused infringing goods in the witness of the notary office. Accordingly, the facts sufficient to prove the circulation of the accused infringing goods in the market, without evidence to the contrary to refute, sufficient to conclude that the two defendants engaged in the sale of the accused infringing goods.

    Second, whether the behavior of the two defendants constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of a registered trademark

    (1) Using a trademark identical with a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the trademark registrant; (2) using a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same kind of goods or using a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on similar goods without the permission of the trademark registrant, which is likely to cause confusion; (3) selling commodities that infringe upon the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark; ..." In this case, the plaintiff obtained the exclusive right to use the trademark no. 4378572 "" after registration according to law. The trademark is now in validity. Accused of infringing goods in the use of "identity" in Chinese text highlighted words "Qingdao Europe clique", have the effect of identifying sources of goods, constitute a trademark use, including "Qingdao" for the region name, for inventing words "Europe", "European" play a major role in identifying the sources of, and the plaintiff and no. 4378572 "registered trademark" words are the same, but there was no difference in the visual basic, shall be deemed to be the same, so the "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD." the words with the plaintiff on the whole the trademark constitutes a approximation, is accused of infringing goods with the plaintiff of the use of a registered trademark approved gas type for the same kind of goods, Therefore, it is easy for the relevant public to be confused and mistakenly believe that the goods come from the plaintiff or have a specific connection with the goods that the plaintiff USES the registered trademark. Without the permission of the plaintiff, the two defendants use the above marks on the accused infringing goods produced and sold by them, which is an infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the plaintiff No. 4378572.

    The words "Sci-tech Europa" on the back cover of the product description accused of infringement are used together with the words "life is free" as the advertising language, and are not used as the trademark. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim that the words constitute a trademark infringement is without foundation, which the court does not support.

    Whether the conduct of the two defendants constitutes unfair competition

    Article 6 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition stipulates: "Business operators shall not commit any of the following confusing ACTS that may cause them to be mistaken for other people's goods or have specific connections with others:... (2) unauthorized use of the names of enterprises (including shortened names and shop names, etc.) and social organizations (including shortened names, etc.) and names (including pennames, stage names, and translated names, etc.) that have certain influence on others; ..." . In this case, the plaintiff was founded in 1994, on July 1, early in 1997, has 20 class furniture, kitchen cabinets, counters and 11 class kitchen stoves, kitchen burning gas, electrical cookers, register the "" trademark on goods, such as its registered to use on the sideboard goods" "trademark in 2005 to 2011 was identified as famous trademarks of guangdong province, in 2009 was identified as well-known trademarks, ambry, its European brand household from 2007 to 2011 was identified as Chinese famous brand products, The trademark "" used on sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bath equipment was recognized as a famous trademark in Guangzhou in 2016. At the same time, from 2011 to 2016, the plaintiff put advertisements on many newspapers and magazines, CCTV, Hunan SATELLITE TV and other media to continuously promote its "Opai" brand. Therefore, the plaintiff's "Opai" is both a shop name and a trademark. After continuous use and publicity, it has gained a certain market popularity nationwide and is known by the relevant public. It is an influential enterprise name.

    Both the defendant and the plaintiff with hutch defends electric appliance for the business enterprise, there is a competition relationship, for the same products of "European" name and trademark of the plaintiff used is knowing, but its production, sales as "Qingdao opie shi jia electric appliance co., LTD." the words have been accused of infringing goods, the size of the enterprise name "European" size "European" approximation with the plaintiff, objectively easy to cause the consumers will be accused of infringing goods mistaken for the plaintiff products or thought there is some correlation, with the help of the plaintiff's goodwill, awareness of the subjective to promote product sales "free-ride" intentionally, Therefore, the behavior of the two defendants is the unauthorized use of the name of the plaintiff, which is easy to confuse the relevant public, and constitutes unfair competition.

    Iv. Civil liabilities to be borne by the two defendants

    According to article 15 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, the main ways to bear tort liability are to stop the infringement and compensate for the loss. In this case, the two defendants are both producers of the accused infringing commodities, constituting joint infringement. They fail to prove that they have stopped producing and selling the accused infringing commodities. Therefore, the two defendants shall be deemed to have continued their infringing ACTS and shall bear the civil liability for stopping the infringement.

    As for the amount of compensation, the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 63: "The amount of compensation for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual loss 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 benefits obtained by the infringer, a reasonable multiple of the licensing fee for the trademark shall be determined by reference to the said trademark. If the circumstances are serious, the amount of compensation may be determined between one time and three times of the amount determined according to the above methods. The amount of compensation shall include the reasonable expenses paid by the right to stop the infringement. ... 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 make a judgment of not more than THREE million yuan in accordance with the circumstances of the infringement." The third and fourth paragraphs of Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China stipulate: "The amount of compensation for an operator who is injured due to an act of unfair competition shall be determined according to the actual loss suffered by the operator due to the infringement. Where the actual loss is difficult to calculate, it shall be determined in accordance with the benefits derived by the infringer from the infringement. The amount of compensation shall also include the reasonable expenses paid by the operator to stop the infringing act. If the operator violates the provisions of Article 6 and article 9 of this Law, and it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement or the benefits gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, 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."

    This case, the plaintiff to cause trademark infringement and unfair competition to the actual loss, the two defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition are not proof confirmed interests obtained, etc, is difficult to determine, so consider both the subjective fault of the infringement, the defendant during the operation scale, the nature of the infringement,, consequences, such as plot, the plaintiff, "European" font size and brand awareness is higher, and the reasonable cost of stopping the infringement (including purchase was accused of infringing goods costs 600 yuan, the plaintiff's claim of lawyers, notary fees, travel expenses not proof proof, but it does appoint lawyers involved in the litigation, The court decided that the two defendants should jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable expense of safeguarding their rights, totaling 110,000 yuan. The Court does not support the part of the plaintiff's claim in excess of the said amount.

    To sum up, in accordance with the "trademark law of the People's Republic of China" paragraph 1 of article 3, paragraph 2 of article 57, item 3, paragraph 1 of article sixty-three, paragraph 3, "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China", the second and third paragraph of article 17 of article 6, paragraph 4, the tort liability law of the People's Republic of China, article 15, the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases interpretation of article 9, article 10, paragraph 1 of article 16, paragraph 2, article 17 and article sixty-four of the civil procedural law of the People's Republic of China the provisions of the first paragraph, the sentence is as follows:

    I. The defendant, Foshan Shunde Longou Electric Appliance Co., LTD., and the defendant, Qingdao Oujia Electric Appliance Co., LTD., immediately stopped the production and sale of gas stoves labeled as "Qingdao Oupai" and "Qingdao Oupai Shijia Electric Appliance Co., LTD." as of the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    2. The defendant, Foshan Shunde Longou Electric Appliance Co., LTD., and the defendant, Qingdao Oujia Electric Appliance Co., LTD., shall compensate the plaintiff, Oupai Household Appliances Group Co., LTD., for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 110,000 yuan within 10 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment.

    3. Other claims of the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., were rejected.

    If the defendant fails to perform his pecuniary obligation within the time limit specified in this judgment, he shall, in accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, pay the plaintiff double interest on the debt for the delay period.

    The receiving fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, which is borne by the plaintiff Oupai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. and 3000 yuan jointly borne by the defendant Foshan Shunde Longou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Oujia Electric Appliance Co., LTD.

    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 Xiuling, Chief Judge

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    People's Juror Huanhong Huang

    June 10, 1919

    Clerk Huo Zhichao