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

    No. 2288, Yue 0604, Early Republic of China

    Plaintiff: Opai Furniture Group Co., LTD., domicile place: 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.

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

    Defendant: Foshan Shuangwen Huwei Electric Appliance Co., LTD. Domicile: Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, Unified social credit code ××15E.

    Legal representative: Chen Zhengyi.

    Agent AD litem: Li Ping, lawyer of Guangdong Guishun Law Firm.

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD., and double article hutch defends electric appliance co., LTD., foshan city, the defendant violated trademark right and unfair competition disputes, 23 Hitachi after in our hospital from January 2018, the defendant during the submit petition to the jurisdiction of the court, in our hospital in 2018 March 15 to 0604 (2018), guangdong early 2288 civil verdict, ruling to reject the defendant put forward objection to jurisdiction over the case. On May 4, 2018, the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling. The court held the hearing in public on November 1, 2018 in accordance with the ordinary procedures. Wang Ning, the plaintiff's agent AD litem, attended the hearing. The defendant, having been subpoenaed by the court, refused to attend the proceedings without good reason. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff files a lawsuit to the court: 1. The judgment orders the defendant to immediately stop the trademark infringement, stop the production and sale of range hood, gas stove products marked on the word "European"; 2. 2. The defendant was ordered to immediately stop unfair competition and stop marking the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" on the range hoods and gas stoves produced and sold by the defendant; 3. Order the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding the rights, totaling RMB 200,000 only; 4. Order the defendant to bear the costs of the case.

    Facts and Reasons: Founded in 1994, the plaintiff is a leading brand in the whole cabinet industry. Its products cover the whole wardrobe, kitchen appliances, bathroom and commercial kitchen utensils and other fields. The series trademarks of "" and" OPPEIN "owned by the plaintiff, after decades of careful creation and huge investment in advertising, have been molded into household, kitchen, bathroom brands that are well known throughout the country. This brand has successively won the reputation of" China famous brand products ", "China well-known trademark" and so on. At the same time, in February 2017, the plaintiff was successfully listed in Shanghai with stock code 603208, which further laid the leading brand advantage of the plaintiff in the industry. Nowadays, in the public mind, "Opai" series of trademarks is not only a representative symbol of the plaintiff's products and enterprise names, but also a significant identification mark indicating the market subject and commodity source of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's affiliated enterprises. In August 2017, the plaintiff found xinzheng longhu township businesses use the "European" word family appliance sales marked "o" "guangdong opie technology co., LTD." on the oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, in the place such as products and packaging was labeled "European" "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." "producers: foshan double article hutch defends electric appliance co., LTD.", the plaintiffs entrust notary office has carried on the preservation of evidence to the infringement. To sum up, the plaintiff that the defendant to clings to the plaintiff, "European" brand reputation, deliberately in the shop, product illegal use of the "European" word "guangdong opie technology co., LTD.", this behavior is not only the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff, also violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, the infringement of the right to enterprise name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff constitutes unfair competition, caused great economic losses to the plaintiff, shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility. Therefore, in order to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, 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, appealed to the court to judge as requested.

    The defendant did not appear in court and did not submit a written defence.

    Lawsuit, the plaintiff to we submitted the following evidence: 1. The word no. 347 (2016) lai FengCheng card people, (2017) lai FengCheng people word notarial deed, (2016) no. 675 lai FengCheng word no. 350, (2017), the people FengCheng certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 672 lai people word FengCheng word no. 346, (2017), the people FengCheng certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 673 people word word no. 348 lai FengCheng card people notarial deed; 2. The word no. 352 (2016) lai FengCheng card people notarial deed, issued by the state administration for industry and commerce trademark office trademark chi word [2009] no. 7 on that "European" trademark for well-known trademark approval, (2016) lai FengCheng people word certificate notarial deed, (2017) no. 353 lai FengCheng people word certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 260 lai FengCheng people word notarial deed, (2016) no. 357 lai FengCheng certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 355 lai people word FengCheng certificate notarial deed no. 356, 2011 people word on April 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 "Linchuan evening news published day, 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 (the newspapers are all copy); 3. (2017) Notarial Certificate no. 1453 of Laifeng City Certificate and notarized sealed articles; 4. One copy of the notary fee bill; 5. Photocopy of the plaintiff's business license and the defendant's enterprise credit information publicity report; 6. Foshan Shuangwen Huicong Web page print; 7. Copy of the letter of Authorization and copy of the OPAICN Trademark Registration Certificate No. 12124262 (the plaintiff claims that the OPAICN evidence proves the source of the alleged infringing product, which was provided to the plaintiff by the OPAICN One Family Electrical Appliance Firm in Longhu Town, Xinzheng City, which sold the alleged infringing product).

    For the above evidence, the court recognizes as follows: For evidence 1, the group of evidence is a notarized document issued by the notary office according to law, the content is the trademark registration document of the plaintiff, etc., which is related to this case, the court accepts and accepts; Evidence for 2 evidence, the group in addition to the newspapers, both for the notarial documents issued by the notary public in accordance with the relevant documents issued by the administrative organ of legal sources, is associated with the case, we shall be disbelieved newspapers did not provide the original check, but with (2016), we have believed FengCheng certificate no. 355, 356 people notarial deed content can support each other, so we be trusted; For evidence 3, this group of evidence is the notarial document issued by the notarial office according to law, the attached notarization seal of sealed articles is intact, the two are mutually verified, and are related to the facts to be proved in this case, which is accepted by the court. For evidence 4, this group of evidence is confirmed with evidence 3, so the court accepts it. For evidence 5, this group of evidence is the information issued or publicized by the administrative authority according to law, and its source is legal, which shall be accepted by the court; For evidence 6, the evidence is a web page, and the authenticity of its source and content cannot be confirmed, so the court does not accept it. For evidence 7, because the original documents of this group of evidence have not been checked, the authenticity of its source cannot be confirmed, so the court does not accept it.

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

    The plaintiff and his claim

    The plaintiff Opai Household Group Co., Ltd. was founded on July 1, 1994. Its business scope is furniture manufacturing industry, and its main businesses are integral kitchen (including kitchen stove and kitchen appliances), cabinets and wardrobes, integral bathroom (including water heater and other bath equipment).

    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 trademarks "OPPEIN" and "" used by the plaintiff on sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bathing equipment were recognized as famous trademarks of Guangzhou by The Administration for Industry and Commerce of Guangzhou municipality.

    From 2011 to 2016, the plaintiff continued to publicize its "Opai" brand through advertisements in many newspapers such as Linchuan Evening News, Ruili Home Furnishing, Decorate the World, CCTV, Hunan SATELLITE TV and other media, and carried out publicity together with the slogan "There is a family, there is love, there is Opai". From 2013 to 2015, the plaintiff continued to employ jiang Wenli, a film and television star, as the spokesperson of "Opai" brand cabinet, wardrobe, bathroom and other products.

    The facts of an 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 August 27, 2017. On September 4, 2017, in the notarization notaries, notarial personnel under the supervision of, laiwu city, urban shield intellectual property service center of entrusted agent shou-zhen wang in the name of the ordinary consumers come to city town of henan xinzheng x x x x x x number of "zhengzhou family kitchen appliances stores," shou-zhen wang in the shop to buy a marked "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." each one oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, the oil absorption marked "European" in the instructions). "Zhengzhou family electrical appliances sales list" issued by the shop was obtained on the spot (the listed goods are a range hood, gas stove each, the total amount of 580 yuan) and a business card with "Yan Ziping" printed on it. The notary and notary will seal up the above-mentioned articles and give them to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. On October 19, 2017, the notary office issued a (2017) Notarial certificate of Laifengcheng Certificate No. 1453 to certify the above process.

    During the trial, the sealed items attached to the notarial certificate were unsealed in court. The sealed items marked with the words "Range hood" contain a range hood and a copy of the operation manual. (Another line) The words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" and the image of Jiang Wenli are annotated with "OPAICN? (Another line) Below the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." are marked with the message "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. Manufacturer: Foshan Shuangwen Huwei Electric Appliance Co., LTD. Address: No. 103, Shunde (Ronggui) Outer Ring Road, Foshan City. Tel: 0757-29321515 Fax: 0757-29321515". The OPAICN? (Another line) the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." are annotated with "OPAICN? "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." with the image of Jiang Wenli on the front. The storage items marked with the words "Household gas cooker" contain one gas cooker and one operation manual, in which the front and back of the gas cooker packaging box are marked with "OPAICN? (Another line) The words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" and the image of Jiang Wenli are annotated with "OPAICN? Start a new line () the word "guangdong opie technology co., LTD.", below are marked with a "foshan city, guangdong technology co., LTD, manufacturer of double article hutch defends electric appliance co., LTD. Address: foshan shunde ronggui) waihuan telephone: 103 0757-29321515 fax: 0757-29321515" information, the production date in the label of paste products for in May 2017, kitchen burning gas product labeling on the panel "OPAICN?" The OPAICN? OPAICN is marked on the front and back of the operation manual. "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." with the image of Jiang Wenli on the front.

    The plaintiff believes that the "" mark marked on the range hood manual is the same as the trademark of the plaintiff no. 4378572, which infringes the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of a registered trademark; "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." marked in the above place is an act of unfair competition that infringes on the plaintiff's right of enterprise name.

    Other ascertained facts

    The defendant Shuangwen kitchen and sanitation Company was established on May 25, 2016. It is a limited liability company with a registered capital of 100,000 yuan. Its business scope is manufacturing and processing: gas cooking utensils, range hood ventilator, water heater, disinfection cabinet and kitchen and sanitary appliances.

    Lawsuit, the plaintiff's claims that the compensation for the economic losses and reasonable expenses 200000 yuan to protect their rights is based on the plaintiff's "European" trademark and enterprise name has a very high reputation and market value, and the plaintiff reasonable expense to stop the infringement, including buying is accused of infringement product cost 580 yuan, notarial cost 900 yuan and attorney fees 12000 yuan to 2000 yuan, travel, request the court has decided.

    The court holds that this case is a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute. The dispute issues are analyzed as follows:

    Whether the alleged infringing product was produced by the defendant.

    In this case, the plaintiff submitted to our hospital by FengCheng notarization in laiwu city in shandong province (2017) lai FengCheng certificate issued by the people of the word no. 1453 is notarial deed and notary seal items, confirm the plaintiff authorized agent in "zhengzhou family kitchen appliances shop" for the product oil absorption, kitchen burning gas is accused of infringement, and the accused infringing products are marked on the outer packing of "producers: foshan double article hutch defends electric appliance co., LTD." the name, address, telephone information, etc. The above information is consistent with the defendant's enterprise name, industrial and commercial registration address, business scope and other information. Therefore, in this case the defendant did not come to court to answer the defense and submit contrary evidence under the circumstances, the court is accused of infringement products suction range hood and gas stove is produced by the defendant.

    Whether the defendant's act constitutes trademark infringement.

    (1) Using a trademark identical with a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the trademark registrant; ... (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 registered trademark No. 4378572 according to the law after registration. The said trademark is now within the period of validity, and the approved commodities are the 11th class, including gas stove and kitchen range hood. Is accused of infringement product of oil absorption operation instruction on "identity", "" no. 4378572 with the plaintiff of a registered trademark, but there was no difference in the visual basic constitute a trademark is the same, and is accused of infringement product oil absorption and use of a registered trademark approved no. 4378572 goods kitchen smoke lampblack machine for the same kind of goods, so the defendant was accused of infringement product instructions on the use of oil absorption using the above logo, has infringed upon the plaintiff no. 4378572" "the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark.

    Whether the defendant's conduct constitutes unfair competition.

    Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (effective December 1, 1993) states: "Business operators shall not engage in market transactions by the following improper means to the detriment of competitors:... (3) to use, without authorization, the enterprise name or name of another person, thus causing it to be mistaken for another person's goods; ..." . The Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in the first paragraph of article 6 of regulation:" the enterprise registration authority in accordance with the registered enterprise name, and for commercial use within the territory of China, foreign (regional) enterprise name shall be identified as (3) of article 5 of the anti-unfair competition law "enterprise name" prescribed in item. The shop name of an enterprise that has a certain market popularity and is known to the relevant public may be identified as the "enterprise name" as stipulated in item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This case, the plaintiff opie household group co., LTD., founded in 1994, on July 1, the main overall kitchen, the overall cabinets, wardrobe, bathroom, early in 1997, has 20 kind of furniture, kitchen cabinets, counters and 11 kinds of kitchen stoves, electric cooker etc. Register the "" trademark on goods, also in 2007 in 11 class gas type, kitchen smoke lampblack machine 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, The "OPPEIN" and "" trademarks used in sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bath equipment were identified as famous trademarks 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 "Eurovision" brand, and hired jiang Wenli, a famous film and television star, as the spokesperson. Therefore, the plaintiff's "Opai" is both the name and the trademark. After continuous use and publicity, it has gained a certain market popularity nationwide and is known by the relevant public. It belongs to the "enterprise name" stipulated by the above laws.

    The defendant in oil absorption, kitchen burning gas is accused of infringing products on the "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." of the enterprise name font size same as the plaintiff's "European" font size, and guangdong opie technology co., LTD. With the plaintiff in guangdong area, scope of business include home appliances, consumer easy to produce the defendant is accused of infringing products are mistaken for the plaintiff products or thought there is some correlation. And the defendant as a production of gas stoves, range hood and other home appliances enterprises, within the industry, such as kitchen, oil absorption electrical home appliances brands should be more familiar with the general public, and at close range and the plaintiff's premises, scope of business, part of the same reason for the plaintiff already has certain market popularity "European" font size is supposed to know. Therefore, the defendant is accused of infringement product on its production marked "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." of the enterprise name, belongs to the unauthorized use of the plaintiff "European" font size, easy to confuse the relevant public behavior, its on the accused of infringement product along with the plaintiff, "European" brand the image of the original spokesperson jiang wenli, enhanced the accused infringing products linked to the plaintiff, deepen consumers misunderstanding, has obvious "free-rider" intentionally, the fair market competition principle of honesty and credit, in violation of the recognized business ethics, the behavior constitutes unfair competition.

    Civil liabilities of the defendant.

    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. Accordingly, the plaintiff requires the defendant to stop producing and selling the product accused of infringement and compensate for the loss. The court supports the reason. 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 anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China "(effective as of December 1, 1993), article 20 of the first paragraph:" the operator in violation of the provisions of this law, damage to the abused operators, shall be liable for damages, the infringement to operator's loss is hard to calculate, deductible for the infringer during the period of infringement for infringement profits; It shall also bear the reasonable expenses paid by the injured operator for investigating the ACTS of unfair competition committed by the operator that infringe its lawful rights and interests." In the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Certain Issues concerning the Application of Laws in The Trial of Civil Cases of Unfair Competition, it is stipulated that: "The determination of the amount of damages for ACTS infringing trade secrets stipulated in Article 10 of the Law against Unfair Competition may be carried out by referring to the method of determining the amount of damages for patent rights infringement; The determination of the amount of damages for ACTS of unfair competition as provided for in Article 5, article 9 and Article 14 of the Anti-Unfair competition Law may be carried out with reference to the determination of the amount of damages for infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark." The damages for unfair competition in this case are brought in accordance with Article 5 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition (effective from December 1, 1993), so the amount of damages for ACTS of unfair competition can be determined by referring to the amount of damages for infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

    In this case, because the parties from the actual damage to the plaintiff because of the infringement, the defendant from the infringement profits have not proof such as confirmed that it is difficult to determine, so considering the nature of the infringement, the degree of subjective fault, the defendant, consequences during the period of the plot, specifically for the defendant is accused of infringement product oil absorption operation instruction to use the "" identity constitute trademark infringement, production, sales, mark" guangdong opie technology co., LTD. "on the oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, two kinds of products constitutes unfair competition, during the period of infringement can not be sure, the plaintiff," European "font size and brand awareness is higher, As well as the reasonable cost to stop the infringement (including notary fee, purchase cost of the product accused of infringement, attorney fee claimed by the plaintiff, travel expense not proved by evidence) and other factors, the court decided the defendant Shuangwen Huwei Company to compensate the plaintiff's economic loss and reasonable expense of safeguarding the rights in a total of 140,000 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 article 57, paragraphs 1 and 3, paragraph 3 of article sixty-three of the "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China" (effective as of December 1, 1993), article 2, article 5, paragraph 3, paragraph 1 of article 20, article 15 of the "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China" and the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases by interpretation of article 9, article 10, paragraph 1 of article 16, paragraph 2, article 17, the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in the first paragraph of article 6 of, Article 17 As provided in paragraph 1 of Article 64, Paragraph 1 and Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment by default is as follows:

    I. The defendant, Foshan Shuangwen Huwei Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark "" of the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD. No. 4378572 as of the date of the legal effect of this judgment, namely, it stopped marking" "on the range hood products produced and sold by it;

    2. The defendant, Foshan Shuangwen Kitchen & Sanitary Appliance Co., Ltd. shall immediately stop unfair competition from the date of the legal effect of this judgment, i.e. stop marking the words "Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD" on its production and sales of range hood and gas stove products;

    3. The defendant, Foshan Shuangwen Huwei Electric Appliance Co., LTD., shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., a total of 140,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights within 10 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    Iv. Other claims of the plaintiff, Opai Furniture Group Co., LTD., shall be 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 shall be borne by the plaintiff Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., 1,300 yuan, and the defendant Foshan Shuangwen Kitchen and sanitary Appliances Co., LTD., 3,000 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.

    Chief Judge Lin Yanping

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    People's Juror Li Ruifen

    January 18, 1920

    Clerk Du Wenjing