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

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

    Written judgment of civil affairs

    (2016) Yue 0604, 11589, early Republic of China

    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.

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

    Defendant: Du Qingjun, male, Han Nationality, born on February 22, 1980, residing in Huaibin County, Henan Province.

    Defendant: Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., No. 313-6, 3rd Floor, No. 22, Licitang Road, Shangjia, Ronggui Street Office, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, registration Number: 440681000543556.

    Legal representative: Su Liangzhu.

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

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

    Defendant: Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., LTD., domicile: Wuzhu Mountain, Wulan Industrial Zone, Huangpu Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province. Registration number 442000001057591.

    Legal representative: Chu Guanxiang.

    Agent AD litem: Lu Yanni, lawyer of Guangdong Guanghan Law Firm.

    Plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European group) v. the defendant du qing, the guangdong opie technology co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as guangdong opie), the defendant in zhongshan aerospace electric appliance co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as ShanHang letter) the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, in our hospital in 2016 after October 31 to begin, the defendant in ShanHang letter to our objects to the jurisdiction of the court, in our hospital in 2016 ruled on December 5, rejected the defendant ShanHang in the jurisdiction of the court of the letter. We form a collegial panel in accordance with the law, on May 4, 2017 in open trial, plaintiffs opie group of entrusted agent wang ning, the guangdong opie Liang Zhengping entrust agents AD litem, the defendant in ShanHang Liu Yanni letter to entrust agents AD litem to appear in court to participate in litigation, the defendant du qing summoned by our hospital, refuses to appear in court without justified reasons to participate in the litigation. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the court: 1. The court ordered the defendant Du Qingjun to immediately stop the trademark infringement and unfair competition behavior of using the word "Opai" in the online store for false publicity; 2. 2. The defendant Du Qingjun was ordered to immediately stop the sale of the unfair competition behavior of the range hood marked "supervised by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD"; 3. The defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. and the defendant Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. were ordered to immediately stop the production and sale of the hoods marked "Supervised by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." in the case of unfair competition; Iv. The defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. was ordered to change its enterprise name immediately, and the word "Opai" shall not be used in the changed enterprise name; 5. The court ordered the three defendants to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights in this case, totaling RMB 200,000 only; 6. The three defendants were ordered to bear the costs of the case.

    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 August 2016, the plaintiff found that the defendant Du Qingjun used "Oupai" to carry out false propaganda in his taobao shop "Oupai High-end kitchen and sanitary Appliances direct selling", and sold the range hood marked "Oupai" and "Supervised by Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD". The plaintiff applied for evidence preservation in the notary office for the above-mentioned infringement. After further investigation, the plaintiff found that the above products were manufactured by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., LTD.

    To sum up, the plaintiff argues that the three defendants to clings to the plaintiff's "European" brand reputation, deliberately in the shop, product illegal use of the "European" "guangdong opie technology co., LTD. Producer", this behavior is not only the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff, and violate the principles of honesty and credit and recognized business ethics, constitutes unfair competition to the plaintiff, caused great economic losses to the plaintiff, shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility. Therefore, the plaintiff, in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition and other relevant provisions, appealed 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.

    2. (2016) The Notarial Certificate of Lai Feng City Certificate No. 350 certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 1128213.

    3. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 346 of Laifeng City Certificate, proving that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 1137521 according to law.

    4. (2016) The Notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 348 certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 7731876.

    5. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 352 issued by Fengcheng License, which proves 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" "brand of the plaintiff has certain originality and a long history.

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

    7, (2016), lai FengCheng card people word no. 353 is notarial deed, prove that the plaintiff and the plaintiff brand have high market visibility, content as follows: (1), July 9, 2007, the state administration of quality supervision, inspection and quarantine awarded "China famous brand product certificate", prove that the plaintiff of production European brand household cabinet was awarded "China famous brand product" title. (2) In October 2008, guangdong Provincial Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision issued the "Guangdong Famous brand Product" certificate, proving that the Oupai brand cabinet produced by the plaintiff was awarded the "Guangdong famous brand Product" title. (3) In February 2008, the Guangdong Province Famous Trademark Certificate issued by the Guangdong Province Famous Trademark Recognition Committee proves that the registered trademark "Opai" No. 1128213 was recognized as a Famous trademark of Guangdong Province in March 2005 and February 2008. (4), in December 2012, China building decoration association kitchen and sanitation engineering committee issued the certificate, proving that the plaintiff in 2012 was rated as "2012 China kitchen and sanitation 100", "overall kitchen leading enterprises top 10". (5) In September 2013, the Guangzhou Municipal People's Government issued the certificate of honor, proving that the quality of the plaintiff company was awarded the "2012 Guangzhou Mayor quality Award". (6), December 28, 2014, certificate issued by the brand watch magazine, prove that the plaintiff's European brand strategy to be included in the "2014 China's annual brand marketing case silver" (7), in January 2015, the guangdong province association of float subsequently, honorary certificate issued by the guangdong furniture chamber of commerce, prove that the plaintiff in 2014 was awarded "top ten most valuable brands". (8) In January 2015, Guangdong Provincial Home Industry Federation and Guangdong Furniture Chamber of Commerce issued the certificate of honor, proving that the plaintiff was awarded "Top 10 Enterprises with Innovation Ability" in 2014.

    8, the word no. 357 (2016) lai FengCheng card people notarial deed, prove that the plaintiff part of pay taxes, prove that "European" brand benefit huge profits, the brand value is extremely high, specific content as follows: (1), the guangzhou baiyun district issued by the state administration of taxation cloud duty five [2014] no. 100014 tax certificate, prove that the plaintiff on January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to the bureau to pay taxes one $$hk suhuang spreading spreading Wan Jiu us $3 and pure Angle and pure. (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 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 state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid a tax of 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 and 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 twenty-nine thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight yuan eighty sixty 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 the tax on July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 to the bureau, i.e., the tax amount of three thousand six hundred and fifty-eight thousand nine hundred 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) The Legal certificate of Laifengcheng Ziminzi No. 355, which proves that the plaintiff has carried out continuous publicity for the "Opai" brand through CCTV and Hunan SATELLITE TV, and proves that the "Opai" brand has been widely known by the public and has a high brand value. The specific content is 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" propaganda of the plaintiff brand, advertising for wu bai 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.

    (3) (2016) The Notarial certificate no. 951 (including the infringing material object sealed by the notary office) of Leifeng City, and prove the tort facts of the defendant.

    14. One notarization fee note. The plaintiff claims 700 yuan in this case, which proves the plaintiff's reasonable expense in safeguarding his rights.

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

    Du Qingjun, the defendant, did not enter a plea. After being legally summoned by the court, the defendant Du Qingjun refuses to appear in court to answer the lawsuit without justified reasons, which shall be deemed as waiving his right to plead.

    The defendant Guangdongbei group argues: 1. The defendant Guangdong European Group has never produced or sold any products, and the range hood products involved are not produced, sold or authorized by the defendant Du Qingjun or any third party to produce or sell; 2. The defendant GUANGDONG Opai does not own any online shop, nor does it authorize the defendant Du Qingjun or any third party to open the online shop and sell the products involved in the case. In this case, the products involved are counterfeit products of the company name and trademark of the defendant Guangdongfang. All the infringement behaviors related to the plaintiff's notarization have nothing to do with the defendant GuangdongFang, who is also a victim in this case. There is no supervision relationship between the defendant Guangdongpai and the defendant Zhongshan Hangxin. They have not signed any supervision agreement, authorized the use of supervision marks and other legal documents. There was no supply relationship between the defendants and the other defendants. Since the torts in this case were not committed by the defendant Guangdongbei sect, the defendant Guangdongbei sect is not liable.

    Ii. The trademark used by the defendant GUANGDONG Opo Group on the products involved is the registered trademark "OPAICN" No. 12124262. It obtained the legal trademark right as of July 21, 2014, and should be protected by law. Although the defendant Du Qingjun used the trademark of the defendant Guangdongfang Without the permission of the defendant guangdongFang, the trademark is completely different from the trademark of the plaintiff, and both of them have obtained the legal trademark rights, which does not constitute any trademark infringement to the plaintiff.

    Iii. The company name and font name of the defendant Guangdong Opai were used on the packaging of the products involved. The name and trade name of the enterprise are legally acquired through industrial and commercial registration, and are completely different from the industry to which the plaintiff's enterprise belongs, and do not constitute unfair competition, and the plaintiff has no right to request to stop the use and change the name of the enterprise. In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant belong to two different industries. There is no competitive relationship between the two enterprises, let alone unfair competition.

    (1) the defendant "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." of the enterprise name is April 30, 2014, guangdong province administration of industry and commerce approved size and formal registration and establishment, the font size for approval department of the enterprise name with the plaintiff belong to guangdong province administration for industry and commerce approved the registration department management, the plaintiff's "European" brand has won the award for the well-known trademark, industrial and commercial bureau of guangdong province have started to its famous trademark name protection, but still province administration of industry and commerce for approval of the defendant's enterprise size, prove the defendant's the company name and not completely to the plaintiff of the well-known trademark of any infringement or unfair competition, otherwise, The same industrial and commercial bureau could not agree to approve the defendant's use of the enterprise name and shop name.

    (2) The primary factor that constitutes unfair competition is that both parties are engaged in the same industry with a competitive relationship, and the unfair competition causes damage to the other party due to its unfair competition behavior. If both parties are engaged in different industries, there is no competition at all. In this case, according to the plaintiff's evidence, the plaintiff is engaged in trademark classification class 20 household industry, production and sales of the products are cabinets, wardrobe, and the defendant engaged in the technology industry, the electric equipment product that the product is class 11, both sides of the industry and the products are completely different, there is no peer competition, also not because of the industry and the production and sales of behavior to the plaintiff to the case production sales caused any damage or loss, therefore does not constitute a competitive relationship, nothing more proper or improper.

    (3) the plaintiff accused the defendant of the enterprise name involved constitutes unfair competition, which demand a ban on using the enterprise name, but through anti-unfair competition law to ban the use of enterprise name, must request the plaintiff's trademark or name in forbidden enterprise name used by industries and products have very high visibility and form the only correspondence.

    (4) The plaintiff's "Opai" brand and name did not form a unique corresponding very high popularity not only in the electrical appliance industry involved, but also in other industries. The evidence of the defendant Guangdong Opai shows that the "Opai" brand electric vehicle of Opai Technology Co., Ltd. ranks the first in the electric vehicle industry in China. The brand image spokesperson of opAI electric vehicle is also Jiang Wenli. The door industry of "Opai" brand of Jiangshan Opai Company is a famous trademark in Zhejiang province. There are also opai paint, opai floor and so on. All of them have quite high popularity in their respective industries, but none of them has anything to do with the plaintiff. Moreover, the term "Eurofaction" was not invented by the plaintiff, but originally meant "European faction, western faction", which is often referred to as the product style of European faction or European and American technology in the industry. As a result, the term "European" is not an original and unique from the start, now also at the same time there are a number of different industries, "European brand" and "European" and a number of enterprise size, and popularity is quite high, therefore, the plaintiff's "European" brand did not reach to prohibit the defendant in completely different industries and products using the word as the name of the only corresponding high name recognition, the plaintiff suing for there completely irrational.

    In conclusion, in this case, the product is a fake the defendant involved guangdong trademark and enterprise name of counterfeit products, the guangdong opie didn't implement any copyright infringement charges by the case of the plaintiff, neither the infringing act, nor tort liability, therefore, the defendant guangdong opie does not pose any trademark infringement or unfair competition to the plaintiff, the plaintiff to the defendant the guangdong opie filed for there are also please be all rejected.

    The defendant, The Quaker, provided the following evidence in the proceeding:

    1. Trademark certificate. It is proved that the trademark of the plaintiff is not used on the products involved. The trademark used on the products involved is registered trademark No. 12124262, which obtained the legal trademark right as early as July 21, 2014. The trademark used on the products involved does not infringe any trademark right of the plaintiff.

    2. Enterprise information and profile of Jiangshan Oupai Door Industry Co., LTD. Proved that the "European" trademark is not the plaintiff a unique, is not only famous for one thing: the plaintiff's "European", the registered trademark of jiangshan European door industry "European" brand wooden door, began in 2006, in 2009 won the title of "Chinese wood door industry 30 strong, brand-name products in zhejiang province in 2010 won the title, in 2012 won the title of" famous trademark of zhejiang province, to prove "European" brand on the market several coexistence is the indisputable fact that, and the plaintiff's pie even if is not the only has a high level of popularity in the industry of household, jiangshan European wood door in the household popularity is higher than the plaintiff on the wooden door, Besides, the brand image spokesperson of Jiangshan Oupai Wooden door is also Jiang Wenli, and the "Oupai" brand of the plaintiff has not formed a unique corresponding high popularity in the household furniture market, not to mention the electrical industry involved in the production and sales of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant's use of products in different industries by unfair competition is unreasonable and groundless, which is to expand the scope of protection without authorization.

    3. Enterprise information and profile of Wuxi Shengbao Vehicle Manufacturing Co., LTD. This is to certify that the company's registered trademark "Opai" brand electric vehicle, started production in 1996, is now ranked the first brand in China's electric vehicle industry for several consecutive years. Proved that the "European" trademark is not the plaintiff a unique, is not only famous for one thing: the plaintiff's "European", "European" brand on the market more than coexistence is the indisputable fact that the plaintiff's "European" brand not only corresponds to a high popularity in the market, not to mention in the plaintiff have not production and sales of electrical appliances industry. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant's use of products in different industries by unfair competition is unreasonable and groundless, which is to expand the scope of protection without authorization.

    4. Enterprise information and profile of Suzhou Suou Wood Industry Co., LTD. Prove the registered trademark of the company 2002 "European" brand floor, floor is one of the top ten famous brand for the Chinese household, prove that "European" brand is not the plaintiff a unique, is not only famous for one thing: the plaintiff's "European", "European" brand on the market many coexistence is the indisputable fact that, and the plaintiff's pie even in household industry not only has a high visibility, Sue the European wood industry "European" brand floor in the household popularity is on the floor above the plaintiff, the plaintiff's "European brand" in its home market, did not form the corresponding high name recognition, Not to mention the electronics industry in which the plaintiffs did not produce and sell the products. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant's use of products in different industries by unfair competition is unreasonable and groundless, which is to expand the scope of protection without authorization.

    5. Enterprise information and profile of Henan Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD. It is proved that Opai is a subsidiary of Danone, a well-known enterprise in the electrical industry, specializing in the production of "Opai" brand washing machines, whose brand is far more well-known in the electrical industry than the plaintiff's "Opai". It is proved that "Opai" trademark is not a unique plaintiff, nor is it only the plaintiff's "Opai" famous, it is an indisputable fact that "Opai" trademark coexists in the market. The plaintiff has never carried out production and sales promotion in the electric appliance industry, and has no popularity in the electric appliance industry. The popularity of "Opai" in the electric appliance industry belongs to the "Opai" brand of the Henan Opai Electric Appliance Company. As a result, the appliance store in this industry more than the plaintiff has involved, "European" 2 words of trademark, and other home better-known the plaintiff, as a result, the plaintiff has not formed in the industry of appliance stores involved only corresponds to a high enough profile, the plaintiff asked to unfair competition to ban the use of the defendant on the products of different industries there is unreasonable, to expand the scope of protection.

    6. Opai coating chemical Company, Opai leather Goods Company, Opai Machinery Company and other enterprise information and introduction. Proved that the "European" brand paint, "European" brand leather goods, "European" brand machinery is used, "European" two characters as a product brand, but is not the plaintiff's trademark, prove that "European" brand is not the plaintiff a unique, is not only famous for one thing: the plaintiff's "European", "European" brand on the market more than coexistence is the indisputable fact that the plaintiff's "European" brand not only corresponds to a high popularity in the market, not to mention in the plaintiff have not production and sales of electrical appliances industry. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant's use of products in different industries by unfair competition is unreasonable and groundless, which is to expand the scope of protection without authorization.

    7. Use the word "Opai" as a series of enterprise information. It is proved that in addition to the plaintiff's enterprise name, there are still a large number of enterprises in various industries which have been officially approved and registered by the Industrial and commercial Bureau and use the word "Eurogroup" as the enterprise name, which are legally existing. It is an indisputable fact that "Opai" coexists with many companies on the market as the enterprise name. Even if the plaintiff is a well-known trademark on the cabinet and wardrobe products of home, it can be used legally in different industries and products, and the plaintiff cannot expand the scope of protection without authorization. Therefore, the name involved in the case of the defendant is legal and should be protected by law. The plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant's use of products in different industries by unfair competition is unreasonable and groundless.

    8. A series of trademark information that USES the word "Opai" as a trademark and has obtained the exclusive right of registration. It is proved that in addition to the plaintiff's trademark of "Opie", there are still 58 registered trademarks of various classes which use the word "Opie" as trademarks and are legally existing. Prove "Europe is sent" 2 words serve as trademark to coexist on the market many it is indisputable fact, even if plaintiff is on the ambry that lives in, chest product is well-known trademark, but go up in different industry and product also can be used lawfully, plaintiff cannot expand protection limits without authorization. Therefore, the defendant's font size is legal and should be protected by law. The plaintiff's request to prohibit the defendant from using the font size in different industries is unreasonable and groundless.

    9. A series of reports on serious quality problems of the plaintiff's "Opai" brand cabinet products. It proves that the publicity of the plaintiff's "Opai" brand cabinet and other products is not worthy of its name, and its product quality has serious problems and is resisted by consumers. Its "Opai" brand does not have the high reputation claimed by the plaintiff, so the defendant does not need to attach its brand reputation.

    The court certifies the evidence submitted by the defendant GUANGDONG Opai as follows: Other evidence is irrelevant to the case.

    Defendant Zhongshan Hon. Com contends that defendant Zhongshan Hon. Com has obtained the authorization of Defendant Guangdongfang Group and agreed to use the trademark of defendant Zhongshan Hon. com, which is not an infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff; 2. Defendant Guangdong Opai is a legally registered enterprise, so the words "supervised by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd." used in the products of defendant Guangdong Opai was legally used. Therefore, defendant Zhongshan Hangxin did not have unfair competition. 3, the guangdong sent on April 8, 2016 are authorized ShanHang letter of the accused to use its trademark, the defendant in ShanHang letter began to be formally used around in July 2016, and the defendant ShanHang letter of production, basic no profit, and the defendant ShanHang letter to stop selling immediately after it has received the court summons, notice that the plaintiffs' claims of compensation is too high. 4, involved in is shown on the taobao shop sales whether real sales volume, the defendant cannot be verified, but the defendant ShanHang letter can sure online shop sales of oil absorption is not ShanHang letter in full by the defendant, is most likely the accused du qing by other channel of replenish onr's stock, and the defendant ShanHang letter without selling through other ways, so almost no any impact to the plaintiff.

    Defendant Zhongshan Airlines Submitted the following evidence: trademark registration certificate, power of Attorney (A), business license, power of Attorney (B). This is to certify that defendant Zhongshan Aviation Information Co., Ltd. is authorized by Defendant Guangdong Opai to use trademark No. 12124262, and that defendant Zhongshan Aviation Information Co., Ltd. has no infringement.

    The court confirms the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the defendant zhongshan Hangxin.

    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, 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.

    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 August 19, 2016, wang Shouzhen, the entrusted agent of the plaintiff, applied to Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province for evidence preservation. In notarial personnel under the supervision of, and the king kept the chastity notary office computer, bought the shopkeeper in "taobao" website called "opie electrical industrial co., LTD.", "European high-end hutch defends electric network marketing online sales of oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, shou-zhen wang in the process of operation related to the relevant page for screenshots, and video to the whole process. In the promised sales page of the above "Europa high-end kitchen and sanitary appliances direct selling" online store, there are "Europa Fine range hood single hearth type embedded gas stove", "Europa Fine Chinese top suction type stainless steel range hood" and other product introductions. In the purchase order information above, the seller's real name is Du Qingjun. On August 22, 2016, under the supervision of a notary public, Wang Shouzhen signed for two pieces of goods marked "household gas cooker" and "household range hood" delivered by a Courier from THE Fengcheng Notary Office in Laiwu city, Shandong Province. Wang Shouzhen opened the two items separately and took pictures. In the carton marked "household gas cooker", there is a manual marked "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD", a product anti-counterfeiting and warranty card, a gas cooker; In the carton marked "domestic range hood", there is a range hood marked "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" and a copy of the manual. Then the notary staff sealed the above articles with the seal of the notary office, and delivered the sealed articles and logistics documents to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province supervised the above purchase and receiving process, and issued the Notary Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 951 (2016).

    According to the certificate issued by Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., LTD provided by the plaintiff, the proprietor of the store named "Oupai Electrical Industrial Co., LTD" was du Qingjun, id no. :

    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 OPAICN and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. (Manufacturing) are marked on the outside packing box of the oil-smoking machine, and the manufacturer: Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., LTD. The flue of the product was marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD", and the company name of the defendant was marked in the instructions. Plaintiffs believe that after being accused of infringement product packaging, manuals, product on the flue of guangdong was labeled the defendant opie enterprise name and on the outer packing with manufacturer in zhongshan city aerospace electrical appliance co., LTD., name, address, telephone number, so the defendant is accused of infringement product department in guangdong, ShanHang letter production, used in the accused of infringement product packaging "opie technology co., LTD. (producer) of guangdong province", to form the unfair competition to the plaintiff, the infringement of the plaintiff's right to enterprise name. In addition, the proprietor of the taobao website named "Oupai Electrical Appliance Industrial Co., LTD" mentioned in the notarial certificate is the defendant du Qingjun, who used the word "Oupai" in a large number in the promotion of the online shop, infringing the exclusive right of the registered trademark "Oupai" no. 4378572 of the plaintiff and also constituted unfair competition.

    Defendant guangdong opie denied is accused of infringement oil absorption system by its production and its think the conversion of oil absorption smoke of notarial purchase packaging is labeled "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." enterprise name, but belong to fake the defendant of guangdong opie products, the defendant ShanHang letter of Europe clique and the defendant in guangdong, there is no supervision relationship between did not sign any supervision agreement, authorized the use of the supervision logo and other legal documents. There was no supply relationship between the defendants and the other defendants. Meanwhile, the defendant Guangdong Opai did not authorize others to produce the accused infringing products, nor did the defendant Du Qingjun open an online store to sell the accused infringing products.

    The defendant Zhongshan Aviation Letter confirmed that the products were manufactured by the defendant, and pointed out that the trademark "OPAICN" marked on the packaging box of the oil-smoking machine was legally authorized to be used by the defendant Zhongshan Aviation Letter by GUANGDONG Opp. The defendant's use of the trademark did not infringe the exclusive right of the plaintiff's registered trademark. Is packing for products marked with "guangdong science and technology co., LTD. Producer", but not highlight using the wording "Europe", and the guangdong science and technology co., LTD., is a legally registered enterprise, the enterprise authorized the defendant ShanHang letter to use its trademark, so the wording is not have the effect of brand recognition, does not constitute a trademark infringement.

    (3) the defendant guangdong sent on April 30, 2014, shunde district, foshan city, the registration and establishment, the registered capital is 10 million yuan, scope of business of biotechnology products, household appliances, metal products, electrical accessories, water purification equipment, air to water heaters, bathroom supplies, daily necessities, household items, electrical materials, electronic products research, development, processing, manufacturing, marketing; Biotechnology research, development and consultation; Enterprise investment consultation; Domestic trade.

    On July 21, 2014, the outsiders' red brand electric appliance co., ltd. registered the OPAICN trademark no. 12124262, with the validity period of registration being July 21, 2014, solstice and July 20, 2024. The approved products include lamps, electric cookers, fans (air-conditioning adjustment), sterilized cupboards, electric heaters, solar water heaters, and drinking machines. Kitchen ventilator, hair dryer, water heater, refrigerator, bath master, personal electric fan, exhaust fan, fabric steam ironing machine, gas stove, water pipe mixed faucet, sink, non-medical electric blanket, dimming bed. On the same day, red brand electric appliance co., ltd. authorized guangdong opo with the OPAICN trademark no. 12124262 to produce, manage and license its brand nationwide. The period of authorization is July 21, 2014, solstice and July 20, 2024.

    On April 8, 2016, defendant GUANGDONG Opal signed a Power of Attorney with defendant Zhongshan Hangxin, in which defendant GUANGDONG Opal agreed to authorize Zhongshan Hangxin to use the trademark No. 12124262 to process and produce, print and package, produce and sell the products of cigarette machines, kitchen utensils, water heaters and disinfection cabinets. Both parties agree that all the creditor's rights and debts, tort liability and legal liability incurred by the Authorized person in the production and business operation shall be borne by the authorized person and have nothing to do with the authorized person. It is also agreed that the printing plant where the licensee USES the packaging marks of the licensed trademark shall report to the Licensor for filing.

    The court holds that this case is a case of infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition disputes. At issue in this case are: 1. Whether the defendant has committed the alleged infringement; 2. 2. Whether the defendant Du Qingjun constitutes trademark infringement and whether the actions of the three defendants constitute unfair competition; 3. Responsibility.

    Focus on 1, according to a certificate issued by the zhejiang taobao network co., LTD., the shopkeeper, "opie electrical industrial co., LTD." shop operators for the du qing, id card number is:, so we confirm the taobao station involved the shopkeeper, "opie electric industrial co., LTD.", "European high-end hutch defends electric direct" shop is run by the defendant du qing, in store promotion extensive use of the word "Europe", and is accused of infringement by its product sales.

    The OPAICN and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. (Supervisor) were labeled with the OPAICN and the manufacturer: Zhongshan Hangxin Electrical Appliance Co., LTD. ShanHang confirmation letter in trial, the defendant is accused of infringing products from the production and sales, and pointed out that in the conversion of oil absorption smoke on package marked "OPAICN" brand is the defendant in guangdong opie authorized to defendant ShanHang use letter, submitted on April 8, 2016 at the same time, the defendants guangdong opie and ShanHang signed power of attorney for the letter, in which the power of attorney agreed the defendants guangdong opie authorize use ShanHang letter no. 12124262 trademarks in processing and production of range hood, cooker, water heater, disinfection cabinet products and printing packaging, production, sales. It is also agreed that the printing plant where the licensee USES the packaging marks of the licensed trademark shall report to the Licensor for filing. Therefore, it can be concluded that the defendant guangdongbei and the defendant Zhongshan Hangxin jointly carried out the infringement. The court will not accept the defendant guangdongpai's opinion that the products involved were counterfeit of the trademark and enterprise name of the defendant Guangdongpai.

    Regarding Focus 2, whether defendant Du Qingjun constitutes trademark infringement and whether the actions of the three defendants constitute unfair competition.

    Article 48 of the Trademark Law; "The use of trademarks as mentioned in this Law means the use of trademarks on commodities, packages or containers of commodities and trade documents, or the use of trademarks in advertising, publicity, exhibitions and other commercial activities to identify the sources of commodities." (1) Using a trademark identical with a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the registered trademark owner; (2) using, without the permission of the trademark registrant, a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same good s or a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on similar good s, which is liable to cause confusion... ." According to the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases interpretation of article 9, the provisions of article 10, in trademark infringement cases that advocate for the rights of accused of infringement identification and whether the registered trademark constitutes approximation, should regard trademark or its constituent elements involved significant degree, market popularity, such as the specific circumstances, in the consideration and comparison form, pronunciation and meaning of the text, graphic composition and color, or on the basis of the combination of elements of the structure, the whole or the major part is the possibility of market confusion to comprehensive analysis and judgment.

    The case is based on the fact that the plaintiff no. 4378572 registered trademark in the 11th class of goods is approved use scope including kitchen use range hood, and the case is accused of infringement product for the household range hood, both belong to the same kind of goods. The defendant du qing in the sales page of the site to use the word "Europe", is accused of infringement identification "European" and advocate for the rights of the plaintiff compared to no. 4378572 "European" registered trademark, the pronunciation and meaning are the same, the relevant public to general attention easily confused between the two, as a result, we concluded that the accused du website using "European identity" of the qing and advocate for the rights of the plaintiff involved trademark constitutes a confounding approximation. According to the above legal provisions, without the permission of the trademark registrant, the defendant's use of trademarks similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks on the same goods has constituted trademark infringement.

    Article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition: "In market transactions, business operators shall abide by the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility, and observe universally recognized business ethics." . Article 5 stipulates: "Business operators shall not engage in market transactions and harm competitors by the following improper means:. (3) to use, without authorization, the enterprise name or name of another person, thus causing it to be mistaken for another person's goods; ." . According to the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil dispute case applicable law of unfair competition, the explanation of some issues of article 6 of the 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" prescribed in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This case, "Europe" is the font size in the plaintiff opie group enterprise name, the plaintiff opie group is the domestic famous furniture production enterprise, in the class the sideboard 20 "European" trademark by the trademark office identified as well-known trademarks, its enterprise also won many honors, such as China famous brand product, guangdong well-known trademark, top 2012 China hutch defends, integral kitchen top ten leading enterprises, the 2012 guangzhou mayor quality prize, in 2014, guangdong generic household field top ten most valuable brands, innovation ten strong enterprise honorary title, In CCTV, hunan TV station and other print media for advertising, pay a lot of advertising costs, visible "European" series of products and the plaintiff opie group "European" font size across the country have high visibility, and by the relevant public know, belong to (3) of article 5 of the anti-unfair competition law "enterprise name" prescribed in item. Plaintiff opie group's prior rights by "general principles of the civil law of the People's Republic of China" and "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China" the protection of the defendant du qing in its online store page marked "European" and used on the sales of products and packaging "guangdong opie technology co., LTD. The supervision", and the defendants guangdong opie licensing ShanHang letter in production and sales of products and packaging used on the wording "guangdong opie technology co., LTD. Producer" behavior, easy to make the relevant public as its sales of products and there is a link between the plaintiff opie group, easy to make the relevant public source for products cause confusion and mistakes, Damage the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff opie group, three the defendant's act clearly violates the law of the People's Republic of China of unfair competition law, the provisions of article 2 "in market transactions, an operator shall follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credit", violated the recognized business ethics in the market transaction, violated rights of the plaintiff opie group enterprise name, belongs to the ACTS of unfair competition, three the defendant shall bear tort liability.

    As previously mentioned, "Europe" is the font size in the plaintiff opie group enterprise name, use of the trademark is the plaintiff opie group, "European" series of products as well as the "European" font size across the country have high visibility, and by the relevant public know that the plaintiff opie group's prior rights by "general principles of the civil law of the People's Republic of China" and "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China". But as a marketer. In the registration of enterprise name, in order to comply with the good faith and recognized business ethics, should have the obligation to give the prior well-known trademark and name to avoid. But the defendant guangdong was founded in 2014, the plaintiff "European" referred to as "opie group and its size has higher visibility, its registered trademark" European "in the 20th class sideboard has been the trademark as well-known trademarks, and at the same time, the 4378572th of a registered trademark of the registered contains 11 goods, in the plaintiff opie group" Europe ", under the status of well-known trademark, the defendant guangdong opie application registered enterprise name still will "Europe" as its enterprise name recognition in different market main body core identity size of enterprise, its subjective obviously has goodwill clings to the plaintiff opie group intentionally, Objectively, the two can be confused or misassociated, which will easily lead the relevant public to confuse the service source and induce the relevant public to mistake the connection between the two. Therefore, whether or not it is used prominently, it is difficult to avoid confusion or misidentification, and its behavior constitutes a legitimate competition. When the defendant Guangdongfang group registered the enterprise name, its subjective fault was obvious. When the defendant Guangdong Opai group used the name "Opai", it was easy to make people think that its service came from the plaintiff Opai Group, which violated the prior enterprise name right of the plaintiff Opai Group and constituted unfair competition.

    Concerning focus 3, the civil liabilities to be borne by the three defendants.

    Although European defense that the defendant guangdong has nothing to do with online stores and is accused of infringing products involved, but according to the defendant in ShanHang, according to the power of attorney letter submitted with the defendant in ShanHang trademark licensing relationship do exist in the letter, but it permits the defendant ShanHang letter no. 12124262 is used in "OPAICN" trademark, and permit the defendant ShanHang letter in its production, the sale on boardly use the wording "guangdong opie technology co., LTD. Producer" behavior, let the name of the accused is under the guise of trademark licensing ShanHang letter on the accused of infringement product involved in improper use its corporate name. Article 8 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if two or more persons jointly commit a tort and cause damage to another person, they shall bear joint liability. In this case, the defendant Guangdong Opai and the defendant Zhongshan Henxin have the joint intention to carry out unfair competition, constituting a joint infringement, and shall bear joint liability for compensation to the plaintiff.

    According to the provisions of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 63 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, "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 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 defendant Du Qingjun constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the defendant Guangdongbei and the defendant Zhongshan Hangxin constituted unfair competition. The actual loss the plaintiff to the case and the defendant of the illegal income derived therefrom are not sure, we consider the reputation of the plaintiff's awareness and comprehensive three infringement of the defendant's subjective intent, plot, business scale, is accused of infringement product sales, and other factors, has decided the defendant du qing compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 40000 yuan, the defendant in ShanHang letter from the plaintiff compensation for the economic losses of RMB 160000 yuan, the defendant in guangdong party defendant ShanHang letter shall bear the liability for compensation shall be jointly and severally liable. The above compensation amounts have included the reasonable expenses incurred in the case.

    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. Therefore, the court should support the plaintiff's request to the three defendants to stop the infringement. Regarding the plaintiff's request to the defendant GUANGDONG Opai to change the enterprise name immediately, the changed enterprise name shall not contain any claim in the word "OPAI". Article 10 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Overall Situation of Intellectual Property Trial Services under the current economic situation stipulates: properly handle the conflicts between registered trademarks, enterprise names and prior rights, and stop the unfair competition behaviors such as "pandering to famous brands" according to law. The Supreme People's Court about the trial of a registered trademark and enterprise name and prior right conflict the provisions on some issues of civil dispute case of article 4 of the regulations also accused of infringement of right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark or enterprise name constitutes unfair competition, the people's court may, according to the plaintiff's claim and the specific circumstances of the case, order the defendant to stop using, and using specification assume civil liability. Because the defendant guangdong Opai used the enterprise name "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.", which had obvious intent to hitchhike, whether or not it was used conspicuously would cause confusion in the market. And the fact that the defendants did not stop using company names was not enough to prevent market confusion. The court therefore supports the plaintiff's claim.

    In conclusion, according to the provisions of article one hundred and eighteen of the "general principles of the civil law of the People's Republic of China" and "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China" in article 8, paragraph 1 of article 3 of the "trademark law of the People's Republic of China", article sixty-three, paragraph 1 and 3, Chinese anti-unfair competition law "in the paragraph 1 of article 2, article 5, paragraph 3, article 20 of the supreme people's court on the trial of a registered trademark and enterprise name and prior right conflict the provisions on some issues of civil dispute case of article 4, and the law of the People's Republic of China civil procedure law, the provisions of article one hundred and forty-four of the judgment by default is as follows:

    (3) On the effective date of this judgment, defendant Du Qingjun immediately stopped using the word "Oupai" on the taobao store of "Oupai High-end Kitchen and Bathroom Appliances Direct Selling", the shopkeeper named "Oupai";

    (3) As of the effective date of this judgment, defendant Du Qingjun immediately stopped selling the lampblack hoods with the words "supervised by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD";

    (3) Defendant Du Qingjun shall, within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate the plaintiff Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD for the economic loss of RMB 40,000 yuan (including the reasonable expenses paid by the plaintiff Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD to stop the infringement in this case);

    (3) The defendant, Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. and the defendant, Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the production and sale of the lampblack hoods containing the words "supervised by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd." as of the effective date of this judgment;

    (3) Within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, the defendant, Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., for the economic loss of 160,000 yuan (including the reasonable expenses paid by the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., to stop the infringement in this case);

    Vi. The defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. shall bear joint liability for the compensation liability borne by the defendant Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. in the fifth judgment mentioned above;

    7. The defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. shall, within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment, register the change of its enterprise name, and the word "Opai" shall not be used in the changed enterprise name.

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

    The receiving fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, which shall be borne by defendant Du Qingjun by 1,000 yuan, and borne by defendant Zhongshan Hangxin Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. by 3,300 yuan. The defendant Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. shall assume joint and several liability for the receiving fee payable by the defendant Zhongshan Hangxin 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 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 Shao-li

    People's Juror Ho Wing Chun

    July 18, 2017

    Clerk Yan Yongyu