Civil judgment of Suqian Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province

    Suqian Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province

    Written judgment of civil affairs

    (2015) Zuzhong Zhiminchu No. 0151

    Plaintiff Opple Lighting Co., LTD.

    Legal representative Wang Yaohai, the company's chairman.

    Entrusted agent Zhai Mingyue, lawyer of Shandong Changping Law Firm.

    Defendant Qi Tengfei.

    The defendant haiyan County Tongyuan Innar electrical factory.

    Legal representative Yuan Shefen, the person in charge of the unit.

    The attorney is Xue Yun, a lawyer from Zhejiang Haiyun Law Firm.

    Defendant Opal Integrated ceiling Co. LTD.

    Legal representative Gao Peiliang, manager of the company.

    Entrusted agents Cao Donghao, Jin Xiaoling, lawyers of Zhejiang Kangheng Law Firm.

    The plaintiff opple co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as opple company) v. the defendant qi soar, haiyan YuanYing, electrical appliance factory (hereinafter referred to as the British, electrical appliance factory) the infringement trademark dispute case, in our hospital in 2015 on August 25, after acceptance, the plaintiff opple company on October 16, 2015 to apply for additional op integration ceiling co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the op condole top company) as co-defendant, and will cause of action for the infringement trademark rights change, unfair competition disputes, the actions to be bid increased from 200000 yuan to 500000 yuan, after we review the grant, The trial was held in public on November 16, 2015. Zhai Mingyue, the plaintiff, Qi Tengfei, the defendant, Xue Yun, the defendant's agent, Gao Peiliang, the legal representative, Cao Donghao, the plaintiff, attended the lawsuit. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff, OPPLE Lighting Corporation, claims that the plaintiff is the registered trademark owner of the trademark of "OPPLE" letter No. 4426523 and 7182791, the trademark of "OPPLE" text No. 4426527 and 7182788 and the trademark of "OPPLE+ Graph" combination no. 1424486. The trademark enjoyed by the plaintiff is also evaluated as "well-known trademark" by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, which has high popularity and high reputation. In May 2015, the plaintiff, the survey found the defendant qi fly through taobao shopkeeper, nicknamed "qi took 7" opened "op electrical OPEPLI" online stores a large number of sales of the combination of the plaintiff's registered trademark infringement bath bully, packing box marked with "op integration ceiling co., LTD. (authorized)", it says on the LED lamp and bath bully "op appliances, manufacturer of sea salt flux YuanYing, electrical appliance factory," the words. At the same time, similar products sold by the defendant Inar Electric Appliance Factory in the online store set up by Alibaba.com were also marked with the words "Opu Integrated Ceiling Co., LTD. (authorization)" and "Manufacturer Haiyantong Yuan Inar Electric Appliance Factory". The company name of the defendant Opal Ceiling Co., Ltd. infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark right, and authorized others to produce infringing products in the name of "Opal Integrated Ceiling Co., LTD.", which constituted unfair competition. Without the plaintiff's permission, the three defendants authorized, produced and sold the combination bath bully without permission, which constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition and caused huge economic losses to the plaintiff. 1. The three defendants immediately stopped the production and sale of the combination bath Bully and flat lamp that infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark right; 2. The defendant OPp Ceiling Company stopped unfair competition and changed its enterprise name, and the word "OPp" shall not be used in the changed enterprise name; 3. The three defendants shall jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses of safeguarding their rights of RMB 500,000 only; 4. The litigation costs of this case shall be jointly borne by the three defendants.

    The defendant Qi Tengfei argued that: 1. The product "OPEPLI" was purchased from the online store "Haiyan Tongyuan Yiner Electric Appliance Factory" of Alibaba, and the source was legal. "OPEPLI" was authorized by "OPEPLI Integrated Ceiling Co., LTD", and was confirmed as a legally registered product by the merchant Yiner Electric Appliance Factory. 2. If I do not know the brand "OPPLE" or "OPEPLI" as an infringing product, I shall not be liable for compensation according to Article 64 of the Trademark Law. To sum up, the request to reject the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Qi Teng Fei.

    The defendant Innar Electric Appliance Factory pleaded that it did not use the infringement fact involving the plaintiff's registered trademark, did not use the infringement behavior of the registered trademark; Their company name on the use of the trademark is the defendant op condole top companies licensed to own trademark, on their product packaging use the franchisor's name and trademark belongs to the legitimate use, there is no infringement of the plaintiff's trademark, nor the plaintiff any economic loss, therefore asked the court rejected the plaintiff to their claims.

    The defendant Opu Ceiling Company replied: 1. Our company was established with the approval of the state organ, and the company name "Opu Integrated Ceiling Co., Ltd." was approved by the state organ for use; 2. 2. Our company does not produce or sell the registered trademark of the plaintiff, such as bath bully; 3. The trademark of our company is registered by the Trademark Office and does not infringe the registered trademark right of the plaintiff. 4. There is no legal basis for the plaintiff to ask the three defendants to jointly compensate the economic loss of the plaintiff. Request to have the plaintiff's claim dismissed.

    After confirmation by the parties, the court concludes that the focus of the dispute in this case is as follows: 1. Does the production and sales of the defendant Inair Electrical Appliance Factory and the sales of the bath bar and flat panel lamp by the defendant Qi Tengfei constitute infringement of the trademarks of OPPLE and OPPLE of the plaintiff? 2. Does OPEPLI use the word "OPEPLI" in its name and authorize others to use the trademark "OPEPLI" constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition? 3. If it constitutes a tort, whether it should bear civil liability and the degree of liability.

    To prove his claim, the plaintiff presents the following evidence:

    The first group of evidence: prove that it has the trademark right to the combination of "OPPLE" letter, "OPPLE" text and "OPPLE+ graph".

    Exhibit 1: Certificate of "OPPLE" Trademark No. 4426523, Certificate of assignment of approved Trademark, certificate of change of registered trademark. Proof: the plaintiff is the person with exclusive right to use trademark no. 4426523, this trademark checks and approves use commodity 11 class lamp, this trademark is within period of validity now.

    Exhibit 2: Certificate of "OPPLE" Trademark No. 7182791, Certificate of assignment of approved Trademark, certificate of change of registered Trademark. It is proved that the plaintiff is the owner of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 7182791. The trademark is approved to use the 11th class of goods, including Bath Bully, and the trademark is now in validity.

    Exhibit 3: "Op" trademark Certificate No. 4426527, certificate of assignment of approved trademark, certificate of alteration of registered trademark. The plaintiff is proved to be the person with exclusive right to use trademark No. 4426527, this trademark checks and approves to use lamp of 11 kinds of goods, fluorescent lamp, this trademark is now within valid period.

    Exhibit 4: "Op" Trademark Certificate No. 7182788, certificate of assignment of approved trademark, certificate of alteration of registered trademark. It is confirmed that the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the trademark No. 7182788, and the approved used goods are in the 11th class, including Bath Bully. The trademark is now in validity.

    Evidence 5: Trademark Certificate of "OP +OPPLE+ Chart" No. 1424486, certificate of assignment of approved trademark, certificate of change of registered trademark. The plaintiff is proved to be the person of exclusive right of trademark no. 1424486, this trademark checks and approves the lamp of 11 kinds of use commodity, fluorescent lamp tube, this trademark is now within valid period.

    The cross-examination of the parties to the group of evidence: The defendant Qi Tengfei had no objection to the certificate; The defendant, Innar Electric Appliance Factory, objected to the relevance of the trademark, holding that the original registered owner of the trademark was not the plaintiff, and the existing evidence could not materially reflect the plaintiff's right to acquire these trademarks through legal assignment or transfer. The defendant Opal Ceiling Company has no objection to its authenticity, but believes that the plaintiff has no proof to prove that it is the legitimate user of this set of trademarks.

    The court certifies that the trademark registration certificate, the "certificate of approved Trademark Assignment" and the "Certificate of change of registered Trademark" in evidence 1-5 are complete and mutually corroborated, with authenticity, legality and relevance, and the Court accepts and accepts them.

    The second group of evidence: evidence to prove the defendant's tort facts. It is alleged that the products purchased by the plaintiff and notarized by the notary office by the defendant, inar Electric Factory, are printed with the words "OPEPII" and printed with the words "OPEPII" on the flat lamp, and are presented in kind in court.

    Evidence 6 :(2015) notarial certificate no. 731, certificate of laifeng city, and the physical and shopping bills sealed by the notary office.

    Evidence 7 :(2015) notarial certificate no. 726 of certificate no. Of laifeng city and the physical and shopping bills sealed by the notary office.

    The cross-examination of the parties involved in this group of evidence: Qi Tengfei, the defendant, believes that there is a process of purchase by the plaintiff in my sales record, but I cannot see the specific object, which was sent directly from the manufacturer. 1. It is not appropriate for the notary office of Shandong province to notarize evidence collected in Jiangsu province when the notary office disagrees with the notary unit of the notary document. 2. There is an objection to the form of the notarial certificate. There are two notaries in the notarial certificate, but only one notary signs in the actual notarial process, which is defective in the procedure. 3. For the second parcel opened in court, the sender name of the order is inconsistent with the name of the defendant Innar Electrical Equipment Factory, which is not the same subject. The recipient is shown as Mr. Yang without a specific name, so both the recipient and sender are disputed. The defendant Opp Ceiling Company cross-examined that it had no objection to the authenticity of the second set of evidence, but the infringement process of the plaintiff's claim has nothing to do with itself.

    The court certifies that the plaintiff consigns fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province to notarize the whole process of purchasing the goods sold by the defendant through Taobao and Alibaba.com, and there is no illegal or improper choice of notary office. The process of notarization is complete and the procedure is legal. Only one notary signs his/her name on the notarization certificate does not violate the requirements of China's notarization law. The products purchased by the plaintiff through Taobao.com and Alibaba.com were signed by the senders Tenghui and Jiaxing Iner Electric Appliance respectively. Among them, the defendant Qi Tengfei stated that the goods sold were delivered by the defendant Inar electric Appliance Factory, and did not raise any objection to the signature "Tenghui"; The defendant the sender has electrical appliance factory is put forward by Courier list "jiaxing, electrical" English is not their own company, due to the plaintiff through alibaba net purchase is complete, the process of web page screenshots show the seller for the accused the British, electrical appliance factory, although express single sign sender for "jiaxing, electrical" English, and the subject name don't fully agree with that of the accused, also cannot deny the products involved by the fact of the sale, to the plaintiff is proof of this evidence, we pursue.

    The third set of evidence proves the basis of the plaintiff's claim. When claiming the amount of compensation, the plaintiff refers to the well-known trademark of OP trademark, its ranking in the industry, its benefit scale and its popularity among the public.

    Evidence 8: Notarized copy of decision No. 6570 (2007) on the combination of "OP +OPPLE+ graph" recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

    Evidence 9: shandong laiwu FengCheng notarization word no. 3593 (2014) lai FengCheng card people notarial deed, the honor for the notarization: China light industry federation and China association of lighting appliances, respectively in May 2012 and May 2013 2 industry ranking certificate (valid for 1 year), prove op brand was at the top in the industry; Two copies of "Guangdong Famous Trademark Certificate" issued by Guangdong Administration for Industry and Commerce in January 2006 and December 2008 (valid for 3 years); Certificate of "Guangdong Famous Brand Products" issued by Guangdong Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau in September 2005 and October 2008 (valid for 3 years); Certificate of "China Famous Brand Products" issued by General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine in September 2006 (valid for 3 years); Certificate of "Key Export Brand of Guangdong Province" issued by The Department of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation of Guangdong Province in June 2007 (valid for 3 years); Shanghai Famous Trademark Certificate issued by Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce in January 2014 (valid for 3 years).

    Evidence 10: Notarial Certificate No. 3594 issued by Fengcheng Notary Office in Laiwu city, Shandong Province (2014). The notarial content is the financial audit report of the plaintiff from 2011 to 2013 issued by Lixin Accounting Firm in Shanghai, which proves the economic strength of the plaintiff.

    Exhibit 11: The invoice of notarization fee for reasonable expenses paid by the plaintiff for safeguarding its rights, the amount of which is RMB 2,800; The shopping fee of safeguard rights is 298 yuan, 202 yuan respectively. The plaintiff due to stop infringement expenses corresponding travel expenses, attorney agency fees and other expenses, please the court in determining the amount of compensation to give comprehensive consideration.

    The cross-examination of the parties to this group of evidence: Qi Tengfei, the defendant, believes that I bought the evidence through legal channels without knowing it and explained the legal source, and whether the infringement has nothing to do with me, and I do not recognize the loss of the plaintiff. According to the cross-examination of the defendant Inar Electric Appliance Factory, "Opp +OPPLE+ graph" is recognized as a notarized version of the award of a well-known trademark. The subject of the award has no relevance to the case, and the award is all copies. Therefore, the authenticity and relevance of evidence 8 are disputed. Although the certificates of honor in evidence 9 are notarized, they are all photocopies and have nothing to do with the plaintiff. As the honorary plaintiff, they cannot be inherited. They are not the same subject unit, so there are objections to the authenticity and relevance of evidence 9. Evidence 10 is also a notarized copy, and the evaluation of the accounting firm cannot determine the plaintiff's production scale, and its authenticity is disputed. According to the cross-examination of the defendant Opu Hanging Top Company, the content of the (2014) Notarization of Huhuang Certificate no. 9916 is the revocation of the ruling on the dispute of "Opu Parsley" trademark of Smart Star Electronic appliance firm in Xiaoluan Town, Zhongshan City, which has no relevance with this case. There is no verification of the authenticity of the famous trademarks notarized by Notarization No. 3593, and these famous trademark certificates or famous brand product certificates have a direct period of validity, and opinions are expressed on their validity; No. 3594 notarial certificate cannot prove the plaintiff's loss, and the amount of compensation demanded by the defendant is irrelevant; There is no opinion on the authenticity of the invoice for notary fees.

    The court certifies that evidence 8-10 is a notarized document of relevant documents, certificates and reports. The court accepts the defendant's challenge without providing evidence to refute it. As for the strength of the evidence, it can not directly prove the plaintiff's loss, but only serve as the reference for the court to judge according to law. Evidence 11 After being cross-examined at trial, the court admitted the defendant without raising any definite objection.

    The evidence of defendant Qi Tengfei is as follows: 1. The screenshot of the website of the defendant Inar Electric Appliance Factory in the official flagship store of Alibaba.com; 2. 2. Purchase records of the products involved in the case in The flagship store of Alibaba and chat records with the defendant Innar Electric Appliance Factory; 3. The trademark registration Certificate of "OPEPLI" provided by the defendant Inair Electrical Equipment Factory and the business license of the defendant OPEPLI Ceiling Company. Prove that they have inquired the legality of the products of the manufacturer, namely the defendant Innar Electrical Plant, before buying and selling, and that their sales are legal.

    The plaintiff cross-examined and found no objection to the authenticity of the evidence and the origin of the product. However, The name of Qi Tengfei's online store is "OPEPLI". OPEPLI is the trademark of the plaintiff. The fact of infringement exists, and the products sold have the word OPEPLI, which constitutes infringement.

    The defendant Inar electric appliance factory cross-examination thinks: the evidence provided by the defendant Qi Tengfei, namely the screenshot of the webpage, shows the factory name "Haiyan County Tongyuan Inar electric appliance Factory", and the factory name "Haiyan Tong Yuan Inar electric appliance Factory" on the packaging box provided by the plaintiff, cannot prove that the defendant Inar electric appliance factory infringement. Evidence 2 is purchase and chat records, which can reflect that the products bought and sold between Qi Tengfei and Inar Electric Appliance Factory are regular products, and there is no infringement of others' trademarks between the two parties. Evidence 3, namely the trademark registration certificate of "OPEPLI" and the business license of Opp Ceiling Company, proves that Qi Tengfei and Inar Electric Appliance Factory provided the real trademark during the transaction, and there is no infringement on the plaintiff's trademark.

    The defendant Opp Ceiling company cross-examined that: to Qi Tengfei and Inar electrical plant business contacts, we do not know. We only authorized the legal representative of the company to use the registered trademark of Innar Electric Plant, but did not infringe the trademark right of the plaintiff. To recognize the trade mark and business licence provided by defendant Qi Tengfei.

    The court certifies that the website screenshots, purchase and chat records, trademark registration certificate of "OPEPLI" and the business license of OPEPLI ceiling company provided by the defendant Qi Tengfei have no objections to their authenticity, and the court accepts them. As for the British, electric think printed on the product package name "sea salt YuanYing na in electrical appliance factory" with the web page screenshots, the product is not the production of cross-examination, the purchase process is complete, and chat logs to the defendant, English electric acknowledges that buy and sell products for its production, whether the name printed on the product completely consistent, do not affect the cognizance of the case facts.

    The defendant Inaire Electric Appliance Factory presented the following evidence: The trademark use license Contract, proving that its use of "OPEPLI" trademark is authorized through legal procedures, the trademark is a legal trademark registered and filed by the Trademark Office.

    According to the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the scope of authorization does not include the Chinese character "Oupu", and the products produced or sold by the defendant Inar Electric appliance Factory and Qi Tengfei all have the word "Oupu", which infringes the trademark right of the plaintiff. According to the record of the license contract, the outer packing of the products produced by the defendant Inar Electric appliance Factory were all produced by the manufacturer designated by the defendant Opal Ceiling Company, which can prove the interesting connection between the infringement behaviors of the two and belong to joint infringement.

    The defendant Opp Ceiling Company cross-examined that: this trademark license contract has been changed, the license amount on the contract is forged, our trademark is free of charge license to its use, we designated the production of packaging cartons. The packaging we printed does not show the word "OP". The outer packing provided by the plaintiff is the same as the board printed by us, without the name of OPal.

    In response to the cross-examination opinion of the defendant Op Ceiling Company, the defendant Inar Electric Factory admitted that the trademark license was free of charge on the condition that the cartons were manufactured by the manufacturer designated by Op Ceiling Company.

    According to the authentication of the court, the trademark license contract presented by the defendant Inaire Electric Appliance Factory is authentic, but the authorized trademark is "OPEPLI" without the word "OPP", which cannot prove the legality of the electrical appliances produced and marked "OpP Electrical Appliances" in the sales process.

    1. Trademark Registration Certificate of "OPEPLI"; 2. Copy of the company's business license. It is proved that "OPEPLI" registered trademark certificate is legally obtained through trademark Office registration, and Opp Integrated ceiling Co., Ltd. is a legally established company approved.

    The plaintiff cross-examined that: the authenticity of the business license has no objection. But the defendant Opal ceiling company's company name is malicious registration, combined with its trademark registration, an unknown trademark if authorized is unlikely to be willing to accept authorization. The manufacturing and sales of lighting appliances in the business license have the same competitive position with the plaintiff in the same market, which can be identified as unfair competition. The trademark "OPEPLI" includes the plaintiff's trademark "OPPLE," which is also a malicious registration.

    Defendant Qi Tengfei said there was no cross-examination.

    The defendant Innar Electrical Appliance Factory cross-examined that it had no objection to the legality of the industrial and commercial registration and trademark registration, and proved that the company name and registered trademark it used were legal. It is also legitimate to use the trademark licensed by the company and the words "authorized by OPp Integrated Ceiling Company" on the package.

    The court certifies that there is no objection to the authenticity of the copy of the business license, and the court accepts it, but it is not enough to prove that the company name does not constitute unfair competition. The certificate of registration of the "OPEPLI" trademark has been certified.

    According to the cross-examination of evidence by the parties concerned, the Court confirms the following facts:

    Opple Lighting Co., Ltd. was founded on October 21, 2008 with a registered capital of RMB 521479104. The company is a limited liability company (not listed). Its business scope includes electric light source, lighting appliances, electrical switches, lighting circuit system design, etc.

    The plaintiff is the registered trademark holder of trademark No. 4426523 and 7182791 of "OPPLE", trademark No. 4426527 and 7182788 of "OPPLE" and trademark No. 1424486 of "OPPLE+ OPPLE+ Graph". The trademark "OPPLE" No. 4426523 is approved to use goods in Category 11, including "Lamps: electric lamps; Lampshade: Lighting apparatus and devices; The spotlight. Chandeliers; "Dome light", etc., valid from 7 September 2007 solstice 6 September 2017. The trademark "OPPLE" No. 7182791 is approved for the use of goods in Category 11, including "ventilators and installations; Exhaust fan; Bath heater; A small heater; Bathroom fixtures; Bathroom partition; Solar water heaters; Bath bully; Bathing equipment; Lamps for heating; "Lighting", etc., valid from 21 October 2010 solstice 20 October 2020. "Op" trademark No. 4426527 is approved for use in class 11, including "Lamps: electric lamps; Lampshade: Lighting apparatus and devices; The spotlight. Chandeliers; "Dome light", etc., valid from July 28, 2007 solstice July 27, 2017. Trademark no. 7182788 "OP" is approved for use in category 11, including "bath heaters; Bathroom fixtures; Bathroom partition; Solar water heaters; Bath bully; Bathing equipment; Lighting lamp; Heating device, etc., valid from March 28, 2012, solstice, March 27, 2022. No. 1424486 "opp +OPPLE+ chart" combination of approved goods in class 11, including "lamps, daylight lamps", renewed and valid for registration from July 21, 2010 to July 20, 2020.

    On May 17, 2015, the plaintiff entrusted the defendant Qi Tengfei to buy bath Bully and flat lamp from the online store "OPEPLI" set up on Taobao.com by Qi Tengfei, nicknamed "Qi Tengfei 7" as the shopkeeper. On the same day, the plaintiff also entrusted others to buy bath bully and flat lamp marked "Opu Integrated ceiling" in an online store set up by "Haiyan County Tongyuan Yiner Electric Appliance Factory" on Alibaba's website. The outer packing of the bath Ba and flat panel lamp is marked with the words "Opu Integrated Ceiling Co., LTD. (Authorization)", and the word "(authorization)" is very small and marked with the words "Manufacturer: Haiyantong Yuan Yinan Electric Appliance Factory; Address: No. 23, Daqiao West Road, Tongyuan Town "; The product has the word "Op appliance" on it. The goods were produced by the defendant Inar electrical factory, and were shipped directly from Haiyan County by the defendant Inar electrical factory.

    It is also found out that Haiyan Tongyuan Yiner Electrical Appliance Factory was established on April 19, 2012, and its business site is located at No. 23, Daqiao West Road, Tongyuan Town. Its business scope includes integrated suspended ceiling, bath Ba, lighting electrical appliance manufacturing and processing. Opp Integrated Ceiling co., Ltd. was founded on July 1, 2014. Its legal representative is Gao Peiliang, living in Huaiyuan County Economic Development Zone, Bengbu City, Anhui Province. Its business scope includes the manufacturing and sales of kitchen appliances, tableware and lighting appliances. Gao Peiliang is the registrant of trademark "OPEPLI" No. 13066664. On September 10, 2014, European integration ceiling with haiyan general YuanYing, electric sign trademark use permission contract, agreed: op integration ceiling company will "OPEPLI" trademark license no. 13066664 to haiyan general YuanYing, electric free use, licensing date since March 30, 2015 to December 30, 2015, at the same time, all licensed products packaging, certificate and print must be specified by the op integration ceiling company cardboard-box factory printing.

    It was also found out that on September 3, 2007, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce issued the decision on the trademark dispute of No. 6570 on the trademark dispute of No. 3024602 "Opp Parsley", and recognized trademark No. 1424486 as a well-known trademark on the commodities of lamps and daylight lamps. On May 28, 2013, Opple Lighting Co., Ltd. ranked the second place in the 2012 Evaluation of China's Top ten Light industrial lighting enterprises. No. 1424486 "Op +OPPLE+ Graph" combination trademark has been awarded as "Famous Trademark of Guangdong Province" and "Famous brand product of Guangdong Province" for many times; OPPLE/ OPPLE lamp products and the "OPPLE" trademark have also obtained many other certificates. The plaintiff paid RMB 2,800 for the investigation and evidence of the defendant's infringement by entrusting a notary, and paid RMB 500 for the purchase of rights protection.

    The court holds that the plaintiff is the owner of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of "OPPLE", "OPPLE" and "OPPLE+ Chart". The relevant trademarks are within the period of validity of registration and their legitimate rights and interests are protected by law. No individual or enterprise shall infringe the exclusive right to use the registered trademark enjoyed by the plaintiff in any way. The outer packing of the bathba and flat-panel lamps produced by the defendant Inar Electric appliance Factory was marked with the words "Opu Integrated Ceiling Co., LTD. (authorization)", and the words "Opu Electric Appliances" were marked on the products, which infringed the exclusive right of the plaintiff to use the trademark of "Opu". The defendant, Qi Tengfei, opened an online store on Taobao.com entitled "OPEPLI", and the defendant, Inar Electric Appliance Factory, opened an online store on Alibaba.com to sell the aforesaid goods that infringed upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of others, which also constituted an infringement upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark.

    For qi took the defendant of the distribution of goods from legitimate sources, don't know the plaintiff "OPPLE op" brand, do not know the products involved in the infringement, do not bear civil liability according to law, after the check, the defendant qi took off in the distribution of the defendant's England, electrical appliance factory production product, the legitimacy of the consulting products over and over again, and review of the defendant and British, "OPEPLI" trademark registration certificate provided by electric and op condole supports the business license of the company, it has fulfill the duty necessary review, and illustrates the provider of products, so it does not assume liability to pay compensation in accordance with the law's plea to its opinion shall be adopted in our hospital.

    For the English, don't use the plaintiff's registered trademark, put forward by the electrical appliance factory on the product packaging to use the franchisor's name and trademark belongs to the legitimate use, without any economic loss caused the plaintiff's claims, we think its production product, on the outer packing is printed "OPEPLI" trademark, and printing "op integration ceiling co., LTD. (authorized)", products and the wording "op appliances", to mislead the public as the plaintiff's products, so we shall not be supported on the idea.

    For the defendant op condole top company is approved by the relevant authorities to set up, the name of the company are approved to use, does not infringe plaintiff's trademark rights and other rights and interests, as, with the British, according to its electrical appliance factory, a trademark use permission contract concluded the outer packing of the products involved in the designated by the manufacturer production, not necessary supervision duty, should bear civil liability. Opp ceiling contents that the packaging design designated for production does not have the word "OPp" on it, but the court does not provide evidence to prove it. Op condole carries on the company name is approved by the relevant authorities, but the name of "op" font size consistent with the plaintiff "op" brand, and its registered business scope including lighting electrical appliance manufacturing and sales, with the approval of the plaintiff's registered trademark goods categories overlap, easy for the public as the defendant company there is a link between company and the plaintiff. When the defendant OPp Ceiling Ceiling company was established, the trademarks of "Opp" and "OPPLE" registered by the plaintiff had already gained relatively high popularity, especially when the name of the defendant "OPEPLI Integrated Ceiling Co., Ltd. and the trademark registered by Gao Peiliang, the legal representative, appeared together, it was more likely to cause public misidentification. Therefore, it can be concluded that the defendant Opp Ceiling Company's behavior in the market transaction improperly used the reputation of others' trademark, disturbed the order of the market economy, constituted unfair competition, and its company name should be changed.

    In the determination of specific civil liability, because the plaintiff did not prove the benefits obtained by the infringer or his losses caused by the infringement, the court will make a judgment according to the circumstances of the infringement. The circumstances of the court's discretionary judgment mainly include the social popularity of the plaintiff's products and the general market size, the infringement time when the defendant Opp Ceiling Company authorized Inair Electric Factory to use the trademark "OPEPLI", and the reasonable cost for the owner to investigate and collect evidence of the infringement.

    In conclusion, in accordance with the law of the People's Republic of China tort liability law article 15, the trademark law of the People's Republic of China the first (2) of article 57, the first item (7), the second paragraph of article sixty-three, article sixty-three, the law of the People's Republic of China against unfair competition law "article 2, (2) of article 5 of the regulations, judgment is as follows:

    I. The defendant Qi Tengfei, Haiyan Tongyuan Yiner Electric Appliance Factory and Opu Integrated Ceiling Co., Ltd. immediately stopped infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of The plaintiff Opu Lighting Co., LTD. No. 4426527, No. 7182788 and No. 1424486;

    2. The defendant OPu Integrated Ceiling Co., Ltd. shall cease to use (change or cancel) the enterprise name with the name of "OPu" within 10 days after this judgment takes effect;

    3. The defendant, Haiyan Tongyuan Yiner Electric appliance Factory, shall compensate the plaintiff, Opal Shine Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of RMB 100,000 yuan within 10 days after this judgment takes effect;

    Iv. The defendant OPal Integrated Ceiling Co., Ltd. shall compensate the plaintiff OPAL Lighting Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable costs of safeguarding rights of RMB 10,000 within 10 days after this judgment takes effect;

    V. To reject the other claims of opp Light Co., LTD.

    If the pecuniary obligation is not performed within the period specified in this judgment, the interest on the debt for the delayed period shall be doubled in accordance with article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.

    The case acceptance fee is RMB 8,800 yuan, which is RMB 5,000 yuan borne by the plaintiff Opu Lighting Co., LTD., RMB 3,300 yuan borne by the defendant Haiyan Tongyuan Yiner Electrical appliance Factory, and RMB 500 yuan borne by the defendant Opu Integrated ceiling 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, with 5 copies, and appeal to the Jiangsu Higher People's Court. According to the "Method of payment of litigation Costs", the appeal case acceptance fee of RMB 8,800 has been paid in advance to the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province. Bank and account number: Agricultural Bank of China, Nanjing Shanxi Road Sub-branch, 03329113301040002475

    Zhu Qianli, chief judge

    Acting judge Ji Yan

    Acting judge Zheng Zhanjun

    February 19, 2016

    Clerk Zhang Xiaoqing