Civil judgment of Changshu People's Court, Jiangsu Province

    Changshu People's Court of Jiangsu Province

    Written judgment of civil affairs

    (2017) SU 0581 No. 8148, Early Republic of China

    Plaintiff Opai Household Group Co., LTD., Unified social credit code: 91440101617404697C, No. 366, Guanghua Third Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou city, Guangdong Province.

    Legal representative Yao Liangsong, chairman of the board.

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

    Attorney Yang Fudong, lawyer of Shandong Changping Law Firm.

    Defendant Wang Hanlin, male, Han Nationality, born on September 26, 1963, lives in Wenling city, Zhejiang Province, shop No. 1203, 1 / F, Hardware Market, Garment City, Changshu City, Jiangsu Province.

    Defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., Unified social credit code: 914406063039001294, domicile place: No.6, No.22, Liitang Road, Shangjia City, Ronggui Street Office, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province.

    Legal representative Li Xingwen, executive director.

    Entrusted agent Lian Yan, lawyer of Guangdong Bodao Jujia Law Firm.

    Entrusted agent Liang Zhengping, lawyer of Guangdong Bodao Jujia Law Firm.

    Defendant: Foshan Shunde Fanxiang Huwei Living Appliances Co., LTD., Unified social credit code: 9144060607511274J, No.8 Siheng Road, East Changbao Road, Ronggui Huaguo Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province.

    Legal representative Luo Zuhong, executive director.

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the company) v. the defendant Wang Nan Lin, the guangdong science and technology co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European technology companies), outstanding, shunde district, foshan city, hutch defends life electric appliance co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the outstanding company) the infringement trademark, unfair competition disputes, our college on July 25, 2017 after accepting, form a collegial panel in accordance with the law, on December 4, 2017, public hearing on the trial. The plaintiff, Yang Fudong, and the defendant, Liang Zhengping, were summoned by the court to attend the lawsuit. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff Opai Company claims that the plaintiff, founded in 1994, is a comprehensive domestic service provider of integrated modern household, whose products cover such fields as integral wardrobe, kitchen appliances, integral bathroom and commercial kitchenware. The plaintiff to register and hold "European" brand, after years of effort to operate the plaintiff, "European" awarded "China famous brand product", "China well-known trademark", such as honor, a household name across the country, well-known brand, the plaintiff's slogan "have family love opie" in the consumer has a high influence, "Europe" has become the plaintiff's products and the representative of the enterprise name symbol, is to distinguish between the plaintiff and its associated enterprises significant market main body and the sources of identity.

    In February 2017, after investigation, the plaintiff found that the range hoods sold by the defendant Wang Linlin in his business premises were marked with the words "Oupai", "Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD", "Youjia Youai Youpai" and other words on the box body and operating instructions. And the relevant labels show that the range hood is supervised by the defendant Opai Technology company, and produced by Vansheng Company. The plaintiff then applied for preservation of notarized evidence.

    The plaintiff believes that the defendant produced and sold the lampblack machine marked with the words "Europa" without permission, which caused the confusion of relevant consumers to the source of the goods and infringed the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of the registered trademark. At the same time, the commodities on the label on the involved "with family love guangdong", "guangdong opie technology co., LTD." and so on, and use the image of endorsement of a jiang wenli, in violation of the principle of good faith with the universally accepted business ethics, has obvious clings to the plaintiff enterprise size and the purpose of the "European" trademark goodwill, lead to the relevant public confusion, constitutes unfair competition. 1. The defendant Wang Lin-Lin immediately stopped the sale of a range hoods marked with the words "You You Love You Ou Pai", "Ou Pai" and "Guangdong Ou Pai Technology Co., LTD." which infringed upon the exclusive right of the trademark of the plaintiff "Ou Pai" and constituted unfair competition; 2. The defendant vanxiang Company and Opai Technology Company immediately stopped the production and sale of the lampblack machine marked with the words "Youjia Youai Youpai", "Opai" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" which infringed upon the exclusive right of the trademark of the plaintiff "Opai" and constituted unfair competition; 3. The defendants shall compensate the plaintiff a total of RMB 300,000 for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights; 4. The costs of the case shall be borne by the defendant.

    During the trial, the plaintiff made it clear that the trademark that the defendant is required to stop infringing in this case is the registered trademark No. 1128213, No. 1137521 and No. 4378572; The reasonable expenses claimed by the plaintiff in this case are 20000 yuan lawyer's fee, 1000 yuan notary fee, 170 yuan purchase of infringing products, 1000 yuan investigation fee and 1000 yuan travel expenses, totaling 23170 yuan. As for the liability between the defendants, the plaintiff thinks that in this case, the defendant Wang Lin-lin should assume the liability of compensation within the scope of 50,000 yuan, and the defendant Vansheng Company and Opai Technology Company shall assume joint and several liability within the scope of 300,000 yuan.

    Neither the defendant, Wang Ning-lin, nor Vansheng Company, had replied.

    The defendant Opie Technology Company argues that, first of all, the defendant Opie Technology Company did not produce the range hood involved, did not authorize the defendant Vanbore Company to use its own business name, and did not use the trademark "" held by the plaintiff anywhere. Secondly, the plaintiff has not actually used the trademark "" in the category 11 commodity classification, which has no visibility on the lampblack machine; Third, the defendant Opie Technology Company does not have the subjective malice of infringement, and belongs to two different industries with the plaintiff. There is no competition between the two enterprises, and no damage results have been caused. Finally, the defendant's business name is legally registered. To sum up, the defendant Opie Technology Company does not have trademark infringement in this case, nor does it constitute unfair competition, and requests to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit.

    In order to prove his claim, the plaintiff submitted to the court the following evidence:

    1. The industrial and commercial registration information of the original defendant, the identity information of the defendant, to prove the principal situation of the original defendant.

    2. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 350 of Laifeng City Certificate no.

    3. (2016) The Trademark registration certificate, renewal certificate and change certificate of The Trademark No. 1137521 are attached.

    4. (2016) The Notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 347, which contains the trademark registration certificate No. 4378572 and the certificate of change.

    5. (2017) Notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 672, with the renewal certificate of trademark No. 1128213 attached.

    6. (2017) Laifeng City Certificate No. 673 notarial Certificate, enclosed is the renewal certificate of trademark No. 1137521.

    7. (2017) Laifeng City Certificate no. 675 notarial Certificate, enclosed is the certificate of renewal of trademark No. 4378572.

    Evidence 2- Evidence 7, proving the plaintiff's rights in the case of the registered trademark.

    8. The approval of [Trademark No. 7 (2009)] issued by the State Trademark Office, which proves the popularity of "Opai" trademark.

    9. (2016) The Notarial Certificate no. 353 of Laifengcheng Certificate contains a set of honor certificates including the Certificate of "China famous Brand Product", the Certificate of "Guangdong Famous Brand Product", the certificate of "Guangdong Famous Trademark", etc., to prove the certificate of honor obtained by the plaintiff and the popularity of the plaintiff and his products.

    10. (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 260, Laifengcheng Certificate no. 260, written in Guangdong Province

    The certificate of name trademark and brand value certificate further prove the brand value of the plaintiff enterprise and the trademark it holds.

    11. (2016) The Notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 357, which contains the tax payment certificate of the plaintiff from 2013 to 2015, proves that the "Opai" brand of the plaintiff has a large profit margin and high brand value.

    12. (2016) The Notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 355, which contains a set of publicity and promotion contracts, proves that the brand "Opi" is widely known by the public and has high brand value.

    13. (2016) The advertisement renewal contract and invoice attached to the Notarial Certificate no. 356 of Laifeng City Certificate, which prove the plaintiff's promotion of "Opai" brand.

    14. A group of newspapers and periodicals to prove the promotion, popularity and use of the slogan "There is a family, there is love, there is An Opi".

    15. (2017) The notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 358 and the enclosed sealed physical objects, business CARDS and shopping vouchers prove that the defendant sold the goods involved.

    16. (2017) The notarial Certificate of Laifengcheng Certificate No. 363 and its sealed objects prove that the defendant's infringement is extensive.

    17. The plaintiff produces and sells four printed photos of the authentic range hood, which prove that the involved range hood is not the authentic one produced and sold by the plaintiff.

    18. The webpage search and print copies of "0757-×××" and "0757-×××" telephone information marked on the lampblack machine involved prove that the phone marked on the lampblack machine was used by the defendant Vansheng Company.

    19. (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 1015 of Laifeng City Certificate contains the change of registration of the plaintiff's enterprise, which proves that the plaintiff has been using "Europa" as the enterprise name since 1997, which has a long history.

    After the above evidence was cross-examined in court, the defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. believed that it had no objection to the authenticity of evidence 1, but the address of the defendant Wang Lin-Lin's registered business address was inconsistent with the address recorded in the notarial certificate of evidence preservation submitted by the plaintiff; There is no objection to the authenticity and legality of Evidence 2-7, but there is an objection to the relevance. It is believed that the trademark No. 1128213 has nothing to do with the case. The plaintiff has not actually used the trademark No. 1137521 and no. 7378572, and the trademark has no popularity. No objection is raised to the authenticity of evidence 8, but no recognition is given to the legitimacy and relevance; Evidence 9 is not relevant to the case; The authenticity, legality and relevance of evidence 10-12 shall not be recognized; There is no objection to the authenticity and legitimacy of evidence 13, but there is no objection to the relevance (in the written cross-examination opinion, the authenticity and legitimacy are not recognized); The authenticity of the part with the original in evidence 14 shall be recognized, and the authenticity of the newspaper without the original shall not be confirmed, and the relevance of the group of evidence shall be disputed; There is no objection to the authenticity and legality of evidence 15; We have no objection to the authenticity and legality of evidence 16, but we have objection to the relevance. We believe that the range hood is not produced by the defendant Opie Technology Company and has nothing to do with it. The authenticity, legality and relevance of evidence 17 and 18 shall not be recognized; There is no objection to the authenticity and legitimacy of evidence 19, but the relevance is not recognized.

    In our hospital to the plaintiff submitted after the audit evidence that 14 for evidence, though the plaintiff has failed to provide the original and some newspapers and magazines. But the newspaper is a public offering, the defendant can verify verify through public channel, and in this case the defendant did not submit evidence to prove that the group newspapers do not have authenticity, so we found evidence of the group; Evidence for 18, although of the evidence material submitted by the plaintiff is a network printing, but after we use the defendant in court the entrusted agent of the company held by mobile query website of baidu, among them, in order to "0757 - XXX" search, the first and second search items have shown "foshan outstanding hutch defends life electric appliance", but the site has been unable to open; "0757 - XXX" as the keyword search, the first and the third search term can open, are labeled with the words "positive" zhongshan electrical appliance co., LTD., and annotation of the enterprise legal representative person Luo Zuhong (first search term) or Mr Luo (the third search term), the second search term directly indicate the Luo Zuhong and keywords, but has been unable to open. At the same time, the court noticed that the range hood involved in the case marked the above telephone in the outer package, so the court to the group of evidence comprehensive recognition. The Court shall determine that the other evidence presented by the plaintiff complies with the law.

    In order to refute the plaintiff's claims, opie Technology, the defendant, has submitted to the Court the following evidence:

    1. Copy of the OPAICN Trademark Registration Certificate No. 12124262, proving that the OPAICN used on the oil-smoking machine involved in the case is a legally registered trademark, and the approved registration time of the trademark was July 21, 2014, which does not infringe the trademark right of the plaintiff; Meanwhile, the defendant Opie Technology Company is not the exclusive owner of the trademark, and the range hood involved in the case is not produced by the defendant Opie Technology Company.

    2, jiangshan European door industry co., LTD., wuxi saint treasure vehicle manufacturing co., LTD, suzhou Sue the European wood industry co., LTD., henan opie electric appliance co., LTD., opie paint set chemical company, the leather goods company, the company machinery, such as the introduction of enterprise information and print, prove that "European" trademark is not unique to the plaintiff, "European" brand with the plaintiff's failure to form a household on the market only corresponding relations.

    3. A series of enterprise information printouts using "Opai" as the enterprise name, proving that, except for the plaintiff, there are enterprises in a large number of industries that have been approved by the industry and Commerce Department to use "Opai" as the enterprise name, and they are legally existing.

    4. A series of printed copies of trademark information that use "Opai" as the trademark and have been registered prove that in addition to the trademark of "Opai" held by the plaintiff, there are still 58 various trademarks that use "Opai" as the trademark, indicating that many enterprises in the market use "Opai" as the trademark.

    5. The printed copies of a series of reports on the quality problems of the plaintiff's "Opai" brand cabinet products prove that the plaintiff's "Opai" brand cabinet has serious quality problems and does not have a good reputation. The defendant has no need to attach the plaintiff's brand reputation.

    6. (2014) Copy of judgment No. 310 of Suizhong Legal Knowledge, proving that if the company name with the same name in the company name registered by others is registered and used according to law, it does not constitute unfair competition for the company name.

    7. The defendant's printed copies of enterprise information of Opie Technology Co., Ltd. prove that the defendant only operates in an office building and does not have the conditions to produce home appliances.

    The above evidence, the plaintiff's company after cross-examination in court that had no objection to the truth of the evidence 1, but the correlation, and the accused to submit evidence of the authorization certificate, combined with the trademark registration certificate, can prove that involved on boardly marked "OPAICN" by the European science and technology company is responsible for the relevant trademark licensing, and then prove that the smoke lampblack machine made the defendant involved opie technology company authorized; The authenticity, legality and relevance of Evidence 2-6 shall not be recognized; No objection is raised to the authenticity of evidence 7, but no recognition is given to its relevance and the defendant's purpose of proof.

    After reviewing the above evidence submitted by the defendant Eurotech, the court finds that both evidence 1 and evidence 7 are in accordance with the legal provisions. However, the court determines the evidence strength comprehensively. Although not listed separately in the evidence submitted by the defendant, the authorization Certificate issued by Red Brand Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. attached in the evidence book to the defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. is consistent with the marks used in the packaging and instructions of the range hood involved in the case, which is related to the case, and the court recognizes that; As for other evidence materials submitted by the defendant Opie Technology Company, they are not relevant to this case, and will not be recognized in this case.

    The defendants Wang Lin-lin and Van Sik Had no cross-examination opinion and did not present evidence to the court.

    After reviewing the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the court finds that the above evidence complies with the provisions of the law, and hereby determines the relevant facts of the case.

    On November 21, 1997, Guangzhou Kangjie Kitchen Equipment Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Kangjie Company") registered trademark No. 1128213 and approved to be used on category 20 commodities. The commodities approved for use are furniture, sideboards, metal furniture, cupboards, counters and other commodities. On April 7, 1999, the registrant of the trademark was changed to Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Opai Cabinet Company); On January 6, 2011, the registrants of the trademark were changed to Guangdong Opai Group Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD. On March 24, 2014, the registrant of the trademark was changed to Opai, namely the plaintiff in this case. Upon renewal, the trademark is still in force.

    Approved by the State Trademark Office, on December 21, 1997, Kangjie Company registered the trademark "" no. 1137521, approved for use in the 11th category of goods, approved for use in the goods such as kitchen stoves, gas stoves, electric cookers, refrigeration equipment, cooking utensils and other goods. In 1999, the trademark registrant changed to Opai Cabinet Company; In 2011, the registrants of the trademark were changed to Guangdong Opai Group Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD. On March 24, 2014, the registrant of the trademark was changed to Opai, namely the plaintiff in this case. Upon renewal, the trademark is still in force.

    Approved by the trademark office of the State, on June 7, 2007, Opai ambry Company registered no. 4378572 "" trademark, approved to use in the 11th category of goods, the goods approved to use for gas stove, microwave oven (kitchen utensils), electric cooker, kitchen with lampblack machine and other goods. On January 6, 2011, the registrants of the trademark were changed to Guangdong Opai Group Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD. On March 24, 2014, the registrant of the trademark was changed to Opai, namely the plaintiff in this case. Upon renewal, the trademark is still in force.

    In terms of the popularity of the trademark, in February 2008, "" No. 1128213 used on sideboards, storage racks, and cupboards was extended to be" Guangdong Famous Trademark "; In April 2009, the registered trademark of "Opai" used on category 20 sideboard goods was recognized as "well-known trademark" by the State Trademark Office. In 2016, trademark No. 1128213 on sideboards and furniture (wardrobe) was identified as "Guangzhou Famous Trademark", while registered trademark No. 4378572 on kitchen range hood and bath equipment was identified as "Guangzhou Famous Trademark".

    In terms of brand awareness, in 2007, opai household cabinets produced by Opai Cabinet Company were identified as "China's famous brand products" by the State Administration of Quality Supervision. In 2008, Opai cabinet was identified as "Guangdong famous brand products" by Guangdong Quality Supervision Bureau. In 2012, Guangdong Opai Household Group Co., Ltd. was identified as "Top 10 Overall Kitchen Leading Enterprises" by China Building Decoration Association Kitchen and Sanitation Engineering Committee. In 2013, Guangdong Opai Furniture Group Co., Ltd. was awarded the "2012 Guangzhou Mayor Quality Award" by Guangzhou Municipal Government. In May 2016, Opai's brand "Opai" was elected as "the 6th Iconic Brand of Chinese Cabinet Industry" and selected as "Top 500 Chinese Brand Value" with a brand value of 16.603 billion yuan.

    In terms of enterprise scale and benefits, from 2013 to 2015, Europa paid more than 100 million YUAN of VALUE-ADDED tax every year.

    On brand promotion, the company respectively with CCTV two set of columns "swap space", hunan radio and television advertising corporation, zhejiang wisdom beauty car advertising co., LTD., kashgar silver pine culture media co., LTD., and other cooperation, in the CCTV news channel, household decorate a design program, such as awards show ads, and hire a actress jiang wenli for European brand cabinets, wardrobe, bathroom in advertising agent, during the endorsement for August 1, 2013 to July 31, 2015. In addition, the plaintiff published advertisements on newspapers and magazines such as Zhuhai Special Zone Daily, Shanghai Cabinet, Sales Market, Ruili Home Furnishing and Decorating the World to promote and publicize the brand and products of "Opai".

    On the change of enterprises and the use of "European" as the enterprise name, on July 1, 1994, Kangjie company was approved and registered by the industrial and commercial department, and its business scope is the development, processing, manufacturing, cooking utensils and so on. On May 15, 1997, The enterprise name of Kangjie company was changed to Guangzhou Oupai Cabinet Equipment Co., LTD., and its business scope remained the same with the former. On October 28, 1997, Guangdong Oupai ambry Equipment Co., Ltd. applied to the industrial and commercial department to change the name of the enterprise to Guangzhou Oupai ambry Enterprise Co., LTD., namely Oupai ambry Co., LTD., the scope of business will be kitchen appliances extended to kitchen appliances, and include home, household appliances research and development, processing, manufacturing, etc.; On May 21, 2009, approved by the industrial and commercial department, Opai Cabinet Company was changed into Guangdong Opai Group Co., LTD.; On July 29, 2010, approved by the industry and Commerce Department, Guangdong Opai Group Co., Ltd. was changed into Guangdong Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., and in 2013, opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., namely, the plaintiff in this case.

    In addition, it is found out that the store organization form of the store registered at No. 1203, first floor, Hardware Market, Changshu Clothing City, Jiangsu Province, is an individual business, registered owner is Wang Yanlin, and the business scope is wholesale and retail of hardware and electrical appliances.

    Dragon technology co., LTD. Guangdong sent on April 30, 2014, approved for establishment registration, and on February 16, 2015, converted into guangdong opie technology co., LTD., namely the defendant European technology companies, is currently one person (natural) owned company, registered residence in ronggui, shunde district, foshan city, a great city neighborhood six of litchi pond road no. 22, 313, scope of business of biotechnology products, household appliances, metal products, sanitary ware, household items such as product development, development, and indicate the processing, manufacturing project site of setting up; On August 28, 2017, the legal representative of the company was changed from Su Liangzhu to Li Xingwen in the lawsuit of this case. In addition, During 2015 and 2016, Hongpai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. was one of the shareholders of Opai Technology Co., LTD. The subscribed capital contribution was 6 million yuan, accounting for 60% of the total capital of Opai Technology Co., LTD., but the actual capital contribution was 0 yuan.

    Fanxiang Company was established on August 10, 2013, registered at No.8-3, Siheng Road, Changbao East Road, Ronggui Huaguo Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province. Its business scope covers the production, processing and sales of household appliances, gas appliances, kitchen equipment and kitchen utensils, etc.

    In addition, the evidence submitted by the defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. shows that on July 21, 2014, after being approved by the Trademark Office of the People's Republic of China, Red Brand Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. registered the trademark No. 12124262 "OPAICN", and it has been approved for use in class 11 commodities, including electric cookers, kitchen lampblack machines, bath bar and gas stoves. The address of the registrant, Hongpai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. is 211 Changgang Middle Road, Haizhu District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, as shown in the trademark registration certificate.

    On the same day, a red card electric appliance co., LTD., the authorization certificate issued by authority, the European technology companies solely responsible for 12124262 trademarks throughout the country cooperation, anti-counterfeit trademark license and brand protection and so on each transaction, and shall be borne by the European technology companies for the above transaction legal risks and legal liability, mandate since 2014

    08 when 10 points, the researchers came to 203 hardware market area, door head labeled "cherry kitchenware" shop, by shou-zhen wang in the name of ordinary consumers in the shop to buy a sticker with "opie technology co., LTD. (producer) of guangdong province" wording, such as the smoke lampblack machine (the smoke lampblack machine panel and instruction on the other marked "OPAICN opie" and so on), using their own bank card in the shop assistant handheld wireless POS machines for credit card payment, We obtained on the spot a business card of "Yang Haixia" issued by the salesclerk, a POS card of the merchant named "Yang Haixia Hardware Store of Changshu Clothing City" and a single sales card marked "Sakura kitchenware", and Wang Shouzhen took pictures of the exterior of the store. Under the supervision of Zhang Xiuping and Gao Ke, Wang Shouzhen took photos of the above articles obtained in the notarization process. Then the notary and notary sealed the above range hood and took photos of the sealed articles. The notary and notary staff shall deliver the sealed items, namely the original name CARDS and bills, to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping.

    13 when 15 points, the researchers came to sanitary hardware market area no. 147, door head labeled "sacon" and other words of shops, by shou-zhen wang in the shop in the name of ordinary consumers bought marked "OPAICN" smoke lampblack machine of a (the smoke lampblack machine panel marked "OPAICN opie" and so on, obtain the shop assistant kitchen utensils and appliances on the spot "square ambition the quick" business card, name of merchants as a "changshu sacon hardware sales department" credit card voucher a POS machine and sell single pieces, and by shou-zhen wang has carried on the photo to the shop location. Under the supervision of Zhang Xiuping and Gao Ke, Wang Shouzhen took photos of the above articles obtained in the notarization process. Then the notary and notary sealed the above range hood and took photos of the sealed articles. The notary and notary staff shall deliver the sealed items, namely the original name CARDS and bills, to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. On April 18, 2017, Fengcheng Notary Office issued (2017) Fengcheng Notarial Certificate No. 358 and No. 363 respectively for the preservation of the above notarized evidence.

    After the court of our hospital opened and opened the above two sealed real objects, they are the packaging and the real objects are the same household range hoods two. The OPAICN Opai and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD are printed on the outer packing box, the operation instructions and the kitchen panel. The words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. (supervisor)" are on the front and side of the outer packing cases, among which the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." are highlighted. On the front and side of the OPAICN, below the OPAICN words, there are the words "You are a family, you are a love, you are a Guangdong-Eastern OPAICN". On the lower side of the packing case, there are other words such as "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. (Supervision)", "Manufacturer: Foshan Shunde Fanxiang Kitchen and Sanitary Appliances Co., LTD.", "Telephone: 0757-××", "Fax: 0757-×××", etc. On the packing cases and instructions, there is another image of Jiang Wenli endorsements; The OPAICN+ OPai + Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.

    During the trial, the printed photos of the authentic range hood submitted by the plaintiff showed that "OPPEIN" was marked on the outer package, specification and qualification certificate, and the manufacturer was marked as "OPPEIN Household Group Co., LTD".

    In addition, after we use the defendant in court the entrusted agent of the company held by mobile query website of baidu, among them, to take lampblack chance cases involved on telephone "0757 - XXX" as the keyword search, the first and second search items have shown "foshan outstanding hutch defends life electric appliance", but the site has been unable to open; "0757 - XXX" as the keyword search, the first and the third search term can open, are labeled with the words "positive" zhongshan electrical appliance co., LTD., and annotation of the enterprise legal representative person Luo Zuhong (first search term) or Mr Luo (the third search term), the second search term directly indicate the Luo Zuhong and keywords, but has been unable to open this website.

    After further investigation, the plaintiff Opai company paid 170 yuan for the purchase of infringing products in the store registered and operated by the defendant Wang Linlin in this case.

    In this case, the main dispute points of the original defendant and both parties are as follows: 1. Whether the range hood involved in the case should be determined to be manufactured under the supervision of the defendant OPie Technology Company and produced by Fancao Company; 2. 2. Whether the defendant's behavior violates the trademark rights enjoyed by the plaintiff; 3. Whether the defendant's behavior constitutes unfair competition.

    One, about the supervisor that involves lampblack machine and manufacturer.

    The Court holds that, unless otherwise provided by law, the parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their claims are based or the facts on which they refute the other party's claims. If a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove his claim before the people's court makes a judgment, the party bearing the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

    In this case, first of all, according to the provisions of Article 27 of The Product quality Law of Our country, the marks on the product or its packaging must be true, and must indicate the product name, the name and address of the factory. The evidence preservation object submitted by the plaintiff shows that on the outer package of the range hood involved in the case, the defendant repeatedly marked that Opie Technology Co., Ltd. was the supervisor of the range hood involved in the case, and Vansei Co., Ltd. was the manufacturer of the range hood involved in the case.

    Secondly, the OPAICN Registered trademark No. 12124262 was used on the outside packaging, operation instructions and the OPAICN panel of the involved lampblack machine. Although the owner of the registered trademark is Red Brand Electric Appliance Co., LTD., on the date of approval of the trademark registration, Red Brand Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. has already sued Opie Technology Co., Ltd. for the authorization of the trademark to carry out authorization cooperation, anti-counterfeiting and brand protection throughout the country, which is still within the term of trademark authorization. Therefore, as far as the registered trademark No. 12124262 is concerned, the evidence submitted by the defendant shows that, up to now, only the defendant Opie Technology Company has the right to use and authorize the external use of the trademark.

    Third, the public information of The defendant Opie Technology Co., Ltd. shows that Red Brand Electric Co., Ltd. was one of the two shareholders of Opie Technology Co., Ltd. during 2015 and 2016, holding 60% of the shares of the company. In the operating instructions of the smoke lampblack machine involved in the back cover, is marked "guangdong opie technology co., LTD." after the words, will be directly related to address in guangzhou city, guangdong province hai middle road no. 211, chang hills, and a red card when electric appliance co., LTD., registered in the trademark registration specific address is more detailed, but the total address for chang gang road no. 211. Although the address registered by the defendant Opie Technology Company may not meet the requirements for industrial production and manufacturing, it is clearly recorded in the company's industrial and commercial registration that the location of relevant processing and manufacturing projects will be set up separately.

    Finally, the phone number marked on the outer package of the lampblack machine involved in the case can be confirmed to be used by the defendant Van Ring Company by the court's on-site website inquiry. Although the defendant Opie Technology Denied that it had any relationship with the authorization and production of the range hood involved in the case, however, upon the court's request, the defendant opie technology company has so far failed to provide the relevant styles and real objects of the range hood authorized by the court.

    In conclusion, on the plaintiff, the notarization of evidence preservation smoke lampblack machine to preliminary evidence that involved department authorized by the defendant European technology companies, the outstanding company's case, the defendant failed to provide evidence of its claims to prove, so we put forward its is not involved in smoke lampblack machine to the defendant's executive producer claims will not be adopted, such as the smoke lampblack machine, shall be deemed to be the accused European technology company authorization, outstanding company produces the defendant.

    2. Whether the defendant's act constitutes trademark infringement.

    The court holds that the right to exclusive use of a trademark approved for registration is protected by national laws. Without the consent of the trademark registrant, on the same kind of goods or services to use its registered trademark identical or similar trademarks, or to use its registered trademark on similar goods or services identical with or similar to the trademark, easy to cause confusion, or other damage caused by the use of a registered trademark of others, is the use of a registered trademark infringement, selling infringement of a registered trademark of the commodity, also belong to the exclusive use of a registered trademark has been infringed, it shall be liable to stop infringement, compensation for the economic losses and reasonable costs and other civil liability.

    1, involved in the range hood should be identified as an infringement of the right to exclusive use of registered trademarks of goods.

    In this case, Opai company, approved by the Trademark Office of the State Council, holds the trademark No. 1128213, No. 1137521 and No. 4378572 "" according to law, enjoys the exclusive right to the above trademark according to law, and has the right to prohibit others from using the same or similar logo on the same or similar goods.

    On boardly involved with the use of "European" text, and the trademark of the plaintiff holds on the meaning and pronunciation, the use of smoke lampblack machine, used in no. 4378572 approved by the registered trademark of commodity scope, and no. 1137521 trademark approved goods belong to the similar products, use and did not get the authorization of the trademark owner, constitute infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark.

    In addition, although no. 1128213 "" has been approved for use in the use of goods, but the use of the trademark on the pantry goods in 2009 has been identified by the State Trademark Office as a well-known trademark. On boardly involved the use of "European" word, with no. 1128213 ", "registered trademark on the pronunciation and meaning in Chinese is consistent, with the approval of a registered trademark used commodities belong to the association, and on the smoke lampblack machine panel," European "text of the" o "and" European "trademark of the plaintiff holds on the writing style is consistent, easy to cause confusion, the well-known trademark infringement, the interests of the obligee, and did not get the authorization of the holder of the registered trademark, constitute infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark.

    In addition, take lampblack outside packaging involved on the word "guangdong opie technology co., LTD.", in terms of writing style, color and size are consistent, not about the "European" text feature, system integrity to use, does not constitute to the plaintiff claims of infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark involved so this claim of the plaintiff and not to support.

    In conclusion, the "European" words used in the trademark involved constitute an infringement of the three trademarks claimed by the plaintiff, which are commodities that infringe the exclusive right of registered trademark.

    2. The actions of the defendant Wang Lin-Lin, Opie Technology Co., Ltd. and Vansheng Constitute trademark infringement.

    In this case, the defendant Ou Pai Technology Company manufactured the range hood involved in the case, and the defendant Vansheng Company manufactured the range hood involved in the case. The store registered by the defendant Wang Xianlin sold the range hood involved in the case. As mentioned above, under the premise that the range hood involved in the case is an infringement of the exclusive right of a registered trademark, no matter in the supervision, production or sales, each defendant has not obtained the authorization of the holder of the trademark involved in the case, and its behavior also constitutes trademark infringement. Therefore, it shall bear civil liabilities such as stopping the infringement immediately, compensating for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

    Iii. Whether the involved behavior of the defendant Opie Technology Company constitutes unfair competition.

    The college holds that an enterprise name is composed of administrative divisions, shop names, industries, organizational forms and other elements, and has the function of identifying the source of goods and services. Any unauthorized use of another person's enterprise name, which may be mistaken for another person's goods, shall be regarded as an act of unfair competition. In addition, the name of an enterprise that has certain market popularity and is known to the relevant public can be identified as the "enterprise name" in the anti-unfair competition law.

    In this case, first of all, in the history of use, the plaintiff and its predecessor have been using "Opie" as the name of their enterprise since May 1997 and have been using it continuously for more than 20 years. In terms of the scale efficiency of the enterprise, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff shows that during the period from 2013 to 2015, the annual VAT paid was more than 100 million yuan. In terms of enterprise popularity, the plaintiff's products have won the honor of "China famous brand products", "Top 10 overall leading kitchen enterprises", etc., and have been selected into "Top 500 Chinese Brand Value". The brand value of "Opai" is 16.603 billion yuan. In terms of publicity and promotion, the plaintiff cooperates with CCTV, Hunan Radio and TELEVISION Advertising Corporation, Zhejiang Zhimei Car Advertising Co., LTD., Kashgar Yinsong Culture media Co., LTD., and relevant decoration professional newspapers and magazines to release advertisements for promotion and promotion, and employs image spokespersons. In terms of the popularity of the trademark used, trademark No. 1128213 "" was identified as well-known trademark by the State Trademark Office in 2009, and registered trademark No. 4378572 used on kitchen range hood and other commodities was identified as" Guangzhou Famous trademark ". Therefore, from the plaintiff the use time of enterprise survival and the shop name, trademark and brand, size, the magnitude of the promotion, enterprise scale and the benefit, to gain the honor of considerations, the plaintiff's enterprise name shall be deemed as to have a high market popularity and is known by the relevant public, the use of "Europe" the shop name shall be identified as "enterprise name" in the anti-unfair competition law of China.

    Secondly, the domicile of the plaintiff Opai Company is in Guangzhou, while the domicile of the defendant Opai Technology Company is in Foshan. Both of them are located in Guangdong Province, and both of them are engaged in the production and sales of kitchen appliances. As mentioned above, the trademark of "Opai" was identified as a "famous trademark of Guangdong Province" before 2008, and was identified as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office of the People's Republic of China in 2009. Through a series of promotion and publicity, the trademark of "Opai" and "Opai" have gained relatively high popularity in the whole country. In addition, the plaintiff and its predecessor, since May 1997, has begun to use "Europe" as its enterprise name, engaged in kitchen electricity and other goods production and sales. Guangdong Opai Dragon Technology Co., Ltd. was registered in 2014 and changed to the defendant Opai Technology Co., Ltd. in 2015. As an enterprise located in the same province and engaged in the research and development and production of the same and similar products, the defendant Opie Technology Company should have a full understanding of the plaintiff's situation in the aspects of enterprise popularity, name and product before the enterprise registration. However, in this case, so far, the defendant has not submitted evidence to prove that its products and enterprises have certain popularity in the industry, let alone prove that the defendant and its predecessors have carried out corresponding publicity and promotion on the enterprise and its products developed, produced and sold since its establishment. Therefore, in the plaintiff's "European" trademark and enterprise name under the condition of the whole household industry have high visibility, the defendant still use "Europe" as its enterprise name, its subjectively has clings to the plaintiff held "European" trademark and the use of the intention of the visibility and reputation, "European" font size, subjective malice.

    Third, the newspaper filed by the plaintiff showed that it had been using the slogan "Youjia youai Youpei" in its promotion since at least 2011, when neither the defendant, Or its predecessor, was registered. In addition, the words "Youjia, Youai, Youguang Europa" used on the lampblack machine produced by the defendant under the supervision of Opai Technology Co., Ltd. were ostensibly different from the advertising language used by the plaintiff, or simply used as the corporate name of the defendant Opai Technology Co., LTD. But in essence, on the one hand, the language of "youjia, Youai, youguang Ou" is only different from the advertising language of the plaintiff. On the other hand, when both the plaintiff and the defendant opie Technology Company have their domiciles in Guangdong Province, "Opie" can also be used to refer to the plaintiff. Therefore, in use of the plaintiff "have home, have love, have the pie" advertising language has been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, in the advertising language has established stable corresponding relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant in the case on boardly use "have home, have love, guangdong" words, enough to make the relevant public confusion and mistakes on the sources of goods, and make the enterprise name and font size cannot be the plaintiff play to distinguish between the function of the source of goods and services, should stop to use.

    Finally, in the trial, although the defendant Opie Technology Company claimed that it authorized others to use the technology for production and sales, on the one hand, upon the request of the court, the defendant opie Technology Company has not submitted to the court the physical objects or the corresponding pictures of the related products actually developed and produced by the plaintiff. On the other hand, on the panel of the lampblack machine supervised by the defendant Opai Technology Company, the writing style of "Opai" in the words marked on it is consistent with the writing style of the related words in the trademark of the plaintiff's well-known "", and" Opai "is used as its enterprise name.

    To sum up, the plaintiff has a high visibility in the overall household and kitchen electric industry and is known to the general public. The plaintiff and its predecessor have continuously used "Europa" as the enterprise name for more than 20 years, and its name "Europa" should be identified as the enterprise name in the anti-unfair competition law. As an enterprise registered only in 2014, the defendant Opai Technology Company and its predecessor are both located in Guangdong Province and engaged in the production and sales of the same and similar products. Moreover, the defendant's company and its products do not have any popularity. Therefore, the defendant Opai Technology Company used the words "Opai" and "Youjia ? Youai ? Youguangdong Opai" on the lampblack machine under its supervision, which was subjectively malicious and objectively constituted unfair competition. In addition, the European technology companies, the outstanding company, in the case of failure to submit evidence to prove that an enterprise name and its research and development, production and sales of products have a certain visibility, but it is still in the whole household, kitchen electric industry will already use others, have of well-known trademark and name "Europe" as its enterprise name, and the supervision on boardly annotation, highlight the use of "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." words, clings to the plaintiff held "European" trademark and the use of text and shall be identified as the anti-unfair competition law "European" of the enterprise name, Its purpose is to make the relevant public to mistake the source of the goods, mistakenly assume that using the licensing and correlation between specific connection, confusion and mistakes, and is not out of the intention of the labeling products production enterprise, its subjective has obvious malicious, objectively constitutes unfair competition, should be banned. In the plaintiff's company in the case did not request the defendant European science and technology company which changes its enterprise name, the European technology companies shall, in the authorization, the trademark licensing and producer, production on boardly specification to use its enterprise name, the annotation "guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", should be distinguished additional corresponding identification, production and sales of the products with the plaintiff showed obvious difference, hold to the plaintiff's registered trademark and the use of enterprise name, size, to give way, rationally to avoid confusion and mistakes of the relevant public.

    Civil liabilities to be borne by the defendant.

    As mentioned above, the range hoods sold by defendant Wang Lin-Lin are goods that infringe the exclusive right of trademark and constitute unfair competition. The defendant Wang Lin-Lin shall bear the civil liability of immediately stopping the sale and compensating for economic losses and reasonable expenses. And according to the relevant label on boardly involved, according to the outstanding company is involved in smoke lampblack machine manufacturers, the European science and technology company is a producer of the smoke lampblack machine involved in the people, the European technology companies with the defendant outstanding company should immediately stop production, sales, in the case of smoke lampblack machine, reasonable compensation for the economic losses and expenses such as civil liability, and the defendant Wang Nan Lin should bear the liability for compensation shall be jointly and severally liable.

    For the amount of compensation for the economic losses to be borne by the defendant, the plaintiff opie company did not provide evidence to prove that the economic losses, the defendant Wang Nan Lin, European science and technology company as well as outstanding company also did not provide evidence to prove that its profits to in our hospital, so we according to the fame of the trademark and name involved in, the duration of the nature of the infringement, the defendant and the possible impact of factors such as comprehensive.

    For the reasonable expenses that the defendant should bear, although the plaintiff did not submit the invoice of notarization fee and attorney fee, the plaintiff submitted evidence to preserve the notarization certificate in this case and entrusted the lawyer to appear in court to participate in the lawsuit. Therefore, it is inevitable for the plaintiff to pay the notarization fee and attorney fee in this case. Considering that the notarization fee and lawyer's fee claimed by the plaintiff are in accordance with the law, therefore, the court supports the lawyer's fee and notary fee claimed by the plaintiff. As for the cost of purchasing the infringing products claimed by the plaintiff of 170 yuan, the notarial certificate submitted by the plaintiff to the court contains relevant receipts, so the court also supports the cost of purchasing the infringing products claimed by the plaintiff.

    After being legally summoned by the court, the defendant Wang Nailin and Vansheng Company refused to attend the lawsuit, which was deemed as waiver of the corresponding defense, cross-examination and other litigation rights, and shall bear the adverse litigation consequences brought by this.

    On this basis, In accordance with the trademark law of the People's Republic of China the first (2) of article 57, the first item (3), the first item (7), paragraph 1 of article sixty-three, paragraph 3, article 8 of the "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China", "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China" (1993) the first (3) of article 5, article 20, the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases to explain "article 9, paragraph 1 of article 16, paragraph 2, article 17, the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition" the explanation of application of law, the first paragraph of article 6 of the tenth Article 7. In accordance with Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment is as follows:

    I. The defendant Wang Aolin immediately stopped selling the range hood which infringed the exclusive right of registered trademark No. 11128213, No. 1137521 and No. 4378572, and marked the words "Ou Pai", "You Jia you Ai You Guangdong Ou Pai" and "Guangdong Ou Pai Technology Co., LTD".

    Ii. The defendant wang Lin-Lin shall compensate the plaintiff Europa Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses amounting to RMB 10,000 yuan within five days from the effective date of this judgment.

    3. The defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. and the defendant Foshan Shunde District Vansheng Kitchen and Sanitary Appliances Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the production and sales of range hoods that infringed the exclusive right of registered trademark No. 11128213, no. 1137521 and No. 4378572, as well as those labeled with the words "Opai" and "Youjia ? Youai ? You Guangdong Opai".

    Iv. The defendant, Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., and Foshan Shunde Fanxiang Kitchen and Sanitary Appliances Co., LTD., standardized the use of the enterprise name on the lampblack machines authorized, produced and sold by them, and added marks that were distinctive enough to distinguish the products produced and sold by the plaintiff, Opai Household Products Group Co., LTD.

    V. The defendant, Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., and Foshan Shunde Vansang Kitchen and Sanitary Appliances Co., LTD., shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB 250,000 yuan within five days after the judgment takes effect.

    6. The defendant guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. and Foshan Shunde Fancao Kitchen and Sanitary Life Appliances Co., Ltd. assume joint and several liabilities for the compensation liability borne by the defendant Wang Yuanlin in the second paragraph of this judgment.

    Vii. Rejecting other claims of the plaintiff opai Household Group Co., LTD.

    The case handling fee is RMB 5,800, which is borne by the defendant Wang Yuanlin, Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD., and Foshan Shunde Fanling Kitchen and Sanitary appliances Co., LTD. The costs borne by the defendant shall be paid to the plaintiff directly within five days after this judgment takes effect. The court will not refund the plaintiff's litigation costs.

    If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may, within 15 days from the date the judgment is served, file an appeal to this court, and make copies according to the number of the other party, and appeal to suzhou Intermediate People's Court, Jiangsu Province. At the same time in accordance with the State Council "litigation fee payment" provisions to suzhou Intermediate people's Court in Jiangsu province to pay the appeal case acceptance fees. Account name: Suzhou Intermediate People's Court, bank name: Agricultural Bank of China suzhou Sufu Road Sub-branch, Account number: 10×× 76.

    Zhang Zhiqiang, Chief judge

    Judge Li Jun

    People's Juror Gu Jianhua

    January 22, 2008

    Clerk Hu Yue

    Attachment 1: the trademark involved, the range hood, the manual and the outer packing style

    1, the lampblack machine outer package front 2, the lampblack machine outer package side

    3. Front side of operation instruction 4. Back side of operation instruction

    5. Range hood panel 6. Trademark used by the plaintiff

    Annex II: Relevant Legal Provisions:

    Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China

    Article 57 any of the following ACTS shall be an infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark:

    ...

    (2) using a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same kind of goods or using a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on similar goods without the permission of the trademark registrant, which is likely to cause confusion;

    (3) selling commodities that infringe upon the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark;

    ...

    (7) causing other damage to the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of another person.

    Article 63 The amount of compensation for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined on the basis of the actual losses suffered by the right holder as a result of the infringement. Where the actual loss is difficult to determine, it may be determined in accordance with the profits the infringer has gained from the infringement; Where it is difficult to determine the losses of the right holder or the benefits obtained by the infringer, a reasonable multiple of the licensing fee for the trademark shall be determined by reference to the said trademark. If the circumstances are serious, the amount of compensation may be determined between one time and three times of the amount determined according to the above methods. The amount of compensation shall include the reasonable expenses paid by the right to stop the infringement.

    ...

    If it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement, the interests gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, or the licensing fee of the registered trademark, the people's court shall, in light of the circumstances of the infringing act, make a judgment to pay compensation of not more than THREE million yuan.

    Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China

    Article 8 Two or more persons who jointly commit a tort and cause damage to another person shall bear joint liability.

    Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues concerning the Application of Law in The Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes

    Article 9 When a trademark is identical in article 52, paragraph 1, of the Trademark Law (amended in 2001), it means that the trademark accused of infringement is compared with the registered trademark of the plaintiff, and there is basically no visual difference between the two.

    Trademark law (revised in 2001) the first paragraph (a) of article 52 trademark approximation, is refers to the accused of infringement of trademark compared with the plaintiff's registered trademark, the glyph, pronunciation and meaning of the text or graphic composition and color, or the combination of whole structure similar to that of all the elements or the stereo shape, color combination, easy to make the relevant public to mistake the source of the goods or think of its source and the plaintiff's registered trademark commodities have a specific contact.

    Article 16. If it is difficult to determine the profits the infringer has earned or the losses the infringed has suffered as a result of the infringement, the people's court may, at the request of the party concerned or in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Trademark Law (amended in 2001), apply the relevant functions and powers.

    When determining the amount of compensation, the people's court shall take into account such factors as the nature, period and consequences of the infringing act, the reputation of the trademark, the amount of the trademark license fee, the type, time and scope of the trademark license, and the reasonable expenses for stopping the infringing act.

    ...

    Article 17 The reasonable expenses paid to stop an infringing act as prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Trademark Law (amended in 2001) include the reasonable expenses incurred by the right holder or the agent entrusted to investigate and collect evidence of the infringing act.

    The people's court may, on the basis of the litigant's claim and the specific circumstances of the case, calculate the lawyer's fee in conformity with the provisions of the relevant departments of the state within the scope of compensation.

    Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (enacted in 1993)

    Article 5 Business operators shall not engage in market transactions by the following means of unfair competition to the detriment of competitors:

    ...

    (3) to use, without authorization, the enterprise name or name of another person, thus causing it to be mistaken for another person's goods;

    ...

    Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues concerning the Application of Law in The Trial of Civil Cases of Unfair Competition

    Article 6 The enterprise names registered in accordance with the law by the competent registration authorities and the foreign (regional) enterprise names for commercial use within the territory of China shall be recognized as "enterprise names" as provided for in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The shop name of an enterprise that has 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.

    The name of a natural person used in the operation of a commodity shall be recognized as the "name" as provided for in item (3) of Article 5 of the Law against Unfair competition. The pseudonym or stage name of a natural person who has certain market popularity and is known to the relevant public may be identified as the "name" prescribed in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

    Article 17 The amount of compensation for damage caused by ACTS of infringing trade secrets as stipulated in Article 10 of the Law against Unfair competition may be determined with reference to the method of determining the amount of compensation for damage caused by ACTS of infringing patent rights. The determination of the amount of damages for ACTS of unfair competition as provided for in Article 5, article 9 and Article 14 of the Law against Unfair competition may be carried out with reference to the determination of the amount of damages for infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark.

    ...

    Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

    "Article 144 If a defendant, having been served with a summons, refuses to appear in court without justified reasons, or if he withdraws halfway without the permission of the court, the court may make a judgment by default."