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

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

    Written judgment of civil affairs

    (2018) Yue 0604, Early Republic of China 1992 No

    Plaintiff: Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., No. 366, Guanghua 3rd Road, Baiyun District, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province. Unified social credit code ××97C.

    Legal representative: Yao Liangsong, chairman of the board.

    Attorney: Zhai Mingyue, lawyer of Shandong Changping Law Firm.

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

    Defendant: Tianhe Kitchen Electric Appliance Firm, Longhu Town, Xinzheng City, No. 1-422-423, Zone 6B, South China City, Longhu Town, Xinzheng City, Henan Province, with unified social credit code ××Q22.

    Operator: Yu Jianmin, male, Han Nationality, born on September 9, 1966, residing in Dancheng County, Henan Province,

    Attorney: Jia Yahao, lawyer of Henan Rongkang Law Firm.

    Defendant: Chaozhi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan City, 22 Huatian South Road, High-tech Zone (Ronggui), Shunde, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, with a unified social credit code ××851.

    Legal representative: Zheng Yukang.

    Agent AD litem: Li Quanying, lawyer of Guangdong Zhongma Law Firm.

    Plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European group) v. the defendant xinzheng longhu town tianhe kitchen appliances business jian-min yu (operators) (hereinafter referred to as tianhe kitchen firm), the defendant superintelligence, shunde district, foshan city, electrical industrial co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as superintelligence appliances) the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, our college on January 22, 2018 to begin, we form a collegial panel in accordance with the law, in April 2, 2018 and 2018, August 28, two public hearing on the trial, the plaintiff opie group wang ning to entrust agents AD litem, the defendant tianhe kitchen firm Gu Yahao entrust agents AD litem, The defendant super intelligent electrical appliances entrusted litigation agent Li Quanying to attend the court. The case is now closed.

    Plaintiff's request: 1. Request to order the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Firm to immediately stop selling gas stoves marked "Opai" and "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD"; 2. 2. Request the defendant chaozhi Electric Appliance to stop the trademark infringement immediately, that is, to stop the production and sale of the gas stoves marked with the words "Opi"; 3. Request the defendant Chaozhi Electric Appliance to stop unfair competition immediately, that is, to stop producing and selling the gas cooker marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" and "Youjia Youaiyouopaicn"; 4. Request to order the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Firm and the defendant Chaozhi Electric Appliance to compensate the plaintiff's economic loss and reasonable expense of rights protection in total RMB 200,000 only; 5. The two defendants shall jointly bear the costs of the case.

    Facts and reasons: the plaintiff class 11 "" and" OPPEIN "registered trademark, the plaintiff since its inception, after decades of operation, has been" Europe "casting become household names, as is known to all of the country's household, electrical appliances, sanitary ware brand, the brand has won the" Chinese famous brand ", "China well-known trademark", such as reputation, in the public mind, "Europe" has become not only the plaintiff products and on behalf of the symbol of the enterprise name, also become the instructions of the plaintiff and the plaintiff associated enterprises significant recognition of market main body and the sources of identity. In August 2017, the plaintiff discovered the defendant tianhe kitchen businesses use text "European" sales "European", "guangdong opie technology co., LTD." on the kitchen burning gas, in the place such as product packaging, product labeling, "European", "guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", "the home has love OPAICN", "superintelligence electric industrial co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city," the name of the of the tort, the plaintiff to apply for notarization evidence preservation. In addition, guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd. has been found by the court of infringement of the plaintiff's right to the enterprise name, and ordered the enterprise to change the enterprise name. To sum up, the plaintiff that the defendant to clings to the plaintiff's enjoyment of the "European" brand reputation, deliberately in stores, products on the illegal use of "Europe", "guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", this behavior is not only the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff, and violate the principles of honesty and credit and recognized business ethics, to the plaintiff constitutes unfair competition, and caused great economic losses to the plaintiff, shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility. Therefore, the plaintiff, in accordance with the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition and other relevant provisions, appealed to the court to make a fair judgment in accordance with the law.

    To prove the claim, the plaintiff provides the court with the following evidence:

    1. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 347, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 675, certifying that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 4378572 within the validity period.

    2. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 350 and (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 672, certifying that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 1128213 "" within the period of validity.

    3. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 346, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 673, certifying that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 1137521 within the period of validity.

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

    5. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 352 issued by Fengcheng License, which proves that the plaintiff legally owns the copyright of "" fine art fonts. This work, created on August 10, 1996, is completely consistent with the contents of the registered trademarks No. 4378572, 1128213 and 1137521 of the plaintiff, and also proves that the" "brand of the plaintiff has certain originality and a long history.

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

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

    8. (2017) The Notarial Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 260 certifies the latest honor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's brand, which is as follows:

    (1) Guangzhou Famous Trademark Certificate granted by Guangzhou Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce, valid from January 2016 to December 2018, certifies the popularity of plaintiff OPPEIN in sideboards, furniture, range hoods and bath equipment.

    (2) In May 2016, the Trademark Brand certificate of China industry awarded by China Industry Trademark Brand Review Committee proves that Opie is elected as the trademark brand of China cabinet industry.

    (3) In May 2016, the Certificate of China top 500 Brand Value granted by the Review Committee of China Top 500 Brand Value, which proves the brand value of Opai.

    9, (2016), lai FengCheng card people word no. 357 is notarial deed, prove that the plaintiff part of pay taxes, prove that "European" brand benefit huge profits, the brand value is extremely high, specific content as follows: (1), the guangzhou baiyun district issued by the state administration of taxation cloud duty five [2014] no. 100014 tax certificate, prove that the plaintiff on January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 to the bureau to pay taxes next billion boss thousand hundred suhuang spreading Wan Jiu us $3 and pure Angle and pure. (2) the tax payment certificate no. [2014]100579 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid tax on January 1, 2014 solstice on June 30, 2014 to the bureau seven thousand five hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine yuan nine cents. (3) the tax payment certificate no. [2015] no. 100174 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid a tax of nine thousand five hundred and nine thousand one hundred and twenty-two yuan sixty-eight cents to the bureau on July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. (4) the tax payment certificate no. [2015] no. 101552 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid tax on January 1, 2015 solstice on June 30, 2015 to the tax bureau seven thousand five hundred and twenty-two thousand six hundred and sixty-seven point four. (5) the tax payment certificate no. [2016]100274 issued by the state tax bureau of baiyun district, guangzhou, certifying that the plaintiff paid a tax of twelve million two hundred and thirty-six hundred and sixty-seven yuan nine cents to the tax bureau on July 1, 2015. (6) notice no. 00000724 issued by the tax administration bureau of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax of four thousand two hundred and twenty-nine thousand nine hundred and seventy-eight yuan eighty sixty cents to the bureau on January 1, 2014. (7) notice no. 00001248 issued by the tax administration bureau of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid the tax on July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 to the bureau, i.e., the tax amount of three thousand six hundred and fifty-eight thousand nine hundred and seventy-two cents. (8) notice no. 00003448 issued by the tax administration of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax of four thousand two million four hundred and twenty-seven thousand one hundred and forty cents to the bureau on June 30, 2015 on January 1, 2015. (9) notice no. 00004591 issued by the tax administration bureau of large enterprises of guangzhou local tax bureau certifies that the plaintiff paid tax twenty thousand nine hundred and eighty-one thousand nine hundred and thirty-three yuan forty seven to the bureau on July 1, 2015.

    10. (2016) The Legal certificate of Laifengcheng Ziminzi No. 355, which proves that the plaintiff has carried out continuous publicity for the "Opai" brand through CCTV and Hunan SATELLITE TV, and proves that the "Opai" brand has been widely known by the public and has a high brand value. The specific content is as follows: (1), October 30, 2012, the plaintiff and the Beijing international advertising co., LTD. Signed on time boiling "swap space" domestic outfit funded 2013 cooperation agreement, this agreement is agreed on January 5, 2013 to December 28, 2013, 2 sets in CCTV's "exchange space" propaganda of the plaintiff brand, advertising for wu bai suhuang ten thousand yuan. (2), in July 2014, the plaintiff with hunan, hunan radio and television advertising corporation downwind media television project advertising co., LTD. Signed a contract, the contract on September 28, 2014 to October 12, 2014, in hunan TV's 10th golden eagle festival closing ceremony and awards section is relevant to the plaintiff, brand advertising for above ten thousand yuan. (3) on November 6, 2013, the TV advertisement release contract signed by the plaintiff and zhejiang zhimei auto advertising co., LTD., which stipulates that the plaintiff's brand shall be publicized on CCTV news channel on January 1, 2014 and the advertising fee shall be four thousand four hundred and sixty-three thousand nine hundred and seventy yuan. (4) on November 27, 2014, the sponsorship and cooperation agreement of 2015 "exchange space" home decoration fund signed by the plaintiff and Beijing ontime boiling international advertising co., LTD. The agreement agreed that on April 4, 2015 solstice on March 26, 2016, the plaintiff's brand would be promoted in the second set of "exchange space" column of CCTV, and the advertising fee would be six million yuan. (5) on October 22, 2014, the advertising agency contract signed by the plaintiff and kashgar yinsong culture media co., LTD., the agreement provides that on January 1, 2015, solstice, December 31, 2015, the advertising fee of the plaintiff shall be twenty-three million nine hundred and seventy thousand yuan for promoting the plaintiff's brand on the CCTV news channel.

    11. (2016) The Notarial Certificate no. 356 issued by Lifeng City Certificate, which proves that the plaintiff spent a huge amount of money to hire the star Jiang Wenli to speak for "Europa" products, which further proves that the plaintiff spent a huge amount of money to promote Europa brand.

    April 12, 2011, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, "linchuan evening news", published on August 26, 2011 issue of the "shenzhen special zone signs up for", on September 20, 2011, published on September 30, anqing daily, published in September 2010 years of the ambry in Shanghai ", published in June 2011, the sales and marketing management edition, published in April 2011 "ruili household", published in April 2014, decorate world magazine, prove that the plaintiff by the print media publicity, "European brand", It also proves that the plaintiff's original advertising slogan of "family, love and Europe" continues to use and publicize.

    13. (2017) Legal notarial Certificate no. 1437 of Laifeng City Certificate (including the infringing material object sealed by the notary office), to prove the infringement facts of the defendant.

    14. One notarization fee note, which proves the plaintiff's reasonable expenses for safeguarding his rights. This case claims 1,000 yuan for notarization fee.

    15. Baidu screenshot confirmed that the phone marked in the product involved was from Defendant 2.

    The defendant Tianhe Kitchen Firm pleaded that the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Firm did not infringe the plaintiff's trademark right, and the plaintiff's trademark did not approve the use of the goods or similar goods sold by the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Firm; Even if the infringement, the defendant Tianhe Kitchen firm has stopped the infringement; The defendant Tianhe Kitchen firm has no intention to infringe the rights and has legal sources and can name the suppliers, so it is not liable for compensation. Even if you want to bear the reasonable cost of safeguarding your rights, but the defendant Tianhe kitchen firm to sell the product profit little, only 15 yuan.

    The defendant tianhe Kitchen Firm submitted evidence,

    1. The photos of the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Company prove that it has been doing its own brand and selling the products involved in the case by accident.

    2. Authorized information and photos of the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Business, which prove that the defendant Tianhe Kitchen Business is mainly engaged in product source business information;

    The defendant superintelligence appliances plea, according to the kitchen burning gas products is not involved the defendant superintelligence electrical production, also is not the defendant to accept the trust of an outsider superintelligence electrical production, product superintelligence electrical no correlation with that of the accused, in view of the tianhe businesses use the infringement of the defendant superintelligence kitchen appliances enterprises right of name of goods, the defendant superintelligence appliances have been related to zen city court to lodge a lawsuit, about whether there is an outsider unauthorized use of the defendant superintelligence is also the case the defendant superintelligence electrical appliances enterprise name is the premise of tort liability, and the defendant superintelligence electrical appliances in the process of the proceedings did not end, even if the case went on trial, However, the evidence provided by the plaintiff cannot prove that the goods involved in the case are produced and sold by the defendant, so the lawsuit of the defendant's super intelligent electric appliances should be rejected.

    Defendant superintelligence appliances submitted the following evidence: 1 copy of the acceptance notice, civil 1 original copy of the bill of complaint, told book 1 photo print, prove that the product is not involved in the defendant superintelligence production and sales of electrical appliances, because the defendants tianhe kitchen firm unauthorized use of superintelligence electrical appliances enterprise name and other relevant information, the defendant superintelligence appliances have been proposed to zen city court, requires the defendant to tianhe kitchen firm compensation, at the same time the defendant superintelligence electric transfer also complain to the supervision and administration bureau of zhengzhou city administration for industry and commerce to xinzheng industrial and commercial administrative supervision bureau.

    The court recognizes the authenticity of the evidence provided by the plaintiff as the basis for ascertaining the facts of the case. The court confirms the authenticity of evidence 1 and 2 submitted by Tianhe Kitchen Firm, but does not confirm the correlation, so it is impossible to prove that the products involved in the sale are accidental. The authenticity of the evidence submitted by the defendant super Intelligent electric appliances was confirmed, and the relevance of the evidence should be comprehensively reviewed below.

    On the basis of admissible evidence and the parties' statements, the Court ascertained and confirmed the following facts:

    (I) Opie Group, founded on July 1, 1994, is a joint-stock company engaged in furniture manufacturing.

    On June 7, 2007, guangzhou opie hutch ark enterprise co., LTD., by the state administration for industry and commerce trademark office (hereinafter referred to as the trademark bureau) for approval the registration no. 4378572, "" a registered trademark shall use the goods of class 11 gas furnace, microwave oven (kitchenware), electric cooker, baking equipment, cooking utensils, faucets, bathroom equipment, disinfect cupboard, water filter, basin of wash one's hands and sanitary equipment (components), steam bath, sitz bath tub and shower equipment, shower cubicle, taking a bath, basin, toilet, kitchen smoke lampblack machine, lamp (as), Registration shall be valid from June 7, 2007 to June 6, 2017 and upon renewal shall be valid until June 6, 2027. On January 6, 2011, the name of the registrant of the trademark was changed to Guangdong Opai Group Co., LTD., and on March 24, 2014, it was changed to Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD.

    In September 2007, Opai cabinet products were rated as "China famous brand products" by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. In October 2008, Opai cabinet products were rated as "Guangdong famous brand products" by Guangdong Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. In February 2008, the plaintiff's trademark "Opi" No. 1128213 was identified as a "famous trademark of Guangdong Province" on the sideboard, storage rack and dish cupboard. On April 24, 2009, the trademark of "Opai" on the category 20 sideboard goods of the plaintiff was identified as "well-known trademark" by the Trademark Office.

    (2) on August 27, 2017, the plaintiff's attorney shou-zhen wang FengCheng notarization in laiwu city in shandong province to apply for evidence preservation, September 3, 2017 notarial personnel with shou-zhen wang in the name of ordinary consumers to x x x x town of henan province south China building materials city district no. 6-423 - b - 1 "famous constant kitchen appliances" stores, in the shop to buy a marked "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." the kitchen burning gas a (the kitchen burning gas marked with "set OPAICN the guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", security guarantee card and security are marked on the certificate of approval "guangdong opie technology co., LTD."). After obtaining a "Sales List" of the store and a business card bearing the word "Li Mei", Wang Shouzhen took pictures of the exterior scene of the store and the purchased items. Then the notary sealed the above items and gave the sealed items to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu city, Shandong Province supervised the above purchase process and issued the Notary Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate Minzi No. 1437 (2017).

    In trial, plaintiff opened the product that afore-mentioned notarization bought in court, plaintiff charges the tort product of this case is gas stove. There is a gas cooker, a product operation manual and a certificate in the unpacking box. The outer packing is marked with gas stoves, and the front and back sides of the outer packing box and the OPAICN and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD are marked on the instructions. On the left and right sides of the outer packing are printed the manufacturer: Chaozhi Electric Appliance Industry Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, Address: No. 22, Huatian South Road, Huaguo High-tech Zone, Ronggui Town, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, Tel: 0757-29265769, fax: 0757-28096919, website: ××. The name of the producer marked in the China Energy Efficiency label of the product is defendant Chaozhi Electric Appliance. The anti-counterfeiting guarantee card and anti-counterfeiting certificate are marked with the words "You Have Aio You OPAICN" and "Supervision and Production of Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.", and the packaging box also contains the image of "Jiang Wenli". The OPAICN stove cover printed with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD" and "OPAICN Opai". The plaintiff think the wording on the product labeling opie is a violation of the behavior of the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of a registered trademark, 43785372, when the product on the wording "guangdong opie technology co., LTD.", in violation of the principle of good faith, violated the plaintiff's business name, constitute the unfair competition, marked with "the home has love OPAICN", use the "jiang wenli" image on the package to our constitutes unfair competition, and using a combination of guangdong opie technology co., LTD. Producer use improper behavior is a kind of false advertising.

    The defendant superintelligence appliances have no objection to the contents of the crates marked, but think it never accept opie technology co., LTD. Guangdong commissioned production involved an outsider like kitchen burning gas products, products involved is not the defendant superintelligence electrical production, sale, the defendant superintelligence appliances does not exist the infringement ACTS of unfair competition of the plaintiff's trademark.

    Another, superintelligence appliances on March 26, 2018 the zen in a people's court jian-min yu, xinzheng city, foshan city, guangdong province longhu town tianhe kitchen appliance business enterprise name dispute case, unauthorized use of others think jian-min yu, xinzheng longhu town tianhe kitchen appliances business without authorization on the sales of kitchen burning gas products using the enterprise name, requires both the defendant stop the infringement, to apologize and compensate for economic losses and reasonable costs a total of 100000 yuan.

    Chaozhi Electric Appliance was established on May 5, 2009, with the registered capital of RMB 500,000 yuan. Its business scope is manufacturing: water heater, range hood, disinfection cabinet, stove, sanitary ware, kitchen and bathroom equipment, household appliances, etc.

    Tianhe Kitchen Firm is an individual business operated by Yu Jianmin, male, Han Nationality, born on September 9, 1966, residing at ×× hometown village ×× township ×× village, ×× County, Henan Province, with citizenship number.

    The court holds that the plaintiff Opai Group is the exclusive owner of the registered trademark "Opai" No. 4378572. Until the time of the lawsuit, the registered trademark is still under effective protection, and the exclusive right of the registered trademark involved enjoyed by Opai Group should be protected.

    On whether the actions of the two defendants constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition and their respective liability. First of all, according to the record of notarization, the products involved are sold by Tianhe Kitchen firm. The alleged infringing products are highlighted with the word "Opai" in many places, which is similar to the registered trademark "Opai" no. 4378572 of Opai. The approved scope of the registered trademark of "Opi" No. 4378572 is category 11, including gas stoves, microwave ovens (kitchen utensils), electric cookers, disinfecting cupboards, kitchen range hoods, etc., which are the same as the gas stoves accused of infringement. Proof within the time limit, the two defendants did not proof to confirm its use in regard to product, "European" the holder of the legal license, so we decided that the products involved in several prominent use of word "European" behavior, the infringement of the no. 4378572 of European companies enjoy "European" use of a registered trademark, shall bear tort liability.

    Secondly, the packaging of the products accused of infringement is printed with the words "Supervised by Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD", "Manufacturer: Foshan Shunde Chaozhi Electric Appliance Industry Co., LTD", as well as the address, telephone, fax and website ××. In products of China's energy efficiency label marked superintelligence electrical appliance producers name for the defendant, the defendant superintelligence appliances is accused of infringement product "defense is not their production, but we think, is accused of infringement product outer packing on the enterprise name, address, telephone, fax, products of China's energy efficiency label labeling information such as producers and the defendant superintelligence electrical industrial and commercial registration of the name, address and its web site information, and on the products marked with the real manufacturer enterprise name behavior conforms to the common sense, so the combination is accused of infringement product packaging, warranty card, certificate, and drink the marked on the label, In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, it can be determined that the gas stove of the product accused of infringement is produced by the defendant's Super intelligent electric appliances. The defendant's above defense opinion is not sufficient, and the court will not accept it.

    The plaintiff Opai Group and the defendant Chaozhi Electric Appliance are both enterprises producing and selling household appliances, which belong to the competitive relationship of the same trade. Opie group was founded in 1994 on July 1, and have been used since the "European" font size, combined with the company submitted the honorary certificate, certificate of tax payment, newspaper and magazine reports, advertising contract, media reports and other evidence of actual use and popularity, can maintain "European" font size has certain market popularity and is known by the relevant public enterprise name of the font size. Though the tianhe kitchen businesses think opie group does not on its sales of kitchen burning gas products used in the case of a registered trademark, but combination of European companies to submit evidence, such as newspapers and magazines and media publicity, can maintain the company production of kitchen burning gas, oil absorption, disinfection cabinet product is set in ambry product sales as a whole, comply with the general market of such products, sales model, the reason of the contradictory opinions to the tianhe kitchen firm, it also will not be adopted. Superintelligence electronics was established in May 5, 2009, far later than European group, set up time, superintelligence appliances as production, sales, gas water heaters, gas stoves, household appliances and other products of enterprises, should know opie group has a certain reputation of "European" font size and in the case of a registered trademark and the slogan "the home has love OPICN" profile, it will "guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", "the home has love OPAICN" the words marked in the product packaging, anti-counterfeiting warranty card, certificate, and the behavior of the anti-counterfeit labels, has a "free rider" subjective malice, It violates the principles of fairness and good faith that should be followed in civil activities and constitutes unfair competition.

    In accordance with the provisions of Article 120 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, where a civil right is infringed, the infringed shall have the right to request the infringer to bear the liability for tort, to demand that the infringement be stopped and to compensate for the loss. The Court supports the plaintiff's appeal to the defendant to stop the infringement.

    About the amount of compensation. According to the provisions of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 63 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, "The amount of compensation for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual loss suffered by the right holder due to the infringement; Where the actual loss is difficult to determine, it may be determined in accordance with the profits the infringer has gained from the infringement; Where it is difficult to determine the losses of the right holder or the 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 it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement, the interests gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, or the licensing fee of the registered trademark, the people's court shall, in light of the circumstances of the infringing act, make a judgment to compensate the obligee not more than THREE million yuan ". Meanwhile, article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates, "If a business operator violates the provisions of this Law and causes damage to the injured business operator, it shall be liable for damages; If it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement or the profits the infringer has gained from the infringement, the people's court shall, in light of the circumstances of the infringement, make a judgment for compensation of not more than three million yuan." The actual loss the plaintiff to the case and cannot be determined both the defendant's illegal income, we consider the reputation of the plaintiff's popularity, integrated two infringement of the defendant's subjective intent, plot, business scale, is accused of infringement product sales, and other factors, has decided the defendant tianhe kitchen businesses from the plaintiff compensation for the economic losses of RMB 20000 yuan, the defendant superintelligence electronics compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 100000 yuan. The above compensation amounts have included the reasonable expenses incurred in the case.

    In conclusion, in accordance with article one hundred and twenty of the civil law general principles of the People's Republic of China, the law of the People's Republic of China company law article sixty-three, article 56 of the "trademark law of the People's Republic of China, paragraph 2 of article 57, paragraph 1 of article sixty-three, the law of the People's Republic of China against unfair competition law" article 6, paragraph 1 of article 2, subparagraph (a), article 17, and the law of the People's Republic of China civil procedure law, the provisions of article sixty-four of the sentence is as follows:

    1. The defendant, Tianhe Kitchen Appliance Firm of Longhu Town, Xinzheng City (operator Yu Jianmin), immediately stopped selling the gas stove products with the words "Oupai" and "Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD" as of the effective date of this judgment;

    Ii. As of the effective date of this judgment, the defendant, Foshan Shunde Chao-Zhi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., LTD., immediately stopped producing and selling gas stoves with the words "Opai", "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD", and "OPAICN".

    3. The defendant, Tianhe Kitchen electrical appliance firm of Longhu Town, Xinzheng City (operator Yu Jianmin), shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., for an economic loss of 20,000 yuan (including reasonable expense for rights protection) within 10 days from the date of the effective date of this judgment;

    Iv. The defendant, Foshan Shunde Chaozhi Electric Appliance Industrial Co., Ltd. shall, within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, jointly compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., for the economic loss of 100,000 yuan (including the reasonable expense of rights protection);

    V. Rejecting other claims of the plaintiff opai Furniture Group Co., LTD.

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

    The receiving fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, 1,300 yuan borne by the plaintiff Opai Household Group Co., LTD., 1,000 yuan borne by the defendant Tianhe kitchen electrical appliance firm in Longhu Town, Xinzheng City (operator Yu Jianmin), and 2,000 yuan borne by the defendant Chaozhi Electrical Appliance Industrial Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan City.

    If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may, within 15 days from the date of serving the judgment, file an appeal to the court, and make a copy according to the number of the other party, and appeal to the Intermediate People's Court of Foshan, Guangdong.

    Chief Judge Wu Zhanhong

    People's Juror Ho Wing Chun

    People's Juror Li Ruifen

    September 12, 2008

    Clerk Zhang Shuer