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 No. 10076

    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.

    Defendant: Sales Department of White Yulan Decoration Materials, Hexai District, Tianjin, Domicile: No. 5, Zengguang Road, Jiangdu Road Street, Hexai District, Tianjin (No. 20, Area A, Civil Art Decoration City), registration No. 120105600314827.

    Operator: Li Haixia, female, Han Nationality, born on November 1, 1989, living in Shenqiu County, Henan Province,

    Defendant: ××294(the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), domicile: No.313, No.22, Liitang Road, Shangjia, Ronggui Street, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, Unified social credit code ××294.

    Legal representative: Li Xingwen.

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

    Defendant: Dai Hejie, male, Han Nationality, born on November 1, 1987, living in Luxian County, Luzhou City, Sichuan Province,

    Defendant: Kang Qinggui, female, Han Nationality, born on November 20, 1989, living in Luxian County, Luzhou City, Sichuan Province,

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European group) v. the defendant of tianjin hebei district magnolia decoration materials sales, sales) (hereinafter referred to as the white yulan, 914406063039001294 European technology co., LTD. (formerly guangdong), generation and jade, Kang Qinggui the infringement trademark dispute case, in our hospital in 2018 to begin on May 16, we apply the ordinary procedure and form a collegiate panel in accordance with the law, on August 20, 2018 in open trial, Zhai Mingyue, the agent AD litem of the plaintiff Opai Group, and Liang Zhengping, the agent AD litem of the defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), attended the lawsuit. < / p > < p > defendant Magnolia sales department, Dai and Jie, Kang Qinggui legally summoned by the court, without a justifiable reason refused to attend the court proceedings. The case is now closed.

    1. The defendant Magnolia Flowers Sales Department immediately stopped selling the gas stove with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD"; 2. 2. Defendants 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), Dai Hejie and Kang Qinggui immediately stopped producing and selling the gas stoves with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." involved; 3. The four defendants shall jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights, totaling RMB 200,000 only; The costs of this case shall be borne by the four defendants.

    Facts and Reasons: Plaintiff was founded in 1994, is a comprehensive domestic integrated modern home services provider, products covering the whole wardrobe, kitchen appliances, bathroom, commercial kitchen utensils and other fields. The plaintiff is the registered trademark owner of "Oupai". After decades of painstaking operation, the plaintiff has made "Oupai" a well-known household, electric appliance and sanitary ware brand in China. The brand has successively won the reputation of "China famous brand product" and "China well-known Trademark". "Have a home, there is love, there are" the slogan in the consumer has a high influence and obtained the full affirmation, in the relevant 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 July 2017, after investigation by the plaintiff, it was found that the gas stove products involved in the business premises were sold in the stores. The packaging box and the product panels of the products involved in the case are marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology Co., LTD", "OPAICN", "OPAICN" and "OPAICN". The plaintiff has entrusted the notary office to protect the evidence of the above actions. After investigation, the operator of the store involved in the defendant Hebei District of Tianjin Bai Yulan decoration materials Sales department; Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., LTD., whose products were marked in the case, has been cancelled on June 27, 2017. The shareholders and members of the liquidation group are Dai Hejie and Kang Qinggui. To sum up, the plaintiff believes that the plaintiff's trademark right is infringed by the defendant's behavior of producing and selling gas stove products involved in the case. At the same time the defendant 914406063039001294 European technology co., LTD. (formerly guangdong), without any justified reason, the registered enterprise name containing "European" font size, and the defendant and jay, Kang Qinggui zhongshan cases are run by the electric appliance co., LTD in the production and sales of the products involved in the field labeled "European" containing size enterprise name and the use of the plaintiff to approximate AD, enough to produce market confusion; The accused Magnolia grandifloria Sales Department, as the relevant operator, failed to fulfill the duty of examination and sold the products with the name of the enterprise with the name of "European"; The conduct of the accused violates the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, and constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law, filed a lawsuit, pleading with the court to find out the facts, correctly apply the law, and judge according to law as requested.

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

    1.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 350, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 672, To prove that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 1128213 and is within the period of validity;

    2.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 346, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 673. To prove that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 1137521 within the period of validity;

    3.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 347, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 675. That the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the registered trademark No. 4378572 within the validity period;

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

    5. Trademark [2009] No. 7 issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. To certify that the registered trademark no. 1128213 "" enjoyed by the plaintiff had been recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on April 24, 2009;

    6.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 353 of Laifeng City Certificate. The content is as follows :(1) July 9, 2007, the general administration of quality supervision, inspection and quarantine issued the "China famous brand product certificate", proving that the plaintiff produced the European brand household cabinet was awarded the "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) The "Guangdong Famous Trademark Certificate" issued by Guangdong Famous Trademark Recognition Committee in February 2008 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) on 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 Innovative Ability" in 2014;

    7. (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 260 of Laifeng City Certificate. (1) Guangzhou Famous Trademark Certificate granted by Guangzhou Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce, valid from January 2016 to December 2012; (2) The Trademark Brand certificate of China industry awarded by China Industry Trademark Brand Review Committee in May 2016; (3) China Top 500 Brand Value Certificate awarded by The Review Committee of China Top 500 Brand Value in May 2016;

    8. (2016) Notarial Certificate No. 357 of Laifeng City Certificate No. It proves that part of the tax paid by the plaintiff from 2013 to 2015, and proves that the "Opi" brand generates huge profits and benefits, and the brand has a very high value.

    9.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 355 of Laifeng City Certificate. Prove that the plaintiff by CCTV, hunan TV's "European brand" for the continuous publicity, prove that "European" brand has been widely known by the public, the brand value is extremely high, specific content as follows: (1) on 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" brand publicity the plaintiff, advertising is wubai 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 plaintiff signed a television advertising release contract with zhejiang zhimei auto advertising co., LTD., which stipulates that on January 1, 2014, solstice, December 31, 2014, the plaintiff's brand shall be publicized on CCTV news channel, 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 agreement on sponsorship and cooperation 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;

    10.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 356 of Laifeng City Certificate. It proves that the plaintiff spent a lot of money to hire the star Jiang Wenli to speak for the "European Group" products, which further proves that the plaintiff spent a lot of money to promote the European group brand.

    11.2011 years on April 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 the world magazine. It proves that the plaintiff continuously propagates the brand of "Opi" through print media, and also proves that the original advertising slogan of "Family, love and Opi" is continuously used and promoted by the plaintiff;

    12. (2017) Feng City Certificate No. 939 (including the infringing material object sealed by the notary Office). To prove the fact of the defendant's infringement, and to prove that the plaintiff has entrusted a notary office to preserve evidence;

    13. Notary fee note. To prove the plaintiff's reasonable expenses, the case claims 900 yuan;

    14. Industrial and commercial registration information of Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., LTD. To certify that the company has been cancelled, that defendants Dai Hejie and Kang Qinggui are shareholders of the company, and that defendants Dai Hejie and Kang Qinggui have not actually contributed capital, and are qualified subjects;

    15. Online screenshot of Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., LTD. It proves the relationship between the company and defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), and proves that the product involved in the infringement is produced by Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., LTD.

    The defendant Magnolia sales department, Dai hejie, Kang Qinggui did not plead, also did not appear in court to submit evidence.

    Defendant 914406063039001294 (former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) argued that: 1. The defendant magnolia Grandiflorum Sales Department sold the products involved and marked them as "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.", but the defendant Magnolia Grandiflorum sales Department was not the agent of the defendant and the products involved had nothing to do with the defendant. 2. The products involved in the case are not the products of the defendant. The defendant has never produced household appliances and does not have relevant qualifications. 3. It is a fact known to both sides that there are many fake products in the market with the name of the defendant's enterprise. 4. The plaintiff sued the defendant for unfair competition caused by labeling "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd." on the product involved. The judgment has been dealt with before and the defendant has submitted relevant evidence to prove it.

    Defendant 914406063039001294 European technology co., LTD. (formerly guangdong) submitted the following evidence: (2017) to our guangdong civil judgment, 5809, 20 people to prove in this judgment has been convicted 914406063039001294 European technology co., LTD. (formerly guangdong) to stop the production, the sale marked "guangdong opie technology co., LTD." on the kitchen burning gas, so the case is a repeated action, shall reject the plaintiff's prosecution.

    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 the evidence submitted by the defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), but makes a comprehensive comment on the relevance of the evidence in the whole case 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 ambry enterprise co., LTD., by the state administration for industry and commerce trademark office (hereinafter referred to as the trademark bureau) for approval the registration no. 4378572 "European" registered trademark, shall use commodities for 11 class gas furnace, microwave oven (kitchenware), electric cooker, baking equipment, cooking utensils, faucets, bathroom equipment, disinfect cupboard, water filter, wash one's hands basin (sanitary equipment parts), sauna, sitz bath tub and shower equipment, in the rain compartment, wash tub, sit implement, 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., namely the plaintiff.

    In September 2007, Opai cabinet products were rated as China's famous brand by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. In October 2008, Opai cabinet products were rated as guangdong famous brand products by Guangdong Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. In February 2008, the plaintiff's trademark no. 1128213 "Opai" was a famous trademark of Guangdong Province on the sideboard and was ×× ×. On April 24, 2009, the trademark "Opai" on the category 20 sideboard goods of the plaintiff was identified as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office. In December 2012, Guangdong Opai household Group Co., Ltd. was identified by China Building decoration Association hutch and sanitation Engineering Committee as "2012 China hutch and sanitation 100", "overall kitchen leading enterprises top 10", effective term of a year. In September 2013, Guangzhou Municipal People's Government awarded Guangdong Opai Furniture Group Co., Ltd. the title of "2012 Guangzhou Mayor Quality Award". On December 28, 2014, the case evaluated by Brand Watch magazine was selected as the silver Award of 2014 Annual Brand Marketing Case in China. In January 2015, Guangdong Provincial Home Industry Federation and Guangdong Furniture Chamber of Commerce jointly awarded the plaintiff the title of "Top ten Most Valuable Brands" in the field of Guangdong extensive home furnishing in 2014.

    On October 30, 2012, the plaintiff and Beijing ontime boiling international advertising co., ltd. signed an agreement on the sponsorship and cooperation of home decoration fund, which agreed that the plaintiff would sponsor two sets of home decoration fund of CCTV "exchange space". The contract was performed from January 5, 2013 to December 28, 2013, solstice in the same year, and the sponsorship advertising fee was RMB 5700000. On July 20, 2013, the plaintiff hired Jiang Wenli as the spokesperson of Eurogroup. On November 11, 2013, the plaintiff signed a TV advertisement release contract with zhejiang zhimei chewen advertising co., LTD., which agreed that the plaintiff entrusted zhejiang zhimei chewen advertising co., ltd. to release the advertisement during January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014 through cctv-news channel at a cost of RMB 40463970. In July 2014, the plaintiff with hunan, hunan radio and television advertising corporation downwind media co., LTD., television advertising project contracts, agreement the plaintiffs entrust hunan, hunan radio and television advertising corporation downwind media co., LTD., published "the 10th golden eagle festival closing ceremony and awards" project related advertising, distribution medium for hunan broadcast hunan satellite TV channels, release time is on September 28, 2014 to October 12, 2014, cost $18000000, using the slogan of "there is love, there's a, have the pie". On October 22, 2014, the plaintiff signed an advertising agency contract with kashgar yinsong culture & media co., LTD. It was agreed that kashgar yinsong culture & media co., LTD., on behalf of the plaintiff, would place an advertisement in cctc-news "global view" on January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015, with the agreed fee of 23,970,000 yuan. On November 27, 2014, the plaintiff and Beijing ontime boiling international advertising co., ltd. signed an agreement on the sponsorship and cooperation of home decoration fund, which agreed that the plaintiff would sponsor two sets of "exchange space" home decoration fund of CCTV. The contract was performed from April 4, 2015 to March 26, 2016, solstice, with the sponsorship advertising fee of RMB 6,000,000.

    (2) on July 28, 2017, the plaintiff's attorney shou-zhen wang to FengCheng notarization to apply for evidence preservation in laiwu city in shandong province, and in 2017 on July 30, notarial personnel under the supervision of, in the name of the ordinary consumers come to tianjin hebei jinshajiang road 20, "civil rights door decoration city" marked "area A" 20 "wei yu of" shop (next to the area A 12th), purchased the marked "zhongshan opie industrial investment co., LTD.", "guangdong science and technology co., LTD. (producer)" words each one kitchen burning gas, Obtain a "delivery note" with the number of 6001753 issued by the store and a business card with the words "MCA, Complete set of Sanitary ware" printed on it. Wang Shouzhen took photos of the outdoor scene and the gas stove in the store, and the notary sealed the above articles and kept them by Wang Shouzhen. Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province supervised the above purchase and receiving process, and issued the Notary Certificate of Laifeng City Certificate No. 939 (2017).

    In trial, the plaintiff opened and sealed the product that afore-mentioned notarization place buys to have inside gas stove and specification, certificate each. The plaintiff accuses this case tort product to be gas cooker. The packaging of the product accused of infringement is marked with "Guangdong Opai Science and Technology Co., LTD. (Supervisor)" on both the front and back sides. The packaging is marked with "Youjia Youai YouopaicN" on the left and right sides, and the packaging is marked with "Zhongshan Zongzheng Electrical Appliance Co., LTD." and its address, telephone number and website address. The OPAICN and Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD are marked on the product panel. The plaintiff believes that the labeling of "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD. (Supervision)" violates the principle of good faith, infringes on the plaintiff's right of enterprise name, and constitutes unfair competition. The OPAICN slogan on the left and right side of the packaging is similar to the plaintiff's advertisement slogan "OPAICN with love and Love", which constitutes unfair competition.

    Defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) believed that the address, telephone number and website address of "Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., LTD." were marked on the side of the package of the product involved, indicating that the product was produced and sold by the company. "There's a label on the package there is love have OPAICN", but the defendant did not constitute the unfair competition to the plaintiff, the outer packing has marked "opie technology co., LTD. (producer) of guangdong province", shows that the defendant had no direct selling product, zhongshan cases are only producer electric appliance co., LTD. To pull up the name of the defendant and the defendant with zhongshan is electric appliance co., LTD. Think the product have to participate in the supervision, but in fact the defendant was not awarded to the company to use the enterprise name, the defendant did not participate in the supervision. The production date on the certificate is December 8, 2016, but during this period, the defendant did not participate in the supervision of the production and sales of the products involved. Therefore, the products involved have nothing to do with the defendant.

    (3) other ascertained facts

    Tianjin hebei jinshajiang road 20, "civil rights door decoration city" marked "area A 20" shop "sanitary ware of" industrial and commercial registration for the defendant of tianjin hebei district magnolia decoration materials sales, business operators for lee enjoyed, for individual businesses, registered in March 30, 2017, the business scope for decoration materials, hardware, sanitary ware, retail and wholesale.

    The defendant 914406063039001294 (formerly guangdong opie technology co., LTD.) was founded on April 30, 2014, a natural person sole proprietorship of the limited liability company, the registered capital is 10 million yuan, scope of business of biotechnology products, household appliances, metal products, electrical accessories, water purification equipment, air to water heaters, bathroom supplies, daily necessities, household items, electrical materials, electronic products research, development, processing, manufacturing, marketing; Biotechnology research, development and consultation; Enterprise investment consultation; Domestic trade. The defendant, 914406063039001294 (formerly Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), has been ordered by the court to change its enterprise name registration because of other cases that infringed the plaintiff's right of enterprise name. The original enterprise registration authority now replaces its original enterprise name "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." with its unified social credit code 914406063039001294.

    Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. was registered and established on June 30, 2014 with the registered capital of RMB 100,000 yuan. Scope of business for the production, processing and marketing: electric water heater, induction cooker, range hood, cooker, etc., as a natural person investment or holdings limited liability company, the shareholders for the generation and jay, Kang Qinggui, 51000 of whom the defendant and remarkable, the defendant Kang Qinggui $49000, amount should pay full before 20 June 2044, June 27, 2017, zhongshan is electric appliance co., LTD was approved to cancel.

    The court holds that this case is filed as a dispute case of infringement of trademark rights. However, according to the facts and claims of the plaintiff, as well as the comparative accusations of the plaintiff to the products in the trial, this case should be a case of unfair competition dispute. 1. Whether the products involved are jointly produced and sold by Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.); 2. 2. Whether Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) constitute unfair competition; 3. Subject and amount of compensation.

    On the first point of focus. The sealed state of gas stoves involved in the case provided by the plaintiff is intact, and the seal and seal of the notary office are complete, which has been recognized by the court. The product involved in the case provided by the plaintiff is gas stove. The gas stove product accused of infringement is marked on the outer package by the manufacturer of Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., LTD., and the product package and product are marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.". The trade documents such as production enterprise information, product anti-counterfeiting and warranty card, and operation manual marked on the outer package have the function of enabling consumers to identify the producer or operator of the product, that is, they clearly point to the provider of the product. Accordingly, in Zhongshan Zongzheng electric appliance Co., LTD., the defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) did not provide rebuttal evidence under the circumstances, that the gas stove accused of infringement is produced and sold jointly by Zhongshan Zongzheng electric Appliance Co., LTD., the defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.).

    On the second point of focus. The plaintiff claims that the gas stove products accused of infringement are marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD", which constitutes unfair competition for the right to its enterprise name. According to article 6 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition, "Business operators shall not commit any of the following confusing ACTS that may cause them to be mistaken for other people's goods or have specific connections with others:... (2) unauthorized use of the names of enterprises (including abbreviation and shop name, etc.), social organizations (including abbreviation, etc.), names (including pen names, stage names, translated names, etc.) with certain influence... (4) other ACTS of confusion which are sufficient to cause people to mistake them for other people's goods or have a specific connection with others ". In this case, the plaintiff since 1994, cabinets and other products on the "European" font size, the continuous use in the class the sideboard 20 "European" trademark by the trademark office identified as well-known trademarks, its enterprise also won many honors, the plaintiff and in CCTV, hunan TV and other media on a large amount of advertising and product sales, the plaintiff's "European" enterprise size across the country has a higher visibility, the plaintiff's prior rights are protected by the law. The business scope of Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) includes household appliances, so the plaintiff has a competitive relationship with Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.). Zhongshan is electric appliance co., LTD., the defendant 914406063039001294 (formerly guangdong opie technology co., LTD.) production and sales of kitchen burning gas mark on the product and overwrapping "guangdong science and technology co., LTD.", will cause the relevant consumers as "guangdong science and technology co., LTD." to the plaintiff's affiliated enterprise, easy to make the relevant public cause confusion and mistakes to source products, its "free-ride" deliberately is obvious. "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., Ltd." seized the market share of the plaintiff Opai Group, which obviously violated the principle of good faith, violated the recognized business ethics in market transactions, and constituted unfair competition to the plaintiff. Therefore, Zhongshan Zongzheng Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and the defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) shall immediately stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses and the reasonable expenses paid by the plaintiff to stop the infringement. The behavior of the accused magnolia grandiosa sales Department in selling the products involved also constitutes unfair competition and shall bear the corresponding responsibility.

    On the third point of focus. According to the tort liability law of the People's Republic of China article 15 of the regulation, the way of tort liability has stop the infringement and compensate for the losses, the plaintiff's request to stop the production, the sale of the products involved in the action, we should support, but because of zhongshan city as one of the production, the sale is electric appliance co., LTD has been approved to cancel, the defendant and jay, Kang Qinggui not direct production, the sale, so we put forward by the defendant to the plaintiff and jay, Kang Qinggui stop production, the sale of the products involved in the action does not support. According to the provisions of Article 28 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, shareholders shall pay their respective subscribed capital contributions in full and on schedule as stipulated in the articles of association. Again according to the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable < > company law of the People's Republic of China regulations (3) (2014 revision) "as prescribed in paragraph 2 of article 13:" the company creditors request fails to perform or not to fulfill its obligations of capital contribution shareholders in an overall contribution to the company within the scope of principal and interest is unable to repay part undertake supplementary compensation liability for the debts, the people's court shall support." In this case, zhongshan is electric appliance co., LTD has been approved on June 27, 2017, cancellation, its shareholders and jay, Kang Qinggui the defendant failed to submit evidence to prove that their pay full amount, so the defendant and jie should be within the scope of its capital contribution in 51000, the defendant should be within the scope of the capital contribution of 49000 in zhongshan city Kang Qinggui part is electric appliance co., LTD is unable to repay debts, the supplementary compensation liability.

    Per capita for both parties failed to provide evidence for the defendant implementation of ACTS of unfair competition and lead to actual loss suffered by the plaintiff as well as the profits of the infringer, to comprehensively consider the brand awareness of the plaintiff and the defendant's scale of operation, during the implementation of the nature of the infringement, and consequences and the degree of subjective fault, the plaintiff and entrust a lawyer to appear in court to stop infringement litigation or spending the notarial cost, the cost of buying infringing material, The amount of compensation for the sales department of White yulan decoration materials in Hebei district of Tianjin is 15,000 yuan, the amount of compensation for the defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Oupai Technology Co., LTD.) is 50,000 yuan, and the amount of compensation for the defendant dai Hejie and Kang Qinggui is 20,000 yuan each (the amount of compensation has included the reasonable cost of the plaintiff to stop the infringement).

    To sum up, in accordance with article 3 and Article 15 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Tort Liability, article 6, paragraph 1, item 2, item 4, and Article 17 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition, Article 28 of the "company law of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable < > company law of the People's Republic of China regulations (3) (2014 revision)" in the second paragraph of article 13, the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in article 1 and article 4, paragraph 1 of article 6, article 7 and article sixty-four of the civil procedural law of the People's Republic of China in the first paragraph, the provisions of article one hundred and forty-four, judgment by default is as follows:

    1. The defendant, The Sales Department of White Magnolia decoration Materials in Hebei District of Tianjin, shall, as of the effective date of this judgment, immediately stop selling the gas cooking utensils marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD";

    2. Defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) immediately stopped the production and sale of gas cooking utensils marked with the words "Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD." on the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    3. The defendant, The Sales Department of Magnolia decoration Materials in Hebei District, Tianjin, shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable costs of rights protection totaling 15,000 yuan within 10 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    Iv. Defendant 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.) shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., a total of 50,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable costs of rights protection from the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    V. The defendant Dai Hejie shall, within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate the plaintiff Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. for the economic loss and the reasonable cost of safeguarding its rights, totaling 20,000 yuan;

    Vi. Defendant Kang Qinggui shall, within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate the plaintiff Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. for the economic loss and the reasonable cost of safeguarding its rights, totaling 20,000 yuan;

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

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

    The accepting fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, 1000 yuan borne by the plaintiff Opai Household Group Co., LTD., 500 yuan borne by the defendant's Sales department of White Magnolopry decoration materials in Hebei District of Tianjin city, 1800 yuan borne by the defendant's 914406063039001294 (the former Guangdong Opai Technology Co., LTD.), 500 yuan borne by the defendant dai Hejie, and 500 yuan borne by the defendant Kang Qinggui.

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

    Chief Judge Wu Zhanhong

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    People's Juror Huanhong Huang

    January 18, 1920

    Clerk Chen Yunyi