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

    (2017) Yue 0604, Early Republic of China No. 131

    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: Zhensen Electric Appliance Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan City, 6th Floor, No. 7, Changbao East Road, Ronggui Huaguo Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province. Registration Number :440681000171867.

    Legal representative: Pan Junjun.

    Defendant: Shenzhen Chia Tai Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD., 1109, 1F, Building 1, Meilin Duoli Industrial Zone, Meihua Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong. Unified Social credit code ×××98X.

    Legal representative: Xiao Jing.

    Defendant: Pan Junjun, male, Han Nationality, born on October 7, 1983, living in Yunmeng County, Hubei Province.

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the European group) v. qian's electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the thousand, electrical), the defendant zhengda opie electronics (shenzhen) co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as zhengda opie), the defendant Pan Junjun infringement trademark and unfair competition disputes, in our hospital on January 4, 2017 to begin, form a collegial panel in accordance with the law, on June 8, 2017 in open trial, plaintiff attorney ZhaiMingYue opie group, to appear in court to participate in litigation, the defendant thousand, electrical appliances, the defendant zhengda opie, the defendant Pan Junjun summoned by our hospital, refuses to appear in court without justified reasons to participate in the litigation. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the court: 1. The defendant was ordered to stop using the word "Opai" in the online store to infringe the plaintiff's trademark right; 2. Ii. Order D3 to immediately stop the production and sale of unfair competition behaviors of range hoods and gas stoves with the words "Shenzhen Zhengda Oupai Electrical Appliances Co., LTD", "Youjia, Youai, Zhengda Oupai"; Iii. The defendant was ordered to change its enterprise name immediately, and the word "Oupai" shall not be used in the changed enterprise name; Iv. The court ordered the three defendants to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights in this case, totaling RMB 200,000 only; 5. The three defendants were ordered to bear the costs of the case.

    Facts and reason: the plaintiff is 11 classes, "European" and "OPPEIN" registered trademark, the plaintiff since its inception, after decades of operation, has been "Europe" casting become household names, as is known to all of the country's household, electrical appliances, sanitary ware brand, the brand has won the "Chinese famous brand", "China well-known trademark", such as reputation, in the public mind, "Europe" has become not only the plaintiff products and on behalf of the symbol of the enterprise name, also become the instructions of the plaintiff and the plaintiff associated enterprises significant recognition of market main body and the sources of identity. In November 2016, the plaintiff found that the defendant Chinason Electric Appliance sold range hoods and gas stoves marked with the words "Shenzhen Chia Tai Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD" in a large number of the words "Oupai" in its online store. The outer packing and instructions of the above products are marked with "Shenzhen Charoen Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD", "Youjia, Youai, Charoen Oupai" and "Production enterprise Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., LTD". The plaintiff applied for notary office to preserve evidence for the above infringement. After further investigation, the plaintiff found that the defendant, Pan Junjun, was the owner of the Alipay account of the online store of the accused Company.

    To sum up, the plaintiff argues that the three defendants to clings to the plaintiff's "European" brand reputation, deliberately online production, sales, marked "zhengda opie electronics (shenzhen) co., LTD." on the oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff, and constitute the encroachment of right to enterprise name to 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) The Notarial Certificate of Lai Feng City Certificate No. 347 certifies that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trademark No. 4378572.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    9. (2016) The Notarial Certificate no. 355 issued by Laifengcheng Ziminzi, which proves that the plaintiff has carried out continuous publicity for the "Opai" brand through CCTV and Hunan SATELLITE TV, which 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.

    10. (2016) Notarization Certificate no. 356 issued by Laifeng 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 11, 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.

    12. (2016) No. 3807 Notarial Certificate of Xiaoluci Certificate no. 3807 (including the infringing material object sealed by the notary Office). Prove the facts of the defendant's infringement.

    13. One notarization fee note. The plaintiff claims 500 yuan in this case, which proves the plaintiff's reasonable expense in safeguarding his rights.

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

    The defendants did not enter a plea. If the defendant, having been lawfully summoned by the court, refuses to appear in court to answer the lawsuit without justified reasons, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to plead.

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

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

    On June 7, 2007, guangzhou opie ambry enterprise co., LTD., by the state administration for industry and commerce trademark office (hereinafter referred to as the trademark bureau) for approval the registration no. 4378572 "European" registered trademark, shall use commodities for 11 class gas furnace, microwave oven (kitchenware), electric cooker, baking equipment, cooking utensils, faucets, bathroom equipment, disinfect cupboard, water filter, basin of wash one's hands and sanitary equipment (components), steam bath, sitz bath tub and shower equipment, in the rain compartment, wash tub, sit implement, kitchen smoke lampblack machine, lamp (as), Registration is valid from June 7, 2007 to June 6, 2017. Then the name of the registrant of the trademark is changed to Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD.

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

    (II) On November 12, 2016, wang Shouzhen, the authorized agent of the plaintiff, applied for evidence preservation to Luxi Notary Office of Liaocheng City, Shandong Province. The notarial personnel, under the supervision of the king kept the chastity notary office computer, on the "alibaba" e-commerce for qian's electric appliance co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, "" within the store to open each one bought oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, shou-zhen wang in the process of operation related to relevant page screenshots, and video to the whole process. On the sales page of the above-mentioned online store set up by Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., LTD., there are product introductions such as "Manufacturer's direct selling of Opai gas stove embedded gas stove" and "Manufacturer's wholesale of Opai range Hood". On November 20, 2016, under the supervision of the notary staff, Wang Shouzhen signed at the door of "7 Days Chain Hotel", No. 13, Renhe Zhenhe Street, Baiyun District, Guangzhou, and received a piece of goods marked "household gas cooker" and "household range hood" from a Courier of "Debang Logistics". The order number was "353094972". Wang Shouzhen will open the above two items separately to take photos. In the carton marked "domestic range hood", there is a range hood and a manual. In the carton marked "domestic gas cooker", there is a gas cooker, a manual, a warranty card and a certificate of quality. Then the notary staff sealed the above articles with the seal of the notary office, and delivered the sealed articles and logistics documents to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. Shandong Liaocheng Luxi Notary Office supervised the above purchase and receiving process, and issued the notary Certificate No. 3807 (2016).

    In trial, accuser opened the product that afore-mentioned notarization place buys in court, accuser charges the tort product of this case is lampblack machine and gas stove. On the outside packing cases of range hood and gas stove, the words "supervised by Shenzhen Zhengda OUPOIN Electric Appliance Co., LTD", "OUPOIN", "You Have a home and love Zhengda Oupai" are all marked on the front and back sides and the instructions. The product panel is marked with the words "OUPOIN" and "You Have a family and love Charoen Pokphand". The factory is: Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., LTD. Tel: 0760-26117520 Fax: 0760-26117525. The plaintiff believes that the outer packing, instructions and products marked with the words "Shenzhen Charoen Pokphand Opai" and "You You Have Charoen Pokphand Opai" of the products involved produced and sold by the defendant Chien Sen Electric Appliance and The defendant Charoen Pokphand Opai "constitute unfair competition and also infringe the plaintiff's right of enterprise name. In addition, by using the word "Opai" in its online store, the defendant violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark "Opai" no. 4378572 of the plaintiff, which also constituted unfair competition. The defendant Charoen Opai was registered and established in ×× District, Shenzhen city on February 21, 2012 with the registered capital of RMB 100,000 yuan and the company was a limited liability company.

    The defendant Chinason Electric Co., Ltd. was registered and established in Shunde District, Foshan City on September 2, 2009 with a registered capital of RMB 300,000 yuan. The company was a limited liability company. The scope of business is manufacturing: household appliances, hardware products, gas appliances, etc.

    The court holds that this case is a case of infringement of the right to exclusive use of trademarks and unfair competition disputes. Combined with the plaintiff's allegations, the Court makes the following comments:

    (3) Whether the defendants Jensen Electric Co., Ltd. and Pan Junjun violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the plaintiff, Case No. 4378572. The plaintiff accused the defendant Of trademark infringement by using the word "Opi" on the online store page.

    Article 48 of the Trademark Law; "The use of trademarks as mentioned in this Law means the use of trademarks on commodities, packages or containers of commodities and trade documents, or the use of trademarks in advertising, publicity, exhibitions and other commercial activities to identify the sources of commodities." At the same time, according to the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases interpretation (1) the provisions of the first article, will be the same or similar registered trademark with others words as enterprise size in use highlights on the same or similar goods, the relevant public could produce misidentification, belong to the provisions of the trademark law of the behavior of the other damage to the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of others.

    According to already found out fact, plaintiff no. 4378572 registered trademark in the 11th kind of goods is check and approve use scope to include gas stove, disinfect cupboard, kitchen to use lampblack machine, bathroom installation, bath to use equipment to wait, and this case is accused tort product is gas stove and lampblack machine, both belong to congener commodity. The defendant thousand sen electrical appliances in the online sales page displays of kitchen burning gas, oil absorption, etc. Product pictures at the bottom of the text instructions to use the word "Europe", and advocate for the rights of the plaintiff, compared to no. 4378572 "registered trademark" the pronunciation and meaning are the same, while the former is simplified Chinese which is traditional Chinese characters, but for the use of Chinese characters, no substantial difference, the relevant public to general attention easily confused between the two. Therefore, the court finds that the use of the word "Opai", which is similar to the trademark of plaintiff no. 4378572 "", by the defendant in the prominent use of the same kind of goods, has constituted an infringement on the exclusive right of the registered trademark of plaintiff No. 4378572" ".

    About the question of whether the defendant Pan Junjun to the plaintiff constitute trademark infringement, according to find out the fact that the defendant Pan Junjun is the legal representative of the defendant thousand sen electronics, although the plaintiff claims online use pay treasure to account for the defendant Pan Junjun involved individuals to open accounts, but did not submit relevant evidence to prove it, and only by the opening of the pay treasure account status is not enough to prove Pan Junjun implemented infringement is based on his personal name, claims against the plaintiff's the reason we will not be supported.

    Ii. Whether the defendant Johnson Electric has unfair competition behavior.

    First of all, the business scope of the plaintiff opie group for furniture manufacturing, in September 2007, European brand of ambry of products by the state administration of quality supervision, inspection and quarantine rated as China famous brand product, in October 2008, European brand of ambry of products by the guangdong province quality supervision bureau rated as brand-name products in guangdong province, in February 2008, the plaintiff's 1128213th "European" trademark in the sideboard, is x x x x for famous trademarks of guangdong province, on April 24, 2009, the plaintiff on the sideboard commodity 20 "European" trademark by the trademark office identified as well-known trademarks, so we decided that After years of product sales and advertising, the plaintiff produced and sold cabinet products in the relevant public has a higher visibility. Although the plaintiff was once identified as a well-known trademark, it was not the trademark involved in this case, but because the name of the plaintiff was also "Europa", the good goodwill carried by the trademark of "Europa" was inseparable with the enterprise, and it was unquestionable that the logo of "Europa" had established a specific connection with the plaintiff. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Certain Issues concerning the Application of Law in The Trial of Civil Cases of Unfair Competition, the shop names of enterprises that have certain market popularity and are known to the relevant public may be identified as "enterprise names" as provided for in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Law against Unfair Competition. Therefore, the name of the "European faction" of the plaintiff can be identified as the "enterprise name" stipulated in article 5 (3) of the Anti-Unfair competition Law.

    Secondly, the accused Jensen electric production, sales of gas stoves, range hoods involved. Gas stove, lampblack machine is used in the kitchen commonly, and afore-mentioned kitchen electric equipment is embedded normally form a whole in ambry, reason afore-mentioned product and the ambry product of plaintiff have certain correlation, accuse Son electric equipment and plaintiff have competition relation. Highlights on the defendant thousand sen appliances online page using the "European" behavior, and production and sales of accused of infringing products have marked on the outer packing, specifications, product "zhengda opie electronics (shenzhen) co., LTD.", "the home has love zhengda opie" words, the plaintiff please star jiang wenli to promoted the "European" products advertising slogan is "the home has love Europe clique", therefore, the defendant thousand, appliances have significant others lift intentionally, enough to make the relevant public to mistake the source of goods, infringement of the rights and interests of the plaintiff "European" font size, and constitutes unfair competition.

    (3) Whether the defendant Johnson Electric and the defendant Charoen Pokphand constitute joint infringement.

    The outer packing boxes of the accused infringing products are marked with the words "supervised by Shenzhen Charoen OUPOIN Co., LTD", "OUPOIN" and "You Have love charoen" on the front and back as well as the instructions. The product panel is marked with the words "OUPOIN" and "You Have a family and love Charoen Pokphand". And marked the manufacturer: Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., LTD. Tel: 0760-26117520 Fax: 0760-26117525 After being legally summoned by the court, the defendant Johnson Electric and the defendant CHARoen Pokphand Failed to appear before the court and make any plea, so the court concluded that the products involved were manufactured by the defendant Johnson Pokphand and that charoen Pokphand allowed the defendant To improperly use the company name on the website and the products accused of infringement. Article 8 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if two or more persons jointly commit a tort and cause damage to another person, they shall bear joint liability. In this case, the two defendants have the joint intention to carry out unfair competition, constitute a joint tort, should bear joint liability for compensation.

    Iv. Civil liability borne by the defendant Chien Sen Electric Co., Ltd. and the defendant Charoen Pokphand.

    According to Article 118 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, a citizen or legal person whose right to exclusive use of a registered trademark has been infringed upon shall have the right to demand that the infringement be stopped and that the loss be compensated for. The plaintiff demands that the defendant Chinason Electric co., Ltd. stop using the word "Opi" on the page of its online store; The court supports the request of the defendant Chinason Electric Appliance and the defendant Charoen Opai to stop the production and sale of range hoods and gas stoves marked with the words "Shenzhen Charoen Opai Electric Appliance Co., LTD" and "There is a home with Charoen Opai".

    On the issue of the determination of the amount of compensation in this case. According to the provisions of The first and third paragraphs of Article 63 of the Trademark Law, "The amount of compensation for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual losses suffered by the right holder due to the infringement; Where the actual loss is difficult to determine, it may be determined in accordance with the profits the infringer has gained from the infringement; Where it is difficult to determine the losses of the right holder or the profits of the infringer, a reasonable multiple of the licensing fee for the trademark shall be determined by reference to the said trademark. If it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement, the interests gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, or the licensing fee of the registered trademark, the people's court shall, in light of the circumstances of the infringing act, make a judgment to compensate the obligee not more than THREE million yuan ". At the same time, article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that if a business operator violates the provisions of this Law and causes damage to the injured business operator, it shall be liable for damages. The Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in article 17 of the regulation:" determined in article 5 of the anti-unfair competition law, article 9, article 14 of the regulation of damage compensation of ACTS of unfair competition, can consult to determine the use of a registered trademark infringement damage compensation method ". The actual loss the plaintiff to the case and the defendant of the illegal income derived therefrom are not sure, we consider the reputation of the plaintiff's popularity, integrated the thousand, electrical appliances, the subjective intent of the zhengda opie, infringement plot, business scale, is accused of infringement product sales, and other factors, has decided the defendant thousand sen electronics compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 120000 yuan, the compensation has been including reasonable expense for the rights to the case. The defendant Charoen Pokphand shall bear joint and several liabilities for the aforementioned compensation liability of the defendant Johnson Electric.

    Article 2 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition: "In market transactions, business operators shall abide by the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility, and observe universally recognized business ethics." . Article 5 stipulates: "Business operators shall not engage in market transactions and harm competitors by the following improper means:. (3) to use, without authorization, the enterprise name or name of another person, thus causing it to be mistaken for another person's goods; ." . According to the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil dispute case applicable law of unfair competition, the explanation of some issues of article 6 of the regulation, the enterprise registration authority in accordance with the registered enterprise name, and for commercial use within the territory of China, foreign (regional) enterprise name shall be identified as (3) of article 5 of the anti-unfair competition law "enterprise name" prescribed in item. The shop name of an enterprise that has a certain market popularity and is known to the relevant public may be identified as the "enterprise name" prescribed in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In this case, the "Opai" series products and the "Opai" name of the plaintiff, Opai Group, are well known throughout the country and known by the relevant public. The prior rights enjoyed by Opai Group are protected by the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. As a market operator, in order to comply with the good faith and recognized business ethics when registering the enterprise name, it should have the obligation to avoid the prior well-known trademark and name. But the defendant zhengda opie was founded in 2012, "European" referred to as "opie group and its size has higher visibility, its registered trademark" European "in the 20th class sideboard has been the trademark as well-known trademarks, and at the same time, the 4378572th of a registered trademark of the registered contains 11 goods," European "in European group, under the status of well-known trademark, the defendant zhengda opie when applying for a registered enterprise name will remain" Europe "as its enterprise name recognition in different market main body core identity size of enterprise, its subjective has obvious clings to the group's goodwill intentionally, Objectively, the two can be confused or misassociated, which will easily lead the relevant public to confuse the service source and induce the relevant public to mistake the connection between the two. Therefore, whether or not it is used prominently, it is difficult to avoid confusion or misidentification, and its behavior constitutes a legitimate competition. When the defendant registered the enterprise name, his subjective fault was obvious. The name of "Eurogroup" used by the defendant charoen Pokphand eurogroup made people think that its services came from the plaintiff Eurogroup, which infringed the prior enterprise name right of the plaintiff Eurogroup and constituted unfair competition. Article 10 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Overall Situation of Intellectual Property Trial Services under the current economic situation stipulates: properly handle the conflicts between registered trademarks, enterprise names and prior rights, and stop the unfair competition behaviors such as "pandering to famous brands" according to law. The Supreme People's Court about the trial of a registered trademark and enterprise name and prior right conflict the provisions on some issues of civil dispute case of article 4 of the regulations also accused of infringement of right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark or enterprise name constitutes unfair competition, the people's court may, according to the plaintiff's claim and the specific circumstances of the case, order the defendant to stop using, and using specification assume civil liability. The defendant's use of the enterprise name "Shenzhen Charoen Oupai Electrical Appliance Co., LTD" was obviously intended as a free rider. Whether the use was prominent or not, it would cause confusion in the market. And the defendant cp did not stop using the company name is not enough to prevent market confusion. Therefore, the court supports the plaintiff's request to order the defendant to change the company name.

    In conclusion, according to the provisions of article one hundred and eighteen of the "general principles of the civil law of the People's Republic of China" and "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China" in article 8, paragraph 1 of article 3 of the "trademark law of the People's Republic of China", article sixty-three, paragraph 1 and 3, Chinese anti-unfair competition law "in the paragraph 1 of article 2, article 5, paragraph 3, article 20 of the Supreme People's Court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition" the explanation of application of law in article 6, article 17, In accordance with Article 4 of The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases involving the Conflict of Registered Trademark, Enterprise Name and Prior Rights and Article 64, Paragraph 1 and Article 144 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the judgment by default is as follows:

    (3) As of the effective date of this judgment, the defendant, Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped using the word "Opai" on its online store for publicity;

    (3) The defendant, Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and the defendant, Shenzhen Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the production and sale of the range hoods and gas stoves containing the words "supervised by Shenzhen Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." and "You have loved Zhengda Oupai" as of the effective date of this judgment;

    Iii. The defendant, Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., LTD., shall, within 10 days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishgroup Co., LTD., for the economic loss of 120,000 yuan (including the reasonable expenses paid by the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishgroup Co., LTD., to stop the infringement in this case);

    Iv. Defendant Shenzhen Chia Tai Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. shall bear joint liability for the compensation liability borne by defendant Foshan Shunde Qiansen Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. in the third judgment mentioned above;

    (3) Within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment, the defendant Shenzhen Chia Tai Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. shall handle the registration of change of enterprise name, and the word "Oupai" shall not be used in the changed enterprise name;

    (3) Other claims of the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., were rejected.

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

    The receiving fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, which is 1,500 yuan borne by the plaintiff Oupai Household Appliance Group Co., LTD., and 1,800 yuan borne by the defendant, And the defendant Shenzhen Charoen Oupai Electrical Appliance Co., LTD., shunde district, Foshan City, is jointly and severly liable for the receiving fee payable by the defendant.

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

    Chief Judge Wu Zhanhong

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    People's Juror Ho Wing Chun

    July 28, 2017

    Clerk Yan Yongyu