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) No. 13200, Yue 0604, Early Republic of China

    Plaintiff: Opai Furniture Group Co., LTD., domicile: No. 366, Guanghua Third 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: Qingdao Opai Communications Home Appliance Co., LTD., Room 261, Pang Jia Community, Hongshiya Street, Huangdao District, Qingdao city, Shandong Province, with unified social credit code: ××938.

    Legal representative: Tang Jinghong.

    Defendant: Tang Jinghong, male, Han Nationality, born on December 2, 1983, residing in Mazhang District, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province,

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD., and the defendant Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as opie JiaoJiaDian company), Tang Jinghong unfair competition disputes, in our hospital in Hitachi after September 15, 2017, in accordance with the applicable ordinary procedure, on December 28, 2017 in open trial, plaintiffs entrust agents AD litem wang ning to appear in court to participate in litigation, the defendant opie JiaoJiaDian company by our college summons, Tang Jinghong, 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 unfair competition immediately and stop marking the words "Qingdao Opai Communication Home Appliance Co., LTD" on the gas stove involved in its production and sale; 2. Ii. The defendant was ordered to change the enterprise name immediately and the changed enterprise name shall not use the word "Opai"; Iii. The court ordered the two defendants to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights in this case, totaling RMB 300,000 only; Iv. The two defendants were ordered to bear the costs of the case.

    Facts and Reasons: Founded in 1994, the plaintiff is a leading brand in the whole cabinet industry. Its products cover the whole wardrobe, kitchen appliances, bathroom and commercial kitchen utensils and other fields. The series trademarks of "" and" OPPEIN "owned by the plaintiff, after decades of careful creation and huge investment in advertising, have been molded into household, kitchen, bathroom brands that are well known throughout the country. This brand has successively won the reputation of" China famous brand products ", "China well-known trademark" and so on. At the same time, in February 2017, the plaintiff was successfully listed in Shanghai with stock code 603208, which further laid the leading brand advantage of the plaintiff in the industry. Nowadays, in the public mind, "Opai" series of trademarks is not only a representative symbol of the plaintiff's products and enterprise names, but also a significant identification mark indicating the market subject and commodity source of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's affiliated enterprises. In June 2017, the plaintiff found XiaoMeng strange electronic commerce co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, the extensive use of "European" within their online text sales indicate "Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD." on the kitchen burning gas, on the product packaging, manuals, warranty CARDS such as carrier was labeled "Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD. Producer". To the above infringement, the plaintiff applied for notary office to preserve evidence. In addition, upon inquiry, the defendant, Tang Jinghong, was the sole shareholder of the defendant, Opai Communications Home Appliance Company, solely owned by natural persons. To sum up, the plaintiff that the defendant to clings to the plaintiff's enjoyment of the "European" brand reputation, deliberately in the product on the illegal use of the word "Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD.", in violation of the principle of honesty and credit and recognized business ethics, constituting unfair competition to the plaintiff, caused great economic losses to the plaintiff, shall bear the corresponding legal responsibility. In addition, shareholders of a one-person limited liability company who cannot prove that their personal property is independent of the company's property shall also be liable for the company's debts. Therefore, in order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of 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, we hereby appeal to the court for a judgment as requested.

    The defendant, Ou Pai Jiao Tong Electric Appliance Company, Tang Jinghong did not submit a reply.

    Lawsuit, the plaintiff to we submitted the following evidence: 1. The word no. 347 (2016) lai FengCheng card people, (2017) lai FengCheng people word notarial deed, (2016) no. 675 lai FengCheng word no. 350, (2017), the people FengCheng certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 672 lai people word FengCheng word no. 346, (2017), the people FengCheng certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 673 people word word no. 348 lai FengCheng card people notarial deed; 2. The word no. 352 (2016) lai FengCheng card people notarial deed, issued by the state administration for industry and commerce trademark office trademark chi word [2009] no. 7 on that "European" trademark for well-known trademark approval, (2016) lai FengCheng people word certificate notarial deed, (2017) no. 353 lai FengCheng people word certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 260 lai FengCheng people word notarial deed, (2016) no. 357 lai FengCheng certificate notarial deed, (2016) no. 355 lai people word FengCheng certificate notarial deed no. 356, 2011 people word on April 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 "Linchuan evening news published day, 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 (the newspapers are all copy); 3. (2017) Notarial Certificate Of Laifeng City Certificate No. 772 and notarized sealed articles; 4. One notary fee bill; 5. Copy of the plaintiff's business license, the report on publicity of enterprise credit information of the defendant Opai Communications Appliance Company, and the identity information of the defendant Tang Jinghong; 6. The copy of trademark authorization, application for trademark registration acceptance notice copy, the defendant opie JiaoJiaDian company business license copy, OPDEINAI authorization certificate copy, zhongshan sporty) electric appliance co., LTD. Delivery note photos, Pan Xionghui id photocopy, the defendant Tang Jinghong id photocopy, XiaoMeng strange electronic commerce co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, the accredit a power of attorney issued by law firm, guangdong ocean three appointed letter.

    For the above evidence, the court recognizes as follows: For evidence 1, the group of evidence is a notarized document issued by the notary office according to law, the content is the trademark registration document of the plaintiff, etc., which is related to this case, the court accepts and accepts; Evidence for 2 evidence, the group in addition to the newspapers, both for the notarial documents issued by the notary public in accordance with the relevant documents issued by the administrative organ of legal sources, is associated with the case, we shall be disbelieved newspapers did not provide the original check, but with (2016), we have believed FengCheng certificate no. 355, 356 people notarial deed content can support each other, so we be trusted; For evidence 3, this group of evidence is the notarized document issued by the notarial office according to law, which is matched with the attached notarized sealed articles and is related to the facts to be proved in this case, which is accepted and accepted by the court. For evidence 4, this group of evidence is confirmed with evidence 3, so the court accepts it. For evidence 5, this group of evidence is the information issued or publicized by the administrative authority according to law, and its source is legal, which shall be accepted by the court; For evidence 6, a copy of the business license of the defendant Opai Communications Home Appliance Company and a copy of the id card of the defendant Tang Jinghong confirm each other with evidence 5, which is accepted by the court. The rest of the evidence does not provide original verification, and some of it is not related to the facts to be proved in this case, so the court does not accept.

    On the basis of the admissible evidence and the parties' statements, the following facts may be ascertained:

    The plaintiff and his claim

    The plaintiff Opai Household Group Co., Ltd. was founded on July 1, 1994. Its business scope is furniture manufacturing industry, and its main businesses are integral kitchen (including kitchen stove and kitchen appliances), cabinets and wardrobes, integral bathroom (including water heater and other bath equipment).

    On November 21, 1997, Guangzhou Kangjie Kitchen Equipment Co., Ltd. was approved to register trademark No. 1128213 "", and approved to use goods in category 20, including furniture, sideboards, counters, etc. The registration was renewed and valid until November 20, 2027. On December 21, 1997, Guangzhou Kangjie Kitchen Equipment Co., Ltd. approved and registered the trademark "" no. 1137521, and approved the use of goods in category 11, including kitchen stoves, gas stoves, electric cookers, etc. The registration was renewed and valid until December 20, 2027. On June 7, 2007, Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. registered the trademark no. 4378572 "", approved the use of goods for the 11th category, including gas stoves, bathroom fixtures, bath equipment, kitchen range hoods, etc., and renewed the registration valid until June 6, 2027. On March 14, 2011, Guangdong Opai Group Co., Ltd. approved and registered the trademark "OPPEIN" No. 7731876, which was approved to be used in category 11, including cooking utensils, gas stoves, water heaters, kitchen range hoods, bathroom fixtures, bath equipment, etc. The registration is valid until March 13, 2021. The four registered trademarks above changed the name of the registrant to be the plaintiff on March 24, 2014.

    From March 2005 to February 2011, the trademark "" of Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. was recognized as a famous trademark of Guangdong Province on the sideboard and other commodities. From September 2007 to September 2010, Opai household cabinets produced by Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. were identified as China's famous brand products by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine. From October 2008 to September 2011, Opai cabinets produced by Guangzhou Opai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. were identified as guangdong famous brand products by Guangdong Provincial Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision. On April 24, 2009, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce recognized guangzhou Oupai Cabinet Enterprise Co., Ltd. as a well-known trademark. From December 2012 to December 2013, Guangdong Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. was named "2012 China's top 100 kitchens overall kitchen leading enterprises". From January 2016 to December 2018, the trademarks "OPPEIN" and "" used by the plaintiff on sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bathing equipment were recognized as famous trademarks of Guangzhou by The Administration for Industry and Commerce of Guangzhou municipality.

    From 2011 to 2016, the plaintiff continued to publicize its "Opai" brand through advertisements in many newspapers such as Linchuan Evening News, Ruili Home Furnishing, Decorate the World, CCTV, Hunan SATELLITE TV and other media, and carried out publicity together with the slogan "There is a family, there is love, there is Opai". From 2013 to 2015, the plaintiff continued to employ jiang Wenli, a film and television star, as the spokesperson of "Opai" brand cabinet, wardrobe, bathroom and other products.

    The facts of an alleged infringement

    In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff authorized The Jindun Intellectual Property Service Center in Laicheng District of Laiwu City to notarize the preservation evidence on behalf of the Center, and filed the application for the preservation evidence notarization to Fengcheng Notary Office of Laiwu City, Shandong Province on June 17, 2017. On June 20, 2017, in the notarization notaries, notarial personnel, under the supervision of laiwu city lai entrusted agent committed intellectual property service center in urban shou-zhen wang in guangzhou baiyun district ishii, big gang village tung street lane 11 801 room, the use of the notary office computer connected to the Internet, in taobao shopkeeper called "XiaoMeng electrical mall" XiaoMeng appliances direct "inside the store bought called" opie smoke lampblack machine automatic cleaning kitchen burning gas package two motor combination smoke cigarette machine kitchen stove suit "elimination of each one oil absorption, kitchen burning gas, the price is 1089 yuan, after the payment, One order with the generated order number of 30289748094074885 (the nickname of the generated order is Xiaomeng Qi Electrical Appliance Mall, and the real name is Xiaomeng Qi E-commerce Co., LTD., Shunde District, Foshan city). On June 23, 2017, shou-zhen wang in the notarization notaries and notarial personnel, under the supervision of baiyun district in guangzhou city ishii avenue (ten thousand sets across the freight market) and gravels of the logistics business department to sign for the single number is 6632830632, 6632830629, the outer packing in good condition, with gas cookers "embedded", "household range hood" goods of each one. Shou-zhen wang open the packing cases respectively for the above goods, number of 6632830632 cartons are marked with "Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD. (producer) of kitchen burning gas a, one copy of instruction manual, product anti-counterfeiting warranty card, a VIP service card, a number of 6632830629 cartons are marked with" Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD. (producer) "with the words of the boxes of oil absorption a, oil absorption specification a, product warranty card a VIP service card, a forgery prevention. The notary sealed the above items with the notary office seal and took photos before giving them to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. Shou-zhen wang on June 24, 2017 in the notaries and notarial personnel, under the supervision of baiyun district in guangzhou city ishii, big gang village tung street lane 11 801 room, the use of the notary office computer connected to the Internet, on the "taobao" website on the order number to confirm the delivery of the order of 30289748094074885, and view the and "XiaoMeng electronics mall taobao sellers chats and gravels Courier tracking number 6632830629. On July 18, 2017, the notary office issued a (2017) Notarial certificate no. 772 for the above process. The plaintiff paid 900 yuan for the notary fee.

    During the trial, the plaintiff submitted the sealed articles labeled "embedded gas stove" attached to the notarization certificate (this case is accused of infringement) and the sealed articles labeled "household range hood". In court opened items marked "embedded gas cookers", there is a kitchen burning gas a, directions, anti-counterfeiting warranty card a VIP service card, a product, including kitchen burning gas outer packing products (including product information label), panel (including labeling), operating instructions, product anti-counterfeiting are marked on the warranty card, a VIP service card "OPDEINAI?" The package should also read "Production Base: Zhongshan Huashou Electric Appliance Co., LTD. Production Address: the first factory Building, No. 18, Anle Industrial Road, Dongfeng Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province. The name of the producer is "Zhongshan Kitchshuai Electric Appliance Co., LTD". The product information label and the certificate on the side of the product are also marked with the words "Zhongshan Kitchshuai Electric Appliance Co., LTD". The date of production on the certificate is June 13, 2017.

    The plaintiff believes that the "Qingdao Opai Communication Home Appliance Co., LTD. (supervision)" marked in the above place is an unfair competition act that infringes the plaintiff's right of enterprise name.

    Other ascertained facts

    Founded on December 29, 2014, the defendant Opai Communication Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. is a one-person limited liability company. The shareholder and legal representative are Tang Jinghong, with a registered capital of 30,000 yuan. Its business scope covers the sales of Wujinjiaodian, daily 100 products and household appliances.

    During the trial, the plaintiff claimed that the "Zhongshan Huishuai Electric Appliance Co., LTD." marked on the alleged infringing product did not find its industrial and commercial registration information.

    Lawsuit, the plaintiff's claims that the compensation for the economic losses and reasonable expenses 300000 yuan to protect their rights is based on the plaintiff's "European" trademark and enterprise name has a very high reputation and market value, the defendant infringement if the circumstances are serious, its production and sales of the product of poor quality and low price, reputation and market share to the plaintiff impact factors, and the plaintiff's attorney fees for this case spending 15000 yuan to 3000 yuan, travel and the plaintiff for the case and the related case (case no. : (2017) Yue0604 No. 13174 in the early Republic of China] The joint expenses for purchasing the products involved are 1,089 yuan and the notary fee is 900 yuan, which shall be determined by the court.

    In the opinion of the court, this case is a dispute of unfair competition. As for the disputes, the analysis is as follows:

    Whether the alleged infringing product was produced by the defendant.

    In this case, the plaintiff submitted to our hospital by FengCheng notarization in laiwu city in shandong province (2017) lai FengCheng certificate issued by the people of the word no. 772 is notarial deed and notary seal items, confirm the plaintiff authorized agent XiaoMeng strange electronic commerce co., LTD., shunde district, foshan city, in the business of taobao shop bought involved is accused of infringing products, and is accused of infringement product and overwrapping box, instruction manual, product anti-counterfeiting several annotations on the warranty card, a VIP service card "Qingdao opie JiaoJiaDian co., LTD. (producer)". The above information is consistent with the company name, business scope and other information of the defendant. In accordance with the provisions of the Product Quality Law of the People's Republic of China, the product or its package shall be marked with such marks as the product name, the name and address of the manufacturer. Combined with the fact that "Zhongshan Huishuai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." marked on the accused infringement product did not find the industrial and commercial registration information, in conclusion, when the defendant did not respond to the lawsuit and submit contrary evidence, the court concluded that the accused infringement product was produced by the defendant Europax Electric Appliance Co., LTD.

    2. Whether the defendant's conduct constitutes unfair competition.

    Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (effective December 1, 1993) states: "Business operators shall not engage in market transactions by the following improper means to the detriment of competitors:... (3) to use, without authorization, the enterprise name or name of another person, thus causing it to be mistaken for another person's goods; ..." . The supreme people's court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law in the first paragraph of article 6 of 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" as stipulated in item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This case, the plaintiff opie household group co., LTD., founded in 1994, on July 1, the main overall kitchen, the overall cabinets, wardrobe, bathroom, early in 1997, has 20 class furniture, kitchen cabinets, counters and 11 class kitchen stove, gas stove, electric cooker etc. Register the "" trademark on goods, also in 2011 in 11 kind of gas stove, water heater, kitchen smoke lampblack machine and other commodities to register the trademark" OPPEIN ", its registered to use on the sideboard goods "" trademark in 2005 to 2011 was identified as famous trademarks of guangdong province, In 2009, it was recognized as a well-known trademark. From 2007 to 2011, it was recognized as a Famous brand product in China. The trademarks "OPPEIN" and "" used in sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bath equipment were recognized as famous trademarks in Guangzhou in 2016. At the same time, from 2011 to 2016, the plaintiff put advertisements on many newspapers and magazines, CCTV, Hunan SATELLITE TV and other media to continuously promote its "Eurovision" brand, and hired jiang Wenli, a famous film and television star, as the spokesperson. , therefore, the plaintiff's "European" for the shop name and logo, as its on the sideboard commodity 20 well-known trademark recognition will inevitably to a certain extent, radiation to 11 class hutch defends electric appliance products, such as kitchen burning gas, and after the plaintiff in the above-mentioned commodities of continue to use and promotion of "European" name and trademark of the plaintiff in the hutch defends electric appliance industry across the country have a certain market popularity and is known by the relevant public, belong to the "enterprise name" prescribed by the law.

    The plaintiff and the defendant the opie JiaoJiaDian company with hutch defends electric appliance for the business enterprise, there is a competition relationship, the defendant opie JiaoJiaDian company set up a time later than the plaintiff for 20 years, far later than the plaintiff also registered a "European" trademark, for the same products of "European" name and trademark of the plaintiff used is knowing. While the defendant opie JiaoGuDian company will be the plaintiff "European" name and trademark as the font size to use again after operating the same product with the plaintiff, subjective has with the aid of the plaintiff "European" font size and brand awareness to promote the company management's intentions, objectively makes consumers easily mistaken for the plaintiff's it products or think there is some relation, therefore, the defendant opie JiaoGuDian company registration using include enterprise name of the "European" characters, the lack of legitimacy, has obvious "free-rider" intentionally, the fair market competition principle of honesty and credit, in violation of the recognized business ethics, the behavior constitutes unfair competition.

    Civil liabilities of the defendant.

    According to article 15 of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China, the main ways to bear tort liability are to stop the infringement and compensate for the loss. Accordingly, the plaintiff requires the defendant to stop producing and selling the product accused of infringement and compensate for the loss. The court supports the reason. To the plaintiff requests the defendant opie JiaoGuDian company change the name of the claims, according to the supreme people's court on 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, the alleged 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. This case, the plaintiff and the defendant opie JiaoJiaDian company is engaged in hutch defends electric operator, the defendant opie JiaoJiaDian company will have higher awareness of "European" font size and brand as a symbol of registration as an enterprise name, its behavior lack of legitimacy, regardless of whether the outstanding use that are hard to avoid market confusion, so we require the defendant to the plaintiff opie JiaoJiaDian company which changes its enterprise name, support.

    The compensation amount, the anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China "(effective as of December 1, 1993) article 20 of the first paragraph:" the operator in violation of the provisions of this law, damage to the abused operators, shall be liable for damages, the infringement to operator's loss is hard to calculate, deductible for the infringer during the period of infringement for infringement profits; It shall also bear the reasonable expenses paid by the injured operator for investigating the ACTS of unfair competition committed by the operator that infringe its lawful rights and interests." In the first paragraph of Article 17 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Certain Issues concerning the Application of Laws in The Trial of Civil Cases of Unfair Competition, it is stipulated that: "The determination of the amount of damages for ACTS infringing trade secrets stipulated in Article 10 of the Law against Unfair Competition may be carried out by referring to the method of determining the amount of damages for patent rights infringement; The determination of the amount of damages for ACTS of unfair competition as provided for in Article 5, article 9 and Article 14 of the Anti-Unfair competition Law may be carried out with reference to the determination of the amount of damages for infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark." The damages for unfair competition in this case are brought in accordance with Article 5 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition (effective from December 1, 1993), so the amount of damages can be determined by referring to the amount of damages for infringing the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

    In this case, because the parties from the actual damage to the plaintiff because of the infringement, the defendant from the infringement profits have not proof such as confirmed that it is difficult to determine, so considering the nature of the infringement, the degree of subjective fault, the defendant, consequences during (beginning in 2014, the defendant opie JiaoGuDian company prior to the plaintiff, has the high reputation of "the" font size and brand as the font size used for enterprise name registration, and the plaintiff operation of similar products, production and sales of kitchen burning gas is accused of infringement, constitutes unfair competition), the plaintiff, "European" font size and brand awareness is higher, As well as the reasonable expenses for stopping the infringement (including the notarization fee of 450 yuan in this case, the cost of 544.5 yuan for the purchase of the accused infringing products, and the lawyer's fee and travel expenses claimed by the plaintiff without proof of evidence), the court decided that the defendant Eurocontrol Electric Company should compensate the plaintiff's economic loss and the reasonable expense of safeguarding the rights, totaling 100,000 yuan. The Court does not support the part of the plaintiff's claim in excess of the said amount. At the same time, according to the provisions of Article 64 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, a shareholder of a one-person limited liability company who cannot prove that the company's property is independent of the shareholder's own property shall be jointly and severally liable for the company's debts. The defendant, Tang Jinghong, a one-person limited liability company, failed to answer the lawsuit and provide evidence to prove the above facts. Therefore, Tang Jinghong, the defendant, shall assume joint and several liability for the debt of the defendant.

    The place on put together is narrated, in accordance with the "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China" (effective as of December 1, 1993) in paragraph 3, article 5 of article 2, and paragraph 1 of article 20, article 15 "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China", "the People's Republic of China company law" the sixty-fourth, the supreme people's court on the trial of civil cases of unfair competition "the explanation of application of law, the first paragraph of article 6 of paragraph 1 of article 17 and article sixty-four of the civil procedural law of the People's Republic of China, the provisions of article one hundred and forty-four of the first paragraph, judgment by default is as follows:

    I. The defendant Qingdao Oupai Communications Home Appliances Co., Ltd. immediately stopped producing and selling the gas stove products marked with the words "Qingdao Oupai Communications Home appliances Co., Ltd." as of the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    Ii. The defendant Qingdao Opai Communication Home Appliance Co., Ltd. changed the registered enterprise name within 30 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment, and the changed enterprise name shall not contain the word "Opai";

    3. The defendant, Qingdao Opai Home Appliance Co., LTD., shall compensate the plaintiff, Opai Home Appliance Group Co., LTD., a total of RMB 100,000 for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding its rights within 10 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    Iv. Defendant Tang Jinghong shall assume joint and several liability for the aforesaid monetary debts of defendant Qingdao Opai Communication Home Appliances Co., LTD.;

    V. Rejecting other claims of the plaintiff opai Furniture 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 the plaintiff double interest on the debt for the delay period.

    The accepting fee of this case is 5,800 yuan, and the property preservation fee is 1,020 yuan, which is 6,820 yuan in total. The plaintiff Opai Home FurnishGroup Co., Ltd. bears 2,440 yuan, while the defendant, Qingdao Opai Communication Home Appliances Co., Ltd. and Tang Jinghong bear 4,380 yuan.

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

    Chief Judge Lin Yanping

    Judge Chen Xiuling

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    April 11, 2008

    Clerk Luo Jiadong

    Huang Jiayu