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. 29676

    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.

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

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

    Defendant: Li Lulu Kitchen Company, Luolong District, Luoyang City, Henan Province, No. 33, Row 9, Guanlin Flador Building Materials Market, Luoyang City, Henan Province, Business License Registration No. 410394600230610.

    Operator: Li Lulu, female, Han Nationality, born on September 29, 1988, living in Luolong District, Luoyang city, Henan Province,

    Agent AD litem: Zhang Shifeng, lawyer of Henan Wanji Law Firm.

    Defendant: Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD., Suixi County, 3rd floor, South Of Wendong Road, Suicheng Town, Suixi County, Zhanjiang City, Guangdong Province, with business license registration Number 440823000016305.

    Legal representative: Li Zhaoyong.

    Defendant: Ronggulewie Electric Appliance Factory, Shunde District, Domicile place: 3F, No. 3, Chuangye Road, Ronggui Xiahuang Pu Neighborhood Committee, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province, business license No. 440681600027590.

    Operator: Li Zhaoyong, male, Han Nationality, born on January 13, 1980, living in Jianghan District, Wuhan city, Hubei Province,

    The plaintiff opie household group co., LTD. V. the defendant luoyang los dragon zone Li Loulou kitchenware firm (hereinafter referred to as Li Loulou firm), shuixi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as zhengda company), shunde ronggui wife burner equipment factory (hereinafter referred to as "happy wife appliances&gas utensils factory) the infringement trademark rights and unfair competition disputes, our hospital on December 19 2018 Hitachi decision, in accordance with the applicable ordinary procedure, on March 7, 2019 in open trial, plaintiffs entrust agents AD litem wang ning and the defendant Li Loulou firm to entrust agents AD litem shi-feng zhang to attend the court took part in the litigation, After being legally summoned by the court, the defendant Charoen Opai Co., Ltd. and the defendant Le Wie Fuel appliance Factory were unable to attend the court proceedings. The case is now closed.

    The plaintiff filed a lawsuit to the court: 1. The defendant Li Lulu firm was ordered to immediately stop the infringement of the plaintiff's trademark right, that is, to stop the sale of gas stoves with the words "Europa Electrical Appliances Co., LTD" and to stop the use of the words "Europa" on the receipt to sell the goods involved; 2. 2. Order the defendant Li Lulu firm to stop unfair competition immediately, namely to stop the sale of gas stoves marked with the words "Suixi Zhengda Ou Pai Electric Appliance Co., LTD"; 3. The defendant was ordered to stop the infringement of the plaintiff's trademark right by the defendant Charoen Opai Co., Ltd. and Lewie Gas Appliance Factory, namely to stop the production and sale of gas stoves marked with the words "Opai Electric Appliance Co., LTD."; 4. The defendant was ordered to stop unfair competition immediately by the defendant Charoen Oupai Company and Lewie fuel Appliance Factory, namely to stop the production and sale of gas stoves marked with the words "Suixi Charoen Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD"; 5. The defendant was ordered to change the enterprise name immediately, and the word "Oupai" shall not appear in the changed enterprise name; 6. Order the three defendants to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding their rights, totaling RMB 200,000 yuan; 7. The court ordered the costs of the case to be borne by the three defendants.

    Facts and Reasons: Plaintiff was founded in 1994, is a comprehensive domestic integrated modern home services provider, the goods cover the whole wardrobe, kitchen appliances, bathroom, commercial kitchen utensils and other fields. The plaintiff is the registered trademark owner of "Opai". After decades of painstaking operation, the plaintiff has turned "Opai" into a well-known and well-known brand in China. In the eyes of the relevant public, "Eurogroup" has not only become the representative symbol of the plaintiff's commodities and enterprise names, but also become a significant identification mark indicating the market subject and commodity source of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's affiliated enterprises. In October 2018, after the plaintiff found that the defendant Li Loulou firm in its in-store sales marked "opie electric appliance co., LTD." "SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD." "manufacturer: ronggui, shunde district, foshan city, China wife burner electric" kitchen burning gas, such as printed on the receipt of the document to have a word "Europe", for the tort, the plaintiff to apply for notarization for preservation of evidence. After further investigation, it was found that the goods were jointly produced by Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. in Suixi County and Ronggulewie Electric Appliance Factory in Shunde District. To sum up, the plaintiff argues that the three defendants to clings to the reputation, do STH without authorization in the highlights on the goods involved labelled "opie electric appliance co., LTD." "SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD." the words related to production, the sale of the goods involved in behavior, caused confusion related to consumer goods source, in violation of the provisions of the trademark law of the relevant laws, the infringement of the European trademark of the plaintiff has. At the same time, it violates the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, and has the intention of obviously sticking to the plaintiff's enterprise and Opai's brand to promote sales, which infringes on the right of the plaintiff's enterprise name, causes confusion among the relevant public, and constitutes unfair competition. 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 according to law.

    The defendant Li Loulou firm, argues that a, the defendant Li Loulou firm scale is small, is not selling now stands accused of infringing goods, businesses for sanitary ware and accessories products, the store only a kitchen burning gas samples, for the first half of 2018 when the salesmen to put in the store, its quantity is a, because the store space is narrow, the samples of kitchen burning gas in the second half of 2018 was put out, until the plaintiff buy to sell, now the store have no the commodity; 2. Defendant Li Lulu Firm has no subjective malice. If the infringement occurs, defendant Li Lulu Firm is willing to stop all the infringement; Three, the defendant Li Lulu firm did not cause any loss to the plaintiff, the reason is that only one gas stove sample in the store was purchased by the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not bargain during the purchase process, took the initiative to buy at a high price, if the infringement, the defendant Li Lulu firm is willing to refund the plaintiff to buy gas stove 400 yuan price. To sum up, li Lulu, the defendant, has no subjective malice and has not caused any loss to the plaintiff, and requests your court to reject the plaintiff's claim.

    The defendant Charoen Opai Company and the defendant Le Wife fuel appliance Factory did not attend the court, nor did they submit a written reply.

    In the lawsuit, the plaintiff submitted the following evidence to the court: 1.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 347, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 675; 2. 2.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 350, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 672, 3.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 346, (2017) Notarial Certificate No. 672; 4.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 348, Lifengcheng Certificate; 5.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 352, Chengzheng, Laifeng; 6. Trademark Chi Zi [2009] No. 7 issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce; 7.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 353 of Laifeng City; 8.(2017) Notarial Certificate No. 260 of Laifeng City; 9.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 357 of Laifeng City Certificate; 10.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 355 of Lifengcheng Certificate; 11.(2016) Notarial Certificate No. 356, Lifengcheng Certificate; (2018) Notarial Certificate No. 1074, Chengzi, Fengzi, Lulaiwu; 13. (2018) Notarization Certificate No. 1154 of Fengcheng Certificate of Lulaiwu (including the infringing material object sealed by the notary Office); 14. A copy of the business license of the plaintiff, a printed copy of the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity system of the defendant 3, an inquiry form of the basic registration information of the defendant Li Lulu, and an inquiry form of the information of the Administrative Bureau for Industry and Commerce of the Defendant Li Lulu.

    As for the above evidence, the court finds as follows: Defendant Li Lulu Firm has no objection to the authenticity of evidence 1 to 13, and the court accepts the original evidence as verified and related to the facts to be proved in this case; The defendant, Li Lulu Firm, has no objection to the main information of the plaintiff and Li Lulu Firm in evidence 14, and the court accepts it. The information of the defendant, Charoen Opai Company and Le Wife fuel appliance Factory is consistent with the information shown on the relevant official website, and the court accepts it.

    Defendant Lulu Lee had no evidence to present.

    After being subpoenaed by the court, the defendant Charoen Opai Company and the defendant Le Wife fuel appliance Factory refused to attend the court proceedings without justifiable reasons, which shall be deemed as waiving the rights of defense, proof and cross-examination.

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

    1. The plaintiff and his claims

    The plaintiff Opai Furniture Group Co., Ltd. was founded on July 1, 1994, and its business scope is furniture manufacturing industry.

    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 appliances, 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 trademark "OPPEIN" "used by the plaintiff on sideboards, furniture (wardrobes), kitchen range hoods and bathing equipment was recognized as a famous trademark of Guangzhou by the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Guangzhou municipality.

    From 2011 to 2016, the plaintiff continued to publicize its "Opai" brand by advertising in many newspapers such as Linchuan Evening News, Ruili Home Furnishing, Decorate the World, and media such as CCTV and Hunan TV. From 2013 to 2015, the plaintiff continued to employ jiang Wenli, an actress, as the spokesperson of "Opai" brand cabinets, wardrobes, sanitary ware and other products.

    Ii. Facts of alleged infringement

    In order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff authorized The Golden Dun Intellectual Property Service Center in Laicheng District of Laiwu city to notarize the preservation evidence on behalf of the Center. On October 27, 2018, the Golden Dun Intellectual Property Service Center in Laicheng District of Laiwu City filed an application for the preservation evidence notarization to fengcheng Notary Office in Laiwu City, Shandong Province. On October 28, 2018, in the notarization notaries, notarial personnel under the supervision of, laiwu city, urban shield intellectual property service center of entrusted agent shou-zhen wang came to the city of luoyang in henan province in the name of ordinary consumers x x x x number of building materials market "Nobel" wei yu shops, shou-zhen wang in the shop to buy the labeled "SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD." the kitchen burning gas. After wang Shouzhen paid, she got a receipt from the store on the spot. Wang Shouzhen took a photo of the shop's exterior. The notary and notary will seal up the above-mentioned articles and give them to Wang Shouzhen for safekeeping. On November 13, 2018, the notary office issued the (2018) Lulaiwu Fengcheng Certificate No. 1154 notarial Certificate to certify the above process.

    The notarial deed, according to the attached photos of the Nobel sanitary ware sales listing stated "A04 burner" 1, unit price and amount of 400 yuan, the date will be on October 28, 2018, the listing form above words "Nobel sanitary ware, showers, opie cigarette machine, kitchen is provided, dryer, high middle-grade bathroom cabinet, electric water heater, gas water heater, Smith integral ambry, plumbing accessories customized high school".

    In the trial, the plaintiff submitted a notarized sealed, marked with the words "household gas stove", the above articles were opened in court, there is a gas stove (hereinafter referred to as the accused infringing goods), a security quality guarantee card, a security digital qualification certificate, a commodity use manual. The outer packing boxes of the accused goods are printed with the words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electrical Appliances Co., LTD", and the product instructions are all printed with the words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electrical Appliances Co., LTD (supervision)". The "" mark is used on both front and rear sides and left and right sides of the outer packing box of the accused infringing goods, the panel label of the accused infringing goods, the anti-counterfeiting quality guarantee card, the anti-counterfeiting digital qualification certificate and the product operation instruction. The product instructions are marked with information such as "Production Base: Ronggui Jiayue Gas Cooker Electric Factory, Shunde District, Guangdong Province", and on both sides of the outer packing box are marked with information such as "Manufacturer: Ronggui Le Wife Gas Cooker Electric Factory, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province" and "Address: No. 1, Ronggui Xiahuang Puchuang Road, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province". On the left and right sides of the outer packing boxes of the goods accused of infringement are commodity information labels printed with the words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD", indicating the model number of the goods is A04.

    By comparison, the plaintiff thinks, is accused of infringing goods before and after the outer packing is, on both sides of the upper left corner below, kitchen burning gas panel labeling, anti-counterfeiting quality warranty CARDS, anti-counterfeiting digital certificate and the product specification on the use of "identity" in the word "SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD.", including "SuiXi board" for the black font, font size smaller, "opie electric appliance co., LTD." in red font, font size is larger, and the two parts separately marked up and down, "opie electric appliance co., LTD." feature, 4378572th of a registered trademark with the plaintiff constitute approximation, the plaintiff the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark infringement; The words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD" marked on the outer packing cases and product manuals infringed the plaintiff's right of enterprise name and constituted unfair competition. In addition, the sales list of the defendant Li Lu Lu firm was printed with the words "Opai cigarette machine, kitchen utensils", among which "Opai" was an act of infringing the exclusive right to use the plaintiff's registered trademark No. 4378572.

    The defendant Li Loulou firm confirm the identity of the notarization photograph on the physical and notarial deed, but think of no. 4378572 is a registered trademark and sales list "European" font is not the same, is accused of infringing goods outer packing, commodity panel labeling, anti-counterfeiting quality warranty CARDS, anti-counterfeiting digital certificate and product instructions on "SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD." font do not agree with the plaintiff 4378572 registered trademark, don't think constitutes unfair competition at the same time, Because the words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." marked on the outer packing cases and product instructions are inconsistent with the plaintiff's registered trademark No. 4378572.

    Other ascertained facts

    The defendant, Li Lulu Kitchen utensils and Appliances Firm, Luolong District, Luoyang city, was founded on October 23, 2014 with a registered capital of 30,000 yuan. The company was an individual industrial and commercial enterprise operated by Li Lulu and its business scope was kitchen utensils and appliances sales.

    The defendant, Suixi County Zhengda Ou Pai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. was established on January 20, 2011 with a registered capital of 500,000 yuan. The legal representative is Li Zhaoyong, and the shareholders are Li Zhaoyong and Huang Jiemei. Its business scope is selling household electrical appliances.

    Ronggui, shunde district, the defendant, le wife ranju electrical appliance factory was established in September 18, 2007, the 2012 October 19 QiYeMing called the shunde ronggui jia jia le ranju electrical appliance factory, enterprise type for individual businesses, operators for Li Zhaoyong, registered capital of 50000 yuan, business scope for manufacturing electrical appliances, gas appliances, metal products, plastic products (excluding waste plastics processing), industrial and commercial registration address in ronggui, shunde district, foshan city, China huang nursery neighborhood entrepreneurial road no. 3, the first layer 3.

    Trial, plaintiffs claim compensation for the economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 200000, to protect their rights of major economic loss to consider the plaintiff in the case of trademark and enterprise name recognition, the defendant infringement if the circumstances are serious, subjective malice obviously, is accused of infringing goods of poor quality and low price, to cause significant damage to the plaintiff's reputation and market scope; Reasonable expenses to protect one's rights consider the purchase of the accused infringement of goods cost 400 yuan, notarization fee 1000 yuan, attorney fee 10000 yuan, travel expenses 3000 yuan, there is no evidence to prove, request the court discretion. It said that the sales list used by the defendant, Li Lulu, was marked with the word "Europa", indicating that the firm had been engaged in related products marked Europa for a long time and could not have only one prototype for sale. The price of gas stoves produced by the plaintiff was between 2,000 yuan and 4,000 yuan.

    The court holds that this case is a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute. For the controversy focus of this case, the analysis is as follows:

    I. Whether the accused infringing goods are produced and sold by the defendant Charoen Opai Company and the defendant Lewie fuel fixtures Factory

    The outer packing cases, commodity panels and instructions of the accused goods are labeled as "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electrical Appliances Co., LTD" or "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electrical Appliances Co., LTD (supervisor)"; the outer packing cases are labeled as "Manufacturer: Rongguile Wife Stove Electric Appliance Factory, Shunde District, Foshan City, Guangdong Province"; the instructions are labeled as "Production base: Ronggui shunde China jia jia le ranju electrical appliance factory, "security quality warranty card, security digital certificate are marked" cookers, electric shunde ronggui le wife ", the defendant was the company's business scope for the sales of home appliances products, the business scope of the defendant le wife appliances&gas utensils factory for manufacturing electrical appliances, gas stoves, etc., the defendant was the company one of the shareholders and the legal representative and the defendant le wife operators are Li Zhaoyong appliances&gas utensils factory, both the defendant did not appear in court litigation defense, shall bear the adverse consequences of proof cannot, therefore, in the case of no contrary evidence to overthrow, according to the above situation, The case is sufficient to determine that the alleged infringing goods are jointly produced by the two defendants. The relevant personnel entrusted by the plaintiff notarized the purchase of the accused infringing goods to prove the fact that the accused infringing goods were circulating in the market. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court found that the two defendants had sold the accused infringing goods.

    Ii. Whether the actions of Li Loulou Firm, the defendant Charoen Pokphet Company and the defendant Le Wei Fuel appliance Factory constitute the infringement of the plaintiff's right to exclusive use of the registered trademark

    Article 48 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates, "The use of a trademark mentioned in this Law means the use of a trademark on commodities, packaging or containers of commodities, and trading documents of commodities, or the use of a trademark in advertising, publicity, exhibition and other commercial activities to identify the source of commodities." Used in this case, is accused of infringing goods "" logo with the word" SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD. ", the words for the board European company's name, use the word "European" is not prominent, so the label behavior as part of the behavior of producers, do not belong to the trademark use, the plaintiff claims about the behavior constitute a trademark infringement, we shall not be supported.

    Defendant Li Loulou businesses in their use on the sales documents printed with the words "" opie cigarette machine, kitchen is provided, the word" Europe ", while not prominent used as a trademark, but according to article seventy-six of the regulations on the implementation of the trademark law of the People's Republic of China "with others on the same goods or similar goods registered trademark identical with or similar to sign used as name of commodity or commodity packaging, misleading the public, of paragraph 2 of article 57 of the trademark law of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark infringement" regulation, the "European" as name of commodity, indicating its sales of cigarette machine, kitchen to provide the brand for Europe's intention, That is, subjectively, it intentionally confuses consumers, and objectively, it is easy for the relevant public to misidentify the source of the goods it sells or to think that it has a specific connection with the plaintiff. Therefore, the behavior of the defendant Li Lulu Firm is an infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of the plaintiff No. 4378572.

    Iii. Whether the actions of the defendant Li Lulu Firm, the defendant Charoen Opai Company and the defendant Le Wife fuel appliance Factory constitute unfair competition

    Article 6 of the Law of the People's Republic of China against Unfair Competition stipulates: "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 shortened names and shop names, etc.) and social organizations (including shortened names, etc.) and names (including pennames, stage names, and translated names, etc.) that have certain influence on others; ..." In this case, the plaintiff opie household group co., LTD., founded in 1994, on July 1, early in 1997, has 20 class furniture, kitchen cabinets, counters and 11 class kitchen stove, gas stove, electric cookers, register the "" trademark on goods such as, bathed in class 11, in 2007 registered on the equipment, bathroom equipment and other goods" "trademark, in 2011 also in class 11 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 was identified as well-known trademarks, ambry, its European brand household from 2007 to 2011 was identified as Chinese famous brand products, its use in the sideboard, furniture (chest), kitchen smoke lampblack machine, shower equipment" OPPEIN ", "" trademark was identified as the famous trademark 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 film and television star Jiang Wenli 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 appliance such as kitchen burning gas, oil absorption, water heater products, and through the plaintiff in the above-mentioned commodities 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 have certain influence to the law of enterprise name.

    Defendant zhengda European company with the plaintiff for the hutch defends electric appliance enterprises, there are competition relations, the establishment of time than the plaintiff nearly twenty years later, much later than the plaintiff registration using the "European" trademark, it was "European" name and trademark of the plaintiff have high visibility, thus it is knowing the name and logo to the plaintiff, but with the plaintiff to "European" name and the trademark approximation "zhengda opie" as the font size to use the same product again after operation with the plaintiff, subjective has with the aid of the plaintiff "European" font size and brand awareness to promote the company's intentions, Objectively makes consumers easily mistaken for the products of the plaintiff's product or think there is a certain correlation, therefore, the defendant zhengda opie company registration using include enterprise name of the "European" characters, the lack of legitimacy, belong to the unauthorized use of the plaintiff "European" font size, easy to confuse the relevant public behavior, the fair market competition principle of honesty and credit, in violation of the recognized business ethics, constitutes unfair competition.

    Defendant le wife appliances&gas utensils factory operator and the defendant was the one of the shareholder of the company and the legal representatives for Li Zhaoyong per capita, the common production, sales, the labeled "SuiXi zhengda opie electric appliance co., LTD." was accused of infringing goods, can be concluded that the defendant le wife appliances&gas utensils factory participated in the defendant zhengda opie company the ACTS of unfair competition, so we decided that the defendant le wife appliances&gas utensils factory also constituting unfair competition to the plaintiff.

    The defendant Li Lulu firm, as an operator specializing in the sale of kitchen appliances and other kitchen appliances, has a certain market visibility of the plaintiff "European" brand name and trademark should know, but still bought the accused infringing goods for sale, did not reach a reasonable duty of care, infringed the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, also constitute unfair competition.

    Iv. Civil liabilities to be borne by the defendant Li Loulou Firm, the defendant Charoen Opai Company and the defendant Le Wii fuel fixtures Factory

    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. The defendant argues that its in-store Li Loulou firms only a was accused of infringing goods, as the prototype, has been the plaintiff to buy, but its not proof to prove, the defendant zhengda opie company, happy wife burner factory also failed to evidence to prove that it has to stop the production, the sale is accused of infringing goods, so the plaintiff requests the three defendants bear civil liability Yu Fayou, stop the infringing our support. According to the Supreme People's Court on the trial of a registered trademark and enterprise name and prior right conflict of civil disputes provisions on some issues of the provisions of article 4, 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. As mentioned above, the defendant Charoen Pokphet company registered and used its enterprise name containing the word "Euppay" to constitute unfair competition for the plaintiff, so the court supports the plaintiff's request for charoen Pokphet Company to change its enterprise name.

    As for the amount of compensation, the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 63: "The amount of compensation for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be determined according to the actual loss suffered by the right holder due to the infringement. Where the actual loss is difficult to determine, it may be determined in accordance with the profits the infringer has gained from the infringement; Where it is difficult to determine the losses of the right holder or the benefits obtained by the infringer, a reasonable multiple of the licensing fee for the trademark shall be determined by reference to the said trademark. If the circumstances are serious, the amount of compensation may be determined between one time and three times of the amount determined according to the above methods. The amount of compensation shall include the reasonable expenses paid by the right to stop the infringement. ... If it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement, the interests gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, or the licensing fee of the registered trademark, the people's court shall make a judgment of not more than THREE million yuan in accordance with the circumstances of the infringement." The third and fourth paragraphs of Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China stipulate: "The amount of compensation for an operator who is injured due to an act of unfair competition shall be determined according to the actual loss suffered by the operator due to the infringement. Where the actual loss is difficult to calculate, it shall be determined in accordance with the benefits derived by the infringer from the infringement. The amount of compensation shall also include the reasonable expenses paid by the operator to stop the infringing act. If the operator violates the provisions of Article 6 and article 9 of this Law, and it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the obligee as a result of the infringement or the benefits gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement, 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."

    In this case, for the parties to the plaintiff for trademark infringement and unfair competition behavior of actual loss, three for infringement of interests, such as the defendant did not proof, confirmed that is difficult to determine, so considering three subjective fault of the infringement, the defendant during the operation scale, the nature of the infringement, and the consequences (the defendant was the company registered the name with the plaintiff "European" font size and approximate enterprise name registered trademark, the burner factory production, sales, together with the defendant le wife was labeled the defendant zhengda European company of the enterprise name is accused of infringing goods, constitutes unfair competition; Not reasonable duty of care, the defendant Li Loulou firms purchases have been accused of infringing goods for sale, form of unfair competition, and in the sales document printing its use word "Europe", the infringement of the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark of the plaintiff) plot, such as the plaintiff, "European" font size and brand awareness is higher, and the reasonable cost of stopping the infringement (including purchase was accused of infringing goods costs 400 yuan, its advocate notarial fees, legal fees, travel, though not proof to confirm, but it does appoint lawyers involved in litigation, the notarization of evidence) etc., The court decided that the defendant, Li Lulu, compensated the plaintiff with a total of 23,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection, and that the defendant, Charoen Oupai Company and Le Wife fuel appliance Factory, constituted a joint infringement, and jointly compensated the plaintiff with a total of 80,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection. The Court does not support the part of the plaintiff's claim in excess of the said amount.

    To sum up, In accordance with paragraph 1 of article 3 of the "trademark law of the People's Republic of China", the second and third paragraph of article sixty-three, article 57 "anti-unfair competition law of the People's Republic of China" the second and third paragraph of article 17 of article 6, paragraph 4, article 15 of the "tort liability law of the People's Republic of China" and article seventy-six of the regulations on the implementation of the trademark law of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court on some issues of applicable law in trademark civil dispute cases by interpretation of article 9, article 10, paragraph 1 of article 16, paragraph 2, article 17 and article sixty-four of the civil procedural law of the People's Republic of China in the first paragraph, the one hundred and fortieth Four provisions, default judgment as follows:

    I. The defendant, Li Lulu Kitchen utensils and appliances firm, Luolong District, Luoyang, immediately stopped selling the gas stove products marked with the words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., LTD" as of the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    Ii. The defendant, Li Lulu Kitchen utensils and appliances Firm of Luolong District, Luoyang city, immediately stopped using the sales documents printed with the word "Opi" to sell the gas stove products from the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    3. Within 10 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment, the defendant, Li Lulu Kitchen utensils and appliances Firm, Luolong District, Luoyang, compensated the plaintiff, Opai Home Furnishing Group Co., LTD., with a total of 23,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses for safeguarding rights;

    Iv. The defendant, Suixi County Zhengda Oupai Electric 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 "Oupai";

    V. The defendant, Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. in Suixi County and Rongguile Wife electric Appliance Factory in Shunde District, immediately stopped producing and selling the gas stove products marked with the words "Suixi Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." as of the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    6. The defendant, Suixi County Zhengda Ou Pai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and The defendant, Shunde District Ronggui Le Wife electric appliance Factory, shall compensate the plaintiff, Oupai Home Furnishing Group Co., Ltd. a total of RMB 80,000 for economic losses and reasonable expenses of rights protection within 10 days from the date of the legal effect of this judgment;

    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 the plaintiff double interest on the debt for the delay period.

    The accepting fee of this case is 4,300 yuan, which is 2,000 yuan borne by the plaintiff Oupai Home FurnishGroup Co., LTD., and 513 yuan borne by the defendant Li Loulu Kitchen appliance Merchant in Luolong District, Luoyang City. The defendant Zhengda Oupai Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. in Suixi County and Rongguleizhu Electric appliance Factory in Shunde District jointly bear 1,787 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.

    Chen Xiuling, Chief Judge

    People's Juror Ho Shao-li

    People's Juror Zhang Qiu Ling

    June 12, 1920

    Clerk Zhang Shuer