do you know?
brand sanitary ware such as basin and faucet sold in regular trading companies,
may also be fakes.
Recently,
Changsha Tianxin District People's Court
tried a related trademark rights dispute case.
Basic facts
The company sold counterfeit bathroom products and made a profit of 10,000 yuan, and was sued for
Hunan Xijian Company is the trademark owner of "HOROW", "Xijian" and "HOROW Xijian Bathroom". The company's market investigators found that a hotel used counterfeit bathroom products with the plaintiff's "HOROW" trademark and conducted notarization and evidence collection. After investigation, the above-mentioned counterfeit sanitary ware products originated from a "Xijian Sanitary Ware Materials Purchase Contract" signed by the Taoyan Trading Company in Furong District, Changsha City. The contract and hotel stipulate that Taoyan Trading Company in Furong District, Changsha City must ensure that the products provided are Xijian genuine products, with a contract amount of 78,501 yuan.
On April 19, 2022, Hunan Xijian Company sued Taoyan Trading Company and a hotel in Sangzhi, Furong District, Changsha City. The reason is that Sang Zhi used counterfeit bathroom products with the plaintiff's trademark from Taoyan Trading Bank in Furong District, Changsha City, including wash basins, showerheads, faucets, toilets, floor drains, etc., infringed the plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights, and requested that Sang Zhi hotel stop using, demolish the products involved and compensate for losses. Taoyan Trading Bank in Furong District, Changsha City stop infringement and compensate for losses.
pictures are from the Internet
During the trial, regarding the source of the above-mentioned fake bathroom products, Taoyan Trading Bank of Furong District, Changsha City stated that the bathroom products involved in the case were from Hunan Xijian Company, which was provided by the company's salesperson. However, in the relevant information submitted by the court ordered Taoyan Trading Bank in Furong District, Changsha, it was shown that the sanitary ware products involved in were from a ceramics company in Guangdong and a sanitary ware company in Wenzhou. At the same time, the above-mentioned relevant information shows that the supply cost of , the bathroom product involved in the case sold to a hotel in Sangzhi was 63,806 yuan. It was calculated that Taoyan Trading Bank in Furong District, Changsha City made a profit of 14,695 yuan in this transaction. In addition, the operator of Taoyan Trading Bank in Furong District, Changsha City, as a shareholder of a company with an agent sales relationship with the plaintiff, transferred its equity in the company to a non-party during the litigation process, and the company also changed its name.
Court ruled that
infringement was serious, punitive compensation 58,700 yuan
After trial, the defendant Tianxin District Court of Changsha City held that the defendant Furong District Taoyan Trading Bank without the permission of the registered trademark owner, which constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to register trademark, and should bear responsibility. In this case, the plaintiff claimed to apply punitive compensation to the defendant, and in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, it is necessary to be determined that the defendant intentionally infringes and the circumstances are serious. The operator of the defendant Taoyan Trading Company in Furong District, Changsha City is familiar with the plaintiff's brand, purchasing channels, etc., and still sells sanitary ware products that counterfeit the plaintiff's registered trademark, and intentional infringement is obvious. At the same time, the defendant Taoyan Trading Company's operator concealed evidence before court, falsely stated the source of goods during court trial, and transferred the company's equity with an agency relationship with the plaintiff during litigation and changed its name. Based on the above situation and taking into account its sales scale, infringement nature, behavior in litigation and other factors, it can be determined that its infringement is serious.
For the determination of the punitive compensation base, it was found that the defendant Taoyan Trading Bank of Furong District, Changsha City obtained a benefit of 14,695 yuan due to infringement, and this amount is used as the compensation base in accordance with the law.Regarding the determination of the compensation multiple, takes into account the degree of subjective fault of the infringer in this case, the severity of the infringer's circumstances, and the adverse impact on the plaintiff's subsequent use of the product involved, and the punitive compensation multiple is four times. uses this to determine the amount of punitive compensation to be 58,780 yuan, and at the same time, it is decided to support the plaintiff's reasonable expenses of 12,000 yuan.
The defendant Sang Zhi did not produce or sell infringing products involved in the case. The infringing products he purchased for hotel operations did not exceed the scope of use. The relevant laws did not stipulate that the purchaser used goods that impersonate the exclusive right of registered trademarks to constitute trademark infringement. He should not bear any responsibility if there is no evidence to prove that he was a infringing product and still paid an unreasonable price to purchase it.
Based on this, the Tianxin District Court of Changsha City made a first-instance judgment, and the defendant, Furong District Taoyan Trading Bank of Changsha City, immediately stopped infringing on the plaintiff's exclusive right to trademark; and compensated the plaintiff 70,780 yuan within ten days from the date of the effectiveness of the judgment. After the first instance judgment, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the case has now taken effect.
Punishment compensation is a system that integrates compensation, punishment, and containment functions, aiming to increase the cost of infringement. At present, my country has the problem of "low illegal costs and high rights protection costs" in intellectual property rights. The implementation of the intellectual property punishment and compensation system is of great significance to optimizing the legal environment for intellectual property rights, building a strong intellectual property country and a world science and technology power.
my country's laws stipulate that punitive compensation has achieved "full coverage" in the field of intellectual property rights. Two conditions must be met for the application of punitive compensation: one is subjective "intentional infringement"; the other is objectively "serious circumstances". In judicial practice, subjective requirements, objective requirements, compensation base, etc. are difficult to determine. The compensation base can be determined according to the right holder's loss, the infringer's profit, the licensing fee, or the right use fee.
In this case, the plaintiff is difficult to prove his actual losses, and there is no relevant evidence for the trademark license to use , nor does it provide the infringer's profit. In this case, the court ordered the infringer to provide purchase documents, payment vouchers and other information in accordance with the law. Otherwise, the compensation base can be determined by referring to the plaintiff's claims and evidence, so as to encourage the infringer to provide evidence, so as to determine the compensation base based on the profit situation. In addition, when determining whether the defendant Sang Zhi hotel was responsible for the cessation of use and demolition, the principles of saving resources and protecting the ecological environment in Civil Code were fully considered.
Source: Hunan High Court
