Chinese
Hot Tags:
Position:home>Case Study>An ancient name for China of Beijing prosperous goosefoot " draw near famous bra
An ancient name for China of Beijing prosperous goosefoot " draw near famous bra
From;  Author:Stand originally

Chinese brand registers net information (bring from Chinese industrial and commercial newspaper)

As Beijing final judgment of senior people court adjudicates make, the limited company of bishop of an ancient name for China of Beijing prosperous goosefoot that will one year be troubled by bubbling with noisely (company of goosefoot of prosperous of the following abbreviation) violate Chinese grain oily provision (group) limited company (company of the food in the following abbreviation) desk of issue of trade mark right, unfair competition falls eventually. Beijing is advanced people court thinks, bond cannot defy tort, tort liability cannot come through contracted means avoid. Prosperous goosefoot company carried out tort behavior, ought to assume tort responsibility above all, great Wall of an ancient name for China of the grain in its and Hong Kong fastens contract law law to concern between bishop limited company, the specific responsibility between both partakes should solve separately.

The first instance court decision that court of the first intermediate people made Beijing on July 30, 2007 thinks, prosperous goosefoot company was used on its bishop product with in the brand with approximate photograph of the 70855th registered trade mark of food company, what create relevant community easily is promiscuous, enroach on the 70855th trade mark right, ought to assume corresponding legal responsibility. The Great Wall figure that prosperous goosefoot company uses on its product and in food company the 1474477th, the 3244779th the 3244778th date, registered trade mark all is formed approximate, promise of prosperous goosefoot company carries the legal duty that violates trade mark right. Prosperous goosefoot company is mixed in the grain in be being used at the same time on its bishop product Great Wall model of written characters, limited company of bishop of Great Wall of an ancient name for China of the grain in making relevant public mistake is Hong Kong extremely easily and in some kind of connection exists between food company, company of the food in was being used apparently is in of wine market famous spend and beautiful praise degree, easy bring about consumer generation is promiscuous, its behavior violated honest credence principle, make unfair competition conduct. Then, company of goosefoot of prosperous of one quadrangle court decision stops Beijing to use the Great Wall on its bishop product instantly graph and in the behavior of grain and Great Wall model of written characters, RMB of pecuniary loss of company of the food in be being compensated for 400 thousand yuan.

Prosperous goosefoot company refuses to obey Beijing the court decision of one quadrangle, to Beijing senior people court mentions appeal, request lawfully change the original sentence. Chang Li company thinks, brand tort and unfair competition are two different lawsuit, the principle that requests according to civil suit be related, two different lawsuit should be not mixed in same a cognizance in the case; This company uses limited company of bishop of Great Wall of an ancient name for China of the grain in Hong Kong to already was asked for so that permit on the product, just when the department is used.
Previous12 Next