Home >

The Trademark Is Only One Line &Nbsp; "Camel" Sued Le Bin Department Store.

2010/11/13 13:42:00 45

??? 日本語 Fran?ais English 中文

On the afternoon of 10, the court of Intellectual Property Tribunal of the peace court held a public hearing in the cultural and Creative Industries Park of the six hospital.

camel

"Trademark exclusive rights dispute cases.

The plaintiff, Foshan camel Clothing Co., Ltd. considers that the leather shoes sold by the defendant Le bin general merchandise (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. only drew a horizontal line under the "Camel" trademark and infringed its exclusive right to use the trademark.

The plaintiff of Foshan camel Clothing Co., Ltd. sues that the company enjoys the exclusive right to trade mark 101337 (camel outside) and Trademark No. 3596417 (camel). The trademark of camel brand shoes sold in the defendant's cabinet only adds a horizontal line under the "Camel" trademark, so that ordinary consumers can not distinguish them.

Without obtaining the permission of the plaintiff and everyone, unauthorized use of the trademark which is very similar to the graphics infringes upon the exclusive right to use the trademark, and requests the defendant to immediately stop the infringement, make an apology publicly, and compensate for the economic loss of 30 thousand yuan and a reasonable expenditure of 5000 yuan.

The defendant believed that the actual distribution of leather shoes was the Xin Sheng Ji company, which had a joint sales relationship with the defendant. Therefore, the application for Xin Sheng Ji company was the third case in this case.

When the company signed a joint sale contract with xinshengji, its qualification and authorization were fulfilled.

reasonable

The duty of examination and subjective fault shall not be liable for tort.

Xinshengji stated that

Sale

The contending leather shoes were produced in Shishi, Fujian, Hao Mai Shoes Co., Ltd., and have been examined in the signing of the exclusive agency contract of Tianjin. The materials issued by Hao Mai Company reflect that the authorized use of the trademark owner has already obtained the right to use the Trademark No. 101337, and the similar figures used on the shoe upper surface do not infringe the rights of the plaintiff.

As the result of this case is related to the legal interest of the company, the court took part in the lawsuit yesterday.

The company believed that the company signed the "Camel" trademark owner in 2003.

Brand agent

Because the brand contains a trademark, the contract can be regarded as a trademark agency license contract, and the company has already received the relevant agency fees, so the contract is lawful and effective, that is to say, the company has the right to use the 101337 trademark in accordance with the law.

The 3596417 trademark is a joint trademark with Trademark No. 101337, so it does not constitute infringement.

In the court stage of proof, the original, the defendant and the three party launched a cross examination on whether the company had the right to use the contention figure and whether the "Camel" trademark was infringed on the trademark ownership.

In the court debate, the plaintiff objected to the relevant evidence produced by the defendant and the three party. However, the company argued that the camel has been added to the trademark since 2003. The plaintiff has only obtained the exclusive right to use the trademark only in March of this year, so it does not constitute infringement.

After the final statements were made, the presiding judge tried to mediate in court, but the plaintiff refused to mediate.

After the deliberation of the collegial panel, the court will pronouncement another sentence.