Leasehold Counter Provoking The Torts Of "Nike Company" And "Honest Shoe Industry"

On 28 February, the Nike International Ltd filed a lawsuit against Honest Shoe Co. Ltd. in Hefei, and Nike believed that the counterfeit Nike shoes seized by the business department in Honest shoe store violated the registered trademark rights of Nike company, and requested the court to order the company to stop infringement, and the compensation loss was as high as 300 thousand yuan.

Nike: the sale of "fake" infringement should be compensated for 300 thousand. Nike's attorney in the Court pointed out that in November 24, 2006, according to the report, the Luyang District branch of the Hefei Bureau of industry and Commerce seized 33 pairs of fake Nike shoes at a counter on the two floor of Honest shoe industry, when 6 pairs were sold.

All the shoes that have been found are sealed up by the industrial and commercial department.

Nike company believes that Honest, as a company specializing in footwear products, should know the "Nike" brand objectively, and the company has a large scale and is obliged to supervise and supervise the counter products.

However, Honest has subjective fault liability in the presence of infringing goods in its shop.

At the same time, these products are sold through Honest unified invoice, sales list, after sale invoices and other sales, Honest should bear the main responsibility for the infringement.

The plaintiff asked Honest to stop the infringement immediately and make an apology in the media and compensate 300 thousand yuan.

Honest: the responsibility of the rental counter is the first thing that Honest has apologized to Nike for its claim and claim. It acknowledges that this is a management loophole.

However, it was pointed out that the plaintiff's defendant was wrong.

Since June 20, 2006, Jin Mou has signed a lease contract with Honest company and hired 10 square meters counter on the two floor of Honest shoe store on Huaihe road pedestrian street. After that, the industry and commerce department investigated the infringing goods at the counter.

Although Honest has adopted a unified sales and invoice sales mode, the company has no knowledge of the infringement of the counter, and the consequences of infringement should be borne by Mr. Jin.

The defendant's attorney suggested that the compensation of 300 thousand yuan was not legally based, far higher than the target of prosecution. Moreover, Honest was only a small shoe sales enterprise within the scope of Hefei, if it had to apologize, it could be published in Hefei local newspapers without expanding its influence.

Judge: the two parties insist on each other, but the judge of the intermediate people's Court of Hefei said that because of Honest's practice of unified cash register and ticket sales, it was not accepted by the court that Honest was completely unaware of the sale behavior of the contractor.

But Nike's claim for compensation is too high.

Trademark rights under litigation request are only property rights, not involving goodwill.

The court will conduct quality identification of the sealed shoes and decide the amount of compensation.

However, in view of the "counterfeit and shoddy" commodity sale in the market, it should be severely punished, so as to follow the example of Honest so as to ensure the successful mediation of both parties and the warning function of the market operation standard.

At the end of the trial, both attorneys agreed to conciliation.