Several Years Of "Grievances" Did Not End "Enemy" Again To Court.

< p > the same style, the same brand, but from a different company. In recent years, "a href=" http://news.sjfzxm.com/news/hangye/20130506/340734.html "Shanzhai BELLE /a" has launched a massive attack on the footwear market in Dongguan and began to nibble on the market share of BELLE shoes in Dongguan. At the beginning of 2013, the BELLE shoe industry launched a "a href=" http://news.sjfzxm.com/news/zhengce/20130506/340745.html "fake war < /a" in Hongyun shoe city Houjie, where the shops sold guns frequently, and nearly 50 merchants of Hongyun shoe city were prosecuted in bulk. < /p >
< p > 6 days, this pair of friends again in Dongguan intermediate people's court to court. < /p >
< p > shops selling fake BELLE shoes shoes city into defendants < /p >
< p > BELLE shoes and Hongyun shoe city's < a > resentment < /a > has been going on for several years. Hongyun shoe city, located in Houjie ha ha, can be said to be an important distributing center for the wholesale and retail market of Houjie shoes industry. However, in recent years, it has been sued by merchants suspected of infringing upon others' trademarks. As the lessor, Dongguan Xiong Xin Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiong Xin company), the founder of the "a href=" http://news.sjfzxm.com/news/shichang/20130506/ 340730.htm "Hongyun shoe city" /a, was also charged with "mismanagement" and "helping sell the fake". < /p >
< p > 2011, Xin Bai Li shoes industry (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (BELLE shoes industry) discovered that the Hongyun shoe city A010 shop merchant Kang Mou army has sold the counterfeit shoes of the BELLE brand brand for a long time by wholesale and retail, and has preserved the evidence. In March 2011, they told Jiang Moujun and Hongyun shoe city that they wanted to stop and stop infringement, but the other side ignored it, the BELLE shoe industry said. < /p >
Under P, however, after the notarization process, in September 2012, BELLE shoes filed a lawsuit against the second people's Court of the city. According to the 3 trademark brands that were infringed, 3 cases were prosecuted. It was requested that < a href= "http://news.sjfzxm.com/news/fushi/20130506/ 340712.html" > ginger army < /a >, Hongyun shoe city stopped infringement, and the total compensation amounted to 90 thousand yuan. < /p >
< p > the shoe city has not been infringed and has been sentenced to joint and several damages, < /p >.
When Jiang Moujun was summoned by court, he did not appear in court at the trial of the first instance. However, Xiong Xin company argued that the tenant merchants had told the standard operation of the lessees through the way of warning and publicity, and had already done the duty of the property lessor, and did not provide any help or convenience. They told the company that P had joint infringement and had no legal basis for joint liability. < /p >
< p > but the second court of Dongguan held that the BELLE shoe industry sent the "a href=" http://news.sjfzxm.com/news/fushi/20130505/340547.html "lawyer's letter < /a" to the Xiong trust company on 2 March 2011, telling the BELLE shoe trade the trademark rights and the fact that the A010 shop sold the infringing products. Although Xiong Xin company denied receiving the relevant letters, the court found out and decided that Xiong Xin company received the lawyer's letter. From the date of the March 2, 2011 lawyer's letter, Xiong Xin company had actually known the infringement case. After receiving the lawyer's letter, the company did not take any measures within a year, and the case continued to be involved in the infringement. < /p >
Taking the above into consideration, the court held that the Xiong Xin company did not fulfill its management obligations as a market operator, and objectively failed to stop the infringement effect. Its behavior undoubtedly provided convenience for the infringement cases of merchants involved in the case. Therefore, we should conclude that Xiong Xin company is a contributory tort and is jointly and severally liable with Jiang army. < /p >
< p > the court of first instance ruled that Jiang's army and Xiong Xin company stopped infringement, and together compensated for a total of 60 thousand yuan. Xiong Xin company refused to accept the appeal to the Dongguan intermediate people's court. < /p >
< p > the eve of the second instance sentence reached a settlement, < /p >.
< p > May 6th, second instance trial. Xiong Xin company said that the first instance held that they helped the infringement, and that the facts were unclear. They did not know the infringement of Jiang Moujun's sales and had taken reasonable measures. < /p >
< p > for this reason, the attorney of BELLE shoe industry retorted that the other party said that the lawyer's letter of March 2nd had not been received, but second or third times had been received, and the lawyer's letters sent out by them all were the same addresses, and some people signed the receipt, which is beyond the mark of the past. < /p >
After the short adjournment, the collegiate bench reappeared in the trial court. At the moment before the sentencing, "a href=" http://news.sjfzxm.com/news/xieye/20130503/340298.html "> Xiong Xin company < /a" agreed to reach a compromise with BELLE shoe industry, and the shoe city was willing to pay 40 thousand yuan. < /p >