BELLE Shoe Wholesale Prosecute Houjie Hongyun Shoe City Merchants Infringement

"P" recently, media reported that BELLE "a href=" http://www.91se91.com/news/index_c.asp "shoes > /a" set off a "fake war" in Hongyun shoe city Houjie. Since then, nearly 50 merchants of Hongyun shoe city have been prosecuted, and Hongyun shoe city has been sued for being accused of lax supervision.

Before this, BELLE shoe industry and Hongyun shoe city "gratitude and resentment" has been going on for several years.

< /p >

< p > yesterday, the two sides once again held a court meeting in the Municipal Intermediate People's court, and fought fiercely against 3 cases of second instance. Just before the court was going to pronouncement the sentence in court, the two sides reached a settlement, and the Hongyun shoe city paid 40 thousand yuan to BELLE shoe industry.

< /p >

< p > shops are suspected of selling fake products, shopping malls, shoes city and so on are being dragged down. Such cases have occurred frequently in Dongguan in recent years. As a shoe city side, whether they bear joint liability in the process of infringement of shops is the focus of similar cases.

< /p >

< p > < strong > the case is sold to the shoe manufacturer for help to infringing "/strong > < /p >"

< p > > Hongyun shoe city located in Houjie ha ha can be said to be an important distributing center for the wholesale and retail trade of the thick street shoe industry. But in recent years, it has been sued by a businessman for allegedly infringing upon others' trademark. As a renter, Dongguan Xiong Xin Industrial Co., Ltd. (Xiong Xiong Xin company), the founder of Hongyun shoe city, was also accused of "mismanagement" and "help selling fake".

< /p >

< p > 2011, Xin Bai Li shoes industry (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (BELLE shoes industry) discovered that the Hongyun shoe city A010 shop operator Kang Mou army has sold the counterfeit shoes of the BELLE brand brand for a long time by wholesale and retail, and BELLE footwear industry has preserved 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 >

"P", under the helplessness, after the notarization procedure, the BELLE shoe industry filed a lawsuit to the second people's court in September 2012. According to the three trademark brands under the flag, three cases were prosecuted, and Jiang Moujun, Hongyun shoe city stopped torts, and the total amount of compensation was 90 thousand yuan.

< /p >

Jiang Moujun was lawfully summoned by the court in the first instance, but he did not appear in court. However, Xiong Xin company argued that he was only a tenant of the property and did not participate in the actual operation of the infringing goods. Xiong Xin company only collected the rent. The lessee merchant operated independently and independently, and had already passed the business license. Xiong Xin told the lessee merchant that he had passed the warning and publicity, and so on. He had already done the duty of the property lessor and did not provide any help or convenience. He had told the Xiong company that there was no legal basis for the joint infringement and joint liability for the infringement of the joint liability of the company.

< /p >

< p > but the court held that the BELLE shoe mailed the lawyer's letter to Xiong Xin company on 2 March 2011. After receiving the lawyer's letter, the company did not take any measures within a year, and the involved shops continued to engage in tortious behavior. The new beli company once again issued a notarization and evidence collection to the shops involved one year later, and sent a letter to the Xiong Xin company to stop the infringement.

< /p >

Taking the above into consideration, the court held that Xiong Xin company's behavior undoubtedly provided convenience for the infringement of the merchants involved in the case. Therefore, we should conclude that the Xiong Xin company is a contributory infringement and is liable for joint and several liability with P.

The court of first instance ruled in 3 cases. Jiang's army and Xiong Xin company stopped infringement, and together they made a total compensation of 60 thousand yuan.

< /p >

< p > < strong > [scene] both sides once filled with gunpowder flavor < /strong > < /p >.

In the case of P, May 6th, the second instance was heard. The debate between the two sides was filled with gunpowder.

< /p >

< p > {page_break} < /p >

< p > Xiong Xin company said that for the alleged infringement of merchants, the other side was not reflected to the public security, industrial and commercial administrative organs, but demanded the shoe city to compensate for it by way of just evidence collection, which is a blackmail.

< /p >

< p > the attorney of BELLE shoe industry immediately reminded the clerk that the other party had been suspected of personal attack and had to record two words of "blackmail".

< /p >

< p > Xiong Xin company explained that since this year, shoe city and merchants have received nearly 50 cases of prosecution from BELLE shoe industry, and each compensation is worth tens of thousands of dollars, which adds up to a large number, resulting in very heavy operating pressure.

< /p >

"P > the two sides can not get entangled. The chief judge of the collegial panel has adjourned the court for ten minutes. If the consensus is reached after the collegiate consultation, it will be pronounced in court.

Just a minute before the sentencing, Xiong believed that the company agreed to negotiate a compromise with BELLE's shoe industry after being consulted with the company's management staff. The shoe city paid a price of 40 thousand yuan.

< /p >

< p > < strong > background. Last year, BELLE shoe industry was accused of infringement more than 50 cases < /strong > < /p >.

< p > reporter learned from the < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_p.asp > > Dongguan < /a > second court that the court accepted more than 50 cases of BELLE shoe industry v. shoe city and merchants' infringement cases last year, mostly settled by conciliation agreement or concluded the case.

Xiong Xin company and merchants all believed that, combined with BELLE's previous prosecution in bulk, each case paid 20 thousand yuan for lawyers. When BELLE was prosecuted, each case claimed $30 thousand. Mass prosecution was actually a malicious lawsuit in the name of safeguarding rights in order to earn lawyer fees.

< /p >

< p > BELLE shoe industry said that in March 2011, the company asked the shoe company to stop infringement, but the other side ignored it.

BELLE shoe industry believes that in addition to the outdoor business, shoe city management company knows that the infringement of shops has not yet taken effective measures to stop, and should also be liable for compensation.

< /p >

< p > < strong > shoe city will not constitute a joint infringement for sale and leave no more than /strong > /p >

< p > "in the future, the court will strengthen the pretrial interpretation of the judge, further enhance the effectiveness of the trial, and urge the case to settle the case. If mediation fails, the parties may predict the outcome of the sentence if the matter is clear and the parties' rights and responsibilities are clear."

< /p >

< p > why is the case ready to take the form of sentencing in court and how the case can enlighten the relevant operators? Cheng Chunhua, a national judge expert attending the court trial and the president of the intellectual property rights of the Dongguan intermediate people's court, answered the reporters on the spot. First of all, the merchants who sold fake products were different from the small businesses in previous cases. They knew that they had committed crimes, and the courts would resolutely crack down on them and continue to increase the intensity of punishment. If the amount involved is huge, the offense will be pferred to the authorities concerned.

For the shoe city in the case, it is advisable for them to reach a mediation agreement before the court's sentencing. It also shows that the court's trial is in place and that the court interprets the law. They have clear their responsibilities through the trial and the judge's interpretation, but they must learn from it in the future. But in the future, we must learn from it. Because the mall is different from the ordinary pure lessor, the mall charges management fees in a disguised form, has the management capacity, functions and responsibilities, and the merchants who have unified management of the mall will also make consumers more trusting and misleading consumers. It is easier for the mall to know that the merchants under the management of their businesses can not sell the fake goods, otherwise they will constitute joint infringement and need to take responsibility together with the merchants.

< /p >