Three Parties Who Infringe The Design Patent Of The OEM Product Shall Bear Responsibility.

A home textile company buys goods from another company and sells them on OEM. Who knows that these commodities are actually modeled on the patented designs that have been applied by others. To this end, the patented person will bring the home textile company, the seller and the trademark holder to the court. Recently, the court ruled that the three defendants stopped infringement and assumed joint and several liability. Li Ming (a pseudonym) is the general manager of a bedding company in our city. He likes to design bedding at ordinary times. In August 2003, Li Ming applied for a design patent for a bedding suite he designed. By the end of 2006, Li Ming was on a business trip to northern Jiangsu. When he was wandering around a shopping malls in a large shopping mall, he found that a bedding made out of the counter was exactly the same as the one he had designed. Li Ming realized that his work might have been plagiarized. In order to obtain evidence, accompanied by notaries, Li Ming bought a set of bedclothes for alleged infringement. Afterwards, he brought the mall, manufacturer, a Shanghai textile company, and the registered trademark holder of the product to the Municipal Intermediate Court with the logo on the invoice and the box. The manufacturer of a home textile company in Shanghai and the holder of the registered trademark of the product shouted abuse. Originally, these bedding items were imported from another textile company in Shanghai, and then replaced by their own companies' certificates and credit cards, which were sold on the market. They did not know that these goods were infringing. Trademark holders also believe that they only allow producers to use registered trademarks, but do not know that businesses are producing infringing products. The court held that although the infringing product was not produced by Shanghai home textile company, it was OEM sales, but the company used its name and logo on the product, and recognized itself as a producer and should assume responsibility. The court held that the trademark holder allowed the trademark to be used by the home textile company, which increased the popularity of the commodity and decided the credibility of the consumer's choice of goods. Therefore, he should share responsibility with the producer.