Puma Pnational Infringement Hainan Businessman Defendant

Rudolf PUMA sporting goods, Puma sports clothing, sports shoes, backpacks and other products are world-famous brands.

A few days ago, the company took a number of shopping malls, companies and individuals in Hainan to court on the grounds of infringement of counterfeit and counterfeit "PUMA" products without authorization.

The pnational intellectual property case, which has aroused the concern of the industry, has been tried by the Haikou intermediate people's court in accordance with the law, and a number of shopping malls, companies and individuals suspected of infringing on the exclusive right to trademark have been convicted of infringement of justice by trial in Hainan.

The company is accused of infringing a number of companies and individuals in Hainan into a defendant. It is understood that the companies that were accused by the company were Hainan Wanlong Department Store Co., Ltd., fuxlong supermarket, which were engaged in self-management, Lin Nan, Hainan Nan Xi supermarket Trading Co., Ltd., Hainan big warehouse store limited, Hainan Jia Hua Hua Trading Company, Hainan Wanjia supermarket limited, Hainan new xjia supermarket limited and Hainan first Mo Supermarket Co., Ltd. and other companies and individuals.

The plaintiff, the plaintiff, claimed that the trademark "PUMA" was registered in China as early as 1978. However, some illegal elements had won huge profits to produce fake products and counterfeit products, and some shopping malls were also involved in selling the infringing products.

The defendant's behavior seriously eroded the market of the plaintiff's products on the one hand, and on the other hand, it caused a very bad influence on the reputation of the plaintiff.

The company said that the acts of the accused have constituted infringement and should be held liable for compensation. They request the court to order the defendant to stop the infringement immediately, and apologize in Hainan media to explain the truth, so as to eliminate the impact and compensate the plaintiff.

The companies and individuals of Hainan Wan long long department store, which have been prosecuted for the infringement of "selling goods different from those of Bo Ma", have denied that they have committed infringement.

The reasons for the justification of companies and individuals are: the sale of goods is different from the proportion of the registered trademark's figure and color size; the products sold by the company have never sold the products suspected of infringement, and the products sold have formal purchase channels and manufacturers and commercial standards. Some companies say that the products they sell are significantly different from those of the plaintiff's PUMA brand. The general public will not think that they are similar to the PUMA trademark, nor will they be confused or mistaken.

The defendants therefore believed that they did not cause a breach of reputation to the plaintiff.

The court of the Haikou intermediate people's court made a first instance judgment on the case. The defendant of the court sentenced each defendant to pay 3 to 50 thousand yuan.

The court held that the leopard graphics sold by the defendant compared with the registered trademark of the plaintiff, the two were almost the same, enough to mislead consumers.

The commodity logo infringes the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark, and the defendant's sales act constitutes a violation of the plaintiff's rights, and he should bear the legal liability of joint and several compensation according to law.

The plaintiff asked the defendant to stop the infringement immediately and compensate the loss reasonably, and the court supported it.

The court held that the amount of compensation raised by the plaintiff to the defendant amounted to 330 thousand yuan, and the court decided that the above company and individual should compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses ranging from 3 to 50 thousand yuan.

The court does not support the request of the plaintiff for the apology of the defendant in Hainan media.

After the sentencing of this case, up to now, other defendants have not appealed except for the appeal of Hai Nan Xin Jia supermarket limited and Hainan first Mo supermarket limited.

Yang Jing: editor in charge