The Company Is Fined For Using The Logo As Trademark.

More than 1 years ago, the copyright owner of Hainan Tourism TV satellite TV Limited (hereinafter referred to as tourism satellite TV), the copyright owner of the tourism satellite TV station logo, referred the Beijing Jingdong's three hundred landing degrees Agel Ecommerce Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Jingdong company) and Zhejiang AI de Travel Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Ai Mei company") to the court on the grounds of infringement of copyright.

Recently, the court of Daxing District of Beijing made a first instance judgment on the case, and found that the defendant Ai Mei company used the similar icons of the tourist satellite TV logo on its production and sale of bags and merchandise, violating the copyright of the tourism satellite TV, and decided that it immediately stopped the infringement, and the plaintiff's economic losses and reasonable expenses were 2 million yuan.

At the same time, the court also issued millions of tickets to the defendant in the case of forged evidence, false testimony and other serious acts that hamper civil proceedings.

In 2003, it commissioned the design company to design the logo for the channel and was officially launched in July 2004.

It was found that Ai Mei applied for its trademark registration in the form of "travelhouse" in conjunction with "English" in the form of "travelhouse" in Eighteenth categories of travel bags, and was allowed to register in November 28, 2008.

In January 23, 2008, the company set the logo separately in Eighteenth categories of Travelling Goods and twenty-fifth categories.

The company applied for trademark registration and was registered in April 28, 2011 and February 21, 2012 respectively.

Tourism Satellite believes that

The company will use the preceding trademark in its production of the traveling bag goods, the illegal gains are huge, seriously violating the copyright enjoyed by the party on its logo, so it will appeal to the court and request the two defendants to stop the infringement and compensate for the loss of 2 million yuan.

During the trial, hundreds of evidences were submitted by the two parties. After examining the evidence, the court found that the court logo constituted the art works protected by the copyright law in China, and the plaintiff based on the tourism satellite TV.

The pferee obtains the relevant copyright of the logo.

The icons used by the defendant Ai Mei on its luggage products are similar to the plaintiff's logo. The company has the possibility of contacting and knowing the plaintiff's tourist satellite logo.

The dozens of evidence submitted by the defendant Ai Mei company can not prove that the icons used are independent authoring, and can not be deemed to be copyrighted by the icons before being used.

The defendant Ai Mei company has used the icons to travel and sell goods without permission. It infringes upon the copyright enjoyed by the plaintiff in his luggage, and should bear the legal liability to stop the infringement and compensate for the loss.

During the hearing of the case, the defendant Ai Mei company, in order to prove his independent creation of the icons, and submitted to the court several 10 pieces of evidence before using the station logo, but the evidence was not accepted by the court.

For many of the key evidence, the court considers that there are forgery evidence, false testimony issued by witnesses, and other serious acts of prejudice to civil proceedings.

According to the new civil procedure law, the court issued a "top penalty ticket" to the defendant for 1 million yuan.

Ai Mei has submitted its sales contract with several units such as Zhejiang Huayang leather products Co., Ltd., and all the contracts are printed with icons. The earliest date of signing the contract is earlier than the date when the tourist logo was opened by the plaintiff in Shaoxing.

However, the court found that the number of telephone calls contained in the above contracts had not yet been opened, or had not risen from 7 to 8. The number of telephone numbers that had been opened or upgraded later appeared in the prior contract.

Ai Mei company finally approved the existence of a partial contract date reversal.

Finally, the court held that the evidence submitted by the defendant Ai Mei was false evidence, and the certification and testimony issued by the National Leather Industry Standardization Technical Committee and its secretary general were false evidence. The above acts were relatively bad, seriously hampering civil proceedings, and the court should impose corresponding penalties in accordance with the relevant provisions of the new civil procedure law.