Goldlion'S Counterfeiting Rights Grocery Store Was Sentenced To 5000 Yuan By The Court.

The "Goldlion" brand is known to many consumers, and Goldlion trademark has also been recognized as a well-known trademark.

Yesterday, the Chancheng court announced a case. Goldlion (China) Co., Ltd. found that a grocery store sold the counterfeit Goldlion trademark belt and brought it to court. The court finally decided to compensate the grocery store for 5000 yuan.

It is understood that in January 2017, under the supervision of the notary office, Zhang Mou, the principal agent of Goldlion (China) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Goldlion), came to a grocery store in Foshan and bought three Goldlion registered trademarks.

The company considers that the alleged infringing product has used Goldlion trademark in belt buckles, certificate of qualification and maintenance instructions.

Goldlion believes that the grocery store openly sells counterfeit products infringing Goldlion trademark, infringes Goldlion's trademark rights, and assumes corresponding legal liabilities according to law. It requests the grocery store to stop the infringement immediately and compensate the economic losses totaling 30 thousand yuan.

The grocery store said that the products involved were not purchased in its shop, but no evidence was submitted in the trial.

The court of Chancheng found that in November 12, 2014, the trademark of Goldlion was recognized as a well-known trademark by the trademark office. It has the right to initiate a civil action against the unauthorized use of the trademark and the infringement of the right to use the trademark. It requests the grocery store to stop infringement, compensate for the loss, eliminate the influence and undertake other legal provisions.

Responsibility.

According to the notarization document issued by the notary office, in January 10, 2017, the grocery store sold the goods that were alleged to be infringing on the belt.

Although the grocery store denied the sale, it did not provide evidence to prove its defense.

And the name of the business license hanging in the shop is consistent with the information of the industrial and commercial registration of the defendant. The court staff served the respondent material according to the industrial and commercial registration address of the defendant, which was sufficient to confirm that the alleged infringing goods were purchased from the defendant and sold by the defendant.

At the same time, the Court pointed out that, in comparison with the alleged infringement belt and trademark, the court found that there was a trademark logo similar to the registered trademark on the belt buckle, and there was no formal certificate, warranty card, no anti-counterfeiting query code, manufacturer and telephone address. Therefore, the law court determined that the alleged infringing goods were produced by the non Goldlion company or the company authorized by it. The behavior of the grocery store infringed Goldlion's exclusive right to use the registered trademark and constituted trademark infringement.

Goldlion's registered trademark has a high reputation in the market. The grocery store should have a certain duty of care, and it does not provide the legitimate source of the goods sold. Therefore, it should bear the legal liability to stop infringement and compensate for the loss.

Regarding the amount of compensation in the case, the court held that, because Goldlion failed to provide specific evidence of the infringement suffered during its exclusive licensing period and failed to provide evidence of all profits from the infringement of the grocery store, the court took into account the popularity of Goldlion's trademark, the scale of the defendant's grocery store, the value of the infringement, the consequences of infringement, and the subjective fault and so on to determine the amount of compensation as appropriate.

Discretionary grocery stores compensate Goldlion for economic losses of 5000 yuan.

At the same time, the court supported the reasonable cost of litigation expenses for litigation rights in this case for 3000 yuan.

Finally, the court decided that the grocery store would compensate Goldlion for its economic losses of 5000 yuan and the reasonable cost of litigation expenses for safeguarding rights, which was 3000 yuan.