Legal source = Legally authorized?
After the seller provides a legitimate source
Is there no legal liability?
What are the establishment requirements of legal source defense?
Next, follow the small letter to find the answer from the text
Brief of the case
The plaintiff Tang believes that the "Huba intelligent robot" (that is, the accused infringing product) sold by the defendant Qianghua Products Store in the "micro store" online shopping platform operated by the pocket fashion company infringes its patent right for the design patent (that is, the patent involved) of the patent number ZL201630599658.9, named "Intelligent story machine (FIA)". Therefore, the court appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to request the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 20,000 yuan.
Patent in question
The defendant Qianghua Products Store believes that the accused infringing products sold by it have legal sources and should not be liable for compensation.
Judge's interpretation
Beijing intellectual Property Court after hearing that Qianghua products store submitted 1688 e-commerce platform order page screenshots, Yamei electronic factory corporate information and "Letter of authorization" and other evidence, the order recipient Li Yongqiang and Qianghua products store operator Zhong Rihua husband and wife relationship, receiving address and Qianghua products store business premises are in Meixian District, Meizhou City Hakka New World, There is little difference between the "Baiwei supermarket Bubugao Store" in the receiving address and the store name "Baiwei Bugao Xiaogenius Store" where the plaintiff notarized and purchased the accused infringing products, which is in line with normal trading practices, and can prove that the accused infringing products were purchased from Yamisun Electronics Factory, Xixiang Street, Baoan District, Shenzhen City, 1688 e-commerce platform, and paid a reasonable consideration. Therefore, the accused infringing products have legal sources.
Tang can continue to pursue the infringement liability of the supplier according to the legal source evidence submitted by the Qianghua product store until it traces back to the source of the infringing product, that is, the manufacturer. This is not only conducive to Tang's follow-up rights protection, safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, but also conducive to maintaining the normal trading order. Qianghua Product Store, as an individual industrial and commercial store, opens a store on the micro-store platform to sell the accused infringing products. Considering its personal qualification, store size, sales quantity and other circumstances, it is not appropriate to make excessive requirements on its review ability and duty of care.
Therefore, the court concluded that the evidence submitted by Qianghua Product Store could prove that the accused infringing products it sold came from Yamexun Electronics Factory, and that it did not know that the infringing products were manufactured and sold without the permission of the patentee, with legal sources, and should not be liable for the sale of the accused infringing products.
At the same time, the legal source defense is only the defense of exemption from liability for compensation, but not the defense of non-infringement. The establishment of the seller's legal source defense does not change the infringing nature of the sale of infringing products, nor does it exempt the seller from the responsibility to stop selling infringing products. The reasonable expenditure of rights protection is based on the infringement, so the reasonable expenditure of the right to obtain the relief of stopping the infringement should still be supported if the legal source defense is established. In this case, Tang Mou did not provide evidence to prove notary fees, attorney fees and other expenses, but the court took into account Tang Mou has submitted a notarial certificate and the actual participation of the agent litigant and other circumstances, according to the principle of rationality and necessity, determine the amount of reasonable expenditure of 2500 yuan.
Judge's note
At present, commercial rights protection cases in which terminal sales such as individual industrial and commercial merchants or online stores are the defendants, litigation outsourcing, and a large number of lawsuits against small and micro enterprises in the sales category are still relatively common.
Taking this series of cases as an example, Tang, with his "Intelligent story machine (FIA)" design patent, filed more than 40 cases of infringement of design patent disputes against individual industrial and commercial households or online shops in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Commercial rights protection cases are mainly targeted at individual industrial and commercial businesses, small and micro e-commerce enterprises and other terminal sellers, the accurate trial of commercial rights protection cases not only helps to unify the trial scale of similar cases, reasonable determination of the amount of compensation in each case, but also actively transmits the correct direction of intellectual property judicial protection to the society, and helps economic development and social stability.
Therefore, in commercial rights protection cases, considering the individual qualifications, store size, proof ability and other terminal sellers such as individual industrial and commercial businesses, small and micro e-commerce enterprises, it is not appropriate to make excessive requirements on their review ability and duty of care. As long as the seller has submitted evidence that conforms to the trading rules, and the accused infringing products and related documents can correspond to each other, the legal source defense can be found to be established. At the same time, right holders should rationally defend their rights, trace their rights to the source, curb the source of infringing products, and truly safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. (Source: Second Instance Court, Beijing Intellectual Property Court)
More information and services
The official subscription number of "Shenkexin Intellectual Property Rights" on the code
Code on the concern [Shenkexin intellectual property service platform] official service number
Related Cases
Recently, the Supreme People's Court made a final judgment on an invention patent infringement dispute involving air conditioning, rejecting the appeals of both appellants, and upholding the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court's decision that the accused infringing party Guangdong Meibo Refrigeration Equipment Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Guangdong Meibo Company) immediately stop the infringement. And compensate the patentee TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as TCL Company) economic losses, a total of 1.68 million yuan of the first instance judgment.
2022-09-02
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court has ruled that the plaintiff, Shenzhen Quanwei Intellectual Property Operation Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Quanwei Company), and the defendant, Guangdong Fuaisi Ecological Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Fuaisi Company), be allowed to withdraw the lawsuit. In this case, Quanwei Company appealed to the court to order Fuaisi Company to stop infringing the invention patent, dismantle the tower granulation equipment, and compensate for economic losses of 10 million yuan.
2022-09-02
Brilliance Auto is suing Dongfeng and Honda in the US over sensor-related patents
(August 31), Auto Brilliance LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Brilliance Automobile") filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Japanese automakers Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Nissan") and Honda Motor Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Honda"). The complaint alleges that Nissan and Honda infringed patents related to sensor calibration and adjustment claimed by Brilliance.
2022-09-02
Appellant Boffite Co., Ltd. filed an appeal to the Court of second instance against the civil judgment of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (2019) No. 2239 of Zhejiang 01 Minchu due to the dispute over design patent infringement with appellee Jingcheng Sanhe Co., LTD., Taobao Co., LTD. After accepting the case on May 13, 2020, the court of second instance formed a collegial panel to hear the case in accordance with the law. The case is now closed.
2022-08-26
One wave after another, the patent attack and defense war between Ningde Era and Zhongchuang New Aviation is still continuing to see, reflecting the intensifying competition of industry technology and talent. Ningde Times received a $5 million settlement from Hive Energy.
2022-08-02
On July 15, Shenzhen Huada Intelligent Manufacturing Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Huada Intelligent Manufacturing", MGI), a subsidiary of Shenzhen Huada Group, announced that the company and global gene sequencer giant Illumina reached a settlement of all pending litigation in the United States.
2022-07-16
A Beijing-based company that makes PTZ cameras has been sued by DJI
Dji found that the defendant Beijing Feimi Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Feimi Company) manufactured a PTZ Camera called "PALM Gimbal Camera" and promised to sell and sell on its official website. The defendant, Nine Days Vertical Technology (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Nine Days Vertical Technology Co., LTD.), promised to sell and sell the above-mentioned pT-top camera products manufactured by the defendant Feimi Company on the 1688.com e-commerce platform. The accused infringing product is similar to the plaintiff's design patent and falls within the scope of protection of the plaintiff's design patent claim, which infringes the plaintiff's design patent right and causes great economic losses to the plaintiff.
2022-07-05
In November 2018, Raffel sued Minhua Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging infringement of seven patents,
2022-06-21
It is understood that the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as "Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court") has made a new first-instance judgment on the patent infringement case of Foshan Shunde District Midea Washing Appliance Manufacturing Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Midea") v. Huadi Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Huadi") dishwasher (2021) Zhejiang 01 Zhminchu No. 544,
2022-06-16
The two giants "tear apart"! Adidas sued Nike for patent infringement, as many as nine patents
According to the sky eye check information shows that the well-known athletic shoe brand Adidas recently filed a lawsuit in the federal court in eastern Texas, accusing Nike of infringing its patents on a number of shoe technology and mobile applications (APP).
2022-06-15
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
