Subtitle: A leading valve enterprise in Guangdong was awarded a compensation of 10 million yuan
Recently,Guangdong Higher People's CourtDelivered a final judgment on a trademark infringement dispute,Guangdong Yongquan Valve Technology Co., Ltd. was awarded 10 million yuan，Cause of infringementtrademark infringement behavior and unfair competitionWas ordered to pay a maximum penalty.
Guangdong Yongquan Company is a well-known valve leading enterprises, is "Yongquan valve" and other registered trademarks of the right holder, product quality in the leading position in the country, is the maker of industry standards, and selected for the Olympic construction project, has been identified as the famous trademark of Guangdong Province, the company and trademark have a high reputation and reputation. Since 2013, Dongguan Yongquan Company and Shenhe Company produce and sell valves, use the logos "Yongquan Valve" and "YQFM" on product certificates and sales pages, use the name "Yongquan" for a long time in the company name, use the Internet domain names yq-fm.com and yqfm.net, and falsely advertise on the official website of the company. The products were sold to many domestic cities, and after the administrative organs punished and lost the first instance, they continued to implement trademark infringement, while implementing unfair competition acts such as the confused use of enterprise names and domain names and false publicity.
The Guangdong High Court held that the two parties are competitors in the same place, the infringing party knows the popularity of the infringed party and its trademark, and still uses "Yongquan valve" and "YQFM" and other signs in the relevant valve product certificates and sales pages of its production and sales, which constitutes trademark infringement; The use of the name "Yongquan" in the company name, the use of the domain names yq-fm.com and yqfm.net, and false advertising constitute unfair competition. The accused infringing products have many types, high value, large sales, and long infringement time, and the infringing party continues to infringe after being punished by the administrative penalty and the judgment of the first instance, the infringement is subjective and malicious, and the circumstances and consequences are serious, so the judgment immediately stops the infringement and unfair competition, and compensates Guangdong Yongquan Company for economic losses and related rights protection costs of 10 million yuan.
Judge's statement
For the infringement of intellectual property rights where the infringer's subjective malice is obvious and the circumstances are serious, punitive damages can be applied to increase the sanctions on the malicious infringement. However, in judicial practice, punitive damages cannot be applied because the right holder does not clearly advocate the application of punitive damages or cannot accurately calculate the compensation base. In the trial of this case, in addition to considering the scale of the infringed enterprise and the main sales situation, it also focused on the infringement intention and the circumstances of the infringement as a punitive consideration, and determined the amount of compensation within the scope of legal compensation, reflecting the judicial concept of the people's court to implement strong protection of intellectual property rights.
Source: People's Court Daily
More intellectual property information and services
Pay attention to [Shenkexin Intellectual Property] Official subscription number
More deeply credible dynamic news, important data/report/case, etc.
Pay attention to the [Shenkexin Intellectual Property Service Platform] official service number
Related Cases
Recently, it was learned from the network that an Internet company that opened a flagship store of "West Lake Building Building" on Tmall was fined 780,000 yuan by the Zhejiang Provincial Market Supervision Bureau for selling goods that violated the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of "Building outside Building".
2022-08-02
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
Recently, the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a ruling that only the use of others' trademarks as bidding keywords does not constitute trademark infringement. The plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, is an online contact lens retailer whose website is 1800contacts.com and is the owner of trademarks such as "1800 Contacts" and "1800contacts.com." Defendant JAND, Inc., which operates under the name "Warby Parker," is an online and physical eyewear retailer that recently entered the online contact lens market, selling contact lenses through warbyparker.com and in stores.
2022-07-29
Does using another person's trademark as a search keyword constitute trademark infringement?
Recently, Yueqing Court in Zhejiang Province heard a trademark infringement dispute, the defendant of an Anhui Internet information company's infringement made a first-instance judgment. The plaintiff Yueqing City, A catering company for A fried chicken series trademark owner, opened a number of stores across the country.
2022-07-21
Move the hand, the letter "E" changes the letter "L", the ordinary bag becomes a brand-name bag, what design is so "clever"? Was it deliberate or just a coincidence? Recently, Guangzhou Huadu Court announced the trademark infringement dispute.
2022-07-16
Recently, The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court) made a judgment of first instance on the dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between the plaintiffs Xiaomi Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi Technology Co., LTD.) and Xiaomi Communication Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaomi Communication Co., LTD.) and the defendants Zhou Moumou and Shanghai Dreamseeking Information Technology Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Dreamseeking Co., LTD.). It was found that the defendant Zhou Mou's behavior constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and Zhou Mou was sentenced to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 500,000 yuan. After the verdict, neither party appealed, and the case has taken effect.
2022-07-16
Hello Travel "v." Xiao Liang travel "trademark infringement and unfair competition, court judgment!
Recently, Shanghai Junha Network Technology Co., Ltd. was fined 40,000 yuan by the Hefei Market Supervision Administration (Hefei Intellectual Property Office) for misleading consumers through advertising.
2022-06-28
Appellant Pinchuang Company and appellant Yuan Desheng Company and other utility model patent infringement disputes Yuan Desheng Plastic Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Yuan Desheng Company) is the patentee of patent No. ZL201420522729.0, the name of "an integrated selfie device" utility model patent. Zhongshan Pinchuang Plastic Products Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Pinchuang Company), mainly accept foreign processing orders, production of related products. On May 9, 2017, in the (2016) Yue 73 Minchu No. 2351 case, Yuan Desheng Company reached a settlement agreement with Pinchuang Company and Zhongshan Rigao Precision Industry Co., LTD., agreeing that Pinchuang Company stopped producing, selling and promising to sell the accused infringing products, and compensated Yuan Desheng Company 35,000 yuan.
2022-06-07
The plaintiff of Weiwo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Upintong Electronic Technology Co., LTD., Shenzhen Huatang Disun Technology Co., LTD., v. Defendant Upintong Co., Ltd. used "vivi" as the trademark and "vivi" as the name of the mobile phone in its mobile phone products, Registered the website with the domain name "vivi-china.com" and advertised mobile phone products using "vivi" as the trademark and product name,
2022-05-24
In recent years, there have been a number of "Tiger Square Bridge Jing Tian red fried cake" stores on the market, who is the legitimate right subject of "Jing Tian Red" brand? The Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently concluded a dispute over unfair competition involving the brand rights of "Beijing Tianhong".
2022-05-16
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
