Cases of intellectual property protection

Category: Electronic Digital >> Mobile Phone/Communication >> Mobile Phone Usage

Analysis:

I. Criminal cases of infringement of intellectual property rights

1, Wayne Huang and other cases of counterfeiting registered trademarks.

Public Prosecution Organ: People's Procuratorate of Mianzhu City, Sichuan Province

Defendants: Chang, Zhang Huijian, Chang, Qiu Lunfu.

Chang Chunrong, Wen Yong

Cause of action: counterfeit registered trademark

CaseNo.: (2003) Chuanmian Punishment No.66

On May 26th, 2003, the People's Procuratorate of Mianzhu City, Sichuan Province filed a public prosecution against the defendants, Chang, Zhang Huijian, Chang, Qiu Lunfu, Chang Chunrong and Wen Yong for counterfeiting registered trademarks.

The People's Court of Mianzhu City, Sichuan Province found through trial that the defendant and the defendant often verbally agreed to provide the original wine and often organized packaging and trademarks to jointly produce counterfeit famous wine. Later, the defendant Wen Yong was often hired to transport Mianzhu Daqu, Jiangkouchun, Jianzhuang and LU ZHOU LAO JIAO CO.,LTD Erqu from the liquor wholesale department opened in Chengdu Huafeng Food City to the rented houses in Zhonghe Town of Chengdu and Huayang Town of Shuangliu County. The defendants Chang and Zhang Huijian organized Jian Nanchun and Quanxing, and hired the defendants Chang, Qiu Lunfu and Chang Chunrong to clean the bottles and pour the wine, and pasted 648 copies of the trademark "Jian Nanchun" and "Hua Yang Town". In addition to Wuliangye, the defendant often hired the defendant Wen Yong to transport the wine to the liquor wholesale department opened by the defendant in Chengdu Southwest Food City for sale.

The People's Court of Mianzhu City, Sichuan Province held that the defendants, Chang and Zhang Huijian illegally used the trademarks and packaging of Jiannanchun, Wuliangye, Quanxing and Luzhou Laojiao Tequ without the permission of the registered trademark owner, and the circumstances were serious, and their actions all constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. Defendants Wen Yong, Chang, Chang Chunrong and Qiu Lunfu knowingly provided transportation and other assistance to the above-mentioned defendants, and their actions should be punished as the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. Defendants, Chang and Zhang Huijian played a major role in the crime and were the principal offenders. Defendants Wen Yong, Chang and Qiu Lunfu play a secondary role and are accomplices, which can be mitigated according to law; Defendant Chang Chunrong played a minor role and was an accessory. He participated in the act of counterfeiting registered trademarks for a short time and the circumstances were minor, so he was exempted from punishment according to law. Within five years after being released from prison, the defendant often hopes that his family will commit crimes again, which is a recidivist and should be severely punished.

On August 20, 2003, the People's Court of Mianzhu City, Sichuan Province sentenced the defendants to six regular prison terms of three years in accordance with Articles 2 13, 25, 1, 26, 1, 4, 27, 1, 2 and 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The defendant Zhang Huijian was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison and fined 1000 yuan; Sentenced the defendant to fixed-term imprisonment 1 year and 6 months, and fined 2000 yuan; The defendant Wen Yong was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of 1 year and fined 2000 yuan; The defendant Qiu Lunfu was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 1 year and fined 2000 yuan; Defendant Chang Chunrong was exempted from criminal punishment.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, seven defendants, including Wayne Huang, did not appeal, nor did the procuratorate protest, and the verdict became legally effective.

2. We should wait for others to sell goods with counterfeit registered trademarks.

Public Prosecution Organ: Xihu District People's Procuratorate, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province.

Defendants Ying, Gu and Feng Shengwei.

Cause of action: selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks.

1. CaseNo.: (2004) Zhejiang-Hangzhou West Criminal Chu Zi No.336.

On July 5, 2004, the People's Procuratorate of Xihu District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province accused the defendants Ying, Gu and Feng Shengwei of selling counterfeit registered trademark goods with indictment No.285 of Hangzhou Criminal Inspection (2004), and filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Xihu District, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province.

The People's Court of Xihu District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province found through trial that the defendant Feng Shengwei was a staff member of Guangzhou Sheng Da Integrated Marketing Communication Agency in Hangzhou. During the period from the beginning of June, 5438 to February, 23 of the same year, in order to make illegal profits, knowing that the shampoos provided by Chen Dawei and Zhuang Ni in Guangzhou were products with counterfeit registered trademarks such as Rejoice, Head & Shoulders and Pan Ting produced by Procter & Gamble (China) Co., Ltd., the counterfeit shampoos produced by Procter & Gamble (China) Co., Ltd. with the above registered trademarks were sold to the external staff of the former Procter & Gamble Company in Guangzhou for seven times. In the same period, the defendant should and Gu sold shampoo to Huang, a distributor of daily chemical products, for the purpose of making illegal profits, knowing that shampoo was a counterfeit product, and the defendant should and Gu made illegal profits of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan. After the incident, the defendant Feng Shengwei surrendered himself.

The Xihu District People's Court of Hangzhou held that the defendants Feng Shengwei, Ying and Gu sold goods that they knew were counterfeit registered trademarks, and the sales amount was huge, which constituted the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks. Defendant Feng Shengwei voluntarily surrendered himself and truthfully confessed his crimes, which should be considered as surrender and can be given a lighter punishment according to law.

On August 3, 2004, the Xihu District People's Court of Hangzhou sentenced the defendant to Xia Hong's fixed-term imprisonment according to the provisions of Articles 2 14, 67, 1, 25, 64, 72 and 73 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The defendant Gu was sentenced to 3 years in prison, suspended for 5 years and fined 50,000 yuan; The defendant Feng Shengwei was sentenced to 3 years in prison, suspended for 4 years and fined 50,000 yuan.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant did not appeal and the procuratorate did not protest. The judgment has taken legal effect.

3. The case of copyright infringement by Wang Hongxing and Zhao Kun.

Public Prosecution Organ: Haidian District People's Procuratorate of Beijing.

Defendants: Wang Hongxing and Zhao Kun.

Cause of action: crime of copyright infringement

1. CaseNo.: (2003) Jinghai Fa Chu Zi No.2434.

On June 3rd, 2003, 165438+ The People's Procuratorate of Haidian District of Beijing filed a public prosecution with the People's Court of Haidian District of Beijing for the crime of copyright infringement.

The Haidian District People's Court of Beijing found through trial that the defendants Wang Hongxing and Zhao Kun were employees of Beijing Shile Century Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shile Company") and were responsible for software development. In March, 2002, after they resigned from Schleswig Company, they took away the source code of the KTV system software of Schleswig Company and wanted to continue to engage in the development and sales activities of the system software. From March, 2002 to June, 2003, 5438+ 10, the two defendants made minor modifications to the software of "Schleswig KTV Broadband Service System" and copied the installation disk, and sold the software copies to seven companies, including Xi 'an Yunzhi Electronic Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou New Space-Time Digital Technology Co., Ltd., illegally earning RMB1/kloc-.

The Haidian District People's Court held that the defendants Wang Hongxing and Zhao Kun copied and distributed other people's computer software for profit without the permission of the copyright owner, and the amount of illegal income was large, which constituted the crime of copyright infringement. Defendants Wang Hongxing and Zhao Kun both actively participated in and benefited from it, but Zhao Kun played a slightly smaller role in the crime than Wang Hongxing.

On February 27th, 2004, the People's Court of Haidian District of Beijing sentenced the defendant Wang Hongxing to fixed-term imprisonment of 1 and six months, and fined him RMB 50,000 according to the provisions of Item (1) of Article 2 17, Article 25 1, Article 53 and Article 64 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). The defendant Zhao Kun was sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 1 year and fined RMB 3,000.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendants Wang Hongxing and Zhao Kun did not appeal and the procuratorate did not protest. The judgment has taken legal effect.

Two. Civil trial cases involving intellectual property rights

1. (USA) Education Examination Service Center v. Beijing Haidian District Private New Oriental School Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Beijing Haidian District Private New Oriental School.

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): American Educational Testing Service Company.

The appellant Beijing Haidian District Private New Oriental School (hereinafter referred to as New Oriental School) refused to accept the civil judgment No.35 of Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court (200 1) and appealed to Beijing Higher People's Court.

The Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court, the court of first instance, ruled that ETS, as the host and developer of TOEFL, independently designed and produced TOEFL test questions and registered 53 sets of TOEFL test questions in the United States. 1In August, 1997, ETS signed an agreement with New Oriental School, which is mainly engaged in foreign language teaching services, allowing New Oriental School to copy the recorded products and written works listed in the agreement in a non-exclusive way for internal use and not for external sales. The agreement is valid for one year. However, New Oriental School sold TOEFL test questions to unspecified people in the form of publications on its campus and on the Internet, and no new agreement was signed after the license agreement expired. In addition, ETS has approved the registration of "TOEFL" trademark in China, and the approved scope of use is cassette tapes, examination services, publications, etc. The cover of the alleged infringement is marked "TOEFL" with striking words. 200 1 1, ETS sued Beijing no 1 intermediate people's court for infringement of copyright and exclusive right to use registered trademarks. Previously, New Oriental School was investigated and dealt with by administrative law enforcement departments.

After trial, the court of first instance held that the TOEFL test questions were developed and designed by ETS, and each test question required many people to go through many steps and pay creative labor to complete, which was original and belonged to the works in the sense of China's copyright law, so the whole set of test questions compiled by ETS should also be protected. Without the permission of ETS, New Oriental School copied and publicly sold TOEFL test questions for the purpose of commercial operation, which infringed the copyright of ETS and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities. New Oriental School marked the word "TOEFL" on the cover of its TOEFL test publications in striking font, and the commodity category is the same as that registered by ETS. The behavior of New Oriental School violated the exclusive right to use registered trademarks of ETS. Adjudicate New Oriental School to stop infringing copyright and exclusive right to use registered trademarks, compensate for losses, eliminate influence and apologize.

After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that the first-instance judgment correctly identified the infringement of ETS copyright by New Oriental School and should be maintained. However, the improper identification and handling of the infringement of ETS registered trademark and the amount of compensation should be corrected as appropriate. On this basis, a judgment was made according to law on June 27, 2004, upholding the first-instance judgment on copyright and revoking the first-instance judgment on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

2. Bone Riche Wenole Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Mei Zheng Clothing Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes.

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Shanghai Mei Zheng Clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Mei Zheng).

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): bonet Bonrie Cevenole S.A.R.L

Defendant in the original trial: Monteggio (Hong Kong) Clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong Zheng)

Defendant in the original trial: Changshu Haoteba Clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Changshu Haoteba)

Defendant Gan in the original trial.

Defendant in the original trial: Gan Chuanfei.

Defendant in the original trial: Xu.

The appellant Shanghai Mei Zheng Clothing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Mei Zheng) refused to accept the civil judgment No.202 of Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court (2002) and appealed to Shanghai Higher People's Court for trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes.

The court of first instance found through trial that the plaintiff bonet Richewen Ole Co., Ltd. is a French company engaged in clothing design, manufacture and sales, and registered four trademarks in Chinese mainland, namely, flower pattern, traditional Chinese character "Montague" and flower pattern combination, and all the goods approved for trademark use are clothes, shoes and hats. Hong Kong Plum Steamed was founded by Gan Chuanfei and Gan in Hong Kong, and the registered trademark (hereinafter referred to as "Plum Steamed" trademark) was obtained by the transferee, which consists of Chinese characters of Plum Steamed, pinyin letters "Mei Zheng" and petal patterns. Shanghai was established by Gan in Shanghai, and was authorized to exclusively use the "Mei Zheng" trademark. Changshu Haoteba was founded in Xu, mainly selling clothes for Shanghai Meizheng. The logo of "Monterey Mei Zheng" was used on the clothes produced by Changshu Haoteba, and the logo of "Shanghai Jiao" was also used on the clothes sold by Shanghai Mei Zheng and Changshu Haoteba. The decoration of the packaging bag was similar to that of the plaintiff. In addition, the shelves of Shanghai Mei Zheng store are marked with traditional pinyin letters and petal graphic signs at regular intervals, and the "commodity (brand) number" on the price tag is marked as "Monteggio". On the store doors, billboards, clothing and packaging bags of Mei Zheng, Shanghai, Changshu Haote Bar directly uses the company name of Mei Zheng, Hong Kong, and the words "Montague" are printed on the clothing and packaging bags.

The Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court held through trial that the collars and linings of the jackets produced and sold by Shanghai Mei Zheng and Changshu Haoteba were marked with the logo of "Meng Te Jiao Mei Zheng", and the left breast of the jacket was marked with the phonetic alphabet of "Mei Zheng" and the logo of petals. The color of "Mei Zheng" pinyin letters is the same as that of clothing fabric, which highlights the color of petals. Compared with the plaintiff's "flower pattern", the petal pattern only lacks leaves and stems. Shanghai Mei Zheng is on the doors, billboards, clothes and packaging bags of specialty stores, while Changshu Haoteba directly uses the company name containing the plaintiff's trademark "Meng Tejiao" on the clothes and packaging bags, and the decoration of the packaging bags is similar to that of the plaintiff, which constitutes unfair competition. Shanghai Mei Zheng, Hongkong Mei Zheng and Changshu Haoteba have the same intention of infringement subjectively, and should bear civil liability for infringement. Because Gan, Gan Chuanfei and Xu are the legal representatives of the three defendant companies respectively, and their actions represent their respective companies, the infringement consequences caused by them should be borne by the company. According to the ascertained facts of the case, the court of first instance ruled that the three defendant companies stopped trademark infringement and unfair competition, and jointly compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB500,000. After the verdict, Mei Zheng appealed to the Shanghai Higher People's Court.

The Shanghai Higher People's Court held that the court of first instance found that the facts were clear, the applicable law was correct and the trial procedure was legal, which should be maintained. On July 6, 2004, the appeal was dismissed according to law and the original judgment was upheld.

3. Sony Records (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Western Restaurant and Entertainment Co., Ltd. (dispute over copyright infringement)

Plaintiff: Sony Records (Hong Kong) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Sony Corporation)

Defendant: Suzhou Western Catering and Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Western Entertainment Company)

On June 5438+February 65438+February, 2003, the plaintiff Sony Company discovered that western entertainment companies had broadcast three works of Dawn (MTV) to the public in the form of karaoke for profit, and filed a lawsuit with Suzhou Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province on the grounds that Sony Company had infringed its legitimate rights and interests.

Suzhou Intermediate People's Court found through trial that Xinli Company produced and distributed VCD discs containing three MTV works involved in the case in 20001year, and the copyright of Xinli Company was marked on the back of the cover of the genuine discs involved, and the copyright was registered with the Asian Office of the International Federation of Recording Industry. On June 5438+February 65438+February 2002, the Beijing Representative Office of the International Federation of Recording Industry entrusted Liu Ying, a broker, to order eight songs sung by Dawn, a western entertainment company, in the western city of Mao Ge, and filmed the playing process and burned them into two CDs. The CD contains three MTV works. Suzhou Notary Office notarized the above-mentioned evidence collection process.

The court held that the MTV works involved in this case were based on certain vocal music and instrumental music works, designed visually and creatively according to the different characteristics of music genre and scene atmosphere, and formed an audio-visual structure combining sound and painting. At the same time, the changing combination of light, color and composition was used in artistic processing, and the creative work of directors, actors, photographers, editors and lighting was reflected through three-dimensional animation and digital editing, which was an art of audio-visual combination. Sony enjoys the copyright of the three MTV works involved. Western Entertainment Company uses the works involved in its business activities without permission, which infringes Sony's right to display and obtain paid property, and should bear civil liability to stop the infringement and compensate the losses according to law. Because Western Entertainment did not infringe on the personal rights of Sony's works, the responsibility of apology no longer applies. The amount of compensation should be determined according to the type of works involved in this case, the business scale, business level and infringement time of Western Entertainment Company. Reasonable expenses such as the lawsuit filed by Xinli Company shall be borne by Western Entertainment Company.

On June 26, 2004, Suzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Western Entertainment Company stopped the infringement, compensated Sony Company for its economic loss of RMB 9,000 and its reasonable litigation expenses of RMB 2,5441yuan, and rejected other litigation requests of Sony Company. After the judgment, neither party filed an appeal according to law, and the judgment has taken legal effect.

4. Zhejiang Xiaoshan Wuliangye Series Liquor Sales Co., Ltd. and Yibin Wuliangye Co., Ltd. v. Sichuan Old Workshop Winery and Ninghai Changsheng Food Co., Ltd..

Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Zhejiang Xiaoshan Wuliangye Series Wine Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiaoshan Wuliangye).

Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Yibin Wuliangye Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yibin Wuliangye)

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Sichuan Old Workshop Winery (hereinafter referred to as Old Workshop Winery).

Appellee (defendant in the original trial): Ninghai Changsheng Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Changsheng Company).

Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye v. Laozuofang Winery and Changsheng Company for trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes. Both parties refused to accept the civil judgment of Ningbo Intermediate People's Court (2003) Yong Min Chu Er Zi No.95, and appealed to Zhejiang Higher People's Court.

The court found through trial that Xiaoshan Wuliangye obtained the trademark of "Workshop" in March 2003 and licensed Yibin Wuliangye to use the trademark exclusively. Sichuan Yibin Wuliangye Group Co., Ltd. obtained the patent of packaging box design in199965438+February. Old Workshop Winery was established in July, 20001year, producing "Old Workshop Yupai Old Workshop Yujiao" wine, in which the word "old workshop" is much larger than the word "Yujiao". Changsheng Company began to operate three varieties of old workshop Yujiao wine from June 5438 to February 2002.

The Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province holds that Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye enjoy the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks of "Workshop" and should be protected. The word "old workshop" is prominently used by the old workshop winery in the wine "old workshop royal brand old workshop royal cellar", which is similar to the registered trademark of "workshop" on the whole, and it is easy for the relevant public to misunderstand or confuse the source of the trademark. The old workshop winery and Changsheng Company infringed the trademark rights of Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye. The evidence provided by Yibin Wuliangye can't identify the "Workshop" brand old workshop wine and the workshop wine involved as well-known commodities, and the actions of the old workshop winery and Changsheng Company do not constitute infringement on the unique names, packaging and decoration of well-known commodities; In the case that Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye did not explicitly advocate patent infringement, patent infringement disputes need not be tried; Because Xiaoshan Wuliangye only enjoyed the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of "Workshop" in March 2003, and the old workshop winery was established in July 20001year, it enjoyed the exclusive right to use the registered trademark earlier than Xiaoshan Wuliangye, and the enterprise name of the old workshop winery was obtained through the registration procedure of the administrative department for industry and commerce, there is no factual and legal basis for Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye to request to cancel the name of the old workshop winery. Combined with this case, according to the time when Xiaoshan Wuliangye obtained the exclusive right to use the trademark, the duration of the infringement of the old workshop winery and the reasonable expenses paid by Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye to stop the infringement, the compensation amount is comprehensively considered.

On August 26, 2004, Zhejiang Higher People's Court ruled that the old workshop winery and Changsheng Company should stop infringing the registered trademark of the workshop. Old Workshop Winery and Changsheng Company compensated Xiaoshan Wuliangye and Yibin Wuliangye for economic losses of 200,000 yuan and 654.38+10,000 yuan respectively (including reasonable expenses paid for stopping infringement).

5. Harbin Black Swan Group Co., Ltd. v. Guangdong Black Swan Food Culture Co., Ltd. (trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute)

Appellant (defendant in the original trial): Guangdong Black Swan Food Culture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangdong Black Swan Company).

Appellee (plaintiff in the original trial): Harbin Black Swan Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Harbin Black Swan Company).

In the case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Harbin Black Swan Company and Guangdong Black Swan Company, Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Guangdong Black Swan Company stopped infringing on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, compensated for a loss of 500,000 yuan, and rejected the plaintiff's claims of unfair competition. Guangdong Black Swan Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed to Guangdong Higher People's Court.

The court found through trial that Harbin Black Swan Company obtained the trademark of "Black Swan" in September 2000. Guangdong Black Swan Company was established on June 20th, 1998. In April 2002, Guangdong Black Swan Company applied to the State Trademark Office to cancel the trademark of Harbin Black Swan Company, and the State Trademark Office decided not to accept it. From June 5438 to February 2003, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court made an administrative judgment and upheld the decision of the State Trademark Office not to accept it. During the second trial, Guangdong Black Swan Company appealed the judgment to the Beijing Higher People's Court.

The Guangdong Higher People's Court held that although Guangdong Black Swan Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court, according to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law, the execution of specific administrative acts will not be stopped during the litigation period, and the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Black Swan should be protected by law before the State Trademark Office revokes the trademark of Black Swan. The court of first instance did not accept the counterclaim of Guangdong Black Swan Company, which did not violate the law and did not affect the exercise of litigation rights of Guangdong Black Swan Company. The trial of this case does not need to be based on the trial results of relevant administrative cases; According to the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law, trademarks that have been used continuously until July 1993 and 1 are identical or similar to registered service trademarks of others on the same or similar services, and can be used continuously, but the geographical area and service items may not be expanded. However, Guangdong Black Swan Company has no affiliation with the outsider who used the trademark and store name of 1, 65438 and before July 1993, and belongs to different market entities. The reason why Guangdong Black Swan Company claims to have the priority to use the trademark of "Black Swan" is untenable. Guangdong Black Swan Company was established in 1998+ 10. After the trademark of "Black Swan" is registered, using a trademark similar to the registered trademark of Harbin Black Swan Company constitutes trademark infringement.

On April 2, 2004, the Guangdong Higher People's Court ruled that the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.