Home >

Consumers Accused Andersen Of Failing To Prove Children'S Shoes.

2010/6/26 15:35:00 46

Mr. Hu bought a pair of Andersen for 88 yuan.

Children's shoes

Due to doubts about the labels on the packages, the Internet was queried. It turned out that the "Andersen head" with registered trademark marks had not actually been registered in China, and the relevant quality system certification had also been cancelled.

So Mr. Hu brought the children's shoe manufacturers and sellers to court.

Recently, the court of first instance in Changning decided that Mr. Hu received double compensation for a total of 176 yuan.

Last November, Mr. Hu bought a pair of Andersen at the doctor frog counter of Bailian West Shopping Center at a price of 88 yuan.

Children's shoes

。

The children's shoes are printed with Andersen's head on the packaging carton, with the word "DK.H.C.ANDERSEN Andersen" printed on the head, and the logo "R" with a registered trademark, and at the same time, it is indicated that it is in line with the ISO.9001:2000 quality management system.

Mr. Hu also received a handbook and investment promotion leaflet from Shanghai Andersen Shoes Co., Ltd.

"The father of Andersen was once a famous shoemaker in five Nordic countries, which led to the birth of the first Nordic brand DK.H.C.ANDERSEN Andersen shoes."

Out of curiosity about the contents of the publicity materials, Mr. Hu searched the Internet and found that the trademark of "Andersen's head" was not registered in China, and the corresponding product quality certificate was also in the state of revocation.

Mr. Andersen, who was deceived, filed a lawsuit against the court. He asked the company to make an apology for the false propaganda of the product. The total cost of compensation for two times of shoes, business archives and attorney's fees amounted to 2256 yuan. He also asked the doctor frog company and the Bailian West Shopping center to bear the responsibility.

In response, Andersen said that the trademark "Andersen head" was registered in Denmark and is now being registered with the Trademark Office of China.

Mr. Hu is not an ordinary consumer because he has other disputes with himself and is aware of the relevant circumstances of the trademark. He does not exist fraud when he knows the circumstances.

While Dr. frog believes that he is an affiliate of Andersen company, he has already completed the obligation of review when signing a consignment agreement and should not be held jointly liable.

Bailian west suburb shopping center said that he had only rented relations with Dr. frog company and had nothing to do with Andersen company.

The court held that the logo of the registered trademark and quality system certification had a substantial impact on consumers' judgement of the popularity and quality of the products.

Andersen's description of competing trademark and quality system certification is false in its product packaging, and its behavior is in line with the statutory elements of fraud. Hu's request for double compensation for commodity price should be supported.

At the same time, Mr. Hu bought the goods and obtained the corresponding invoices at the shop of the doctor frog company. The company as a seller should be jointly and severally liable for the double compensation price.

Andersen asserted that Mr. Hu was not an ordinary consumer, but did not provide corresponding evidence.