The "PUMA" Case Was Awarded 70 Thousand.

At the trial court, when the plaintiff lawyer stated, the defense counsel had different expressions.

On May this year, a young man bought a pair of sneakers marked "PUMA and leopard graph" at a rental counter at Ming He department store.

Since then, the young man has bought the same T-shirt and "wave shoes" with Dafu department store Nanping Guangchang store and Tongda Department square.

What is unexpected is that this young man is the employee of Rudolf sports company PUMA, a sports brand "Puma".

Three goods appeared in court as evidence of three department stores' infringement.

According to the plaintiff's attorney, in order to crack down on the infringement, the plaintiff conducted a lot of investigations, and in some places such as Shanghai, Guangzhou and Dongguan, she had accused some department stores of infringement.

It is said that this is one of the actions of the company in the "three-dimensional" anti-counterfeiting in China.

The plaintiff's attorney said that the plaintiff registered the trademark "PUMA", "leopard graph" trademark and "PUMA and leopard figure" trademark in China as early as 1978.

Because of the large number of advertisements, the plaintiff has become the world's most famous sports brand in China.

In order to win huge profits, some illegal elements are making false fake products and selling infringing products.

The defendant's three companies sold the infringing goods in Zhuhai.

Such behavior had a bad effect on the reputation of the plaintiff.

Therefore, they have made 4 claims.

The first one is to request the defendant to stop the infringing act. The 232 one is to request the defendant to make an apology and to clarify the facts in order to eliminate the influence.

The fourth requirement is three yuan compensation for 50 thousand yuan.

The attorney general argued in court: "the size of Ming Ho Department store and Tai Fook department store is large, and sales are hard to estimate.

Their sales of counterfeit products seriously affected the reputation of Rudolf Darth sporting goods.

However, due to the loss of data is difficult to estimate, so the amount of compensation must be ruled by the court.

But the defendant must apologize in the newspaper to eliminate the impact.

In the court debate, the plaintiff lawyers have repeatedly referred to the "damage reputation" and "eliminate the impact" of the apology request for the newspaper, but the amount of compensation is not too much controversy.

Yesterday's court trial and debate lasted for 140 minutes. After the 40 minute recess, the trial chief announced the verdict in court.

The court held that Zhuhai Ming Ho Department store, Dafu department store and Tongda Department plaza should immediately stop infringement on the plaintiff and assume certain sales responsibilities.

Ming and general stores were sentenced to pay 25 thousand yuan for the plaintiff and 20 thousand yuan for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's request for an apology and clarification of the facts was dismissed.

Shouldn't the rented counters be responsible?

Yesterday, in court, the attorneys of three department stores showed evidence of the lease contract, proving that they and the sale of fake "PUMA" counters or shops were only the relationship between the lessor and the lessee, and the department store was not a seller of infringing goods.

Ming and general merchandise also brought the lessee, the fake "PUMA" sports shoes seller Yang, to prove that after the sale, the plaintiff has been communicating with Yang.

"Obviously, the plaintiff clearly knows that the seller is Yang."

The defendant's lawyer also said, "as a self-employed person, the lessee is engaged in civil activities in the capacity of a person with full capacity for civil conduct and bears civil liability. This is beyond doubt.

After the dispute happened, Yang directly admitted that he was the main body of the paction and was willing to take the relevant responsibilities to the plaintiff.

Whether the department stores at the rental counters should bear the sales responsibility became the focus of the court debate yesterday.

The plaintiff held that the defendant did not take a reasonable and effective way to prevent the sale of the infringing goods, nor did he ask the supplier to provide a trademark registration certificate, knowing that the products sold were "three noes", which should be defined as deliberate intent.

And the invoice issued at the time of sale are all the invoices of the three department stores, "who provides the invoice, who is the seller."

After the conclusion of the sentence yesterday, the reporter interviewed Wu Xiurong, the plaintiff's attorney.

Reporter: will the appeal be appealed to the satisfaction of today's decision?

Lawyer Wu: the result of the decision is what we expected.

The fault of judging the defendant's tort is what we expect and is expected. The amount of compensation is also the amount we predict.

I will report to the client whether they will appeal or not.

Reporter: do you think the court's ruling today will help your agent's anti fake action?

Lawyer Wu: today's ruling is a relatively moderate one.

For rights holders, other sellers should play a cautionary role.

Other sellers should think about what they should do according to the decision, which is what we expect to protect others' intellectual property rights.

Reporter: since this year, how many of your agents' tort lawsuits in Guangdong province? Is this the first time in Zhuhai?

Wu lawyer: This is not very convenient to disclose at present. It is the first time in Zhuhai to pass a court decision. Before it was settled through mediation, the other side is also a large shopping mall in Zhuhai.