Camels Sue For Infringement Cases, And Individual Merchants Are Sentenced To Infringement In First Instance.

< p style= "TEXT-ALIGN: center" > img border= "0" alt= "align=" center "src=" /uploadimages/201304/10/20130410121144.JPG "/" < < > >

< p style= "TEXT-ALIGN: center >" camel to sue for infringement cases, individual merchants were sentenced to infringing /p "in the first instance.

< p > plaintiff camel dress company claims: Camel dress company was founded in October 17, 2005, is a famous enterprise specializing in marketing and promoting "Camel" series of brand merchandise, enjoying the exclusive rights of registered trademark of pattern 101337th, registered trademark of No. 3515856th "Camel", and registered trademark of No. 3816390th "LUOTUO".

The defendant, Li Moumou and others, since 2009, has used "business camel leisure" as the name of the counter without permission. The "Camel" characters and graphic trademarks used are similar to the trademarks of the plaintiff with exclusive rights, misleading consumers and infringing the plaintiff's exclusive right to use registered trademarks.

Therefore, he appealed to the court to request the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses.

< /p >

< p > defendant Li Moumou and others argued that the defendant sold the case < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_x.asp" > commodity < /a > from the wholesaler Xu place, and had a complete a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_x.asp" > purchase > /a > bills and channels. The source was legal; when selling the goods involved, they did not know that the goods were infringing products; the plaintiff calculated the amount of compensation for economic losses was too high, and there was no factual and legal basis.

The defendant provided the legal source, and should not be liable for compensation in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and do not agree with the plaintiff's claim.

< /p >

< p > by trial, the court held that the defendant, as a professional operator of shoes and caps, had a statutory duty to examine the shoes sold.

According to the facts identified, there is no evidence to prove that the trademark used by the defendant in the sale of goods shoes is similar to the trademark registered by the plaintiff, which is sufficient for the consumers to mix the two, causing confusion in the market and infringing on the exclusive right of others to use the trademark.

< /p >

< p > the fifty-sixth article and third paragraph of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: < < a href= "http://www.91se91.com/news/index_x.asp > > Sales < /a > do not know that it is a commodity that infringes the exclusive right of registered trademark, and proves that the commodity is legally acquired by itself and that the supplier is not liable for compensation".

In the trial, the defendant provided the witness Xu's testimony to prove that the merchandise he sold was from Xu. After questioning by court, Xu admitted that the goods sold by the defendant in the testimony were purchased from his department, and the two sides paid the spot to take the goods directly.

However, the court held that under the circumstances of Xu's personal admission and lack of proof of other trading documents, he found that the defendant's sale of infringing goods had a legitimate source of purchase.

The reason why the defendant disagrees with the plaintiff's claim is not enough, and the court does not support it.

The defendant shall bear the tort liability for stopping infringement and compensation for losses.

< /p >

< p > finally, the court ordered the defendant Li and others to immediately stop the infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark and compensate the plaintiff for the corresponding economic losses.

< /p >