Viewpoint. A brief analysis of the Supreme People's Court's reply on whether the victim of a product infringement case can file a civil lawsuit with the trademark owner of the product as the defendant
Published:
2024-01-02
With regard to the determination of the "producer" in the trademark infringement case in the reply of the Supreme people's Court on whether the victim of the product infringement case can bring a civil action with the trademark owner of the product as the defendant, it should also be combined with the specific circumstances of the case to further increase the evidence of the connection between the infringing company and the accused infringing product. For example, the social security payment certificate of the salesman of the infringing company, the labor contract, the chat record with the offline seller, the transfer record, the statement of the downstream seller, and the comparison between other products produced by the infringing company and the accused infringing products are judged comprehensively.
Brief of the case
The infringing products produced by Company A were seized by its local market supervision and administration bureau at the Ding Business Department. The infringing products were sold to the Ding Business Department by Company A's employee C, and there were chat records and transfer vouchers of business dealings between C and Ding. In addition to the trademark of victim B, the packaging cartons of the infringing products are also printed with the trademark of company a and the complete enterprise name of company a. In the course of the lawsuit, the plaintiff obtained the ID card number information and social security payment of employee C of Company A through the WeChat transfer voucher of C and Ding, which can prove that C is an employee of Company A.
Views of the Court of First Instance
In this case, although the physical products were seized and destroyed by the market supervision and management bureau, the photos of the physical products seized by the bureau on the spot can confirm that the outer packing box of the cylinder liner products involved in the case seized from the defendant d business department is marked with the trademark of the defendant a company and the full name of the company a. the statement and transfer records provided by the operator of the d business department prove to be the products of the company a sold by the employee c, the employee identity information of C and the record of basic old-age insurance rights and interests of enterprise employees in Jiangsu Province inquired with Tenpay Payment Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed that Defendant A Company changed from never recognizing C as an employee of its unit to recognizing it and provided the labor contract signed with it, indicating that the statement of the operator of D's business department and relevant documentary evidence have higher probabilities. Although Defendant A provided that there was an infringement of the company's exclusive right to use its registered trademark in Changsha in 2017, it does not have direct proof in this case, and looking at this case, the company's behavior does not conform to the general experience and common sense of brand enterprises to take corresponding countermeasures against relevant market behaviors in order to maintain their own goodwill. Defendant A Company did not provide sufficient and effective rebuttal evidence. According to the logo on the product involved, it can be determined that Defendant A Company is the producer of the product involved. Defendant A company argued that it was not the opinion of the producer of the cylinder liner involved in the case, and the evidence was insufficient and was not accepted.
Views of the Court of Second Instance
According to the photos of the products seized by the administrative authorities, the outer packaging box of the infringing products involved in the case was marked with the name of the defendant A company and its own trademark, as well as the quality system certification of the products. The text and graphic layout of the outer packing box of the infringing products involved in the case is similar to that of the product outsourcing box submitted and approved by defendant A in the second instance. Combined with the evidence submitted by the operator of the business department of ding, the seller of the infringing products involved, such as the transfer record and chat record to the employee c of the defendant company a, it can be determined that the defendant company a is the producer of the infringing products involved in the case. Defendant Company A did not approve of this, and it claimed that the company's employees and the operator of the Ding Business Department did not represent Company A in conducting business contacts on infringing products. However, according to the social security payment certificate provided by the plaintiff, it was confirmed that C was an employee of his company, and according to the statement of the operator of D's business department and his WeChat chat record with C, it was not a business transaction with C, an employee of the defendant A company. Defendant Company A claimed that there was an outsider who had counterfeited and shoddy products with its trademark and enterprise name, but its claim could not prove that the infringing products involved in the case were produced by others. In summary, Defendant A did not submit evidence to refute the fact that it was a producer of infringing products involved in the case, and did not support its claim.
Relevant Articles
Paragraph 2 of Article 57 of the Trademark Law, without the permission of the trademark registrant, uses a trademark similar to its registered trademark on the same kind of goods, or uses a trademark identical or similar to its registered trademark on similar goods, which is easy to cause confusion; it is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.
Reply of the Supreme People's Court on whether the victim of a product infringement case can file a civil lawsuit with the trademark owner of the product as the defendant: any enterprise or individual that reflects his name, name, trademark or other identifiable mark on the product, indicating that he is the manufacturer of the product, belongs to the "producer".
Practical thinking
With regard to the determination of the "producer" in the trademark infringement case in the reply of the Supreme people's Court on whether the victim of the product infringement case can bring a civil action with the trademark owner of the product as the defendant, it should also be combined with the specific circumstances of the case to further increase the evidence of the connection between the infringing company and the accused infringing product. For example, the social security payment certificate of the salesman of the infringing company, the labor contract, the chat record with the offline seller, the transfer record, the statement of the downstream seller, and the comparison between other products produced by the infringing company and the accused infringing products are judged comprehensively.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
