Unregistered packaging marks in the three-year fiv

2022-07-29
  • Detail

The unregistered packaging marks in the three-year and five-year trial of the infringement case are also protected

a Zaoyang enterprise sued the infringing enterprise for the infringing use of unregistered product names and special packaging bags. After three years and five-year trial, the dust was finally settled. On November 25, it was learned from the people's Court of Zaoyang City, Hubei province that Zaoyang specialty beverage factory was compensated 15000 yuan for economic losses

On march28,1999, Zaoyang specialty beverage factory signed an agreement with Zaoyang Huachang color plastic printing factory. Huachang factory processed and printed 200000 "good rabbit" and "northeast tiger" packaging bags. The beverage factory then received 50000 packaging bags, and others were not received due to unqualified quality

On May 22nd, 2000, Huachang factory sold 70000 unqualified packaging bags to an individual plasticizing factory in Suizhou at a waste price of 500 yuan/ton, and Zaoyang Xuebao Food Co., Ltd. purchased the above packaging bags from the factory. To implement the development strategy of high efficiency and green plastic granulator, from one year to 2002, Xuebao company used the "good rabbit" and "northeast tiger" packaging bags to pack the ice cream produced by the company, and sold them at the price of 0.06 yuan per piece. On may25,2002, according to reports from the masses, the industrial and commercial department found 33000 unused "good rabbit" and "northeast tiger" packaging bags from Xuebao company, with 1000 finished ice cream in stock

in September, 2002, the beverage factory took Xuebao company to court on the ground that the false use of its factory name and address to produce fake and inferior products constituted infringement. It also asked to stop the infringement, apologize and compensate 450000 yuan for the loss

In November, 2003, Zaoyang Beicheng court ruled that Xuebao company should compensate the beverage factory for the loss of 32000 yuan. In may2004, according to the protest of Zaoyang Procuratorate, it was decided to retry the case. In August of that year, the court made a decision to uphold the original judgment after the trial. Xuebao disagreed and appealed. Xiangfan intermediate people's court made a ruling after the trial and remanded it for retrial

the court held that business operators should abide by the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, good faith and generally accepted business ethics in market transactions. The drink and use products factory is an enterprise registered in accordance with the law. Although the "good rabbit" and "northeast tiger" packaging labels produced by the factory are not registered, the name and address of the factory are clearly marked on the packaging, which is a special product of the drink factory. After purchasing the package from other places, Xuebao company used the package to produce and sell cold drink products at a low price without the permission of the printing factory, which made people mistakenly believe that it was the product of others. This behavior violated the legitimate competition rules and order, infringed on the exclusive right to package of the beverage factory, and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the industrial development foundation of the beverage factory

considering that neither party can submit relevant evidence to prove their statements about profits, the number of ice cream sold by the defendant and the illegal act of punishing the defendant for unfair competition, the court decided that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the loss of 13000 yuan, and compensate the beverage factory for the loss of 2000 yuan of agency fee paid to investigate the infringement of Xuebao company

after the retrial decision was made in June this year, the beverage factory refused and appealed. In view of the fact that the appellant did not pay the case acceptance fee to the court of second instance within the prescribed time limit, nor did he file an application for postponement of payment, the Xiangfan intermediate people's court recently made a ruling, and the case was handled as if the Appellant had automatically withdrawn his appeal

information source: legal system

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI