Trademark Infringement Dispute Case Represented by Long An Law Firm, Shanghai Offices was Selected as the Reference Case of Shanghai High People’s Court

隆安上海代理的侵害商标权纠纷案入选上海高院参考性案例
隆安上海代理的侵害商标权纠纷案入选上海高院参考性案例
Recently, after discussion and decision at the 14th meeting of the adjudicative committee of Shanghai High People’s Court in 2020, seven cases were published as the third batch reference cases of Shanghai High People’s Court in 2020 for the reference of courts throughout the city to judge similar cases.
 
The trademark infringement dispute case represented by the partners of Shanghai Offices, Ye, Guohua and Tao, Peihua, SAIC Volkswagen Co., Ltd. v. Shen and Xu was selected as the No. 100 reference case in the 2020 third batch reference cases of Shanghai High People’s Court.
 
The Adjudicative Committee of Shanghai High People’s Court held the main points of the case are as follows:  On the issue of whether there is civil liability, the part of the criminal failure to confirm or the attempt to confirm cannot exclude the infringer from assuming civil liability; On the issue of the magnitude of civil liability, the identification of the principal and accessary in a criminal judgment does not inevitably mean that there is a difference in civil liability; On the issue of the amount of civil compensation, the amount of civil compensation cannot simply be based on the amount of the crime.
 
Basic information of the case:
On April 24, 2018, the People’s Court of Cixi City, Zhejiang Province made the (2017) ZHE0282 first criminal trial No. 666 criminal judgment on Shen and Xu for committing the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and found that:

Shen and Xu, without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark, SAIC Volkswagen Co., Ltd, use the same trademark on the same commodity, and counterfeit more than two registered trademarks. The circumstances are particularly serious, their acts have constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark. In the joint crime, Shen plays the main role and is the principal offender; Xu plays the secondary role and is the accessory offender. According to the actual situation of this case, combined with the criminal circumstances and repentance performance of Shen and Xu, probation can be applied according to law.

The People’s Court of Cixi City sentenced Shen to crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, sentenced to three years in prison, suspended for five years, and fined 320,000 yuan; Xu committed the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark and was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for one year, and fined 60,000 yuan.

On March 21, 2019, SAIC Volkswagen filed a lawsuit with the People’s Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai, claiming that: Shen and Xu were seized by the Public Security Organs for fraudulently using the airbag of Volkswagen and Skoda trademark, and were sentenced to criminal conviction for the huge amount. Shen and Xu constitute trademark infringement, so it filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting Shen and Xu to jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable rights maintenance costs.

 
Result of the judgment:
The People’s Court of Yangpu District made (2019) HU0110 first civil trial No. 6040 civil judgment on October 18, 2019, which judged: the defendants Shen and Xu jointly compensate the plaintiff SAIC Volkswagen Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement within ten days from the effective date of this judgment, fully supporting the plaintiff’s request for compensation.

After the judgment of the trial of first instance, the defendant Shen filed an appeal. As the defendant Shen applied for withdrawal of the appeal in the trial of second instance, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued a civil ruling (2020) Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 90 on May 11, 2020, which approved the withdrawal of the appeal.

Reason of the judgment:
The effective judgment of the court held that Shen and Xu used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same commodity without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark, which constituted trademark infringement and should bear the corresponding civil liability. The main reasons are as follows:

1. The part of the criminal failure to confirm or the attempt to confirm cannot exclude the infringer from assuming civil liability;
2. The identification of the principal and accessary in a criminal judgment does not inevitably mean that there is a difference in civil liability;
3. The amount of civil compensation cannot simply be based on the amount of the crime.

 
Reference cases condense the wisdom of judges and lawyers, which have exemplary significance for the uniform application of the law and social orientation, and are important references for the judicial work of similar cases. Article 9 of the Several Opinions on Standardizing the Judicial Business Relationship between the High and Lower People’s Courts issued by the Supreme People’s Court in December 2010 stipulates that the high people’s courts can guide the judicial work of the people’s courts and special people’s courts at all levels in their jurisdictions by publishing reference cases. Therefore, the high people’s courts attach great importance to guiding the judicial work of the people’s courts and special people’s courts at all levels in their jurisdictions by publishing reference cases.
 

隆安上海代理的侵害商标权纠纷案入选上海高院参考性案例

隆安上海代理的侵害商标权纠纷案入选上海高院参考性案例

原文始发于微信公众号(隆安律师事务所):隆安上海代理的侵害商标权纠纷案入选上海高院参考性案例