-according to the case- China first pencil Co., Ltd. sued 60 supermarkets in Changchun City for trademark infringement

[brief introduction] No. 19710

The trademark is registered by Laofengxiang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Laofengxiang company"), with a special term up to February 28, 2023. The approved commodities for use are class 16: drawing pen, printing pen and sketch pencil. On June 1, 2017, China first pencil Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "first pencil company") signed a trademark exclusive use license contract with Laofengxiang company. Laofengxiang company licensed the trademark to the first pencil company for free in an exclusive way. The license period is until May 31, 2027, and it is agreed that the first pencil company has the right to safeguard its rights and obtain compensation. After market investigation, the first pencil company found that the "Zhonghua" brand pencils sold in 60 supermarkets including XX supermarket in Nanguan District were not pencils produced or authorized by the company, but were commodities with counterfeit trademarks. So it protected the evidence of the sales of the infringing pencils in 60 supermarkets one by one in the form of notarization and evidence collection, and then sued to our hospital, requesting that the supermarkets involved in each case stop selling the sued pencils Infringe pencil and compensate 15000 yuan for the economic loss.

The reply opinions of each supermarket are mainly as follows: 1. The contents recorded in the notarial certificate are not recognized, and it is impossible to determine that the pencil accused of infringement is its sales; 2. Even if the product accused of infringement is sold, the pencil sold by it also has the legal source of purchase, so it should be exempted from the responsibility of economic compensation.

With regard to the legitimate source of purchase of the alleged infringing products, most supermarket operators are unable to provide any purchase documents. Although a small number of operators can provide documents, there are problems such as the documents do not contain the information of the purchased products, and there is no official seal of the supplier.

In court, the court compared the accused infringing pencil sealed by the notary office with the authentic pencil, and there was a significant difference between the two:

1. The genuine pencil does not match the anti-counterfeiting mark of the accused infringing pencil;

2. The appearance of the controlled pencil is rough, the printing on the pencil body is not clear and the printing distance is not standard.

[court decision] whether the court has the right to file a lawsuit against the first pencil company; whether 60 supermarkets actually sell the accused infringing pencil; whether the accused infringing pencil infringes No. 19710“

”Registered trademark exclusive right; the first pencil company's request to order supermarkets to stop selling immediately and compensate 15000 yuan for the loss; whether there is a factual and legal basis; whether the legitimate source defenses proposed by the supermarkets are tenable or not, after the trial, the supermarkets are ordered to stop selling immediately and violate No. 19710

Registered trademark pencil and compensation for the first pencil company's economic losses and reasonable expenses.

[typical significance] this series of cases is a typical case of manufacturers cracking down on counterfeits and safeguarding their rights, which is characterized by clear legal relationship, clear facts of infringement and a large number of cases. In view of the problems found in the trial of this series of cases, the explanation is as follows:

1、 On the validity of notarial certificate. Article 69 of the Civil Procedure Law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that the people's court shall take the legal facts and documents notarized through legal procedures as the basis for determining the facts, unless there is evidence to the contrary sufficient to overturn the notarization certificate.

2、 On the proof of legal source defense. The second paragraph of Article 64 of the Trademark Law of the people '.

Article 79 of the regulations for the implementation of the Trademark Law of the people ' Corresponding to the goods involved in the case; (4) other circumstances that can prove the legal acquisition of the goods involved.

It can be seen that in order to make the defense of exemption established, supermarket operators need to submit complete and standardized evidence in line with the law. This also reminds the supermarket operators again that they should standardize the purchase channels and keep the regular purchase vouchers. The receipt of "white note" can not be regarded as the legitimate source of purchase.