The Owner Of A Trademark Has Been Infringed Without Permission From The Trademark Registrant.

Without permission of the trademark registrant, the online shop sells the "YISHION" clothing online without authorization, and is prosecuted by the registrant to the court.

Recently, the second intermediate people's Court of Tianjin ordered the shop operators to stop selling the clothing that infringed the plaintiff's trademark, and to compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses and a reasonable expenditure of 12 thousand yuan.

The plaintiff, Guo, said in the complaint that he was a registered owner of the trademark "YISHION" and "YISHion".

Recently, the defendant, Huang, opened a YISHION shop on the Taobao website with relevant network names. Without the permission of the plaintiff, he sold the garments with "YISHION" and "YISHion" trademarks without authorization, and highlighted the use of "YISHION" spokesmen and other promotional pictures in the online shop, so that ordinary consumers mistakenly assumed that the shop was opened or authorized by the plaintiff and infringed the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark.

"YISHION" is a well-known trademark recognized by the State Administration for Industry and commerce. The defendant's behavior has caused great damage to the plaintiff's trademark reputation.

The plaintiff entrusted agent Zhai Xiaojian said that China's trademark law stipulates that the use of the same trademark or similar trademark on the same commodity or similar commodity without the permission of the trademark registrant is a violation of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark, so the defendant's conduct infringes the exclusive right of the plaintiff.

China's tort liability law stipulates that the way to undertake tort liability is to stop infringement and compensate for losses. Therefore, it is requested that the court order the defendant to stop immediately infringing on YISHION's unauthorized sale of "YISHION" and "YISHion" trademark clothing, and delete all of them.

"Propaganda pictures", the plaintiff compensation for economic losses of more than 52 yuan.

Defendant Huang did not appear in court to participate in the proceedings. His written reply was that although the plaintiff verified the name and identity card number of the registrant in line with the defendant, the defendant did not actually open the shop, nor did he sell the goods involved in the case, so he did not agree with the plaintiff's claim.

During the trial, the judge went to the court.

Network Limited and Alipay (China) Network Technology Co., Ltd. and related banks conducted an investigation to confirm that the real name of the members of the online shop is Hwang, Alipay account and bank binding account is also Hwang.

The shop has more than 500 sales records of "YISHION" trademark clothing from 2012 to 2013.

With regard to the question of whether the defendant sells the "YISHION" trademark clothing whether it constitutes a tort, the court finds that the defendant still refuses to appear in court after serving a summons in accordance with the law, and should be regarded as giving up the right to plead against the plaintiff.

Although the defendant stated after the court that it did not open

Unsold clothing, but according to online shop registrants, Alipay accounts, bank card names and paction records and other evidence, it is sufficient to prove the fact that the defendant opened the shop and sold the "YISHION" trademark clothing, and the defendant could not provide rebuttal evidence, so it should be identified.

According to the existing evidence, it has been proved that the defendant opened an online shop and sold clothes that were suspected of infringing on the trademark of YISHION. However, the defendant did not make any plea nor did he submit evidence for the infringement of the clothing sold and whether he had a legitimate source. Therefore, the defendant's YISHION trademark clothing should be identified as infringing product.

About the plaintiff's economic loss and reasonable expenditure of over 52 yuan, because the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to confirm its losses and the defendant's profits, the court decided, according to the time and scale of the defendant's sale, that it should be 12 thousand yuan as appropriate.