Why? OPPLE lighting claims to 10000 OPPLE 2 million 500 thousand

According to the Kunming Daily reported that buy a house decoration, living life, lighting is an essential part of life. When people walk into the lighting market, see with OPPLE, OPPLE lighting, OPPLE, and other words of lighting products, it is inevitable that there will be doubt that they are in the end what is the relationship? Because Jiaxing 10000 OPPLE Electrical Appliance Co., the production of products with the "OPPLE", OPPLE Lighting Co., 000 OPPLE v. court, asked thousands of OPPLE stop using the "OPPLE" brand, and claims 2 million 500 thousand yuan. Yesterday, the Kunming intermediate people's court heard the case.

Case sharing OPPLE cited disputes

In 1999, OPPLE company "OPPLE" as the name of the company and product brand, after nearly 20 years of development, the company has OPPLE "OPPLE" opple "OPPLE opple and figure" and more than 80 pieces of trademark, including OPPLE opple and map "trademark in September 3, 2007 by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Bureau as well-known trademarks, products and services by many consumers and love.

"In March 1, 2012, Jiaxing OPPLE Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. to use the 'OPPLE' was registered, and began to produce similar products, and its products use the 'OPPLE' word for sale. The plaintiff said OPPLE lighting, 000 OPPLE behavior makes public confusion, weaken and undermine the "OPPLE" trademark, well-known trademark infringement and unfair competition, and Guandu District goodmoral lighting sales department that "OPPLE" as A Well-Known Trademark in China still for sale, also constitute infringement.

The original defendant each one sticks to his argument

According to OPPLE lighting demands, 000 OPPLE and goodmoral lighting attorney argued: goodmoral lighting although only individual industrial and commercial households, but the procedure is complete, the taxes and a lot of money into the purchase of products regardless of the "OPPLE" or "OPPLE 000" are the formal and legitimate business products mark right. 000 OPPLE has legally registered trademark of the products, and the plaintiff's trademark and trademark dispute has the obvious difference, there is no case of confusion and not easy to distinguish, does not exist with the plaintiff's trademark name of illegal sales and profit situation, and therefore should not be liable for damages, should not change the company name.

In this regard, OPPLE lighting lawyers said that in January this year, the Beijing high court was the final verdict of the revocation of the "OPPLE 000 000 OPPLE" trademark, so the court verdict has identified the defendant's infringement of trademark registration, although legal, but the infringement has become a reality.

000 OPPLE lawyers believe that the case does not belong to the trademark infringement, but the conflict of interests, the positions of each trademark have received national trademark registration license, there is no violation of the question of who, so the plaintiff OPPLE's appeal is not reasonable. Beijing High Court ruled that the revocation of the trademark, the OPPLE also need time to rectify the buffer, otherwise it will cause economic losses to the operator, accordingly, the court dismissed the request.

"Trademark is a sign to distinguish the source of different goods or services, the name of the enterprise is to distinguish between different market players, and the brand name is the core component of the enterprise name. The trial judge, the name and trademarks are recognized marks, registered trademarks and legal registration of the right to use the registered trademark generated by the name of the enterprise name (name) has legitimacy. And because of licensing of intellectual property review of different departments, the intellectual property itself is invisible, repeatable, non damaging characteristics, which leads to the owner of the trademark and other intellectual property rights in the exercise of the right conflict. When the two rights conflict occurs, the principle of respecting the prior rights and maintaining fair competition should be treated as the principle.

The case is not in court for sentencing.

For more information about LED, please click on China LED network or pay attention to WeChat public account (cnledw2013).