Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)delvpublished in(发表于) 2014/1/23 8:10:09 Two vendors selling fake millet phones and was sentenced to pay 14，000 yuan，
Two vendors selling fake millet phones and was sentenced to pay 14,000 yuan-millet phone, faux-millet, millet-IT information Two vendors selling fake millet phones and was sentenced to pay 14,000 yuan
This morning, Fengtai Court reported that millet technology limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as millet company) the first batch of prosecutions fake millet phone sellers trademark infringement case a verdict, sentences respectively, two individual businesses to stop the infringement and to compensate the millet company economic loss and reasonable expenses amount to more than 14,000 yuan.
Millet company sued said, millet company is No. 8911270, trademark of registered trademark dedicated right people, but found in a market rentals booth operating communications equipment of Shaw Mr, and Lee Mr sales of phone Shang using "MI", identifies, violations its registered trademark dedicated right, market as management party is not do management duties, constitute common infringement, requires court decree above accused stopped infringement, and elimination effects and compensation economic loss 50,000 yuan.
Market, the responsible person, Mr Shaw, Mr LEE's rented stalls outside the market, and market only leased the entire Office management, other premises operated by a company in Beijing, therefore did not agree with the plaintiff's claim.
Shaw, Mr LEE in reply said millet company notarization procedures illegal, without wearing a uniform in the notary process, fails to produce documents and notarial purchase time and certificates issued by the interval is too long. In addition, the millet seeks 50,000 dollars the amount of compensation is too high.
?IT information with map: only with map
Before the Court
Court after trial found that, in connection with the mobile phone logos and No. 8911270 trademarks for use on Visual effects are not significantly different, is a similar trademarks, in connection with the mobile phone an infringing product. Shaw, Mr Li as communications equipment operators of millet company trademarks in connection with certain cognitive, and is clearly marked on the receipt of its sales was "millet" phones.
Court found that millet company asked him to remove, shared lack of tort liability pursuant to market. Court sentences respectively, Mr LEE to stop the infringing Shaw and millet Corporation for compensation of economic loss and reasonable expenditure of more than 14,000 yuan.
两商贩卖山寨小米手机，被判赔偿14000元 - 小米手机,山寨小米,小米 - IT资讯两商贩卖山寨小米手机，被判赔偿14000元
今日上午丰台法院通报称，对小米科技有限责任公司(以下简称小米公司)全国首批起诉假冒小米手机销售者商标侵权案件作出一审判决，分别判决两名个体工商户停止侵权并赔偿小米公司经济损失及合理开支共计一万四千余元。
小米公司起诉称，小米公司是第8911270号商标的注册商标专用权人，但发现在某市场租赁摊位经营通讯器材的肖先生、李先生销售的手机上使用“mi”等标识，侵犯其注册商标专用权，市场作为管理方未尽到管理职责，构成共同侵权，要求法院判令上述被告停止侵权、消除影响并赔偿经济损失5万元。
市场相关负责人称，肖先生、李先生所租赁的摊位不属于市场所有，市场只租了整个一厅进行经营，其他场所由北京某公司经营，因此不同意原告的诉讼请求。
而肖先生、李先生则答辩称，小米公司的公证程序不合法，在公证过程中没有穿着制服，没有出示证件，且公证购买的时间和公证书出具的时间间隔过长。此外，小米公司要求的5万元赔偿数额过高。
▲IT资讯配图：仅作配图
法院审理
法院经审理认为，涉案手机上使用的标识与第8911270号商标视觉效果无明显区别，属近似商标，涉案手机属侵权商品。肖先生、李先生作为通讯器材的经营者，应对小米公司涉案商标有一定认知，且其在收据上明确标注其销售的是“小米”手机。
法院认为小米公司要求被告消除影响，市场承担共同侵权责任依据不足。法院最终分别判决肖先生、李先生停止侵权并赔偿小米公司经济损失及合理开支一万四千余元。
赞