|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Twelfth Group of Guiding Cases | | 最高人民法院关于发布第12批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 172 [2016] of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法〔2016〕172号） |
| The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, the case of Ningbo Branch of Wenzhou Bank Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Province Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. et al. regarding dispute over a financial loan contract and other three cases (Guiding Cases No. 57-60) are hereby issued as the twelfth group of guiding cases for references in trial of similar cases. | | 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定，现将温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行诉浙江创菱电器有限公司等金融借款合同纠纷案等四个案例（指导案例57-60号），作为第12批指导性案例发布，供在审判类似案件时参照。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| May 30, 2016 | | 2016年5月30日 |
| Guiding Case No. 57 | | 指导案例57号 |
Ningbo Branch of Wenzhou Bank Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. et al.
(Case concerning dispute over a financial loan contract) | | 温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行诉浙江创菱电器有限公司等金融借款合同纠纷案 |
| (Issued on May 20, 2016 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2016年5月20日发布） |
| Keywords: civil; financial loan contract; maximum guarantee | | 关键词 民事/金融借款合同/最高额担保 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| Where there are multiple contracts on the maximum guarantee and some contracts on the maximum guarantee are selectively listed in the specific loan contract, if debts are incurred during the period of financial settlement as agreed upon in the contracts on the maximum guarantee and the creditor does not expressly indicate that it will waive the guarantee rights, the guarantor in the contract on the maximum guarantee that is not listed shall also assume the guarantee liability within the quota of the maximum guarantee. | | 在有数份最高额担保合同情形下，具体贷款合同中选择性列明部分最高额担保合同，如债务发生在最高额担保合同约定的决算期内，且债权人未明示放弃担保权利，未列明的最高额担保合同的担保人也应当在最高债权限额内承担担保责任。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Article 14 of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国担保法》第14条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Plaintiff Ningbo Branch of Jiangsu Province Wenzhou Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wenzhou Bank”) alleged that: It concluded the “contracts on the maximum guarantee” separately with defendants Ningbo Tingwei Electric Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tingwei Electric Company”), Cen Jianfeng, and Ningbo Sanhao Mold Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanhao Mold Company”), which stipulated that the three defendants provided the joint and several liability guarantee for the loan of Zhejiang Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chuangling Electric Appliance Company”) within a given period and the maximum quota. After borrowing a loan from Wenzhou Bank, Chuangling Electric Appliance Company failed to repay partial loan on schedule. Therefore, Wenzhou Bank requested the court to order that Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should repay it the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan and pay the interest, default interest, and lawyers' fees; and Cen Jianfeng, Sanhao Mold Company, and Tingwei Electric Company should assume the joint and several liability guarantee for the aforesaid debts. | | 原告浙江省温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行（以下简称温州银行）诉称：其与被告宁波婷微电子科技有限公司（以下简称婷微电子公司）、岑建锋、宁波三好塑模制造有限公司（以下简称三好塑模公司）分别签订了“最高额保证合同”，约定三被告为浙江创菱电器有限公司（以下简称创菱电器公司）一定时期和最高额度内借款，提供连带责任担保。创菱电器公司从温州银行借款后，不能按期归还部分贷款，故诉请判令被告创菱电器公司归还原告借款本金250万元，支付利息、罚息和律师费用；岑建锋、三好塑模公司、婷微电子公司对上述债务承担连带保证责任。 |
| Defendants Chuangling Electric Appliance Company and Cen Jianfeng did not submit any defense. | | 被告创菱电器公司、岑建锋未作答辩。 |
| Defendant Sanhao Mold Company contended that: Plaintiff's claim for the repayment of lawyers' expenses should not be upheld. | | 被告三好塑模公司辩称：原告诉请的律师费不应支持。 |
| Defendant Tingwei Electric Company contended that: The contract on the maximum guarantee it concluded with Wenzhou Bank was not listed in guarantee contracts as agreed upon in the loan contract. Therefore, it should not assume the guarantee liability. | | 被告婷微电子公司辩称：其与温州银行签订的最高额保证合同，并未被列入借款合同所约定的担保合同范围，故其不应承担保证责任。 |
| Upon trial, the court found that: On September 10, 2010, Wenzhou Bank concluded the contracts on the maximum guarantee (No. 01003 and No. 01004 [2010], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 separately with Tingwei Electric Company and Cen Jianfeng, which stipulated that Tingwei Electric Company and Cen Jianfeng voluntarily provided joint and several liability guarantee for Chuangling Electric Appliance Company's debt principal whose remaining balance does not exceed 11 million yuan incurred from September 10, 2010 to October 18, 2011, the interest thereof, and the default interest. | | 法院经审理查明：2010年9月10日，温州银行与婷微电子公司、岑建锋分别签订了编号为温银9022010年高保字01003号、01004号的最高额保证合同，约定婷微电子公司、岑建锋自愿为创菱电器公司在2010年9月10日至2011年10月18日期间发生的余额不超过1100万元的债务本金及利息、罚息等提供连带责任保证担保。 |
| On September 10, 2011, Wenzhou Bank concluded the contracts on the maximum guarantee (No. 00808 and No. 00809 [2011], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 separately with Cen Jianfeng and Sanhao Mold Company, which stipulated that Cen Jianfeng and Sanhao Mold Company voluntarily provided joint and several liability guarantee for Chuangling Electric Appliance Company's debt principal whose remaining balance does not exceed 5.5 million yuan incurred from September 10, 2010 to October 18, 2011, the interest thereof, and the default interest. | | 2011年10月12日，温州银行与岑建锋、三好塑模公司分别签署了编号为温银9022011年高保字00808号、00809号最高额保证合同，岑建锋、三好塑模公司自愿为创菱电器公司在2010年9月10日至2011年10月18日期间发生的余额不超过550万元的债务本金及利息、罚息等提供连带责任保证担保。 |
| On October 14, 2011, Wenzhou Bank concluded a loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 with Chuangling Electric Appliance Company, which stipulated that Wenzhou Bank issued a loan of 5 million yuan to Chuangling Electric Appliance Company with the due date of October 13, 2012 and the numberings of the contracts on the maximum guarantee were (No. 00808 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) and (No. 00809 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902. After the loan was issued, Chuangling Electric Appliance Company repaid the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan on August 6, 2012 and Tingwei Electric Company paid the loan interests of 31,115.3 yuan, 53,693.71 yuan, and 21,312.59 yuan successively on June 29, October 31, and November 30, 2012. Up to April 24, 2013, Chuangling Electric Appliance Company still owed the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan and the interest of 141,509.01 yuan. It was also found that in order to realize the creditor's rights in this case, Wenzhou Bank paid the lawyers' fees of 95,200 yuan. | | 2011年10月14日，温州银行与创菱电器公司签署了编号为温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同，约定温州银行向创菱电器公司发放贷款500万元，到期日为2012年10月13日，并列明担保合同编号分别为温银9022011年高保字00808号、00809号。贷款发放后，创菱电器公司于2012年8月6日归还了借款本金250万元，婷微电子公司于2012年6月29日、10月31日、11月30日先后支付了贷款利息31115.3元、53693.71元、21312.59元。截至2013年4月24日，创菱电器公司尚欠借款本金250万元、利息141509.01元。另查明，温州银行为实现本案债权而发生律师费用95200元。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On December 12, 2013, the People's Court of Jiangdong District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 1261 [2013], First, Commercial Division, Jiangdong District, Ningbo) that: (1) Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, repay Wenzhou Bank the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan and pay the interest of 141,509.01 yuan and the interest calculated from April 25, 2013 to the date of performance as determined in the judgment in accordance with the stipulations of the loan contract; (2) Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, compensate Wenzhou Bank 95,200 yuan for the lawyers' fees paid by Wenzhou Bank to realize its creditor's rights; (3) Cen Jianfeng, Sanhao Mold Company, and Tingwei Electric Company should assume the joint and several liability for the repayment of the aforesaid debts as prescribed in items (1) and (2) and after assuming the guarantee liability, they had the right to recover compensation from Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. After this judgment was pronounced, Tingwei Electric Company appealed on the ground that it was not listed in the loan contract and therefore it should not assume the guarantee liability. On May 14, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 369 [2014], Final, Commercial Division, Ningbo) that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed. | | 浙江省宁波市江东区人民法院于2013年12月12日作出（2013）甬东商初字第1261号民事判决：一、创菱电器公司于本判决生效之日起十日内归还温州银行借款本金250万元，支付利息141509.01元，并支付自2013年4月25日起至本判决确定的履行之日止按借款合同约定计算的利息、罚息；二、创菱电器公司于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿温州银行为实现债权而发生的律师费用95200元；三、岑建锋、三好塑模公司、婷微电子公司对上述第一、二项款项承担连带清偿责任，其承担保证责任后，有权向创菱电器公司追偿。宣判后，婷微电子公司以其未被列入借款合同，不应承担保证责任为由，提起上诉。浙江省宁波市中级人民法院于2014年5月14日作出（2014）浙甬商终字第369号民事判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court held that: The loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Chuangling Electric Appliance Company was legal and valid. After Wenzhou Bank issued the loan, Chuangling Company failed to repay the principal and interest on schedule and its acts have constituted breach of contract. Plaintiff Wenzhou Bank's claims that Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should repay the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan, pay the interest and default interest as calculated in accordance with the stipulations of the loan contract, and compensate plaintiff 95,200 yuan for its lawyers' fees to realize the creditor's rights should be upheld. Since Cen Jianfeng and Sanhao Mold Company voluntarily provided the maximum guarantee for the aforesaid debts, they should assume the joint and several compensation liability. After having assumed the guarantee liability, they had the right to recover compensation from Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. | | 法院生效裁判认为：温州银行与创菱电器公司之间签订的编号为温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同合法有效，温州银行发放贷款后，创菱电器公司未按约还本付息，已经构成违约。原告要求创菱电器公司归还贷款本金250万元，支付按合同约定方式计算的利息、罚息，并支付原告为实现债权而发生的律师费95200元，应予支持。岑建锋、三好塑模公司自愿为上述债务提供最高额保证担保，应承担连带清偿责任，其承担保证责任后，有权向创菱电器公司追偿。 |
| The issue of this case was whether Tingwei Electric Company should assume the guarantee liability for debts under the loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902, considering that the contract on the maximum guarantee (No. 01003 [2010], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 concluded between Tingwei Electric Company and Wenzhou Bank was not listed in the guarantee contracts as stipulated in the loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902. Upon trial, the court held that Tingwei Electric Company should assume the guarantee liability on the following grounds: First, the waiver of civil rights can be legally effective only after it is expressly indicated. The implied intention can be legally effective under circumstances with specific legal provisions and special agreements between the parties. It is inappropriate to presume that a party waives its rights under circumstances without specific agreements or special legal provisions. In this case, although the contract on the maximum guarantee concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Tingwei Electric Company was not listed in the loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Chuangling Electric Appliance Company, plaintiff Wenzhou Bank did not expressly indicate that it waived the maximum guarantee provided by Tingwei Electric Company. Therefore, Tingwei Company was still the guarantor of the maximum guarantee in the disputed loan contract. Second, the time points of the conclusion of the disputed loan contract and the issuance of the loan were all within the period of final settlement as stipulated in the contract on the maximum guarantee (No. 01003 [2010], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 (from September 10, 2010 to October 18, 2011). Wenzhou Bank's claim for creditor's rights against Tingwei Electric Company did not exceed the guarantee period as stipulated in the contract. Therefore, Tingwei Electric Company should, within the quota of its promised maximum guarantee, assume the joint and several guarantee liability for the debts of Chuangling Electric Appliance Company owed to Wenzhou Bank. Third, the contract on the maximum guarantee is the direct basis for the creditor and guarantor to agree upon the legal relation of guarantee and the corresponding rights and obligations. The content of a collateral contract cannot be replaced by that of the principal contract. In this case, Wenzhou Bank and Tingwei Electric Company concluded a contract on the maximum guarantee. The guarantee rights and obligations of both parties should be governed by the contract and was not subject to the restraint or alternation of the non-natural person loan contract concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. Fourth, Tingwei Electric Company once repaid loan interests in June, October, and November of 2012 and its act was also the representation of Tingwei Electric Company's performance of guarantee liability for the loan involved. In conclusion, Tingwei Electric Company should assume the joint and several liability for the repayment of the aforesaid debts of Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. After having assumed the guarantee liability, Tingwei Electric Company had the right to recover compensation from Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. | | 本案的争议焦点为，婷微电子公司签订的温银9022010年高保字01003号最高额保证合同未被选择列入温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同所约定的担保合同范围，婷微电子公司是否应当对温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同项下债务承担保证责任。对此，法院经审理认为，婷微电子公司应当承担保证责任。理由如下：第一，民事权利的放弃必须采取明示的意思表示才能发生法律效力，默示的意思表示只有在法律有明确规定及当事人有特别约定的情况下才能发生法律效力，不宜在无明确约定或者法律无特别规定的情况下，推定当事人对权利进行放弃。具体到本案，温州银行与创菱电器公司签订的温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同虽未将婷微电子公司签订的最高额保证合同列入，但原告未以明示方式放弃婷微电子公司提供的最高额保证，故婷微电子公司仍是该诉争借款合同的最高额保证人。第二，本案诉争借款合同签订时间及贷款发放时间均在婷微电子公司签订的编号温银9022010年高保字01003号最高额保证合同约定的决算期内（2010年9月10日至2011年10月18日），温州银行向婷微电子公司主张权利并未超过合同约定的保证期间，故婷微电子公司应依约在其承诺的最高债权限额内为创菱电器公司对温州银行的欠债承担连带保证责任。第三，最高额担保合同是债权人和担保人之间约定担保法律关系和相关权利义务关系的直接合同依据，不能以主合同内容取代从合同的内容。具体到本案，温州银行与婷微电子公司签订了最高额保证合同，双方的担保权利义务应以该合同为准，不受温州银行与创菱电器公司之间签订的温州银行非自然人借款合同约束或变更。第四，婷微电子公司曾于2012年6月、10月、11月三次归还过本案借款利息，上述行为也是婷微电子公司对本案借款履行保证责任的行为表征。综上，婷微电子公司应对创菱电器公司的上述债务承担连带清偿责任，其承担保证责任后，有权向创菱电器公司追偿。 |
| (Judges of the effective judgment: Zhao Wenjun, Xu Mengmeng, and Mao Jiao) | | （生效裁判审判人员：赵文君、徐梦梦、毛姣） |
| Guiding Case No. 58 | | 指导案例58号 |
Chengdu Tongdefu Hechuan Peach Slices Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd. and Yu Xiaohua
(Case concerning dispute over infringement upon trademark right and unfair competition) | | 成都同德福合川桃片有限公司诉重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司、余晓华侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案 |
| (Issued on May 20, 2016 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2016年5月20日发布） |
| Keywords: civil; infringement upon trademark right; unfair competition; time-honored brand; false publicity | | 关键词 民事/侵害商标权/不正当竞争/老字号/虚假宣传 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| 1. Where an individual or enterprise without any historical origin of a “time-honored brand” registers the “time-honored brand” or trade name similar thereto as a trademark and publicizes his or its products by using the history of the “time-honored brand,” it shall be determined as false publicity and constitute unfair competition. | | 1.与“老字号”无历史渊源的个人或企业将“老字号”或与其近似的字号注册为商标后，以“老字号”的历史进行宣传的，应认定为虚假宣传，构成不正当竞争。 |
| 2. Where an individual or enterprise with historical origin of a “time-honored brand” registers the “time-honored brand” as the trade name or enterprise name of an individual industrial and commercial household under the premise of not violating the principle of good faith, and the individual or enterprise does not cause any confusing or highlight the use of such trade name, it does not constitute unfair competition or infringement upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. | | 2.与“老字号”具有历史渊源的个人或企业在未违反诚实信用原则的前提下，将“老字号”注册为个体工商户字号或企业名称，未引人误认且未突出使用该字号的，不构成不正当竞争或侵犯注册商标专用权。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Item (7) of Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国商标法》第57条第7项 |
| Articles 2 and 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第2条、第9条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) Chengdu Tongdefu Hechuan Peach Slices Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chengdu Tongdefu Company”) alleged that: It was the owner of trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device.” The individual industrial and commercial household and Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chongqing Tongdefu Company”) successively established by Yu Xiaohua highlighted “Tongdefu” in the trade name and the outer packaging of peach slices they produced, which has infringed upon plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” and constituted unfair competition. Therefore, plaintiff requested the court to order that Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua should cease the use and cancel the enterprise name with the trade name “Tongdefu”; cease the infringement upon plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark, extend a formal apology in the newspaper, eliminate the adverse effects, and compensate plaintiff 500,000 yuan for its economic and business reputation losses and other reasonable expenses of 5,066.4 yuan. | | 原告（反诉被告）成都同德福合川桃片食品有限公司（以下简称成都同德福公司）诉称，成都同德福公司为“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标权人，余晓华先后成立的个体工商户和重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司（以下简称重庆同德福公司），在其字号及生产的桃片外包装上突出使用了“同德福”，侵害了原告享有的“同德福TONGDEFU及图”注册商标专用权并构成不正当竞争。请求法院判令重庆同德福公司、余晓华停止使用并注销含有“同德福”字号的企业名称；停止侵犯原告商标专用权的行为，登报赔礼道歉、消除影响，赔偿原告经济、商誉损失50万元及合理开支5066.4元。 |
| Defendants (plaintiffs in the counterclaim) Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua co-responded in the defense and counterclaimed that the predecessor of Chongqing Tongdefu Company was Tongdefu Fast Shop originated in 1898. Although Tongdefu Fast Shop ceased production due to public-private partnership, the pass-on of the unique technique from generation to generation was not interrupted. Yu Xiaohua, the fourth-generation successor, inherited the ancestral property, successively registered an individual industrial and commercial household and a company, and used the enterprise name and trade name in a standardized manner. The registration of Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua was bona fide and did not constitute infringement. Chengdu Tongdefu Company had no direct historical origin with the time-honored brand “Tongdefu,” but it made associated publicity of the trademark “Tongdefu” and the trade name “Tongdefu,” which was false publicity. In addition, Chengdu Tongdefu Company used “Tongdefu,” name of a famous commodity without approval, which constituted unfair competition. Therefore, defendants requested the court to order that Chengdu Tongdefu Company should cease the false publicity and extend a formal apology in a national newspaper to eliminate adverse effects; and cease infringement upon “Tongdefu,” the specific name of a famous commodity. | | 被告（反诉原告）重庆同德福公司、余晓华共同答辩并反诉称，重庆同德福公司的前身为始创于1898年的同德福斋铺，虽然同德福斋铺因公私合营而停止生产，但未中断独特技艺的代代相传。“同德福”第四代传人余晓华继承祖业先后注册了个体工商户和公司，规范使用其企业名称及字号，重庆同德福公司、余晓华的注册行为是善意的，不构成侵权。成都同德福公司与老字号“同德福”并没有直接的历史渊源，但其将“同德福”商标与老字号“同德福”进行关联的宣传，属于虚假宣传。而且，成都同德福公司擅自使用“同德福”知名商品名称，构成不正当竞争。请求法院判令成都同德福公司停止虚假宣传，在全国性报纸上登报消除影响；停止对“同德福”知名商品特有名称的侵权行为。 |
| Upon trial, the court found that: During the period from 1916 to 1956, Tongdefu Fast Shop established in 1898 was successively operated by three generations represented by Yu Hongchun, Yu Fuguang, and Yu Yongzuo. During the period from the 1920s to 1950s, the trade name “Tongdefu” enjoyed high popularity. In 1956, due to public-private partnership, the business operations of Tongdefu Fast Shop were ceased. In 1988, upon approval, Wenjiang Branch of Hechuan City Peach Slices Factory registered the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” (No. 1215206), with the approved use scope of Category 30, namely, pastries, peach slices (pastries), cocoa products, and man-made coffee. On November 7, 2000, upon approval, the name of the registrant of the aforesaid trademark was altered to Chengdu Tongdefu Company. On the outer packaging of multiple products of Chengdu Tongdefu Company, such characters as “time-honored brand” and “century-old brand” and introduction to peach slices with the brand “Tongdefu”, namely, “Created during the period of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty (or 1840), peach slices with the brand ‘Tongdefu' enjoy a long history and culture.” On the page of “Company Profile” of Chengdu Tongdefu Company's website, the history of Tongdefu Fast Shop in the Collection of Hechuan Historical Accounts of Past Events (Volume 2) was used in the publicity of Hechuan peach slices with the brand “Tongdefu”. | | 法院经审理查明：开业于1898年的同德福斋铺，在1916年至1956年期间，先后由余鸿春、余复光、余永祚三代人经营。在20世纪20年代至50年代期间，“同德福”商号享有较高知名度。1956年，由于公私合营，同德福斋铺停止经营。1998年，合川市桃片厂温江分厂获准注册了第1215206号“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标，核定使用范围为第30类，即糕点、桃片（糕点）、可可产品、人造咖啡。2000年11月7日，前述商标的注册人名义经核准变更为成都同德福公司。成都同德福公司的多种产品外包装使用了“老字号”“百年老牌”字样、“‘同德福牌'桃片简介：‘同德福牌'桃片创制于清乾隆年间（或1840年），有着悠久的历史文化”等字样。成都同德福公司网站中“公司简介”页面将《合川文史资料选辑（第二辑）》中关于同德福斋铺的历史用于其“同德福”牌合川桃片的宣传。 |
On January 4, 2002, Yu Xiaohua, son of Yu Yongzuo, registered an individual industrial and commercial household with the trade name of Hechuan City Time-honored Brand Tongdefu Peach Slices Factory and the business scope of self-production and marketing of peach slices and snacks. In 2007, its trade name was altered to Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Factory and was later cancelled. On May 6, 2011, Chongqing Tongdefu Company was formed with Yu Xiaohua as the legal representative and the business scope of production of pastries (baked pastries and prepared powder pastries). The Company was the owner of the exclusive right to use the registered graphic trademarks “Yu Fuguang 1898” (No. 6626473) and “Yu Xiaohua” (No. 7587928). The outer packaging of multiple products of Chongqing Tongdefu Company used such information on the introduction to the history and awards of Tongdefu Fast Shop that “Originated in the 23rd year of the period of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty (1898), the time-honored brand “Tongdefu” has a long history.” For some products, it was indicated behind such information that “the aforesaid characters are excerpted from the Hechuan County Annals”; “Ode to Tongdefu: Tongdefu is renowned in Hechuan. Originated one century ago, its techniques of producing peach slices are passed down by four generations. With high quality and competitive price, Tongdefu honors integrity, no-bullying, fair trade, and warm services”; and such characters as “Hechuan Peach Slices” and “Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd.”
．．．．．． | | 2002年1月4日，余永祚之子余晓华注册个体工商户，字号名称为合川市老字号同德福桃片厂，经营范围为桃片、小食品自产自销。2007年，其字号名称变更为重庆市合川区同德福桃片厂，后注销。2011年5月6日，重庆同德福公司成立，法定代表人为余晓华，经营范围为糕点（烘烤类糕点、熟粉类糕点）生产，该公司是第6626473号“余复光1898”图文商标、第7587928号“余晓华”图文商标的注册商标专用权人。重庆同德福公司的多种产品外包装使用了“老字号【同德福】商号，始创于清光绪23年（1898年）历史悠久”等介绍同德福斋铺历史及获奖情况的内容，部分产品在该段文字后注明“以上文字内容摘自《合川县志》”；“【同德福】颂：同德福，在合川，驰名远，开百年，做桃片，四代传，品质高，价亦廉，讲诚信，无欺言，买卖公，热情谈”；“合川桃片”“重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司”等字样。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1200.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|