>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Lafarge Corporation Limited v. Nanjing Meishida Building Material Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement on trademark right and unfair competition)
拉法基股份有限公司与南京美世达建材有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷申请案
【法宝引证码】
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com

Lafarge Corporation Limited v. Nanjing Meishida Building Material Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement on trademark right and unfair competition)
(dispute over infringement on trademark right and unfair competition)
拉法基股份有限公司与南京美世达建材有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷申请案
[Key Terms]
erroneous application of laws ; the parties ; application for retrial
[核心术语]
适用法律错误;当事人;申请再审
[Disputed Issues]
Where a judgment by the court of second instance has an error in application of laws, a party applies for a retrial accordingly, how shall the court handle it?
[争议焦点]
二审法院判决所适用的法律确有错误,当事人以此申请再审的,法院应如何处理?
[Case Summary]
Under Article 200 Item 6 of the Civil Procedure Law where there was an error in the application of the law in the original judgment or ruling the party's application conforms to this circumstance the people's court shall retry the case. In accordance with the aforesaid provisions a party applies for a retrial because of an error in application of law in the judgment of a court of second instance the court determines that there is an error in application of laws in the judgment rendered by the court of second instance after review...
[案例要旨]
根据《民事诉讼法》第二百条第(六)项的规定当事人的申请符合原判决、裁定适用法律确有错误的人民法院应当再审。根据上述规定当事人以二审法院判决所适用的法律错误为由提起再审的...

Full-text omitted.

 

拉法基股份有限公司与南京美世达建材有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷申请案

 最高人民法院
 民事裁定书
 (2013)民申字第1641号
 再审申请人(一审原告、二审被上诉人):拉法基股份有限公司。
 法定代表人:肖纳·马瑞格特(SHONAMERIGEAULT),该公司知识产权保护部主管。
 委托代理人:黄晖,北京市万慧达律师事务所律师。
 委托代理人:张涵,北京市万慧达律师事务所律师。
 被申请人(一审被告、二审上诉人):南京美世达建材有限公司。
 法定代表人:余共章,该公司经理。
 一审原告、二审被上诉人:上海拉法基石膏建材有限公司。
 法定代表人:盖文博(GAVINHOWARDBURTON),该公司首席执行官。
 再审申请人拉法基股份有限公司(简称拉法基公司)因与被申请人南京美世达建材有限公司(简称美世达公司)及一审原告、二审被上诉人上海拉法基石膏建材有限公司(简称上海拉法基公司)侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷一案,不服中华人民共和国江苏省高级人民法院(2012)苏知民终字第269号民事判决,向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审查,现已审查终结。
 拉法基公司申请再审称:一、美世达公司在类似商品上使用“拉法基”注册商标的行为,构成商标侵权,应承担侵权责任。赵强胜申请注册并许可美世达公司使用的“拉法基”商标并未产生任何法律效力,不能对抗在先注册商标。二审法院已经认定美世达公司在相同或者类似的商品上使用了与拉法基公司注册商标相同或者近似的标识,并且认为其不能继续使用,但却驳回拉法基公司的诉讼请求,自相矛盾。因为停止使用本身就是拉法基公司的诉讼请求之一。即使按照二审法院的逻辑,在商标局公告赵强胜的商标证无效后,美世达公司的使用行为也应该是侵权的,二审法院直接驳回拉法基公司诉讼请求,显然错误。而且,根据商标法的规定,主观过错并非构成侵权的必要条件,它只是影响赔偿责任的承担。二审法院在商标法有明确规定的情形下,直接适用上位法即《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》的相关规定,以美世达公司主观上无过错为由判断其不承担商标侵权责任,适用法律错误。从赵强胜与美世达公司签订的《合作协议》看,美世达公司对赵强胜申请的商标并未取得合法注册是明知的,其主观上存在过错甚至具有恶意,理应赔偿拉法基公司损失。二、美世达公司将“拉法基”文字使用在侵权商品及小样包装盒、公司网站及经销商名牌、户外广告上的行为,侵害了拉法基公司的企业名称权,构成不正当竞争。综上,二审判决在认定事实和适用法律上均存在错误,请求撤销二审判决,维持一审判决。
 ......

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 【¥200.00】 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
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese