Infringement on Right of Name: Shenhua Football Club V. Teleitong Trade Limited Corporation@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Shanghai Shenhua Football Club,Address: No. 444 East Jiangwan Road, Shanghai;@#
Legal representative: Yu Zhifei, General Manager of the Club;@#
Authorized lawyer: Liu Xuan, attorney with Longguang Law Firm of Shanghai;@#
Defendant: Shanghai Teleitong Trade Limited Corporation,Address: Room B of Building 5, No. 1590 West Yanan Road, Shanghai;@#
Legal representative: Li Ximeng, Chairman of the Board;@#
Authorized Lawyer: Zhao Yuesheng, Zhou Wei, attorneys with Shanghai Duanhe Law Firm.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
The plaintiff, Shanghai Shenhua Football Club (hereafter referred as “Shenhua Club”) brought a suit before the People's Court of Jingan District, Shanghai City, against the Defendant, Shanghai Teleitong Trade Limited Corporation (hereafter referred as “Teleitong Co.”) for the dispute of the right of name.@#
The plaintiff Shenhua Club stated that as a nationally well-known football club, it relies on its intangible assets such as image, name and honorary title for survival. By the assessment of relevant authorities, the value of the plaintiff's brand commodity amounts to RMB 1,138,000,000. Whenever other entities use its name, image and honorary title for advertising, the plaintiff will obtain no less than RMB 300,000 from each cooperation. On March 22, March 25, and April 2 of 1999, the defendant used the plaintiff's name and honorary title without authorization to publicize its goods in its commercial advertisement published in Xinmin Sports News. Since the was unable to negotiate with the defendant on several occasions, the plaintiff brought a suit requesting the court to order the defendant to  terminate its infringement, publicly apologize and pay a compensation of RMB 300,000 to the plaintiff for its economic loss.@#
．．．．．．

申花足球俱乐部诉特雷通贸易有限公司侵害名称权纠纷案@#
@#
原告：上海申花足球俱乐部。住所地：上海市东江湾路４４４号。@#
法定代表人：郁知非，该俱乐部总经理。@#
委托代理人：刘宣，上海市龙光律师事务所律师。@#
被告：上海特雷通贸易有限公司。住所地：上海市延安西路１５９０号５楼Ｂ室。@#
法定代表人：李曦萌，该公司董事长。@#
委托代理人：赵跃生、周韦，上海市段和段律师事务所律师。@#
@#
原告上海申花足球俱乐部（以下简称申花俱乐部）因与被告上海特雷通贸易有限公司（以下简称特雷通公司）发生侵害名称权纠纷，向上海市静安区人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告申花俱乐部诉称：原告作为一家全国知名的足球俱乐部，凭借自己的形象、名称、荣誉称号等无形资产赖以生存。经有关部门评估，原告的商誉价值达１１３８００万元。其他单位在使用原告名称、形象和荣誉称号进行广告宣传时，原告从每项合作获取的收入均不低于３０万元。被告于１９９９年３月２２日、３月２５日、４月２日在《新民体育报》上刊发商业广告，在广告中擅自使用原告的名称和荣誉称号宣传其产品。原告向被告多次交涉未果，故起诉。请求判令被告立即停止侵害，公开赔礼道歉，并赔偿原告经济损失３０万元。@#
原告提交了如下证明：@#
１、１９９９年３月２２日、３月２５日、４月２日的《新民体育报》第五版上被告所做的广告。@#
２、上海市虹口足球场、上海邦信实业发展有限公司的证明，证明上海市申花足球俱乐部总部办公地于１９９９年４月１６日从上海市欧阳路６７８号搬迁至上海市东江湾路４４４号虹口足球场。@#
３、上海市足球协会的证明，证明１９９９年足球甲Ａ联赛，申花足球俱乐部的主赛场搬迁至虹口足球场，搬迁时间是１９９９年３月２１日。@#
４、１９９９年３月１２日被告与上海海联广告有限公司签定的广告合约，证明该广告系被告委托广告公司制作，以及广告使用的次数、使用媒介名称和广告总价。@#
５、上海市龙光律师事务所于１９９９年４月２０日发给被告的公函，证明原告与被告交涉的情况。

被告特雷通公司辩称：被告在广告中仅陈述了申花足球队曾获甲Ａ冠军和比赛场地搬家这一事实，没有盗用、假冒申花俱乐部的名称，没有贬损其名誉，没有给原告造成经济损失，相反在客观上还扩大了原告的影响。此类广告我公司做过多次，其他公司也做过，都没有损害结果，不构成侵害名称权。故不同意原告的诉讼请求。@#
被告提交了如下证明：@#
１、上海海联广告有限公司的证明，证明其为上海《新民体育报》广告总代理，按合同约定，被告的广告要刊登两次，因一次是错刊，故前后出现三次广告。@#
２、上海比加广告有限公司与被告的广告合约，证明被告在１９９９年甲Ａ足球比赛时间做过多次产品广告，与足球有一定的联系。@#
３、剪报若干份，证明在商业广告中使用其他单位名称的事例很多。@#
．．．．．．