Sword Factory of Longquan County v. Wan Sword Factory of Longquan County
(A case about disputes over infringement on the exclusive rights to use registered trademarks)@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Sword Factory of Longquan County, Zhejiang Province (“County Sword Factory”).@#
Legal Representative: Zhao Yongquan, director of Sword Factory of Longquan County.@#
Attorneys: Shi Shujin and Chen Shuming, lawyers of the Law Office of Lishui Region.@#
Defendant: Wan Sword Factory of Longquan County, Zhejiang Province ( “Wan Sword Factory”).@#
Legal Representative: Wang Zhenming, director of Wan Sword Factory of Longquan County.@#
Attorneys: Mao Huiqing and Zhang Guoping, lawyers of the No.2 Law Office of Hangzhou City.@#
For disputes over infringement on the exclusive rights to use registered trademarks, the plaintiff, County Sword Factory, brought an action against the defendant, Wan Sword Factory. After accepting the case, on November 19, 1987, the Intermediate People's Court of Lishui Region legally formed a collegiate bench, and through an open trial, found that:@#
．．．．．． | | 龙泉县宝剑厂诉龙泉县万字号宝剑厂@#
侵犯商标专用权纠纷案@#
@#
原告：浙江省龙泉县宝剑厂（简称县宝剑厂）。@#
法定代表人：赵永泉，龙泉县宝剑厂厂长。@#
委托代理人：石书金、陈叔明，丽水地区律师事务所律师。@#
被告：浙江省龙泉县万字号宝剑厂（简称万字号宝剑厂）。@#
法定代表人：王镇铭，龙泉县万字号宝剑厂厂长。@#
委托代理人：毛惠庆、张国平，杭州市第二律师事务所律师。@#
原告县宝剑厂诉被告万字号宝剑厂侵犯商标专用权纠纷案，丽水地区中级人民法院受理后，依法组成合议庭，于１９８７年１１月１９日经公开审理，查明：@#
原告县宝剑厂自１９５６年成立后，生产的宝剑上，均使用“龙泉”、“龙凤七星”商标。１９７９年２月，原告申请注册“龙泉”牌商标。同年１０月３１日，国家工商行政管理总局核准注册“龙泉”商标，注册证号１３０２５０。该商标中文竖排篆书繁体“龙泉宝剑”４字。１９８４年５月，原告又申请注册“龙凤七星”商标，并附图说明：剑身正面‘龙泉宝剑'篆字及凤、七星图纹，剑身背面龙、七星图纹布置，七星状如北极星座”。同年１２月３０日，国家商标局核准注册，注册证号２１８１３３。至此，原告厂取得“龙泉”、“龙凤七星”商标注册证，享有上述两个商标专用权，并可将两个商标用于同一剑身。@#
被告万字号宝剑厂于１９８４年４月核准开业后，生产的宝剑没有自己的商标，而擅自使用“龙泉”、“龙凤七星”商标。１９８４年７月，被告厂申请“万”字牌商标，国家商标局于１９８５年３月３０日核准注册，注册证号２２２７２０。被告在取得“万”字商标专用权后，生产的宝剑上虽然用了“万”字商标，但同时又将原告注册的“龙泉”、“龙凤七星”商标用于同一剑身。对此，原告于１９８５年１月向龙泉县工商局申请，要求制止被告的侵权行为。龙泉县工商局召集有关宝剑厂开会，明确指出：“龙泉”、“龙凤七星”是县宝剑厂的注册商标，其他厂必须与注册人签订使用许可合同方能使用。此后，被告将生产的宝剑改用“龙泉古剑”、“龙凤七井”、“双龙七井”、“双凤七井”商标，包装仍用“龙泉宝剑”４字，字体排列与原告注册的商标相同。产品说明书亦有“龙泉宝剑”、“龙凤七星”等内容。为维护商标专用权，原告于１９８７年９月４日，向丽水地区中级人民法院提起诉讼， 要求被告停止侵权行为，赔偿侵权所获利润２０．５万元。被告答辩承认在形式上侵犯了原告的注册商标专用权，但认为赔偿金额不合理。@#
．．．．．． |
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 【￥300.00】 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
|