Let's first come to understand a toy called "Flying Fairy". This is a toy that can follow the movement of the palm of a person. The sales in the first two years are very prosperous, but because of this toy, Sphinx of Canada Special Co., Ltd. has a lawsuit with a toy company in Chenghai.
Chris from Canada is the legal representative of the company. He said that from 2009 they wanted to design a flying toy for girls. It took about four years before and after, and I spent about $500,000 on research and development. Chris said that the "Flying Fairy" toys were welcomed by the market. They also applied to the China Intellectual Property Office for a utility model patent called "Flying Dolls" on June 21, 2013, and in 2014. On January 28th, the copyright registration of the work was completed at the National Copyright Administration. However, this product is still heavily smuggled and infringed. Among the infringers is a toy company in Chenghai District.
Chris said that the counterfeit product of Chenghai’s toy company is called “Beautiful Flying Fairyâ€, also known as “Flying Little Fairyâ€, “Xiaofeixianâ€, “Flying Girlâ€, etc. The propaganda pattern used on the outer box is almost identical. Their artwork has been copied, and the counterfeit products have completely covered all the technical features of their utility model patent claims. These counterfeit products have caused them a lot of damage.
On March 11, 2014, Spinmaster Company went to the city's intermediate people's court to sue the toy company in Chenghai District. Under the supervision of the notary public at the Notary Public Office of Shantou City, they conducted a notarization purchase at the defendant's office and obtained the infringing products involved. In January 2014, the Chenghai District Quality Supervision Bureau found that the defendant had an administrative inspection of the defendant. Production and sales of a large number of infringing products involved, the approximate number is 2,600. In April 2014, the plaintiff applied to the court for evidence preservation of the defendant. During the evidence preservation process, it found that there were 100 boxes of finished products infringing products at the defendant's factory, and then there were 2000 bases and 6000 outer packagings.
Spinmaster believes that the toy company in Chenghai District has infringed on their copyright and utility model patents.
The City Intermediate People's Court formed a collegiate panel in accordance with the law. On June 12, 2014, the court held a trial of two cases involving copyright infringement disputes and infringement of utility model patent disputes . However, the defendant Chenghai Toys Company strongly denied the infringement. The toy company believes that the plaintiff has the subjective malice of crowding out the competitors and there is unfair competition. The plaintiff refutes this and believes that the plaintiff has the right to exercise copyright without violating the relevant provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. He also believes that the defendant's products fall within the scope of the plaintiff's copyright and utility model patent protection.
The defendants believed that their products were implemented using their own patented technology and prior disclosure technology, and did not infringe the plaintiff's patent rights. The plaintiff also lodged a rebuttal.
The collegial panel finally ruled that in the case of copyright disputes, the defendant should immediately stop producing, selling, and promise to sell infringing products that infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in the case, and destroy the infringing products, semi-finished products, packaging materials and molds for manufacturing infringing products, and compensate the plaintiffs. In the case of utility model patent disputes, the defendant should immediately stop the infringement of the patent right of the plaintiff involved in the utility model, and pay the plaintiff compensation of 200,000 yuan. At the same time, the plaintiff’s other claims were rejected. The defendant refused to accept the first-instance judgment of the two cases and appealed to the Provincial Higher People's Court. After the trial of the Provincial High Court, on December 30, 2015, the judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. However, in the face of the successful judgment, the plaintiff is still worried. Unsurprisingly, the execution of the case encountered many difficulties.
The executive judge said that during the execution of the case, the court was investigated and the executor had certain economic performance ability. Because of the dissatisfaction with the judgment, there was resistance to the enforcement of the court. If the measures for compulsory destruction of molds and infringing products were taken immediately, it would easily intensify the contradiction. According to the merits of the case, the collegial panel formulated the implementation plan. In accordance with the law, the person subject to execution shall perform his duties within a time limit, order the declaration of property, and promptly investigate and control his property. At the same time, according to the psychological situation of the enforced person's resistance to execution, he has made a patient interpretation of the judicial representative. The enforced person recognizes the legal consequences of the infringement and truly understands that the judgment in force in this case is legal and reasonable. The person being executed from the heart of the sentence, and then explained that the executor does not take the initiative to perform the penalties that may be imposed on the effective judgment, and thus pay the price. The executive judge explained the law through the interpretation of the law, the executor changed his attitude, took the initiative to implement the compensation, and promised to the court to actively destroy the infringing molds and infringing products.
In the end, the parties to the case reached an implementation settlement. The person subject to execution actively fulfilled all the compensations determined by the judgment and actively destroyed the infringing molds and products.
Judge reminder
If the person subject to execution has the ability to perform but does not fulfill the obligations set out in the legal instrument in force, the court will take the list of persons who have been deprived of credit, restricting high consumption and restricting exit, depending on the circumstances of the violation of the law. Once the person being executed is listed on the list of untrustworthy executors, he will be subject to corresponding credit punishment. In addition to causing significant negative impact on the reputation and image of the confiscation of the executor, it will also reduce the trading opportunities of the untrustworthy executors. The living space will also be greatly squeezed. These measures make the "old Lai" who does not fulfill the obligations of the legal documents in force have a far higher cost than the automatic performance of the obligations.
Source: Shantou Minsheng file, today's line
White Double Windows Envelope,Envelope of Double Windows,Mailers of Double Windows,Check Double Windows Envelope
Sun Kee Envelopes Limited , https://www.sunkeeenvelope.com