Furniture design patent case 55,000 yuan to reach a mediation
This reporter (Reporter / Tang Meng correspondent / Chen Xiaochen) Yesterday morning, in the conference room on the 3rd floor of the Lecong Town Government, several desks were put together into a temporary trial area, and more than 200 seats were seated. This is Foshan Intermediate. The Court of Intellectual Property Trial Circuit Court held a scene of a furniture design patent case in Lecong. The plaintiff in the case, Ding Mou, said that Lecong furniture seller Zhang infringed on his patent rights when producing and selling products, and filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that the defendant stop the infringement and destroy the infringing products and compensate for economic losses.
Judge mediation settlement
The plaintiff Ding Mou applied to the State Intellectual Property Office for a design patent entitled “Slewing Chair Handrail (AR-848)â€, “Handrail (6601)†and “Handrail Decoration Box (0722)†and was authorized last year. The plaintiff alleged that Lecong furniture seller Zhang infringed on his patent rights when producing and selling the above products, and sued the court, demanding that the defendant stop the infringement, destroy the infringing products, and compensate for economic losses.
The defendant’s agent argued that Zhang’s sales of its products did exist similarly, but the products sold were purchased from a furniture manufacturer in Chancheng District, and that the sales of the products were infringing Ding’s patented products. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Patent Law, "the use or sale of a patented product that is not manufactured or sold without the permission of the patentee for the purpose of production or business or a product directly obtained in accordance with the patented method can prove the legal source of the product, No liability is assumed."
During the cross-examination process, the two sides held a heated debate around the source of the product. The plaintiff held two infringing products. One was that the plaintiff purchased the defendant in order to sue the defendant, and the defendant purchased it at the defendant. The defendant tried to prove that the product was not produced by himself and was purchased by the manufacturer through notarization. The plaintiff believes that the model number and the article number recorded in the notarial certificate are inconsistent, and the defendant cannot verify that the product has a legitimate source.
When the court entered the debate, the focus of the debate between the two sides was: whether the plaintiff’s reasons for approving the defendant were established; whether the defendant’s defense against the legal source was established; and what legal responsibility the defendant should bear.
After nearly 20 minutes of debate, the judges reached an agreement after the mediation of the two parties: the defendant was willing to compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 55,000 yuan, the two parties settled out of court, and then the plaintiff announced the withdrawal of the lawsuit. The original defendant’s agents finally shook hands.
The court of the court went to the factory to give the school a general law class.
The Circuit Court attracted more than 200 furniture company representatives and officials from Lecong Town to attend the case. The relevant person in charge of the court said that the reason why the court was set up in the Lecong town government to consider the case was to consider that Lecong Town is the furniture capital of China, which is convenient for the furniture companies to attend the court and let the manufacturers better understand the furniture design. Relevant laws and regulations to prevent further patent infringement.
Subsequently, the representative of the company communicated with the judge on the issue of patent rights of concern.
Huo Yanjie, the third court president of the Civil Court of the Intermediate People's Court of the City, said that because the design of plagiarized furniture is relatively easy, the proportion of patent infringement cases accepted by the Municipal Intermediate People's Court is about 40%, and many merchants do not know in advance. I have infringed on the patent rights of others. She reminded that before the production and sale of furniture, the merchant should fulfill the obligation to search the product for patent applications and avoid infringement.
Zheng Yuyang, president of the Shunde Furniture Industry Intellectual Property Protection Association, said that at present, Lecong and Longjiang furniture manufacturers pay insufficient attention to intellectual property rights. The City Intermediate People’s Court has given them a vivid intellectual property law course by holding a circuit court. .
â—Ž sound
judge:
Preserving evidence
Prevent stolen patents
The furniture industry has always been known as one of the pillar enterprises in Shunde District. Because the design of plagiarized furniture is relatively easy, the phenomenon of patent infringement in the furniture market is quite common. Some new products developed and designed by furniture companies have repeatedly applied for patents and have been sued for patent infringement.
According to reports, the main reason why companies do not want to apply for patents is that all products are patented, which will cause excessive costs and enterprises can not afford.
The judge reminded that furniture companies should preserve good evidence, including: First, register with the Furniture Intellectual Property Protection Association. Due to the interest of the association and the company, it is better to publish such registrations on a regular basis in special publications, which can be used as a strong evidence to be accepted by the court. The association can also designate batches of companies on a regular basis to prove the design time of the products. The second is mailing. The company goes to the post office to mail the product photos to themselves, and the postmark can prove the production time of the products. The key is to take a clear shot and shoot at multiple angles.
Industry Association:
Lack of awareness of intellectual property
Plagiarism
According to Zheng Yuyang, the defendant of the case and the president of the Shunde Furniture Industry Intellectual Property Protection Association, Shunde Furniture Industry Intellectual Property Protection Association has established 20 to 30 cases of intellectual property disputes handled by member companies every year for 10 years. He believes that furniture patent infringement cases account for a large proportion of patent disputes in the Intermediate People's Court. Because the technical content of furniture is not high, the imitation is easy, and the cost is low. Enterprises do not need to invest too much cost to imitate. In addition, some SMEs do not have the ability to develop new types of furniture at all. If they look at what they do, they will follow suit, so there will be more infringement disputes than other industries.
Zheng Yuyang pointed out that after so many years of rights protection, some furniture companies in Shunde have already had a strong sense of rights protection in the judicial protection of furniture. However, due to the lack of knowledge of some foreign manufacturers, there are more problems with plagiarism.
Table Light,Table Lamp,Desk Light,Desk Lamp
Ningbo Royalux Lighting Co., Ltd. , https://www.royaluxlite.com