Dream Man Clothing And "BOSS" Were Punished.

The Municipal Bureau of industry and Commerce Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "industrial and commercial sub bureau") affirms the dream. clothing The sales mark of a company is similar to that of the internationally famous trademark "BOSS", so it is punished. The clothing company refused to accept an administrative lawsuit. The Court opened the case. Director Li, director of the Ministry of industry and commerce, first appeared in court.

　 [case replay]

　　 clothing Corporate infringement was fined 1 million 340 thousand

It is understood that from March 2009 to April, the dream man clothing company has custom-made the bags, cloth labels and tag tags with "B088" logo for many times. Man's suit And leather shoes and other products. According to the report, the "B088" logo of the above products is similar to the "BOSS" trademark registered by Germany's Bobo trademark management company. In December 2009, the industry and Commerce Bureau made a written decision on administrative penalty, which imposed a fine of over 134 yuan on the clothing company. The clothing company refused to accept an administrative lawsuit.

[court trial]

Clothing company: Registration "8088" trademark legal

Li, director of the industrial and commercial bureau, led the subordinates to appear in court early. Sitting in the dock for the first time, Li, who was in uniform, appeared calm. In the trial, the agent of the plaintiff said that the "8088" trademark was registered legally by the company. The company authorized the use of "8088" trademarks by the company and operated according to law and sold relevant commodities, which was in conformity with the law. The plaintiff's agent thinks that the "8088" trademark of the company is not similar to the "BOSS" trademark. The branch of the industry and Commerce Bureau has no right to identify the approximate nature of the trademark itself, and has no right to punish its own side. The plaintiff company asked the court to revoke the decision on administrative penalty involved in the case.

Industrial and commercial sub Bureau: use variant to "BO88"

The defendant's industrial and commercial sub Bureau submitted dozens of evidence to prove that his punishment was lawful. During the stage of defence and proof, Secretary Li did not speak. He listened carefully to the speeches of his subordinates.

According to the relevant laws and regulations, anyone can be reported to the industrial and commercial department for trademark infringement according to the relevant laws and regulations. The industry and Commerce Department has the right to investigate and punish trademark infringement. In this case, the plaintiff company has obtained the "8088" trademark authorization, but through the variation, the trademark logo has become "BO88" in actual use. It is similar to the "BOSS" trademark, and has the intention of counterfeiting the "BOSS" trademark, which has caused confusion to consumers. The industry and Commerce Bureau believes that the written decision on administrative penalty made by oneself is clear, reliable, and legal.

"BOSS" company: no recognition of free riding behavior

As the third person, the agent of the company said: "we have applied for objection to the" 8088 "trademark, and the relevant departments decided to cancel the" 8088 "trademark. Obviously, this kind of behavior is not acceptable. "The lawsuit triggered by it is still being tried in the court, and the" 8088 "trademark is still legal and effective. The plaintiff agent retorted.

In the final presentation stage, Secretary Lee delivered a speech on behalf of his unit. "This case is a typical case in trademark infringement cases investigated by our bureau. It shows our confidence and determination in safeguarding the interests of trademark owners and the rights and interests of consumers." Secretary Li stressed that the Bureau will continue to protect the legitimate rights and interests of trademark owners at home and abroad as well as create a fair market environment for competition and a safe and satisfied consumer environment. The case was not pronounced in court.