CSCEC global uses the “CSCEC global” logo in prominent positions in its office and construction sites, completely copies the “CSCEC” Trademark No.
895822 “CSCEC” trademark in its office, construction site and other business places; 4.
5640152 “CSCEC” trademark is an unregistered well-known trademark according to law; 2.
In addition, “CSCEC”, “CSCEC” and “CSCEC” are also the enterprise names of CSCEC.
5640152 “CSCEC” trademark, No.
Second, the use of “CSCEC” in most of the evidence of CSCEC belongs to the use of enterprise name and abbreviation, rather than the use of trademark.
5640152.
Trial process The plaintiff China Construction Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as CSCEC) sued the defendant CSCEC Global Construction Group Co., Ltd.
Legal representative: Ma Yajun, chairman.
Fourth, CSCEC global introduced in its official website “service projects” that “the company’s predecessor was the project management department directly under the system of China State Construction Engineering Corporation, which carried out asset restructuring with the legal entity directly under Jiangsu SASAC on March 21, 2002…” and introduced the working experience of some of its personnel in CSCEC system in the “senior management team” section, The above facts are untrue and constitute false publicity as stipulated in Article 9 of the anti unfair competition law.
It can be used by enterprises engaged in construction.
Confirm that CSCEC Global’s use of the same words as the “CSCEC” Trademark No.
22 party information plaintiff: CSCEC.
Order CSCEC global to compensate CSCEC for the economic loss of 10 million yuan and the reasonable expenditure of 55100 yuan to stop the infringement.
5640152, and is similar to the “CSCEC” Trademark No.
* * Sanlihe Road, Haidian District, Beijing.
The above-mentioned acts of CSCEC global infringed the trademark right of CSCEC.
5640343.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Xie Guanbin, lawyer of Beijing cube law firm.
At the time of notarization, its “CSCEC” Trademark No.
Confirm that No.
Third, according to the provisions of Article 58 of the trademark law, unfair competition can only be constituted by using the same words as other people’s registered trademarks or unregistered well-known trademarks as brand names, and the “CSCEC global” brand used by the defendant is not the same as the “CSCEC” brand No.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Li Jiazheng, lawyer of Nanjing knowledge (Jiangbei new area) law firm.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Zhang Lei, lawyer of Beijing cube law firm.
5640343 “CSCEC” and No.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Shang Yaqiong, lawyer of Nanjing knowledge law firm.
Xie Guanbin and Zhang Lei, the entrusted litigation agents of the plaintiff China Construction Corporation, and Li Jiazheng and Shang Yaqiong, the entrusted litigation agents of the defendant CSCEC global, attended the court.
5640152 was a registered trademark and there was no need to identify a well-known trademark.
The approved use services are construction supervision, construction information, maintenance information, construction, factory construction, warehouse construction and repair.
895822 “CSCEC”, and the approved services are construction information, construction, etc.
“CSCEC” is a general term and is not unique to anyone.
As early as before the establishment of CSCEC global corporation, that is, before March 20, 2008, after continuous publicity and use, the trademark has been highly famous and influential in construction services in China and even the relevant public around the world, and constitutes an unregistered well-known trademark.
Order CSCEC global to make statements on the people’s daily, China Construction daily, sina.com and its official website to eliminate the impact; 6.
The court made a ruling on November 6, 2017: rejecting the objection raised by the defendant CSCEC universal to the jurisdiction of the case.
The plaintiff appealed to the plaintiff China Construction Corporation, which sued that: first, China Construction Corporation is the exclusive owner of the “China Construction” Trademark No.
The defendant is engaged in the construction service industry in China.
To sum up, CSCEC global obtained huge profits from the above acts and caused huge economic losses to CSCEC.
Order CSCEC global to immediately stop the unfair competition of false publicity and delete the false publicity content on its official website; 5.
Address: No.
Legal representative: Guan Qing, chairman.
The “CSCEC” logo used by CSCEC universal in its office space is the same and similar to the “CSCEC” Trademark No.
2019-05-29: (2016) Jing 73 min Chu No.
The defendant CSCEC global disagreed with the ruling and appealed.
Defendant: CSCEC Global Construction Group Co., Ltd.
Address: No.
It is understandable to use the word “CSCEC”, and did not highlight a certain part in the use process, which did not cause confusion and misunderstanding in the construction industry..
Civil judgment of first instance between CSCEC and CSCEC Global Construction Group Co., Ltd.
Therefore, it is requested to order: 1.
law firm: Beijing cube law firm, Nanjing intellectual (Jiangbei new area) law firm, Nanjing intellectual law firm, civil judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2016) Jing 73 min Chu No.
CSCEC has the right to bring a lawsuit in its own name against the infringement before and during the transfer of the trademark.
The trademark applied for registration on September 29, 2006 and was approved for registration on December 28, 2009.
The trial of this case has been concluded.
895822, and its main business is the same as the approved service category of “CSCEC” Trademark No.
After accepting the case on January 13, 2016, the court formed a collegial panel according to law.
In addition, CSCEC also enjoys the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks No.
22 plaintiff: CSCEC defendant: CSCEC Global Construction Group Co., Ltd.
The above infringement of trademark rights committed by CSCEC global also constitutes the unauthorized use of other people’s enterprise names, which leads people to mistakenly believe that it is an unfair competition for other people’s goods.
The court heard the case in public on November 26, 2018.
* Gaoxin Road, high tech Zone, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.
The defendant replied that the defendant CSCEC global corporation replied that: first, CSCEC has continued to accuse CSCEC Global Corporation of using its enterprise name according to the Trademark Law of 2014.
5640152 in its enterprise name constitutes unfair competition, and CSCEC global shall immediately stop using the same words as “CSCEC” in its enterprise name; 3.
Order CSCEC universal to immediately stop trademark infringement and unfair competition by using the same or similar marks and words as CSCEC’s No.
The Beijing Higher People’s court made a ruling on June 13, 2018: rejected the appeal and upheld the original ruling.
Third, the “CSCEC” logo used by CSCEC global in its office space is exactly the same as the “CSCEC” trademark of CSCEC No.
source: China referee document network Case No.
5640343 “CSCEC” trademark and No.
Second, CSCEC global registered the enterprise name with the name of “CSCEC”, used the full name of the enterprise name and the “CSCEC global” logo in the prominent position of the construction site, office space and its official website, and engaged in the same or similar services as the trademark involved, misleading the public and constituting unfair competition.
895822.
5640343, which is easy to lead to confusion and misunderstanding by the relevant public.
The defendant CSCEC global raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the case during the defense period.
5640343 of CSCEC, and its main business is the same as the approved service category of “CSCEC” Trademark No.
(hereinafter referred to as CSCEC global) for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
5640152.