It confirmed that No.
For the infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark involved by others before and during the transfer of the trademark, China Construction Corporation is authorized to take all legal measures, including filing a civil infringement lawsuit, in its own name, to safeguard the corresponding legitimate rights and interests..
15, Sanlihe Road, Haidian District, Beijing.
Chinese construction companies cannot abuse their market position to attack other enterprises.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Zhang Lei, lawyer of Beijing cube law firm.
In addition to using it in the same or similar housing construction and sales services as the approved services of the trademark involved, it also used it in investment management In terms of asset management services and the introduction and management of international private equity funds introduced on the group’s official website, it is easy for the relevant public to think that CSCEC global has a specific relationship with our company and carry out their own business activities with the help of our influence and good reputation in the construction service industry.
429 plaintiff: China State Construction Corporation Limited defendant: CSCEC Global Investment Holding Co., Ltd.
Defense CSCEC global argued that it was not necessary to identify a well-known trademark in this case.
895891 “China Construction” trademark (hereinafter referred to as the trademark involved) was a well-known trademark according to law; 2.
The court shall confirm the evidence that the parties have no objection and support it in the file.
Request to reject the litigation claim of CSCEC.
895891 (the pattern is as follows).
Order CSCEC global to make a statement on the people’s daily, China Construction daily, the home page of sina.com and its official website www.zjhq666.com, and the home page of the group’s official website www.zjhq888.com to eliminate the impact; 5.
Order CSCEC global to stop using signs and words that are the same or similar to the trademarks involved in the case on its official website, office premises and other business places; 4.
The court found that the parties had submitted evidence according to law around the litigation request, and the court organized the parties to exchange and cross examine evidence.
If CSCEC has any objection, it shall solve it through relevant administrative procedures.
Order CSCEC global to compensate the economic loss of 1 million yuan and the reasonable expenditure of 20000 yuan to stop the infringement.
CSCEC filed a lawsuit with the court: 1.
Civil judgment of first instance on the dispute between CSCEC and CSCEC Global Investment Holding Co., Ltd.
On November 10, 2015, China State Construction Engineering Corporation issued a statement that it transferred three trademarks, including the trademarks involved, to China State Construction Corporation.
CSCEC global raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the court within the statutory defense period, and the court made a ruling on December 9, 2016, rejecting its objection to the jurisdiction of the case.
The evidence submitted by CSCEC shows that it is used in the sense of enterprise name, which can not prove the use of the trademark involved or that the trademark involved has become well-known.
Plaintiff’s claim On August 18, 2017, Beijing Higher People’s court rejected the appeal and upheld the original ruling.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Shang Yaqiong, lawyer of Nanjing knowledge law firm.
When CSCEC global registered its enterprise name, the trademark involved had reached a well-known level.
Facts and reasons: our company is the exclusive owner of No.
It used “CSCEC” as a brand name in its daily business activities.
According to the statements of the parties and the evidence confirmed after examination, the court finds the following facts: 1.
The trial of this case has been concluded.
Under the planned economic system, with the support of national resources and national resources, it has its current scale and status.
The service items approved for use of the trademark involved in the case are category 37 (similar groups: 3701-3707; 3709; 3711; 3713-3718), including housing construction supervision, building information, construction, factory construction, maintenance information, housing insulation, muddy work, bricklaying, paving, etc.
Our company does not specifically highlight the use of the word “CSCEC”, which is different from and similar to the trademark of CSCEC, which will not cause confusion and misunderstanding and does not constitute infringement.
895891 “China Construction” trademark.
On September 14, 2008, the trademark involved was transferred from China State Construction Engineering Corporation to China State Construction Corporation.
The approved services include housing construction supervision, construction information, maintenance information, construction, factory construction, warehouse construction and repair.
The enterprise name of China Construction Company is caused by the planned economic system.
Legal representative: Guan Qing, chairman.
The trademark applied for registration on November 30, 1994 and was approved for registration on November 7, 1996.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Wang Xiao, lawyer of Beijing cube law firm.
Many registered trademarks use the word “CSCEC”.
On April 18, 2018, the court held a public hearing in accordance with ordinary procedures.
429 party information plaintiff: China Construction Co., Ltd., with domicile at No.
Trial process The case of dispute over infringement of trademark right and unfair competition between the plaintiff China Construction Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as CSCEC) and the defendant CSCEC Global Investment Holding Co., Ltd.
Our company has the right to file a lawsuit in its own name against the infringement before and during the transfer of the trademark.
The trademark involved is Trademark No.
Our company is the exclusive owner of the registered trademark of “CSCEC global” and has a reasonable and legal basis for use.
17, Xinghuo Road, high tech Zone, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province.
(hereinafter referred to as CSCEC global) was accepted by the court on June 15, 2016.
Defendant: CSCEC Global Investment Holding Co., Ltd., with its domicile at CSCEC global building, No.
over infringement of trademark right source: China referee document network 2019-01-21 case No.: (2016) Jing 73 min Chu No.
As early as before the establishment of CSCEC global corporation, that is, before December 28, 2006, after continuous publicity and use, the trademark has been highly famous and influential in construction services in China and even in the relevant public around the world, forming a well-known trademark.
law firm: Beijing cube law firm, Nanjing knowledge law firm related references: Beijing zero Market Research Co., Ltd., Nantong Jianyi construction and Installation Engineering Co., Ltd., CSCEC Global Construction Engineering Co., Ltd, China Construction Industry Press, civil judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court of China Construction Engineering Corporation (2016) Jing 73 min Chu No.
Confirm that CSCEC global uses the same words as the registered trademark of our company as the font size in the enterprise name, which constitutes unfair competition, and order it to immediately stop using the words “CSCEC”; 3.
Zhang Lei and Wang Xiao, the entrusted agents of CSCEC, and Wang Xudong and Shang Yaqiong, the entrusted agents of CSCEC global, attended the court.
Upon renewal, the exclusive term of the trademark expires on November 6, 2026.
Legal representative: Ma Yajun, chairman.
The significance of the word “CSCEC” is very weak.
China State Construction Engineering Corporation applied for the registration of the trademark on November 30, 1994 and was approved for registration on November 7, 1996.
It is unreasonable for Chinese construction companies to equate the popularity of enterprises with the popularity of trademarks.
According to the provisions of the Trademark Law of the people’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law) and the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti Unfair Competition Law), the acts of CSCEC universal infringed upon the trademark right of our company; It also violates the principle of good faith and constitutes the behavior of hitchhiking near famous brands, which belongs to the unfair competition behavior of using other people’s well-known trademarks as enterprise names to mislead the public in different or similar services.
Entrusted agent ad litem: Wang Xudong, lawyer of Nanjing knowledge law firm.
Basic information of the trademark involved.
