—— Foshan Chuandong Magnetoelectric Co., Ltd. v. Foshan Gaomingsite Electric Co., Ltd.
The court of second instance held that, according to the existing evidence, it could not be concluded that Sitter Company had unfair competition behaviors that violated the principle of good faith. First, Sitter Company is the supplier of Midea Company. The drawings provided by Midea Company show that in the procurement drawings, the naming requirement for reed switch parts is "laser engraving CPS-3 150-305". Sitter Company produces according to the requirements of Midea Company, and there is no intentional infringement subjectively. Second, the consumers of magnetically controlled switches are large manufacturers in the home appliance industry, not the general public without professional knowledge. Because large-scale manufacturers in the household appliance industry use a large number of products with magnetic switches, and the total value of the products involved is high, these consumers will pay more attention to the purchase with a more professional eye, and will not decide whether to buy only based on whether the products are marked with CPS. Thirdly, when the electric pressure cookers produced by Midea Company are certified by 3C, whether the parts pass CQC certification voluntarily or not, they must be declared and tested at 3C certification office. The products of Chuandong Company involved in the case have been voluntarily certified by CQC and can be exempted from inspection, but the existing evidence does not prove that the products of Site Company marked with "CPS" can also be exempted from inspection. Therefore, Sitter Company has not obtained illegitimate interests by marking "CPS" on the goods.