Plaintiff: super pervert, male, born at 20011,now living in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Tel: * * * *
Defendant: Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
Address: No.8 Sanlihe East Road, Xicheng District, Beijing (100820)
Person in charge: Xu Ruibiao Position: Director
ask
1. Request the people's court to cancel the reexamination decision No.455,067 made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to reject the "You Zheng" trademark.
Facts and reasons
On September 8, 2005, the plaintiff submitted an application for trademark registration with the word "You Zheng" to the Trademark Office (application number 455067, category 36), and the service content requested for approval was: insurance broker; Capital investment; Financial loans; Bank; Financial services; Savings bank; Guarantee; Trust; Pawn; Broker. On June 4th, 2008, 65438+February 4th, 2008, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce made a trademark rejection decision with the number ZC4884467BH 1 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to accept the rejection decision made by the Trademark Office and applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for reexamination in accordance with the provisions of Article 32 of the Trademark Law. On August 3, 20091day, the defendant made a reexamination decision on the rejection of the trademark No.455067 "You Zheng", which was (2009) Shangpingzi No.22694.
The plaintiff believes that the defendant did not strictly follow the provisions of the Trademark Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the Rules for Trademark Review and Adjudication, the Standards for Trademark Review and Adjudication of the Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services, which resulted in illegal procedures and insufficient evidence, which seriously harmed the plaintiff's interests. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff from infringement, a lawsuit is hereby filed.
Zhezhi
Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court
Plaintiff: super pervert
Model indictment in administrative litigation (2)
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial): Zhao Hongwei, male, Han nationality, aged 55, from Jiuquan City, Gansu Province.
Owner of Jiuquan Liming Comprehensive Building, Address:No. 1 1, Xiongguan Road, Jiuquan City.
Appellee (defendant of first instance): Jiuquan Construction Bureau.
Address: No.55, century avenue, Xincheng District, Jiuquan.
Legal Representative: Zhang Man, director of the Bureau.
Appellee (the third person in the first instance): Jiuquan Construction Engineering Quality Supervision Station.
Address: No.9, Beihuan East Road, Jiuquan.
Legal Representative: Duan Zhongwei, stationmaster of this station.
Cause of action: The appellant refuses to accept the administrative judgment of Jiuquan Intermediate People's Court (2008) No.04 Zi Chu of Jiuquan Restaurant, and now appeals. The appeal request and reasons are as follows:
1. Revoke the administrative judgment (Jiuquan Intermediate People's Court (2008) No.04) and change the judgment according to law;
Second, investigate the appellee's long-term failure to perform legal duties, and let his subordinates and engineering quality supervision stations violate laws and regulations, resulting in a major quality accident in Liming Comprehensive Building, which was not investigated for a long time, causing great economic losses and mental losses to the appellee. The appellee and the third party shall bear the responsibility of violating laws and regulations and infringing on the appellant's legitimate rights and interests, and compensate all the economic losses caused thereby.
Three, the relevant evidence confirmed in the first instance as the basis for technical appraisal.
The reason for this is the following：
(1) The fact that the first instance deliberately failed to confirm is that the appellant began to complain when he found that there were serious illegal acts in the construction unit and quality supervision station of this project from September 18, 2002 (during the basement construction) and demanded to investigate and deal with the use of waste steel bars in the construction of Liming Complex Building. Until June 5438+February 65438+February 09, 2008, I did not receive the normative or non-normative documents investigated and dealt with by Jiuquan Construction Bureau according to law before the administrative judgment of Jiuquan Construction Bureau (2008) No.04. Its administrative omission is an objective fact.
(2) The only letter confirmed by the first-instance judgment dated March 3, 20031day (referring to the memorandum stamped with the seal of Suzhou District Quality Supervision Station). It is concluded that the "large-area cracks" in the frame beam slab of Liming Complex Building are "temperature cracks" in order to cover up the fact that a large number of waste steel bars are used to cause quality accidents. This building is the only building in the world where the reinforced concrete frame beam breaks when it is frozen and heated in natural environment? The first-instance judgment takes this as "evidence" to confirm that Jiuquan Construction Bureau has fulfilled its statutory quality supervision and supervision duties, which is ridiculous!
(3) Most of the other evidences identified in the first-instance judgment are letters of complaint from the appellant requesting the quality supervision station and the Construction Bureau to investigate and deal with the person responsible for the quality accident according to law, and attending the meeting minutes of all parties to discuss the project reinforcement scheme. Most of the evidence identified in this case has no normative documents showing that Jiuquan Construction Bureau has investigated or punished violators according to law. The first-instance judgment is based on the words of the parties to the project that are not legally effective, which is not in line with the law and reason.
(4) The first-instance judgment tried to avoid the fact that Jiuquan Construction Bureau refused to act according to law for seven years. One-sided acceptance of the appellee's excuses without any legal basis as the basis of judgment does not conform to Article 4 of the Administrative Procedure Law: "In trying administrative cases, the people's courts shall take facts as the basis and law as the criterion". If the facts and evidence of the case are unclear, it shall be investigated and verified. You can't trust one party's self-report, let alone take the appellee's request as the basis for finalizing the case.
It is unfair that the judgment of first instance regards the non-existent "facts" as the "facts" of the final judgment. So far, Jiuquan City Construction Bureau has not investigated and dealt with the illegal responsible person of this major construction accident, nor has it handed over the responsible person who intentionally produces and manufactures fake and inferior building products to judicial organs for handling. The first-instance judgment that the Construction Bureau has fulfilled its "statutory duty" is indeed inconsistent with the facts.
(5) After the case was filed in the first instance, the presiding judge failed to serve the appellant with a copy of the defendant's defense in the first instance after the statutory time limit of 10. The appellant repeatedly asked the court of first instance to serve the plaintiff with a copy of the defendant's defense according to law, and was told that the defendant did not reply. Until the third month after filing the case, the appellant had not received a copy of the defendant's defense in the first instance. According to the laws of our country, if the defendant of the first instance fails to submit a reply to the lawsuit within the statutory time limit, according to the provisions of Article 26 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law, it shall be deemed that there is no evidence and basis according to law, and the illegal facts are established.
(6) On September 1 1, 2008, the court of first instance informed the appellant by telephone that "the court session will be held on the morning of September 17". When the appellant received the summons for the court session that afternoon, he was verbally told by the court that "no one from the Construction Bureau appeared in court and the court session will be held on September 22nd."
On the morning of September 22nd, when the appellant reported to the court in accordance with the law, he was told that "the Construction Bureau has not yet appeared in court, and the court session was changed to June 6th-June 9th 10." Write a court summons in the form of a transcript, and specifically indicate that the appellant is required to "cross-examine the same' evidence' submitted to the court when filing the case". It limits the appellant's right to give evidence and cross-examine according to law, so it also successfully avoids important evidence that can prove his illegal crime for the defendant and the third party. (evidence)
(7) In the trial of No.65438 on October 9, 2008/KLOC-0, the presiding judge forbade the appellant to read out the complaint during the trial, restricted the appellant to speak and debate on this fact, always cooperated with the defendant and the third party, and hastily announced the adjournment for several minutes. (evidence)
(8) After the trial of the first instance lasted for three months, the presiding judge forced the appellant to withdraw the lawsuit by interview or telephone, and "euphemistically" informed that "the bean curd residue project of Liming Complex Building only exists as a" legal fact "and" does not constitute legal evidence ". The state's investigation of the responsibility of the regulatory authorities for counterfeit drugs, milk powder, milk and Songhua River water pollution is caused by the climate, but there is no legal basis for the investigation of the illegal responsibility of the construction project quality supervision department. You'd better drop the charges, or it's hard to say when the sentence will be handed down. "The presiding judge fully defended the appellee's illegal behavior and made a judgment that the law was against reason, which was unconvincing.
(9) The judgment of first instance is based on only one law and one interpretation. According to the judgment, according to Article 64 of the Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects, "the construction unit shall be responsible for compensation for the losses caused by the quality problems of the projects". However, the main provisions of Article 64 are to punish those responsible for violations of the law, suspend business, lower their qualifications and revoke their qualification certificates. According to the provisions of Article 65, Article 66, Article 67, Article 68 and Article 76 of the Regulations, they are all in line with practical engineering problems. These regulations stipulate that the construction industry should have a statutory authority to enforce these regulations. The appellant's appeal in the past seven years also requires the Construction Bureau to impose administrative penalties or investigate and deal with those responsible for illegal acts in accordance with the relevant Regulations and Regulations. The fact is that the Construction Bureau has not conducted any investigation so far. In the first instance, it was never found that Jiuquan Construction Bureau failed to perform its statutory duties according to a number of relevant laws and regulations, but completely avoided the importance according to the appellee's intention. Cite events at length, confuse the audience, excuse the appellee from illegal responsibility, and deliberately make a very unfair first-instance judgment. The deep-seated reasons are worth pondering, and the conclusion is absolutely unacceptable.
(10) The judgment of the first instance stated: It was found through examination that there was something wrong with the steel quality of the quality supervision station on September/0/8, 2002. On March/0/9, 2003, the quality supervision station went to the site to observe the cracks and judged them as temperature cracks, so experts were invited to identify the coordination meeting. Judging from the contents listed in the judgment, it is indeed "detailed and clear" to outsiders, but the actual fact is that the quality supervision station has contracted the quality inspection, construction supervision and quality supervision of all building materials in Liming Comprehensive Building Project. The175t steel products "passed the inspection" by the quality supervision station were found to have obvious quality problems at the construction site, and "the elongation failed after inspection and passed the double re-inspection". The fact of writing the judgment on behalf of the appellee is that when the problem of waste steel bars was exposed on September 18, 2002, dozens of tons of waste steel bars had been poured in the basement of the underground foundation, most of the frame beams and floors on the first floor of the building, which led to serious cracks in the later period. The conclusions confirming these facts are supported by the evaluation of national legal professional institutions. There is no doubt that the reinforced concrete building is there to testify, and it can be cross-examined, examined and reviewed at any time!
The sentence "found out through trial" in the judgment of first instance cannot conceal the fact that the quality supervision station is the person responsible for the engineering quality accident!
(1 1) Jiuquan Engineering Quality Supervision Station refused to admit that it had issued a false Material Inspection Report for the project, nor could it come up with the appraisal conclusion that the third-party appraisal unit with authoritative inspection qualification appraised the engineering entity materials. According to the "statement" of the quality supervision station and the judgment made by the "evidence" provided by it, it is determined that its behavior is "true and legal", which is an indulgence of the crime of counterfeiting and producing fake and inferior products.
According to Article 16 of Management Measures for Quality Inspection of Construction Engineering. According to Articles 18 and Article 59 of the Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects, Jiuquan Quality Supervision Station has committed a number of illegal acts during the construction of Liming Complex Building, and must bear legal responsibilities according to law. Should be severely punished by relevant laws.
The first-instance judgment found that the illegal fact that Jiuquan Quality Supervision Station participated in the production and manufacture of fake and shoddy building products for illegal interests was "legal". It can be seen that the presiding judge did not understand the relevant legal provisions or other reasons before making this unfair judgment.
(12) The first-instance judgment forcibly identified the technical discussion minutes of all parties in the project and the evidence fabricated by the quality supervision station to avoid illegal responsibility as the evidence that the Construction Bureau investigated and dealt with the illegal facts of the construction unit and the quality supervision station, which was inconsistent with the facts and jurisprudence. Instead, it confirmed the evidence that the Construction Bureau refused to investigate the illegal facts of the construction unit and the project quality supervision station, and asked the court of second instance to investigate clearly.
(13) In this administrative litigation case that passed the first instance, objective facts and sufficient evidence confirmed the existence of criminal and illegal facts and evidence. The first-instance judgment tried to avoid the facts and evidence of the case and failed to issue a judicial proposal according to law. The appellant is unconvinced, and the court of second instance should pay attention to it.
(14) The appellant is a victim of inferior engineering, with the fact that the unqualified engineering can't be used, and the appraisal conclusion made by the authoritative national legal professional appraisal institution on the present situation and materials of the engineering entity.
According to the Interpretation of the National People's Congress on the Quality Management of Construction Projects, Chapter VI, Article 54, Item 2; 1 and article 60, paragraph 2; Article 62, paragraph 2, and other provisions put forward to the court that Jiuquan Construction Bureau, which fails to perform its statutory supervisory duties, contracted Jiuquan Engineering Quality Supervision Station, which is also the construction supervision and quality supervision, and compensated the victims and appellants for their economic losses. The judgment of first instance held that the appellant's "claim for compensation was unfounded in law", which did not conform to objective facts and relevant legal provisions.
(15) According to the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the State Compensation Law, the Administrative Procedure Law and the Civil Law: "Those who have suffered losses due to the infringement of citizens' rights by state organs and their staff have the right to obtain compensation according to the law" and "The legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations have been infringed by specific administrative actions of administrative organs and their staff"
Jiuquan Construction Bureau failed to perform its statutory duties, and Jiuquan Engineering Quality Supervision Station participated in fraudulent activities with false material inspection reports as the construction unit, which caused great losses to the appellant and seriously infringed on the appellant's legitimate rights and interests. There are "legal facts" and legal basis, please ask the court of second instance to verify the objective facts and support them.
To sum up, the appellant believes that the judgment of the first instance is not based on the true facts and evidence, but entirely based on the appellee's "statement", which violates common sense and relevant legal provisions. In order to safeguard the appellant's legitimate rights and interests, and investigate the appellee's long-term failure to perform legal duties and the third party's liability for compensation for illegal infringement, we appeal to your hospital according to the provisions of Article 58 of the Administrative Procedure Law, requesting that the case be tried fairly according to law, the original judgment be revoked, the judgment be revised, and the appellee and the third party be ordered to compensate the appellant for the economic losses and mental losses caused thereby.
I am here to convey
Gansu Provincial Higher People's Court
Appellant: Zhao Hongwei.
* * Year 65438+February 28th.
Model indictment of administrative litigation (3)
Plaintiff: Miao Guifang Address: Xiaodian Group, hebei village, Dayi Town, Yizheng City Tel: * * *
Defendant: Yizheng Municipal People's Government Address: No.48 Jiefang East Road, Yizheng City, Jiangsu Province.
Legal Representative: Name Fee Position: Mayor of Yizheng Municipal People's Government.
Tel: * * * *
Litigation request: save land resources and strengthen law enforcement against illegal buildings.
Facts and reasons: I am Miao Guifang, a villager of Xiaodian Formation in hebei village, Dayi Town, Yizheng City. On July 28th, 2008, I reported to Vice Governor Li that He Junhua and He two brothers occupied other people's land and built houses illegally. (Two brothers, He Junhua and He, left Xiaodian Group in hebei village, Dayi Town, Yizheng City fifteen years ago to build a house, live and work in Yizheng City. His old house covers an area of 1500 square meters, all of which are rented out to foreigners for production workshops, and now a new house is being built. Some plots for building new houses are controversial with our home, and construction can only start after confirmation. ) Li, vice governor of Jiangsu Province, gave instructions, and the staff of Yizheng Land and Resources Bureau came down to talk with my family and made a statement. A house in rural areas can only have one homestead, and the old house must be demolished before building a new house. In strict accordance with Yizheng farmers' standards for building new houses, the building area can only be 165 square meters, and the building can only be 70% of 165 square meters. Problems involving land disputes can only be constructed after confirmation, and we have also submitted an application for land confirmation to the Bureau of Land and Resources. However, after the Olympic Games ended, He Junhua and his brothers still went their own way, relying on their power to illegally occupy other people's land and build houses. I went to stop them. He used his family to force construction and hit people. He Junhua and He two brothers said that someone in my family is in the municipal party committee and municipal government, and laws and leadership instructions are useless. My house was built illegally. What can you do to me? Ming Fu Mei, secretary of the hebei village branch, even said that any family has power and influence, and it is useless to stop it in your home. In Ming Dynasty, Fu Mei took the lead in occupying new land to build houses, but the old houses were not demolished and sold to foreigners. In hebei village, we treat the Land Management Law as a joke, which has a very bad influence on the people. I told Yizheng Land and Resources Bureau that He Junhua and He's house had been built illegally again. The words and deeds of the staff of the Bureau of Land and Resources are completely different from those of the last leader who came to my house to instruct. They obviously shielded He Junhua, He, and the Bureau of Land and Resources from knowing the law and breaking the law, seriously dereliction of duty and shielding illegal acts. Now, according to Articles 34 and 35 of the Land Administration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, a lawsuit is brought to the people's court.
Zhezhi
Yizheng people's court
Plaintiff: _ _ _ _ _ _ (seal)
September 28th, * *
Attachment: 1, 2 copies of this complaint.
2, He Huashan illegal building pictures and old house pictures,
3. Pictures of hebei village branch secretary building houses illegally and selling old houses privately.