Appellant * * * appealed to our court: 1. Revoke (2020) Chongqing 0 192 Civil Judgment No.6222 at the beginning of the Republic of China, and change the judgment to reject the appellee's claim; 2. The legal fees of the first and second trials shall be borne by the appellee. The facts and reasons are as follows: 1. The trademark used by the products involved does not constitute confusion with the appellee's trademark, and there is no infringement. 1. Judging whether the trademarks are the same is based on the general concern of the relevant public. The trademarks involved should be compared as a whole and locally, and they should be compared separately in the state that the comparison objects are isolated. No matter from the packaging, products, product boot screen, etc. The goods involved are clearly marked as JP trump card, which is the same as the Wang trademark advocated by the appellee, but can be clearly distinguished. It is obviously impossible for the general public to think that TV has some connection with TCL, which will not lead to confusion among the relevant public. 2. The wholesale price of the products involved in this case is more than 200 yuan, and the appellant's retail price is more than 300 yuan, which is far from the sales price of TCL series TV sets, so the relevant public will not be confused. Two, even if there is trademark infringement, the products involved are produced by regular manufacturers, and the appellant has purchased goods from regular channels and explained the suppliers, which has constituted a legitimate source defense. 1. The court of first instance did not identify all the memories cited by the appellant in the trial, nor did it make any comments, and there were omissions in fact identification. In the first instance, the appellant quoted a copy of the "Total Recall" with the telephone number of 10 in September 2020, in which JP Ace TV was explicitly mentioned, and the trademark certificate of the TV set purchased by the appellant was required. On September 3, 2020, the appellant received the Trademark Registration Certificate of JP registered trademark from Wu. The above two pieces of evidence presented by the appellant can form a confirmation, at least it can explain the fact that the appellant bought JP Ace TV from Wu, and the transaction process can be restored by combining the sales list and WeChat transfer record. 2. The evidence produced by the appellant forms a chain of evidence, which is enough to show that the products involved in the case sold by the appellant have legal sources. The court of first instance held that the sales list provided by the appellant did not specify the product name, which could not correspond to the infringing products involved, and did not constitute a legitimate source defense. Wu Xiang, the appellant, purchased five TV sets at a total price of 1290 yuan. The sales slip says 17 and 19 are display screen sizes, which are typical small transactions. It is normal that both parties to the transaction understand what products are mentioned in the sales list, but they do not have specific product information. The appellant's shop is in a township, and the TV series involved also belongs to the small household appliances industry, and the value of the goods themselves is not high. The appellant's personal business registration management card, general recall, sales list, WeChat transfer record and WeChat chat record can be comprehensively identified as Wu's procurement channel. According to Wu's individual industrial and commercial household registration management card, his registered place is located in Yalan Electronic City, Chongqing, which is a professional market where small household appliances merchants in Chongqing are concentrated. It can be explained that the appellant's purchase channel is a formal channel, and it is normal that it is impossible to determine that the products involved are goods that infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.
The appellee's point of view
The appellee TCL Company argued that the facts of the first-instance judgment were clear and the applicable law was correct, and requested the court to dismiss all the appellants' appeals.
The plaintiff's views on the first instance
TCL brought a lawsuit to the court of first instance: 1. * * * * *, and the business department of Ririsheng Electric Appliances in Dazu District immediately stopped selling goods that infringed the exclusive right to use the registered trademarkNo. 1792882 of TCL Corporation, and destroyed the infringing products in stock; 2.**** and Dazu Risheng Electric Appliance Business Department * * * both compensated TCL Company for economic losses of 50,000 yuan (including 368 yuan of evidence collection shopping expenses paid by TCL Company to stop the infringement, and the amount of notarization fees, attorney fees and transportation and accommodation fees was determined by the court); 3.*****, Risheng Electric Appliance Business Department of Dazu District bears the litigation costs of this case.
The facts of the first-instance case
The court of first instance found out the facts:
On June 2, 20021,TCL Group Co., Ltd. was approved to register its trademark number as 1792882, and its approved scope of use is Class 9 commodities: fax machines, telephones, computer software (recording), televisions, electronic dictionaries, etc. On February 3, 2004, the registered trademark was changed to TCL Corporation, and the validity of the registered trademark was extended to June 20, 2022. On June 7, 2007, TCL Group Co., Ltd. was approved to register its trademark number as 4 190928, and its approved scope of use is Class 9 goods: monitors, computers, televisions, video recorders, etc. After that, the validity period of the registered trademark was extended to 65438+20271October 6. TCL Group Co., Ltd. was established in March of 1982+0 1 year with a registered capital of over13.5 billion yuan. Its business scope covers the research, development, production and sales of electronic products and communication equipment, new photoelectric devices, liquid crystal devices, Wujinjiaodian, VCD, DVD players, home theater systems, electronic computers and accessories. On February 5, 2020, TCL Corporation was renamed TCL Technology Group Corporation.
1999, the trademark ""registered and used by TCL Group Co., Ltd. on telephone and TV products was recognized as a well-known trademark by the State Trademark Office. For a long time, TCL Technology Group Co., Ltd. has carried out a lot of publicity and promotion of goods and brands. From 2065438+04 to 2065438+07, TCL brand ranked first in the national TV manufacturing industry in the national 100 brand evaluation, and TCL ace TV set also won many honors.
On February 5, 2020, TCL Technology Group Co., Ltd. issued the Trademark Power of Attorney, authorizing TCL to use trademarks such as ","and "and" and to carry out rights protection matters; The licensing method is general licensing, and the licensee has the right to take rights protection actions in its own name against any infringement of the licensor's trademark rights and unfair competition, including but not limited to reporting by the administrative department for industry and commerce, civil and criminal litigation, negotiation and settlement, etc. The authorized area is Chinese mainland; The authorization period is from September 20 17 18 to February 3 1 2022; The licensee has implemented the authorization mentioned in this trademark authorization before the signing date, and the licensor shall recognize it.
On June/0/0, 2020, Chengdu Guoli Notary Office of Sichuan Province issued a notarial certificate (2020) No.60658, the main content of which was: On May/0/9, 2020, the notary, the staff of the notary office and the purchaser designated by the applicant came to the house at No.2/0/5, Longgang East Road, Dazu District, Chongqing. The purchased TV set shall be sealed and kept by the applicant. The notarial certificate is attached with 8 pages of printed photos. The bill details in the attached notarial certificate show that the payee is.