<tt id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"><pre id="6hsgl"></pre></pre></tt>
          <nav id="6hsgl"><th id="6hsgl"></th></nav>
          国产免费网站看v片元遮挡,一亚洲一区二区中文字幕,波多野结衣一区二区免费视频,天天色综网,久久综合给合久久狠狠狠,男人的天堂av一二三区,午夜福利看片在线观看,亚洲中文字幕在线无码一区二区
             
           
          Application of "seller's defense of legitimate source" in trademark infringement cases involving special goods
          By Zhou Shijun
          Updated: 2011-11-01

          The "seller's defense of legitimate source" appears in the third paragraph of Article 56 of China Trademark Law.

          It provides that "Selling goods without awareness of such goods' infringement upon the exclusive right to use a trademark shall be exempted from liability for compensation insofar as the seller is able to prove that the goods were lawfully obtained and can indicate the supplier's identity." Pursuant to the provision, if the seller is unaware of the fact that the goods on sale are infringing the exclusive rights of others' registered trademarks, and is able to prove the goods were properly and lawfully obtained and indicate the identity of the supplier, then the seller is not liable for any compensation claims arising from the sale. As a matter of fact, the provision has become a last-resort guarantee of exemption from compensation liabilities for sellers entangled in disputes involving infringement upon the exclusive rights of registered trademarks.

          Application of
          Zhou Shijun
          In trademark infringement disputes, sellers allegedly selling infringing goods often make every effort to furnish all the information of suppliers in order to obtain exemption from liability for compensation. Items which may exclude the seller include Value Added Tax(VAT) invoices, commercial invoices, purchase contracts, proof of payment; some provide payment receipts, delivery lists, storage lists and other materials, while others provide business licenses, sales qualifications and other documents. Some judges also tend to focus on the basis of materials furnished by sellers, on review of whether separate evidential materials support each other and form a complete evidence chain, and direct the focus to discussions of their authenticity, legitimacy and relevance. However, this manner of evidence review still remains an examination of facts of infringement for only certain types of goods. For some special goods, judges and lawyers need to pay further attention to the issue of the applicability of the "seller's defense of legitimate source."

          The production and distribution of food, medicines, health food, fireworks, chemical products and other goods generally relate to the safety of users' lives, therefore, China often sets out strict provisions in their production, hygiene, quality, transportation and sales, and imposes various qualification requirements for businesses engaged in the production, transportation and sales. Accordingly, laws and regulations also make provisions on the conduct of the relevant parties. If the special goods are involved in a trademark infringement dispute, the relevant laws and regulations should serve as key appraisal criteria in determining whether the seller has "legally obtained" the goods.

          Take health food for example; in accordance with the Food Hygiene Law, China's Ministry of Health promulgated Provisions on the Administration of Health Food in 1996 with specific provisions on the definition of health food, approval, production and operation, labeling, specifications and advertising, supervision and management, encompassing requirements in areas of production, marketing, monitoring and evaluation. In the last 10 years or so, the Ministry of Health has consecutively released a series of regulatory documents and technical standards, such as Provisions on the Declaration and Acceptance of Heath Food by the Ministry of Health, Notice of the Ministry of Health on Further Regulating Management of Raw Materials for Health Food, Provision on Labeling of Health Food, Good Manufacturing Practices of Health Food and Technical Standards of Inspection and Evaluation of Health Food. With the transfer of administrative authority from the Ministry of Health to the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) and promulgation of the Administrative Licensing Law, Trial Provisions on the Administration of Registration of Health Food formally entered into force on July 1st, 2005, detailing rules on the application, approval, raw materials and auxiliary materials, labeling and specifications, tests and inspections, re-registration, review and legal liabilities.

          Moreover, laws and regulations not only set strict health food requirements for manufacturers, but also make provisions on obligations upon sellers over their obligations regarding the examination incoming goods. For example, Zhejiang Province released Provisions of Zhejiang Province on Production Quality Supervision and Management and Provisions of Zhejiang Province on Investigating Production and Distribution of Counterfeit and Shoddy Goods. Article 7 of Provisions of Zhejiang Province on Administration of Certificate Claims in Food Procurement expressly provides that in procurement of special nutritional food, health food and new resources food, the product approval certificate shall be claimed together with inspection certificates or laboratory test results.

          Considering that the relevant laws, local regulations and department rules have imposed strict requirements for the production and sales of health food, stricter requirements should be set accordingly in the application of the "seller's defense of legitimate source" as provided in the third paragraph of Article 56 of China Trademark Law. In other words, a seller should not only demand sales certificates from the supplier but also examine the supplier's qualifications, which include business licenses and production permits, products' authentication marks, marks for fine quality products and other quality marks, and manufacturer's production permits, use licensing, inspection reports, certificates and trademark registration certificates. In many disputes involving well-known trademarks of a famous pharmaceutical enterprise represented by the author, the infringing products were all disguised as "health food" on sale mainly in supermarkets, chain drug stores and health care products firms. Manufacturers were varied, but the majority of them were "shell" companies. Because manufacturers have inherent deficiencies, sellers can provide neither the manufacturers' production permits registered and recorded with SFDA, nor the trademark registration certificates consistent with those of the infringed registered trademarks. Pursuant to the aforesaid requirements on certificate claims by purchasers, the purchase of the seller, of course, does not fall into the "legitimate" category, because no certificate has been claimed during the procurement, thus violating the mandatory requirements imposed by laws and regulations. In this regard, the "seller's defense of legitimate source" is not applicable to the seller as provided in the third paragraph of Article 56 of China Trademark Law, even though the seller is able to provide the relevant payment receipts and purchase vouchers, and indicate the supplier of the infringing goods.

          For a better understanding, take a more familiar and relevant case for example: opium is a medical drug whose production and distribution is strictly controlled. If it is planted and produced in private, the subsequent procurement is certainly illegal and will in no way become legal just because the purchaser has made the payment.

          Furthermore, in determining whether the seller has fulfilled the obligation of certificate claims, its business scope and scale should also be taken into account and treated differently. For example, drug enterprises specializing in pharmaceutical wholesales or chain sales should, of course, shoulder more obligations in certificate claims than private food stores and have a greater burden of proof. In trademark infringement cases, some people tend to believe that as long as the seller can prove the source of goods, the seller may be exempted from compensation liabilities. At this point, the wording "legal" has been intentionally or unintentionally ignored. However, this author holds that if judges and lawyers are able to accurately grasp the special requirements in the production, distribution and procurement of special goods, and make an accurate conclusion over the conduct of the seller in accordance with relevant laws, regulations or provisions, justice will be done in the protection of legitimate rights of trademark holders. In the meanwhile, the seller will not be bogged down in trademark infringement disputes if it strictly complies with the relevant provisions on certificate claims.

          (Translated by Wang Hongjun)



          Preventing a patent authorization

          Are we able to stop our rivals from obtaining authorization of a patent application that we regard as having substantial defects during the substantive examination, given the fact that the rival companies hane already published their patent applications?

          How can a party use hedging to prepare for the risk of infringing?

          Can an expired patent be applied again?

          What is the difference between a non-compete obligation and trade secret confidentiality obligation?

          How to prove trade secret infringement?

          主站蜘蛛池模板: 毛片大全真人在线| 欧美日韩精品一区二区视频| 线观看的国产成人av天堂| 夜夜爽无码一区二区三区| 国产精品一区二区麻豆蜜桃| 久久久一本精品99久久精品88| 日韩av无码精品人妻系列| 国产精品乱码人妻一区二区三区 | 激,情四虎欧美视频图片| 国产美女精品自在线拍免费| 日本亚洲一区二区精品久久| 综合色一色综合久久网| 国产乱妇乱子视频在播放| 影视先锋av资源噜噜| 蜜桃视频一区二区在线看| 日本一区二区精品色超碰| 国产午夜在线观看视频| 精品国产乱码久久久久APP下载| 午夜福利精品国产二区| 成 人色 网 站 欧美大片| 中文字幕无线码中文字幕免费| 国产美熟女乱又伦AV果冻传媒| 亚洲伊人久久综合成人| 91国内视频在线观看| 免费一级a毛片在线播出 | 亚洲av成人一区国产精品| 中文字幕人妻色偷偷久久| 国产精品人妻在线观看| 性少妇videosexfreexxxx片 | 精品无码人妻| 亚洲成人精品一区二区中| 久久久这里只有精品10| 精品精品久久宅男的天堂| 一区二区三区四区五区自拍| 毛片在线播放网址| 中文字幕av久久激情亚洲精品 | 一区二区三区毛片无码| 国产目拍亚洲精品区一区| 国产在线精品第一区二区| 亚洲人交乣女bbw| 东京热人妻无码一区二区av|