rechèch Sit Search

Kohler pran yon byen li te ye-Smart Konpayi twalèt nan tribinal pou plis pase $ 1.4 milyon dola nan domaj

KlasifikasyonBlog 976 0

Lekòl biznis twalèt

Dènyèman, Kohler (Lachin) Envestisman Co v. Zhejiang Weiwei ak anpil lòt antrepriz aparans patant ka kontravansyon nan egzanp lan premye te dirije an favè Kohler.

Nan 2017, Kohler (Lachin) Envestisman Co Ltd ankòz Zhejiang Weiwei Elektwonik Sanitè Ware Co Ltd ak Shanghai Weiwei Elektwonik Sanitè Ware Co Ltd ak Taizhou Yijia Teknoloji Co Ltd ak Beijing Jingdong Sanlitu E-commerce Co Ltd pou kontravansyon nan patant konsepsyon.

The trial was held in public on September 10, 2019, at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Kohler said in the lawsuit, Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei without the plaintiff’s permission, jointly manufacture, sell, promise to sell the model V9-B, V9-C toilet infringed Kohler is still in the patent protection period of ZL201330193853.8, the name of the “toilet” design patent, Jingdong for the above-mentioned The conduct provides an e-commerce platform, and IKEA’s sale and promise to sell V9-B toilets and promise to sell V9-C toilets without the plaintiff’s permission also constitutes an infringement of the patent.

Kohler mande tribinal la bay lòd pou Zhejiang Weiwei ak Shanghai Weiwei imedyatman sispann fabrikasyon, vann, pwomèt nan vann pwodwi yo vyole, epi detwi tout pwodwi yo an vyolasyon ak mwazi yo ki enpòtan pou pwodiksyon an nan pwodwi yo an vyolasyon. An menm tan an ke Weiwei a plis pase 200 magazen tou vann pwodwi vyole, Se konsa, pèt ekonomik yo ak depans litij rezonab yon total de 14,208,850 Yuan, of which a total of 420,850 yuan of reasonable litigation expenses, including 400,000 yuan of lawyer’s fees, notary fees 20,850 yuan. In addition, Ikea was ordered to pay 620850 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses, including 420,850 yuan for reasonable expenses, including 400,000 yuan for attorney’s fees and 20850 yuan for notary fees.

Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei pointed out in the defense, the infringing products and the patent in question, neither the same nor similar, not into the scope of protection of the patent in question, even if the infringing products fall into the scope of protection of the patent in question, the plaintiff claim amount is too high, request the court to reject all the plaintiff’s claim.

IKEA argued that it agreed with the defense of Zhejiang Weiwei and Shanghai Weiwei, and said that the infringing products sold by IKEA have legal sources, should not bear the liability, accordingly, request the court to reject all the plaintiff’s claims.

Apre odyans lan, Beijing Pwopriyete entelektyèl Tribinal la te kenbe ke patant la se toujou nan peryòd la validite, ak pwodwi yo kontravansyon ak pwodwi yo vyolasyon nan aparans nan resanblans anpil, Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei nan odyans lan tribinal rekonèt aplikasyon li yo nan envantè a. , sale, pwomès nan vann pwodwi yo vyole, konsa konstitye yon kontravansyon nan dwa yo patant jwi pa Kohler, va pote responsablite sivil ki koresponn lan. IKEA pa t 'gen fòt subjectif, epi yo pa t' bezwen pote responsablite a.

The court of first instance ordered Zhejiang Weiwei and Shanghai Weiwei to immediately stop manufacturing, selling and promising to sell the infringing products, and Taizhou Ikea to immediately stop selling and promising to sell the infringing products, and rejected Kohler’s request to destroy all the infringing products and related molds. At the same time ordered Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei compensation for the plaintiff Kohler (China) Investment Company Limited economic losses of 200,000 yuan, 60,850 yuan in litigation costs. And pay 1400 yuan for case acceptance fee.

Previous :: Next:

您好!Tanpri siyen

Klike sou pou anile repons lan
    更多
    Byenveni nan sit wèb ofisyèl FAUCET WOWOW la

    loading ...

    Chwazi lajan ou
    Dola AmerikenEtazini dola (US) dola

    au

    X

    Navigasyon Istwa

    X