search Nnyocha saịtị

Kohler were ụlọ ọrụ Smart Bathroom maara nke ọma n'ụlọ ikpe maka ihe karịrị nde $ 1.4 na Mmebi

nhazi ọkwablog 976 0

Businesslọ Akwụkwọ Azụmaahịa nke ụlọ ịsa ahụ

N'oge na-adịbeghị anya, Kohler (China) Investment Co. v. Zhejiang Weiwei na ọtụtụ ụlọ ọrụ ndị ọzọ na-egosi nnupụisi patent na nke mbụ na-akwado Kohler.

Na 2017, Kohler (China) Investment Co. Ltd. gbara Zhejiang Weiwei Electronic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd. na Shanghai Weiwei Electronic Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd. na Taizhou Yijia Technology Co. Ltd. na Beijing Jingdong Sanlitu E-commerce Co. Ltd. n'ihi na imebi iwu ihe eji emepụta ihe.

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 rịọrọ ụlọ ikpe ahụ ka ọ nye Zhejiang Weiwei na Shanghai Weiwei iwu ka ha kwụsị ngwa ngwa, na-ere, na-ekwe nkwa ire ngwaahịa ndị ahụ mebiri emebi, ma bibie ngwaahịa niile mebiri emebi na ebu dị mkpa maka mmepụta nke ngwaahịa ndị ahụ mebiri emebi. N'otu oge ahụ na Weiwei karịa ụlọ ahịa 200 na-erekwa ngwaahịa mebiri emebi, yabụ ọghọm akụ na ụba na mmefu ịgba akwụkwọ ezi uche dị na ngụkọta nke yuan 14,208,850, 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.

Mgbe nụchara ya, ụlọ ikpe ikike ọgụgụ isi nke Beijing kwenyere na patent ahụ ka dị na oge ndaba ya, yana ngwaahịa na ngwaahịa mmebi iwu na ngwaahịa mebiri na ọdịdị nke ọtụtụ myirịta, Zhejiang Weiwei, Shanghai Weiwei n'ụlọ ikpe nụrụ na ọ ghọtara mmejuputa nke imepụta ahụ , ire ere, nkwa ịre ngwaahịa mebiri emebi, wee si otú a mebie ikike ikike patent nke Kohler nwere, ga-ebu ụgwọ obodo kwekọrọ. IKEA enweghi mmekpa ahụ nke onwe, ọ chọghịkwa ibu ọrụ.

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.

Nke gara aga :: Osote:
Pịa ịkagbu zaghachi
    更多
    Nabata na weebụsaịtị WOWOW FAUCET

    loading ...

    Họrọ ego gị
    USDUnited States (US) dollar

    cart

    X

    Akụkọ Nchọgharị

    X