国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站丨av无码不卡在线观看免费丨国产成人综合色就色综合丨92成人午夜福利一区二区丨狼群精品一卡二卡3卡四卡网站丨久热爱精品视频在线9丨少妇性l交大片毛多丨无码人妻丰满熟妇区bbbbxxxx丨美女视频黄是免费丨波多野结衣视频网丨天堂中文最新版在线中文丨www.亚洲黄色丨国产欧美日韩小视频丨69式视频丨五月婷婷中文丨日日日网站丨欧美tv丨www色天使丨中文字幕无码日韩欧毛丨国产黄色激情视频

Eleven Plaintiffs in the Sunwoods Case Lose Lawsuit

August 6, 2003
Eleven Plaintiffs in the Sunwoods Case Lose Lawsuit
Recently in Beijing, the Chaoyang District Court reached a final decision in favor of the defendant, Shenzhen Zhongyang Electronic Appliances Co., Ltd., concering the Sunwoods (a brand name for a stereo sound system) trademark infringement case. The plaintiffs in the case were eleven customers who felt they had been decieved by Shenzhen Zhongyang Electronic Appliances Co., Ltd. The court concluded that the accusation of Shenzhen Co. using fraudulent trademarks to deceive customers was not valid.

The eleven customers, including Mr. Wang Haiying, the director of acdemic affairs department of China Legal Research Institute, claimed that they respectively purchased various models of Sunwoods stereo sound systems in 2001 and 2002. At that time, they were told that the products were originally produced and assembled in Denmark. However, on March 15, 2002, at a party hosted by CCTV (China Central Television Station), it was disclosed that Sunwoods stereo sound systems were originally not produced in Denmark, but instead were made in a village of Guang Dong province (a province in the south of China near Hong Kong.). The plaintiff alleged that the merchant fraudulently utilized certified trademarks and deceived his customers with misinformation of the products origin. The plaintiff sought two hundred thousand RMB in compensation.

After conducting various investigations, the court concluded that Shenzhen Zhongyang Appliance Co., Ltd. is the manufacture of Sunwoods stereo sound systems. The company provided its distributors with documents that prove Sunwoods trademarks had formerly been registered in Denmark and approved by the Denmark Trademark Office. Therefore, the court ruled that accusation by the plaintiffs was not valid.

　

Keywords