The company was sentenced to infringement on the counterfeit labeling of aluminum material

Nowadays, the commodities in the building materials market are not exactly the same, but there are many cases where shoddy goods are used in a genuine manner. A business acts to reduce costs for profiteering, labeling counterfeit Aluminum honeycomb foil and turning it into a "brand name." Recently, the firm was sued for infringement of trademark rights to the People’s Court of Suzhou Industrial Park.
A firm is located in a large building square in the park and is engaged in the wholesale and retail of steel pipes and aluminum materials（5052 aluminum plate on sale）. Due to the fierce competition in the building materials industry, Wu Mou, the owner of the firm, had a lot of brains. Wu introduced the “shortcut” to make money through the introduction of his fellow villagers: buy low-priced aluminum from the villagers and sell it with “LPSK” trademark. . In 2007, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce determined that the registered trademark of “LPS Gold LPSK” is a well-known trademark. Sure enough, customers who came to buy aluminum have looked for the "LPS Gold LPSK" brand, which has a good market, and Wu is also full of profits.

At the end of 2017, the firm received a "Administrative Punishment Decision" from the Market Supervision Bureau of the park. Originally, the firm sold aluminum materials（Aluminum coated coil 1100-O） worth 1200 yuan to consumers in a transaction and was identified by Ropeskin on the spot. The aluminum material bearing the trademark "LPS Gold" was not a company's product. The Market Supervision Administration found that the firm infringed Ropeskin's exclusive right to use the registered trademark and imposed a fine of 3,500 yuan on the commercial bank. Subsequently, Ropeskin Company sued the court for the infringement of the firm's business and requested the court to order the firm to stop the infringement and compensate for the corresponding loss.

After the trial, the court held that the behavior of a defendant’s firm could easily cause the relevant public to confuse the source of the goods and constituted infringement. The firm should stop the infringement and bear civil compensation liability. Because the plaintiff Ropeskin failed to prove the actual losses and failed to prove the proceeds of the firm’s infringement, the court applied the principle of statutory compensation according to law, combining the reputation of the registered trademark in question, the nature of the infringement, the subjective fault of the defendant’s firm, etc. Factors, the defendant's firm discretionary compensation 15,000 yuan.