In 20 13, a certain sorghum liquor co., ltd applied to the State Trademark Office for the trademark of "Jin X", and the registration period was from 20 13 to 10.28 to 2023. On August 30th, 20 16, we applied to China National Intellectual Property Administration for a design patent named "wine bottle". On February 2, 2007, KLOC-0, we applied to China National Intellectual Property Administration for a design patent named "packing box".
A certain Kaoliang Liquor Co., Ltd. claimed that the goods produced and sold by the defendant Liquor Co., Ltd. were the same as the plaintiff's goods, but without the plaintiff's permission, the liquor packaging produced and sold by the defendant was similar to the plaintiff's unique wine bottle and packaging box.
Taiyuan Intermediate People's Court held that a certain sorghum liquor company enjoys the right to external interests of wine bottles and packing boxes, which is legal and effective and should be protected by law.
The Patent Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "the protection scope of the patent right for design shall be subject to the design of the product marked in the picture or photo, and the design of the product marked in the picture or photo may be explained by a brief description".
After investigation, if there is no difference in the overall visual effect between the accused infringing design and the authorized design, it shall be deemed as the same; If there is no substantial difference in the overall visual effect, it should be considered that the two are similar. The alleged infringing products and the patented products in this case are both kaoliang spirits, belonging to the same category of products.
The court held that the trademark of the patent office involved was similar to that of the manufacturer.
However, Article 69 of China's Patent Law stipulates that a person who has manufactured the same product, used the same method or made necessary preparations for manufacturing and using it before the patent application date, and continues to manufacture and use it only within the original scope, shall not be regarded as infringement of the patent right.
It is understood that the production date of sorghum liquor submitted for inspection in the report is 20 16072 1, while the patent application dates of the plaintiff are 2065438+August 30, 2065438+February 2 1 respectively. And the plaintiff has no evidence to prove that a liquor company of the defendant expanded its production scale after the plaintiff applied for a patent.
Therefore, the court did not support the plaintiff's claim for patent infringement against the defendant. Therefore, the case was pronounced by the court and the plaintiff's claim was rejected, and the case acceptance fee was borne by the plaintiff.