Introduction: Infringement disputes refer to disputes arising from infringement of the legitimate civil rights and interests of others. The following is my collection of sample appeals on infringement disputes, welcome to read. Model petition for infringement dispute (I)

Appellant: Kunming XX Packaging Materials Co., Ltd. (plaintiff in the original trial)

Domicile: XX Changyuan Road, Kunming High-tech Development Zone.

legal representative: Liu XX, chairman of the board.

appellee: Yunnan XX real estate development co., ltd. (Defendant in the original trial)

Domicile: Gaoxin Merchants Building, High-tech Development Zone, Kunming.

legal representative su XX, chairman of the board.

the appellant refused to accept the judgment ([21] Kun Min Yi Chu Zi No.66) made by Kunming Intermediate People's Court of Yunnan Province on July 8, 211 for the infringement case of Yunnan XX Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., and now appeals according to law.

Appeal request:

1. Request the judge of second instance to maintain the appellant's claim of loss of profits during the period from the damaged production to the resumption of production, in addition to maintaining the appellant's claim of item (3)(4)(5)(6)(8) supported by the judgment of first instance, and the court of second instance should also rule that the appellant's claim of item (1)(2)(7) was not supported by the first instance.

2. The appellee was ordered to bear all the appraisal fees paid by the appellant for determining the amount of loss.

3. Order the appellee to bear the legal costs of the original trial and the appeal fees.

Facts and reasons:

1. The reasons why the original judgment never supported the claims in items (1), (2) and (7) were not sufficient, and the three expenses were direct losses.

the appellant demanded that the appellee compensate the expenses needed by the identified GMP workshop to resume normal production of 4,63,5. yuan, including eight sub-items, namely (1) the workshop rental expenses of 1,162,5. yuan; (2) The purification project cost of building a clean workshop in the temporary leased workshop is 1,123,632. yuan; (3) 171,3 yuan for handling and debugging of soft package printing and compound machine equipment; (4) The handling and debugging fee of 4)PTP workshop is 211,3 yuan; (5) The handling and debugging fee of the film blowing machine is 74, yuan; (6) The handling and debugging fee of the edition library is 18, yuan; (7) Because the clean workshop built by the leased factory can only be used as a temporary transition, the second relocation cost is 52, yuan; (8) After moving back to the original site, the purification project of the clean workshop will be rebuilt with 1.35 million yuan. The judgment of the original trial supported the above claim for compensation in item (3), (4), (5), (6) and (8), which is reasonable and legal. One of the reasons why it does not support the claim in item (1)(2)(7) is that the three expenses are not direct losses, which is wrong for the following reasons:

The appellant's act of building a temporary factory belongs to self-help in civil law, and its purpose is to minimize the damage consequences caused by the appellee's tort. This self-help behavior includes moving away and moving back. After identification, the factors affecting the original GMP production and operation lasted for as long as 1.5 years, so it is necessary to move out, otherwise the appellant will lose all customer resources, face rent loss, face the risk of administrative license being revoked due to long-term suspension of production and business, etc., and these losses will far exceed the reasonable expenses incurred by temporarily building a GMP clean workshop; It is also necessary to move back to the original site and rebuild the clean workshop for production and operation, otherwise the appellant's direct economic loss will be at least the value of the original GMP workshop, that is, the appraisal conclusion of Yunnan Dingfeng Judicial Appraisal Center is 9,85, yuan. If the appellant does not move back to the original site for production and operation, it will lose the administrative license for production and operation based on the original site. In addition, the application for the same administrative license for site selection will face a very difficult and long examination and approval process, and the result of approval is minimal, that is, the appellant may no longer be allowed to continue his original production and operation activities. Therefore, moving back to the original site to rebuild the clean workshop is also an inevitable part of self-help behavior. Reasonable expenses incurred due to self-help behavior shall be borne by the infringer. Item (3), (4), (5) and (6) are all expenses for handling and debugging workshops and equipment, which are reasonable expenses for the removed part of self-help behavior, and the original judgment supports them. However, item (1) is also reasonable expenses for the removed part of self-help behavior, but the original judgment does not support it, which is unreasonable in law and reason. In addition, the original judgment supported the request in item (8), that is, the purification project cost of rebuilding the clean factory building after moving back to the original site was 1.35 million yuan, which also recognized that the act of moving back to the original site was a part of self-rescue. At the same time, the original judgment considered that the request in item (8) was a direct loss caused by the appellee's tort, and this judgment reason recognized that the reasonable expenses for self-rescue were direct losses. In this case, it obviously also belonged to the reasonable expenses for self-rescue.

to sum up, it is necessary and reasonable for the appellant to move away from the original site and build a clean workshop to engage in production and business activities. After the appellee's infringement is over, that is, after the harmful factors affecting the production and business of the original GMP workshop are eliminated, the appellant must move back to the original site to rebuild the clean workshop, which is also an inevitable part of the self-help behavior. The reasonable expenses incurred due to self-help behavior belong to the direct loss of the infringed, and the infringer shall compensate. The original judgment held that the loss in item (1), (2) and (7) was not a direct loss, and the essence of its mistake was that it did not realize the integrity of the self-help behavior in this case, and divided the whole self-help behavior into several parts and abandoned the components without reason.

2. The reasons why the original judgment never supported the claim in item (1), (2) and (7) were not sufficient, and the loss in item (1), (2) and (7) had a causal relationship with the appellee's tort.

if the appellant doesn't save himself, the economic losses caused by the appellee's tort will far exceed the reasonable expenses for saving himself, which has been expounded in the above appeal opinions. If there is no persistent tort of the appellee, there will be no self-help behavior of the appellee. It is this persistent tort of the appellee that leads to the appellant's self-help behavior, and there is an inevitable causal relationship between the former and the latter. The original judgment held that item (3)(4)(5)(6)(8) had a causal relationship with the tort, while item (1)(2)(7) had no causal relationship with the tort. Its mistake was that it did not grasp the inevitable causal relationship between the tort and the whole self-help behavior, and its essence was that it did not grasp the integrity of the self-help behavior, which led to its misunderstanding of the causal relationship between the tort and the self-help behavior.

3. The reasons why the original judgment never supports the claim in item (1), (2) and (7) are not sufficient. The loss in item (1), (2) and (7) does not overlap with the loss of profit during the period from the damaged GMP workshop to the resumption of production. They are independent losses in self-help behavior.

the loss of profits during the period from the damaged GMP workshop to the resumption of production refers to the extra costs incurred by Yongzhen Company to maintain normal production during the period from the suspension of GMP workshop to the completion of the first construction. Before the temporary workshop failed to be put into production, the appellant implemented self-help behavior in order to reduce losses, that is, purchased PE film for production and operation, and the extra cost for this was profit loss, which was the direct loss caused by infringement, and its essence was the reasonable expenditure of self-help behavior. Item (1), (2) and (7) is another independent and reasonable expenditure in the process of complete self-rescue. The loss of profits from the damaged period of inability to produce to resume production has a chronological relationship with the three losses, which are logically independent rather than overlapping. The appellant's three losses are not compensated because the appellee only compensated the loss of profits from the damaged period of inability to produce to resume production. Therefore, the original judgment equated the three losses with the loss of profits during the period from the loss of production to the resumption of production, which was an inaccurate determination of the facts of this case.

iv. the appellee shall compensate the GMP workshop for the loss of profits of 1,327,6 yuan from the time it was damaged and failed to produce to the time it resumed production.

this loss is a direct loss caused by the appellee's tort, and there is an obvious causal relationship with this tort, which has been recognized in the original judgment, which is reasonable and legal, so there is no need to repeat it here.

5. The appraisal fee paid by the appellant for determining the loss shall be borne by the appellee.

The original judgment ordered the appellee to bear part of the appraisal expenses on the grounds that some items in the appraisal conclusion were not direct losses, that is, item (1), (2) and (7). According to the above facts and reasons, these three items are direct losses, and the reasons of the original judgment are not established, so the appellee shall bear all the appraisal expenses, that is, 3,. yuan.

request the higher people's court to fully consider the facts and reasons of the appellant according to the facts and laws of this case and make a fair and just judgment according to law.

This is to

Yunnan Provincial Higher People's Court

Appellant: Kunming XX Packaging Materials Co., Ltd.

Agent: Model Appeal for Infringement Dispute (II)

Appellant: Guangdong xx Development Co., Ltd.

Defendant: Zhejiang Hangzhou XX Co., Ltd.

Appellee: Wang XX

Appellant refuses to accept the civil judgment of Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (28) Hangminsanchuzi No.43, and hereby appeals to your hospital.

Appeal request:

1. Request to cancel the first, second, third and fourth judgments of (28) Hangmin Sanchuzi No.43 civil judgment.

2. The Appellee was ordered to bear the legal costs of the first and second trials of this case.

Facts and reasons:

1. What did the appellant use? Zhongkai audio & video? 、? Zhongkai culture? 、? Zhongkai culture honors the production of Zhongkai big movies? 、? Zhongkai TV series? Text marks belong to the rational use of their own business name, not to the use of trademark marks, and the trademark plays a very small role in identifying audio-visual enterprises.

The original judgment held that the Appellant used it in a prominent position in its products, packaging and publicity for many years? Zhongkai TV series? 、? Zhongkai Big (New) Movie? 、? Zhongkai audio & video? Logo text? Zhongkai? Characters have played a guiding role for consumers to identify the producers of goods, and their function of distinguishing the source of goods has been fully demonstrated, which should belong to trademark identification and then be recognized as trademark use. The appellant did not agree, for the following reasons:

1. The original judgment ignored a fact, and so did the appellant's name? Zhongkai? In business activities, the logo that plays a guiding role for consumers to identify the producers of goods must be a trademark, and the font size also has the role of distinguishing different sources of goods. Moreover, in this case, the appellant will own registered trademark Z-shaped graphic trademark and the above-mentioned inclusion? Zhongkai? The word logo of the font size is used together, with the Z-shaped graphic trademark in the front and the abbreviation and full name in the back. This usage has continued to this day. Since the appellant already has a registered trademark, there is no need to? Zhongkai? Used as a trademark, moreover, the appellant is on the front of the audio-visual products? Zhongkai Culture Honored Product? The way to use, indicating that the main distribution of audio-visual products is the appellant, other secondary positions to use? Zhongkai? It is also an indication of the identity of the theme. On the same audio-visual product, on the one hand, the original judgment found that the appellant used it? Zhongkai culture? Belonging to the use of font size, on the one hand, it is considered to be used? Zhongkai audio & video? Logo belongs to the use of trademarks, such a distinction is really unconvincing. Also, since it is determined that the appellant uses it? Zhongkai culture? Does not constitute trademark infringement, why did the first judgment in the main text of the judgment order the appellant to stop using it? Zhongkai culture? What about the logo?

2. The original judgment did not take into account the characteristics of the audio-visual industry. The original judgment found that the appellant used the above-mentioned text logo in a prominent position, which was biased. In fact, the information that audio-visual products distribution enterprises need to convey to consumers in a prominent position in audio-visual products is not their own trademarks or font sizes, but the star stills, highlights, large fonts and highlighted program names in video programs, as well as the names of directors and main actors and production companies, accompanied by graphic information such as text introduction of programs, which takes up a lot of space and aims to attract consumers' attention so that consumers can understand what programs are at a glance. Therefore, the appellant's use of the above-mentioned text logo on audio-visual products is not necessary to be prominent and eye-catching compared with the graphic information of the video program that needs to be transmitted.

3. As the distribution enterprises in the audio-visual industry are exclusively authorized by the copyright owner in China for a specific video program, only one audio-visual enterprise exclusively distributes or distributes the audio-visual products of the same program in the domestic market. Moreover, the purpose of consumers buying VCD and DVD of a certain program is to appreciate the content of the program. From the information such as the name, stills, director, starring and content introduction of the video program marked on the surface of the audio-visual product envelope, they can understand what the program is. It is impossible for ordinary consumers to mistakenly choose and buy the second program of the same audio-visual product because of confusion. Moreover, when purchasing VCD and DVD, most consumers pay little attention to who is the distributor of the purchased programs, and no one cares about the trademark of the distributor, and no consumers look for audio-visual products according to the trademark. The reason is simple, that is, the audio-visual products of the same program are exclusively distributed or distributed by only one audio-visual company in the market. Unlike air conditioners, computers and other commodities, these products produced and sold by different enterprises have the same functions and uses and can be replaced by each other. On the contrary, the audio-visual products of the same program can be replaced by each other. Therefore, whether it is a brand name or a trademark, it plays a very small role in identifying the audio-visual enterprises in the audio-visual industry. Therefore, in this case, the appellant naturally does not have the intention to use an unknown one? Zhongkai? In the registered trademark of combination? Zhongkai? Mark the motivation to improve your business reputation or popularity.

second, the original judgment supports the appellee's decision? Zhongkai? There is no legal basis for the right of action before the transfer of the combined trademark, and there is no factual basis for ordering the appellant to compensate for the economic losses according to the right of action

1. The appellant believes that the existence of the civil substantive right is the basis and premise for exercising the right of civil prosecution, which is a right of judicial relief, a right derived from the public law (Constitution), and the right of civil prosecution cannot be transferred separately from the substantive right. In the case of trademark infringement, only the trademark registrant and the interested party have the plaintiff's subject qualification, and the infringement is determined on the premise that the plaintiff enjoys the substantive right, that is, the exclusive right to use the trademark. The defendant infringes the trademark right, not the right to appeal, and the right to appeal is the trademark right.