Model indictment in administrative litigation (1)

Plaintiff: super pervert, male, born on January 1, 21, Now living in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Tel: * * * *

Defendant: Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for Industry and Commerce

Address: No.8 Sanlihe East Road, Xicheng District, Beijing (182)

Person in charge: Xu Ruibiao Position: Director

Litigation request

1, Request the people's court to cancel the reexamination decision of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (Shangpingzi (29) No.22694) on the rejection of the trademark No.455,67 "YOUZHENG".

Facts and reasons

On September 8, 25, the plaintiff submitted an application for registration of word mark "YOUZHENG" (application No.45567, category 36) to the Trademark Office, and the services requested for registration were: insurance brokers; Capital investment; Financial loans; Bank; Financial services; Savings bank; Guarantee; Trust; Pawn; Broker. On December 4, 28, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce made a trademark rejection decision with the trademark number ZC4884467BH1 against the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to accept the rejection decision made by the Trademark Office and applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for reexamination according to Article 32 of the Trademark Law. On August 31, 29, the defendant made a reexamination decision on the rejection of the trademark No.45567 "YOUZHENG", which was Shangpingzi (29) No.22694.

the plaintiff believes that the defendant did not strictly follow the relevant provisions or requirements of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the Trademark Review Rules, the Trademark Review Standards, the Code of Practice for Trademark Registration, Management and Review of the Administration for Industry and Commerce, and the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services; The illegal procedure and insufficient evidence led to the wrong determination of facts and the wrong decision, which seriously damaged the interests of the plaintiff. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff from infringement, a lawsuit is hereby filed.

This letter is addressed to

Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court

Plaintiff: super pervert

Model indictment in administrative litigation (II)

Appellant (Plaintiff of first instance): Zhao Hongwei, male, Han nationality, 55 years old, from Jiuquan City, Gansu Province.

owner of Jiuquan liming comprehensive building, address: No.11, Xiongguan Road, Jiuquan City.

Appellee (defendant of first instance): Jiuquan Construction Bureau.

Address: No.55, century avenue, Xincheng District, Jiuquan City.

legal representative: Zhang man, director of the bureau.

Appellee (the third person in the first instance): Jiuquan Construction Engineering Quality Supervision Station.

address: No.9, north ring road, Jiuquan city.

legal representative: Duan Zhongwei, stationmaster of this station.

cause of action: the appellant refuses to accept the administrative judgment of Jiuquan Intermediate People's Court (28) Jiu Ji Chu Zi No.4, and now appeals. The appeal request and reasons are as follows:

1. Cancel the Administrative Judgment of Jiuquan Intermediate People's Court (28) Liquor Chu Zi No.4 and change the judgment according to law;

2. Investigate the appellee's long-term failure to perform legal duties, allowing his subordinates and the engineering quality supervision station to violate laws and regulations, resulting in a major quality accident of Liming Complex Building and not investigating it for a long time, which has caused great economic losses and mental losses to the appellee. The appellee and the third party should bear the responsibility of violating laws and regulations by failing to perform legal responsibilities, bear the tort liability of infringing upon the appellant's legitimate rights and interests, and compensate all the economic losses caused thereby.

3. Technical appraisal of the relevant evidence confirmed by the first instance as the basis for finalizing the case.

The reasons are as follows:

(1) The fact that the first instance deliberately failed to confirm is that the appellant started to complain from September 18th, 22 (during the basement construction) when he found that the construction unit and quality supervision station of this project had serious illegal acts, and demanded to investigate and deal with the use of waste steel bars during the construction of Liming Complex Building. Until December 19th, 28, under the Administrative Judgment (28) (Liquor Chu Zi No.4), no written normative or non-normative documents were received from Jiuquan Construction Bureau. Its administrative omission is an objective fact.

(2) The only letter confirmed by the first-instance judgment dated March 31, 23 (refers to the memo stamped with the seal of Suzhou District Quality Supervision Station). It is a conclusion that the "large area cracks" in the frame beam slab of Liming Complex Building are "temperature cracks", which aims to cover up the fact that quality accidents are caused by the use of a large number of waste steel bars. This building is the only building in the world where the floor of reinforced concrete frame beam breaks when it is frozen and heated in the natural environment? The judgment of the first instance takes this as "evidence" to confirm that Jiuquan Construction Bureau has fulfilled its statutory duty of quality supervision and supervision, which is ridiculous!

(3) Most of the other evidences identified in the first-instance judgment are the letters of complaint from the appellant requesting the quality supervision station and the Construction Bureau to investigate and deal with those responsible for the quality accident according to law, and attending the meeting minutes of all parties to discuss the project reinforcement scheme. Most of the evidence identified in this case does not have any normative documents showing that the Jiuquan Construction Bureau investigated or punished the violators according to law. The first-instance judgment takes the non-legally effective words of all parties involved in the project as the basis for finalizing the case, which is inconsistent with law and reason.

(4) The problem that the first-instance judgment tried to avoid was the fact that Jiuquan Construction Bureau refused to act according to law for seven years. One-sided acceptance of the appellee's excuses without any legal basis as the basis of the judgment is not in line with Article 4 of the Administrative Procedure Law: "The people's courts try administrative cases on the basis of facts and take the law as the criterion". If the facts and evidence of the case are unclear, it should be investigated and verified. You can't trust one party's self-report, let alone take the appellee's request as the basis for finalizing the case.

It is unfair for the first-instance judgment to regard the non-existent "fact" as the "fact" of the final decision. So far, Jiuquan Construction Bureau has not investigated or punished the illegal responsible person of this major construction accident, and has not handed over the case to the judicial organs according to law to the responsible person who intentionally produces and manufactures fake and inferior construction products. The first-instance judgment that the Construction Bureau has fulfilled its "legal duties" is really inconsistent with the facts.

(5) After the case was put on file in the first instance, the presiding judge did not serve the appellant with a copy of the defendant's defense in the first instance after the legal time limit of 1 days. The appellant repeatedly asked the court of first instance to deliver a copy of the defendant's defense to the plaintiff according to law, and was told that the defendant had no defense. Until the third month after filing the case, the appellant did not receive a copy of the respondent's defense in the first instance. According to the law of our country, if the defendant of first instance fails to submit a defense to respond to the lawsuit within the statutory time limit, according to the provisions of Article 26 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law, it should be legally recognized that there is no evidence or basis and the illegal facts are established.

(6) At 11: on September 11th, 28, the court of first instance telephoned the appellant that "the court session will be held on the morning of September 17th". When the appellant received the summons for the court session that afternoon, he was verbally told by the court that "no one from the Construction Bureau appeared in court, and the court session will be held on September 22nd instead."

On the morning of September 22nd, when the appellant reported to the court as required by law, he was told that "the Construction Bureau still refused to appear in court, and the court session will be held from October 6th to October 9th." Write a summons for court session in the form of a note, and specifically indicate that the appellant is required to "cross-examine the same' evidence' submitted to the court at the time of filing the case". It limits the appellant's right to give evidence and cross-examine according to law, so it also successfully avoids important evidence that can prove his illegal crime for the defendant and the third party. (evidence)

(7) During the trial on October 9, 28, the presiding judge prohibited the appellant from reading the indictment during the trial, restricted the appellant from speaking and debating on this fact, always cooperated with the defendant and the third party, and hastily announced the adjournment for several minutes. (Evidence)

(8) After the trial of the first instance lasted for three months, the presiding judge forced the appellant to withdraw the lawsuit by way of interview and phone call, and "politely" told "that the bean curd residue project of Liming Complex Building only existed as a" legal fact "and" it did not form legal evidence ". "The state's investigation of the responsibility of the regulatory authorities for counterfeit drugs, milk powder, milk and Songhua River water pollution is caused by the general climate, but there is no legal basis for the investigation of the illegal responsibility of the construction engineering quality supervision department. You'd better drop the lawsuit, otherwise it's hard to say when it will be judged." The presiding officer fully defended the appellee's illegal behavior and made a judgment that the law was contrary to reason, which was unconvincing.

(9) The judgment of first instance is based on only one law and one interpretation. According to the judgment, according to Article 64 of the Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects, "the construction unit shall be responsible for compensation for the losses caused by the quality problems of the projects". However, the main provisions of Article 64 are to punish those responsible for violating the law, suspend business, lower their qualifications and revoke their qualification certificates. According to the provisions of Articles 65, 66, 67, 68 and 76 of the Regulations, they all meet the actual problems of the project. These regulations stipulate that there should be a statutory competent authority in the construction industry to implement them. The appellant's appeal in the past seven years also requires the Construction Bureau to make administrative punishment or investigate and deal with those responsible for violations of the law in accordance with the relevant "regulations" and "regulations". The fact is that the Construction Bureau has not made any investigation so far. The first trial never found that Jiuquan Construction Bureau did not perform its statutory duties according to many relevant laws and regulations, but completely followed the appellee's intention to avoid the heavy and ignore the light. The long-winded quotation of the incident confused the audience, excused the appellee from illegal responsibility, and deliberately made a very unfair first-instance judgment. The deep-seated reasons are worthy of people's deep thinking, and the conclusion is absolutely unacceptable.

(1) The judgment of first instance stated that "it was found through examination", "The quality supervision station found that there was a problem with the steel quality on September 18th, 22", "The quality supervision station went to the site to observe the cracks on March 19th, 23", "It was judged as a temperature crack" and "experts were invited to identify and coordinate the meeting". From the contents listed in the judgment, it seems to outsiders that it is really "detailed and clear", but the actual fact is that the quality supervision station has contracted the quality inspection, construction supervision and quality supervision of all building materials in Liming Comprehensive Building Project. The 175 tons of steel products "passed the inspection" by the quality supervision station were found to have obvious problems in the quality of steel products at the construction site, and "the elongation failed after inspection and passed the double re-examination". The fact that the judgment was written on behalf of the appellee was that when the problem of waste steel bars was exposed on September 18, 22, dozens of tons of waste steel bars had been cast by concrete in the basement of the underground foundation of the building, and most of the frame beams and floors on the first floor, which led to more serious cracks in the later period. The conclusions confirming these facts are supported by the appraisal made by the national legal professional institutions. There is no doubt that reinforced concrete buildings are there to testify, and you can cross-examine, review and review at any time!

the sentence "found out through trial" in the judgment of first instance can't cover up the illegal and criminal facts that occurred during the construction of the project, let alone the fact that the quality supervision station is the person responsible for the quality accident of the project!

(11) Jiuquan Engineering Quality Supervision Station refused to admit that it had issued a false "material inspection report" for the project, and could not come up with the appraisal conclusion that the third-party appraisal unit with authoritative inspection qualification appraised the engineering entity materials. The judgment based on the "statement" of the quality supervision station and the "evidence" provided by it determines that its behavior is "true and legal", which is an indulgence of the crime of counterfeiting and the crime of producing fake and inferior products.

according to article 16 of the management measures for quality inspection of construction projects. Article 18 stipulates that Article 59 of the Regulations on Quality Management of Construction Projects stipulates that Jiuquan Quality Supervision Station has carried out a number of illegal activities during the construction of Liming Complex Building, and must bear legal responsibilities according to law. Should be severely punished by relevant laws.

The first-instance judgment recognized the illegal fact that Jiuquan Quality Supervision Station participated in the production and manufacture of fake and inferior building products for the purpose of seeking illegal benefits as "legal", which shows that the presiding judge did not understand the relevant laws and regulations or other reasons before making this unfair judgment.

(12) The first-instance judgment forcibly identified the minutes of technical discussions of all parties involved in the project and the evidence fabricated by the quality supervision station to avoid illegal responsibilities as the evidence that the Construction Bureau investigated the illegal facts of the construction unit and the quality supervision station, which was inconsistent with the facts and jurisprudence. On the contrary, it confirmed the evidence to prove that the Construction Bureau refused to investigate the illegal facts of the construction unit and the quality supervision station of the project, and asked the court of second instance to make a clear investigation.

(13) In this administrative litigation case that passed the first trial, objective facts and sufficient evidence confirmed the existence of criminal offences and illegal facts and evidence. The judgment of first instance tried to avoid the facts and evidence in the case and did not issue a judicial proposal according to law. The appellant could not be convinced, so the court of second instance should pay attention to it.

(14) The appellant is a victim of inferior engineering, with the fact that unqualified engineering cannot be used, and the appraisal conclusion made by the authoritative statutory professional appraisal institution of the state on the present situation and material of the engineering entity.

According to Item 2 of Article 54 in Chapter 6 of Interpretation of the National People's Congress on Construction Engineering Quality Management; Article 6, items 1 and 2; Article 62 (2) and other provisions put forward to the court that the Jiuquan Construction Bureau, which fails to perform its statutory supervision duties, contracts the Jiuquan Engineering Quality Supervision Station, which is also the construction supervision and quality supervision, to compensate the economic losses of the victims and appellants. The first-instance judgment that the appellant's "claim for compensation is unfounded in law" is inconsistent with objective facts and relevant laws and regulations.

(15) According to the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the State Compensation Law, the Administrative Procedure Law and the Civil Law: "People who have suffered losses due to the violation of citizens' rights by state organs and their staff have the right to obtain compensation according to the law", and "Citizens, legal persons or other organizations have the right if their legitimate rights and interests are infringed by specific administrative acts committed by administrative organs or their staff.

Jiuquan City Construction Bureau failed to perform its statutory duties, and Jiuquan Engineering Quality Supervision Station participated in fraudulent activities based on a false Material Inspection Report for the construction unit, which caused great losses to the appellant and seriously violated the appellant's legal rights and interests. There are "legal facts" and legal basis, so please ask the court of second instance to verify the objective facts and give support.

to sum up, the appellant thinks that it is against common sense and relevant laws and regulations that the judgment of first instance is based entirely on the appellee's "statement" instead of real facts and evidence. In order to safeguard the appellant's legitimate rights and interests, and investigate the appellee's long-term failure to perform his statutory duties and the third party's liability for compensation for illegal infringement, the Administrative Procedure Law is specially followed.