It is indeed an infringement and requires a lawsuit. The specific results are to be announced.

All acts that infringe upon the registered trademark rights of others are infringements of trademark rights. According to Article 52 of the Trademark Law, acts that infringe upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark mainly include the following:

1. Using the same or similar products on identical or similar goods without the permission of the owner of the registered trademark. Similar trademarks.

2. Change the registered trademark without the consent of the trademark registrant, and put the goods with the changed trademark on the market again. This behavior is also theoretically called ‘reverse crackdown on counterfeiting’.

3. Selling goods that infringe the exclusive rights of registered trademarks. In conjunction with Article 56, Paragraph 3 of the Trademark Law, if you sell goods that are not known to infringe the exclusive rights of a registered trademark, if you can prove that you obtained the goods legally and explain it to the supplier, you will not be liable for compensation. Therefore, this form of trademark infringement requires subjective knowledge on the part of the seller.

4. Counterfeit or manufacture registered trademarks of others without authorization or sell counterfeit or unauthorized registered trademarks. It should be noted that this infringement is an infringement of trademark identification, including 'manufacture' and 'sale'.

5. Acts that cause other damage to the exclusive rights of others to register trademarks. According to Article 50 of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law" and Article 1 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases concerning Trademarks", the provisions of Article 52 (5) of the "Trademark Law" Behaviors that cause other damages to the exclusive rights of others’ registered trademarks include:

1. Using signs that are identical or similar to others’ registered trademarks as product names and decorations on identical or similar goods, misleading the public;

2. Deliberately provide convenient conditions for warehousing, transportation, mailing, concealment, etc. Infringing on the exclusive rights of others’ registered trademarks;

3. Using words that are identical or similar to others’ registered trademarks as business names or using them in prominent positions on identical or similar goods, which may easily cause misunderstandings among the relevant public; 4 .Register words that are the same as or similar to others’ registered trademarks as domain names, and conduct e-commerce activities related to commodity transactions through this domain name, which may easily lead to misunderstanding by the relevant public.

As to whether Kunyu Company has infringed upon Frank Company’s right to copy the art works involved in the case. Frank Company claimed that Kunyu Company manufactured the accused infringing products, which infringed Frank Company's right to copy the art works involved in the case.

This court will not accept the facts after review and combined with the facts found in the first instance. The reasons are as follows:

1. Although the business scope of Kunyu Company’s industrial and commercial registration shows that it has corresponding production qualifications and production capabilities, and the online store involved in the case promotes it as a manufacturer on its website, the website involved in the case does not The publicity about production did not directly point to the accused infringing products involved in the case. 2. The accused infringing product and its outer packaging do not display manufacturer information.