I have collected the following sample essays for your reference: Reply to disputes over trademark infringement!

Reply to disputes over trademark infringement (1)

Respondent ：Zhao xx, male, born on June 4, 19xx, Han nationality, registered address is No. xx, Group xx, Village xx, xx Town, xxx District, Fuzhou City, Jiangxi Province. He is currently the owner of "Jiashan County xxxxx Food Store", and his business address is xx, xxx Town, Jiashan County No. xxx, Village xxx Road.

Respondent: Naais Group Co., Ltd.

Residence: No. 3, Shangshui South, Lishui City, Zhejiang Province.

Legal representative: Zhuang Qichuan, Chairman.

The respondent filed the following defense regarding the trademark infringement dispute filed by the respondent:

Request matters:

1. Judgment to dismiss all the plaintiff’s lawsuits Request;

2. The litigation costs of this case shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Facts and reasons:

1. The infringement does not actually exist.

The respondent has no objection to the infringement facts alleged by the respondent in the complaint. However, the respondent made two phone calls from Haining on April 20, 20XX and July 25, 2010. The 208 grams of Diao Brand Transparent Soap purchased by xxxx cost 48 yuan per box, and the price was 96 yuan. Without knowing that the product was an infringing product, it had been sold out before the plaintiff sued, and he did not buy any more after that. Produce the products involved in the case for sale.

Therefore, the infringement actually no longer exists, and the respondent’s request to immediately stop the infringement has no practical meaning.

2. Based on the relevant facts and laws, the respondent does not need to bear compensation liability.

The respondent respects the intellectual property rights of the respondent, but its behavior of selling the products involved was carried out without knowledge and there was no subjective fault.

First of all, the appearance of the product involved in the case is difficult for ordinary people to tell whether it is a product that infringes the exclusive right of a registered trademark; secondly, the respondent has never been punished by the industrial and commercial administration department for selling the product involved; finally, After collecting evidence on November 4, 2011, the respondent did not issue a timely warning or request requiring the respondent to stop the infringement, even though it knew that the respondent had infringed, and did not file a lawsuit in court in a timely manner. Therefore, the respondent The behavior was completely carried out without knowledge.

In addition, the products involved in the case sold by the respondent were purchased from Haining xxxx. According to the provisions of Article 56, paragraph 3, of the Trademark Law, the respondent does not need to bear compensation liability.

In summary, the respondent requests your court to make a arbitral decision in accordance with the law.

Sincerely

Jiaxing Intermediate People’s Court

Respondent:

Year, month and day

Infringement of trademark rights Dispute Reply (2)

In the case of trademark infringement dispute between the plaintiff Shandong Weishan Lake Industrial Group Co., Ltd. and the defendant Li xx accepted by your court, the defendant now issues the following defense opinions based on the facts and law:

1. The defendant’s use of the five-character “Weishanhu Renjia” trademark is significantly different from the plaintiff’s three-character “Weishanhu” trademark. There is no conflict and does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “Weishanhu”. of trademark infringement.

First of all, the name of the trade name used by the defendant is "Weishanhu Renjia", which is a trade name legally registered at the Huaiyin Branch of the Jinan Administration for Industry and Commerce and is protected by law.

This brand name cannot be viewed in isolation or in isolation. The plaintiff should not divide these five characters into two parts to claim that the defendant has infringed its trademark rights. The name "Weishan Lake Renjia" is a whole. It should not be taken out of context, and the fonts and fonts used by the defendant are different from the plaintiff's registered trademark, and the front and rear fonts are consistent and the same size, and the words "微", "微山湖", and "微山岛" are not highlighted.

In addition, although the registered trademarks of "Weishanhu" are similar in pronunciation and meaning, to judge whether the defendant's name constitutes trademark infringement, we should mainly look at whether the use of the name is likely to cause confusion among consumers. misrecognition and confusion.

Misrecognition refers to the relevant public’s misunderstanding of a specific connection between the business name owner and the trademark owner.

To determine whether a misunderstanding is caused, the judgment should be based on the attention of ordinary consumers and combined with the distinctiveness of the registered trademark itself and the popularity of the trademark among the relevant public.

?Weishan Lake? is the name of a lake in Weishan County, Jining City, Shandong Province. It is known to the relevant public. The registered trademark itself has weak distinctiveness and lacks originality, causing misunderstanding and confusion. The possibility is extremely small. Just relying on the three characters "Weishanhu" cannot play any role in distinguishing the designated services. You must use specific glyphs.

Color, etc. may play a certain role in distinguishing. It can be seen that the distinctiveness of the trademark itself is very weak. It only uses the three words "Weishan Lake" and does not differ from the plaintiff's registered trademark in glyphs and colors. There are similarities in the above and will not cause any misleading to the relevant public.

Moreover, the defendant's brand name consists of five Chinese characters "Weishanhu Renjia". When ordinary consumers see "Weishanhu Renjia", they will not register it with "Weishanhu Renjia" at all. If the trademark owner is contacted, unless the trademark has become a well-known trademark and acquired a "secondary meaning" during actual use, and the plaintiff's "Weishanhu" trademark is just an ordinary trademark, the defendant does not constitute an infringement against the plaintiff.

Secondly, the meals sold by the defendant’s restaurant are mainly lobster and fried chicken, which are not similar to the plaintiff’s dishes. In addition, the defendant’s restaurant is only a small restaurant. In terms of scale, The business area is only about 70 square meters, and there is nothing similar to the plaintiff in terms of decoration style.

From the above differences, it can also be seen that the defendant did not infringe the plaintiff’s trademark rights, and there was no conflict at all between the products sold by both parties.

Thirdly, the defendant’s native place is Weishan County, Jining City, and he has a very reasonable and sufficient reason to use the three words “Weishan Lake”. The reason for using these three words is to highlight his dishes. , the regional characteristics of the types are meant to reflect the specialties of the hometown, and do not infringe the plaintiff’s trademark rights.

Finally, if the plaintiff’s claim is established, then the words “Weishanhu” will not appear in any operator’s trade name. This is at least the level of protection that is possible for well-known trademarks. Of course, not just a well-known trademark can necessarily achieve this level of protection. It is simply impossible for an ordinary trademark to receive this level of protection.

2. Tort liability is a kind of fault liability. The defendant in this case used the trademark "Weishanhu Renjia" without intention or negligence, that is, there was no fault. Therefore, it is a trademark infringement act. If it is not established, there will be no liability for compensation.

Specifically in this case, the defendant did not know that "Weishan Lake" was a registered trademark, and the "Weishan Lake" trademark was not a well-known trademark. Therefore, the defendant did not know that "Weishan Lake" was not known. Lake is a registered trademark. Therefore, if the defendant does not know and should not know that "Weishan Lake" is a registered trademark, even if the word "Weishan Lake" exists in its own name, it does not constitute infringement.

At the same time, the plaintiff has reasonable reasons for using "Weishanhu Renjia" as a trade name, and there is no malicious infringement. The specific reasons are as follows:

First, according to the evidence rules of the Civil Procedure Law, who According to the principle of who can prove the claim, the plaintiff is obliged to prove that the defendant used "Weishanhu Renjia" as a trade name with full knowledge of the infringement.

Secondly, the defendant’s restaurant is located on xx Road, xx District, Jinan City, which is relatively far from the urban area, while the main store and several branches of the restaurant owned by the plaintiff are located on Shanda Road and Heping respectively. Road, Minghu Road and other places, it can be seen that it is far away from the location of the defendant’s store. In addition, the defendant Li xx himself is from Weishan County, Jining City. Therefore, the defendant did not know the plaintiff? Shandong Weishan Lake Industrial before the plaintiff filed the lawsuit. Group Co., Ltd. and all its "Weishan Lake Fish House" exist. After all, the plaintiff "Weishan Lake Fish House" has not yet reached a level of fame that is well known to everyone.

Again, as has been stated just now, the area of ??Weishan Lake Renjia operated by the defendant is only about 70 square meters, and the area of ??each hotel operated by the defendant is more than 1,000 square meters. In terms of scale, the two parties are not at all Restaurants of the same level are not comparable in terms of positioning of consumer groups, prices and types of dishes. Naturally, the defendant's restaurant will not have a substantial impact on the plaintiff and reduce the plaintiff's income.

In addition, the decoration style did not imitate the plaintiff’s decoration, and it was impossible to imitate the plaintiff’s decoration. From this point, it can be clearly seen that the plaintiff had no fault in the business process.

3. The plaintiff deliberately raised trademark infringement and unfair competition side by side, intending to disrupt the judges’ thinking and achieve its illegal purpose.

Judging from the plaintiff’s complaint, all the contents of the complaint are filed against trademarks and have no connection with unfair competition; judging from the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, there is also no connection with unfair competition. , so the plaintiff’s claims are confusing. Please fix your claims first.

4. The plaintiff’s request for compensation of 50,000 yuan has no legal basis.

First of all, the defendant should not be liable for compensation. Secondly, even if it is liable for compensation, according to the provisions of our country's laws, the amount should be determined based on the defendant's profit amount or the plaintiff's business losses.

The defendant’s restaurant was approved on August 30, 2009. It has only been more than three months since its establishment. In such a short period of time, the defendant’s restaurant has not made a profit and has been in the red. status and had no actual impact on the plaintiff.

In addition, if the plaintiff believes that the compensation amount of 50,000 yuan should be based on the losses caused by the defendant’s infringement, it should submit relevant evidence to the court to prove its losses. Otherwise, the plaintiff’s claim cannot be support.

5. The plaintiff’s real purpose is obviously for illegal speculation, and it is obviously relying on its so-called strong power to bully individual business operators, which is contrary to the country’s current spirit of encouraging workers to start their own businesses.

6. If the defendant’s trade name really infringes on the plaintiff’s trademark rights, then why doesn’t the plaintiff directly apply to the Administration for Industry and Commerce to cancel the defendant’s trade name, but deliberately creates one? Trademark infringement and unfairness One of the plaintiffs in the competition had a claim that he himself did not understand.

In summary, the defendant believes that the plaintiff’s claim has no factual and legal basis, and hopes that the court will reject the plaintiff’s claim after ascertaining the facts.

Respondent:

Agent: Shandong Baojun Law Firm

Lawyer Han Dong

December 10, 2XXX

p>

Reply to trademark infringement dispute (3)

Respondent:.

Respondent:

Due to the case number (20XX) Dongyi Famin Wuchuzi No. XX of the trademark infringement dispute brought by the respondent against the respondent, the respondent is now being defended The following defense is made to the lawsuit filed by the person, and the court is requested to adopt it.

The respondent does not agree with all the claims of the respondent. The claims of the respondent have no basis. The court is requested to reject all the claims of the respondent in accordance with the law.

1. The sales of the products involved in the lawsuit filed by the respondent have legal sources. The respondent has no intention of infringement and does not need to bear infringement liability.

The products involved in the case that the respondent was sued had legal sources, and the respondent purchased them through formal and legal channels from,,,,,.

According to Article 56 of the Trademark Law, if you sell goods that are not known to infringe the exclusive rights of a registered trademark, and you can prove that you obtained the goods legally and explain the supplier, you will not be liable for compensation.

? Therefore, it can be seen that the respondent did not intentionally infringe the respondent Supor’s trademark exclusive rights and does not need to bear any infringement liability.

As for the evidence submitted by the respondent, it cannot of course be used as a basis for determining the respondent’s intentional trademark infringement.

Civil trademark infringement requires the subjective intention of the parties involved.

Since the respondent’s mobile phone involved in the case has a legal source, the respondent did not intentionally infringe the trademark, and therefore does not need to bear liability for trademark infringement.

2. The respondent’s request for compensation of RMB 30,000 in damages has no basis and should not be supported by the court in accordance with the law.

On the one hand, according to Article 2 of the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures": The parties concerned are responsible for the facts on which their claims are based. Provide evidence to prove it.

If there is no evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove the factual claims of the parties, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences. ?Article 76 stipulates that if a party has only his own statement and cannot provide other relevant evidence for his own claims, his claims will not be supported. ?The respondent immediately requested the respondent to compensate 50,000 yuan for infringement losses, but did not provide any basis to explain how the amount of compensation was calculated. Therefore, it should bear the adverse consequences of being unable to prove its claim, 50,000 yuan. The amount of compensation for damages should not be supported by the court as it has no basis.

On the other hand, according to Article 56 of the Trademark Law, if the respondent cannot prove the losses it claims to have suffered due to the respondent’s trademark infringement, then the amount of compensation for trademark infringement should be Compensation shall be made based on what the respondent considers to be the benefits derived from the respondent's infringement.

Even if the respondent really sells mobile phones that the respondent considers to be infringement of its trademark exclusive rights, the respondent’s benefit from the infringement is only 300 yuan. According to the provisions of the Trademark Law, the amount of compensation for the infringement of the respondent is also Only 300 yuan.

However, the respondent spoke nonsense and made an unfounded demand for 30,000 yuan in infringement compensation for the purpose of seeking huge profits through litigation.

Therefore, we request the court to reject the respondent’s unreasonable request in accordance with the law.

To sum up, the respondent’s claim has no basis.

The respondent is just a small individual business owner. Now his business is very bleak and is almost closed. The entire store is worth only a few tens of thousands of yuan, and it can no longer withstand any slight economic impact.

Therefore, we request the court to comprehensively consider the above facts and the overall situation of building social harmony, and reject all claims of the respondent in accordance with the law.

Sincerely,

Dongguan First People’s Court

Respondent