In April 2004, private enterprises signed a contract with Milu to buy out Milu brand. At the end of last year, due to the failure of the brand development plan,-
Private enterprises buy Milu out.
In Changshu, Jiangsu province, where the private economy is developing rapidly, the "famous brand effect" has been gradually recognized by the majority of private entrepreneurs since the 1990s. Cai Yun, the legal representative of Changshu Hengtong Knitting Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd., a private entrepreneur from village cadres, and Yitong Chemical Fiber Weaving Co., Ltd., in order to improve the competitiveness of their products, with the courage and patience of hunters, he "caught" the "golden fox" in the world football-milutinovic, the head coach of China football team at that time, and tried his best to buy out the "Milu" brand. In April 2002, an agreement was signed with MILU. Yitong Chemical Fiber Weaving Co., Ltd. in Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to use Chinese and English signature styles "Milu" and "Milu" as registered trademarks of the clothing products (including shoes and hats) produced and operated by the company, and agreed that the company can use its portrait, photos and advertising videos made with its image to carry out publicity and promotion activities in various media. In addition, Milu is also used as a company.
The argument about the failure of investment promotion suddenly appeared.
In order to develop and build Mi Lu's brand, Caiyun found Wu, a celebrity in East China's advertising industry, as the chief producer. On June 18, 2003, it signed a cooperation agreement with Wu * * *, stipulating: "Party A has the registered trademark right of Mi Lu brand, and Party B is solely responsible for the investment promotion of Mi Lu registered trademark franchise; Party A has invested 580,000 yuan for investment promotion expenses and advertising expenses; Party B plans to invest RMB 200,000.00 Yuan in the investment of "Mi Lu" brand (planning expenses); The investment amount of Milu brand obtained through investment promotion shall be agreed by both parties. The first batch will be returned to Party A for 580,000 yuan and 200,000 yuan. After deducting the investment promotion fee, each party will get 50%. If the investment fails, Party B will unconditionally refund Party A RMB 580,000. " After the signing of the agreement, Cai Yun fulfilled the payment obligation as agreed, and Wu immediately published investment advertisements in magazines such as Fashion Guide. Due to various reasons, the expected investment promotion effect has not been achieved. On August 18, 2003, both parties terminated the performance agreement through negotiation, and Wu returned Cai RMB 520,000. Later, due to a dispute between the two parties over the balance of 60,000 yuan, Cai filed a lawsuit in Changshu court in September 2004, demanding that Wu return the prepaid advertising fee of 60,000 yuan.
After receiving the indictment, Wu said in his defense that it is a fact that the two sides cooperated to develop the Milu brand. However, on August 18, 2003, the two parties settled the account through negotiation, and returned 520,000 yuan to the plaintiff, and another 60,000 yuan as the investment promotion fee. The plaintiff's receipt has been returned. There is no reason to return the plaintiff 60,000 yuan and reject the plaintiff's claim.
The court held that the cooperative agreement was invalid.
During the trial of this case, a series of evidences provided by both parties to the court showed that Mi Lu's registered trademark was Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Yitong Chemical Fiber Weaving Co., Ltd., and Caiyun was not the obligee. After the court exercised the power of interpretation, the plaintiff changed the claim and asked the defendant to return RMB60,000. During the trial, the defendant Wu insisted that except the 520,000 yuan that had been returned to the plaintiff, the remaining 60,000 yuan was used as the investment promotion fee, and the bill was handed over to the plaintiff on August 8, 2003. In February 2003, a receipt of 60,000 yuan was issued to Shanghai Huashi Clothing Packaging Design Co., Ltd., whose legal representative was Changshu Hengtong Knitting Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (whose legal representative was the plaintiff). The plaintiff firmly denied this fact and thought that the bill and receipt of 60,000 yuan used by the defendant for investment promotion had not been received. The court also conducted a comprehensive investigation on the accounting vouchers of Changshu Hengtong Knitting Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. from February 2003 to June 2004, and found no receipts of 60,000 yuan. During the trial, the defendant only provided a dress guide for publishing investment promotion advertisements and articles, but failed to provide relevant bills to prove the investment promotion expenses.
Therefore, the court held that the Mi Lu Brand Cooperative Development Franchise Agreement signed by the original and the defendant was invalid. According to the law, after the contract is invalid, the property obtained from the contract shall be returned. Because the defendant did not examine the plaintiff's subject qualification when signing the agreement, the agreement was invalid, and both parties were at fault, and both parties should bear corresponding responsibilities. The defendant Wu was sentenced to return the plaintiff Cai Yun RMB 60,000. (The names in the text are all pseudonyms) Thank you for your adoption.