Case analysis: The dispute between the clothing brand "Milu"

In April 2004, a private enterprise signed a contract with Milu to buy out the "Milu" brand. At the end of last year, due to the brand The failure of the development plan led to——

Private enterprises bought out "Milu"

In Changshu, Jiangsu, where the private economy is developing rapidly, the "famous brand effect" has been growing since the 1990s. Since then, it has gradually been recognized by the majority of private entrepreneurs. In order to improve the competitiveness of products, Cai Yun, the legal representative of Changshu Hengtong Knitting Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. and Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Yitong Chemical Fiber Weaving Co., Ltd., a private enterprise owner with a background of village cadres, "caught" the world with the bravery and patience of a hunter. The "golden fox" in football - Milutinovic, the head coach of the Chinese football team at the time, went through all the troubles to buy out the "Milu" brand. In April 2002, an agreement was signed with Milu. Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Yitong Chemical Fiber Weaving Co., Ltd. applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the Chinese and English signature styles "Milu" and "MILU" as the clothing produced and operated by the company. products (including shoes and hats), and agrees to the company's use of his portrait, photos, and advertising videos made with his image for publicity and promotional activities in various media. In addition, Milu also serves as a The company's spokesperson, published by the company in various media.

Disputes arose after the failed investment promotion

In order to develop and build the "Milu" brand, Cai Yun found Wu Yiwen, a celebrity in the advertising industry in East China, a Changshu-based advertiser, to serve as the chief plenipotentiary Producer. On June 18, 2003, a cooperative operation agreement was signed with Wu ***tong, stipulating: "Party A owns the registered trademark rights of the 'Milu' brand, and Party B is fully responsible for the franchise investment affairs of the 'Milu' registered trademark; Party A invests in it. The total investment fee and advertising fee is RMB 580,000; Party B plans to invest RMB 200,000 in the Milu brand (planning fee); both parties agree that the first batch of Milu brand investment amount earned through the investment should be returned to Party A first Party A invests RMB 580,000 and Party B invests RMB 200,000. After deducting the investment fee, Party A and Party B will each receive 50%; if the investment fails, Party B will unconditionally refund RMB 580,000 to Party A." After the agreement was signed, Cai Yun pressed. After fulfilling the payment obligation, Wu Yiwen immediately published investment advertisements in magazines such as "Clothing Herald". Due to various reasons, the expected investment results were not achieved. On August 18, 2003, the two parties negotiated to terminate the performance of the agreement, and Wu returned RMB 520,000 to Cai. Later, due to a dispute between the two parties over the remaining 60,000 yuan, Cai filed a lawsuit in Changshu Court in September 2004, demanding that Wu return the 60,000 yuan in prepaid advertising fees.

After receiving the indictment, Wu Yiwen stated in his defense that it was true that the two parties cooperated to develop the "Milu" brand, but on August 18, 2003, the two parties settled the accounts through negotiation and had repaid the plaintiff 520,000 yuan. , the other 60,000 yuan was used as the investment fee, and a receipt has been issued to the plaintiff. Now there is no reason to pay the plaintiff another 60,000 yuan, and the plaintiff's claim is requested to be dismissed.

The court held that the cooperative operation agreement was invalid

During the trial of this case, a series of evidence provided by both parties to the court showed that the owner of the registered trademark "Milu" was Zhangjiagang Free Trade Zone Yitong Chemical Fiber Weaving Co., Ltd., Cai Yunfei is the right holder. After the court exercised its right of interpretation, the plaintiff changed its claim and requested the defendant to return RMB 60,000. During the trial, the defendant Wu Yiwen insisted that in addition to returning the plaintiff's 520,000 yuan, the other 60,000 yuan was used as investment expenses. He had given the bill to the plaintiff on August 18, 2003, and in December of that year, he The legal representative, Shanghai Huashi Garment Packaging Design Co., Ltd., issued a receipt of 60,000 yuan to Changshu Hengtong Knitting Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. (the plaintiff is its legal representative). The plaintiff firmly denied this fact and believed that the defendant had not received the bills and receipts of 60,000 yuan for investment expenses. The court also conducted a comprehensive investigation into the accounting vouchers of Changshu Hengtong Knitting Printing and Dyeing Co., Ltd. from December 2003 to January 2004, and no receipt voucher for 60,000 yuan was found. During the trial, the defendant only provided the Apparel Herald, which published investment advertisements and articles, but failed to provide relevant receipts confirming the investment expenses.

Therefore, the court held that the franchise agreement signed by the plaintiff and the defendant to jointly develop the "Milu" brand was invalid.

According to the law, after the contract is invalidated, the property acquired as a result of the contract must be returned. Because the defendant failed to examine the plaintiff's subject qualifications when signing the agreement, the agreement was invalid. Both parties were at fault, and both parties should bear corresponding responsibilities. The defendant Wu Yiwen was ordered to return RMB 60,000 to the plaintiff Cai Yun. (The names in the article are all pseudonyms) Thank you for adopting