the plaintiff Xiangcunyuan Company claimed that it processed moon cakes for the defendant Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company in 26, and it was confirmed by both parties that the defendant owed the plaintiff 3.2 million yuan. Later, the defendant failed to pay, and the plaintiff sued the defendant for the payment.
The defendant Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company argued that it had never had business relations with the plaintiff, nor had it entrusted the plaintiff to produce and process products, so the defendant thought that the iou presented by the plaintiff was forged. The relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff is the anti-counterfeiting and maintenance of the trademark use right of Suzhou Daoxiang Village. The defendant has repeatedly maintained the trademark use right of Suzhou Daoxiang Village to exclude the infringing use of others. Therefore, I do not agree with the plaintiff's claim.
after trial, the court of first instance held that the evidence confirmed by the court was sufficient to prove that there was an entrusted processing relationship between Xiangcunyuan Company and Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company. Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company has not paid off the debts owed to Xiangcunyuan Company so far, and it has violated the law to prevent Xiangcunyuan from producing and selling Daoxiangcun brand moon cakes and other foods, resulting in the failure to realize the legitimate rights and interests of Xiangcunyuan Company. Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company should bear corresponding responsibilities. Therefore, Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company was sentenced to pay Beijing Xiangcunyuan Company 3.2 million yuan in arrears.
After the judgment of the first instance, Suzhou Daoxiang Village Company refused to accept it and appealed to the Second Intermediate People's Court. It is reported that the case is currently under further investigation.