Recently, Beijing King&Capital Law Firm lawyers Guo Xinpeng, Feng Yunxin and Wu Rui formed a legal service team to defend the enterprise suspected of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and successfully persuaded the public security authorities to make a decision of not filing a case, so that the enterprise involved in the case was exempted from criminal prosecution.
Basic Case
The technology company involved in the case (hereinafter referred to as “Company A”) is a high-tech enterprise integrating product research and development, manufacturing, sales and service, and the high-tech products it develops and produces are widely recognized in the industry.
A public security authority in Liaoning Province summoned the general manager of Company A to the public security authority for investigation on suspicion of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. At the same time, the general manager personally found a team of lawyers from King&Capital to consult and communicate with them to discuss coping strategies.
After internal verification by Company A, the cause of the incident was that a certain part of the large-scale equipment sold by Company A to its customers bore the nameplate of Company B, which was not manufactured by Company B, and therefore Company B made a criminal accusation. Upon further verification, Company B is the parts supplier of Company A, and the two sides have been cooperating for more than 10 years. in 2018, Company B stopped production and terminated the supply. in 2019, the customer went to Company A to visit the equipment samples containing Company B branded parts and specified the procurement of equipment that was exactly the same as the sample. At this time, Company A had no Company B parts in stock, and in order to fulfill the contract as scheduled, Company A's salesman took the liberty of providing other branded parts of the same quality and value, and hung Company B's product nameplate for assembly and sales.
Lawyer work
After accepting the commission, the lawyer team, through sorting out the facts, checking the evidence, searching the class cases and information, and after repeated discussions, considered that although the factual manifestation of this case conformed to the criminal constitution of the crime of counterfeiting registered trademark, the circumstances were minor and there was room for innocence. And quickly organized the following opinions:
Company A and Company B were in a year-round cooperative relationship, and the use of Company B's nameplate was due to the fact that the customer specified the purchase but Company B had ceased production, which was a cause of the incident;
Company A only used Company B's nameplate on one piece of equipment involved in the case, and did not sell it to the public, so the social impact was small;
The substitute parts used by Company A were of the same quality and price, and were not subjectively aimed at obtaining unlawful benefits, and objectively did not result in a negative evaluation of Company B's brand.
According to the Liaoning Province optimization of business environment related policies, for enterprises with less serious violations of the law and can take the initiative to eliminate or mitigate the harmful consequences of illegal acts, should be lighter, less severe or exempt from punishment.
In summary, the lawyer team that the circumstances of this case is significantly less serious, can not be treated as a crime, this point of view in the first time to the public security organs to submit the “not to file an application”. At the same time, under the advice of the lawyer team, Company A contacted Company B in time, clarified the relevant facts, gave financial compensation and gained understanding, and Company B submitted the “Application for Withdrawal of Criminal Charges” to the public security authorities.
In the end, the public security authorities adopted the advice of the lawyer team that the case was significantly minor and the enterprise took the initiative to mitigate the harmful consequences, so it could not be treated as a crime, and finally made a decision not to file a case, and the case was successfully closed.
Lawyer comment
This case is a supplier and purchasing enterprises in the process of cooperation due to the trademark license authorization issues led to a typical criminal case, this case to be successfully resolved, inseparable from the lawyer team's professionalism, efficiency, but also inseparable from the business leaders timely and decisive decision-making. This case is worth entrepreneurs to think about is, enterprises in the normal process of business cooperation, often more concerned about the qualification of the partner, cooperation mode, cooperation price, etc., but ignored the importance of trademark license authorization procedures. Especially in the transition period after the termination of the cooperative relationship, do not continue to use the trademark of the right holder hastily based on the fluke, because of small losses. Based on the specialized nature of intellectual property law issues, it is recommended that enterprises seek timely advice from professional lawyers during the transition period to legally handle leftover orders, clear the backlog of inventory, and avoid possible civil infringement, administrative penalties and criminal risks, which is particularly important for the compliance and healthy development of the enterprise's operations.
