Research on Jurisdiction of Trademark Infringement Dispute Cases Using Information Network

Hangzhou Miou Instrument Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Topsen Scientific Instrument Co., Ltd. dispute over infringement of utility model patent rights

Supreme People's Court

(2019) Supreme Court Zhimin Jurisdiction No. 13

By shopping online and mailing the alleged infringing product, the alleged infringing result has actually occurred when the alleged infringer's sales act is put into practice, and the place of receipt of the alleged infringing product has no material impact on the implementation of the infringing act, so it cannot be identified as the place where the infringing result occurred. Secondly, the place where the infringing result occurs should be understood as the place where the direct result of the infringing act occurs, and it cannot be regarded as the place where the infringement result occurs because the right holder believes that it has been damaged.

Ningbo Aoxes air conditioning Co., Ltd. and Zhuhai Gree Electric joint stock company infringe on utility model patent rights dispute

Supreme People's Court

(2018) Supreme Court Civil Jurisdiction No. 93

The alleged infringing product is sold through the Internet. When determining the jurisdiction of the case based on the place of the alleged sales behavior of the online seller, the determination of the place of the alleged sales behavior should not only facilitate the certainty of jurisdiction, avoid the parties from arbitrarily creating the connection point of jurisdiction, but also facilitate the rights holder's rights protection. In the online environment, the place of sales behavior in principle includes the main business place of the online seller, the place of storage of the alleged infringing product, the place of delivery or the place of seizure, etc., but the place of receipt of online shopping that the online buyer can choose at will is usually not suitable for online sales behavior.

Xiangshan Ni's Tang Medical Technology Co., Ltd. and Zhang Renzhen's trademark infringement dispute

Supreme People's Court

(2020) Supreme Court Civil Jurisdiction No. 9

In this case, the alleged infringing product is sold through the Internet. When determining the jurisdiction of the case based on the place of the alleged sales behavior of the online seller, the determination of the place of the alleged sales behavior should not only facilitate the certainty of jurisdiction, avoid the parties from arbitrarily creating the connection point of jurisdiction, but also facilitate the rights holder's rights protection. In the online environment, the place of sales behavior in principle includes the main business place of the online seller, the place of storage, delivery or seizure of the alleged infringing product, which is not subject to the will of the online buyer. However, the place of receipt of online shopping that the online buyer can choose at will is usually not suitable as the place of infringement.

Therefore, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, as the place of receipt of online shopping, should not be the basis for determining the jurisdiction of this case.

Guangzhou Aibo Apparel Co., Ltd. and Gu Jincheng's first instance of civil disputes over trademark infringement

Hunan Province Hengyang City Intermediate People's Court

(2021) Xiang 04 Zhiminchu No. 776

According to Taobao's official disclosure information and other evidence, the defendant Gu Jincheng's official disclosure information on Taobao shows that his ID card address is located within the jurisdiction of Hengyang City, Hunan Province.

However, according to the defendant's household registration inquiry information provided by the plaintiff and the household registration information provided by the defendant,

The defendant's domicile is Beihu District, Chenzhou City, Hunan Province.

The defendant's domicile in this case is located in Chenzhou City, Hunan Province, and the intellectual property cases in this area are under the centralized jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court of Chenzhou City, Hunan Province. Therefore, this case should be transferred to the Intermediate People's Court of Chenzhou City, Hunan Province for trial.

Rollai Life Technology joint stock company and Xia Cuilian and other trademark infringement disputes, other unfair competition disputes first instance

People's court of Jinshan District, Shanghai City

(2022) Shanghai 0116 Minchu No. 13252

After this court accepted the case, the defendant objected to the jurisdiction during the submission of the defense statement, arguing that the address disclosed by Taobao platform, No. XX, XX Road, Jinshan District, Shanghai, was a fictitious address, and the defendant's domicile was located in Shangqiu City, Henan Province. He currently resides in Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, but did not go through the residence registration formalities. Therefore, the case should be transferred to the Shangqiu City People's Court of Henan Province for trial.

This court holds that a lawsuit brought for infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the infringement was committed or where the defendant had his domicile. In this case, the defendant's domicile is in Yongcheng City, Henan Province, which belongs to the jurisdiction of the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City, Henan Province, and the plaintiff has not provided evidence to prove that the place of infringement is within the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction over this case, and the objection to jurisdiction raised by the defendant is established.

It was ruled that the defendant Xia Cuilian's objection to jurisdiction was established, and the case was transferred to the People's Court of Suiyang District, Shangqiu City.

Zhejiang Jieliya Towel Co., Ltd. Civil ruling of the first instance of the trademark infringement dispute with Liu Longfei

Beijing Dongcheng District People's court

(2016) Beijing 0101 Minchu No. 15124

In this case, the plaintiff submitted Taobao's "Information Disclosure Reply" in order to prove that the defendant Liu Longfei's domicile is located in Dongcheng District, Beijing, and the content is: Your August 6

We have received the letter sent. At your request, we now provide the information of the member's self-registration on Taobao as follows: Member name Siyuan 52, name Liu Longfei, registered address No. 7, Xinsi Hutong, East 42, Peking University Street, Dongsi, ID number × × ×. Our investigation shows that Liu Longfei does not live in No. 7, Xinsi Hutong.

In addition, Liu Longfei's domicile is located at No. 90, Zone 1, Zhaobaodian Village, Xiyan Town, Gaoyang County, Baoding City, Hebei Province; Liu Shuxin, the party branch secretary of Zhaobaodian Village, said that Liu Longfei did not live in Zhaobaodian Village, and the specific residence address could not be stated. Based on the above evidence, this court believes that "No. 7, Xinci Hutong, East 42, Peking University Street, Dongsi" can only be used as the registered address of Taobao user "Siyuan 52", and cannot be considered as the residence of the defendant in this case.

The domicile of the defendant Liu Longfei should be the place where Liu Longfei's household registration is located.

Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction over this case, and this case should be transferred to a court with jurisdiction. Since the defendant Liu Longfei's domicile is Baoding City, Hebei Province, this case should be under the jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court of Baoding City, Hebei Province.

Civil ruling of Zou Qihong, Louis Vuitton Maliti and Zou Qihong, Louis Vuitton Maliti

Jiangsu Higher People's Court

(2019) Schumin Jurisdiction No. 165-166

In this case, according to the multiple express logistics inquiry information submitted by Louis Vuitton Maliti during the lawsuit, the alleged infringing products were all sent from International Huacheng, No. 788 Greenland Avenue, Huaqiao Town, Kunshan City, Suzhou City, and Kunshan City, Jiangsu Province was the place of delivery of the alleged infringing products. Identifying the place of delivery of the alleged infringing products as the place where the infringement was committed and the goods were stored for the sale of the alleged infringing products complies with the above judicial interpretation.

Kunshan City belongs to the jurisdiction of the original court, and the original court has jurisdiction over the trial of this case, which conforms to the provisions of territorial jurisdiction and hierarchical jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases.

Fang Yangtao and Cartier International Co., Ltd. Civil Jurisdiction of Trademark Infringement Dispute Appeal Jurisdiction Ruling

Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province

(2021) No. 2311, Guangdong 03 Minzhijian

In this case, the appellee alleged that the appellant sold the alleged infringing goods and infringed its trademark exclusive rights, and submitted relevant evidence such as the appellant's sales of goods. The appellant sold physical goods on the Internet, set up a website to publish sales information or set up a virtual store to display goods on the sales platform, but could not complete the sales process. Only by shipping according to the order can the sale of physical goods be realized.

Therefore, when selling physical goods through the Internet, the delivery behavior is an important part of the sales behavior, and the place of delivery can be identified as the place where the infringement was committed. The place where the alleged infringing goods were shipped is located in the jurisdiction of the court of first instance, so the court of first instance, as the court where the infringement was committed, has jurisdiction over this case.

The appellant's grounds for appeal cannot be established, and this court will not support it.

Xu Jiawen, Louis Vuitton Maletti Trademark Infringement Dispute Civil Jurisdiction Appeal Jurisdiction Ruling

Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court

(2021) No. 207-209, Guangdong 73 Civil Administration

Sunging.com E-commerce Company appealed, 1. Trademark rights are attached to goods and are negotiable. Fila Company's claim to use the place of delivery of infringing goods as the connection point of jurisdiction lacks legal basis. 2. In order to achieve efficient delivery, Sunging.com E-commerce Company will allocate according to the nearest place of receipt, and the place of delivery will be affected by the buyer's choice, so jurisdiction should not be determined according to the place of delivery.

3. Although the five alleged infringing goods were shipped from the Ningbo bonded warehouse, there is no basis to determine that Ningbo is the location where the Suning.com e-commerce company stores a large number or regular amount of goods. There is no evidence in this case to prove that the Suning.com e-commerce company has committed infringing acts or stored goods in other regions other than its domicile.

According to the purchase mailing list provided by Louis Vuitton Maliti, the goods sold by Xu Jiawen on the Internet were all sent from Baiyun District, Guangzhou, and the mailing number was consistent with the tracking information of the sales order number attached to the "Authentic Global Shopping" online store and WeChat chat. Therefore, it can be considered that Baiyun District, Guangzhou is the place where the infringement of these three cases was committed.

Civil ruling of the first instance of the trademark infringement dispute between Burberry Co., Ltd. and Ou Weihong

Shanghai Xuhui District People's court

(2022) Shanghai 0104 Minchu No. 12910

The plaintiff believes that according to the express logistics information, the accused infringing goods notarized by the plaintiff were shipped by SF Express with tracking numbers SF1321516764159, SF1100076780802, and SF1338041903140, respectively. The courier was collected by "Shanghai Minhang Hanghua Sales Department", and the address of the business department was "XX Road, XX Street, Minhang District, Shanghai".

According to the address of the express sheet, it is "XX Building, No. XX Road, Changning District, Shanghai". According to the Baidu map navigation, the outlet address of "Shanghai Minhang Hanghua Sales Department" is XX Building. The "XX Building, No. XX Road, Changning District, Shanghai" shown on the express sheet should be the real delivery address.

Therefore, according to the jurisdiction provisions at that time, the People's Court of Xuhui District, Shanghai City had jurisdiction over this case.

This court holds that the plaintiff cannot prove that XX, No. XX, XX Road, Changning District, Shanghai

The building is related to the defendant Ou Weihong. There are a lot of such situations "online in different places". The address recorded on the express sheet alone is inferred as the actual place of delivery, which lacks sufficient basis. The place of execution of the alleged infringement in this case and the storage place of the infringing goods cannot be confirmed to have occurred in the jurisdiction of this court, and the place of residence of the defendant is not within the jurisdiction of this court, so this court has no jurisdiction over this case.

Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd., Wang Guangde's first-instance civil ruling on a trademark infringement dispute

People's Court of Huicheng District, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province

(2021) Guangdong 1302 Minchu No. 17952

The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and effective evidence to prove that the place of delivery stated in the courier slip of the accused goods had a large number of or frequent storage and concealment of the accused goods; secondly, the transaction involved occurred in the information network environment, and the place of delivery stated on the courier surface had various possibilities. Whether it was the place of implementation of the infringement should be determined in light of the actual situation of the case. After checking the delivery place stated in the courier slip, Huiyang District, Huizhou City, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to prove that the address was actually related to the defendant's business activities. Combined with the objective fact that the defendant's household registration address was in Dianbai District, Maoming City, this court held that the evidence in the case was insufficient It is determined that the place of delivery stated in the courier slip is the place where the infringement is committed.