Knowledge Vision 222 | An important evidence of altering the parties obstructs litigation and gives judicial punishment -Dr. Long Company, Toto Company, Lu Baoqi forged and altered evidence judicial punishment cases

Editor's note:

In this issue of "Knowledge Perspective" publishing PhDs, Toto Company, Lu Baoqi forged and altered evidence judicial punishment cases

The principle of honesty and credit is the basic principles of civil lawsuits, which runs through the entire process of civil litigation. In order to support their claims, the parties shall provide evidence in accordance with the law, honesty, and comprehensive. The trademark involved in the case first uses the evidence to determine whether the parties have important evidence of legitimate rights first, which directly affects the final referee results of the case. In this case, the court strictly punished the party's transformation of the parties to use the evidence first, which demonstrated the determination of the people's court to firmly punish and crack down on dishonesty litigation, as well as the value orientation of promoting the construction of social integrity and promoting the core values ​​of socialism. Essence This case was selected as a typical case of the construction of the intellectual property integrity system in 2021 to promote the construction of the intellectual property integrity system and publish the case for research reference.

Referee

In the lawsuit, the parties submitted the evidence of the alternation. After the appraisal report had clearly determined the alternation, it still refused to recognize the alternative behavior. Judicial punishment shall be given according to law. What the company's legal representatives are actively involved and should also be punished.

Case information

First instance: Suzhou Intermediate Court (2021) Su 05 Division punished No. 1 decision.

Summary

The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court was hearing (2019) Su 05 Minchu No. 864 and 866 plaintiff Beijing Tongchuang Industrial Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing 闼闼 Company), 闼闼 (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Company) and the defendant Suzhou Dr. Long Smart Home Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Long Company), Zhejiang Tart Smart Technology Co., Ltd., Suzhou Toto Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Toto) infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition disputes In the case, the defendant Dr. Long Company and the Toto company submitted 12 "Commercial Sales Invoice Accounting Union in Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province" to the court to prove that Dr. Long Company has continued to use its registered trademark sales since 2003 to the present. TATA "households (metal doors), electric locks and other products have a very long history of trademarks, and have formed a stable market pattern with Beijing Puppet Company and Pukumen Company. After identification, 10 of the 12 notes in the above 12 notes may have obvious liquid infiltration marks or rewritten the original handwriting or rewrite or have obvious differences in the thick ink, stroke width, ink distribution, font size, etc. The formation of sex books, and the above problems appear on the "TATA" logo of the dispute between the two parties in this case. Dr. Long Company not only submitted the above evidence in this case, but also submitted part of the above bills as important evidence in other civil lawsuits and trademark dispute administrative lawsuits.

In this case, after many explanations of the court, Dr. Malong and Toto insisted that all bills were objectively formed in the company's many years of operation. In the case of the court's appraisal opinion, the two companies still insist that there is no fake and altering case in the two companies, just because of glue paste, front and rear pages, and different writing postures, which leads to irregular bills. Lu Baoqi, the legal representative of Dr. Penta and Toto Company, confessed that 3 of the 12 notes submitted above were written by himself, and made a commitment to court several times. There are problems.

The court believes

Suzhou Intermediate Court considers:

In civil litigation, evidence is an important basis for identifying the facts of the case. It is of great significance to the fact that the court finds the facts of the case in accordance with the law and the correct referee in accordance with the law. In the proceedings of the lawsuit, the parties should participate in the litigation activities in accordance with the principles of honesty trust, truthfully state objective facts, and provide real lawsuit materials. In this case, the bills submitted by Dr. Malong and Toto are used to prove that it has been using its registered trademark sales to sell "TATA" entry doors (metal doors) and electric locks since 2003. However, the evidence submitted by the two companies to the lawsuit hindered the normal trial activities of the people's court. At the same time, due to its diverse and concealed methods, the court had to start the appraisal procedure to identify, which greatly delayed the trial cycle of the case and interfered the normal process of litigation activities. What's more, after the appraisal report has made a clear judgment on the problem of altering, Dr. Long Company and Toto have repeatedly explained through the court, and still refused to recognize the existence of corresponding transformation. Reasons to break the responsibility. As the legal representative of doctoral companies and Toto, Lu Baoqi not only has the above two companies' evidence, using pseudo -license to know and be responsible, but also to prove that its active participation in evidence's alchemy and use of perjury is actively involved The activity of litigation, and made false statements to interfere with the people's court's accurate judgment on evidence. Dr. Malong, Toto, and Lu Baoqi seriously violated the principle of integrity, hindered the people's courts to hear the cases normally, affected the fairness of the judicialness, and had bad circumstances.

Based on this, Suzhou Intermediate People's Court punished Dr. Malone, Toto, and Lu Baoqi respectively for judicial fines of 250,000 yuan, 250,000 yuan, and 100,000 yuan. After the penalty decision was made, the three penalties paid the fines to the court on time.

The first trial is a parliamentary court: Zhuang Jing respects Xu Feiyun Zhang Xiaoquan

Writer: Xu Feiyun

- END -