< p > in Taiwan, the famous brand of "fat man" brand made of artificial fragrances and famous artists is widely concerned. In December last year, Shanghai's commerce and Industry Department found that the registered trademark of the brand shop in Shanghai and the "TOPPOTBAKERY" registered on the packaging bag had not been approved and registered, and the ticket for the 48 square yuan was sold to the operator. < /p >
< p > Hao run company refused to accept the Huangpu branch of the Municipal Industrial and commercial bureau. Yesterday, the Huangpu District court heard the case and made a first instance decision to dismiss the litigation request of Ho run company. < /p >
< p > Hao Rong company claims in its complaint that it has opened "a href=" //m.pmae.cn/news/index_c.asp "shop" /a "," TOPPOTBAKERY "and other trademarks in the city since March 3, 2013. Because it was the first time to enter the mainland of China, the company was unfamiliar with the relevant legal system, so the registered trademark was used in the trademark management process. < /p >
< p > December 6, 2013, < a href= "http://m.pmae.cn/news/index_c.asp" > Shanghai < /a > Huangpu branch of the Administration for Industry and Commerce has decided to impose an administrative penalty of RMB 48 yuan for the purpose of using the registered trademark as "a href=" //m.pmae.cn/news/index_c.asp ">" /a ". < /p >
< p > Hao run company believes that the industry and Commerce Department did not inform the reconsideration or the specific administrative act during the litigation period when the penalty decision was made, nor did it inform the applicant of the right to apply for suspension or instalment payment, and the administrative act violated the legal procedure. < /p >
< p > the company's subjective negligence does not infringe on the prior rights of others. The punishment decision does not take into account the facts, nature, circumstances and the degree of social harm of the act. Therefore, it requests the court to revoke or change the administrative penalty decision in accordance with the law. < /p >
< p > the court held that the Huangpu branch of the industrial and Commercial Bureau found that after the inspection and inspection found that the company had committed illegal business activities, he had informed the company in advance that he had given the right to make representations, pleadings and hearings, and decided to make administrative penalty within the statutory time limit, and there was no impropriety in the administrative procedures. The request for changing the administrative penalty decision of the company is lack of factual basis and legal basis, and should be rejected according to law. < /p >