Issue involved:
If the profits obtained from infringement significantly exceed the statutory compensation limit, but the rights holder cannot obtain specific sales data from the infringer, how can the rights holder collect evidence and claim compensation?
Mengchun’s Comments:
1. Collect preliminary sales data from the infringer to demonstrate that their overall profits exceed the statutory compensation limit.
2. Provide comprehensive evidence regarding the reputation of the prior rights, the nature and scale of the infringement, specific details of the infringing activities, and the infringer’s subjective fault.
3. Submit the application to request the court to retrieve evidence from the infringer, thereby shifting the burden of proof.
Summary of the second instance Judgment:
1. The promotional materials provided by Siemens AG and Siemens China reveals that Qishuai Company has a large scale of production and sales. Multiple news reports indicate that Qishuai Company’s annual sales amount to 1.5 billion yuan, with marketing summits from 2015 to 2017 achieving contract amounts of three to four hundred million yuan within a few hours
2. According to the raid actions conducted by market supervision administrations across various regions, the washing machines labeled “Shanghai Siemens Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd.” produced by Qishuai Company have a wide sales range, covering most provinces and municipalities across China, including Sichuan, Jiangsu, Shaanxi, Hunan, Yunnan, Henan, Guizhou, Guangxi, and Chongqing. Furthermore, Qishuai Company claims to have over 1,500 nationwide dealers and 58,000 retail outlets, further proving its extensive sales range.
3. Based on the number of product models involved in Qishuai Company’s 3C certification applications, it is clear that the company produces a large number of infringing product models. Considering the profit margins in the washing machine industry and other factors, it can be concluded that Qishuai’s profits from the production and sale of the infringing products significantly exceed the statutory compensation limit of 3 million yuan set by Article 17, Clause 4 of the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
4. Given the high reputation of Siemens AG and Siemens China’s corporate names, Qishuai Company’s evident bad faith, the large scale and long duration of the infringement, and considering the profit margins of washing machine products and the reasonable expenses incurred by Siemens AG and Siemens China in defending their rights, compensation should be determined above the statutory maximum limit.
5. In the absence of relevant financial evidence from Qishuai Company, the first-instance court could appropriately use media reports to calculate the total sales and determined the proportion of sales of the infringing products as one-fifteenth. Based on the comprehensive factors of the case, the first instance court’s discretionary decision to determine the compensation amount as 100 million yuan above the statutory maximum limit was justified.
