2012 Xing Zhi Shang Su Zi No. 86
|Decision No.||2012 Xing Zhi Shang Su Zi No. 86|
|Date||May 9, 2013|
Except the trademark infringement cases which B involved, the cases which the appellants, namely the respondents A and B, involved are normal criminal cases rather than intellectual property cases, such as special criminal cases under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, and offenses against personal freedom under the Criminal Code. In addition, the prosecutor appealed for the reason that A’s penalty is too light according to the complainant’s pleading. B appealed on the grounds that the judgment is against the rule of evidence and the rule of proportionality for not considering what the witness stated is based on his experience or not, the relationship between imprisonment and forced labor, and the B’s behavior. A appealed on the grounds that the judgment is against the rule of evidence and it violates the law or regulation for not only lacking evidence to prove the A’s intent of absorbing persons under 18 for the purpose of organized crimes, but also without considering related witness’s statements and the translation of surveillance. Both of the appellants and the respondent appealed, and the prosecutor also appealed for the not-guilty part of the judgment.
This case involved fact and legal disputes including the definition of crime organization under the Organized Crime Prevention Act, the elements of the crime, whether the related evidence could prove that the appellant, the respondent B, knew that the commodities he sold had infringed other’s trademarks, and whether the 46 counterfeit commodities seized by Customs were imported by B. Therefore, this case is complex and needs to take long time to render the judgment. According to the provision mentioned above, the court could transfer this case to Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court.
Offense of illegally selling goods that constitutes infringement of rights in trademark, evidentiary rules, Balanced principle of crime and punishment, In contravention of the laws and regulations, The case is complicated indeed.
|Relevant statutes||Article 82 of the Trademark Act Amended and Promulgated on 2011, June, 29, Article 3 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act, Article 25 paragraph 2 proviso of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Act|
- Release Date:2020-11-13