Cleverly using ruling errors to "besiege Wei to rescue Zhao," judge helps win the Magpie Network trademark infringement case
Case background:
In today's information society and networked age, interpersonal contact is frequent, yet emotional bonds have grown faint. Men and women of marriageable age meet for blind dates and courtship, with fewer exaggerated introductions from matchmakers and go-betweens, and more self-directed communication through the internet and WeChat.
Observing contemporary society, over half of young men and women under 40 are single, concentrated in the immigrant city of Shenzhen. Liu Qing, a single immigrant from Northeast China, saw a business opportunity. He decided to solve the dating challenges for the vast number of lonely and desolate singles like himself, aiming to create a distinctive dating and matchmaking website platform.
Starting in early 2006, Liu Mouqing founded a matchmaking and dating website, Xique Wang, based on Chinese folk legends and the customs derived from them—the meaning of the Magpie Bridge meeting. When applying for the domain name for Xique Wang, Liu Mouqing took into account the significance of the Chinese folk "Qixi" custom and deliberately registered the domain as www.77xq.com.
On August 30, 2006, "Magpie Net" went online and began operations after filing with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.
To protect his intellectual property rights, Liu Mouqing specially hired someone to design the exclusive trademark usage right for "Magpie," and simultaneously applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of this exclusive trademark usage right under Class 42, registering computer networks. In September 2009, Liu Mouqing obtained the trademark registration approval certificate from the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
Unexpectedly, the famous "Magpie Network" was soon "knocked off" and "infringed" upon.
In early 2011, Liu Mouqing discovered that China's well-known dating website "XX Jiayuan" had also established another similar dating site using the registered trademark "Magpie Bridge" (Xique) at www.xique.cn. Meanwhile, through its XX Jiayuan dating site and print media, it extensively promoted "Magpie Bridge" (Xique) as a matchmaking platform they had invested in, using the "Magpie Bridge" (Xique) trademark brand name to attract and solicit customers.
Faced with such blatant and predatory infringement, Liu Qingqing was indignant. Soon, he issued a stern warning to the infringing party—the operating company of a certain matchmaking website, Shanghai Huamou Tree Information Technology Co., Ltd.: cease the infringement and compensate for losses.
However, the infringing party resorted to specious arguments, stubbornly refused to admit fault and provide compensation, and continuously modified and destroyed the allegedly infringing graphic and textual markings on its website. During this process of negotiation, Mr. Liu Mouqing actively consulted with lawyers.
Seeing that his well-reasoned negotiations and communications had repeatedly come to nothing, at the end of May 2011, Liu Mouqing, drawn by the reputation of the Zhiming Litigation Art Research Center of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm, lawfully entrusted the Zhiming lawyer team as litigation representatives to pursue rights protection and accountability for the infringement of the trademark rights of the "Magpie Dating Website."
Under the guidance of our lawyers, Mr. Liu Mouqing actively cooperated in collecting evidence and promptly conducted notarized evidence preservation against the infringing website.
After the evidence collection was completed, Attorney Zhiming lawfully represented Liu Qingqing in filing a lawsuit. On June 2, 2011, Liu Qingqing lawfully filed a trademark right infringement dispute lawsuit against Jiayuan.com. The operator of the Jiayuan.com website—Shanghai Huayuan Tree Information Technology Co., Ltd. and its Shenzhen Branch—became the two defendants in the trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Xique.com.
Facing the litigation, the defendant was naturally unwilling to easily concede and pay compensation. They hired intellectual property lawyers in Shenzhen and mobilized all judicial resources to put up a tenacious fight against the plaintiff.
From the jurisdiction of judicial proceedings, to the so-called "flaw" in the traditional characters of the substantive registration of the "Magpie" trademark, which bears slight discrepancies from the "Magpie" trademark actually used, and then to the dispute over whether the applicable law concerns trademark infringement litigation or computer copyright litigation, the defendant has exhausted every possible means, engaging in baseless and far-fetched sophistry in defense. Of course, during the court trial, no matter how the defendant and their responding counsel argued, they could not in the slightest withstand the lawful and reasoned arguments put forth by the Zhiming legal team.
However, what is even harder to counter and more frustrating than the defendant's defense is the judicial injustice of the presiding judge.
Few would think that a wealthy female matchmaker would take advantage of a "poor matchmaker." Therefore, the presiding judge also naturally sided with the "rich and powerful," issuing a civil ruling at first instance that dismissed plaintiff Liu Mouqing's lawsuit against the second defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, but omitted the ruling on the first defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd.
After the first-instance court hearing, in order to favor the defendant, the presiding judge hastily issued a civil ruling dismissing the plaintiff Liu Mouqing's online trademark infringement lawsuit against Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch.
The civil ruling issued at first instance, regarding the two defendants sued by plaintiff Liu Mouqing — Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. and its Shenzhen branch — only on the grounds that Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen branch "is not a proper subject defendant in this case," dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit against that company!
The first defendant's status was genuinely omitted in the first-instance trial, completely and utterly forgotten. In what should have been a serious and rigorous legal document, this is an enormous joke. To dismiss the plaintiff's claim against one of the defendants based on such a civil ruling riddled with glaring errors is an exceedingly rare case of absurd adjudication!
In this regard, our lawyer, representing the plaintiff and client Liu Mouqing, on the one hand actively filed an appeal in accordance with the law; on the other hand, seizing on the serious error and omission by the first-instance judge, filed complaints in accordance with the law with the first-instance court, the Standing Committee of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Congress, and the Shenzhen Municipal Political and Legal Affairs Committee, demanding that responsibility for the erroneous case be strictly pursued.
After obtaining the consent of our retained counsel, this "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," which had drawn significant public attention, was ultimately concluded by the plaintiff, Mr. Liu Mouqing, simultaneously withdrawing the lawsuit at first instance and the appeal at second instance, with the first-instance judge directing the defendant to provide compensation outside the litigation: both the first-instance and second-instance courts simultaneously resolved this absurd and erroneous civil ruling case by way of the plaintiff Liu Mouqing's withdrawal of the lawsuit and withdrawal of the appeal.
Our attorney, as the plaintiff's counsel in the "Magpie Net trademark infringement case," immediately seized upon this significant procedural error by the presiding judge, cleverly employing the "besiege Wei to rescue Zhao" strategy to compel the original court's judge to coordinate compensation for our client outside the courtroom. The plaintiff secured a clean and decisive victory in this "David versus Goliath" trademark infringement confrontation.
Proxy Art:
In this case, adopting the strategy of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" can be said to have won a chance for turning defeat into victory through the unique "magic weapon" that Attorney Wang Tengfeng's team had honed through decades of judicial practice—finding flaws and catching errors.
During the handling of the "Magpie.com Trademark Infringement Case," when our lawyer discovered that in the first-instance civil ruling issued by the presiding judge dismissing our lawsuit, only the claim against the second defendant, Shenzhen Branch of Shanghai Huamou Tree Information Technology Co., Ltd., had been dismissed, while the ruling made no mention whatsoever of how to address the defendant status of the first defendant, Shanghai Huamou Tree Information Technology Co., Ltd., our side immediately seized the opportunity and adopted the most efficient and powerful measures to respond—by pursuing strong extrajudicial complaints through all lawful channels against the first-instance judge who had issued the erroneous and incomplete ruling suspected of favoritism and perversion of justice, and by timely filing an appeal in accordance with the law. This subjected the first-instance judge to unprecedented pressure and exposed him to immense professional risk. If the presiding judge failed to promptly resolve the risks arising from his erroneous judgment and omission in the ruling, his professional future and life path, whether at that time or in the near future, might have suffered a "Waterloo."
After the case was lawfully appealed, the first-instance judge, well aware that his own mistake could pose a huge hidden risk to his professional career, had no choice but to display an extraordinarily fair and just attitude. He proactively and privately approached our client to communicate, stating that he would do his best to persuade the defendant to cease the infringing acts and provide reasonable compensation.
My client, Liu Qing, upon receiving such unexpectedly favorable news, promptly sought advice from the well-known legal team. Seeing that our goal of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" — holding the judge accountable for the erroneous judgment through indirect means — had been effortlessly achieved, we naturally decided to "call off the troops" at the opportune moment. We gladly agreed to the original trial judge's private settlement terms: the judge would instruct the defendant to compensate our client's losses, while our lawyers would simultaneously submit withdrawal applications to both the original trial court and the appellate court, kindly helping the first-instance judge resolve the significant procedural errors arising from his biased adjudication of this case due to personal connections. This ensured that what appeared to be an irrevocable erroneous judgment, with plaintiff Liu Qing facing total defeat, was promptly remedied and reversed, resulting in victory.
Our counsel is willing to cooperate in dissolving the erroneous first-instance judgment into nothing, thereby resolving the embarrassment of this extremely mistaken and utterly absurd civil ruling.
The first-instance judge was very grateful for this and actively assisted our lawyer in carrying out the defendant's compensation to the plaintiff.
Seize the opportunity to strike where the enemy is weakest, "besiege Wei to rescue Zhao"! Thus, the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case" became yet another typical example of a highly successful literary and artistic rights protection lawsuit.
To speak of the brilliant performance in the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," it can be summed up in one sentence: disrupting their position, attacking their errors and omissions, feinting east while striking west, and relieving the siege by attacking the source.
The so-called "throwing the opposing side into disarray" refers to our lawyer's firm rebuttal, in accordance with the law, in the court submissions of the plaintiff's counsel, against the defendant Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd.'s arguments raised in its "Statement of Defense," including the objections to "jurisdiction" and the assertion that it is "not the proper defendant in this case."
Our counsel has clearly pointed out that the ordinary procedure applies to the trial of this case. If the defendant objects to the court's jurisdiction, it should raise the objection within the time limit for submitting evidence, and the court of first instance should render a ruling thereon before the hearing. The defendant failed to raise a jurisdiction objection within the time limit prescribed by law, and the court of first instance has already conducted substantive trial of this case in accordance with formal procedures. The defendant should not, in violation of legal provisions, raise a defense of jurisdiction objection against this case again. Furthermore, this case concerns trademark infringement rather than copyright-related disputes. It is erroneous for the defendant and the court of first instance to repeatedly apply copyright-related laws in trying this case. The laws applicable to this case should be China's Trademark Law, the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, and relevant judicial interpretations……
In response to the defendant Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd.'s agent's arguments in the "Statement of Defense" claiming that "magpie itself is a generic term," "'magpie' is regarded as an auspicious thing among the people, and in the plaintiff's registered 'magpie' trademark, only the character '鹊' has been changed to its traditional form, so the trademark's distinctiveness is not strong. Therefore, the scope of protection of the registered trademark in question should be strictly limited to the text of the 'approved registered trademark,' namely 'magpie,' and should not be given any expansive interpretation..." and other arguments to defend against infringement, our lawyer refuted them with stern rebuttal: The defendant's use of the words "Magpie Network" on Jiayuan (a matchmaking website) and the marking of "囍鹊" in related web content is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark "喜鹊" (Magpie), constituting homophones and similar in font. More importantly, the plaintiff's "Magpie Network" and the first defendant's "囍鹊 Network" fall under the same category of goods. According to Article 52 of the Trademark Law: Using a trademark identical or similar to a registered trademark on identical or similar goods constitutes trademark infringement. Although in May 2011, after the plaintiff's negotiation and complaint, the first defendant changed "Magpie Network" to "囍鹊 Network," it still constitutes infringement. Furthermore, although the first defendant changed the main title label, its keywords in various URLs remain "Magpie Network." Searching for "Magpie Network" through major search keywords still leads to the defendant's website first. The first defendant and second defendant continue to use the term "magpie" extensively on their operated websites, and the serious facts of infringement are evident. Moreover, the plaintiff's registered "magpie" trademark applies to 42 major categories, not a specific subcategory as claimed by the defendants...
Under our lawyers' well-reasoned rebuttal, the first-instance judge had already accepted in legal principle the factual grounds on which the Zhiming legal team, representing the plaintiff, sued the defendant. However, emotionally and subjectively, the judge still favored the defendant, a well-established and well-capitalized matchmaking website company. Consequently, thrown into disarray by this personal bias, the judge made serious procedural errors in the ruling of this case.
After receiving the unfavorable first-instance ruling, we acutely identified major legal procedural errors and omissions in the civil ruling that seriously infringed upon the lawful rights and interests of the plaintiff. While filing an appeal in accordance with the law, we also resolutely adopted extra-legal pressure tactics, directly targeting the first-instance judge suspected of deliberate partiality that led to such irreversibly absurd procedural errors. We promptly filed lawful complaints with the Shenzhen Municipal Political and Legal Affairs Committee and the Standing Committees of the Municipal and District People's Congresses, directly alleging that the presiding judge was suspected of bending the law for personal connections, constituting serious judicial injustice!
In response to the obvious major procedural errors on the civil ruling that our side pointed out, the first-instance judge was indefensible. When we filed an appeal and a complaint in accordance with the law, the first-instance judge realized that his absurd erroneous ruling could have a huge impact on his career... Trapped in such a passive and embarrassing situation, the first-instance judge had no choice but to show weakness and goodwill toward the plaintiff, actively persuade the defendant to compromise, and force the defendant to privately pay money outside the case to compensate the plaintiff, in order to quell the matter and close out the erroneous case.
The "besiege Wei to rescue Zhao" referred to in this case naturally means that our side seizes on the errors of the first-instance judge and launches a fierce counterattack, with the aim of defeating the defendant and enabling the plaintiff, Liu Qing, to obtain a favorable judgment and compensation.
The much-publicized "Magpie Network trademark infringement case" has taken a sudden turn, with light appearing at the end of the tunnel. Of course, the plaintiff Liu Mouqing's receipt of compensation did not result from the defendant's sudden awakening to their own infringement, but was entirely because the defendant sought to resolve the first-instance judge's urgent predicament. It might also be said that because the judge had previously "given them a plum," they came to "return a peach" in his time of distress.
Commendably, the plaintiff Liu Liuqing did not continue to "beat a drowning dog" against the first-instance judge, but instead showed tolerance, repaying resentment with virtue and letting him off the hook, allowing the first-instance judge to smoothly conclude a case that still seems utterly absurd to this day.
On June 2, 2011, the plaintiff Liu Mouqing filed a lawsuit against the defendant;
On August 8, 2011, the court of first instance held a hearing on this case.
On August 26, 2011, the first-instance court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Liu Mouqing against the second defendant.
On September 8, 2011, the plaintiff Liu Mouqing filed an appeal with the court of second instance and lodged a complaint outside the case.
On November 18, 2011, our client Liu Mouqing separately submitted to the first-instance court a supplemental application to withdraw the lawsuit against the first defendant, and on the same day also submitted to the appellate court an application to withdraw the appeal.
On November 21, 2011, the second-instance appellate court ruled to grant the appellant Liu Mouqing's motion to withdraw the appeal against the two respondents.
It was not until December 16, 2011 that the first-instance court issued a supplementary ruling, granting the plaintiff Liu Mouqing permission to withdraw the lawsuit against the original first defendant.
The procedural sequence and timing of the judicial adjudications in the first and second instance courts described above clearly show that the conclusion of the first instance case in this matter was only ruled after the second instance case had already been concluded upon the plaintiff's withdrawal of the appeal.
Obviously, this is a bizarre and grotesque judicial adjudication case. As a result, the plaintiff won the case and received compensation, but had it not been for the artistic litigation (strategic) techniques employed by the attorney in the litigation game, it would clearly have been impossible to achieve the litigation objectives of the plaintiff, Liu Qing.
Case conclusion insights:
The significance of this case lies not in how much benefit was secured for the client as the attorney of record, nor in encountering yet another particularly absurd civil ruling; rather, it lies in the lesson that, as counsel, one must learn to skillfully employ artistic litigation techniques or the tactics of strategic maneuvering when confronted with an adverse erroneous case that has already become an accomplished fact, so as to discover and seize upon the errors and missteps of the judge or the defendant's attorney—being adept at, and daring to, cleverly deploy strategic ruses to shift and reverse the trajectory of the case, bringing it back from the brink of failure. One can well imagine that among the numerous and varied litigation cases across the country, there is no shortage of similarly erroneous judgments and rulings—indeed, even more absurd mistaken and flawed adjudications occur.
Importantly, as a professional lawyer, once you discover or encounter a judgment that clearly suggests favoritism or subjective bias leading to a miscarriage of justice, should you merely resort to general, conventional litigation techniques and follow standard procedures in appeals and arguments? Or should you decisively and courageously seize the "battle opportunity" to employ comprehensive literary and artistic rights-protection litigation tactics, striking back to pressure the first-instance judge into proactively correcting the error, thereby turning a dead case around? There is a clear difference in caliber between the two approaches.
Does a lawyer's victory in court happen only in the courtroom? Beyond first-instance court proceedings, appeals, or retrials, one should employ every reasonable and lawful means available, through all possible channels or methods (including filing complaints with Party and government agencies, exposing matters to the news media, etc.), to concentrate "firepower" on attacking the errors of the presiding judge who is suspected of perverting the law out of personal favoritism, forcing them—in order to protect and rescue themselves—to in turn actively persuade and pressure the opposing party to compromise and make concessions, thereby achieving the goal of realizing one's own litigation objectives and effectively protecting the lawful rights and interests of one's own client! Lawyers who employ conventional litigation techniques, however, tend to be confined to the case itself, debating right and wrong and arguing over victory or defeat based on those specious, ambiguously interpretable, each-side-has-their-say, rigid and inflexible legal provisions. Moreover, some lawyers lacking in confidence or integrity, fearing they might offend the courts and judges, do not dare to confront erroneous judgments and rulings by courts or judges, and still less dare to fight back, often causing their clients and parties to suffer major legal injustices.
This distinction may appear simple and not particularly complicated to explain, yet truly mastering it and applying it effectively is no feat of a day's practice or a skill achieved overnight. More often than not, in identical instances of erroneous case rulings, different lawyers responding to them will produce vastly different outcomes!
In the case of the "Magpie Website Trademark Infringement Case," had our lawyer not skillfully countered with military strategies and tactics, but instead, as is typical, applied conventional litigation techniques—focusing all attention and efforts solely on the correctness of the standard litigation procedures themselves, filing an appeal in accordance with the law, and conducting the second-instance courtroom defense as required—then it would have been very difficult to avoid the possibility that the second instance would continue to uphold the first-instance wrongful judgment against us! Under such circumstances, even a subsequent petition for retrial would likely have compounded the errors, error upon error, leaving us with no remedy to protect our rights.
After all, such a wrongful judgment is merely an ordinary civil and commercial dispute case. Were it not for extra-legal measures taken against the judges responsible for the erroneous judgment—constraining their career prospects and prompting them to proactively and conscientiously correct the error—it would generally be impossible to attract the necessary attention of a higher court or leadership, nor would it automatically trigger public oversight through social attention. Therefore, the likelihood of having the judgment reversed or corrected through normal procedural channels is extremely minimal.
Here, it must be emphasized: Most clients who entrust Zhiming attorneys are fortunate, because regardless of the scale of the rights dispute, we will spare no effort to strive for the optimal outcome for our clients with a highly professional spirit and extremely acute litigation (game-theoretic) thinking. In this case, our attorneys artistically employed the strategy of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" to secure legitimate interests for the plaintiff client Liu Mouqing. The use of the art of war in rights protection and the art of law in legal advocacy proved remarkably effective once again!
Attachment: Related Materials on the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case" Involving Liu Mouqing:
Complaint
Plaintiff: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, ID card number: 21040219661101xxxx Address: Unit 1, Building 4, Dong XX Road, XX District, Fushun City, Liaoning Province
Defendant No. 1: Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd., Address: No. XXX, [Certain Road], Yangpu District, Shanghai
Defendant II: Shenzhen Branch of Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd., Address: XXX at the intersection of Jintian Road and Fuhua Road, [Certain] District, Shenzhen
Lawsuit Request:
1. Order Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to immediately cease trademark infringement against the Plaintiff;
2. Order Defendant One and Defendant Two to compensate the Plaintiff for losses in the amount of RMB 500,000 yuan in full;
3. Order Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to compensate the Plaintiff for evidence preservation costs of RMB 3,600;
4. Order Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 to bear all litigation costs of this case.
Facts and Reasons:
The plaintiff founded the Magpie Website (www.77xq.com) in 2006 based on the ancient Chinese folk love story of the Cowherd and the Weaver Girl, in which magpies form a bridge, and on August 30 of the same year, after filing with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China, the website was launched and put into operation. In the same year, the plaintiff applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China for registration of the "Magpie" trademark under Class 42, covering the operation of computer websites. In September 2009, the plaintiff officially obtained the Trademark Registration Certificate from the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China, with certificate number: No. 5473xxx. For the better development of the Magpie Website, in 2009, the plaintiff established Shenzhen Golden Magpie Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen to fully maintain and develop the Magpie Website. After nearly six years of careful maintenance and substantial investment, the membership of the Magpie Website nationwide has reached tens of thousands of people, and its "Magpie" brand has been recognized by many people and enjoys a relatively high level of popularity.
Earlier this year, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant 1 had, without authorization, established the Magpie website www.xique.cn and connected www.xique.com to www.xique.cn. At the same time, through Defendant 1's affiliated matchmaking website under the "某某 Jiayuan" brand and print media, Defendants launched large-scale and concentrated promotions claiming that the Magpie website was a matchmaking platform they had invested in, brazenly exploiting the Magpie trademark brand name to solicit and attract customers, and engaging extensively in unfair competition: on the Magpie webpage that Defendant 1 had unauthorizedly established, they arbitrarily used the words "Magpie" or "Magpie Website," and on the webpage's external links, they continued to use the words "Magpie" or "Magpie Website." Searches for "Magpie" or "Magpie Website" on search engines such as Baidu or Google all displayed and led to the Magpie website www.xique.cn or www.xique.com that Defendant 1 had unauthorizedly established. Defendant 2, as a branch company of Defendant 1, in order to seek improper gains, unauthorizedly exploited Defendant 1's website to use "Magpie" for promotion, member recruitment, and organizing activities. Regarding the infringing acts of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, since mid-May the plaintiff has demanded in both telephone and written form the cessation of infringement and compensation for losses, and has reported the situation to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China. In response, Mr. Zhang, a legal affairs staff member of Defendant 1, stated that he would give a reply after studying the matter; however, the Defendants have only changed the name on the website's homepage from "Magpie Website" to "囍Magpie Website" and deleted some of the "Magpie" wording, attempting to evade responsibility and avoid accountability. Even so, as of the time of filing this lawsuit, the external links on the Defendants' webpages still use "Magpie" or "Magpie Website," and the various internal sub-pages still use "Magpie" or "Magpie Website." Moreover, "囍Magpie Website" and "囍Magpie" remain homophonically similar in pronunciation and similar in appearance to the plaintiff's registered trademark "Magpie," and still cannot eliminate misunderstandings among consumers and the public. Their infringing acts are continuing.
The defendants' infringing and unfair market competition practices have caused market misunderstanding of the "Magpie" brand and "Magpie Website," severely harming the brand image and business reputation that the plaintiff has cultivated over a long period. As a result, the plaintiff has lost numerous client resources and suffered substantial economic losses. To safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff hereby files this lawsuit with your court, requesting that your court rule in accordance with the claims and support all of the plaintiff's requests!
Yours sincerely
People's Court of a Certain District, Shenzhen City
Petitioner: Liu Mouqing
Authorized Representative: Attorney Zhiming
June 2, 2011
No. 5473xxx
Trademark Registration Certificate
Magpie
Approved Services (Class 42)
Hosting computer websites (web sites); creating and maintaining websites for others; converting tangible data and documents into electronic media; providing instant connection services for data exchange between computer users; computer programming; computer software design; restoration of computer data; recovering computer data; copying of computer programs; computer software maintenance (term)
Registrant Liu Mouqing 21040266xxxxxxxxxx
Registered Address: Liaoning Province, Fushun City xxxxx
Registration validity period: from September 21, 2009 to September 20, 2019
Issued by Director, Li Moumou
Shenzhen Magpie Network sues [Name] Jiayuan for trademark infringement, seeking 500,000 yuan in damages.
August 9, 2011 06:38 Southern So-and-so News [Weibo]
Reporter Liu from a certain media outlet reported that a dating website, which had just gone public on Nasdaq, is facing a trademark infringement lawsuit in Shenzhen. Yesterday, the case where Shenzhen Xique Network sued the dating website for infringing on its trademark exclusive rights was heard in a district court. Xique Network is claiming 500,000 yuan in damages, while the dating website argues that the term "magpie" is a common word that anyone can use.
Magpie Network: Infringing My Trademark, Pay Me Compensation
Shenzhen Xique (Magpie) Network is also a website for dating, matchmaking, and bridge-building, similar in type to a certain Jiayuan. According to the website's founder Liu Mouqing, the Xique Network was founded in 2006, and when applying for the domain name, the implication of "Qixi" was considered, leading to the application for www.77xq.com. On August 30 of the same year, the website was filed with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and then launched for operation. The Xique Network applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of the "Xique" trademark under Class 42, covering computer network services, and in September 2009 obtained a trademark registration approval certificate from the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
After registering in his personal name, Liu Mouqing registered and established Shenzhen Jinxique Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen, hoping to expand Xique.com, which has now been in operation for nearly six years. According to Liu Mouqing, the membership of Xique.com has now reached as many as 100,000 people.
On May 11 this year, Jiayuan.com was listed on Nasdaq. Gong某yan (Weibo), the CEO who had refused to sell the website for 1 million yuan back then, has become the wealthiest matchmaker, with a market value of 450 million yuan. Meanwhile, Liu某qing, who started out with the same difficulties, is still struggling in the startup phase. Although Xique.com has gained some brand recognition and reputation, it has yet to turn a profit.
Liu Mouqing stated that he discovered the infringement at the beginning of this year, when he found that Moumou Jiayuan had also established a Xique website (www.xique.cn), while simultaneously promoting through its Moumou Jiayuan dating website and print media on a large scale that Xique was an investment dating platform of theirs, using the Xique trademark brand name to attract customers. The Shenzhen branch of Shanghai Moumou Information Technology Co., Ltd., to which Moumou Jiayuan belongs, also used the website to advertise with "Xique" as a promotional tool, recruit members, and organize activities.
Liu某qing stated that since mid-May, he has requested in telephone and email form that Moumou Jiayuan cease infringement and compensate for losses, and has also reported the situation to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Shenzhen Xique Wang sued Moumou Jiayuan in a district court for infringing on its exclusive right to use a trademark, demanding that Moumou Jiayuan immediately cease the infringement and pay 500,000 yuan in damages.
XX Jiayuan.com: Magpie is a common noun.
In yesterday's court session, the attorney representing a certain Jiayuan matchmaking website stated that the current evidence cannot prove that the Jiayuan matchmaking website constitutes infringement against Xique (Magpie) Net. Secondly, the servers of the relevant websites are not located within the jurisdiction of a certain district, and therefore the case should not be heard by the court of that district. The attorney argued that although Xique Net has registered its trademark, it falls under the category of computer-related goods, which is clearly different from the matchmaking platform currently operated by Xique Net; Xique Net cannot arbitrarily extend the connotation of this trademark. Moreover, "magpie" is a commonly used word, and it cannot be said that merely using the word "magpie" constitutes infringement against Xique Net. The attorney contended that the Jiayuan matchmaking website has not committed infringement and requested the court to reject the claims of the plaintiff, Xique Net.
Currently, the case is still under trial.
People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province
Civil Ruling
(2011) Shenfu Fa Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745
Plaintiff Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November X, 19XX, ID card address: XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province, ID number: 210402196611010XXX.
Entrusted agent, Attorney Zhiming, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.
Authorized representative Gao Hongbing, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.
Defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXX Shanghai, Organization Code 76089XXXX.
Legal Representative Qian XX
Authorized representative Chen X, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm
Authorized representative Zhang X, male, Han ethnicity, born September 26, 1974, residential address as per ID: XXXXXX, Beijing, ID number: 21070219740926XXXX, a staff member of the company.
Defendant Shenzhen Branch of Shanghai HuaxX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXX, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, organization code 55541XXX.
Person in charge: Cheng XX
In the case of the above-named plaintiff Liu Mouqing v. defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch concerning a dispute over trademark infringement, after accepting the case on June 2, 2011, this court formed a collegiate panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing on August 8, 2011.
The plaintiff alleges that in 2006, the plaintiff founded Xique (Magpie) Network at www.77XX.com, which was launched and put into operation on August 30, 2006, after filing with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. In the same year, the plaintiff applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of the "Magpie" (喜鹊) trademark in Class 42, covering computer website services, and in September 2009, the plaintiff formally obtained the trademark registration approval certificate from the Trademark Office, with certificate number No. 5473XX. For the better development of Xique Network, in 2009, the plaintiff established Shenzhen Jin Xique Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen to fully maintain and develop Xique Network. After nearly six years of careful maintenance and significant investment, the number of members of Xique Network nationwide has reached tens of thousands, and its "Magpie" (喜鹊) brand has been recognized by numerous people and enjoys a high reputation. At the beginning of this year, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had, without authorization, established Xique Network at www.xiXX.cn and linked www.xiXX.com to www.xiXX.cn. Meanwhile, through the defendants' affiliated Century XX Matchmaking Network and print media, they engaged in large-scale promotion of Xique Network as their invested matchmaking platform, making extensive use of the Magpie trademark brand name to attract customers, and engaging extensively in unfair competition. On the webpage of the Magpie Network unlawfully established by defendant Shanghai Hua X Information Technology Co., Ltd., the words "Magpie" (喜鹊) or "Xique Network" (喜鹊网) were arbitrarily used, and searching for "Magpie" (喜鹊) or "Xique Network" (喜鹊网) through Baidu or Google could display and lead to the Magpie Network at www.xiXX.com or www.xiXX.cn unlawfully established by defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. The branch of defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd., for the purpose of seeking improper benefits, unlawfully used the website of defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. with "Magpie" (喜鹊) as promotional advertising, recruiting members and organizing activities. With respect to the infringing acts of the two defendants, since mid-May, the plaintiff has demanded by telephone and email that they cease the infringement and compensate for losses, and has reported the situation to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. In response, Mr. Zhang, a legal affairs staff member of defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd., stated that a reply would be given after study, but at present, the defendants have only changed the name on the front page of the website from "Xique Network" (喜鹊网) to "Xi Xique Network" (囍鹊网) and deleted some of the "Magpie" (喜鹊) wording, attempting to evade responsibility and avoid accountability. Even so, up to the time of filing this lawsuit, the external links on the defendants' webpages still use "Magpie" (喜鹊) or "Xique Network" (喜鹊网), and "Xi Xique Network" (囍鹊网) and "Xi Xique" (囍鹊) remain homophonically similar characters to the plaintiff's registered trademark "Magpie" (喜鹊), making it impossible to eliminate misunderstanding among the general consumers and the public, and the infringing acts are still ongoing. The infringing and unfair market competition acts of the two defendants have caused erroneous understanding in the market of the "Magpie" (喜鹊) brand and "Xique Network" (喜鹊网), causing great harm to the brand image and goodwill that the plaintiff has cultivated over a long period of time. As a result, the plaintiff has lost many client resources and suffered enormous economic losses. The plaintiff has filed suit with this court, requesting judgment that: 1. The two defendants immediately cease their trademark infringement against the plaintiff; 2. The two defendants compensate the plaintiff for losses of RMB 500,000; 3. The two defendants compensate the plaintiff for the evidence preservation expenses of RMB 3,600; 4. The two defendants bear all litigation costs of this case. At the court hearing, the plaintiff clarified that the cause of action for this lawsuit is trademark infringement dispute.
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court to prove that the defendant committed the infringing acts includes: 1. The ICP filing information of the website www.xiXX.cn with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China, showing that the ICP filing subject of the website is the defendant, Shanghai HuaxX Information Technology Co., Ltd.; 2. Promotional materials from the website www.xiXX.com; 3. Video records of the earlier webpage content of the website www.xiXX.com; 4. Earlier content of the website www.xiXX.com; 5. Notarial certificate No. (2011)XX Zi No. 816XX, which notarized the search results for "Xique Net" on Baidu and the content displayed upon entering the website www.xiXX.com; 6. Notarial certificate No. (2011)XX Zi No. 757XX, which notarized the webpage content displayed after entering www.xiXX.com in the IE browser address bar; 7. Notarial certificate No. (2011)XX Zi No. 819XX, which notarized the webpage content displayed after entering www.xiXX.cn in the IE browser address bar. It was further ascertained that the ICP filing subject of the website www.xiXX.com with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China is the defendant, Shanghai HuaxX Information Technology Co., Ltd.
This Court finds that this case involves an infringement dispute in the context of computer networks. The plaintiff alleges that the two defendants used the words "喜鹊" (Magpie) or "喜鹊网" (Magpie.com) on Century XX Network (www.jiaXX.com) and Xique Network (www.xiXX.com and www.xiXX.cn), infringing the plaintiff's exclusive right to use its registered trademark, and expressly states that the basis for suing Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch is that the said Shenzhen Branch extensively used the Magpie trademark in Shenzhen for publicity, business operations, and profit-making. However, the plaintiff has not submitted preliminary evidence showing that the defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch is the operator of the above-mentioned allegedly infringing websites or participated in the operation of the allegedly infringing websites, nor has it submitted preliminary evidence proving that the defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch committed the alleged infringing acts. Therefore, the defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch is not a proper defendant in this case. Pursuant to Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 139 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:
The lawsuit filed by plaintiff Liu Mouqing against defendant Shenzhen Branch of Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. is dismissed.
If you are dissatisfied with this ruling, you may submit the original appeal petition to this court within ten days from the date of service of the ruling, along with copies equal to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the XX People's Court of Shenzhen Municipality, Guangdong Province.
Presiding Judge Lin X
People's Assessor Xu XX
People's Assessor Yu XX
August 26, 2011
Court Clerk: Gao X
Appeal
Appellant: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November 1, 1966, residential address per ID: XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province; ID number: 21040219661101XXXX;
Respondent 1: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXXXXXXXX, Shanghai; Organization Code: 76089XXXX.
Legal Representative: Qian XX
Respondent No. 2: Shanghai Huaqianshu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, address: XXXXXX, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province,
Organization code 55541XXXX;
Person in charge: Cheng XX
Appeal request
Please set aside the erroneous ruling of the original trial in accordance with the law and instruct the original trial court to hear the dispute of this case in accordance with the law.
Grounds for appeal:
The appellant disagrees with the Civil Ruling No. 745 (2011) XXX Min Chu Zi of the People's Court of Futian District, Shenzhen, and hereby submits the following appellate opinions:
I. The original trial crudely distorted the objective facts
1. At the beginning of the "Court's Opinion" section in the original trial, the court distortedly described this case as "an infringement dispute involving computer networks," intending to mislead the understanding into the appellee's assertion that "this case is a network infringement dispute," to which the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation concerning the trial of computer software copyright disputes should apply. Furthermore, it sought to define this case as a copyright dispute based on factors such as the registration location of the network domain name, thereby determining that the appellee lacks standing as a proper party, implicitly suggesting that Shenzhen should not have jurisdiction. Clearly, this is a deliberate tactic of "calling a deer a horse"—willfully disregarding the fact that this case is a claim for trademark exclusive right infringement—and intentionally distorting objective facts. The trademark exclusive right certificate in this case expressly states that the registered trademark "喜鹊" (Magpie) is protected by law against infringement by others in its use in operations and other activities on all computer websites. The computer network refers only to the scope of protection in form, whereas the infringing use of the "喜鹊" mark itself is the core subject of trademark protection. Clearly, this case can only be determined in accordance with the Trademark Law and other relevant provisions.
2. In its reasoning, the original trial court rashly concluded that "the plaintiff did not submit preliminary evidence showing that Defendant 2 (Appellee 2) was the operator of the infringing network or participated in the operation of the allegedly infringing website, nor did it submit preliminary evidence proving that Defendant 2 implemented the alleged infringing acts." Such blatant falsehood, stated with such audacity, left the appellant dumbfounded and speechless. The trial evidence fully demonstrates that the appellant not only submitted "preliminary evidence" but also submitted a substantial amount of conclusive evidence proving that Appellee 2 participated in the operation of the allegedly infringing website and extensively committed the relevant infringing acts: First, the Shenzhen page operated by Appellee 2 as displayed on the infringing website also prominently bore the infringing trademark "喜鹊" (see Plaintiff's Evidence 7 at pages 1-2 at first instance; Evidence 8 [(2011)XX Document No. 816XX] attachment at pages 5-8; Evidence [(2011)XX Document No. 757XX] attachment at page 1); Second, Appellee 2 not only extensively used "喜鹊" and "喜鹊网" on its Shenzhen-operated webpage to advertise and solicit business from merchants and customers, but also physically carried out promotional and solicitation activities under the "喜鹊" and "喜鹊网" signage at the XX Hotel in OCT, Shenzhen (see Plaintiff's Evidence 7 at page 3 at first instance, Evidence 13 [(2011)XXX Document No. 819XX] at page 4).
II. The original trial brazenly abandoned statutory procedures
1. At the original trial hearing on August 8 in this case, no authorized agent Zhang X participated in the litigation activities, yet the ruling inexplicably and groundlessly listed Zhang X as the litigation agent.
2. In the original trial of this case, the court ruled to dismiss the action pursuant to Article 139 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, yet without stating in a single word the specific reason. The non-compliance with the acceptance conditions under that provision is obviously the four conditions prescribed in Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law. The appellant's filing of the action in the original trial clearly does not violate the first three conditions of Article 108 in any way whatsoever. The only condition that the original court might exploit through a loophole is the fourth paragraph of Article 108, which provides that the action must "fall within the scope of civil actions accepted by the people's courts and within the jurisdiction of the people's court with which the action is filed." Within this paragraph, the action manifestly does not violate the requirement that it "fall within the scope of civil actions accepted by the people's courts," leaving only the "jurisdiction of the people's court with which the action is filed" open to suspicion. Obviously, the original court could only have dared not to state explicitly that the dismissal of the action was based on a "jurisdictional objection," but the truth can only be a "jurisdictional objection." The original court's dismissal of the action on the ground of jurisdictional objection was made without any lawful and effective jurisdictional objection application by the original defendant party. (Of course, the original defendant's raising of a jurisdictional objection in its statement of defense at the time of the hearing clearly had long exceeded the statutory time limit.) If the original court, on its own authority, discovered after accepting the case, particularly after the hearing, that the jurisdiction did not comply with the provisions, it could only, in accordance with the explicit provision of Article 36 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, which states: "If a people's court discovers that a case it has accepted is not within its jurisdiction, it shall transfer the case to the
3. In this case, the original trial recklessly and rashly issued an illegal ruling to dismiss the prosecution, yet only dismissed the prosecution against the second defendant in the original trial. Does this mean that the prosecution against the first defendant in the original trial remains lawful and valid, and should a substantive judgment continue to be rendered? The original trial gave no explicit indication on this matter. Such an aberrant ruling is a rarity in the judicial community, leaving people both bewildered and at a loss as to how to proceed!
In summary, the original trial was audacious and reckless, openly favoring the appellee's unilateral private interests, and even issued an absurd judicial ruling that clearly violates the principles of rule of law and fairness and justice, maliciously harming the appellant's lawful rights and interests. To uphold fairness and justice and to protect the appellant's lawful rights and interests, this appeal is hereby filed, and we earnestly request a just adjudication!
Appellant: Liu Mouqing
September 8, 2011
Application for Withdrawal of Lawsuit
Applicant: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, ID card number: 21040219661101XXXX
Address: XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province
Respondent: Shanghai Huaxx Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Address: Shanghai, XXXXXX
Respondent: Shenzhen Branch of Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Address: Shenzhen City XXXXXX
In the case between the applicant and the two respondents concerning a dispute over the exclusive right to use a trademark, the applicant filed an appeal against the Civil Ruling No. 745 (2001) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi rendered by the XX District People's Court of Shenzhen, and a hearing was held on November 23, 2011. Now, pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the applicant hereby applies to withdraw the appeal and requests that this be approved.
Yours sincerely
Shenzhen XX People's Court
Applicant: Liu Mouqing
November 18, 2011
Guangdong Province, Shenzhen City XX People's Court
Civil Ruling
(2011) XXX Intellectual Property Civil Appeal Final Case No. 619
Appellant (plaintiff in the original trial) Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November 1, 1966, domiciled at XXXXXXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province, ID number 21040219661101XXXX
Entrusted agent, Attorney Zhi Ming, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.
Entrusted agent Ren Guo, trainee lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.
Appellee (defendant in the original trial) Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXXXXXXXX, Shanghai, organization code 76089XXXX
Legal Representative: Qian XX.
Authorized representative Zhang X, employee of the company.
Entrusted agent Mao XX, an employee of the company.
Appellee (Defendant in the original trial) Shenzhen Branch of Shanghai XXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXX, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, Organization Code 55541XXXX
Cheng XX, person in charge.
Appellant Liu Mouqing, in the case of trademark infringement dispute against appellees Shanghai HuaxX Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai HuaxX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, appealed against the civil judgment (2011) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745 rendered by the People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City, and filed an appeal with this court. During the proceedings of this case, appellant Liu Mouqing applied on November 18, 2011 to withdraw the appeal.
Upon review, this Court holds that the appellant Liu Mouqing's request to withdraw the appeal is a voluntary disposition of his litigation rights, and does not harm the legitimate interests of the state, the collective, or others, and therefore shall be permitted. Pursuant to Article 156 of the XXX Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:
The appellant Liu Mouqing is permitted to withdraw the appeal.
This ruling is final.
Presiding Judge Ruan X
Judge Qian X
Acting Judge XXX
November 21, 2011
Court Clerk Zhuo XX
Application for Withdrawal of Lawsuit
Applicant: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, ID Card Number: 21040219661101XXXX, Address: Room XXXX, Building 4, Dongshi Road, Xinfu District, Fushun City, Liaoning Province
Respondent: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., Address: XXXX, Shanghai
Respondent: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, Address: Shenzhen XXXXXXXXXX
The applicant and the two respondents, in the case concerning a trademark exclusive right dispute (Case No.: (20XX)XXX Initial Civil Court Case No. 745), have already been heard by your court. The applicant now applies for withdrawal of the lawsuit in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and requests your approval.
Yours sincerely
Shenzhen XX District People’s Court
Applicant: Liu Mouqing
November 18, 2011
People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province
Civil Ruling
(2011) XXX Intellectual Property Civil First Instance No. 745
Plaintiff Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November 1, 1966, ID card address: XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province. ID card number: 21040219661101XXXX.
Entrusted agent, Attorney Zhi Ming, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.
Authorized representative Gao Hongbing, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.
Defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXXXX, Shanghai, organization code 76089XXXX.
Legal Representative: Qian XX.
Authorized Agent Chen X, attorney at Guangdong Mou Chen Law Firm.
Entrusted agent Zhang X, male, Han ethnicity, born on September 26, 1974, residential address per ID: Beijing XXXXXX, ID number: 21070219740926XXXX, employee of the company.
In the case of the above-named plaintiff Liu XX v. the defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. regarding a trademark infringement dispute, the plaintiff Liu XX filed an application with this court on November 18, 2011 to withdraw the lawsuit.
This court holds that parties have the right to dispose of their litigation rights within the scope prescribed by law. The plaintiff, Liu XX Qing, has applied to withdraw the lawsuit against the defendant, Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., which complies with the relevant legal provisions, and this court hereby grants permission. Pursuant to Article 131, Paragraph 1, and Article 140, Paragraph 1, Item (5) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, as well as Articles 15 and 34, Paragraph 1 of the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees, the ruling is as follows:
Plaintiff Liu Qingqing is permitted to withdraw the lawsuit against Defendant Shanghai XX Information Technology Co., Ltd.
The case acceptance fee in this case is RMB 8,800 (already prepaid by the plaintiff), and RMB 4,400 is collected as per regulations, to be borne by the plaintiff.
Presiding Judge Lin X
People's Assessor Yu X
People's Juror Xu X
December 16, 2011
Court Clerk Feng X
