Case Recap:

In today's information society and internet age, interpersonal communication is frequent, yet emotional bonds are thinning. Eligible men and women meet for blind dates, engage in romance, with less exaggerated introductions from matchmakers and more autonomous communication via 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.

From early 2006, Liu Mouqing founded a dating website, Magpie Net, based on Chinese folklore and the derived custom of the Magpie Bridge Festival. When applying for the domain name "Magpie Net," Liu considered the meaning of the Chinese "Qixi" custom and specifically registered the domain as www.77xq.com.

On August 30, 2006, "Magpie Net" was launched after being filed with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

To protect his intellectual property, Liu specially commissioned the design of a dedicated trademark for "Magpie" and applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of this dedicated trademark under Class 42, covering computer networks. Liu obtained the trademark registration approval certificate from the Trademark Office in September 2009.

Unexpectedly, the well-known "Magpie Net" was soon "knocked off" and "infringed upon."

In early 2011, Liu discovered that the well-known Chinese dating website "Moumou Jiayuan" had also used the registered trademark of "Magpie Net" to set up another similar dating site: www.xique.cn. Meanwhile, through its subsidiary Moumou Jiayuan dating site and print media, it heavily promoted "Magpie Net" as a matchmaking platform they had invested in, using the "Magpie" trademark brand to attract customers.

Faced with such blatant and predatory infringement, Liu was indignant. He promptly issued a stern warning to the infringing party—the operating company of Moumou Jiayuan, Shanghai Huamou Tree Information Technology Co., Ltd.—demanding cessation of infringement and compensation for losses.

But the infringer argued stubbornly, resolutely refusing to admit fault or compensate, and continuously modified and destroyed the graphic and textual marks on its website that were suspected of infringement. During this negotiation process, Mr. Liu Qing actively consulted with lawyers.

Seeing that his reasonable and evidence-based negotiations were always fruitless, at the end of May 2011, Mr. Liu Qing, drawn by its reputation, came to the Zhiming Litigation Art Research Center of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm and lawfully entrusted the Wang Tengfeng lawyer team as litigation agents to pursue rights protection for the trademark damage of the "Magpie Dating Website."

Under the guidance of our lawyers, Mr. Liu Qing actively cooperated in collecting evidence and promptly had the infringing website notarized for evidence collection.

After the evidence was collected, Zhiming lawyers lawfully represented Mr. Liu Qing in filing a lawsuit. On June 2, 2011, Mr. Liu Qing lawfully initiated a trademark infringement lawsuit against a certain Jiayuan website. The operators of the Jiayuan website—Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. and its Shenzhen branch—became the two defendants in the Magpie trademark infringement lawsuit.

Facing the lawsuit, the defendants were naturally unwilling to easily admit defeat and pay compensation. They hired intellectual property lawyers in Shenzhen and mobilized all judicial resources to tenaciously resist the plaintiff.

From the jurisdiction of the judicial process, to the "flaw" in the traditional Chinese characters of the registered "Magpie" trademark, which had minor discrepancies from the "Magpie" trademark they used, to the dispute over whether the applicable law was trademark infringement or computer copyright infringement, the defendants exhausted all means, making far-fetched and baseless arguments. Of course, during the court trial, no matter how the defendants and their responding agents argued, they could not withstand the lawful arguments of the Wang Tengfeng lawyer team.

However, what is more difficult to confront and frustrating is not the defense of the defendant, but the judicial injustice of the presiding judge.

A wealthy female matchmaker taking advantage of a "poor matchmaker" is probably not something many people would think. Therefore, the presiding judge naturally favored the "rich and powerful" side, issuing a civil ruling at the first instance that dismissed the plaintiff Liu Qing's lawsuit against the second defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, while omitting the trial ruling for the first defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd.

After the first-instance trial, in order to favor the defendant, the presiding judge hastily issued a civil ruling dismissing the plaintiff Liu Qing's lawsuit against Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch for online trademark infringement.

The civil ruling issued at the first instance, regarding the two defendants sued by the plaintiff Liu Qing—Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. and its Shenzhen Branch—only dismissed the lawsuit against the Shenzhen Branch on the grounds that it was "not the proper subject defendant in this case"!

The first defendant was genuinely omitted in the first instance, completely forgotten. In a legal document that should be serious and rigorous, this is a huge joke. Using such a flawed civil ruling to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit against one of the defendants is an extremely rare and absurd adjudication case!

In response, our lawyer, representing the plaintiff Liu Qing, on one hand actively appealed according to law, and on the other hand, seized on this serious omission by the first-instance judge to file complaints 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 strict accountability for the erroneous case.

After obtaining consent from our attorney, the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," which had drawn significant public attention, was ultimately concluded with plaintiff Mr. Liu Qingqing withdrawing both the lawsuit and appeal from the first and second trials, and the first-instance judge ordering the defendant to provide compensation outside the court. Both the first and second instance courts handled this absurd and erroneous civil ruling case by treating it as a withdrawal of the lawsuit and appeal by plaintiff Mr. Liu Qingqing.

Our lawyer, as the plaintiff's representative in this "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," immediately seized on this major procedural error by the presiding judge, skillfully employed the strategy of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao," and forced the original trial judge to coordinate compensation for our client outside the case. The plaintiff side cleanly won this trademark infringement confrontation, which pitted the "small" against the "big."

Art of Representation:

In this case, employing the strategy of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" can be said to be the unique "tool" that Attorney Wang Tengfeng's team has honed through decades of judicial practice—catching omissions and errors—to turn defeat into victory.

During the representation of the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," when our lawyer discovered that the first-instance civil ruling dismissing our lawsuit only rejected the plaintiff Mr. Liu Qingqing's claim against the second defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, but made no mention of how to handle the subject qualification of the first defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd., we immediately seized the opportunity and took the most efficient and powerful measures—filing strong complaints outside the case against the first-instance judge, who was suspected of favoritism and erroneous rulings, through all legal channels, and promptly filing an appeal according to law. This placed unprecedented pressure on the first-instance judge and exposed him to immense professional risk. If the presiding judge did not promptly resolve the risk of his erroneous judgment and omission, his career and life path might have encountered a "Waterloo" either at that time or in the near future.

After the case was appealed according to law, the first-instance judge, fully aware that his mistake could pose a huge hidden danger to his professional future, had no choice but to show an unusual attitude of fairness and justice. He proactively and privately contacted our client to communicate, stating that he would do his best to persuade the defendant to cease the infringement and provide reasonable compensation.

Our client, Mr. Liu Qingqing, received such unexpected good news and promptly sought the opinion of Attorney Wang Tengfeng's team. Seeing that our goal of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" by pursuing the judge's error to achieve a favorable outcome had been easily achieved, we naturally decided to "withdraw the troops" at the right moment. We gladly agreed to the original judge's private settlement conditions: the judge instructed the defendant to compensate our client for losses, and our lawyer simultaneously submitted withdrawal applications to both the original trial court and the appellate court, helping the first-instance judge resolve the major procedural omissions caused by his favoritism in adjudicating the case. This timely remedy and reversal turned what seemed like an irreversible defeat for plaintiff Mr. Liu Qingqing into a victory.

Our lawyer is willing to cooperate to dissipate the erroneous judgment of the first instance into nothing, resolving the embarrassment of this extremely wrong and absurd civil ruling.

The judge of the first instance was very grateful for this and actively helped our lawyer implement the defendant's compensation to the plaintiff.

Seize the opportunity, "besiege Wei to rescue Zhao"! Thus, the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case" became another typical successful example of the art of litigation.

Speaking of the brilliant performance in the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," it can be summed up in one sentence: disrupt their formation, attack their errors and omissions, feint east and strike west, besiege Wei to rescue Zhao.

The so-called "disrupt their formation" refers to our lawyer's firm legal refutation in the court representation of the defendant, Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd.'s agent's objections to "jurisdiction" and claims of "not being the proper defendant in this case" in the "Reply."

Our lawyer clearly pointed out that this case is tried under ordinary procedures. If the defendant had objections to the court's jurisdiction, they should have been raised within the evidence submission period, and the first-instance court should have ruled before the hearing. The defendant did not raise a jurisdiction objection within the legally prescribed period, and the first-instance court has already conducted substantive hearings on this case according to regular procedures. Therefore, the defendant should not violate legal provisions by raising further jurisdiction objections. Additionally, this case concerns trademark infringement, not copyright disputes. It is erroneous for the defendant and the first-instance court to repeatedly apply copyright law to try this case. The applicable law for this case should be China's "Trademark Law," "Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law," and relevant judicial interpretations...

The defendant Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd.'s agent stated in the "Defense Statement" that "Magpie itself is a common term," "The 'Magpie' is regarded as an auspicious symbol among the people, and the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Magpie' merely changes the character 'Que' to its traditional form, so the trademark's distinctiveness is not strong. Therefore, the scope of protection for the involved registered trademark should be strictly limited to the wording of the 'approved registered trademark,' i.e., 'Magpie,' without any expanded interpretation..." as a defense against infringement. Our lawyer refuted this forcefully: The defendant used the term "Magpie Network" on a certain matchmaking platform and marked related online content with "Xi Que" (using a variant character), which is identical to the plaintiff's registered trademark "Magpie," being homophones and similar in font. More importantly, the plaintiff's "Magpie Network" and the first defendant's "Xi Que Network" belong to the same type of service. According to Article 52 of the Trademark Law, using a trademark identical or similar to a registered trademark on the same or similar goods constitutes trademark infringement. Although in May 2011, after the plaintiff's negotiation and complaint, the first defendant changed "Magpie Network" to "Xi Que Network," it still constitutes infringement. Additionally, while the first defendant changed the main title, the keywords in various URLs remained "Magpie Network," and searching for "Magpie Network" via major search engines still led to the defendant's website first. The first and second defendants extensively used the term "Magpie" on their operated websites, clearly constituting serious infringement. The plaintiff's registered trademark "Magpie" covers 42 major categories, not a specific minor category as claimed by the defendant...

Under our lawyer's well-reasoned rebuttal, the first-instance judge acknowledged in legal theory the factual basis of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant, but emotionally and subjectively still favored the defendant, a well-funded and renowned matchmaking website company. Thus, due to biased favoritism, the judge became flustered, leading to serious procedural errors in the case's ruling.

After receiving the unfavorable first-instance ruling, we keenly identified significant legal procedural errors in the civil ruling that severely infringed on the plaintiff's lawful rights. We simultaneously filed an appeal according to law and decisively took extra-legal pressure measures, directly targeting the first-instance judge's suspected biased procedural errors that were irreversible and absurd. We promptly filed lawful complaints with the Shenzhen Municipal Political and Legal Affairs Committee and the municipal and district-level People's Congress Standing Committees, accusing the judge of suspected favoritism and serious judicial injustice!

Faced with our pointed-out obvious major procedural errors in the civil ruling, the first-instance judge had no defense. When we lawfully appealed and complained, the judge realized that his absurd erroneous ruling could have a significant impact on his career... Trapped in such a passive and embarrassing situation, the judge had to proactively show weakness and goodwill to the plaintiff, persuade the defendant to compromise, and force the defendant to privately compensate the plaintiff outside the court to settle the matter and close the erroneous case...

The "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" strategy in this case naturally refers to our fierce counterattack by seizing on the first-instance judge's errors, aiming to defeat the defendant and secure a winning compensation for the plaintiff, Liu Mouqing.

The highly publicized "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case" suddenly took a dramatic turn, revealing a new path. Of course, the plaintiff Liu Mouqing's compensation did not stem from the defendant's sudden realization of their infringement, but entirely from the defendant's effort to resolve the first-instance judge's urgent crisis. It could also be said that because the judge had previously "given a plum," they "returned a peach" in his time of need.

What is commendable is that the plaintiff, Liu Qing, did not continue to pursue the first-instance judge with a "beat the dog in the water" mentality, but instead showed tolerance, repaying enmity with kindness, and letting the judge off the hook, allowing the first-instance judge to smoothly conclude what remains a highly absurd case to this day:

On June 2, 2011, the plaintiff, Liu Qing, filed a lawsuit against the defendant;

On August 8, 2011, the first-instance court held a hearing on the case;

On August 26, 2011, the first-instance court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff Liu Qing's lawsuit against the second defendant.

On September 8, 2011, the plaintiff, Liu Qing, appealed to the second-instance court and filed an external complaint.

On November 18, 2011, our client, Liu Qing, submitted a request to the first-instance court to withdraw the lawsuit against the first defendant, and on the same day, submitted a request to the second-instance appellate court to withdraw the appeal.

On November 21, 2011, the appellate court of the second instance ruled to allow the appellant Liu Qingqing to withdraw the appeal against the two appellees.

On December 16, 2011, the court of first instance additionally issued a ruling allowing the plaintiff Liu Qingqing to withdraw the lawsuit against the original first defendant.

The procedural and chronological sequence of the judicial rulings by the courts of first and second instance clearly indicates that the final conclusion of the first-instance case occurred only after the plaintiff had withdrawn the appeal in the second instance.

It is evident that this is a bizarre and absurd judicial case. The result was that the plaintiff won compensation, but without the agent attorney employing artistic litigation (game) techniques in the litigation contest, it would clearly have been impossible to achieve the plaintiff Liu Qingqing's litigation objectives.

Lessons from the case:

The significance of this case lies not in how much benefit the agent attorney won for the client, nor in encountering another seemingly absurd civil ruling, but in the lesson that an agent attorney must learn to skillfully use artistic litigation techniques or strategic game tactics when faced with an already established adverse erroneous case, to discover and seize upon the mistakes or errors of the judge or the defendant's attorney, and to adeptly and daringly employ strategic ploys to reverse the situation and bring it back to life. It is conceivable that among the numerous litigation cases across the country, there are many similar erroneous judgments and rulings, or even more absurd flawed trials.

The key is that when a professional lawyer discovers or encounters such a ruling clearly tainted by personal bias or subjective tendencies, should they merely follow ordinary, conventional litigation techniques and standard procedures for appeal and argument, or should they decisively and courageously seize the "opportunity" to employ comprehensive artistic legal game tactics to strike and pressure the first-instance judge into proactively correcting the error, thereby achieving a turnaround? There is a clear difference in quality between these two approaches.

A lawyer's victory is not limited to the courtroom. Beyond first-instance trials, appeals, or retrials, they employ all reasonable and lawful means through every possible channel or method (including filing complaints with party and government agencies, exposing cases to the media, etc.), concentrating "firepower" on attacking the errors of judges suspected of bending the law for personal favor, forcing them to protect themselves by persuading or coercing the opposing party to compromise and concede, thereby achieving the goal of realizing their client's litigation objectives and effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of their client. In contrast, lawyers using conventional litigation techniques often confine themselves to the case itself, debating right and wrong based on specious, ambiguous, and rigid legal provisions where each side has its own argument, and some lawyers lacking confidence or integrity, fearing offending the court or judges, dare not confront erroneous judgments or rulings, let alone counterattack, often subjecting their clients to significant legal injustice.

This difference seems simple and not complicated to explain, but mastering and efficiently applying it properly is not a skill gained overnight or through short-term practice. Often, with the same wrongful case, different lawyers' responses yield completely different outcomes.

In the "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case," if our lawyer had not skillfully applied military strategies to handle it, but instead followed conventional litigation techniques, focusing solely on the correctness of the standard litigation process itself, filing an appeal according to law, and conducting a second-instance court debate, it would have been difficult to avoid the second-instance court maintaining the first-instance's wrongful ruling against us. In that case, even a subsequent appeal would likely perpetuate errors, compounding mistakes, and rendering rights protection futile.

After all, this wrongful case was merely an ordinary civil and commercial dispute. Without using extra-legal means to strike at the erroneous judge, threatening their career prospects and prompting them to voluntarily correct the mistake, it would generally be impossible to attract necessary attention from higher courts or leaders, nor automatically trigger social oversight. Thus, the likelihood of a normal procedural correction or reversal is extremely slim.

Here, it must be emphasized: clients who entrust Zhiming Law Firm are mostly fortunate, because regardless of the scale of rights disputes, we will employ a highly professional spirit and acutely sensitive litigation (game) thinking to diligently strive for the best possible outcome for our clients. In this case, our lawyer artistically applied the strategy of "besieging Wei to rescue Zhao" to secure legitimate benefits for the plaintiff, Liu Qingqing, demonstrating the remarkable effect of using military tactics and artistic methods to uphold the law.

Attachment: Related materials on Liu Qingqing's "Magpie Network Trademark Infringement Case" incident.

Complaint

Plaintiff: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, ID number: 21040219661101xxxx, Address: Unit 1, Building 4, Dongmou Road, Mou District, Fushun City, Liaoning Province

Defendant 1: Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd., Address: XXX Mou Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai

Defendant 2: Shanghai Hua Mou Shu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, Address: XXX Intersection of Jintian Road and Fuhua Road, Mou District, Shenzhen

Litigation Claims:

1. Order Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to immediately cease trademark infringement against the Plaintiff;

2. Order Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to compensate the Plaintiff for losses of RMB 500,000 in total;

3. Order Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to compensate the plaintiff for the cost of preserving evidence, RMB 3,600;

4. Order Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to bear all litigation costs of this case.

Facts and Reasons:

Based on the ancient Chinese folk love story of the Cowherd and the Weaver Girl crossing the Magpie Bridge, the plaintiff founded the Magpie Network (www.77xq.com) in 2006 and launched it in August of the same year after filing with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China. That same year, the plaintiff applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of the "Magpie" trademark under Class 42, covering 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 5473xxx. To further develop the Magpie Network, the plaintiff established Shenzhen Golden Magpie Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen in 2009 to fully maintain and grow the Magpie Network. After nearly six years of careful maintenance and substantial investment, the Magpie Network has amassed tens of thousands of members nationwide, and its "Magpie" brand has gained recognition and high visibility among many people.

Earlier this year, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had unauthorizedly set up the Magpie Network at www.xique.cn and redirected www.xique.com to www.xique.cn. Additionally, through their subsidiary matchmaking website and print media, the defendants extensively promoted the Magpie Network as their invested matchmaking platform, brazenly using the "Magpie" trademark to attract customers and engaging in unfair competition. On the unauthorized Magpie Network webpage set up by Defendant 1, the words "Magpie" or "Magpie Network" were arbitrarily used, and external links to the webpage also used "Magpie" or "Magpie Network." Searches for "Magpie" or "Magpie Network" on Baidu or Google would display and lead to the unauthorized Magpie Network at www.xique.cn or www.xique.com. Defendant 2, as a branch of Defendant 1, sought improper gains by unauthorizedly using Defendant 1's website to promote the "Magpie" brand, recruit members, and organize activities. Regarding the infringing actions of Defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff, since mid-May, has demanded cessation of infringement and compensation for losses via phone and email, and reported the situation to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. In response, Mr. Zhang, a legal representative of Defendant 1, stated that they would study the matter and reply. However, the defendants have only changed the homepage name from "Magpie Network" to "Double Happiness Magpie Network" and deleted some instances of "Magpie," attempting to evade responsibility. Even so, as of the filing of this lawsuit, the external links of the defendants' webpage still use "Magpie" or "Magpie Network," and internal subpages continue to use "Magpie" or "Magpie Network." The term "Double Happiness Magpie Network" and "Double Happiness Magpie" are still phonetically similar and visually akin to the plaintiff's registered trademark "Magpie," failing to eliminate consumer and public confusion, and the infringement continues.

The infringing and unfair competitive actions of the two defendants have caused market misunderstanding of the "Magpie" brand and "Magpie Network," severely damaging the brand image and goodwill the plaintiff has long cultivated. As a result, the plaintiff has lost numerous customer resources and suffered significant economic losses. To protect its legitimate rights and interests, the plaintiff hereby files this lawsuit with your court, requesting that you rule in accordance with the claims and support all of the plaintiff's requests.

　　此致

People's Court of XX District, Shenzhen City

Plaintiff: Liu Mouqing

Authorized Agents: Wang Tengfeng, Gao Hongbing

June 2, 2011

　　第5473xxx号

Trademark Registration Certificate

　　喜鹊

Designated Services (Class 42)

Hosting computer stations (websites); 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; computer data recovery; restoring computer data; computer program copying; computer software maintenance (end)

Registrant Liu Mouqing 21040266xxxxxxxxxx

Registered address XXXXXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province

Registration validity period From September 21, 2009 to September 20, 2019

Issued by Director Li Moumou

Shenzhen Magpie Network sues Moumou Jiayuan for trademark infringement, demanding 500,000 yuan in compensation

August 9, 2011 06:38 Southern XX Newspaper [Weibo]

A reporter surnamed Nan from a certain media outlet reported that a certain matchmaking website, which had just been listed on Nasdaq, faced a trademark infringement lawsuit in Shenzhen. Yesterday, the case of Shenzhen Xique Network suing the matchmaking website for trademark infringement was heard in a district court. Xique Network claimed 500,000 yuan in damages, while the matchmaking website argued that the term "Xique" (magpie) is a common word that anyone can use.

Xique.com: Infringed on my trademark, pay me compensation.

Shenzhen Xique.com is also a dating, matchmaking, and bridging website, similar in type to Jiayuan.com. According to the website's founder, Liu Qingqing, Xique.com was established in 2006, and when applying for the domain name, the meaning of "Qixi" (Chinese Valentine's Day) was taken into consideration, leading to the application for www.77xq.com. On August 30 of the same year, the website went online after being registered with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. Xique.com applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the registration of the "Xique" trademark under Class 42, covering computer networks, and obtained the trademark registration approval certificate from the Trademark Office in September 2009.

After registering under his personal name, Liu Qing established Shenzhen Jinxique Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen, aiming to expand Xique.com. The company has been operating for nearly six years. According to Liu Qing, the membership of Xique.com has now reached over 100,000 people.

On May 11 this year, Jiayuan.com was listed on NASDAQ. Gong Haiyan (Weibo), the CEO who once refused to sell the website for 1 million yuan, has become the wealthiest matchmaker, with a market value of 450 million yuan. Meanwhile, Liu Qingqing, who started her business with similar difficulties, is still struggling in the entrepreneurial phase. Although Xique.com has gained some brand recognition and reputation, it has yet to turn a profit.

Liu Qingqing stated that the infringement was discovered earlier this year. He found that Jiayuan had also set up a Xique website (www.xique.cn), while simultaneously promoting Xique as an investment-backed matchmaking platform through its Jiayuan dating website and print media, using the Xique trademark to attract customers. The Shenzhen branch of Shanghai XX Information Technology Co., Ltd., which operates Jiayuan, also used the term "Xique" on its website for promotional advertisements, member recruitment, and event organization.

Liu Qingqing said that since mid-May, he has requested Jiayuan to cease infringement and compensate for losses via phone and email, and has reported the matter to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Shenzhen Xique Network sued Jiayuan Network in the XX District Court, alleging infringement of its trademark rights, demanding an immediate halt to the infringement and 500,000 yuan in damages.

Jiayuan Network: "Xique" is a common noun.

In court yesterday, the attorney for Jiayuan Network argued that the current evidence does not prove that Jiayuan dating website infringed on Xique Network's rights. Furthermore, the relevant website servers are not located within XX District, so the case should not be heard by the XX District Court. He contended that although Xique Network has registered a trademark, it falls under the computer category, which is distinctly different from the matchmaking platform currently operated by Xique Network, and Xique Network cannot arbitrarily extend the scope of this trademark. Moreover, "Xique" is a common noun, and using the term does not constitute infringement against Xique Network. The attorney requested the court to reject the plaintiff's claims.

The case is currently still under trial.

XX District People's Court, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province.

Civil Ruling

(2011) Shen Fu Fa Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745

Plaintiff Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November X, 19XX, ID address: XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province, ID number: 210402196611010XXX.

Authorized representative: Wang Tengfeng, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Authorized representative: Gao Hongbing, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Defendant: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., address: XXXXXX, Shanghai, organization code: 76089XXXX.

Legal representative Qian XX

Agent ad litem Chen X, lawyer at Guangdong XX Law Firm

Agent ad litem Zhang X, male, Han ethnicity, born September 26, 1974, domicile address Beijing XXXXXX, ID number 21070219740926XXXX, employee of the company

Defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, domicile Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province XXXXXX, organization code 55541XXX

Person in charge Cheng XX

In the above case of plaintiff Liu XX suing defendants Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch over a trademark infringement dispute, after accepting the case on June 2, 2011, this court lawfully formed a collegial panel and held a public hearing on August 8, 2011.

The plaintiff claims that it founded the Magpie Network website www.77XX.com in 2006 and launched it after filing with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology on August 30, 2006. In the same year, the plaintiff applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of the "Magpie" trademark under Class 42, covering computer website hosting, and in September 2009, the plaintiff officially received a trademark registration certificate from the Trademark Office, certificate number 5473XX. For the better development of the Magpie Network, in 2009, the plaintiff registered and established Shenzhen Golden Magpie Information Consulting Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen to fully maintain and develop the Magpie Network. After nearly six years of careful maintenance and substantial investment, the Magpie Network has tens of thousands of members nationwide, and its "Magpie" brand has been recognized by many people, enjoying high visibility. Earlier this year, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had unauthorizedly established the Magpie Network website www.xiXX.cn and connected www.xiXX.com to www.xiXX.cn, while simultaneously using its subsidiary Century XX Matchmaking Network and print media to extensively promote the Magpie Network as their invested matchmaking platform, heavily exploiting the Magpie trademark brand name to attract customers and engaging in unfair competition. On the unauthorized Magpie Network webpage set up by the defendant Shanghai Hua X Information Technology Co., Ltd., the words "Magpie" or "Magpie Network" were arbitrarily used, and searching for "Magpie" or "Magpie Network" via Baidu or Google would display and lead to the unauthorized Magpie Network website www.xiXX.com or www.xiXX.cn set up by the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. The branch of the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd., for improper gain, unauthorizedly used the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd.'s website to advertise with "Magpie," recruit members, and organize activities. Regarding the infringing acts of the two defendants, the plaintiff, since mid-May, has requested cessation of infringement and compensation for losses via phone and email, and reported the situation to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. In response, Mr. Zhang, a legal officer of the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd., stated that they would reply after study, but currently, the defendant has only changed the homepage title "Magpie Network" to "Double Happiness Magpie Network" and deleted some instances of "Magpie," attempting to evade responsibility. Even so, as of the time of filing the lawsuit, the defendant's webpage external links still use "Magpie" or "Magpie Network," and "Double Happiness Magpie Network" and "Double Happiness Magpie" are still homophones and similar in appearance to the plaintiff's registered trademark "Magpie," failing to eliminate misunderstanding among consumers and the public, and the infringing acts continue. The infringing and unfair market competition acts of the two defendants have caused market misunderstanding of the "Magpie" brand and "Magpie Network," severely harming the brand image and goodwill the plaintiff has long cultivated, resulting in the loss of many customer resources and substantial economic losses. The plaintiff has filed a lawsuit with this court, requesting a judgment: 1. That the two defendants immediately cease trademark infringement against the plaintiff; 2. That the two defendants compensate the plaintiff for losses of RMB 500,000; 3. That the two defendants compensate the plaintiff for evidence preservation costs of RMB 3,600; 4. That the two defendants bear all litigation costs of this case. At the trial, the plaintiff clarified that the cause of action for the lawsuit is trademark infringement dispute.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court to prove the defendants' infringing acts includes: 1. Filing information of the website www.xiXX.cn with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, showing that the ICP filing entity of the website is the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd.; 2. Promotional materials from the website www.xiXX.com; 3. Video materials of the early content of the webpage www.xiXX.com; 4. Early content of the website www.xiXX.com; 5. Notarized document (2011) XX No. 816XX, which notarized the search results for "Magpie Network" on Baidu and the content displayed upon entering the website www.xiXX.com; 6. Notarized document (2011) XX No. 757XX, which notarized the webpage content entered via the IE browser address www.xiXX.com; 7. Notarized document (2011) XX No. 819XX, which notarized the webpage content entered via the IE browser address www.xiXX.cn. Additionally, it was found that the ICP filing entity of the website www.xiXX.com with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is the defendant Shanghai Hua X Information Technology Co., Ltd.

This court holds that this case involves an infringement dispute related to computer networks. The plaintiff accuses the two defendants of using the words "Magpie" or "Magpie Network" on the Century XX Network (www.jiaXX.com) and the Magpie Network (www.xiXX.com and www.xiXX.cn), infringing on the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark, and clarifies that the basis for suing Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch is that the Shenzhen branch extensively used the Magpie trademark for promotion, operation, and profit in Shenzhen. However, the plaintiff has not submitted preliminary evidence showing that the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch is the operator of the allegedly infringing websites or participated in their operation, nor has it submitted preliminary evidence proving that the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch committed the alleged infringing acts. Therefore, the defendant Shanghai Hua XX 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 the plaintiff Liu Mouqing against the defendant Shanghai Hua XX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch is dismissed.

If dissatisfied with this ruling, an appeal may be filed with this court within ten days from the date of service of the ruling, submitting the original appeal petition and copies equal to the number of opposing parties, to appeal to the XX People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province.

Presiding Judge Lin X

People's Juror Xu XX

People's Juror Yu XX

August 26, 2011

Clerk Gao X

Appeal Petition

Appellant: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November 1, 1966, ID address: Fushun City, Liaoning Province XXXXXX, ID number: 21040219661101XXXX

Appellee 1: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., address: Shanghai XXXXXX, organization code: 76089XXXX;

Legal representative: Qian XX

Appellee 2: Shanghai Huaqianshu Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, address: Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province XXXXXX,

Organization code: 55541XXXX;

Person in charge: Cheng XX

Appeal request:

Please revoke the erroneous original ruling according to law and instruct the original trial to legally hear the dispute in this case.

Grounds for appeal:

The appellant disagrees with the Civil Ruling No. 745, Initial Civil Case (2011) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi, of the Shenzhen Futian District People's Court and hereby presents the following appeal opinions:

I. The original trial grossly distorted objective facts.

1. In the "court's opinion" section, the original trial began by mischaracterizing this case as "a dispute involving computer network infringement," intending to mislead the perception into the appellee's claim that "this case is a network infringement dispute." It sought to apply the relevant provisions of the Supreme People's Court's judicial interpretation on computer copyright disputes, and further, to define this case as a copyright dispute based on factors such as the domain name registration location, thereby deeming the appellee an improper party and implicitly suggesting that Shenzhen should not have jurisdiction. Clearly, this is a deliberate act of calling a stag a horse, ignoring the fact that this case is a trademark infringement dispute. The trademark certificate in this case explicitly states: The registered trademark "Magpie" is protected by law in all operations on computer websites, and others must not infringe upon it. The computer network refers to the scope of protection, while the infringing use of the "Magpie" mark is the core subject of trademark protection. Obviously, this case can only apply the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law to determine the facts.

2. In the "court's opinion" section, the original trial hastily concluded that "the plaintiff did not submit preliminary evidence showing that Defendant 2 (Appellee 2) is the operator of the infringing network or participated in the operation of the accused infringing website, nor did it submit preliminary evidence proving that Defendant 2 committed the accused infringing acts." Such blatant falsehoods, spoken without shame, left the appellant dumbfounded and speechless. The trial evidence fully demonstrates that the appellant not only submitted "preliminary evidence" but also submitted a large amount of conclusive evidence proving that Defendant 2 participated in the operation of the accused infringing website and extensively committed related infringing acts: First, the infringing website displayed the Shenzhen page operated by Defendant 2, which also prominently featured the infringing trademark "Magpie" (see Appellant's Evidence 7, pages 1-2; Evidence 8 [(2011) XX Zi No. 816XX], Appendix, pages 5-8; Evidence [(2011) XX Zi No. 757XX], Appendix, page 1); Second, Defendant 2 not only extensively used "Magpie" and "Magpie Network" on its Shenzhen-operated web pages to advertise and solicit customers, but also physically used "Magpie" and "Magpie Network" signage to grandly conduct customer solicitation activities at the XX Hotel in Shenzhen Overseas Chinese Town (see Appellant's Evidence 7, page 3; Evidence 13 [(2011) XXX Zi No. 819XX], page 4).

II. The original trial boldly abandoned statutory procedures

1. During the trial on August 8, the authorized representative Zhang X did not participate in the proceedings, yet the ruling inexplicably listed Zhang X as a litigation representative.

2. The original trial dismissed the lawsuit based on Article 139 of the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, without specifying the reason. This provision concerns non-compliance with acceptance conditions, clearly referring to the four conditions in Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law. The appellant's lawsuit in the original trial did not violate the first three conditions of Article 108. The only possible loophole the original trial might exploit is the fourth condition: "falls within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people's courts and under the jurisdiction of the accepting people's court." It clearly does not violate the "falls within the scope of civil litigation accepted by the people's courts" provision, leaving only "under the jurisdiction of the accepting people's court" as suspect. Obviously, the original trial dared not explicitly state that the dismissal was based on "jurisdictional objection," but the reality can only be "jurisdictional objection." The original trial's dismissal for jurisdictional objection lacked a legally valid jurisdictional objection application from the original defendant (the original defendant's jurisdictional objection raised in the答辩状 during trial clearly exceeded the statutory time limit). If the original court, on its own authority, found after case acceptance, especially during trial, that jurisdiction was improper, it should have followed Article 36 of the Civil Procedure Law: "If a people's court discovers that a case it has accepted does not fall within its jurisdiction, it shall transfer the case to a people's court with jurisdiction, and the receiving court shall accept it..." and issued a transfer ruling, not a dismissal ruling!

3. The original trial, in a hasty and reckless manner, illegally dismissed the lawsuit but only dismissed the claim against the second original defendant. Does this mean the claim against the first original defendant remains valid and should proceed to a substantive judgment? The original trial did not clarify this. Such an absurd ruling is rare in the judicial field, leaving one both amused and confused!

4. In summary, the original trial, audaciously and blatantly favoring the appellee's private interests, issued a ridiculous judicial ruling, clearly violating legal principles and fairness, maliciously harming the appellant's lawful rights. To uphold fairness and justice and protect the appellant's lawful rights, this appeal is hereby submitted, earnestly requesting a fair judgment!

Appellant: Liu Mouqing

September 8, 2011

Application for Withdrawal of Lawsuit

Applicant: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, ID number: 21040219661101XXXX

Address: XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province

Respondent: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd.

Address: XXXXXX, Shanghai

Respondent: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch

Address: Shenzhen XXXXXX

The applicant, in the case of a trademark exclusive right dispute with the two respondents, appealed against the civil ruling (2001) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745 of the XX District People's Court of Shenzhen City, and the hearing was held on November 23, 2011. 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 approval.

　　此致

Shenzhen XX People's Court

Applicant: Liu Mouqing

November 18, 2011

XX People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province

Civil Ruling

(2011) XXX Zhi Min Zhong Zi No. 619

Appellant (original plaintiff) Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, born November 1, 1966, domiciled at XXXXXX, Fushun City, Liaoning Province, ID number 21040219661101XXXX

Authorized Agent: Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Authorized representative Ren Guo, intern lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.

Respondent (original defendant) Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at XXXXXX, Shanghai, organization code 76089XXXX

Legal representative Qian XX.

Authorized representative Zhang X, employee of the company.

Authorized representative Mao XX, employee of the company.

Appellee (original defendant) Shanghai XXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, domiciled at XXXXXX, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, organization code 55541XXXX.

Responsible person Cheng XX.

Appellant Liu Mouqing, in a dispute with appellees Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch over infringement of exclusive trademark rights, dissatisfied with the civil judgment (2011) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745 of the XX District People's Court of Shenzhen City, filed an appeal with this court. During the trial of this case, appellant Liu Mouqing applied to withdraw the appeal on November 18, 2011.

Upon review, this court finds that appellant Liu Mouqing's application to withdraw the appeal is a voluntary disposition of his litigation rights, does not harm the legitimate rights and interests of the state, the collective, or others, and should be permitted. In accordance with Article 156 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the ruling is as follows:

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

Clerk Zhuo XX

Application for Withdrawal of Lawsuit

Applicant: Liu Mouqing, male, Han ethnicity, ID number: 21040219661101XXXX, address: Building 4, Dongshi Road, Xinfu District, Fushun City, Liaoning Province, XXXX

Respondent: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., address: Shanghai XXXX

Respondent: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch, address: Shenzhen XXXX

The applicant, in the case of a trademark exclusive right dispute with the two respondents (Case No.: (20XX) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745), which has been heard by your court, 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 approval.

　　此致

Shenzhen XX District People's Court

Applicant: Liu Mouqing

November 18, 2011

XX District People's Court, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province.

Civil Ruling

(2011) XXX Zhi Min Chu Zi No. 745

Plaintiff Liu X Qing, male, Han ethnicity, born November 1, 1966, ID address: Fushun City, Liaoning Province XXXXXX. ID number: 21040219661101XXXX.

Authorized Agent: Wang Tengfeng, Lawyer of Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm

Authorized representative: Gao Hongbing, lawyer at Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm.

Defendant: Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., address: Shanghai XXXXXX, organization code: 76089XXXX.

Legal representative Qian XX.

Authorized representative: Chen X, lawyer at Guangdong Mouchen Law Firm.

Authorized representative: Zhang X, male, Han ethnicity, born September 26, 1974, ID address: Beijing XXXXXX, ID number: 21070219740926XXXX, employee of the company.

In the above case of plaintiff Liu X Qing suing defendant Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd. for trademark infringement, plaintiff Liu X Qing applied to this court for withdrawal of the lawsuit on November 18, 2011.

This court holds that the parties have the right to dispose of their litigation rights within the scope prescribed by law. The plaintiff, Liu Xiqing, applied to withdraw the lawsuit against the defendant, Shanghai HuaXX Information Technology Co., Ltd., which complies with relevant legal provisions, and this court hereby grants permission. In accordance with 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 Article 15 and Article 34, Paragraph 1 of the Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs, the ruling is as follows:

The plaintiff, Liu Xiqing, is permitted to withdraw the lawsuit against the defendant, Shanghai XX Information Technology Co., Ltd.

The case acceptance fee of RMB 8,800 yuan (already prepaid by the plaintiff) is reduced to RMB 4,400 yuan as per regulations, to be borne by the plaintiff.

Presiding Judge Lin X

People's Juror Yu X

People's Juror Xu X

December 16, 2011

Clerk Feng X