[case]

A card slave, Mister

(a) the basic situation

In August 6, 2004, Carla Melo challenged the company has 1301044 number "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark registration. In May 25, 2009, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Appraisal Committee to make business review words (2009) No. 13384th trademark dispute ruling, that the company disputed trademark graphics constitute violations to the Cara mellow prior copyright, the revocation of the trademark. The company considers the disputed trademark is completed by Mr. Lin Yongfei and MS. Lin Yunqing independent creation, does not infringe the copyright of Cara mellow, the ruling that mistakes of fact and law. In July 12, 2009, the company filed a lawsuit in the Beijing first intermediate people's court, requesting revocation of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make the 13384th ruling and ordered the company to enjoy the "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark exclusive right. In April 13, 2010, the Beijing first intermediate people's court verdict: revocation of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board's Business Review words (2009) No. 13384th trademark disputes adjudication; Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark to Cara Melo for No. 1301044th "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark dispute for the ruling.

In May 19, 2010, Cara mellow the verdict of the first trial, appeal to the Beijing Municipal Higher People's court, the request to withdraw the first instance judgment. In November 19, 2010, the trial court in the case of the second instance (2010) high end the word no. 872nd "administrative judgments", make "rejected the appeal, maintain the final judgment of the original".

In January 10, 2011, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Appraisal Committee made "about 1301044th" card slave --- CANUDILO and map "trademark dispute ruling" [Business Review words (2009) No. 13384th for No. 496th], and delivered to the issuer in January 29, 2011, the ruling confirmed "according to the Beijing municipal higher people's Court (2010) high end No. 872nd" administrative judgment "and" provisions of the Trademark Law of the people's Republic of China "in article forty-third, disputed trademark shall be maintained". In February 25, 2011, Cara mellow Trademark Review Committee to review rulings, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board as the defendant, the issuer is third people, bring an administrative lawsuit to the Beijing first intermediate people's court, the request to order the defendant to revoke the Business Review words (2009) No. 13384th for No. 496th "trademark dispute ruling", and to make a ruling.

In July 3, 2006, Cara mellow of the issuer's No. 2007925th "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark objection, apply to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee for the revocation of the registered trademark. According to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made in December 24, 2010 "about 2007925th" card slave --- CANUDILO and map "trademark dispute ruling" [Business Review words (2010) No. 37385th], No. 2007925th "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark shall be maintained, still belong to the company. In February 17, 2011 Cara mellow Trademark Review Commission ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the defendant, the issuer is third people, bring an administrative lawsuit to the Beijing first intermediate people's court, the request to order the defendant to revoke the Business Review words (2010) No. 37385th "trademark dispute ruling", and to make a ruling.

In September 8, 2011, the Beijing first intermediate people's Court on each of the procedural verdict, "administrative judgments" [(2011) a knowing and doing in early word no. 2105th] that: the Trademark Review and adjudication committee to review 496th, ruling that the facts clearly, applicable legal procedures, maintenance business review words (2009) No. 13384th review No. 496th "trademark dispute ruling"; "administrative judgments" [(2011) a knowing and doing in early word no. 2133rd] that: the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee made the 37385th ruling that the facts clearly, correctly applies the law, legal review procedures, maintenance business review words (2010) No. 37385th "trademark disputes adjudication the book". According to "the administrative procedure law of the people's Republic of China" and the two verdict, Cara Melo has the date of the judgement to appeal to the people's Court level within thirty days from the right.

According to the Beijing first intermediate people's court "receipt" records, the verdict has been respectively in September 14, 2011 and September 17, 2011 by Cara Melo, up to the date of the signing of the prospectus, the court of first instance has not yet received any appeal materials or information Cara mellow, these two judgments ordered the appeal period has expired.

The issuer's lawyer thinks, the issuer has won in the two cases in the first instance, and is now more than appeal period and the court has not received the relevant parties appeal materials submitted, the verdict is already in force, the case has been the end of a great possibility.

The company said: the trademark dispute have been the Trademark Appraisal Committee related "trademark dispute ruling" and the Court maintained, at present still belongs to the issuer legally owned by China and legal protection of trademark. At the same time, the issuer has ceased in 2008 after No. 1301044th "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark in the actual operation; No. 2007925 "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark for the issuer's defensive trademark, never put into practical use. In addition, the company currently owns including pure Chinese trademark "card slave ---"115 registered trademarks and pure English trademark "CANUDILO". Therefore, the trademark litigation results in normal operation of the issuer does not constitute a significant adverse effect.

According to the lawsuit, the issuer of controlling shareholders and actual controllers of Ruifeng investment Mr. Lin Yongfei in July 3, 2011 issued a "letter of commitment", commitment "if the defendant Trademark Review and Adjudication Board eventually lost, because the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board had caused the issuer shall pay the case related costs and the subsequent possible for any of the issuer's tort damages are Guangzhou Ruifeng investment limited and Lin Yongfei all to bear, almost has nothing to do with the issuer."

The sponsors and issuers lawyer thinks, the trademark litigation outcomes on the sustainable management of the issuer and sustained profitability do not constitute a significant impact.

(two) feedback about

The first feedback: the company has 1301044 "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark for alleged infringement lawsuit, please check the source of the recommendation institution and a Lawyer Litigation Trademark Appraisal Committee, before the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark did not make the new ruling, please check the procedure of the company may be caused by the risks and economic loss. Company's existing most trademark and lawsuit a trademark that is identical with or similar to other trademark, is also facing prosecution and greater risk, the above procedure is the offering obstacles

1Source of litigation, trademark

The recommendation agency and the lawyers involved in the litigation related to verification trademark "trademark registration certificate", "approved the assignment of a registered trademark" and other documents and proof by Chinese trademark (http://sbcx.saic.gov.cn) query, complaint trademark sources are as follows:

Registration number is No. 1301044 "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademarks (hereinafter referred to as "the mark", "trademark dispute" or "litigation trademark") by Yongde Sheng Trading Company in May 11, 1998 in the 25 class "clothes, jacket, leather (clothing), uniforms, shirts, shoes, hat, socks, tie, belt" goods to apply, and obtains the National Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark Office trademark registration certificate") for the No. 1301044th "in August 7th 1999 issued the registration number". In 2002 July 21 day, Yongde Sheng Trading Company signed a "trademark transfer agreement" and Yi Shi Lu, Yongde Sheng Trading Company the trademark free transfer to Yi Shi Lu company. In 2003 January 21 day, the Trademark Bureau issued "approved the assignment of a registered trademark certificate", approved the registration of trademark transfer, the transferee company Yi Shi lu. In 2009 September 8 day, "issued by the trademark bureau approve renewal of registration certificate", approved the renewal of trademark registration, renewal of registration is valid for the period of August 7, 2009 to 2019 August 6 . Yinyi Shi Lu company in 2008 December the name was changed to the card slave Piero, 2009 October 7 day, the Trademark Bureau issued "approved the assignment of a registered trademark that" approval of the trademark transfer, the transferee card slave ---. To sum up, as the supplement of the legal opinions issued by the day, card slave --- for the trademark owner.

2The review committee, State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the "trademark the Trademark Appraisal Committee") before making the new ruling, the procedure of the company may be caused by the risk and economic loss

By the verification according to the trademark agency issuer invites Fujian Strait Trademark Agency Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Trademark Office") in 2011 March 21 issued "on issues concerning the registered trademark of Guangzhou card slave --- clothing Limited by Share Ltd owns the special opinions on" (hereinafter referred to as "" trademark special opinion ""), the lawyers think, before the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee has not made the new ruling, litigation trademark is registered trademark was legitimate and effective self existence, card slave --- as litigation trademark trademark right according to "trademark law" enjoy the exclusive right of trademark, the rights without any infringement or limit, so in this stage, the procedure will not cause risks of loss of or damage to any of the card slave mister, for the following reasons:

First of all, according to "trademark law" thirty-fourth article "the trademark bureau made within the statutory time limit does not apply for reexamination or ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board do not to the people's court ruling, ruling effect", although the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made revocation "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark dispute adjudication, but because the card slave --- and filed a lawsuit against the ruling to the Beijing first intermediate people's court, the court has not entered into force, the lawsuit is not due to trademark trademark review and Adjudication Board's decision and failure, card slave --- for litigation trademark trademark, the trademark exclusive rights of trademark litigation shall be protected by law.

Secondly, 2010 November 19 day, the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court (2010) high end the word no. 872nd "administrative judgments", upheld the Beijing first intermediate people's Court (2009) a bank at the beginning of the word no. 1800 "administrative judgments", ordered: "a, trademark review and Adjudication Board to revoke the defendant the Business Review words (2009) No. 13384th for No. 1301044 " card slave --- CANUDILO and map "trademark dispute adjudication; two, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to Cara Melo for No. 1301044 " card slave --- CANUDILO and map "trademark dispute for the ruling". Accordingly, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee made the Business Review words (2009) No. 13384 dispute adjudication has been through the judicial process is cancelled before, make new award in the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, trademark legal litigation, trademark registration No. 1301044th "card slave --- CANUDILO and map" trademark to slavery Di Lu legally owned, private the legal protection of trademark right by Chinese.

Third, the card slave --- and the Trademark Office to confirm and by this verification, the card slave --- during litigation trademark litigation within the normal business activities, it does not exist any other dispute litigation, disputes, breach of contract, claim risk and economic loss.

3The Trademark Appraisal Committee, has made the new ruling in the case

On the litigation trademark disputes, trademark review and Adjudication Board in 2011 January 10 day to make "about 1301044th" card slave --- CANUDILO and map "trademark dispute ruling" (Business Review words (2009) No. 13384th for No. 496 , hereinafter referred to as "the decision") and delivered to the issuer in January 29, 2011, the ruling confirmation "according to the Beijing Municipal Higher People's Court (2010) high end the word no. 872" administrative judgment "and" provisions of the Trademark Law of the people's Republic of China "in article forty-third, disputed trademark shall be maintained".

According to the ruling, "parties such as the ruling, after receipt of the order within thirty days of the Beijing first intermediate people's court date, and submitted to the people's court complaint within fifteen days at the same time or at the latest the indictment copy copy or other script to inform our commission."

According to the ruling, "the applicant (Note: refers to Cara Melo company) in an examination request to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, not a clear idea of the disputed trademark registration on its prior copyright, even if the applicant can be confirmed prior rights explicitly argued for earlier work has cited two trademark protection by China's" copyright method "works, this case is not enough to identify the disputed trademark registration applicant has violated the prior copyright, applicants are not tenable grounds of appeal."

This thought, trademark review and Adjudication Board on litigation trademark made the ruling means the end of the case, the card slave --- the appeal for trademark rights advocates have been two level of the court and the Trademark Review and adjudication committee approval, as at present lawsuit does not exist on the pending trademark disputes.

4The card slave, --- have analysis and risk involved other trademark law trademark identical or similar

For the lawsuit of trademark, Cara mellow company to "trademark dispute with Cara mellow company owned trademark graphic part is very similar to the subjective malice obviously, plagiarism, and specify the use of the same or similar goods, has been used in the same or similar trademarks similar goods, easy to cause the relevant public confusion" as an excuse to dispute in the application, and then to "dispute the registration of a trademark infringement of the prior works of Cara Melo's right" on the grounds of appeal. According to Cara Melo, proceedings in the case of the respondent, the company involved in the trademark "card slave --- (CANUDILO)" in the English words have no objection to that, only has an objection to the complaint trademark in "Eagle graphic", that the registration of a trademark infringement dispute earlier works by Cara melo company right. After verification, the card slave Piero has related the same or similar to the 25 class and "registered trademark Eagle graphic" have 4 V trademark, otherwise and litigation trademark identical or similar in other categories of registration and "protect the eagle graphic" brand 66 (hereinafter collectively referred to as "similar trademark"). According to the relevant laws and regulations and trademark special opinion, the litigation risk card slave --- cause analysis as follows the lawyers on the approximate trademark may:

(1) "the implementation of the Trademark Law of the people's Republic of China the thirty-fifth regulations" provisions of the second paragraph: the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board on the application for trademark appraisal has been made a decision or ruling, no person shall review the application again on the same facts and reasons. At the same time, "the Trademark Review and Adjudication Rules" provisions of article eighteenth: for violating the "Regulations" provisions of article thirty-fifth of the implementation of the Trademark Law of the people's Republic of China, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has made the ruling or decision, based on the same facts and reasons to once again put forward the application for review, the Trademark Appraisal Committee shall be rejected.

According to the provisions of the law, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee has litigation trademark ruling, under normal circumstances, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board should not be based on the same facts and reasons for accepting similar to a trademark dispute.

(2) for litigation trademark, Cara mellow company litigation trademark and Cara mellow company trademark of the "Eagle graphic" approximation, infringement of the prior works of Cara Melo's right of objection, but the dispute has the judgment of the court, and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to decide, according to the complaint the final verdict of trademark and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make the new ruling, Cara mellow company does not have adequate facts and evidence to propose new actions of similar trademarks. As a trial, the final judgment and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the registration of a trademark infringement lawsuit is not the applicant enjoys the prior copyright, even if Cara mellow company is similar to a trademark to propose new actions, under normal circumstances, if no new facts and reasons, the possibility of obtaining a trademark review and Adjudication Board and the support of the court is small.

To sum up, the lawyers think, Cara mellow company if to the graphics part registered trademark litigation trademark in "Eagle graphic" and the Cara company has the product approximation, plagiarism intentions clear, litigation trademark and Cara Melo owns the trademark constitutes a similar trademark, infringement of the prior works Cara mellow company rights and other reasons apply to the Trademark Review and adjudication Commission for revocation of the trademark in dispute or litigation, the claim that in this case the facts and reasons shall be insufficient to support their claims, which cannot be related court or government department approval, so it is unlikely the dispute lawsuit filed an application or of similar trademarks, so there is little risk prosecution of trademark approximation.

According to the trademark special opinion and by this check, similar to a trademark has the Trademark Bureau issued a "certificate of trademark registration" and are registered within the term of validity of a registered trademark for the card slave, Piero legally owned, the exclusive right to use the trademark legal protection by China. As the supplement of the legal opinions issued by the day, all registered in the territory of Chinese trademark card slave --- all does not exist any pending disputes.

5The above procedure, whether the offering obstacles

The lawyers think, the issuer has the No. 1301044 registered trademark relates to litigation has two level trial court concluded, the issuer has won, and the issuer's claim to have the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee issued a new order to support, so the procedure does not constitute the offering obstacles.

The second feedback 1: Please sponsor agencies, lawyers and other intermediary agencies issued supplementary check whether there is the use of "Italy brand" and other misleading people propaganda or brand promotion in the situation, and thus damage the interests of consumers

According to the specification and commitment issued by the issuer, sponsors and the lawyers for verification of the issuer in the report period related activities of publicity and brand promotion planning scheme and the relevant contract, meetings, presentations, posters, press releases, and the issuer sells products brand and origin identification the random sampling inspection, matters publicity, statements or to promote responsible for the issuer brand promotion department and marketing department and other related departments issued norms related products of human work and measures were interviewed, and the issuer of the straight camp shop and the franchisee sales of products of random investigation, issue people don't use the existence of "Italy brand" and other misleading statements in the propaganda or brand promotion in the case,There is no related damage to the interests of consumers, as follows:

According to the issuer, held from 2007 8 month Yi Shi Lu, fair play, the issuer will standardize and unify the policies of brand management and brand promotion, brand promotion plan in each subsequent year, the foreign propaganda and brand promotion stipulates the specific implementation measures and arrangements. The issuer in the brochure, manual, POP advertising (point abbreviation, of purchase advertising is installed in the marketing terminals and other places "point of purchase advertising"), magazines, official website and other publicity channels, there is no use "Italy brand" and other misleading statements situation, there is no related damage consumer behavior. The recommendation agency and the lawyers make unannounced visits to the issuer of the straight camp shop and stores, sales staff in the introduction to the customer and the issuer of products, stressed the company's products for the "domestic first men's brand, made in Guangzhou", not "misleading publicity card slave --- Italy brand"; in addition, according to the issuing the explanation, the issuer is not regularly sent a steering group to the issuer and its subsidiary, the straight battalion inn and join in inn check the implementation of brand promotion plan, avoid in foreign propaganda misleading consumers, and the individual franchisee to publish on the Internet is not standard brand publicity impose a warning.

According to the issuer, and by the recommendation institution and the lawyers of the verification, the issuer during the report period there from Italy purchasing fabric; in addition, the company and the Hongkong science and technology and Consulting Co. Ltd. signed a "consulting services agreement", established stable cooperative relationship with Hong Kong Polytech University Institute of textiles and clothing; the company also and Italy Malalong each (MARALUNGA) Company signed a "fashion design consulting agreement - Card slave --- Men series" contract, hired a Italy fashion designer hair for Olympic Barda Sally (MaurizioBaldassari), as the perennial design consultants. The company also not regularly appointed design team inspection Caifeng went to France, Italy, Japan, Hongkong and other places. Therefore, products and design culture of the issuer in the fashion element in other countries and regions, including Italy elements, but the company's design philosophy and is absorbing the excellent culture of many countries and areas, to build a Chinese characteristics of the clothing brand, therefore, are not in foreign propaganda that "Italy brand" misleading propaganda.

According to the Association for the protection of consumers' rights and interests that Guangzhou city in 2011 June 21 issued ", since 2008, the association has not received the issuer and its subsidiaries (Guangzhou Shi Dan Trading Co. Ltd., Guangzhou card slave --- International Brand Management Limited) for misleading statements and violation of the legitimate rights and interests of consumer complaints in the publicity, brand promotion."

According to the Guangzhou City Administration of industry and Commerce Bureau issued in 2011 June 22 day, "the issuer and its subsidiaries (including Guangzhou Shi Dan Trading Co. Ltd., Guangzhou card slave --- International Brand Management Company Limited) is the enterprise registration bureau. In the credit record system of the administration of enterprises, the enterprises from January 1, 2008 to date have not been found because of false propaganda, misleading consumers, problems of product quality in violation of administrative laws, regulations and rules of business management behavior record."

In summary, the lawyers think, the issuer during the reporting period the propaganda or brand promotion does not exist in the use of "Italy brand" and other misleading statements situation, there is no related damage to the interests of consumers behavior.

The second feedback 2: Please sponsor agencies, lawyers and other intermediary agencies supplementary check issuer in the quality of the products (including materials, process and other environmental protection standards), whether by related government departments informed criticism or punishment

According to the issuer issued instructions, and by the recommendation institution and the issuer lawyer verification, by the Guangzhou fiber product testing institute, State Quality Inspection Administration authorized the establishment of the national textile product quality supervision and Inspection Center (Guangzhou) and other professional textile, garment products quality supervision and inspection agencies on the issuer products or materials issued "test report", as well as to the issuer quality control department is responsible for issuing company quality control procedure and specification issues such as interviews, the issuer has established a perfect quality management system, product design, materials procurement, production, sales, prenatal stages set up internal and external quality control standards and processes the safety technical specification, quality of products, materials require perfect supervision and detection means. The issuer all style (batch) product surface materials and the issuer for finished products are detected by the provincial textile and clothing products quality supervision and Inspection Center for quality supervision and inspection center, which is related to the quality of the products (including fabric composition, color fastness, pilling, washing the size change rate, appearance, sewing, specifications etc.) and safety technical specifications (including formaldehyde content, PH value, color fastness, disable azo dyes, smell and so on) to detect and report. According to the relevant inspection report, all style issuers listed for sale (batch) product surface materials and the issuer for finished products accord with GB/T2662-2008 (cotton clothing), GB/T22849-2009 (T-shirts), GB/T2664-2009 (suit) and other national and industry related technical standards.

According to the issuer, the issuer monitoring in product quality and safety technical specifications of the control flow and the measures are as follows: (omitted)

1, the issuer to the provincial product quality supervision and inspection agencies inspection part of the finished product, and the product quality supervision and inspection agency issued the "test report".

By sampling 2, the local quality supervision departments of the issuer straight battalion and franchise store sales of products.

According to the issuer and confirmed the lawyers of verification, in 2010 3 month, the company issued son Dan lion company has products due to wet rubbing fastness project unqualified problem of administrative punishment was Harbin City Administration for Industry and Commerce sentenced to 1000 yuan fine, Dan lion has timely and full payment of a fine. According to the Harbin Municipal Administration for Industry and commerce consumer protection in 2010 November 11 issued instructions, the violation is minor, comply with the "product quality law" reduce, lighter punishment conditions (related matters as "legal opinion" and "lawyers work report" Seventeen ", the issuer's environmental protection, the quality of the products and the technical standard" the content). The lawyers think, Dan lion company mentioned by the administrative punishment behavior does not belong to serious violations of laws and regulations, the issuer of this listing does not constitute a substantial obstacle.

In addition, according to the issuer and validated by the lawyers of verification, and through the national quality supervision, inspection and Quarantine Administration Web site (http://www.aqsiq.gov.cn) of the "product quality credit record" query, in addition to the lion Dan company receive administrative punishment cases, since the 2008 year in January 1 day, the issuer and its subsidiary company management activities in accordance with the provisions relating to quality management of state, not because of the quality of the products, technical standards and other issues by any administrative punishment or criticism, no illegal, illegal record.

According to the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of quality and technical supervision in 2011 June 23 issued "certificate", "the issuer and its subsidiaries (including Guangzhou Shi Dan Trading Co. Ltd., Guangzhou card slave --- International Brand Management Limited) are the Bureau under the jurisdiction of the enterprise. Since the 2008 year in January 1 day, the company's management activities in accordance with the provisions relating to quality management of state, not because of the quality of the products, technical standards and other issues by any administrative punishment or criticism, no illegal, illegal record, has not been report, its product quality related complaints."

In summary, the lawyers think, in addition to the above a minor administrative punishment, the issuer in aspects and so on product quality without other criticized or punished.

Two, Tianjin membrane technology: trademark litigation cases of controlling shareholders

(a) motianmo engineering trademark administrative reconsideration and the administrative litigation

Motianmo engineering has registered "MOTIMO" trademark registration No. 3566546th, No. 1543788 "Motian membrane and map" trademarks and No. 3566547th "MOTIANMO" trademark and other 3 trademarks (hereinafter referred to as the "trademark dispute"). Shandong Zhaojin film days has its own 1209698th"Film days +MOTIAN and map" trademarks, No. 1103323rd "film days +MOTIAN and map" trademarks (hereinafter called "the cited trademark") to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the Trademark Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as "judges") for the revocation of Motian membrane engineering the 3 registered trade mark. After the trial, the judges think a trademark dispute with the cited trademark form similar to a trademark identical or similar products, and the withdrawal of the 3 pieces of the disputed trademark.

The following table details the trademark dispute and cited trademark:

 

1, Guan Yudi 3566546 No."MOTIMO"A registered trademark of the administrative reconsideration and the administrative litigation

Motianmo engineering Registration No. 3566546 was "MOTIMO" trademark in January 14, 2005 (Eleventh). In November 1, 2005, Shandong Zhaojin film days to No. 3566546 "MOTIMO" trademark and prior No. 1209698th "film days +MOTIAN and map" trademark registration of identical or similar trademarks constitutes approximately on the grounds, the trademark dispute apply to the judges, the 3566546 for the cancellation of registration of Motian membrane engineeringNo. "MOTIMO" trademark. Motianmo engineering does not submit a written defense during the TRAb shall reply within.

In March 29, 2010, the judges make business review words (2010) No. 06628 Award (hereinafter referred to as the "6628th orders"), that "MOTIMO" trademark dispute with the cited trademark "film days MOTIAN and map" constitute the same or approximate trademark on goods. According to the judges ruled that revocation motianmo engineering 3566546thNo. "MOTIMO" trademark.

In August 16, 2010, MOTIMO Project No. 06628 ruling to the Beijing first intermediate people's Court (hereinafter referred to as "the first instance court") to initiate administrative proceedings, request to withdraw the 6628th ruling. In 2010 November 18 day, the court of first instance made (2010) a knowing and doing in early word no. 2990th administrative verdict, ruling for No. 6628th.

Motianmo engineering refuses to accept the decisions of the court of first instance, in 2010 December 8 day appeal, request the higher people's Court of Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as "the second instance court") to withdraw the first instance judgment and No. 6628th ruling, maintaining the registered trademark in dispute. In 2011 March 11 day, the trial court (2011) high end the word no. 114th administrative verdict, dismissed the Motian membrane engineering appeal, maintain the final TRAb No. 06628 ruling.

Since 2011 March, the company no longer use No. 3566546 "MOTIMO" trademark.

2, Guan Yudi 1543788 "Membrane and map" trademark administrative reconsideration and the administrative litigation

Motianmo engineering Registration No. 1543788 "Motian membrane and map" trademark in March 21, 2001 (Eleventh).

In November 3, 2001, Shandong Zhaojin film days pursuant to section 1543788 , "membrane and map" trademark and prior registration No. 1209698th "film days +MOTIAN and map", No. 1103323 "film days +MOTIAN and map" trademark identical or similar goods constitute the approximate trademark by the trademark dispute to the business application, apply for revocation motianmo engineering Registration No. 1543788 "Motian membrane and map" trademark. Motianmo engineering does not submit a written defense during the TRAb qualified reply within.

In June 4, 2008, the judges make business review words (No. 05267 2008) Order (hereinafter referred to as the "5267th orders"), identified the disputed trademark "Motian membrane and map" trademark "and two citations film days +MOTIAN and map" constitute the same or similar trademarks similar goods, and rescind the Motian membrane engineering No. 1543788th "membrane and map" trademark.

In August 5, 2008, Motian membrane engineering to a trial court administrative proceedings, request to withdraw the No. 05267 ruling. The court of first instance made in December 10, 2008 (2008) a bank at the beginning of the word no. 1180th administrative judgment, judgement No. 05267 order to maintain.

Motianmo engineering refuses to accept the verdict, in 2009 April 13 day appeal, request the court of second instance verdict revoked, sent the case back to the court of first instance. In June 1, 2009, the trial court (2009) high end the word no. 513 administrative verdict, dismissed the Motian membrane engineering appeal, maintain the final TRAb 5267th rulings.

The company has never used the No. 1543788th "Motian membrane and map" trademark.

3, Guan Yudi 3566547 No."MOTIANMO"Administrative reconsideration of a registered trademark

Motianmo engineering Registration No. 3566547 was "MOTIANMO" trademark in January 14, 2005 (Eleventh).

In November 1, 2005, Shandong Zhaojin film days to No. 3566547 "MOTIANMO" and prior registration No. 1209698th "film days +MOTIAN and map", 1103323rd "film days MOTIAN and map" trademark constitutes the same or similar products on the approximate trademark to the trademark business application, a request for revocation of registration of the Motian membrane engineering 3566547 "MOTIANMO" trademark.

In March 29, 2010, the judges make business review words (No. 06629 2010) Order (hereinafter referred to as the "6629th orders"), that "MOTIANMO" trademark dispute with the cited trademark "film days of MOTIAN and graph" structure similar to a trademark identical or similar products. According to the judges ruled that revocation motianmo engineering No. 3566547th "MOTIANMO" trademark.

The company has never used the No. 3566547th "MOTIANMO" trademark.

(two) the product during the report period the company sales are involved in the infringement of trademark rights in Shandong for gold film day, whether there are potential disputes and risk

1, the reporting period,"MOTIMO"Trademark is revoked, the sales situation, the use of the trademark

In 2008 -2011 year 3 month "MOTIMO" trademark was finally withdrawn before, companies have used combination of trademark and trademark trademark formed by membrane product sales, there is no separate use of the trademark "MOTIMO" product sales. Following its use and the specific amount of sales situation:

Unit: RMB

 

In 2010 July, the company has phased out of the "MOTIMO" trademark, and stop the use of the trademark "MOTIMO" at the end of March 2011.

2011In the second quarter, trademark portfolio companies use consisting of a membrane component product sales, in fact, product sales did not suffer any adverse effects.

2The company in the report period, the use of"MOTIMO"Trademark sales of products not infringe trademark rights in Shandong for gold film days of potential disputes and risk, there is no liability

According to the laws and regulations, judicial interpretation in the same trademark, similar goods or services using the same trademark, easy cause public confusion, constitute trademark infringement. Namely, constitute trademark infringement elements has three points: first, the same or similar trademarks; second, the same or similar goods; third, the public may be confused or mistaken.

The company does not exist in Shandong. The trademark right infringement gold film days of potential disputes and risk, there is no compensation liability, mainly for the following reasons:

The company in water treatment engineering services without the use of the trademark "MOTIMO", there is no legal risk of violating Shandong Zhaojin film days of trademark rights

Company to undertake water treatment engineering service projects, did not use the "MOTIMO" trademark, the company does not exist legal risks violating Shandong Zhaojin film days of trademark rights in water treatment engineering services.

The "membrane and membrane module sales behavior before MOTIMO" trademark cancellation, the company does not constitute trademark infringement

MOTIMO and "film days MOTIAN and map" there are certain differences compared. In this case, constitute a trademark infringement must be related to the public could be confused or mistaken for necessary conditions. According to the people's Court of Beijing city high level in 2011 high end identified the No. 114 administrative verdict, "the trademark similarity judgment of public recognition, shall take the trademark authorized the use of goods as the standard, and not limited to the trademark owner actual use goods category. The disputed trademark approved by the use of merchandise including 'water purification equipment, disinfection equipment, water filter, water filter, water purification equipment and machinery, seawater desalination equipment, water softening equipment, water dispenser, sewage treatment equipment' and so on, which does not exclude domestic water treatment equipment, related to the trademark dispute is not only the public large industrial users, should also include household water treatment equipment of ordinary consumers. Therefore, a degree of public attention on the trademark dispute with the cited trademark, shall be considered." On the basis of this, the Beijing Municipal Higher People's court found "MOTIMO" trademark with the cited trademark registered separately in the same or similar goods, the consumer goods to cause misidentification source, which used in approximate trademark identical or similar goods, and revoked the trademark "MOTIMO". However, the determination of the Beijing Municipal Higher People's court also indirectly confirmed such as the "MOTIMO" trademark use in large-scale water treatment equipment, related to the user for professional customers, high degree of attention the user, in this case, can not be confused or mistaken mistakenly purchase. As mentioned above, and the membrane components of the issuer sells for industry professional customers, such customers pay attention to higher degree in the purchase of membrane and membrane module, can not be confused or mistaken mistakenly purchase. Most importantly, the company "MOTIMO" trademark has never used alone, but with the trademark combination pattern formation are used together, difficult to cause confusion or misunderstanding. Accordingly, the company use the "MOTIMO" trademark is not violated Shandong Zhaojin film days "film days MOTIAN and map" trademark in the membrane and membrane module products.

3Company license, trademark act is not retroactive

According to the "Regulations" provisions of article 36 of the implementation of the Trademark Law of the people's Republic of China: "the decision or ruling to revoke a registered trademark, to make or people's court and executed trademark infringement judgment, ruling, the administrative department for Industry and Commerce made and decision processing has executed trademark infringement cases, and has fulfilled the trademark assignment or licensing contract, it is not retroactive; however, due to the trademark registrant to others caused by the loss, the compensation shall be given."

"Before the MOTIMO" trademark is revoked, companies use the "MOTIMO" trademark in the Motian membrane engineering permits, sales membrane component products; for the Trademark Bureau authorized use of trademark trademark, Motian membrane engineering and the company did not malicious damage caused to another person, the relevant to revoke a registered trademark ruling shall not be retroactive to the trademark license behavior between Motian membrane engineering and company the.

To sum up, company to provide water treatment engineering services and sales of membrane and membrane components are not infringe trademark rights in Shandong for gold film days, there is no potential disputes and risk, there is no liability.

4The company licensed use of trademark, even can be traced back, the potential loss compensation is also small

The industry is a technology intensive industry, the core products of membrane module R & D, production and sales mainly by membrane technology system and the company series in the film industry position and visibility as the support, the role of small brand in the and hard to measure and determine the. According to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law Article fifty-sixth: "the amount of compensation for infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark infringement, as people from the infringement during the period benefit, or infringement during the period of being infringed due to the infringement damage, including the reasonable expenses paid by the infringed to stop the infringing act. Interest derived from the infringement violations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, or by the infringed due to the infringement damage can not be determined, the people's court shall 50 million yuan in compensation according to the circumstances of the infringement judgment."

According to the membrane project in 2011 February 28 issued a "letter of commitment", Motian membrane engineering has made a commitment by the company, such as use of the trademark "MOTIMO" suffer any investigation which leads to any loss to the company, Motian membrane engineering will be full compensation.

(three) "set MOTIMO" trademark for the production and operation of the company, product sales

"Set MOTIMO" trademark does not constitute a significant adverse impact on the production and operation of the company, product sales, the main reasons are as follows:

1Company of water treatment engineering, service is not dependent on trademark

As the most competitive film component suppliers and membrane water resources total solutions provider, in the municipal sewage treatment and reuse, iron and steel, petrochemical industry wastewater treatment and reuse, electric power, electronics and other industries purifying water and municipal water purification and other fields has accumulated experience in the implementation projects, with experience the advantages of strong project implementation, the project ability and business reputation is not dependent on trademark. During the reporting period, the company did not water treatment engineering services in the use of the trademark "MOTIMO".

2The company's water treatment products, sales of trademark dependence is not high

The company is a technology oriented enterprises, the business reputation lies mainly in its technology itself rather than the trademark. Customers are mainly rely on the manufacturers name, technical indicators and non brand recognition of the company's products. The company relies on trademark is not high, "MOTIMO" trademark revocation does not lead to clients cannot identify the company. Membrane and membrane module products of the company's sales mainly for industry professional customers, responsible for the procurement personnel mainly is the enterprise engineer, technical director, project managers and other professionals, quality and performance of the personnel of enterprises production of membrane and membrane module product manufacturing for each film within the industry are more familiar with the between the company and the customers, has formed a long-term, stable, good relations of cooperation, product sales in the process, the differences between the customers through the names of manufacturers and technical indicators to determine, membrane and membrane module products company in product quality, performance, service level, and other enterprises. The customer will not because "MOTIMO" trademark is revoked due to unrecognized firm or company and other companies confused. "MOTIMO" trademark is revoked is not the company's membrane and membrane module product sales impact.

China water every year, large-scale investigation on customer satisfaction, and the survey, users consider ranking in the purchase of water treatment equipment are as follows: (1) the product quality, after sale service (2), (3), (4) the price level function, (5) fame, (6 the price), (7) easy operation, (8) the good cooperation between the delivery cycle, (9), (10) the product model, series, (11), (12) the extent to buy loans, make brand of foreign government. The trademark is not the main factor in the purchase the purchaser of water treatment products concern.

To sum up, the company's production and operation, product sales to the trademark dependence is not high, the company to stop using the trademark "MOTIMO" will not affect the customer's product, service acceptance, thus will not constitute a significant adverse impact on the production and operation of the company and product sales.

The recommendation agency that: during the reporting period, the issuer uses onlyTrademark combination of trademark and the trademark "MOTIMO" formation of the membrane module products sales; the issuer to provide water treatment engineering services and sales of membrane and membrane components are not infringe trademark rights in Shandong for gold film days, there is no potential disputes and risk, there is no potential liability; the issuer's production and management, product sales of trademark dependence is not high, recognition of the issuer to stop using the trademark "MOTIMO" will not affect the issuer's customers to their products, services, and not to the issuer's production and sales of major adverse effects.

After verification, the issuer lawyers think: in the reporting period, the issuer uses only trademark portfolio trademark and the trademark "MOTIMO" formation of the membrane module product sales, the issuer to provide water treatment engineering services and sales of membrane and membrane components are not infringe trademark rights in Shandong for gold film days, there is no potential disputes and risk, there is no potential liability; the issuer's production and operation, product sales to the trademark dependence is not high, recognition of the issuer to stop using the trademark "MOTIMO" will not affect the issuer's customers to their products, services, constitute a significant adverse effect from and also not on the production and operation of the issuer and product sales.

Three, An Jubao

In 2002 October, the issuer's No. 1509704 "flash" trademark is Beijing Huaqi Information Digital Technology Co., Ltd. to the review committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the "trademark the Trademark Appraisal Committee") application for revocation, the Trademark Appraisal Committee in 2004 year 10 month ruled that the revocation of the trademark, the ruling has been Beijing city first the intermediate people's court revoke, at present the trademark in the review process, the Trademark Appraisal Committee has not made the new ruling.

According to the issuer's lawyers verification, as of 2009 September 30 day, the issuer has been approved and registered by the Trademark Office 79 (otherwise has accepted the application for trademark registration has not yet approved 35), of which only 1 trademarks involved, and offering brand people self at the same time the use of a registered trademark, a trademark is even the to cancel the registration, the issuance and listing of the issuer does not constitute a substantial obstacle.

In addition, as the date of the signing of the prospectus, the company does not exist other pending litigation and arbitration; the company's controlling shareholder or actual controller, the subsidiary company, company directors, supervisors, senior managers and other key personnel are not present unsettled or predictable as major illegal, a party litigation, arbitration and administrative punishment cases.

Four, environmental protection

(a) reason for self 2008 since August has not yet completed Colin group transfer transfer of the issuer's 5 registered trademark, a trademark registration 1

1, according to data provided by the issuer and the lawyers verification, according to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Bureau in 2010 3 month 13 days issued "approved" trademark transfer certificates, Registration No. 299242nd, No. 4910702nd, No. 5703220 are registered trademarks of the transfer has been completed; Registration No. 1376803rd, No. 4910701st transfer was not completed, as follows:

(1) the registered number is No. 1376803 trademark, shares of the company has received the certificate issued by the SAIC Trademark Office in February 25, 2010 "the transfer application for correction notice", the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Bureau has accepted the No. 1376803 transfer of trademarks, but the trademark has been to the renewal period, request for renewal application as soon as possible. shares of the company has submitted the "application for renewal of trademark registration book", the Trademark Bureau State Administration of industry and Commerce has been accepted; in January 22, 2010, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Bureau Trademark Bureau issued shares of the company as the payment unit of NO0901045044 "central units unified administrative charges. Registered No. No. 1376803 trademark transfer formalities in process.

2) Registration No. 4910701st trademark, in 2008 August 6 by Colin group transferred to the stock company, SAIC Trademark Office in 2008 September 4 to accept the transfer of the trademark application.

3) the following applications for trademark registration in 2008 August 6 day by Colin group transferred to the company, SAIC has a trademark in 2008 September 4 to accept the transfer of the trademark registration application, apply for the "certificate of trademark registration" in 2009 October 21 day of the trademark registration, as follows:

Application for the transfer of the trademark registration, change to the assignment of registered trademark, shares of the company has received the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Agency 2010 in February 25th issued by the "application for the transfer of correction notice", by Colin group purification devices registered number in the sewage matter of registered trademarks and registration of No. 1406584th to No. 5836066th trademark approximation, and authorized the use of similar commodities, the Trademark Office of the SAIC will require the registered trademark No. 1406584th transferred. The following article No. 1406584 registered trademark case:

According to the "transfer application for correction notice" requirements, the registration number of two Trademark No. 5836066th, No. 1406584, Colin group and the company for the transfer formalities are.

Lawyers for checking that, since the 2008 since August has not yet completed the transfer reasons Colin group transfer the issuer's 5 registered trademarks, 1 registered trademark is registered: No. 5836066th, No. 1376803 trademark transfer, due to a trademark application for trademark registration, alteration, transfer the trademark should be transferred a number of procedures similar to a trademark and trademark renewal, has not completed the transfer of the transfer; No. 4910701 trademark is not complete, no other special reasons.

(two) Colin group authorized distributors use No. 654407 and No. 789659 trademark and not to cause the issuer transfer.

The issuer signed the transfer contract of trademark and Colin group in 2008 August 6 day, Colin group is the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the Trademark Appraisal Committee advocated revocation "KL KELINAIER" trademark, to for determination of eleventh kinds of No. 654407th adduce trademark trademark is well-known trademark in dispute process. In February 1, 2010, the Trademark Review and Adjudication State Administration for Industry and Commerce Committee made the Business Review words [2010] No. 3193rd arbitration agreement, support Colin group review. In 2010 February 12 day Colin group received the national industrial and commercial administrative bureau disputed trademark review and Adjudication Board ruled that the book. During the 654407 and 789659 is authorized to use trademarks herein.

The lawyer checking that, as of 2010 February, No. 654407 trademark trademark review and adjudication procedure has been in the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, a legal dispute, line 654407 trademark not to cause the issuer transfer. No. 654407 trademarks, approved the use of goods categories into eleventh classes, and 789659th trademarks (International Classification of eleventh kinds of ) Department of the same type and brand name / graphics the same trademark law, No. 654407th and No. 789659th state association. According to the 2002 15 September implementation of the "Regulations" article twenty-fifth paragraph second "the assignment of a registered trademark of the implementation of the Trademark Law of the people's Republic of China, trademark registered for the same kind of goods or similar goods registered on the same or similar trademarks, should be transferable; not transferred, by the trademark office. Notice of the deadline for correction; if no correction, as a waiver of the transfer of the registered trademark of the application, the Trademark Office shall notify in writing the." Regulation No. 789659 trademark, also cannot be transferred separately, this system in 2010 February 789659th trademark fails to cause the issuer transfer.

(three) the issuer has the trademark and trademark registration application whether there are obstacles, whether the assets of the issuer are complete comment

The lawyer examined trademarks statistics of the issuer, trademark registration, transfer, renewal notification on acceptance of the application for approval of registration certificate ", central units unified administrative charges receipt", registered trademark registration No. 1376803rd, No. 4910701st, registration number is No. 5836066th and No. 1406584th trademark, is on business the State Administration of trademark agency requirements for transfer.

The lawyers think, the issuer has the registered trademarks, there is no legal obstacles, the registered trademark to let Asset Integrity of the issuer does not exist.

(four) the registered trademark Colin group also has a "Colin" words, the situation would not affect the assets of the issuer are complete comment

Colin group also owns the registered trademark "Colin" the words of the total 17 items, as follows: (omitted)

The lawyer after checking that, Colin group owns the 17 registered trademarks, approved the use of goods or services with the issuer of the goods or services, not in the classification of seventh or eleventh, for different categories of trademark.

[case]

1, litigation and arbitration has been more important or more sensitive issue enterprise IPO process, of course, are also common, focuses on the information disclosure and the potential disputes and risk assessment and control. However, Batman here will be involved in litigation or arbitration of patent and trademark as special and sensitive other types of litigation, the reason has expressed no longer in patent litigation section. But to be clear, with small eyes, the issuer if trademark appears more difficult to handle than patent disputes in general. After all, the patent may only design a product or is a part of a certain product, trademark is likely to involve the issuer's reputation even production management.

2, it is also for this reason, from the audit practice of trademark litigation, patent litigation more rare than some, some enterprises will also because of trademark issues cannot be simply solved and choose other paths to open up channels listed. Of course, existing cases have successfully although might seem a bit on the tip of the feeling of dance, but for us to grasp some involving trademark disputes in practice is a good reference. The following will be on the card slave --- and Tianjin membrane technology are analyzed.

3, the card slave ---: fake foreign brands suspicion caused by trademark disputes. This case is very representative in China, especially in the clothing field of daily consumer goods, because the domestic enterprises for various reasons or love let your business with foreign enterprises or brand connection. In this case, the foreign enterprises mainly trademark of the issuer's objections, and this lawsuit has been playing for nearly eight years, until 2011 before a conclusion, this convenient description of the disputes of trade mark of both parties is very important, another convenient if the trademark once it is out of the question, then the impact on the issue people may be the fundamental. Fortunately, the issuer's lawsuit eventually won, but this does not eliminate the potential risk of trademark, therefore, in the process of examination of this problem has been to focus on ideas, explain the major concerns and the issuer is mainly reflected in: ① litigation trademark sources where it is, is the design of the issuer itself or transferee of others, if really is their own design is better if the more say not clear? In this case, the issuer is assigned, but the transferee is one under the control of the same enterprise, the source is relatively easy to find out.

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board would make the new ruling on trademark litigation? Litigation by the court of second instance has trademark has been decided, according to the principle of non bis in idem, litigation trademark ownership is determined. In order to illustrate the problem, trademark agency also issued special opinion about trademark, namely by professional institutions trademark explained the problem more persuasive. This idea is worth learning, but in private opinion, if according to this problem to the trademark lawyers or the competent department of trademark comment more authority is also more appropriate.

The lawsuit trademark is no problem, then the other associated trademark Is it right? Equally litigation risk? In fact, in other words the question or pierce to the heart of the matter is fatal,, this company is to spend with you on this mark does not make another fight you eight years of litigation which enterprise can't stand. To explain the idea of intermediaries is said, just think the applicant issuer trademark Eagle graphic violated the first copyright, and raised no objections to the issuer card slave --- Mark, and graphics to copyright has ruled that there is no dispute, so there is no longer any risk. However, if there is evidence of the applicant issuer card slave --- trademark or other trademark re ruled, the risk still exists. Of course, for the domestic agencies, this is very difficult to check, but we still need to pay attention to the risk.

④ whether the issuer has been "misleading statements Italy brand"? One problem with this problem belongs to come very naturally extends, the issuer's reply is not, the intermediary is to do a lot of channels and levels of verification, and by the Guangzhou Consumers Association and the commerce and Industry Bureau issued instructions. Of course, the issuer has admitted technology and fabric on the absorption of the advanced experience of many Italy and hired a senior consultant in Italy in the materials, so these contents are not reflected in the company propaganda, how to advanced technology and senior adviser to define? Obviously this is not an easy question to answer, is also the issuer hit an edge ball, as long as no new problems is the temporary against a paragraph. You can think of, if the publicity problem really design of fake foreign brands and how to do it, if you need the sooner the more simply cleaning and solve, resolve in place and put the risk control in place also is not no may be listed.

4, Tianjin membrane technology: the case and the last case is different in that the issuer of controlling shareholders and licensed to the issuer the use of the trademark is cancelled by the court. The issuer is a good use of the trademark suddenly gone, which relates to the trademark litigation another level of the problem, in the review process of this problem is to focus on, the main problems and the solutions are mainly embodied in the:

The disputed trademark revocation before issuers use product sales of the brand? Answer the premise of the question is very clear, that is rarely the best is not, if a lot of the things there would be no room for interpretation can only be back to reinvent the wheel. This case interpretation is very good, is said to the issuer not alone the disputed trademark sales, is the use of other trademark or other combinations of trademark and the trademark in dispute, the meaning is very clear, although the disputed trademark is out, can I use other separate sales or other combination trademark trademark in marketing. Of course, the most critical also cannot forget, that is with little sales amount of litigation trademark related and the issuer from controversy has gradually stopped using the trademark in dispute.

The disputed trademark revocation of the issuer to use the trademark is a violation of the rights of the applicants, whether the compensation liability and other risks? That is to say, since the trademark ruling has decided that the issuer does not have the rights of the trademark, the applicant may claim the issuer to previous sales behavior? The issuer's explanation is a no compromise strategy, first of all projects have not used the disputed trademark, the product sales to use a combination of brand and customers are mainly large customers generally will not be confused, once again the trademark ruling not retroactive, finally it is retroactive compensation amount is 500000 yuan. Creeps think logical explanation for this problem is a problem, a problem no problem is no problem, choose intermediary explained such logic may also be afraid. Can imagine, if the applicant's claim to the issuer, then these explanations will become the core on the basis of the trial? Also, the use of intermediaries for some reason judgment in explaining over and over, don't know what to say, do some bad.

The dispute on the issue of trademark revocation affect production? For an explanation of this problem is still a good understanding of the idea, that is the project without the use of trademark and product sales, customers are mainly large customers, the product does not necessarily depend on trademark identification. Soldiers could not explain why the better, but the specific influence how, only is the issuer knows best. However, use of intermediaries purchase consideration material is very good, worth learning.