catalogue

1. Case of Yuan Qiao'e Refusing to Pay Labor Remuneration

2. Case of Fu Dehong Refusing to Pay Labor Remuneration

3. Case of Lin Li's Revocation of Custody

4. Tianjin Tianlong Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Xunong Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of Plant New Variety Rights Dispute Case

5. Cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes between Shandong Hongjitang Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Hongjitang ass hide glue Co., Ltd

6. Wenzhou Rongsheng Trading Co., Ltd. v. Wenzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce Lucheng Branch Industrial and Commercial Administrative Penalty Case

7. Qi Lai sues the Road Transport Bureau of the Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation for not fulfilling its statutory responsibilities

8. Liu Zirong v. Miquan Labor, Personnel and Social Security Bureau Work Injury Determination Case

1、 Case of Yuan Qiao'e Refusing to Pay Labor Remuneration

（1） Basic facts of the case

The defendant Yuan Qiao'e is the person in charge of Huaxia Craft Factory (a sole proprietorship enterprise) in Yunhe County, Zhejiang Province. She and her husband Xia Genfa (handled separately) jointly operate the factory. Since the beginning of 2011, the factory has been in arrears with workers' wages for a long time. In early September 2011, Yuan Qiao'e and Xia Genfa suddenly fled and could not be contacted with their phones turned off. On September 9th, the Human Resources and Labor Security Bureau of Yunhe County issued an instruction letter instructing Huaxia Craft Factory to pay the unpaid wages of workers before September 13th. On the same day, the People's Court of Yunhe County carried out property preservation on the machinery and equipment of Huaxia Craft Factory. On September 21st, due to Yuan Qiao'e and Xia Genfa's failure to fulfill their obligations as scheduled, the Yunhe County People's Court officially filed an investigation. On October 8th, Yuan Qiao'e went to the People's Court of Yunhe County to verify the unpaid wages of workers. After court judgment and mediation, Huaxia Craft Factory owed a total of 290270.52 yuan in wages to its workers. In late October, Yuan Qiao'e fled again and changed her contact information. On January 15, 2012, the case was transferred to the Yunhe County Public Security Bureau and a criminal case was filed the following day. On January 19th, Yuan Qiao'e voluntarily surrendered to the Yunhe County Public Security Bureau and truthfully confessed the main criminal facts.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Yunhe County, Zhejiang Province found that the defendant Yuan Qiao'e evaded paying more than 290000 yuan of labor remuneration to the workers by hiding and changing her contact information, which was a relatively large amount. Despite being ordered by relevant government departments to pay, she still did not pay, and her behavior constituted the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. Yuan Qiao'e voluntarily surrendered after the incident and truthfully confessed her criminal facts, which is considered voluntary surrender and may be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the defendant Yuan Qiao'e was found guilty of refusing to pay labor remuneration and sentenced to one year in prison, with a fine of RMB 20000. After the verdict was pronounced, Yuan Qiao'e accepted the verdict without filing an appeal.

（3） Typical significance

The Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, which came into effect on May 1, 2011, criminalizes malicious wage arrears and greatly improves the protection system for workers' rights. Through the strong intervention of criminal law, we will crack down on malicious wage arrears, deter unscrupulous employers, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of workers from infringement. In this case, the defendant Yuan Qiao'e evaded paying more than 290000 yuan in labor remuneration to the workers by hiding and evading payment. Despite being ordered by the Yunhe County Human Resources and Labor Security Bureau to pay, she continued to hide and changed her contact information. Her behavior has constituted the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. The trial of this case clarified the constitutive requirements of the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. The subjective aspect of this crime should be aimed at evading the payment of labor remuneration to workers, while the objective aspect should be manifested as evading the payment of labor remuneration to workers through methods such as transferring property or hiding, or having the ability to pay but not paying labor remuneration to workers, and the overdue labor remuneration must reach a large amount, The premise of not paying after being ordered by relevant government departments is to increase the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of workers while avoiding excessive intervention in punishment, which helps to maintain the healthy and orderly operation of the market economy and promote social harmony and stability.

2、 Case of Fu Dehong Refusing to Pay Labor Remuneration

（1） Basic facts of the case

In July 2009, the defendant Fu Dehong operated a clothing factory in Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province. On November 19, 2011, Fu Dehong, due to poor management, absconded with over 10000 yuan to hide in Hefei City, Anhui Province, Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province, and other places in order to evade high interest loans and pay workers' wages. He refused to pay a total of over 110000 yuan to workers. After being ordered by the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Wuxing District, Huzhou City to pay, the payment was still not made. On July 27, 2012, Fu Dehong was arrested in Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Wuxing District, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province found that the defendant Fu Dehong evaded paying workers' wages through hiding, resulting in a large amount of money. Despite being ordered by relevant government departments to pay, he still refused to pay, and his behavior constitutes the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. After Fu Dehong arrives at the case, he can truthfully confess the facts of the crime and plead guilty in court, and can be given a lighter punishment in accordance with the law. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law, the defendant Fu Dehong is found to have committed the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration, and is sentenced to one year and six months in prison, with a fine of RMB 30000. After the verdict was pronounced, Fu Dehong did not appeal and the verdict has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

The issue of malicious wage arrears has gradually become exposed and prominent in the process of China's economic and social development in recent years. Against the backdrop of increasingly frequent population mobility and high concentration of labor, it is related to the protection of the vital interests and basic rights of the working population, the realization of people's sense of life stability and happiness, and more importantly, the stability of the overall social order and the protection of social order and good customs. Since the implementation of the Eighth Amendment to the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China on May 1, 2011, the people's courts have dealt with a number of malicious cases of unpaid wages, effectively cracking down on criminals who evade payment of labor remuneration or refuse to pay labor remuneration due to methods such as transferring property or hiding, creating a harmonious social atmosphere. In this case, the defendant Fu Dehong refused to pay a large amount of labor remuneration in order to evade payment of labor remuneration and conceal his personal whereabouts. Despite being ordered by the local human resources and social security bureau to pay, his behavior has constituted the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration. At the same time, considering Fu Dehong's confession after being brought to justice, he was given a lighter punishment, achieving a balance between crime and punishment, and the punishment was appropriate for his crime. The trial of this case clarified the constitutive elements of the crime of refusing to pay labor remuneration, fully played the role of the people's court in protecting people's livelihoods, and provided strong guarantees for the stability of the socialist market order.

3、 Case of Lin Li's Revocation of Custody

（1） Basic facts of the case

Lin Li, a villager from Wudian Village, Bangtou Town, Xianyou County, Fujian Province, has repeatedly cut her 9-year-old son Lin's back and arms with a kitchen knife, whipped Lin's legs with tongs, and often starved him. Since August 2013, officials from the Bangtou Town People's Government, Wudian Village Committee, and police officers from the Bangtou Police Station have repeatedly criticized and educated Lin Li, but Lin Li refuses to repent. In January 2014, the Communist Youth League Municipal Committee, Municipal Women's Federation, Bangtou Town People's Government, Bangtou Police Station, and other departments in Putian City, Fujian Province jointly conducted education for Lin Li. Lin Li made a written promise not to beat Lin again, but still couldn't repent. On the early morning of May 29th, Lin Li cut Lin's back and arms again with a kitchen knife. Therefore, the Xianyou County Public Security Bureau made an administrative detention decision on Lin Li for 15 days and imposed a fine of RMB 1000. The Municipal Committee of the Communist Youth League of Putian City, the Municipal Women's Federation and other relevant departments have taken emergency measures to send Lin to the municipal rescue station for temporary resettlement. On June 13th, the applicant's Wudian Village Committee requested the Xianyou County People's Court to revoke Lin Li's guardianship status for Lin, citing the respondent Lin Li's long-term abuse of Lin, which seriously affected Lin's physical and mental health, and designated the Wudian Village Committee as Lin's guardian in accordance with the law. During the trial, the People's Court of Xianyou County solicited Lin's opinion. Lin expressed his unwillingness to live with his mother, Lin Li, and also refused to hold Lin Li criminally responsible.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Xianyou County believes that guardians should fulfill their guardianship duties, protect the physical health of the ward, take care of the ward's life, and manage and educate the ward. The respondent, Lin Li, as Lin's guardian, did not adopt the correct method to educate and guide Lin. She believed that Lin was disobedient and had been mistreated for a long time by means of beating and scolding. After receiving education from relevant units, she refused to repent and cut Lin again with a kitchen knife. Her actions had seriously damaged Lin's physical and mental health, so she was no longer suitable to serve as Lin's guardian. According to the relevant provisions of the civil law, the defendant Lin Li's guardianship qualification for Lin is revoked by judgment; Designate the applicant's Wudian Village Committee as the guardian of Lin.

（3） Typical significance

This case is the first in Fujian Province where the guardianship status of a minor child was revoked due to long-term abuse by the mother, which is of great significance for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of minors in accordance with the law.

Revoking parental guardianship is an important system for the state to protect the legitimate rights and interests of minors. Usually, parents are the natural guardians of underage children. However, if parents do not fulfill their guardianship duties and even engage in abuse, injury, or other harmful behavior towards their children, allowing them to serve as guardians will seriously endanger their children's growth. In this case, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Law and the Law on the Protection of Minors, the grandparents, maternal grandparents, siblings, close relatives and friends of the minor children, as well as the unit where the minor parents are located, the village (residential) committee or civil affairs department of the minor's residence, have the right to apply to the people's court to revoke the guardianship of the guardian who committed the infringing act. The respondent in this case, Lin Li, has been abusing her 9-year-old son Lin for a long time. Despite repeated persuasion and education, she still refuses to repent, seriously damaging Lin's physical and mental health. The People's Court of Xianyou County, based on the application of the local villagers' committee, lawfully revoked Lin Li's guardianship qualification for Lin. As Lin's biological father is unknown and there are no other close relatives or friends who can serve as guardians, within the scope of legal provisions that can serve as guardians, the Xianyou County People's Court designates the local village committee to serve as Lin's guardian in accordance with the principle of the most beneficial to the ward. After the verdict was pronounced, the Xianyou County People's Court conducted continuous follow-up and follow-up visits on Lin's resettlement situation. Considering that there are indeed some specific difficulties for the villagers' committee to directly fulfill their guardianship responsibilities towards Lin, the Putian Communist Youth League Committee, the Municipal Women's Federation, and the local civil affairs department actively study and coordinate, and the civil affairs department arranges for Lin to take care of him, ensuring that Lin has a safe, healthy, and happy growth environment.

Currently, cases of parental abuse of underage children and infringement of their legitimate rights and interests have occurred repeatedly. The people's court should implement the concept of "special and priority protection" for minors in judicial work, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of minors in accordance with the principle of maximizing their interests. For guardians who have long-term infringed upon underage children and seriously affected their physical and mental growth, their guardianship rights may be revoked in accordance with legal provisions and a new guardian may be appointed; For those whose circumstances are severe and the consequences are serious, their guardians can also be held criminally responsible for crimes such as abuse, abandonment, or intentional injury. In this case, if Lin or other individuals or units who have the right to file a complaint on behalf of Lin Li for the crime of abuse (i.e. criminal private prosecution), the people's court should also accept and make a criminal judgment in accordance with the law.

In terms of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of minors, the people's courts should fully exert judicial initiative, pay attention to forming linkage with public security, civil affairs, the Communist Youth League, women's federations, schools, hospitals, social work organizations and other government agencies and social organizations, divide labor and cooperate, and make appropriate arrangements for the lives, studies, and psychological counseling of minors who lack parental guardianship and family care, so as to ensure their safe and healthy growth. During the trial of this case, the People's Court of Xianyou County actively explored changing the custody trial to protect the legitimate rights and interests of minors. The judge responsible for the trial of this case visited Lin multiple times at the rescue station to celebrate his birthday, making Lin feel the human care and warmth of justice. After the verdict of the case was pronounced, the judge also took the initiative to communicate and coordinate with the Communist Youth League Committee and Women's Federation at the city and county levels, to study and solve problems such as Lin's assistance, resettlement, and learning, creating good living and growth conditions for Lin. The trial of this case not only demonstrates that the people's court can make a difference in the administration of justice for the people, but also indicates that the protection of minors requires the common attention of the whole society and the cooperation and linkage of the government and various departments in order to achieve practical results.

4、 Tianjin Tianlong Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Xunong Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of Plant New Variety Rights Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The three-line hybrid japonica rice variety 9 You 418, jointly cultivated by the Northern Hybrid Japonica Rice Engineering Technology Center (with Liaoning Rice Research Institute as one institution and two brands) and the Xuzhou Agricultural Science Research Institute in the Xuhuai Region of Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Xuzhou Agricultural Science Institute), passed the national crop variety certification on November 10, 2000. The 9 You 418 rice variety comes from the female parent 9201A and the male parent C418. On December 30, 2003, Liaoning Rice Cropping Institute submitted an application for the new variety rights of C418 rice varieties to the Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China. It was authorized on May 1, 2007, and on the same day, it allowed Tianjin Tianlong Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianlong Company) to exclusively implement the new variety rights of C418 plants.

On September 25, 2003, Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences applied to the Ministry of Agriculture for plant new variety rights protection for its selected rice variety Xu 9201A, and was authorized on January 1, 2007. On April 3, 2006, the Rice Department of Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences signed an "Agreement on the Introduction and Use of" Xu 9201A "with Tianlong Company, which stipulated that" Xu 9201A has applied for national variety rights protection. According to intellectual property protection requirements, external units can only use it for testing and mating groups, and cannot use it for commercial development, and guarantee not to spread to third parties. During the use period, it is not allowed to reproduce without consent, otherwise the infringement liability will be pursued, Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences grants Jiangsu Xunong Seed Industry Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xunong Company) the exclusive right to implement the new plant variety of Xu9201A.

After trial, it was found that the combination used by Xunong Company and Tianlong Company to produce 9-you 418 is identical, both using the male parent C418 and the female parent Xu 9201A.

Tianlong Company and Xunong Company respectively filed lawsuits to the court, requesting confirmation that the other party had infringed on their exclusive rights to the new plant species of their paternal parent C418 and maternal parent Xu 9201A.

（2） Judgment results

The cooperative cultivation of 9 You 418 originated from the large-scale cooperation in domestic hybrid rice research in the 1990s, and it is a free mating group. This variety has excellent traits and is widely planted in Jiangsu, Anhui, Henan, and other places. It is widely welcomed by farmers and has become the leading variety of mid japonica hybrid rice. 9 You 418 itself does not have the right to new plant species, and this variety has entered the public domain. However, later on, Liaoning Rice Cropping Institute and Xuzhou Agricultural Science Institute indirectly obtained legal protection for 9 You 418 variety through their respective actions. In 2003, Liaoning Rice Cropping Institute applied for the new plant variety rights of male parent C418, that is, to produce 9-you 418 and use male parent C418, it is necessary to obtain authorization and permission from the variety owner Liaoning Rice Cropping Institute; Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences also applied for the new plant variety rights of the female parent Xu 9201A in 2003, and Xunong Company recognized in the lawsuit that all the unprotected female parent 9201A had been sealed up. Therefore, Tianlong Company can only use the female parent Xu 9201A as long as it produces 9-you 418. During the second instance, the court conducted a lot of mediation work, hoping that both parties could authorize each other's permission to continue the production of the excellent variety of 9 You 418, but the two parties ultimately failed to reach a compromise. Due to the inability to reach a compromise between Tianlong Company and Xunong Company, the 9 You 418 variety cannot continue to be produced, which not only affects the interests of both parties, but also harms national food production security and public interests. It also does not meet the fundamental purpose of cooperative breeding between Liaoning Rice Cropping Institute and Xuzhou Agricultural Science Institute, nor does it meet the fundamental requirements for promoting the transformation of new plant varieties. 9 You 418 is a three-line hybrid combination that combines excellent traits from both parents and has significant heterosis. In the 9 You 418 combination, the male and female parents have the same status and role. The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court ruled that both Xuzhou Agricultural Science Institute and Liaoning Rice Cropping Institute, as well as the parties involved in this case, Xunong Company and Tianlong Company, have the right to use the authorized parental breeding materials of the other party, and shall mutually waive the licensing fees, but only limited to the production and sale of the rice variety of 9 You 418, and shall not be used for other commercial purposes. Due to the significant commercial efforts and planting technology breakthroughs made by Xunong Company in promoting the 9 You 418 variety, while Tianlong Company entered the production field with the 9 You 418 variety widely recognized in the market, which significantly reduced the market cost of promoting the variety. In order to demonstrate fairness and rationality, the court also ordered Tianlong Company to provide Xunong Company with an economic compensation of 500000 yuan. At the same time, due to the fact that both parties produce the 9 excellent 418, there is a certain degree of market competition and conflict of interest. The court warns both parties to comply with the relevant provisions of China's Anti Unfair Competition Law, operate honestly, compete in an orderly manner, ensure quality, and especially clearly mark their respective commercial labels to prevent new disputes and disputes, and jointly maintain the good reputation of the 9 excellent 418 variety.

（3） Typical significance

Usually, intellectual property rights are exclusive and cannot be used by others without the permission of the rights holder. However, the essence of the intellectual property system is not only about the protection of intellectual property rights, but more importantly, it is to protect rights, promote the application of intellectual property rights, realize the value of intellectual property rights, and promote technological development and economic and social progress. The controversy surrounding the 9 You 418 hybrid rice variety in this case has a special historical background. In the 1990s, both parties involved in the cooperation of the 9You 418 series provided paternal and maternal cooperation for research and development, but there was no agreement between the two parties regarding the subsequent production and intellectual property rights exercise of the variety. As a result, both parties in this case were accused of infringement by each other after obtaining exclusive implementation licenses for the paternal and related maternal versions. In the event that the Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court failed to reach an authorization agreement between the two parties through mediation, it did not ultimately order both parties to stop infringing and not to use the parental breeding materials that the other party enjoys the right to new plant species. Instead, guided by the spirit of the law, it broke the conventional trial approach and drew inspiration from the compulsory licensing system stipulated in the Intellectual Property Law. On the basis of balancing the equal value of both parents' and mothers' production of the involved varieties, By directly ordering both parties to authorize and waive licensing fees through judicial adjudication, the excellent hybrid rice variety 9 You 418, which has been widely promoted and planted, can continue to be produced. This judgment result is not only fundamentally in line with the common interests of both parties, but also in line with the public interest of national food production security. It also reflects the principle of fairness and the basic judicial value orientation of encouraging the transformation of new plant varieties. The case proposed a mutual licensing approach to the dispute over the rights of new plant species, which was recognized by both parties and automatically fulfilled, indicating that the legal and social effects of the judgment were good. The exploration and innovation spirit reflected in the case also has positive implications for the judicial resolution of similar intellectual property disputes.

5、 Shandong Hongjitang Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Hongjitang ass hide glue Co., Ltd. and other cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes

（1） Basic facts of the case

Hongjitang "is a local traditional Chinese medicine time-honored brand in Jinan, founded in 1907. After multiple adjustments such as separation, merger, integration, restructuring, and renaming," Hongjitang "is divided into a pharmaceutical company and Shandong Hongjitang Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (referred to as the Pharmaceutical Group). In this case, ass hide glue Company is a subsidiary invested by the Pharmaceutical Group. ass hide glue Company uses the name of "Hongjitang" based on the investment relationship between the parent and subsidiary companies, and is approved and registered by the Administration for Industry and Commerce according to law. Pharmaceutical companies believe that ass hide glue company prominently uses "Hongjitang" in its ass hide glue products, and marks the enterprise name of ass hide glue company and the words "former Hongjitang ass hide glue factory", which constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition. Request the court to order ass hide glue Company to stop trademark infringement, stop using the "Hongjitang" brand and compensate for economic losses.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Shandong Provincial High People's Court held that the use of "Hongjitang" by pharmaceutical groups and pharmaceutical companies has not formed a division of rights in history. Ass hide glue Company's use of the "Hongjitang" brand is based on the historical heritage and authorization of its parent company, the Pharmaceutical Group, and is not malicious attachment to the name or trademark of others. For conflicts of rights between trademarks and time-honored brands caused by historical reasons, they should be handled in accordance with the principles of coexistence in good faith and inclusive development. In this case, ass hide glue Company's use of the "Hongjitang" trademark and shop name is historical and well intentioned, and does not constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition. The ruling dismissed the pharmaceutical company's lawsuit.

（3） Typical significance

This case has typical guiding significance for the handling of rights conflicts involving time-honored brands caused by historical reasons. The conflict of rights of time-honored brands is essentially the issue of how to determine the boundaries of rights and regulate the use of traditional ethnic brands and time-honored brands with a hundred years of history under market economy conditions after experiencing the development of the planned economy system. The Shandong court, based on the principles of respecting history, protecting prior rights, honesty and credibility, and fair competition, handled conflicts and disputes between trademarks and time-honored brands in accordance with the law, allowing the two "Hongjitang" brand names to coexist in good faith, and achieving inclusive development between operators.

6、 Wenzhou Rongsheng Trading Co., Ltd. v. Wenzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce Lucheng Branch Industrial and Commercial Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 16, 2011, Lucheng Branch of Industry and Commerce made a decision on administrative punishment to Rongsheng Company in the form of Wen Lu Gong Shang Chu Zi (2011) No. 0137, believing that the distribution of fake "Kweichow Moutai" brand Baijiu by Rongsheng Company has constituted an illegal act of infringing the exclusive right to use registered trademarks of others. According to relevant provisions such as the Trademark Law, the defendant has decided to impose the following penalties on the plaintiff's illegal behavior: 1. Order immediate cessation of the infringing act; 2、 956 bottles of fake "Kweichow Moutai" Baijiu detained according to law shall be confiscated and destroyed, and the remaining 129 bottles of "Kweichow Moutai" Baijiu and 109 cases of Baijiu shall be returned; 3、 Impose a fine of 500000 yuan and turn it over to the finance department.

The People's Court of Lucheng District, Zhejiang Province, after hearing the case, determined that the trademark "Kweichow Moutai" was registered by Kweichow Moutai Liquor Co., Ltd. and authorized it to be used exclusively by Guizhou Maotai Liquor Co., Ltd. On January 8, 2008, the defendant Lucheng Branch of Industry and Commerce accepted the complaint of Moutai Liquor Company, investigated the business premises of the plaintiff Rongsheng Company, and detained 1085 bottles of "Kweichow Moutai" brand Baijiu and 109 cases of other Baijiu suspected of counterfeiting by the plaintiff. Entrusted by the defendant, Kweichow Moutai Liquor Co., Ltd. identified the "Kweichow Moutai" brand series Baijiu involved in the case the next day, and concluded that 956 of them were counterfeit. The 956 bottles of "Kweichow Moutai" brand Baijiu cost 816992 yuan in total according to the label price of the plaintiff company. Due to the large amount of counterfeit goods, on March 19, 2008, the defendant transferred the case to the Lucheng District Branch of Wenzhou Public Security Bureau for processing. After investigation, the Lucheng District Branch of Wenzhou Public Security Bureau failed to find evidence that the plaintiff knowingly sold counterfeit Maotai liquor. The case was returned to the defendant on May 19, 2010. After hearing and approval, the defendant made a decision on administrative penalty against the defendant on March 16, 2011.

（2） Judgment results

During the court review, both parties mainly engaged in cross examination and debate on whether the product authenticity appraisal form issued by Maotai Company can be accepted as evidence. After trial, the People's Court of Lucheng District, Zhejiang Province found that the goods sold by the plaintiff were identified as counterfeit by the trademark registrant, and the plaintiff could not provide evidence to the contrary to overturn it. The defendant adopted the appraisal conclusion to determine that the plaintiff sold goods that infringed on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark, and the facts were clear and the evidence was sufficient. The plaintiff's illegal business operation amounted to RMB 816992, and the defendant made the content of the administrative penalty against which the law was applied correctly. Based on this, the judgment upheld the administrative penalty decision against the defendant.

After the verdict was pronounced, Rongsheng Company was dissatisfied and filed an appeal.

The Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that administrative evidence should be collected in accordance with the law and confirmed by administrative authorities to prove the facts of the case before it can be used as the basis for determining the case. Due to the fact that identifying the authenticity of a trademark involves professional judgments that are not familiar to the general public, the accuracy of its conclusions is crucial for the parties involved. Therefore, the identification personnel should explain the basic information of the identification process, methods used, and differences from the authentic product, in order for administrative agencies to judge and confirm the accuracy of their conclusions. However, the five appraisal forms issued by Kweichow Moutai Liquor Co., Ltd. in this case simply recorded that "packaging materials: counterfeit; liquor quality: not produced by our company", thus judging that "counterfeit", the so-called appraisal content is too simple to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the conclusions, and the court refused to accept it. Lucheng Branch of Industry and Commerce fully handed over the right to judge the authenticity of the trademark involved in the case to Kweichow Moutai Co., Ltd. on the ground that the company has the right to identify and the company can bear the corresponding legal responsibility, which was not supported by the court. The main evidence for the administrative penalty decision made by the Lucheng Industrial and Commercial Bureau against Rongsheng Company is insufficient. Based on this, the judgment is revoked; Revoke the decision on the defendant's punishment; Order the Lucheng Branch of Wenzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce to handle the case again within 60 days from the effective date of the judgment.

（3） Typical significance

According to the current laws and regulations in China, the protection of intellectual property rights can be divided into two channels: administrative and judicial. This case is a typical case of administrative disputes arising from the investigation and punishment of intellectual property infringement by administrative authorities, and therefore was selected as one of the top ten intellectual property trial cases in Zhejiang in 2011. The key issue in this case is the evidence review obligation of the industrial and commercial administrative authorities in the administrative case of trademark infringement. The judiciary should not only support the administrative authorities in lawfully investigating and punishing intellectual property infringement behaviors, but also fulfill the judicial review responsibility of the administrative authorities, and properly resolve administrative disputes arising from intellectual property law enforcement through administrative litigation.

In recent years, with the development of the market economy, trademark registration applications have become increasingly active. The number of trademark infringement cases is constantly increasing, and the problems existing in administrative law enforcement practice are becoming increasingly prominent. Due to the professional knowledge involved in identifying the authenticity of trademarks, it is difficult to distinguish and judge. Therefore, in the current administrative law enforcement practice of investigating and punishing infringing trademarks, the administrative authorities for industry and commerce generally entrust the identification of the authenticity of trademarks to the trademark registrant or legitimate user, and use their written identification conclusions as evidence for administrative penalty cases. Once entering the administrative litigation process, administrative agencies often argue that the trademark registrant has the right to identify and bear corresponding legal responsibilities. This case is a typical case in this regard. In judicial practice, it has been found that due to the "authority" of the trademark registrant or legitimate user's appraisal conclusion in administrative cases, the content of the appraisal conclusion is becoming increasingly simple, and even cannot reflect basic information such as the identification process, usage methods, and differences from the real product. Its accuracy and reliability cannot be guaranteed. From a strict perspective of evidence classification, the appraisal conclusion is equivalent to a "victim statement" in terms of evidence nature, rather than an appraisal conclusion in evidence law. Moreover, in many trademark punishment cases, the trademark registrant or legitimate user is often also the informant. If administrative agencies blindly abandon their review responsibilities and adopt them as conclusive evidence, it not only does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Evidence Law, but also violates the principle of fairness. Therefore, it is of positive and practical significance to explore the evidence review obligation of the administrative authorities for industry and commerce in trademark infringement cases before the practice is fully unified.

7、 Qi Lai sues the Road Transport Bureau of the Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation for not fulfilling its statutory responsibilities

（1） Basic facts of the case

On September 27, 2011, Qi Laifa signed an agreement with Jinan Long Distance Bus Transportation Co., Ltd. to contract the operation route of Lu A48307 bus from Jinan to Jiaoyu. On November 9, 2012, Qi Laifa sent an application by mail to the Road Transport Bureau of the Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation, stating that Lu S30886 passenger car operated beyond the line and encroached on its operating route. He demanded that the vehicle's operation beyond the line be investigated and dealt with in accordance with the law; Prohibit the vehicle from encroaching on its route operation; Revoke the road transportation business license of the passenger transport operator. After receiving the application, the bureau has not responded.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Shizhong District in Jinan City held in the first instance that, according to the relevant provisions of the Road Transport Management Regulations, if passenger transport operators do not drive according to the prescribed routes, they shall be investigated and dealt with by road transport management institutions at or above the county level. If the circumstances are serious, the original licensing authority shall revoke the road transport operation license. In this case, the Road Transport Bureau of the Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation is the issuing authority for the Lu S30886 Bus Road Transport Business License. Qi Laifa believes that the above-mentioned buses do not drive according to the prescribed route and should report to the county-level road transport management agency. If the county-level road transport management agency determines that the violation is serious, it will be transferred to the Road Transport Bureau of the Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation for processing. Qi Laifa has self determined that the violation of the Lu S30886 bus is serious and requested the provincial road transportation authority to handle it. It does not comply with the above level of jurisdiction regulations and should be rejected.

The Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City held in the second instance that the "Shandong Province Road Traffic Regulations" and other clear provisions stipulate that transportation inspection agencies at all levels within the province shall investigate and punish passenger transport operators for not following the prescribed routes. Although the Road Transport Bureau of the Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation is the issuing authority for the operating license of the Lu S30886 bus road passenger transport route, it does not have the law enforcement authority to conduct road inspections and road inspections on whether the bus has violated the prescribed route. Only when the passenger transport operator has violated the prescribed route and the circumstances are serious, can the bureau have the power to revoke the road transport operating license. However, considering that the above provisions belong to a special provision of the Administrative Licensing Law, which stipulates that the administrative licensing authority has the responsibility to supervise and inspect the activities of the licensee engaged in licensing matters, the bureau should provide corresponding guidance according to the provisions of its scope of authority after receiving the application. The judgment revokes the original judgment and orders the Road Transport Bureau of Shandong Provincial Department of Transportation to handle Qi Laifa's application within 60 days from the date of receiving the judgment in accordance with its terms of reference.

（3） Typical significance

Promoting the openness of the administrative system and ensuring the efficient and convenient exercise of power is a historical task entrusted to the court by the 18th National Congress report. Promoting administrative agencies to fulfill their interpretation obligations and requiring appropriate guidance from citizens, legal persons, or other organizations on matters applied for, even if not within the scope of the applied agency's responsibilities, is an important means for courts to promote the openness of administrative systems and promote efficient and convenient public access to power. However, at present, the requirements of judicial review for administrative agencies still remain at the level of fulfilling their responsibilities in accordance with the law, and there is a lack of attention to the issue of interpretation obligations. This case highlights the interpretation obligation of the administrative agency and clarifies that when the applicant requests the administrative agency to perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of the general law, the administrative agency cannot ignore the internal division of powers due to different provisions of the special law. Necessary explanations and guidance should be provided, which effectively promotes the open, efficient and convenient exercise of administrative power.

8、 Liu Zirong v. Miquan Labor, Personnel and Social Security Bureau Work Injury Determination Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 7, 2001, Liu Zirong, the deputy director of the Third Mine in Tiechanggou Town, Miquan City, Xinjiang, learned that the roof of the coal seam mining bin in the mine had been pulled out, which would pose a hidden danger to the safety of coal mine production. In order to ensure the safety of coal mine production, at around 10pm on January 8th, Liu Zirong and his gunner Yu Yuangui were in the employee dormitory when they changed the instantaneous electric detonator into a delayed electric detonator. When the detonator exploded, Liu Zirong's left thumb, index finger, and middle finger were removed, and his ring finger was injured. After the incident, the Tiechanggou Town Coal Mine immediately sent Liu Zirong to the hospital for treatment and borne all of Liu Zirong's medical expenses. On March 21st, Tiechanggou Town Coal Mine reached a compensation agreement with Liu Zirong, providing a one-time subsidy of 15000 yuan for Liu Zirong's future living and nutrition expenses. On April 9th, Liu Zirong applied for work-related injury recognition to the Labor Bureau of Miquan City. On July 3, 2002, the Labor Bureau of Miquan City made a decision on not recognizing Liu Zirong as a work-related injury (hereinafter referred to as the "Decision").

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the People's Court of Miquan City ruled to revoke the "Decision" of the Labor Bureau of Miquan City on the grounds of incorrect application of laws and regulations by the Labor Bureau of Miquan City.

The Intermediate People's Court of Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture held in the second instance that the determination decision made by the Labor Bureau of Miquan City on Liu Zirong's work-related injury application was clear in facts, correct in the application of law, and the decision procedure was legal. The judgment revoked the first instance administrative judgment of the People's Court of Miquan City and upheld the "Decision" of the Labor Bureau of Miquan City.

The Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Higher People's Court upheld the second instance administrative judgment in the retrial judgment.

The Supreme People's Court holds that, according to the provisions of the "Trial Measures for Work Injury Insurance for Enterprise Employees", those engaged in daily production, work or work temporarily designated by the head of the unit who, in emergency situations, are injured, disabled, or killed in work directly related to the significant interests of the unit, although not designated by the head of the unit, should be recognized as work injuries. Liu Zirong, as the Deputy Mine Manager of the Third Coal Mine in Tiechanggou Town, Miquan City, worked with other gunners to transform the instantaneous electric detonator into a delayed electric detonator in the workers' dormitory due to the normal production needs of the coal mine. He was injured due to the explosion of the detonator, which is clearly directly related to the work needs and interests of his unit. The Opinion of the Ministry of Public Security on the Qualitative Analysis of the Behavior of Transforming Instantaneous Electric Detonators into Delayed Electric Detonators believes that the behavior of converting instantaneous electric detonators into delayed electric detonators without any protection is a serious violation of relevant national safety regulations and regulations on the quality and technical performance of civil explosive equipment products, and should not be classified as illegal manufacturing of explosive materials. According to this judgment: revoke the administrative judgment made by the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region; Revoke the administrative judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Changji Hui Autonomous Prefecture, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region; Maintain the administrative judgment of the People's Court of Miquan City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region; The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Midong District, Urumqi City, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region shall make a new specific administrative action within two months from the date of receiving the judgment.

（3） Typical significance

How to accurately grasp the standards for determining work-related injuries has always been a difficult point for people's courts to handle administrative cases related to work-related injury determination. This case involves difficult issues in the determination of work-related injuries, such as how to grasp the situation where work-related injuries cannot be recognized, and how to define the interests of our unit. Starting from the legislative purpose of safeguarding the vital interests of employees, the Supreme People's Court has adopted the principle of strict control in cases where work-related injuries are not recognized. At the same time, it has clarified the principle of recognizing work-related injuries caused by employees engaging in hazardous work outside the workplace due to the work needs of the unit, even if there are certain violations, that the work is directly related to the significant interests of the unit, and therefore should be recognized as work-related injuries. The judgment in this case fully demonstrates the legislative spirit of work-related injury insurance, and has important exemplary significance for grasping and unifying the judgment scale of administrative cases for work-related injury recognition.