Regarding Haiyou’s confusion over the difference between the names Rosement and Rosemount, a post is made to clarify the matter, along with the court judgment

Thread Content

Civil Judgment of the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2007) Hu Yi Zhong Min Wu (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 359: The plaintiff is Rosemount Inc., with its domicile at 8200 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317, United States of America. Authorized representative: John Michael Groves. The plaintiff is Beijing Far East Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., with its domicile at No. 6, Hepingli North Street, Dongcheng District, People’s Republic of China. The legal representative is Scott Osun, the general manager of the company. Huang Song, the jointly appointed agent for the above two plaintiffs, is a lawyer at the Shanghai office of Junhe Law Firm. Zhao Fang, the jointly appointed agent for the above two plaintiffs, is a lawyer at the Shanghai branch of Junhe Law Firm. The defendant is Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., with its domicile at No. 88-7, Fumin Road, Songjiang High-Tech Park, Shanghai Municipality, People’s Republic of China. The legal representative is Zheng Kai, who is also the chairman of the company. Authorized agent: Wang Xiaoye, lawyer at Jinshi Law Firm in Shanghai. Authorized agent: Wu Hao, a lawyer at Jinshi Law Firm in Shanghai. In the case of unfair competition brought by the plaintiffs Rosemount Inc. and Beijing Far East Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Beijing Rosemount Company) against the defendant Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., this court accepted the case on September 26, 2007. A collegiate panel was formed in accordance with the law, evidence exchange was arranged between the parties on November 15, 2007, and a public hearing was held on April 8, 2008. John Michael Groves, the plaintiff’s authorized representative, as well as attorney Huang Song, the plaintiff’s appointed agent, and attorney Wang Xiaoye, the defendant’s appointed agent, appeared in court to participate in the proceedings. This case has now been concluded. The plaintiffs, Rosemount Inc. and Beijing Rosemount Inc., jointly alleged that Rosemount Inc., founded in 1956, is one of the business units responsible for process control within Emerson Electric Company, a company ranked among the world’s top 500 enterprises, and its products cover various areas of measurement related to pressure, temperature, flow rate, and liquid level. Beijing Rosemount Company is a subsidiary established by Rosemount Company in Beijing on December 27, 1995; it is primarily responsible for the production and sales of process control instruments developed by Rosemount Company. Starting in the late 1970s, Rosemount’s products entered the Chinese market. On March 30, 1982, the company registered the “ROSEMOUNT” trademark in China under its Chinese name, “Rosemont Company,” and began using “Rosemont” as its Chinese business name there. On May 26, 1993, Rosemount also established Shanghai Rosemount Co., Ltd. in Shanghai, which was later renamed Emerson Process Control Co., Ltd. Shanghai Rosemount Co., Ltd. and Beijing Rosemount Company have respectively received honors such as “Advanced Technology Enterprise,” “Tax Credit Grade A Enterprise,” and “Top 100 Taxpayers Enterprises” awarded by the relevant municipal authorities. Their actual business operations in China have helped to establish a good reputation for the Rosemount brand among the relevant public. Through extensive promotion and use by Rosemount Company over the years, the Rosemount brand has also become well-known among customers in the fields of electrical products, mechanical and electrical products, electronic products, systems, as well as related service sectors in China. Upon investigation, it was found that the defendant began, on November 11, 2004, to register \"Rosemont\" as a business name without authorization, and produced and sold products identical to or similar to those of the plaintiff. Given Rosemont Company’s status as a well-known multinational corporation and the fact that it has subsidiaries in China that also use the \"Rosemont\" brand name, the defendant’s actions were sufficient to lead others to mistakenly believe that the defendant was an affiliated company established by the plaintiff in China. At the same time, in order to further confuse the perceptions of the relevant public, the defendant not only claimed in its company’s automated phone responses that it was “Rosemount Process Management,” but also deceived people on its website and promotional materials by presenting it as a joint-stock enterprise established by the “Rosemount International Group.” It claimed to have “6 specialized companies, 20 holding companies, 120 specialized cooperative enterprises, over 500 sales companies and authorized distributors in China, as well as 5 foreign branches and more than 20 sales agents,” and stated that its products were sold in dozens of countries and regions around the world. The defendant fabricated various subsidiaries and affiliated companies that did not actually exist, such as “Shanghai Rosemount Automation Instruments Co., Ltd.,” “Shanghai Rosemount Control Valves Co., Ltd.,” “Shanghai Rosemount Instruments Co., Ltd.,” and “Rosemount Group (China) Co., Ltd.,” as well as more than 20 “Shanghai Rosemount-branded products” including “Rosemount Automation Instruments Co., Ltd.,” “Rosemount Instruments Co., Ltd.,” “Rosemount-Zhenfang Light Industry Products Factory,” and “Rosemount-Haoyaya Garment Factory.” Furthermore, both the name and model of the “Rosemount 3051 Intelligent Pressure Transmitter” product – namely “Rosemount” and the specific model number “3051” – were assigned by the plaintiff company, Rosemount. The product’s design (a blue appearance combined with an orange plastic cap and a silver-colored plaque) is also not a characteristic common to similar products. Yet the defendant improperly used and imitated the unique name, packaging, and design of the plaintiff’s Rosemount 3051 Intelligent Pressure Transmitter, and even directly copied the content of the plaintiff’s product user manual, all in order to achieve unlawful gains for commercial purposes. The two plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s aforementioned actions constitute unfair competition; therefore, they request the court to order the defendant to: 1. cease using the term “Rosemount” or any similarly confusing terms in the company name ； 2. Cease promoting, producing, and selling products that have the same or similar unique names, packaging, and styling as the plaintiff’s 3051 pressure transmitter ； 3. Stop false advertising ； 4. Compensate the plaintiff, Rosemount Inc., for economic losses in the amount of 500,000 RMB ； 5. Compensate the plaintiff Rosemount Inc. for the expenses incurred in suppressing unfair competition practices, including investigation costs, notarization fees, translation fees, and attorney fees, totaling 322,588.67 yuan. The defendant, Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., argued that the entity into which the plaintiff’s Rosemount Company invested was a separate legal entity from itself, and therefore such investment could not be considered a commercial activity; furthermore, applying for trademark registration certainly could not be regarded as commercial use. It is clear that prior to the defendant’s application for registration, the name of Rosemount Company had not been used in any commercial capacity in China, while the name that the plaintiff’s Beijing Rosemount Company should use was “Far East Rosemount” – a name that the defendant had never used ； The plaintiff’s Rosemount 3051 smart pressure transmitter is not a well-known product; it does not possess the distinctive names, packaging, or styling associated with well-known products, and therefore should not be protected ； The alleged false advertising did involve inaccuracies, but it was carried out by the defendant’s former legal representative. After the litigation commenced, the defendant took corrective action, and the false claims in question did not relate to important information such as the quality of the product, its ingredients, performance, uses, manufacturer, expiration date, or place of origin; as a result, they were not likely to cause confusion among consumers ； The compensation claimed by the plaintiff lacks factual and legal basis, therefore its claim should not be supported. As established through the trial, on March 30, 1982, the plaintiff obtained Trademark Registration No. 155718 issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People’s Republic of China for the “ROSEMOUNT” trademark; the Chinese name of the plaintiff indicated on the trademark registration certificate was “Rosemount Company (USA)”. The August 23, 1989 issue of China Instrument & Meter News published an article titled “Rosemount Company Intends to Establish a Wholly-Owned Enterprise in China” ； On May 9, 1990, the front page of the China Instrument & Meter News published an article titled \"Rosemount Instruments of the United States Is Optimistic About the Chinese Market\" ； The article titled \"China’s Largest Joint Venture in the Instrumentation Industry: Shanghai Rosemount Co., Ltd. Officially Established\" published in the China Instrument & Meter News on April 7, 1993, stated the following: \"Based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit, Shanghai Automation Instrument Company and the American company Rosemount reached an agreement through constructive and friendly discussions to jointly invest in establishing a joint venture enterprise named Shanghai Rosemount Co., Ltd. in Pudong New Area, Shanghai, in accordance with the ‘Law of the People’s Republic of China on Joint Ventures’ and other relevant regulations... Rosemont Company was founded in 1956; it is the largest company in the field of automation instruments in the United States, as well as a world-renowned manufacturer of instruments and control systems...\" An article titled \"Shanghai Rosemount Obtains International ‘Pass’\" was published in the China Instrument & Electric News on July 3, 1996 ； The article titled \"Experience in Using Rosemount Company’s 3051 Series Pressure and Differential Pressure Transmitters\", written by Hu Weigang from Yangzi BASF Styrene Series Co., Ltd., was published in the second issue of \"Petroleum Chemical Automation\" in 1999 ； Product advertising pages bearing the registered trademark “ROSEMOUNT” were published in “Thermal Automation in Thermal Power Plants” (Issues 3 and 4 of 2004, Issues 2 and 3 of 2005), “China Cement” (Issue 6 of 2005), and “Modern Chemical Industry” (2005 special issue, Issues 8, 10, and 12; Issues 5 and 9 of 2006). Below these pages were listed the phone numbers of Emerson Process Management’s offices around the world. The ad titles included things such as “Rosemount: Better Solutions for Differential Pressure and Flow Measurement,” “Rosemount 2088 Intelligent Pressure Transmitter,” and “Legendary Performance, Revisited: The Continuously Improved and Proven Rosemount 1151 Pressure Transmitter.” The ad titled “Rosemount 2088 Intelligent Pressure Transmitter” read as follows: “The pressure transmitters produced by Rosemount have become models of industrial products known for their excellent performance and high reliability, with 10 million units installed worldwide.” Rosemount’s pressure product line includes the 1151 pressure transmitter, which has withstood 40 years of field testing; the 2088 pressure transmitter, which is flexible and compact and designed specifically for industrial applications; the 3051 series of pressure transmitters, featuring a new planar flange design that sets industry standards; and the latest generation of variable-size 3051S series pressure transmitters” ； The advertisements for products such as the “Rosemount 3051S series pressure transmitters” or the “new Rosemount 5400 radar level transmitters” published in ‘Steel’ (issues 9–11 of 2006, issue 1 and issues 3–5 of 2007), ‘China Electric Power’ (issues 1, 2, and 6 of 2007), and ‘Modern Chemical Industry’ (2006 special issue, issues 1–6 of 2007) all featured the “ROSEMOUNT” logo along with its ® symbol; one of these advertisements had as its title “How to choose instruments to open 20 doors of hope for a factory’s future?” >The advertisement reads: “The Rosemount 3051S series of pressure transmitters provided by Emerson Corporation are the gateway to future technological advancements.” Based on a scale-variable platform, the 3051S pressure transmitter enables innovative technologies and practices for pressure, flow, and level measurement applications… A section dedicated to the “1151SMART intelligent transmitter” can be found on page 30 of the textbook ‘Process Detection Instruments’ for secondary vocational schools (1st edition, September 1999; 5th printing, June 2006), where it is stated that “the 1151SMART intelligent transmitter produced by the American company Rosemount is an intelligent transmitter designed for use in field applications, equipped with a microcomputer.”……” ； The introduction to \"Intelligent Differential Pressure Transmitters\" in the key textbook for regular higher education under the \"Ninth Five-Year Plan\" series, titled *Control Instruments and Computer Control Devices* (1st edition published in September 2002, 5th printing in March 2007), states that \"there are currently many types of intelligent differential pressure transmitters in practical use, each with its own structure; however, their overall structure is similar.\" First, a brief introduction will be given to the working principles and features of the representative Honeywell ST3000 differential pressure transmitter and Rosemount 3051C differential pressure transmitter. Then, a more detailed explanation will be provided for the Zhejiang University Zhongkong Company’s 1151 intelligent differential pressure transmitter. These transmitters all use HART communication for data transmission. ”Page 79 of the training manual on measurement techniques, “Tutorial on Automatic Natural Gas Metering” (1st edition, July 2004; 1st printing, July 2004), in the section on the “3051S pressure transmitter,” mentions “the Rosemount 3051S series of instruments from Emerson Process Management…” Page 95 of the textbook for higher education, “Automatic Detection Technology” (1st edition, August 2004; 1st printing, August 2004), in the section on “capacitive pressure (differential pressure) transmitters,” states “At present, Xi’an and Beijing in China have introduced the 1151 series of capacitive pressure transmitters from the American company Rosemount…” Page 46 of the textbook planned under the 11th Five-Year Plan for general higher education, “Chemical Process Instruments and Automation” (4th edition, September 2006; 2nd printing, January 2007), in the section on “intelligent pressure transmitters,” explains “As an example, the working principle of the Fisher-Rosemount 3051C intelligent differential pressure transmitter will be briefly described here…” The articles of association of Rosemount Shanghai Co, Ltd., dated March 30, 1993, state that the English name of this company is Rosemount Shanghai Co, Ltd., with Shanghai Automation Instrument Company and Rosemount Corporation (USA) as its investors, holding 40% and 60% of the shares respectively. On September 8, 2002, Shanghai Rosemount Co., Ltd. applied to change its company name to Emerson Process Control Co., Ltd.; the alternate name specified in the name registration application it submitted earlier was Emerson Process Management Co., Ltd. On September 26, 2002, the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce approved the change of the name of Shanghai Rosemount Co., Ltd. to Emerson Process Control Co., Ltd. Following the transfer of shares, the investors of Emerson Process Control LLC have now become Emerson Electric (China) Investment Co., Ltd. and Emerson Electric (Switzerland) Holding Company. On December 27, 1995, Beijing Rosemount Company was established. Its business scope included the production of industrial sensors and transmitters, as well as the agency, wholesale, and retail of industrial sensors and transmitters produced by other companies or affiliated firms. The defendant was founded on November 11, 2004; its shareholders were all Chinese nationals. The name approved for use at the time of company registration was Shanghai Rosemount Industrial Co., Ltd. On May 22, 2006, the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce approved a change to the company’s name to Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., which is its current name. On August 9, 2006, Shen Yujie, the authorized representative of the Shanghai branch of Beijing Haiwen Law Firm, accessed the website with the address http://www.rsmt.cn. At the top left corner of the website’s pages, the words “SHANGHAI ROSEMENT” and “Shanghai Rosemont” were displayed one below the other. The section on the “Company Profile” stated that “Shanghai Rosemont Co., Ltd. is a joint-stock company established by the Rosemount International Group…” On the page related to the “Organizational Structure,” companies such as Shanghai Rosemont Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai Rosemont Control Valves Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Rosemont Automation Instruments Co., Ltd. were listed. The Shanghai Notary Office conducted notarization to preserve the content of the aforementioned webpage, and issued Notarial Certificate No. (2006) Hu Zheng Jing Zi No. 9149. The defendant acknowledged that the website in question in the notarization was its company’s website. Issue No. 5 of 2006 of \"Petroleum Chemical Automation\" contained an advertisement related to pressure transmitters. In the upper left corner of the ad page, the words \"SHANGHAI ROSEMENT\" and \"Shanghai Rosemont\" were printed, while in the lower right corner the advertiser was identified as \"Rosemount International Group Co., Ltd. Shanghai Representative Office\". The phone number, website address, and location were 86-21-57735656, http://www.rsmt.cn, and Shanghai Songjiang High-Tech Park, respectively. At noon on February 26, 2007, Shen Yujie, the authorized representative of the Shanghai branch of Beijing Haiwen Law Firm, dialed the number (021) 57735656. The voice message she heard read: “Welcome to Rosemount Process Management. It is currently lunch time; please dial the extension number or call back when office hours resume.” ”The Shanghai Notary Office conducted notarization to preserve evidence of the entire process of making the phone call, and issued Notarial Certificate No. (2007) Hu Zheng Jing Zi No. 1715. On April 10, 2007, a third party purchased 5 units of each product from the defendant, with unit prices of RMB 2,700 and RMB 2,300 respectively; both types of products had the label “Shanghai Rosemount Model 3051 Transmitter” on them. The third party also received 2 copies of promotional material for these products. The Notary Office in Jing’an District, Shanghai, conducted notarization to preserve evidence of the aforementioned purchase process, and issued Notarial Certificate No. (2007) Hu Jing Zheng Jing Zi No. 999. The section on “Introduction to Rosemount” in the promotional materials attached to the Notarized Document reads: “Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd. is a comprehensive modern group company... Rosemount owns more than 20 holding companies, 3 joint ventures, and 120 specialized cooperative enterprises; it also has sales companies and authorized distributors both domestically and internationally. It has developed an industry centered around automated instruments and meters... Committed to creating an internationally renowned brand – Shanghai Rosemount, it strives to cooperate wholeheartedly with friends from all sectors through first-class products, first-class services, and first-class reputation...” The promotional materials list more than 20 companies whose names include the word “Rosemount”, such as Rosemount Automation Instrument Co., Ltd., Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., and Rosemount Control Valve Co., Ltd. Comparing the physically purchased unit, which was obtained through notarization, with the 3051 model pressure transmitter produced by the plaintiff’s Beijing Rosemount Company, both have a blue main color for their housings; the plastic caps at the interfaces are both orange-yellow in color; and the position of the silver metal nameplates on the products is exactly the same as well. Furthermore, the upper right corner of the cover of the quick installation manual attached to the defendant’s product bears the words “Shanghai Rosemount,” and above the company information located in the lower left corner of the cover are the words “Rosemount International Group.” ； In the upper right corner of the cover of the quick installation manual for the products manufactured by the plaintiff, Beijing Rosemount Company, the words “Rosemount 3051” are printed; the product name indicated in the manual is “Rosemount 3051 Intelligent Pressure Transmitter”. The cover of the promotional material for issue No. 23 of 2007, which displays the defendant company’s name, address, phone number, and other information, bears the words “Rosemont” and “ROSEMENT” in large letters. The “Company Overview” section on the interior pages reads: “The Rosemont Group and its core company, Shanghai Rosemont Instrument Co., Ltd., are located in the international metropolis of Shanghai... Rosemont owns more than 15 holding companies, 3 joint ventures, and 120 specialized cooperative enterprises. It also has sales companies and authorized distributors both domestically and abroad, thus establishing itself as an industry leader in automated instruments and equipment... Committed to creating an internationally renowned brand – Shanghai Rosemont, it strives to cooperate wholeheartedly with friends from all walks of life through first-class products, first-class service, and first-class reputation.”……” ； At the upper right corner of the cover and the upper left corner of the back cover of the promotional materials for “New China”, the words “SHANGHAI ROSEMENT” and “Shanghai Rosemont” are printed. On the back cover, in addition to the defendant company’s name, address, and phone number, there is also information such as “Rosemont International Group Co., Ltd.”. The products listed on the inner pages include the 3051 series of pressure transmitters and the 1151 series of pressure transmitters. It is also stated that: “Rosemont International Group Co., Ltd. is a comprehensive, modern enterprise group without regional limitations... Rosemont International Group has 6 specialized companies, 20 holding companies, and 120 specialized cooperative enterprises. It has established more than 500 sales companies and authorized distributors in China, as well as 5 foreign branches and over 20 sales agents. Its products are sold in dozens of countries and regions around the world... Shanghai Rosemont, committed to creating an international brand, is eager to cooperate with friends from all walks of life by offering first-class products, services, and reputation.” These facts are supported by evidence such as the trademark registration certificates provided by the two plaintiffs, news reports or advertisements from relevant newspapers, professional textbooks, the business license of Beijing Rosemont Company, Notarization No. (2006) Hu Zheng Jing Zi No. 9149, articles from “Petroleum and Chemical Automation” (May 2006), Notarization No. (2007) Hu Zheng Jing Zi No. 1715, Notarization No. (2007) Hu Jing Zheng Jing Zi No. 999, as well as the sealed physical items and promotional materials. There are also the 3051 series pressure transmitters produced by Beijing Rosemont Company along with their quick installation manuals, the defendant’s business license, notices of pre-approval for the company name, and other relevant evidence. Additionally, the defendant provided evidence such as the business registration and change records of Emerson Process Management Company (formerly Shanghai Rosemont Company). Furthermore, to prove the expenditure of reasonable costs, the two plaintiffs submitted to this court receipts for legal fees totaling RMB 645,177.33. They explained that since these legal fees were also related to Case No. (2007) Hu Yi Zhong Min Wu (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 360, the amount claimed as reasonable costs in this case was RMB 322,588.67. Moreover, all other expenses incurred, such as those for investigation firms, notarization fees, and translation services, mentioned in the litigation requests, have already been included in this amount. The defendant disputed the fact that Emerson Electric Company was the entity that made the payments as indicated on the attorney’s fee receipts, arguing that they were prepared for the purposes of this lawsuit based on their date of issuance. The plaintiff, Rosemount Corporation, explained that it is a subsidiary of Emerson Electric Company, and therefore the aforementioned costs are covered by that company’s Asia-Pacific region. The court holds that the attorney’s fees, notarization fees, translation fees, etc., claimed by the plaintiff, Rosemont Company, were indeed incurred in practice and can be taken into account when determining the amount of compensation. However, not all attorney’s fees agreed upon through negotiations between the plaintiff and his attorney must be borne by the defendant in the event of a loss; instead, the court will determine the amount of such fees that can be compensated within a reasonable range, based on the standard fees for attorneys and the specific circumstances of the case. The Court holds that the existing evidence shows that as early as the 1980s, the plaintiff Rosemount Inc. applied to register a trademark in China under the Chinese transliteration “Rosemount Company (USA)”. In the early 1990s, it began to show great interest in the Chinese market; furthermore, two affiliated companies established successively in Shanghai and Beijing both applied for registration using “Rosemount” as their trade name. Furthermore, a comprehensive analysis of the duration of promotional activities carried out by the plaintiff, Rosemount Company, the timing of reports on users’ experiences with its products, and the time when Rosemount Company’s products were included in professional textbooks in China shows that \"Rosemount\" already enjoyed a high level of recognition long before the defendant was established, whether as the name of the plaintiff’s company or as the sole Chinese transliteration of the \"ROSEMOUNT\" brand. In this case, the two plaintiffs alleged that the defendant engaged in unfair competition practices such as malicious registration and use of the plaintiffs’ trade names, false advertising, and imitation of the distinctive names and designs of the plaintiffs’ well-known products. The court holds that, as the defendant dealing in the same or similar products as the two plaintiffs, it should have been aware of the plaintiff Rosemount Company and its brand, which has been promoted and used for a long time. After the business name containing “Rosemount” was approved for registration, the defendant widely promoted its relationship with the “Rosemount International Group” through websites, promotional materials, and magazine advertisements, and referred to itself as “Rosemount Process Management” in company phone voice messages. At the same time, it produced and sold products that used the same name and design as the plaintiff’s “Rosemount 3051” pressure transmitters. Since the defendant failed to provide evidence proving the actual existence of the “Rosemount International Group” nor to give a reasonable explanation for why it chose “Rosemount” as its brand name, the court, after considering all of the defendant’s actions, concluded that such actions were sufficient to lead the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the defendant’s products originated from that group or that there was some specific connection between the defendant and the plaintiff’s Rosemount Company. This, in turn, could affect the market share of the plaintiff’s “Rosemount 3051” pressure transmitters to a certain extent. Therefore, the defendant’s aforementioned actions constituted unfair competition, and the purpose of registering a business name containing “Rosemount” became clear. In summary, through long-term efforts, the plaintiff Rosemount Corporation has made its name and the brand it operates, “Rosemount”, well-known among relevant consumers in our country. The defendant, by violating the principle of good faith, engaged in unfair competitive practices that were sufficient to cause confusion between its products and those of the plaintiff’s well-known brand; therefore, it shall bear civil liability for ceasing such infringement and compensating for the losses incurred. Given that neither the losses suffered by the plaintiff, Rosemount Company, nor the benefits obtained by the defendant through unfair competition could be ascertained, the court determined the amount of compensation to be borne by the defendant on a discretionary basis, taking into account factors such as Rosemount Company’s reputation in the industry, the degree of the defendant’s subjective fault and the forms, nature, and consequences of the unfair competitive practices, as well as the reasonable costs incurred by Rosemount Company. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 134, Paragraph 1, Items (1) and (7) of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 2, Article 5, Paragraph 3, Article 9, Paragraph 1, and Article 20, Paragraph 1 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China Against Unfair Competition, as well as Article 6, Paragraph 1, Articles 7 and Article 8, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition, the judgment is as follows: 1. The defendant, Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., shall immediately cease using the trademark “Rosemount” as of the date this judgment takes effect ； II. The defendant, Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., shall immediately cease using, as a product name on pressure transmitters, any designation containing the words “Rosemount 3051” as of the date this judgment takes effect, and shall also stop using product packaging that is identical to or visually indistinguishable from that of the 3051 model pressure transmitters produced by the plaintiff, Beijing Far East Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd ； III. The defendant, Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., shall immediately cease its unfair competitive practices of false advertising as of the date this judgment takes effect ； IV. The defendant, Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., shall compensate the plaintiff, Rosemount Inc., for economic losses in the amount of RMB 100,000 within 10 days as of the date this judgment takes effect ； V. The remaining claims filed by the plaintiffs, Rosemount Inc. and Beijing Far East Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., are not supported. If the defendant, Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd., fails to fulfill its obligation to pay money within the period specified in this judgment, it shall, in accordance with Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, pay double the interest on the debt for the period of delay. The case acceptance fee for this case is 12,826 yuan, of which Rosemount Inc. shall bear 5,633 yuan, and Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd. shall bear 7,193 yuan. If they are not satisfied with this judgment, the plaintiff Rosemount Inc. may submit an appeal to this court within 30 days from the date the judgment is delivered, while the plaintiff Beijing Far East Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd. and the defendant Shanghai Rosemount Instrument Co., Ltd. may do so within 15 days from that same date. Two copies of the appeal must be submitted, and the appeal shall be filed with the Higher People’s Court of Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Appendix: Relevant legal provisions 1. Article 134 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China: The main ways of assuming civil liability are: (1) Ceasing the infringement ； …… (VII) Compensation for losses ； …… 2. Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China: In market transactions, business operators shall adhere to the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, and good faith, and comply with generally accepted business ethics. Unfair competition as referred to in this Law means acts by business operators that violate the provisions of this Law, thereby infringing upon the legitimate rights and interests of other business operators and disrupting the social and economic order. The term \"operator\" as used in this law refers to legal persons, other economic organizations, and individuals who are engaged in the business of selling goods or providing profit-making services (the term \"goods\" as used here includes services). 3. Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China: Business operators shall not use the following unfair tactics in market transactions in order to harm their competitors: … (3) Using another person’s business name or surname without permission, thereby leading people to believe that it is another person’s product ； …… 4. Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China: Business operators shall not use advertisements or other means to make false claims that are likely to mislead consumers regarding the quality, ingredients, performance, uses, producers, expiration dates, place of origin, etc. of goods. …… 5. Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China: If a business operator violates the provisions of this law and causes damage to another business operator that has been infringed upon, such operator shall bear liability for compensating for the damages. If the losses suffered by the infringed operator cannot be calculated, the amount of compensation shall be equal to the profits obtained by the infringer as a result of the infringement during that period ； It shall also bear the reasonable expenses incurred by the infringed operator in investigating the unfair competitive practices carried out by that operator to infringe upon its legitimate rights and interests. …… 6. Article 6 of the “Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition”: The names of enterprises registered in accordance with the law by the enterprise registration authorities, as well as the names of foreign (regional) enterprises that are used for commercial purposes within China, shall be regarded as “enterprise names” as referred to in Item (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The brand name in a corporate name that enjoys a certain level of market recognition and is known to the relevant public can be regarded as a \"corporate name\" as stipulated in Article 5, Paragraph (3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. …… 7. Article 7 of the “Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition”: Commercial use within the territory of China, including the use of the unique names, packaging, or design features of well-known goods, or corporate names or personal names on goods, their packaging, and commercial documents, or in advertising campaigns, exhibitions, and other business activities, shall be deemed to be the “use” referred to in Items (2) and (3) of Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. 8. Article 8 of the “Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition”: If a business operator engages in any of the following acts that is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public, it may be deemed to constitute false advertising that misleads consumers as stipulated in Paragraph 1, Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law: …… (3) Promoting goods using ambiguous language or other methods that lead to misunderstanding. …… 9. Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China: If the debtor fails to fulfill the obligation to pay money within the period specified in a judgment, ruling, or other legal documents, he shall pay double the interest on the debt for the period of delay. If the person subject to enforcement fails to fulfill other obligations within the period specified by the judgment, ruling, or other legal documents, they shall pay a penalty for delayed performance. Presiding Judge: Li Shulan; Acting Judges: Hu Zhenyuan, Liu Jing. July 19, 2008. Clerk: Tan Shang