Recently, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court concluded a trademark infringement case between a food store (the "Appellant") and a daily chemical products company (the "Appellee"). The Appellant was fined RMB2,000 yuan compulsorily for the first time for submitting evidences late out of gross negligence.

The first-instance Plaintiff, a daily chemical products company, brought the first-instance Defendant, a food store to court for infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark, requesting the court to rule that the Defendant stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses. In the first instance, the Defendant failed to submit relevant evidences proving the legal sources of the goods it sold and thus was ordered by the first-instance court to stop selling such goods and compensate for economic losses.

The food shop appealed to Shanghai Intellectual Property Court against the first-instance judgment.

In the second-instance trial, the appellant furnished a sales list of allegedly infringing goods and admitted that it failed to submit the evidence, which, in its opinion, was unimportant, for its defense despite the reminder of the first-instance judge. As the evidence was associated with the basic facts of the case, and the supplier of allegedly infringing goods confirmed such goods in court, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court admitted such evidence and held that the ground of defense, namely the legal sources of allegedly infringing goods was justified, based on which part of the first-instance judgment was amended.

According to the relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, evidence provided by a party beyond the time limit deliberately or due to gross negligence shall be deemed inadmissible by a court. But the evidence which is related to the basic facts of the case shall be deemed admissible by the court provided that an admonition or a fine shall be given according to law. In this case, given that the Appellant failed to submit the above evidence, which was related to the basic facts of the case, due to its gross negligence rather than objective reasons in the first instance, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court admitted such evidence and meanwhile imposed a fine on the Appellant according to law.