The "Wenzhou River West Park Playground conveyor belt roll die ten old boy" follow-up of morning paper dispatch reporter Jie Liang the morning of October 5th, 10 year old boy A Bao (a pseudonym), in the Wenzhou River West riding "Canyon" recreational facilities, unfortunately involved in drifting raft conveyor gap, died on the spot (see our October 6th reports).
Yesterday, a public information display, the family of the deceased have been associated with the river west side to reach a compensation agreement,car accessories stores, A Bao's body was cremated.In addition, to get involved in this.
The two operator has Beixing ju.After the incident, by quality supervision and other related functional departments of the accident investigation team, we developed the work.The investigation content includes: a survey of relevant operators, managers; management, whether the operation in accordance with the relevant safety management system; the recreational facilities and operations staff are holders of the relevant documents and so on.
At the same time, invited experts on emergency equipment at the time of the operation for the technical appraisal.After the investigation, the accident investigation team will report the accident, liability, through certain channels and published.
Wenzhou River Park Development Limited company sent an assistant to chairman in consultation with the deceased, responsible for handling the matter.Late on October 6th, both sides follow the compensation agreement.
The boy was followed in the funeral cremation.In addition, the Wenzhou local media reported, "Canyon" to the two operator, yesterday has Beixing Ju, specific treatment to wait for further investigation.
To share: welcome to comment I want to comment micro-blog recommended | micro-blog hot today newspaper news (reporter Zhang Yuan) "of the" cigarette appeared on the table and other patterns, a lawyer from Shanghai that its detrimental to socialist morality, the State Administration for Industry and commerce, the Trademark Appraisal Committee to court.
Recently, one quadrangle first instance rejected.The judges ruled that "the business" available plaintiff Wang Shiru as a legal worker, the earliest in 2008 25 January to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee, ask according to "Chinese" trademark cancellation.
Later the judges deemed controversial business registered trademark is earlier than the "trademark law" on time, according to the relevant provisions of the law, eventually made a disputed trademark registration to maintain order, so Wang Shiru again in May this year 18 to the hospital filed a legal complaint, to request the court to order the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trade Commissioner to rescind the order.
Mr. Wang in the later trial, cigarettes are harmful food, in this kind of commodity on the use of "China", "Tiananmen",marilyn monroe car accessoriesTheft gangs in the bus station, "table" name, logo, is the national spirit, national image of blasphemy, violating the "trademark law" Tenth article about socialism morality cause adverse effects to the provisions.
At the same time, they think, "trademark law" regulation "has been registered" and "continue to be valid" trademark for "legitimate" trademark, violating the prohibitive provisions of law of the registered trademark shall also be revoked, and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Committee interpret out of context to erroneous application of the law.
"Chinese" for registered early in favor of the evidence, "Chinese" brand was founded in 1950, registered in February 1952, after the relevant state departments to trademark for cleaning, shall issue a new certificate of trademark registration, registration date is October 31, 1979.
Later, after the renewal of trademark dispute,sanrio car accessories, the right to the exclusive use of a deadline to 2013.The court thinks, law is the general principle of non-retroactivity, 1982, 1993, 2001 three "trademark law" provided "before the implementation of this law has already been registered shall continue to be valid, the plaintiff's claim" the lack of legal basis, it does not support.
没有评论:
发表评论