The Court held that Plaintiff, Company A, enjoys the ownership and right of use to Trademark Y in accordance with the laws and the right to prohibit others from using the trademark inappropriately as well.　Regarding the registered trademark, the commodity trademark and the commodities share some inseparable attributes. The removal of the original trademark during the commodity circulation obviously cuts off the connection between the trademark proprietor and the commodity users. This act will not only make the commodity users unable to know the actual commodity manufacturer, thus deprived them of the general public’s right to cognize the commodity manufacturer and the commodity trademark, but also ended the commodities’ nature of market extension, thus directly infringed upon the trademark proprietor’s right to the exclusive use of the trademark, and finally damaged the trademark proprietor’s economic benefits. Company B''s act in this Case was not merely repair but a trading act of selling the repaired old machines of Trademark Y as its own products to others. Since both Parties are located within the same area, Company B’s selling the repaired old machines at a low price would impact the use market of the machines. Therefore it should be ascertained that Company A suffered from certain economic losses due to this fact.

　　As a whole, the Court rendered the judgment that Defendant shall stop infringing upon Plaintiff''s exclusive right of use of the registered trademark immediately and compensate most of Plaintiff''s losses and reasonable expenditures.

　　2.　　Case Review

　　In our view, the focus of the Case is whether the acts of Defendant, Company B, that Defendant purchased old machines of Trademark Y and sold them without any mark after repair and removal of the trademark constitutes the recessive reverse passing off on Plaintiff''s registered trademark.

　　Reverse passing off on trademark may be classified into dominant and recessive reverse passing off on trademark. Dominant reverse passing off on trademark generally indicates selling the commodity on which the registered trademark is changed without authorisation of the trademark proprietor, which has been regulated under Article 52(4) of the Trademark Law of PRC. And the representative case is the famous "Maple Leaf" vs. "Crocodile". Recessive reverse passing off on trademark generally means selling the commodity without any mark after removal of its trademark without authorisation of the trademark proprietor. There''re no specific laws and regulations to regulate such infringing acts so far. This Case may be the one we can only find which was defined as the recessive reverse passing off on trademark in legal practice. The Court held Defendant''s acts constituted the above-said infringing acts according to Article 52(5) of the Trademark Law of PRC, ie. " to cause, in other respects, prejudice to the exclusive right of another person to use a registered trademark".