How to deal with re pollution caused by the re start of construction without acceptance after the re

First, it is illegal to continue to use the original name without signing a contract. Because Party A enjoys trademark rights. Second, in terms of remedy, on the one hand, it is to change the name and compensate Party A for a part of the money.

Even if the name is changed and A has been used, it constitutes infringement. Third, if Party A sues for compensation, it is very unlikely because it is troublesome after all. But if Party A wants to be angry, it may still sue.

Because I don't know the specific situation, I can only reply so much. Additional questions are welcome.

Anti-Unfair Competition Law

Article 11: Business operators must not fabricate or disseminate false or misleading information, harming competitors' commercial reputation or product reputation.

Hello, the question you are asking is the question of whether it constitutes a crime for someone inside to leak the reserve price of the tender.

In accordance with article 223 of the Criminal Code.

Bidders collude with each other in bidding, harming the interests of the tenderer or other bidders, and the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention, and/or a fine.

If the bidder and the tenderer collude in bidding, harming the legitimate interests of the state, the collective and the citizens, they shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraph.

The first question: If A stores the goods at B (the stored goods are storable, that is, the goods will not change their original properties due to time problems), if they are stored for a fee, they should comply with the provisions of the custody contract, then B is the custodian and should perform the custody obligation, and the custodian has no right to dispose of the deposited goods. In the case that A does not come back due to an accident for some reason, and B disposes of the custody without A's authorization, if A later recognizes B's disposition, then B's approach is reasonable and lawful.

B would not be liable and could be required to bear A's overdue storage costs when B returned the sales value of the stored goods.

Of course, there are many situations in the first question, which must be explained one by one, because the questions asked are relatively general, so they cannot be generalized.

The second question B, as the legal successor of the original company, has the right to know and know any claims and debts of the original company, so it has the right to dispose of any behavior that harms the interests of the company. Regardless of whether A is in office or resigns, B has the right to claim compensation for the damage caused to the company. Whether or not to win a lawsuit will be determined according to the specific legal provisions.

Because there is a situation where A is in office or A resigns on this issue, the legal basis for Company B's claim may be different, and it should be analyzed according to the specific situation. If these two issues are really involved, it is recommended that the consultant consult a lawyer as soon as possible. As it stands, the second issue may relate to criminal offences.

So don't underestimate.

Personal opinion:

Question 1: B is not responsible, and in this case, unless it can be proved that B deliberately sold at a low price, B's behavior constitutes management without cause and is not responsible for the price difference.

Question 2: "Falsifying the company's money" depends on the specific means and amount, and if it constitutes a criminal issue, it will definitely be okay; "B acquisition" can sue B in the name of the company to demand return, etc.

1. As long as it is not malicious, it should not be held responsible.

2. Sue in the name of a previous company.