那位大神帮忙翻译一下啊...不要google雅虎等网络翻译生成的

Question

商标侵权经典案例之天津狗不理包子
黑龙江省高级人民法院认为：“狗不理”牌商标是狗不理包子饮食公司在国家工商局注册的有效商标，依法享有专用权，并受法律保护。高渊虽系狗不理包子创始人的后代，但其不享有“狗不理”商标的使用权，亦无权与天龙阁饭店签订有关“狗不理”商标使用方面的协议。两被告制作并悬挂牌匾，是为了经营饭店，不是为了宣传“狗不理”包子的传人，其未经狗不理包子饮食公司的许可，擅自制作并使用“狗不理”商标，属于《中华人民共和国商标法》第三十八条第（一）项所述的商标侵权行为，构成对原告商标专用权的侵害。两被告应当停止侵害，赔偿因此给原告造成的经济损失。原判对两被告行为性质的认定，属适用法律不当，应予纠正。依照《中华人民共和国商标法》第三十八条第（一）项、第三十九条，《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百三十四条第一款第（一）、（七）、（十）项和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百八十四条、第一百五十三条第一款第（二）项的规定，于1994年12月28日判决：

Answer 1

Classic case of trademark infringement : Tianjin Stuffed bun Go Believe
According to Heilongjiang Higher People's Court, the trademark "Go Believe" is an effective mark registered in National Administration of Commerce and Industry, so it is legally and exclusively used and protected .
therefore, the descendant of the creator of Go Believe, Gao Yuan, has no right to use the trademark as well as sigh the agreement of trademark usage with Tianlongge Hotel.
witout the authorization of the Go Believe Food Company, the two defendats made and
hang the plaque for running the hotel instead of advertising the Go Believe descendants.
according to the Subparagraph one Article 38 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China , the trademark
infringement act , as the above said, infringes up on the trademark use right of the prosecutor.
according to the original judgement, the two defendats shall cease the act and compensate the prosecutor for the economic loss. the act of the two defendants is not applicable to the law and should be put right .
in accordance with the subparagraph one of article 38 and article 39 of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China , paragraph one paragraph seven and paragraph ten of article 134 of The civil law of the People's Republic of China, and article 184 , subparagraph two paragraph one of article 153 of The civil procedure law of the People's Republic of China, it verdicts On December 28, 1994 .