|
黃雪芳 Huang Xuefang (Partner) 麥?zhǔn)似姹本┺k公室 中國(guó)：?jiǎn)渭兩虡?biāo)搶注可以構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng) China: Filing Bad-Faith Trade Mark Applications Alone May Constitute Unfair Competition 近日，中國(guó)法院在“艾默生電氣公司訴廈門安吉爾水精靈飲水設(shè)備有限公司等”一案中首次明確，單純進(jìn)行商標(biāo)搶注的行為也可能構(gòu)成針對(duì)品牌所有人的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)侵權(quán)行為。案號(hào)（2021）閩民終1129號(hào)。此前，僅當(dāng)搶注人惡意使用了搶注商標(biāo)或者基于搶注所得的商標(biāo)去惡意投訴或起訴品牌所有人時(shí)，才會(huì)被認(rèn)為構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為。 Recently, a Chinese court confirmed for the first time in Emerson Electric Co. v. Xiamen Water Angels Drinking Water Equipment Co. Ltd. and others that mere trade mark squatting may constitute an act of unfair competition against a brand owner. Case reference (2021) Min Min Zhong 1129. Previously, a finding of unfair competition required misleading use of the misappropriated trade mark or involved the filing of a maliciously complaint or infringement lawsuit against the genuine brand owner. 案件背景 Background of the case 艾默生電氣公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“艾默生”）出產(chǎn)的“愛適易 In Sink Erator”食物垃圾處理器在全球及中國(guó)廣受歡迎。艾默生上世紀(jì)九十年代在中國(guó)注冊(cè)了第一個(gè)“In-Sink-Erator”商標(biāo)，之后又注冊(cè)了前述英文、中文譯名“愛適易”、設(shè)計(jì)圖組合而成的系列商標(biāo)。 Emerson Electric Co.'s ('Emerson') 'In Sink Erator' food waste disposals are popular worldwide, including in China. The 'In-Sink-Erator' trade mark was first registered in China in the 1990s and was followed by a multiple further registrations for marks incorporating “In-Sink-Erator” and/or its Chinese character version. 廈門安吉爾水精靈飲水設(shè)備有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“安吉爾公司”）自2010年起在多個(gè)類別申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)了超過20個(gè)“In-Sink-Erator愛適易及圖”商標(biāo)，代理機(jī)構(gòu)為廈門興浚知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)事務(wù)有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱“興浚IP”）。安吉爾公司同時(shí)也申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)了其他知名第三方品牌，例如“陶氏”、“卡爾岡”以及“大疆”（中國(guó)著名的無(wú)人機(jī)品牌）等。安吉爾公司的法定代表人王先生也以自己的個(gè)人名義申請(qǐng)了“iphone”等商標(biāo)，代理機(jī)構(gòu)同樣為興浚IP。 Since 2010, Xiamen Water Angels Drinking Water Equipment Co. Ltd. ('Water Angels') applied to register more than 20 marks incorporating the 'In-Sink-Erator” mark”. The application were filed through Xiamen Xingjun IP Firm ('Xingjun IP'), a trade mark agency. The Chinese company also applied to register other famous third-party brands, such as DOW, CALGON and DJI (a well-known Chinese brand for drones). Mr. Wang, the legal representative of Water Angels, applied in his personal name to register 'iphone' and others through Xingjun IP. 為阻止相關(guān)商標(biāo)注冊(cè)，艾默生提起了眾多異議、無(wú)效宣告請(qǐng)求、行政訴訟等行動(dòng)。之后，王先生在2015年另外成立了“廈門海納百川網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技有限公司”（以下簡(jiǎn)稱：海納百川公司）。該公司自2017年起又申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)了20多件“In-Sink-Erator 愛適易及圖”商標(biāo)，代理機(jī)構(gòu)同樣也為興浚IP。艾默生針對(duì)這些商標(biāo)也提起了異議等行動(dòng)。 Emerson filed oppositions, sought invalidations, and pursued administrative remedies to try to prevent registration of the Water Angels marks. But Mr. Wang established another company (Xiamen Ocean-Accepts-All-Rivers Network Technology Co. Ltd. - “OAA-Rivers”) in 2015 and, using the same agent, Xingjun IP, applied register more than 20 'In-Sink-Erator'marks since 2017. Emerson again opposed the applications.
案件事實(shí) Facts of the case 2020年3月，艾默生將安吉爾公司、海納百川公司、王先生及興浚IP列為被告向廈門市中級(jí)人民法院提起訴訟，請(qǐng)求法院判令前三個(gè)被告進(jìn)行商標(biāo)搶注的行為以及第四個(gè)被告協(xié)助前者提交商標(biāo)搶注申請(qǐng)的行為構(gòu)成對(duì)艾默生的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。在該案一審開庭前，安吉爾公司、海納百川公司撤回/注銷了全部相關(guān)商標(biāo)。 In March 2020, Emerson filed a lawsuit with Xiamen Intermediate People's Court naming Water Angels, OAA-Rivers, Mr. Wang and Xingjun IP as defendants. It asked the court to declare that the first three defendants' conduct in filing the applications, and the fourth defendant's conduct in providing assistance, constituted unfair competition. Prior to the first instance hearing, Water Angels and OAA-Rivers withdrew or revoked all their relevant trade marks. 2021年4月，法院作出一審判決，支持了艾默生的訴求，認(rèn)為安吉爾公司、海納百川公司的批量商標(biāo)搶注行為構(gòu)成了不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為，并且認(rèn)定此二公司與它們的實(shí)際控制人王先生實(shí)施了共同侵權(quán)，同時(shí)興浚IP作為代理機(jī)構(gòu)則實(shí)施了幫助侵權(quán)的行為。法院判令四被告停止申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)相同或近似商標(biāo)，并賠償艾默生因制止搶注產(chǎn)生的律師費(fèi)損失及合理支出，并且還需在全國(guó)性的媒體發(fā)布聲明以消除侵權(quán)影響。 In April 2021, the court issued its judgment holding that the serial attempts to misappropriate the marks constituted unfair competition and that the two companies and their de facto controller, Mr. Wang, had jointly committed an infringement. Also, Xingjun IP had knowingly facilitated the infringement. The court ordered all four defendants to cease applying to register marks identical or similar to Ermerson’s trade marks and to compensate Emerson for its attorneys' fees and the reasonable expenses it had incurred, and to issue a statement in the national media to eliminate the impact of the infringement. 四被告對(duì)此判決不服，向福建省高級(jí)人民法院提起了上訴。2021年9月，法院作出了二審判決，維持了一審判決。該二審判決于2022年6月初公開。 The four defendants appealed this decision to the Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court. In September 2021, the appellate court issued its decision, upholding the first instance verdict. The second trial verdict was made available to the public in June 2022. 主要爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn) Major Issues of the case
安吉爾公司、海納百川公司辯稱，他們僅進(jìn)行了商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)，系發(fā)起行政程序的行為，而非民事行為，且這些商標(biāo)在一審開庭前就已經(jīng)被全部注銷或撤回；所有商標(biāo)均未投入使用，不存在生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)，既不可能導(dǎo)致消費(fèi)者混淆，也不可能擾亂艾默生的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)；因此，它們的行為不受《反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法》管轄，也不屬于該法列舉的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為之一。 Water Angels and OAA-Rivers argued that they were only engaged in filing applications, an act to initiate administrative procedures, and that all trade marks had been revoked or withdrawn. None of the marks had been put into use, nor had they carried out any business activity. So there was no consumer confusion or disruption to Emerson's business activities. As such, their actions should not be subject to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, nor were they among any of the unfair competitive acts enumerated in the Law. 不過，兩審法院認(rèn)為，兩家被告公司先后在多個(gè)類別的商品或服務(wù)上注冊(cè)與艾默生公司商標(biāo)相同或近似的諸多商標(biāo)，導(dǎo)致艾默生公司不得不通過提起大量的商標(biāo)異議、無(wú)效宣告請(qǐng)求、行政訴訟及本案民事訴訟來(lái)維護(hù)其合法權(quán)益，支出了大量成本，因此，被告公司的商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)行為在一定程度上干擾了艾默生公司的正常生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)，可以認(rèn)定為構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為。 However, the courts held that the two companies, in registering many identical or similar marks, forced Emerson to defend its legitimate rights and interests by undertaking multiple trade mark oppositions, invalidation petitions, administrative litigation and civil proceeding, and in doing so it had incurred significant cost. The defendant companies' trade mark filings had interfered with Emerson's operations to a a material extent and so could be found to constitute unfair competition.
安吉爾公司、海納百川公司的法定代表人王先生辯稱，他并未以自己的個(gè)人名義申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)過與原告有關(guān)的商標(biāo)，并未與兩家公司共同實(shí)施侵權(quán)，而且公司的人格獨(dú)立，公司行為應(yīng)當(dāng)由公司承擔(dān)責(zé)任，不應(yīng)當(dāng)由法定代表人承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。 Mr. Wang, the legal representative of Water Angels and OAA-Rivers, argued that he did not apply for registration of the In-Sink-Erator related trade marks in his own name and therefore did not commit joint infringement, and that the companies had their own independent legal personality. Therefore, the companies were responsible for their actions, but the legal representative should not be held jointly and severally liable. 然而，法院認(rèn)為，王先生除了是兩家公司的法定代表人之外，還是兩家公司的執(zhí)行董事兼總經(jīng)理、控股股東以及實(shí)際控制人，并且他在一家公司的商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)行為被確認(rèn)具有違法性后，又成立另一家公司繼續(xù)實(shí)施搶注行為，因此主觀上對(duì)侵權(quán)明知，并且以兩家公司為其實(shí)施搶注行為的工具，因此應(yīng)當(dāng)構(gòu)成共同侵權(quán)人，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。 The court held that Mr. Wang, in addition to being legal representative of the two companies, was also the executive director and general manager, major shareholder and de facto controller of the two companies. Also, after the applications made by the first company were found illegal, he then set up the second company to continue the attempts at trade mark misappropriation. He was aware of the infringement and intentionally used the two companies as tools to carry out the infringement. He was therefore a joint infringer and should be held jointly and severally liable.
興浚IP認(rèn)為，其受委托為客戶提交商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)的行為不違法，不存在明知委托人搶注商標(biāo)的情形，因此其沒有違反商標(biāo)法規(guī)定的代理機(jī)構(gòu)的強(qiáng)制性誠(chéng)信義務(wù)，也不應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。 Xingjun IP argued that its acts of filing the applications for a client were not unlawful, nor was it aware that the principals were involved in trade mark squatting. So, it did not violate the good faith obligations of an agency and should not be liable for infringement. 法院則認(rèn)為，興浚IP代理了兩家被告公司的絕大多數(shù)搶注商標(biāo)，而且在此前行政訴訟程序中認(rèn)定了兩公司的行為的違法性后，興浚IP仍然繼續(xù)為其提交商標(biāo)搶注申請(qǐng)，因此其代理行為構(gòu)成幫助其他被告實(shí)施侵權(quán)的情形，應(yīng)當(dāng)共同承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。 The courts, though, held that Xingjun IP represented the vast majority of the two defendant companies' infringing applications and continued to file infringing trade mark applications for the companies even after the illegality of the acts was recognised in earlier administrative proceedings. Therefore, its acts in representing these companies were acts of facilitating infringement and should bear joint infringement liability. 這一認(rèn)定似乎是本案最有爭(zhēng)議性的地方。本案判決書公開后，該認(rèn)定引發(fā)了商標(biāo)代理同行的熱議。 This seems to be the most controversial finding of the case. After the verdict was made public, it sparked a heated debate among fellow trade mark professionals. 評(píng)論 Comments 近年來(lái)，商標(biāo)搶注活動(dòng)已越發(fā)職業(yè)化。一些搶注藉由同一群體控制的不同公司來(lái)實(shí)施，并專門針對(duì)某些特定品牌進(jìn)行，其中也常常伴隨著某些IP從業(yè)人員的身影。由于商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)的成本比較低，并且申請(qǐng)人在受到挑戰(zhàn)（例如異議或無(wú)效宣告）后無(wú)義務(wù)進(jìn)行答辯，因此在品牌所有人發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn)行動(dòng)之后，搶注人往往不作回應(yīng)，而是立即重新提交相同商標(biāo)的注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)。這就致使品牌所有人常常陷入應(yīng)對(duì)層出不窮的搶注申請(qǐng)的境地，耗費(fèi)大量精力及財(cái)力。 Recently, trade mark squatting activities have become more sophisticated. Such squatting activities may involve different companies controlled by the same group of people with the involvement of IP professionals targeting specific brands. Due to the relatively low cost of filing trademark applications, and the lack of any obligation on an applicant to defend or justify its application if challenged, it is increasingly common for squatters to choose not to respond to challenges brought by brand owners, but simply to immediately re-apply to register the same trade marks. This results in brand owners often being caught in the position of dealing with endless infringing applications and incurring significant time and expense. 本案判決將商標(biāo)搶注行為定性為針對(duì)權(quán)利人的不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為，并判處了適當(dāng)?shù)木葷?jì)措施。這一突破性的判決應(yīng)當(dāng)可以在一定程度上對(duì)搶注人群體產(chǎn)生震懾效果，從而使得搶注現(xiàn)象能有所收斂，同時(shí)也能鼓勵(lì)更多品牌所有人積極地進(jìn)行維權(quán)。 The judgment in this case classified the act of trade mark “grabbing” to constitute unfair competition against the right holder and appropriate remedies were imposed. This groundbreaking ruling may go some way to deterring trade mark snatching and cool the squatting phenomenon, while also encouraging more brand owners to actively defend their rights. 雖然本案判決在商標(biāo)代理人群體中引起了討論和爭(zhēng)議，引發(fā)為客戶提交商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)將導(dǎo)致承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任的擔(dān)憂，不過，這對(duì)于恪守職業(yè)道德規(guī)范的誠(chéng)信代理機(jī)構(gòu)來(lái)說，談不上有什么多大影響。 While the ruling in this case has sparked debate and controversy among trade mark professionals because of concerns that filing applications for clients could generate liability, this should not impact unduly on reputable agencies that do choose to abide by the code of professional ethics. END |
|
|
