Filter

Open

30

AUG

2021

业界新闻:

第32次中法知识产权混委会视频会议召开

720日,第32次中法知识产权混委会视频会议召开。中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨与法国工业产权局局长帕斯卡·法尔共同出席会议。

申长雨表示,中法两局通过定期举办中法混委会,推进了在信息交流、人员培训等领域的务实合作。随着中法地理标志合作议定书和中欧地理标志协定的先后生效,希望双方在地理标志领域开展更多合作。

帕斯卡·法尔表示,目前有越来越多的法国企业进入中国市场,并积极提交专利、商标申请。法国工业产权局希望进一步推动两局合作迈上新的台阶。(来源:国家知识产权局政务微信)

The 32nd Meeting of the China-France Mixed Committee on Intellectual Property Rights Held via Video Link

On July 20, the 32nd Meeting of the China-France Mixed Committee on Intellectual Property Rights was held via video conference. Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), and Pascal Faure, Director General of France's National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI, standing for Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle in French) attended the meeting.

Shen Changyu said that the regular holding of meetings of the China-France Mixed Committee has pushed forward the practical cooperation in information exchange and personnel training. With the entry into force of the China-France Protocol on Cooperation in Geographical Indications and the China-EU Agreement on Geographical Indications, it is hoped that the two sides will conduct more cooperation in the field of geographical indications.

Pascal Faure said that more and more French enterprises are entering the Chinese market and actively filing patent and trademark applications. INPI hopes to further push its cooperation with CNIPA to new levels. (Source: CHINA Official WeChat Account)

中柬知识产权高级别会谈举行

7月22日,中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨与柬埔寨王国国务大臣兼工业、科技和创新部大臣占蒲拉西举行视频会议。双方签署了2021—2022年度中柬知识产权合作计划。

申长雨表示,多年来,特别是在专利审查领域,中国有效发明专利在柬埔寨直接登记生效项目切实便利了中国专利权人在柬埔寨获得知识产权保护。在2021—2022年度中柬知识产权合作工作计划中,双方将继续稳步推进既有合作项目,同时在技术、人力资源等领域启动新的合作项目。

占蒲拉西对柬中知识产权双边合作、特别是专利审查领域合作所取得的进展高度赞赏,并表示将进一步加强与中国国家知识产权局的交流合作。(来源:国家知识产权局网站)

China-Cambodia High-Level Meeting on Intellectual Property Held

On July 22, Shen Changyu, Commissioner of China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), met Cham Prasidh, Senior Minister and Minister of Industry, Science, Technology, and Innovation of the Kingdom of Cambodia, via video conferencing. The two sides signed the 2021-2022 China-Cambodia Intellectual Property Rights Cooperation Plan.

Shen Changyu stated that, over the years, particularly in the field of patent examination, validation of Chinese valid invention patents in Cambodia through filing has offered Chinese patentees in Cambodia an expedited route to IPR protection. In the 2021-2022 China-Cambodia Intellectual Property Rights Cooperation Plan, the two sides will steadily proceed with existing cooperation projects and launch new projects in sectors such as technology and human resources.

Cham Prasidh highly appreciated the progress made in Cambodia-China bilateral cooperation on IP, especially in the field of patent examination. He stated that Cambodia will further enhance exchange and cooperation with CNIPA. (Source: CNIPA website)

中国技术合同成交额首破两万亿 国家高新区生产总值达12.1万亿

China's Technology Contract Transaction Volume Tops 2 Trillion Yuan for the First Time, and the National High-Tech Zones' Gross Product Reaches 12.1 Trillion Yuan

2019年,中国科技创新活力进一步释放,全国技术合同成交金额首次突破2万亿元(人民币);169家国家高新技术产业开发区(国家高新区)生产总值达到12.1万亿元,占中国国内生产总值(GDP)比重达12.3%

In 2019, the vitality of China's scientific and technological innovation was further released. The nationwide technology contract transaction volume exceeded 2 trillion yuan (RMB) for the first time. The total output value of 169 National High-Tech Industrial Development Zones (National High-Tech Zones) reached 12.1 trillion yuan, accounting for 12.3% of China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

2019年全国技术市场统计分析》显示,2019年,中国技术市场交易额大幅增长,全年共签订技术合同48.4万项,成交额达22398.4亿元,比上年分别增长17.5%26.6%。合同成交额占GDP的比重继续增加,达2.3%。平均每项技术合同成交额为462.7万元,同比增长7.7%1000万元以上重大技术合同21151项,成交额为17941.9亿元,占全国技术合同成交总额的80.1%

According to the Statistical Analysis on National Technology Market in 2019, in 2019, the transaction volume of China's technology market increased significantly, with a total of 484,000 technology contracts signed throughout the year and a transaction volume reaching 2.23984 trillion yuan, representing a growth of 17.5% and 26.6% over the previous year, respectively. The proportion of contract transaction volume in GDP continued to increase, reaching 2.3%. The average transaction volume for each technology contract was 4.627 million yuan, representing a year-on-year growth of 7.7%. There were 21,151 major technology contracts over 10 million yuan, with a total transaction volume of 1.79419 trillion yuan, accounting for 80.1% of the total transaction volume of technology contracts throughout the country.

其中,电子信息、城市建设与社会发展、先进制造技术领域的技术交易额居前三位,其合同成交项数和金额均超过全国技术交易总项数和总金额的50%

Among them, electronic information, city construction and social development, and advanced manufacturing technology are the top three in terms of technology transaction volume, with the number and amount of contract transactions both exceeding 50% of the total number and total amount of national technology transactions.

2019年国家高新区创新发展统计分析》显示,国家高新区的规模经济总量已成为国民经济增长和地方区域经济发展的强有力支撑。2019年,169家国家高新区园区生产总值达到12.1万亿元,其中53家国家高新区的园区生产总值占所在城市GDP比重超过20%

The Statistical Analysis on Innovation and Development of National High-Tech Zones in 2019 shows that the total economies of scale of the National High-Tech Zones have become a strong support for national economic growth and local regional economic development. In 2019, the 169 National High-Tech Zones achieved total gross product of 12.1 trillion yuan. Among them, the output values of 53 National High-Tech Zones account for more than 20% of the city's GDP.

同年,这169家国家高新区共实现营业收入38.6万亿元、工业总产值24.0万亿元、净利润2.6万亿元、上缴税额1.9万亿元、出口总额4.1万亿元。其中,有6个国家高新区营业收入超过万亿元,76个国家高新区营业收入超过千亿元。

In the same year, the 169 National High-Tech Zones achieved a total operating income of 38.6 trillion yuan, a total industrial output value of 24.0 trillion yuan, a net profit of 2.6 trillion yuan, a tax payment of 1.9 trillion yuan, and a total export volume of 4.1 trillion yuan. Among them, 6 National High-Tech Zones' operating incomes each exceeded one trillion yuan, and 76 National High-Tech Zones' operating incomes each exceeded 100 billion yuan.

此外,2019年,国家高新区企业拥有发明专利85.8万件,占全国发明专利拥有量的38.4%;国家高新区企业认定登记的技术合同成交额达6783.9亿元,占全国技术合同成交额比重为30.3%。(来源:中国新闻网)

In addition, in 2019, enterprises in the National High-Tech Zones own 858,000 invention patents, accounting for 38.4% of the national invention patents; the transaction volume of technology contracts recognized and registered by enterprises in the National High-Tech Zones reached 678.39 billion yuan, accounting for 30.3% of the national technology contract transaction volume. (Source: www.chinanews.com)

《2020年中国知识产权金融化指数报告》发布

2020 Financialization Index Report on China Intellectual Property Released

近日,广州知识产权交易中心发布的《2020年中国知识产权金融化指数报告》显示,广东省荣登2020年度全国知识产权金融化指数榜首,江苏省、浙江省紧随其后分列第二位、第三位。

Recently, the 2020 Financialization Index Report on China Intellectual Property released by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Exchange Center shows that Guangdong Province tops the ranking of the 2020 National Financialization Index on Intellectual Property, followed by Jiangsu Province and Zhejiang Province.

根据数据可知,2020年,广东省知识产权金融化指数综合排名居全国首位,其中专利质押8500件全国排名第一,专利买入4.2828万件全国排名第二,专利许可1022件全国排名第三,商标买入13.4554万件全国排名第一,版权交易1298件全国排名第三,证券化融资28.08亿元全国排名第二,各项指标呈现均衡发展态势。

According to the data, in 2020, Guangdong Province's intellectual property financialization index comprehensively ranked first in the country. Specifically, Guangdong owns 8,500 patent pledges, ranking first in the country, 42,828 patent purchases, ranking second in the country, 1,022 patent licenses, ranking third in the country, 134,554 trademark purchases, ranking first in the country, 1,298 copyright transactions, ranking third in the country, and a securitization financing amount of 2.808 billion yuan, ranking second in the country. Various indicators showed a balanced development trend.

2021年上半年,全国专利商标质押融资金额达1074亿元,同比增长25.9%;质押项目数6195个,同比增长32.4%。中国将进一步提高知识产权质押融资的普及度和惠益面,促进创新型中小微企业发展。(来源:中国知识产权资讯网)

In the first half of 2021, the national patent and trademark pledge financing amounted to 107.4 billion yuan, representing a year-on-year growth of 25.9%; the number of pledge projects was 6,195, representing a year-on-year growth of 32.4%. China will further enhance the popularization and beneficial coverage of intellectual property pledge financing to promote the development of innovative micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. (Source: http://www.iprchn.com)

经典案例:

法院判赔1000万:鸽牌公司与鸽皇集团长达10年的商标纠纷终尘埃落定

Damages of 10 Million Yuan Awarded by the Court! 10-year Trademark Dispute between Pigeon Company and GE HUANG Group Finally Settled

基本案情:

20011月,鸽牌公司设立,企业名称沿用至今。鸽牌公司对鸽牌品牌做了广泛的宣传推广,获得众多荣誉,营收巨大。

Case Summary:

In January 2001, Pigeon Company was established, and the company name has been in use ever since. Pigeon Company has made extensive publicity and promotion of the Pigeon brand and has won many honors and huge revenue.

鸽牌公司拥有第146035号“”商标,由鸽牌公司的前身重庆电线厂申请,于1981415日核准注册,核定使用在第9类的“电线”商品,2002425日经转让至鸽牌公司名下。该商标自2002年起至2014年期间多次被原重庆市工商局认定为重庆市著名商标。2010115日被商标局认定为驰名商标,此后,在2018年期间多次在商标异议、商标无效程序及行政诉讼中被作为驰名商标进行保护,“”商标在多个生效判决、裁定中被认定驰名的时间点为20081月开始至今。第3270081号“”商标由鸽牌公司申请,2004228日获准注册,核定使用在第9类“电缆”等商品。第16039215号“”商标由鸽牌公司申请,2016421日获准注册,核定使用在第9类“电线;电缆”等商品上。

Pigeon Company owns the Trademark No. 146035 "", which was trademarded by Chongqing Electric Wire Factory, the predecessor of Pigeon Company. The trademark was approved for registration on April 15, 1981 and was designated for use in goods of "Wires, electric" in class 9. The trademark was transferred to Pigeon Company on April 25, 2002. From 2002 to 2014, the trademark was recognized as a famous trademark in Chongqing for multiple times by the former Chongqing Industry and Commerce Bureau. The trademark was recognized as a well-known trademark by the Trademark Office on January 15, 2010. Since then, during 2018, the trademark had been protected as a well-known trademark for multiple times in trademark opposition and invalidation procedures and administrative litigation. The Trademark "" has been recognized as a well-known trademark in multiple effective judgments and rulings from January 2008 to the present. The Trademark No. 3270081 "" was applied for by Pigeon Company, approved for registration on February 28, 2004, and designated for use in goods of "Cables, electric" etc. in class 9. The Trademark No. 16039215 "" was applied for by Pigeon Company, approved for registration on April 21, 2016, and designated for use in goods of "Wires, electric; Cables, electric" etc. in class 9.

鸽皇集团原名为重庆吉青电线电缆有限公司,成立于2005524日,2008417日更名为重庆鸽皇电线电缆有限公司,2016516日再次更名为重庆鸽皇电线电缆集团有限公司,林应锋自20084月起担任公司的法定代表人。

GE HUANG Group, formerly known as Chongqing Jiqing Electric Wire and Cable Co., Ltd., was established on May 24, 2005, renamed Chongqing GE HUANG Electric Wire and Cable Co., Ltd. on April 17, 2008, and renamed Chongqing GE HUANG Electric Wire and Cable Group Co., Ltd. on May 16, 2016. LIN Yingfeng has served as the legal representative of the company since April 2008.

林应锋于200537日申请第4524253号“”商标,2007127日获准注册,核定使用在第9类的“电线;电缆”等商品。此外,林应锋还于20052月、20056月、20115月先后在第9类“电线;电缆”等商品上申请“鸽王牌及图”、“鸽王”、“鸽皇及图”商标,均因与鸽牌公司的第146035号和第3270081号商标构成近似而被驳回或成功异议。

The Trademark No. 4524253 "" was applied for by LIN Yingfeng on March 7, 2005, approved for registration on December 7, 2007, and designated for use in goods of "Wires, electric; Cables, electric" etc. in class 9. In addition, LIN Yingfeng also applied for the trademarks "鸽王(GE WANG) and device", "鸽王(GE WANG)", and "鸽皇(GE HUANG) and device" in goods of "Wires, electric; Cables, electric" etc. in class 9 in February 2005, June 2005, and May 2011 successively. All of these trademarks were rejected or successfully opposed because they constituted similar trademarks with the Trademarks No. 146035 and No. 3270081 of Pigeon Company.

20118月,鸽牌公司引证第146035号和第3270081号商标,对鸽皇集团的第4524253号“”商标向商评委提出无效宣告,20134月被商评委认定违反当时商标法28条及第31条的在先商号权,后该裁定因送达、使用证据是否全面评估的程序问题,20144月被北京高院撤销;201611月在第二轮无效宣告程序(商评委重裁)中,在补正程序问题后,商评委仍然适用28条及31条,宣告被诉标识无效。历经商评委重裁,行政诉讼一审、二审,201852日,该商标最终被北京市高级人民法院终审宣告无效。林应锋在该案的无效宣告评审和行政诉讼过程中,为了证明该商标经过鸽皇集团使用已经具有较高的知名度,提交了许可鸽皇集团使用该商标的证据,包括2005125日至20091015日,显示被诉标识和字号的发货单,2010年至2018年期间,鸽皇集团宣传销售“鸽皇”品牌的电线电缆产品的买卖合同、广告合同及宣传资料、价目表、门店照片及产品照片,大量使用了被诉标识和企业名称。

In August 2011, Pigeon Company cited Trademarks No. 146035 and No. 3270081 and requested the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) to rule that the trademark No. 4524253 "" of GE HUANG Group is invalid. In April 2013, the TRAB determined that the trademark violated Article 28 and Article 31 of the then Trademark Law on the prior right of trade name. Later, the ruling was vacated by the Beijing Higher People's Court in April 2014 due to procedural issues concerning service and comprehensive evaluation of evidence. In the second round of invalidation procedure (re-ruling by the TRAB) in November 2016, after rectification regarding the procedural issues, the TRAB still applied Article 28 and Article 31 to announce that the alleged mark is invalid. After re-ruling by the TRAB and the first and second instances of administrative litigation, on May 2, 2018, the trademark was finally invalidated by the Beijing Higher People's Court in the final judgment. During the review of invalidation and administrative litigation of the case, LIN Yingfeng, in order to prove that the trademark had enjoyed a high reputation after being used by GE HUANG Group, submitted evidence to prove that GE HUANG Group has been approved to use the trademark, including the dispatch bills showing the alleged mark and name during the period from December 5, 2005 to October 15, 2009, and sales contracts, advertising contracts, promotional materials, price lists, store photos and product photos for promoting and selling electric wires and cables of "鸽皇(GE HUANG)" brand by GE HUANG group from 2010 to 2018, in which the alleged mark and business name were widely used.

2010422日,重庆市原质量技术监督局在鸽皇集团的仓库内查货标有鸽牌公司字样的电线电缆,经鉴定系假冒鸽牌公司厂名厂址的产品,进行了行政处罚。2012年至2013年,鸽皇集团在第9111742等多个类别申请带有“鸽皇”字样的商标,均经异议决定不予核准注册。

On April 22, 2010, the former Chongqing Quality and Technology Supervision Bureau discovered and seized electric wires and cables marked with the words of Pigeon Company in the warehouse of GE HUANG Group. Upon identification, those were counterfeit products with the name and address of Pigeon Company. Administrative penalty was imposed on GE HUANG Group. From 2012 to 2013, GE HUANG Group applied for trademarks with the words "鸽皇(GE HUANG)" in goods of classes 9, 11, 17, 42, etc., but these trademarks were all rejected for registration after opposition.

201810月,鸽牌公司起诉鸽皇集团侵害商标权和不正当竞争,重庆市第五中级人民法院支持了鸽牌公司的诉讼请求,判赔1000万。鸽皇集团不服一审判决,向重庆市高级人民法院提出上诉。

In October 2018, Pigeon Company sued GE HUANG Group for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Chongqing Fifth Intermediate People's Court supported Pigeon Company's claims and awarded 10 million yuan in damages. GE HUANG Group was not satisfied with the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Chongqing Higher People's Court.

二、法院判决

重庆高院在2021716日,作出二审判决,驳回上诉,维持一审判决。最终判决鸽皇集团构成商标侵权和不正当竞争,应停止商标侵权、变更企业名称、赔偿经济损失999万元、在《重庆商报》刊登致歉声明以消除影响。幸福时光经营部构成商标侵权,应停止商标侵权、赔偿损失1万元。

II. Judgment of the Court

On July 16, 2021, the Chongqing Higher People's Court made the judgment of the second instance, rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of the first instance. In the final judgment, it was determined that the acts of GE HUANG Group constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and that GE HUANG Group shall cease the trademark infringement, change its company name, compensate 9.99 million yuan for the economic losses, and publish a statement of apology in the Chongqing Economic Times to eliminate the impact. The acts of Xingfu Shiguang Business Department constituted trademark infringement, and the department shall cease the trademark infringement and compensate 10,000 yuan for the losses.

三、典型意义

本案是一起通过无效宣告程序来辅助民事侵权的案件。本案明确了在商标侵权案件中普通诉讼时效和赔偿时效之间的关系。随着《民法总则》的施行,诉讼时效从“两年”变成“三年”。本案中,从20185月至起诉时201810月,并未超过三年的诉讼时效。在未过普通诉讼时效的情况下,侵权行为仍然在持续的,赔偿时效不受“三年”的限制。此外,本案还涉及商标的许可使用是否可以排除侵权、商标被无效宣告后之前的使用行为是否侵权、无效程序中提交的证据在民事案件中的采信等问题,也颇为值得关注。

III. Typical Significance

This case is a civil infringement case in which invalidation procedure plays an important role. This case clarified the relation between the general statute of limitations to bring an action and damages time limit in trademark infringement cases. With the implementation of the General Provisions of the Civil Law, the statute of limitations has changed from "two years" to "three years". In this case, the time period from May 2018 to October 2018 when the lawsuit was filed complies with the three-year limitation of action. In the case that the time period does not go beyond the statute of limitations and the infringement is still continuing, the damages time limit is not subject to the "three-year" limitation. In addition, this case also involves issues such as whether infringement can be excluded if a trademark is licensed for use, whether the use prior to invalidation of the trademark is infringement, and whether the evidence submitted in the invalidation procedure is admissible in the civil case, which are also worthy of attention.

集佳代理同方威视取得再审案件胜诉

Unitalen Client NucTech Won in a Retrial Case

案情回顾:

20173月,同方威视公司针对太弘威视公司向北京知识产权法院提起侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷诉讼,主张太弘威视公司在安检设备及官网、微博、微信、宣传资料及展会上使用含有“威视”的商标,侵害其第1341332号“威视”商标及第6989335号“威视NUCTECH及图”商标注册商标专用权;太弘威视公司在其企业名称中使用“威视”的行为构成不正当竞争。

Brief of the Case:

In March 2017, NucTech filed a lawsuit of trademark infringement and unfair competition against Taihong Vision in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that Taihong Vision used marks containing "威视(Weishi)" on security inspection equipment and official websites, Weibo, WeChat, and promotional materials as well as exhibitions, infringing NucTech's exclusive right to use the registered Trademarks No. 1341332 "威视(Weishi)" and No. 6989335 "威视NUCTECH and device", and that Taihong Vision’s use of "威视(Weishi)" in its company name constitutes unfair competition.

20198月,北京知识产权法院作出一审判决,认定被告从事的生产、销售、宣传含有文字“威视”的标识标示的涉案产品的行为,已构成对同方威视公司权利商标专用权的侵害,且太弘威视公司的第12125350号“”商标(该商标在行政诉讼一审二审再审及检察监督程序中,均被认定与同方威视公司的引证商标构成相同或类似商品上的近似商标,并在民事侵权诉讼一审诉讼阶段被宣告无效)曾为注册商标的事实不影响其侵犯同方威视注册商标专用权行为的成立。此外,“同方威视”字号在安检设备商品上已具有一定知名度,有一定影响力,太弘威视公司在企业名称中使用“威视”字样的行为构成不正当竞争。北京知识产权法院结合同方威视公司的“威视”商标及商号的知名度、太弘威视对同方威视公司的恶意等因素,酌情确定太弘威视公司赔偿同方威视公司经济损失及合理费用共计300万元。

In August 2019, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the judgment of the first instance and determined that the defendant's production, sales, and promotion of the products involved in the case with a mark containing the words "威视(Weishi)" constituted infringements of the exclusive right to use the trademark owned by NucTech, and that the fact that the Trademark No. 12125350 "" (this trademark, in the first instance, second instance, and retrial of the administrative litigation and the procurator supervision procedure, was determined to be a similar trademark on the same or similar goods as the cited trademark of NucTech, and was invalidated in the first instance of the civil infringement litigation) of Taihong Vision was a registered trademark does not affect the determination of its infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of NucTech. In addition, security inspection equipment products with the "同方威视(NucTech)" name have already gained a certain degree of popularity and influence, and Taihong Vision's use of the words "威视(Weishi)" in its company name constitutes unfair competition. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court, based on the popularity of NucTech's "威视(Weishi)" trademark and trade name, and maliciousness of Taihong Vision, as well as other factors, determined that Taihong Vision shall compensate NucTech for economic losses and reasonable expense for a total of 3 million yuan.

太弘威视公司对上述一审判决不服,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。202010月,北京市高级人民法院作出二审判决,驳回太弘威视公司的上诉,维持一审判决。

Taihong Vision was dissatisfied with the above judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. In October 2020, the Beijing Higher People's Court made the judgment of the second instance, rejected the appeal of Taihong Vision and upheld the judgment of the first instance.

太弘威视公司虽于202011月更名为太易宸钺公司,但仍对二审判决不服,并向最高人民法院申请再审。20216月,最高人民法院维持一审、二审判决的认定,裁定驳回太易宸钺公司的再审申请。

Although Taihong Vision changed its name to TECHIK in November 2020, it was still dissatisfied with the judgment of the second instance and applied for a retrial by the Supreme People's Court. In June 2021, the Supreme People's Court upheld the determination in the judgments of the first and second instances and rejected the retrial application submitted by TECHIK.

案件意义:

同方威视公司与太易宸钺公司之间的侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案以及商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案均经历了一审、二审、再审,其中商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案还经历了检察监督程序。集佳律师巧妙地运用民行交叉程序对太易宸钺公司的“”注册商标、含有“威视”的企业名称以及在经营活动中使用和宣传含有“威视”字样的标识的行为进行全面打击,并在各个程序中均获得胜诉结果,有力地维护了同方威视公司的知识产权。

Case Significance:

This trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case, as well as the case of administrative dispute over the request for trademark invalidation between NucTech and TECHIK all have gone through the first instance, second instance, and retrial, and the case of administrative dispute over the request for trademark invalidation has further gone through the procurator supervision procedure. Unitalen attorneys skillfully used both the civil and administrative procedure to comprehensively crack down hard on the registered trademark "" of TECHIK, the company name containing "威视(Weishi)", and the use and promotion of marks containing the words "威视(Weishi)" in business activities, and won the cases in every procedure, effectively protected the intellectual property rights of NucTech.

金蝶维权获胜:成都中院判决成都财智构成商标侵权和权利滥用

Kingdee Won the Right Protection Case! Chengdu Intermediate People's Court Ruled that Chengdu Moneywise's Acts Constituted Trademark Infringement and Abuse of Right

案情回顾:

金蝶公司拥有第1505793号“”商标、第26760297号“”商标、第4362974号“”商标、第28658925号“”商标及第18790329号“”商标(以下分别称“涉案商标1-5”)。其中,涉案商标12001114日核准注册,核定使用在第9类的“计算机软件、已录制的计算机程序”等商品上;涉案商标220181014日核准注册,核定使用在第9类“可下载的计算机应用软件、计算机程序”等商品上;涉案商标32008114日核准注册,核定使用在第16类“纸、印刷出版物”等商品上;涉案商标420181221日核准注册,核定使用在第16类“纸、分类账本、表格”等商品上;涉案商标5201727日核准注册,核定使用在第16类“纸、印刷纸、分类账本”等商品上。

Brief of the Case:

Kingdee owns the Trademarks No. 1505793 "", No. 26760297 "", No. 4362974 "", No. 28658925 "", and No. 18790329 "" (hereinafter referred to as "the involved trademarks 1-5" respectively). Among them, the involved trademark 1 was approved for registration on January 14, 2001 and designated for use in goods of "Computer software; Computer programs, recorded" etc. in class 9; the involved trademark 2 was approved for registration on October 14, 2018 and designated for use in goods of "Computer software applications, downloadable; Computer program" etc. in class 9; the involved trademark 3 was approved for registration on January 14, 2008 and designated for use in goods of "Paper; Printed publications" etc. in class 16; the involved trademark 4 was approved for registration on December 21, 2018 and designated for use in goods of "Paper; Ledgers [books]; Forms" etc. in class 16; the involved trademark 5 was approved for registration on February 7, 2017 and designated for use in goods of "Paper; Printing paper; Ledgers [books]" etc. in class 16.

200847日,黄洋与金蝶公司签订《金蝶员工入职声明》,其后作为该公司西部区总监负责采购物流、成都直销工作。201272日,财智公司成立,经营范围包括销售办公用品、文具用品,计算机软硬件的研发、销售及技术服务等。201375日,黄洋从金蝶公司离职后加入财智公司。201311日,据财智公司申请,经金蝶公司授权,财智公司成为成都地区金蝶配套产品的金牌合作伙伴,一直持续到201412月。20153月,金蝶公司开始使用“金蝶妙想”商标,至20156月,金蝶妙想商标在财务软件及财务凭证纸商品领域已具有较高的知名度。2015812日,黄洋成为财智公司的控股股东,持股比例100%,同时担任法定代表人,在本案立案受理后更换,在本案开庭时作为财智公司员工参加诉讼。

On April 7, 2008, Huang Yang signed the "Employment Statement of Kingdee Employee" with Kingdee, and later took charge of purchasing logistics and direct sales in Chengdu as the director in western region of the company. On July 2, 2012, the company Moneywise was established. Its business scope includes sales of office supplies and stationery, computer software and hardware R&D, sales and technical services, etc. On July 5, 2013, Huang Yang joined Moneywise after leaving Kingdee. On January 1, 2013, upon application of Moneywise and authorization of Kingdee, Moneywise became a golden partner of Kingdee selling auxiliary products in Chengdu, which continued until December 2014. In March 2015, Kingdee began to use the trademark "金蝶妙想(Kingdee Miaoxiang)". As of June 2015, the trademark 金蝶妙想(Kingdee Miaoxiang) had gained a high reputation in the fields of financial software and financial voucher paper products. On August 12, 2015, Huang Yang became the controlling shareholder of Moneywise with a 100% shareholding ratio and also served as the legal representative. He resigned from the legal representative position after the case was filed and participated in the litigation as an employee of Moneywise.

2015年初,财智公司在授权终止后,继续在财务软件及凭证纸商品领域开展经营活动,仍在销售金蝶软件及其配套的凭证纸。在销售的财务凭证纸商品上以及宣传推广中标注“适用于金蝶”,同时突出使用“金蝶”“Kingdee”标识。此后,财智公司更是先后于201511月和201711月在第16935类商品上分别申请第18233177号、第18233130号和第27329567号“金蝶妙想”商标。其中第18233177号“”商标于20161214日在第16类“纸”等商品上被核准注册,另两枚商标在异议程序中被国知局认定违反《商标法》第十五条第二款的规定,裁定不予注册。2017128日,财智公司利用其恶意抢注的“金蝶妙想”商标,对金蝶公司的“金蝶妙想”商标提起无效宣告程序,并在“京东”平台对金蝶公司经营的店铺进行恶意投诉,称其店铺内多处使用“金蝶妙想”侵害其第18233177号商标。金蝶公司于20171222日提交了《商标申诉书》向京东平台进行答辩。此后,被财智公司作为权利基础的第18233177号商标经金蝶公司申请,于201826日被国知局宣告无效。

At the beginning of 2015, after the termination of authorization, Moneywise continued to carry out business activities in the fields of financial software and voucher paper products, and was still selling Kingdee's software and its auxiliary voucher paper. Moneywise marked "applicable to Kingdee" on the financial voucher paper products sold and used "applicable to Kingdee" in publicity and promotion, and prominently used the marks "金蝶(Kingdee)" and "Kingdee". Since then, Moneywise even applied for registration of the Trademarks No. 18233177, No. 18233130 and No. 27329567 "金蝶妙想(Kingdee Miaoxiang)" on goods in classes 16, 9, and 35 in November 2015 and November 2017 respectively. Among them, the Trademark No. 18233177 "" was approved for registration on goods of "Paper" etc. in class 16 on December 14, 2016, and the other two trademarks were determined to violate Article 15.2 of the Trademark Law by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) during the opposition proceedings and thus were not approved for registration. On December 8, 2017, Moneywise used its maliciously squatted trademark "金蝶妙想(Kingdee Miaoxiang)" to file the invalidation procedure against Kingdee's trademark "金蝶妙想(Kingdee Miaoxiang)", and filed malicious complaints against the on-line store operated by Kingdee on JD, declaring that the use of "金蝶妙想(Kingdee Miaoxiang)" in multiple places in the store infringed the Trademark No. 18233177. On December 22, 2017, Kingdee submitted the "Trademark Appeal" to JD for defense. After that, the Trademark No. 18233177, which was used by Moneywise as the basis of rights, was invalidated by the CNIPA on February 6, 2018 upon request of Kingdee.

金蝶公司认为财智公司的前述行为侵害了其合法权益,委托集佳于20207月起诉财智公司侵害商标权和不正当竞争,案件由四川省成都市中级人民法院受理,并于2021720日审结。

Kingdee believed that the aforementioned actions of Moneywise infringed its legitimate rights and interests, and entrusted Unitalen to file a lawsuit against Moneywise for trademark infringement and unfair competition in July 2020. The case was accepted by the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court of Sichuan Province and was concluded on July 20, 2021.

二、法院判决

经审理,成都中院于2021720日作出本案判决,判令财智公司:

1.立即停止使用侵犯上述5枚涉案注册商标的标识;

2.立即停止销售侵犯第1505793号和第26760297号注册商标的财务软件;

3.赔偿经济损失130万元,并支付合理开支37026元;

4.在“深圳晚报”“成都商报”的显著位置连续7天刊登声明以及在京东“财智表单旗舰店”的显著位置连续30天刊登声明(声明内容需经本院审核),以消除影响。

II. Judgment of the Court

After trial, the Chengdu Intermediate People's Court made the judgment of this case on July 20, 2021, ordering Moneywise to:

1. immediately cease to use the mark that infringes the above 5 registered trademarks involved in the case;

2. immediately cease to sell the financial software that infringes the registered Trademarks No. 1505793 and No. 26760297;

3. compensate 1.3 million yuan for economic damages and pay 37,026 yuan for reasonable expenses;

4. publish a statement in the prominent position of Shenzhen Evening News and Chengdu Economic Daily for 7 consecutive days and publish a statement in the prominent position of "Moneywise Form Flagship Store" on JD for 30 consecutive days (the contents of the statements shall be reviewed by this court) to eliminate the influence.

三、典型意义

本案的典型意义主要表现在“通过反法二条来规制商标权利滥用行为”以及“商标合理使用的裁判规则”两个方面。

III. Typical Significance

The typical significance of this case is mainly manifested in the two aspects: "regulating the abuse of trademark rights through Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law" and "judgment rules for the fair use of trademarks".

About the Firm

Unitalen Attorneys at Law
Address 7th Floor, Scitech Place, No. 22 Jian Guo Men Wai Ave., Beijing, 100004 P. R. China
Tel 86-10-5920 8888
Fax 86-10-5920 8588
Email mail@unitalen.com
Link www.unitalen.com

Related Newsletters

30
AUG
2021
30
AUG
2021
業界ニュース 第32回中仏知的財産権混合委員会ビデオ会議が開催  7...

Read More

06
AUG
2021
06
AUG
2021
业界新闻: 中国最高人民法院关于审理申请注册的药品相关的专利权纠...

Read More

06
AUG
2021
06
AUG
2021
業界ニュース: 最高人民法院による登録が申請された医薬品に関連す...

Read More

18
JUN
2021
18
JUN
2021
业界新闻: 中国首个国际商标信息官方查询系统上线运行 China's First ...

Read More

18
JUN
2021
18
JUN
2021
業界ニュース: 中国初の国際商標情報公式検索システムが運用開始 4...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7