业界新闻：
中国国家知识产权局办公室印发《关键数字技术专利分类体系（2023）》
Key Digital Technology Patent Classification System (2023) Issued by the Office of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)
为贯彻落实党的二十大关于加快发展数字经济相关部署要求，加强对关键数字技术专利规模、结构、质量的统计监测，助力数字经济关键核心技术攻关，推动数字技术成果转化，促进数字经济和实体经济深度融合，特制定本分类体系。
In order to implement the relevant deployment requirements of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on accelerating the development of the digital economy, strengthen the statistical monitoring of the scale, structure and quality of key digital technology patents, facilitate to tackle the key core technologies of the digital economy, promote the transformation of the results of digital technology, and promote the deep integration of the digital economy and the real economy, the classification system is hereby formulated.
Full text attached: Key Digital Technology Patent Classification System (2023)
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
《关于商标注册同日申请程序的指引》发布
Guidelines on the Procedures of Same-Day Application for Trademark Registration Issued
为深入贯彻落实《“十四五”国家知识产权保护和运用规划》关于加强知识产权源头保护，强化知识产权申请注册质量监管的部署，帮助经营主体了解商标注册同日申请相关法律规定及审查流程，引导商标申请人遵循诚实信用原则，合理提出商标注册申请，国家知识产权局组织编写了《关于商标注册同日申请程序的指引》，供相关经营主体参考使用。
In order to thoroughly and earnestly implement the deployment of the National Intellectual Property Protection and Use Plan During the 14th Five-Year Plan Period on strengthening the source protection of intellectual property, intensify the quality supervision of intellectual property application for registration, help business entities understand the relevant legal provisions and examination process of same-day application for trademark registration, and guide the applicant of the trademark to follow the principle of integrity, honesty and credibility, and reasonably file applications for trademark registration, the CNIPA has organized compilation of the Guidelines on the Procedures of Same-Day Application for Trademark Registration for the reference of relevant business entities.
附全文：关于商标注册同日申请程序的指引
Full text attached: Guidelines on the Procedures of Same-Day Application for Trademark Registration
（来源：中国国家知识产权局政务微信）
(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)
《关于商标转让程序的指引》发布
Guidelines on Trademark Assignment Procedures Issued
为深入贯彻落实《“十四五”国家知识产权保护和运用规划》关于加强知识产权源头保护，强化知识产权申请注册质量监管的部署，帮助经营主体了解商标转让相关法律规定及审查流程，引导商标转让申请人遵循诚实信用原则，合理提出商标转让申请，防止因商标转让导致混淆或者其他不良影响，国家知识产权局组织编写了《关于商标转让程序的指引》，供相关经营主体参考使用。
In order to thoroughly and earnestly implement the deployment of the National Intellectual Property Protection and Use Plan During the 14th Five-Year Plan Period on strengthening the source protection of intellectual property, intensify the quality supervision of intellectual property application for registration, help business entities understand the relevant legal provisions and examination process of trademark assignment, guide the applicant of the trademark transfer to follow the principle of integrity, honesty and credibility, and reasonably file applications for trademark transfer, and prevent confusion or other adverse effects caused by trademark assignment, the CNIPA has organized compilation of the Guidelines on Trademark Assignment Procedures for the reference of relevant business entities.
附全文：关于商标转让程序的指引
Full text attached: Guidelines on Trademark Assignment Procedures
（来源：中国国家知识产权局政务微信）
(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)
中华人民共和国最高人民法院发布2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China Releases 2023 People's Court Typical Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Cases
9月14日，最高人民法院发布2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例。本次共发布10件典型案例，包括5件反垄断典型案例和5件反不正当竞争典型案例。
On September 14, the Supreme People's Court released the 2023 People's Court typical anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition cases. A total of 10 typical cases were released this time, including 5 typical anti-monopoly cases and 5 typical anti-unfair competition cases.
5件反垄断典型案例中，3件滥用市场支配地位类案件涉及不公平高价、限定交易、附加不合理交易条件、拒绝交易等4种类型的滥用行为，2件垄断协议类案件分别涉及纵向协议和横向协议。案件涉及医药、殡葬、汽车销售和建材等行业，均与民生息息相关。5件反不正当竞争典型案例涉及案件类型包括不正当竞争一般条款的适用、混淆、虚假宣传、侵害技术秘密及网络不正当竞争纠纷。案件涉及的领域既包括家用电器、短视频、网络游戏、餐饮点评等生活消费领域，也包括诊断试剂等高科技领域。
Of the 5 typical anti-monopoly cases, 3 cases in the category of abuse of dominant market position involve 4 types of abusive acts, such as unfairly high prices, limiting transactions, attaching unreasonable trading conditions, and refusing to trade, while 2 cases in the category of monopoly agreements involve vertical and horizontal agreements, respectively. The cases involve industries such as medicine, funeral and interment, car sales and building materials, all of which are closely related to people's livelihoods. The 5 typical cases of anti-unfair competition involve types of cases including disputes over the application of general terms of unfair competition, confusion, false advertising, infringement of technical secrets and unfair competition on the Internet. The cases involve both living consumption areas such as household appliances, short videos, online games and restaurant reviews, as well as high-tech areas such as diagnostic reagents.
Related link: Typical Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Cases in 2023 by the People's Court
（来源：中华人民共和国最高人民法院）
(Source: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China)
中国GII科技集群数量位居全球首位
Global Innovation Index (GII): China Hosts Most Science and Technology Clusters
近日，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）提前发布的2023年全球创新指数（GII）“科技集群”排名显示，全球五大科技集群均位于东亚，中国占据三席；全球百强科技集群榜单中，中国成为拥有科技集群数量最多的国家。
Recently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) early-released the 2023 Global Innovation Index (GII) "science and technology clusters" ranking, revealing that all five top science and technology clusters are in East Asia with three in China. When the rankings extend to top 100, China is the country with the most clusters.
数据显示，2023年，全球五大科技集群中，东京—横滨作为全球最大的科技集群荣登榜首，深圳—香港—广州、首尔、北京和上海—苏州集群紧随其后。
The data shows that in 2023, Tokyo-Yokohama (Japan) leads as the largest global science and technology cluster, followed by Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou (China and Hong Kong, China), Seoul (Republic of Korea), China's Beijing and Shanghai-Suzhou clusters.
除中国外，其他中等收入经济体的科技集群也实现了强劲的科技产出增长，尤其是印度，该国拥有4个顶级科技集群，其中钦奈和班加罗尔的发明人和科学作者密度增幅最大。巴西、印度、土耳其等新兴经济体的科技集群发展尤为迅速。
Science and technology clusters located in other middle-income economies besides China also saw strong science and technology output growth, notably in India which has 4 top science and technology clusters, with Chennai and Bengaluru experiencing the biggest increases in density of inventors and scientific authors. Science and technology clusters in certain emerging economies grew at a particularly fast pace, including Brazil, India, Turkey, and others.
（来源：中国知识产权报微信）
(Source: Official WeChat Account of China Intellectual Property News)
第十四届中国—东盟知识产权局局长会议举行
14th Meeting of China-ASEAN Heads of Intellectual Property Offices Held
9月16日，第十四届中国—东盟知识产权局局长会议在广西南宁举行。中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨主持会议，东盟知识产权合作工作组轮值主席、老挝工商部知识产权司司长丰沙瓦出席会议并致辞。中国国家知识产权局副局长卢鹏起，东盟秘书处市场一体化局局长黎光兰和东盟十国知识产权主管部门负责人出席。
The 14th Meeting of China-ASEAN Heads of Intellectual Property Offices was held in Nanning, Guangxi Province on September 16. Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) presided over the meeting. Santisouk Phounesavath, Rotating Chair of the ASEAN Intellectual Property Cooperation Working Group (AWGIPC) and Director General of the Department of Intellectual Property, Ministry of Industry and Commerce of Lao PDR attended the meeting and delivered remarks. Lu Pengqi, Deputy Commissioner of the CNIPA, Lan Quang Le, Director of the Market Integration Directorate of ASEAN Economic Community Department under the ASEAN Secretariat and heads of IP offices of the ASEAN's 10 member states were also present.
会议听取了中方代表报告的《中国—东盟2022—2023年度知识产权合作工作计划落实情况》，并审议通过了《中国—东盟2023—2024年度知识产权合作工作计划》。
The meeting heard China's report on the implementation of the China-ASEAN IP cooperation plan for 2022-2023 and reviewed and approved the China-ASEAN IP Cooperation Work Program 2023-2024.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
典型案例：
西门子股份公司、西门子（中国）有限公司与宁波奇帅电器有限公司、昆山新维创电器有限公司等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案
Infringement of Trademark Rights and Unfair Competition Disputes Case Between Siemens AG, Siemens (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qishuai Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., Kunshan Xinweichuang Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. and Others
基本案情
Case Brief
核准注册在洗衣机商品上的涉案注册商标“西门子”由西门子股份公司（简称西门子公司）及西门子（中国）有限公司（简称西门子中国公司）享有专用权，经过长期使用具有较高知名度。西门子公司及西门子中国公司的字号“西门子”亦具有一定的影响。宁波奇帅电器有限公司（简称奇帅公司）在其生产销售的洗衣机产品、产品外包装及相关宣传活动中使用了“上海西门子电器有限公司”标识；个人独资企业昆山新维创电器有限公司（简称新维创公司）销售了前述被诉侵权产品。西门子公司及西门子中国公司以奇帅公司、新维创公司的前述行为侵害了其注册商标专用权并构成不正当竞争为由提起本案诉讼，请求赔偿经济损失1亿元及合理开支163000元。江苏省高级人民法院一审认为，奇帅公司、新维创公司的行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，全额支持了西门子公司及西门子中国公司的赔偿请求。奇帅公司等不服，提起上诉。
Siemens AG (hereinafter referred to as "Siemens Company") and Siemens (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Siemens China Company") enjoy the exclusive right of the involved registered trademark "Siemens" as approved and registered on washing machine products, and the trademark has a high reputation after long-term use. The brand name "Siemens" of Siemens Company and Siemens China Company also has a certain impact. Ningbo Qishuai Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Qishuai Company") used the logo of "Shanghai Siemens Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd." in the production and sale of washing machine products, product packaging and relevant publicity activities, while Kunshan Xinweichuang Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xinweichuang Company"), a sole proprietorship, sold the aforesaid alleged infringing products. Siemens Company and Siemens China Company filed this action on the ground that the aforesaid acts of Qishuai Company and Xinweichuang Company had infringed upon their exclusive right to the registered trademark and constituted unfair competition, and requested compensation of 100 million RMB for economic losses and 163,000 RMB for reasonable expenses. The Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held in the first instance that the acts of Qishuai Company and Xinweichuang Company constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and fully supported the compensation claims of Siemens Company and Siemens China Company. Qishuai Company and others were dissatisfied and appealed.
最高人民法院二审认为，奇帅公司在洗衣机机身上、商品外包装及宣传活动中使用“上海西门子电器有限公司”，分别对西门子公司构成商标侵权及反不正当竞争法第六条第二项、第四项规定的不正当竞争行为。鉴于奇帅公司在诉讼中拒不提供与侵权行为相关的财务资料，一审法院将在案的媒体报道内容作为销售总额的计算依据，并按照十五分之一计算被诉侵权产品的销售额占比，进而确定赔偿额的做法并无不当。虽现有证据无法证明侵权获利及侵权损失，但足以认定奇帅公司因生产、销售被诉侵权产品而获得的利益明显超过反不正当竞争法第十七条第四款规定的法定赔偿最高限额，综合考虑西门子公司及西门子中国公司企业名称具有较高的知名度，奇帅公司具有明显的主观恶意、侵权规模、侵权持续时间，并结合洗衣机产品的利润率等因素，一审确定的赔偿数额并无不当。最高人民法院二审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。
After a second-instance hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that Qishuai Company's use of "Shanghai Siemens Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd." in washing machines, commodity packaging and publicity activities constituted trademark infringement of Siemens Company and unfair competition as prescribed in items (2) and (4) of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Considering that Qishuai Company refused to provide the financial materials related to the infringement acts in the litigation, it was not improper for the court of first instance to take media coverage on record as the basis for calculating the total sales amount, and calculate the proportion of sales amount of the allegedly infringing products on the basis of a fifteenth, and then determine the amount of damages. Although the existing evidence could not prove the profits from the infringement and the losses from the infringement, it was sufficient to determine that Qishuai Company's benefits from the production and sale of the alleged infringing products obviously exceeded the statutory maximum amount of compensation as prescribed in paragraph 4 of Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Considering that the enterprise names of Siemens Company and Siemens China Company have relatively high popularity, Qishuai Company had obvious subjective malice, the scale of infringement, the duration of infringement, and in consideration of the profit margin of washing machine products and other factors, the amount of compensation determined in the first instance was not inappropriate. The second instance of the Supreme People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
典型意义
Typical significance
本案是打击仿冒混淆行为的典型案例。本案中，人民法院认定将与他人有一定影响的企业名称中的字号及注册商标相同或相近似的标识作为字号使用，并从事经营活动的行为构成反不正当竞争法第六条规定的不正当竞争行为。同时，在现有证据无法证明侵权获利及实际损失具体数额的情况下，人民法院细化了确定赔偿数额的考量因素。本案裁判对混淆行为的认定、赔偿数额的计算等法律适用问题具有示范意义。
This case is a typical case of cracking down on the act of counterfeiting and causing confusion. In this case, the people's court has determined that the use of a mark which is identical with or similar to the brand name and registered trademark of an enterprise name with a certain level of influence as a brand name and the business operations conducted by the enterprise constitute an act of unfair competition as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. At the same time, under the circumstance where the existing evidence cannot prove the profits from the infringement and the specific amount of actual losses, the people's court has specified the considerations for determining the amount of compensation. The judgment of this case is of exemplary significance to the determination of confusion, calculation of compensation amount, and other issues concerning the application of law.
（案件来源：最高人民法院﹝2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例﹞）
(Source of case: Supreme People's Court (2023 People's Court Typical Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Cases))
广州蒙娜丽莎建材有限公司、广州蒙娜丽莎洁具有限公司与国家知识产权局商标争议行政纠纷诉讼监督案
Case on Supervision of Litigation on Administrative Disputes over Trademark Disputes Between Guangzhou Monalisa Building Materials Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Monalisa Bath Ware Co., Ltd. and the CNIPA
基本案情
Case Brief
申请人（一审第三人，二审上诉人，再审申请人）：广州蒙娜丽莎建材有限公司（以下简称建材公司），住所地广东省广州市。
Applicant (the third party in the first instance, the appellant in the second instance, and the petitioner for retrial): Guangzhou Monalisa Building Materials Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the building materials company), in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province.
申请人（一审第三人，二审上诉人，再审申请人）：广州蒙娜丽莎洁具有限公司（以下简称洁具公司），住所地广东省广州市。
Applicant (the third party in the first instance, the appellant in the second instance, and the petitioner for retrial): Guangzhou Monalisa Bath Ware Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the bath ware company), in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province.
其他当事人（一审原告，二审被上诉人，再审被申请人）：蒙娜丽莎集团股份有限公司（以下简称蒙娜丽莎公司），住所地广东省佛山市。
Other party (the plaintiff in the first instance, the appellee in the second instance, and the respondent in the retrial): Monalisa Group Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Monalisa company), in Foshan, Guangdong Province.
其他当事人（一审被告，二审上诉人）：国家知识产权局，住所地北京市。
Other party (the defendant in first instance, and the appellant in second instance): China National Intellectual Property Administration, in Beijing.
本案争议商标为第4356344号“M MONALISA及图”商标，系广东蒙娜丽莎新型材料集团有限公司（以下简称新型材料公司，本案二审期间，更名为蒙娜丽莎公司）于2004年11月10日申请注册，2008年9月14日核准注册，核定使用在第11类“灯、烹调器具、高压锅（电加压炊具）、盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”等商品上。
The disputed trademark in this case is No. 4356344 "M MONALISA and device" trademark, which was applied for registration by Guangdong Monalisa New Materials Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as new materials company, the name being changed to Monalisa Group during the second instance) on November 10, 2004, approved for registration on September 14, 2008, and approved for use on goods in Class 11 including "lamps, cooking apparatuses, pressure cookers (autoclaves, electric, for cooking), bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls" and the like.
本案引证商标为第1558842号“蒙娜丽莎Mona Lisa”商标，系广州现代康体设备有限公司1999年12月28日申请注册，2001年4月21日核准注册，核定使用在第11类“蒸气浴设备、桑拿浴设备、浴室装置”等商品上。2012年4月18日转让至建材公司和洁具公司名下。
The cited trademark in this case is No. 1558842 "蒙娜丽莎 Mona Lisa" trademark, which was applied for registration by Guangzhou Modern Kangti Apparatus Co., Ltd on December 28, 1999, approved for registration on April 21, 2001, and approved for use on goods in Class 11 including "steam bath apparatus, Sauna bath installations, bath fittings" and the like. The cited trademark was assigned to building materials company and the bath ware company on April 18, 2012.
第1476867号“M MONALISA蒙娜丽莎及图”商标，系南海市樵东陶瓷有限公司1999年7月12日申请注册，2000年11月21日核准注册，核定使用在第19类“非金属地板砖、瓷砖、建筑用非金属墙砖、建筑用嵌砖”等商品上，于2011年6月28日变更注册人为新型材料公司。
The trademark No. 1476867 "M MONALISA蒙娜丽莎 and device" was applied for registration by Nanhai Qiaodong Ceramics Co., Ltd on July 12, 1999, approved for registration on November 21, 2000, and approved for use on goods in Class 19 including "floor tiles, not of metal; ceramic tile; wall tiles, not of metal, for building; inlaid bricks, for building" and the like. The name of the trademark registrant was changed to the new materials company on June 28, 2011.
2012年3月30日，建材公司、洁具公司针对争议商标向原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会提起争议申请，以争议商标与引证商标、第3541267号“monalisa及图”商标构成类似商品上的近似商标为由，请求撤销争议商标。2013年11月25日，商标评审委员会作出商评字[2013]第116692号《关于第4356344号“M MONALISA及图”商标争议裁定书》（以下简称被诉裁定）认为：争议商标核定使用的“烹调器具、高压锅（电加压炊具）、盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”商品与引证商标核定使用的商品构成类似商品，争议商标与引证商标构成使用在类似商品上的近似商标，违反了2001年修正的《中华人民共和国商标法》（以下简称商标法）第二十八条的规定，裁定争议商标在“烹调器具、高压锅（电加压炊具）、盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”商品上予以撤销，在其余商品上予以维持。
On March 30, 2012, the building materials company and the bath ware company filed a dispute application with the former Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of State Administration for Industry and Commerce against the disputed trademark, requesting to revoke the disputed trademark on the ground that the disputed trademark, the cited trademark, and the trademark No. 3541267 "monalisa and device", constituted similar trademarks on similar goods. On November 25, 2013, the TRAB issued the Shang Ping Zi [2013] No. 116692 <Decision on Trademark Dispute Against Reg. No. 4356344 "M MONALISA and Device"> (hereinafter referred to as the Sued Decision), which held that the goods including "cooking apparatuses, pressure cookers (autoclaves, electric, for cooking), bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls" approved for use by the disputed trademark and the goods approved for use by the cited trademark constitute similar goods. The disputed trademark and the cited trademark constitute similar trademarks used on the similar goods, which does not comply with the provision of Article 28 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China revised in 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law). It was ruled that the disputed trademark should be revoked on goods including "cooking apparatuses, pressure cookers (autoclaves, electric, for cooking), bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls", and upheld on the remaining goods.
新型材料公司不服，提起行政诉讼。诉讼中，新型材料公司明确表示要求“盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”两商品予以维持注册，其他不予核准的商品不再要求维持注册。
The new materials company was dissatisfied and instituted an administrative litigation. In the litigation, the new materials company explicitly requested that the registration on the two goods of "bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls" shall be upheld, and no longer request to uphold the registration on the other unapproved goods.
北京市第一中级人民法院一审认为：第1476867号商标系新型材料公司的基础商标，该商标与争议商标在图形、英文呼叫方面完全相同。第1476867号商标核定使用的“瓷砖”商品与争议商标核定使用的“盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”商品应属于类似商品。第1476867号商标在“瓷砖”商品上曾被认定为驰名商标，其商业信誉可以在争议商标上延续。争议商标与引证商标在整体视觉效果上区别明显，不构成近似商标。判决撤销被诉裁定，由商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。
Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court held in the first instance that the trademark No. 1476867 is the basic trademark of new material Company, which is identical to the disputed trademark in terms of graphics and the pronunciation in English. The goods "ceramic tile" approved for use by the trademark No. 1476867 shall belong to the similar goods to the goods "bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls" approved for use by the disputed trademark. The trademark No. 1476867 was once recognized as a well-known trademark on the goods of "ceramic tile", and its commercial reputation can be extended in the disputed trademark. The disputed trademark and the cited trademark can be clearly distinguished in terms of their overall visual effect and do not constitute similar trademarks. It was decided that the Sued Decision shall be revoked and the TRAB shall make a new decision.
商标评审委员会及建材公司、洁具公司不服，上诉至北京市高级人民法院。二审期间，新型材料公司名称变更为蒙娜丽莎公司。2016年6月8日，北京市高级人民法院作出二审判决认定，争议商标核定使用的“盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”商品，与引证商标核定使用的“蒸气浴设备、桑拿浴设备、浴室装置”等商品不构成类似商品；争议商标与引证商标的标志在构成要素和整体外观上存在较大差异，不构成近似商标；第1476867号商标在“瓷砖”商品上的商誉可以延续至争议商标，相关公众可以在相关商品上将争议商标与引证商标区别开来，不会对商品的来源产生混淆误认。判决驳回上诉，维持原判。建材公司、洁具公司申请再审，再审申请被驳回。
The TRAB, building materials company and bath ware company were dissatisfied, and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. During the second instance, the name of the new materials company was changed to Monalisa Group. On June 8, 2016, the Beijing Higher People's Court made the following judgments in the second instance: the goods "bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls" approved for use by the disputed trademark and the goods including "steam bath apparatus, Sauna bath installations, bath fittings" and the like approved for use by the cited trademark do not constitute similar goods; the disputed trademark is significantly distinguished from the cited trademark in terms of the constituent elements and overall appearance of the marks, and the two do not constitute similar trademarks; the commercial reputation of the trademark No. 1476867 on "ceramic tile" goods can be extended in the disputed trademark, and the relevant public can distinguish the disputed trademark from the cited trademark on relevant goods and will not confuse or misidentify the source of goods. It was ordered to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment. The building materials company and the bath ware company applied for retrial and the retrial request was rejected.
案涉商标如下：
Trademarks involved in this case are as follows:
检察机关履职过程
The performance process of procuratorial organ
建材公司、洁具公司不服二审判决，向北京市人民检察院申请监督，该院经审查后提请最高人民检察院抗诉。2021年11月11日，最高人民检察院向最高人民法院提出抗诉，认为本案二审判决认定事实和适用法律均存在错误。最高人民法院指令北京市高级人民法院再审。2022年6月14日，北京市高级人民法院作出判决，认为争议商标与引证商标构成使用在类似商品上的近似商标。蒙娜丽莎公司所提交的证据尚不足以证明，本案争议商标申请注册时其第1476867号商标已经具有较高知名度。且第1476867号商标注册在第19类商品上，与争议商标和引证商标核定使用的第11类商品分属于不同的商品类别，不同商品上的商誉不能当然地延续到其他类别的商品上。蒙娜丽莎公司所提交的证据亦不足以证明，基于其第1476867号商标在“瓷砖”商品上的知名度，客观上足以使争议商标在“盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”商品上与引证商标相区分。因此，争议商标注册在“盥洗室（抽水马桶）、坐便器”商品上违反了商标法第二十八条的规定。北京市高级人民法院再审改判撤销本案二审判决和一审判决，驳回蒙娜丽莎公司的诉讼请求。
The building materials company and the bath ware company were dissatisfied with the second instance judgment and applied for supervision to the People's Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality, which examined the case and submitted it to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for counter-appeal. On November 11, 2021, the Supreme People's Procuratorate lodged a counter-appeal to the Supreme People's Court, arguing that the determination of facts and application of laws in the second instance judgment of this case were both incorrect. The Supreme People's Court ordered the Beijing Higher People's Court to make a retrial. On June 14, 2022, the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled that the disputed trademark and the cited trademark constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods. The evidences submitted by the Monalisa Group are not sufficient to prove that the trademark No. 1476867 already had a high reputation when the application for registration of the disputed trademark of this case was filed. Moreover, the trademark No. 1476867 was registered on the goods in Class 19, which belongs to a different class of goods from the Class 11 of goods for which the disputed trademark and the cited trademark are approved for use, and the commercial reputation of different goods certainly cannot be extended to the other classes of goods. The evidences submitted by the Monalisa Group are also insufficient to prove that, based on the popularity of its trademark No. 1476867 on the goods of "ceramic tile", the disputed trademark can be objectively distinguished from the cited trademark on the goods of "bathroom (water closets), toilet bowls". Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark on the goods of "(water closets), toilet bowls" does not comply with the provisions of Article 28 of the Trademark Law. The Beijing Higher People's Court revoked the second instance judgment and the first instance judgment of this case in the retrial, and rejected the litigation claims of Monalisa Group.
该案是最高检知识产权检察办公室成立以来，首例提起抗诉并成功改判的行政诉讼监督案件。
The case is the first administrative litigation supervision case in which the Intellectual Property Prosecution Office of the Supreme People's Procuratorate has filed a counter-appeal and successfully changed the judgment since its establishment.
指导意义
Guiding significance
（一）对于类似商品和近似商标的认定，应以商标用于区分商品或者服务来源的核心功能为据，着重审查判断是否易使相关公众混淆、误认。
(I) The determination of similar goods and similar trademarks should be based on the core function of the trademark in distinguishing the source of goods or services, with emphasis on the examination and judgment as to whether it is likely to cause confusion or misidentification among the relevant public.
（二）商标注册人对其注册的不同商标享有各自独立的商标专用权，其先后注册的商标之间不当然具有延续关系，司法实务中应严格把握商标延续性注册的适用条件。
(II) The trademark registrant is entitled to the independent exclusive right to the different trademarks registered thereby, and the trademarks registered successively do not have the continuity relationship, and the application conditions for the continuity of the trademark registration should be strictly handled in juridical practice.
（三）检察机关办理知识产权案件，一般应当开展类案检索。类案检索，是对与待决案件的基本事实、争议焦点、法律适用方面具有相似性的生效法律文书进行检索，并参照或参考检索到的类案文书办理案件。
(III) In handling intellectual property cases, the procuratorial organ should generally conduct a search for similar cases. The search for similar cases is a search for legal instruments in force that are similar to the basic facts, points of contention and application of the law of the pending case, and the case should be handled with reference to the searched instruments of similar cases.
（案件来源：最高人民检察院）
(Source of case: the Supreme People's Procuratorate)
集佳新闻：
集佳荣膺知名IP专刊《专利律师》中国区“2023年度十佳专利事务所”称号
Unitalen Awarded "Top 10 Law Firms of 2023" in China by the Renowned IP Publication The Patent Lawyer
近日，全球知名法律媒体CTC Legal Media旗下的核心IP专刊《专利律师》杂志(The Patent Lawyer magazine)公布了2023年度十佳专利事务所排行榜，集佳知识产权凭借在专利领域的优质服务和出色业绩荣膺中国区“2023年度十佳专利事务所”称号。
Recently, The Patent Lawyer magazine, the core IP publication of CTC Legal Media, a world-renowned legal media, announced the ranking list of Top 10 Law Firms in 2023, and Unitalen Attorneys at Law was awarded "Top 10 Law Firms of 2023" in China for its high quality services and outstanding performance in the patent field.
集佳合伙人赵雷律师应邀参加国际知识产权律师联合会（FICPI）公开论坛并发表演讲
Attorney ZHAO Lei, Partner of Unitalen, Was Invited to Attend the Open Forum of International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI), and Delivered a Speech
2023年10月4-7日，第21届国际知识产权律师联合会公开论坛（The FICPI 21st Open Forum）在英国伦敦盛大举行。集佳合伙人赵雷律师应邀参加论坛并作为专家组专家参加了10月5日关于“多边知识产权条约的发展”议程的专家讨论环节，并发表演讲。
The FICPI 21st Open Forum was held on October 4-7, 2023 in London, UK. Attorney Zhao Lei, Unitalen partner, was invited to attend the forum and delivered a speech as a panelist in the expert discussion session on the agenda of "Development of Multilateral Intellectual Property Treaties" on October 5.
.jpg)