He X v. Beijing XinBang Daikokuya Trading Corporation, Ltd.
Case Analysis
He X v. Beijing XinBang Daikokuya Trading Corporation, Ltd.
“大黑屋”商标侵权纠纷案
Docket No.: No. 2139, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京73)
Lower Court Docket No.: No. 3664, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court (京0101)
一审案号：（2019）京0101民初3664号
二审案号：（2020）京73民终2139号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
Under the current trademark law system of China, registration is still the main way to the exclusive right to use a trademark. In absence of clear evidence on ill intention or use of improper means, where a registrant registers a brand held by a person in a foreign country as a trademark, the exclusive right to use a trademark should be protected by law. If there is certain connection between goods and services in that the functional purpose of the goods closely relates to the contents of the services and they have overlaps in the way they are provided and in the consumers, making the public confused easily, we should regard them as similar goods and services. If their operators use identical or similar marks that are easy to cause confusion, this may constitute trademark infringement.
在我国现行商标法制度中，注册仍然是商标专用权取得的主要方式。在没有证据证明具有明显恶意或使用不正当手段的情况下，商标注册者将他人在境外持有的品牌注册为商标，该商标专用权应得到法律保护。当商品和服务之间存在特定联系，商品的功能用途与服务的目的内容紧密相关，两者的提供方式和消费对象存在重合，容易使相关公众混淆时，则应当认定两者构成类似商品和服务，两者的经营者使用相同或近似商标易引起混淆，可能构成商标侵权。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellee：HE X
Defendant-Appellant: BEIJING XINBANG DAIKOKUYA TRADING CORPORATION, LTD.
上诉人（原审被告）：北京信邦大黑屋商贸有限责任公司（简称信邦大黑屋公司）
被上诉人（原审原告）：何某
Daikokuya Holdings Co. Ltd. (“Japan Daikokuya”) founded in 1947 is a Japan-based famous secondhand luxury goods company and has been operating under “Daikokuya” brand since its establishment. During 2009-2010, as reviewed and approved by Trademark Office, the Plaintiff He X registered “DHW 大黑屋” Trademark No. 5732822 and “大黑屋” Trademark No. 11844700 on “selling for others” and other services in Class 35, and “DHW 大黑屋” Trademark No. 5732821 on “treasure valuation and pawn” and other services in Class 36. The Defendant Beijing XinBang Daikokuya Trading Corporation, Ltd. ("XinBang Daikokuya") is a joint venture company jointly established by Japan Daikokuya and ZhongAn XinBang Asset Management Corporation Ltd. in China. He X was aware that XinBang Daikokuya used “信黑屋” and “大黑屋” Chinese characters in its official WeChat account, shop sign, business card, product tags and promotional materials when it traded in secondhand luxury goods. He X considered that the aforesaid act of XinBang Daikokuya infringed his exclusive right to use the involved trademarks, and sued XinBang Daikokuya to the court, claiming its liabilities to stop its infringement, to compensate for his economic losses and to eliminate the impact of the infringement.
大黑屋控股股份有限公司（简称日本大黑屋公司）成立于1947年，是日本著名二手奢侈品企业，自成立起一直使用“大黑屋”品牌。2009-2010年期间，原告何某经商标局核准，在第35类“替他人推销”等服务上注册了第5732822号“DHW大黑屋”商标及第11844700号“大黑屋”商标，在第36类“珍宝估价、典当”等服务上注册了第5732821号“DHW大黑屋”商标。被告信邦大黑屋公司系日本大黑屋公司与中安信邦资产管理有限公司在中国成立的合资企业。何某发现信邦大黑屋公司在进行二手奢侈品买卖过程中，在其微信公众号界面上、店招、名片、商品吊牌、宣传资料上使用了“信黑屋”“大黑屋”字样。何某认为，信邦大黑屋公司上述行为侵害了其对涉案权利商标享有的专用权，故将信邦大黑屋公司诉至法院，要求其承担停止侵权、赔偿经济损失及消除影响的侵权责任。
Dongcheng District People’s Court of Beijing in the first instance held that the Plaintiff had registered the involved trademarks and there was no evidence of prior right formed on “大黑屋” brand in China or evidence that the Plaintiff had the ill intention of trademark squatting or used improper means, so the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use registered trademark in respect of the trademarks in dispute should be protected by law. According to ascertained facts, the “信黑屋” and “大黑屋” marks used by the Defendant in its operation are similar marks to the trademarks in dispute, and the key to decide whether the Defendant has committed the crime of infringement lies in whether the goods and services operated by the Defendant and the goods and services on which the trademarks in dispute are approved to use are identical or similar. The Defendant engaged in acquiring and selling secondhand luxury goods and did not provide promotional or other services for others, so the Defendant did not infringe the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use Trademarks No. 5732822 and No. 11844700 (Class 35). However, the jewelry and other luxury goods acquired and sold by the Defendant have high economic value and certain functions of investment and value preservation, and are closely related to the services such as treasure valuation and pawn. These are always regarded by consumers as two successive processes of the same industry. So, the goods are similar to the services, and the use of similar marks on them is easy to cause the likelihood of confusion. Therefore, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use Trademark No. 5732821 (Class 36) and should be liable for the infringement.
北京市东城区人民法院一审认为，原告依法注册权利商标，并无证据证明“大黑屋”品牌在国内形成在先权利，亦无证据证明原告具有抢注恶意或使用了不正当手段，故原告对于涉案商标享有的注册商标专用权应当得到法律保护。根据查明事实，被告经营过程中使用的“大黑屋”“信黑屋”标识与涉案商标构成近似商标，认定被告是否构成商标侵权的关键，在于被告经营的商品服务与涉案商标核定使用的商品服务是否构成相同或类似。因被告从事二手奢侈品的收购和销售业务，并未为他人提供推销等服务，故被告不构成对原告第5732822号、第11844700号（第35类）商标专用权的侵害；但因被告收购、销售的珠宝首饰等奢侈品经济价值高，具有一定投资、保值功能，其与珍宝估价、典当等服务具有紧密联系，往往被消费者视为同一行业内部的连续环节，二者构成商品与服务的类似，在二者上使用近似的标识容易引起混淆误认，故被告侵害了原告第5732821号商标（第36类）的专用权，应承担相应侵权责任。
XinBang Daikokuya refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that the goods for which XinBang Daikokuya was accused of infringement act closely related to the jewelry valuation service on which He X's Registered Trademark No. 5732821 (Class 36) was approved to use and the public would deem that they had certain connection, so they were easy to cause confusion. Therefore, the appeal of XinBang Daikokuya should be dismissed due to lack of basis.
信邦大黑屋公司不服一审判决，向北京知识产权法院提起上诉。北京知识产权法院二审认为，信邦大黑屋公司被控侵权行为涉及商品，与何某的第5732821号注册商标（第36类）核准使用的珍宝估价服务存在较为密切的关系，相关公众一般认为二者存在特定联系，容易造成混淆。综上，信邦大黑屋公司上诉请求缺乏依据，应予驳回。
Typical Significance
典型意义
First, this case relates to "trademark squatting" of a foreign brand in China. Along with economic globalization and cross-border trading development, a lot of foreign marks and brands are introduced in China, and Chinese citizens or organizations apply for registering them as trademarks. This way is used from time to time to stop foreign brand holders to use the brands in China. There are some disputes in handling relevant issues. In this case, the court fully respected the trademark registration principle and used whether the legally-protected prior right had been formed on the foreign brand in China and whether the registrant had ill intention or used improper means as the basis for its judgment.
本案首先涉及国外品牌在国内的“抢注”问题。随着经济全球化和跨国贸易的发展，很多境外的商标品牌传入我国，我国公民或组织将其申请注册为商标，并据此制止国外品牌持有人在我国使用的情形时有发生。对于该问题的处理，存在不少争议。本案中，法院充分尊重商标注册主义的原则，将境外品牌在我国是否已经形成法律所保护的在先权利，以及商标注册者是否具有明显恶意或使用不正当手段作为判断的依据。
Another issue reflected by this case is the similarity between goods and services. Compared with the similarity between goods and goods and between services and services, the situation of this case is relatively rare. In this case, the court clarified and refined affirmation methods and standards in terms of the functional purpose, consumers, provision ways and other aspects of the goods and the services, based on the specific facts of this case. The examination and affirmation of the above two issues provide positive reference significance for the trial of related cases.
本案涉及的另一个问题是商品与服务构成类似的认定。比起商品与商品类似、服务与服务类似，该种类似情形较为少见。本案中，法院从相关商品和服务的功能用途、消费对象、提供方式等方面入手，结合具体案情，对于相关认定方法和标准进行了明确和细化。上述两个问题的审查和认定，对于相关案件的审理具有积极的参考意义。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐
5-Year Sentence for Selling $1.27M of Counterfeit Armani Watches