“奔富”葡萄酒商标侵权纠纷案：未注册驰名商标抢注的侵权认定问题
Case Analysis
Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd. v. Huaian City Huaxia Manor Brewing Co., Ltd. et al.
“奔富”葡萄酒商标侵权纠纷案
Docket No.: Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province (苏01)
一审案号：（2018）苏01民初3450号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
For a trademark which is well known to the public but is not approved for registration due to others' squatting, the people's court may, upon the parties’ request in the trademark infringement case, consider a lot of factors such as the use duration, promotional investment, scope, degree and protection records about the trademark, and may legally identify it as an unregistered well-known trademark and protect it.
对于相关公众广为知晓但因他人抢注而未能核准注册的商标，人民法院可以根据当事人请求，在商标侵权案件中结合该商标使用持续时间、宣传投入、范围、程度以及受保护记录等因素，依法认定为未注册驰名商标并予以保护。
If anyone, in violation of the good faith principle, by using the principle of applying for trademark registration first, with the knowledge that a trademark is a well-known trademark not yet registered by others in China, applies for registration or receives by assignment a trademark identical or similar to the unregistered well-known trademark and uses it on the identical or similar goods to obtain improper benefits, causing damage to the right holder, the people's court may, upon the request of the right holder, rule the first person to stop the use and compensate for the losses.
行为人违反诚实信用原则，对于明知是他人未在中国注册的驰名商标，利用商标注册先申请原则，抢先申请注册或受让与该未注册驰名商标相同或近似的商标，并使用在相同或者类似商品上，获得不当利益，给权利人造成损害的，人民法院可以根据权利人请求，判决行为人停止使用并赔偿损失。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellant: SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LTD.,
Defendants-Appellees: HUAIAN CITY HUAXIA MANOR BREWING CO., LTD.,HANGZHOU ZHENGSHENG TRADING CO., LTD.
原告：南社布兰兹有限公司（简称南社布兰兹公司）
被告：淮安市华夏庄园酿酒有限公司（简称华夏庄园公司）、杭州正声贸易有限公司（简称杭州正声公司）
The Plaintiff Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd. ("Southcorp Brands") is the owner of "Penfolds" registered trademark, a well-known wine brand. Since "Penfolds" wine entered China in the 1990s, Southcorp Brands has used "奔富" as the Chinese name of "Penfolds" up to now. After long-term, wide-scope and continuous promotion, selling and advertising by Southcorp Brands, "奔富" wine has gained high awareness and influence, and has been known to and recognized by consumers. On wine goods, a unique corresponding relationship has been formed between "奔富" and "Penfolds". China Food, China Business Times and other media used "奔富" as the Chinese translation of "Penfolds". The Trademark Office under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark Office"), the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "TRAB") and courts have repeatedly affirmed in relevant verdicts and judgments that "奔富" and "Penfolds" are corresponding.
原告南社布兰兹公司系知名葡萄酒品牌“Penfolds”注册商标的权利人。上世纪90年代，“Penfolds”葡萄酒进入中国后，南社布兰兹公司将“奔富”作为“Penfolds”葡萄酒的中文名称一直沿用至今。经过南社布兰兹公司长时间、大范围、持续地宣传、销售和推广，“奔富”葡萄酒获得了较高的知名度和影响力，被广大消费者所熟悉和认可。在葡萄酒商品上，“奔富”与“Penfolds”也逐渐形成了唯一对应的关系。《中国食品》《中华工商时报》等媒体将“奔富”作为“Penfolds”的中文翻译使用在宣传报道中，国家工商行政管理总局商标局（简称商标局）、工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会（简称商评委）以及法院在相关裁定和判决中，曾多次认定“奔富”与“Penfolds”具有对应性。
The "奔富" trademark has accumulated a huge commercial value, which led to the malicious squatting by a party not involved in this case. In 2011, when Southcorp Brands applied for the registration of the trademark "奔富", the Trademark Office rejected its application because the trademark applied by it was similar to a prior registered trademark. Southcorp Brands refused to accept the decision and instituted administrative proceedings. After the first instance, the second instance and the retrial, the Supreme People's Court entered the following judgment: the administrative decisions of the first instance and the second instance as well as the decision of TRAB shall be abrogated, and TRAB shall make a new decision on the trademark "奔富". During the litigation of this case, the trademark "奔富" applied by Southcorp Brands had passed the preliminary examination and an announcement had been released.
“奔富”商标积累了巨大的商业价值，导致案外人恶意抢注。2011年，南社布兰兹公司申请注册“奔富”商标时，因与在先注册的商标近似，被商标局驳回申请。南社布兰兹公司不服，提起行政诉讼。经过一审、二审和再审程序，最高人民法院作出判决：撤销一审、二审行政判决和商评委决定，商评委就“奔富”商标重新作出决定。本案诉讼期间，南社布兰兹公司申请的“奔富”商标已初审公告。
The Defendant Huaian City Huaxia Manor Brewing Co., Ltd. ("Huaxia Manor") repeatedly applied to the Trademark Office to register "PENFOILLS", "PENFUNILS" and other English trademarks similar to "Penfolds", and also received the Chinese registered trademark "奔富尼澳" transferred by a party not involved in this case, and used the logos "奔富", "奔富尼澳" and "Penfunils" in large quantities of wine products produced by it, which were sold by the Defendant Hangzhou Zhengsheng Trading Co., Ltd. ("Hangzhou Zhengsheng"). According to the application filed by Southcorp Brands, the trademark "奔富尼澳" was declared invalid by TRAB and the trademark registration applications of "PENFOILLS" and "PENFUNILS" were also rejected by the Trademark Office. The plaintiff Southcorp Brands held that the above-mentioned acts of Huaxia Manor and Hangzhou Zhengsheng had infringed its trademark right, so it filed a lawsuit, requesting Huaxia Manor and Hangzhou Zhengsheng to immediately stop their infringement acts and compensate for its economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred for protecting its rights which amounted to RMB 1 million.
被告华夏庄园公司多次向商标局申请注册“PENFOILLS”“PENFUNILS”等与“Penfolds”近似的英文商标，同时还从案外人处受让了“奔富尼澳”中文注册商标，并将“奔富”“奔富尼澳”“P e n f u n i l s”等标识大量地使用在其生产的葡萄酒商品上，由被告杭州正声公司进行销售。经南社布兰兹公司申请，“奔富尼澳”商标被商评委宣告无效，“PENFOILLS”“PENFUNILS”的商标注册申请亦被商标局驳回。原告南社布兰兹公司认为，华夏庄园公司、正声公司的上述行为侵害了其商标权，遂提起诉讼，要求华夏庄园公司、杭州正声公司立即停止侵权，并赔偿其经济损失及合理维权支出共计100万元。
In the first instance, Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held that:
江苏省南京市中级人民法院一审认为：
The Plaintiff's "奔富" trademark was necessary and could be recognized as an unregistered well-known trademark. First, a trademark is a sign that identifies the source of goods or services, whose value is based on its business reputation gained during the process of use. Like registered trademarks, unregistered trademarks can accumulate business reputation, distinctiveness and popularity due to long-term use and the relevant public can distinguish specific goods from other goods by virtue of unregistered trademarks. Therefore, when an unregistered trademark gains a certain level of awareness, it can objectively generate market value and commercial interests, so the legitimate rights and interests of unregistered well-known trademarks should be protected by law. Secondly, Southcorp Brands used logos "奔富(Penfolds)", "奔富/Penfolds" and "Penfolds(奔富)" in the packaging, distribution contracts and advertisements of goods, and the media, distributors and event organizers also used the combination of "奔富" and "Penfolds" in their reports or commercial activities, and the English trademark "Penfolds" and the Chinese trademark "奔富" have formed a corresponding relationship with each other, and among domestic wine consumers, "奔富" has played a role in distinguishing the origin of goods. Meanwhile, the trademark "奔富" used by Southcorp Brands has not been approved for a long time due to trademark squatting by the party not involved in this case. Whether the infringement act is established should be determined based on whether "奔富" is an unregistered well-known trademark. Therefore, according to the requests of the party and the specific situation of this case, it is necessary to determine whether "奔富" is an unregistered well-known trademark. Finally, according to the provisions of Article 14 of the Trademark Law, taking into account the degree of public awareness of the trademark "奔富", the duration of use of the trademark "奔富", the sales volume of "奔富" wines, the duration, extent and geographical scope of the relevant advertising and publicity by Southcorp Brands, and the protection record of the trademark "奔富" as well as other related factors, the "奔富" trademark should be recognized as an unregistered well-known trademark.
原告的“奔富”商标有必要且能够被认定为未注册驰名商标。首先，商标是识别商品或者服务来源的标志，其价值建立在以使用为基础的商业信誉之上。同注册商标一样，未注册商标因长期使用行为也能够积累商业信誉，具备显著性和知名度，相关公众可以凭借未注册商标将特定商品与其他商品进行区分。因此，未注册商标达到一定知名度时，客观上能够产生市场价值和商业利益，未注册驰名商标的合法权益应当受到法律保护。其次，南社布兰兹公司在其商品包装、经销合同、广告宣传中大量地使用“奔富（Penfolds）”“奔富/Penfolds”“Penfolds（奔富）”等标识，相关媒体、经销商、活动举办方等也在报道或商事活动中将“奔富”与“Penfolds”组合使用，英文“Penfolds”商标与中文“奔富”商标已形成对应关系，在国内葡萄酒消费群体中，“奔富”已经具有了区别商品来源的作用。再次，因案外人的抢注行为，导致南社布兰兹公司使用的“奔富”商标长期未能核准注册。而对于被诉侵权行为是否成立的判断，需要以“奔富”是否属于未注册驰名商标作为事实依据。因此，根据当事人的请求和本案的具体情况，有必要认定“奔富”是否属于未注册驰名商标。最后，根据《商标法》第十四条的规定，结合相关公众对“奔富”商标的知晓程度、“奔富”商标使用的持续时间、“奔富”葡萄酒的销售数量，南社布兰兹公司相关宣传所持续的时间、程度和地理范围，以及“奔富”商标受保护记录等多方面因素，应当认定“奔富”为未注册驰名商标。
The conducts of the two Defendants constituted trademark infringement. In this case, in terms of subjective malice, Huaxia Manor violated the basic principle of good faith, and applied for registration of a number of trademarks identical to or similar with the trademark of Southcorp Brands with strong distinctiveness, and it did not make any reasonable explanation. Therefore, it can be confirmed that Huaxia Manor subjectively and intentionally took advantage of the goodwill of other trademark. In terms of its objective conducts, the logo "奔富" used by Huaxia Manor and Hangzhou Zhengsheng on the wine goods produced and sold by them and related promotional materials was identical with the unregistered well-known trademark "奔富", and the "Penfunils" logo used by them was similar with the registered trademark "Penfolds" of Southcorp Brands, which constituted a trademark infringement.
两被告的行为构成商标侵权。本案中，从主观恶意来看，华夏庄园公司违反了诚实信用的基本原则，申请注册了多件与南社布兰兹公司具有较强显著性商标相同或近似的商标，且其未对此作出合理解释，可以确认华夏庄园公司具有明显攀附他人品牌商誉的主观故意。从客观行为来看，华夏庄园公司、正声公司在其生产、销售的葡萄酒商品及相关宣传材料上使用的“奔富”标识与未注册驰名商标“奔富”构成相同，其使用的“Penfunils”标识与南社布兰兹公司享有的“Penfolds”注册商标构成近似，属于商标侵权行为。
The two Defendants shall bear the legal responsibility of stopping their infringement acts and compensating the economic loss of Southcorp Brands. The unregistered well-known trademark belongs to the legitimate civil rights of the trademark right holder, and anyone who infringes any unregistered well-known trademark and causes damage to the right holder shall bear the liability of compensation according to law. In this case, the alleged infringing goods produced and sold by Huaxia Manor and sold by Hangzhou Zhengsheng infringed the exclusive right of Southcorp Brands to use the registered trademark "Penfolds" and the right of unregistered well-known trademark "奔富" held by Southcorp Brands, and should bear the civil legal liabilities of stopping the infringement and compensating for the damages according to law.
两被告应承担停止侵权并赔偿经济损失的法律责任。未注册驰名商标属于商标权人的合法民事权利，侵害未注册驰名商标造成权利人损害的，应当依法承担赔偿责任。本案中，华夏庄园公司生产、销售的，正声公司销售的被诉侵权商品侵害了南社布兰兹公司享有的“Penfolds”注册商标专用权和“奔富”未注册驰名商标的权利，依法应当承担停止侵权、赔偿损失的民事法律责任。
In summary, the court ruled as follows in the first instance: the two Defendants shall immediately stop infringing the Plaintiff’s exclusive right to use the registered trademarks "PENFOLDS" "Penfolds" and the unregistered well-known trademark "奔富", Huaxia Manor shall compensate for the Plaintiff’s economic losses and its reasonable costs incurred for the purpose of safeguarding its rights which amounted to RMB 1 million, and Hangzhou Zhengsheng shall bear the joint and several liability for RMB 200,000.
综上，法院一审判决：两被告立即停止侵害原告享有的“PENFOLDS”“Penfolds”注册商标专用权及“奔富”未注册驰名商标权的行为，华夏庄园公司赔偿原告经济损失及维权合理费用100万元，杭州正声公司对其中的20万元承担连带赔偿责任。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case involves the protection of unregistered well-known trademark and is the first case in Jiangsu Province concerning the protection of unregistered well-known trademark, which is of reference value for the handling of similar cases and has been selected by the Quality Brand Protection Committee of China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment as one of the "Top Ten Cases of Intellectual Property Protection in 2019-2020", "Top Ten Typical Cases of Nanjing Courts in 2020" and "Top Ten Typical Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in Jiangsu Courts in 2020".
本案涉及未注册驰名商标保护，也是江苏省首例保护未注册驰名商标的案件，对类案处理具有参考价值，入选中国外商投资企业协会优质品牌保护委员会“2019-2020年度知识产权保护十佳案例” “南京法院2020年度十大典型案件”“2020年江苏法院知识产权司法保护十大典型案例”。
The judgment in this case timely and effectively stopped the squatting and embezzlement of unregistered well-known trademarks, and affected the trademark administrative authorization procedure to some extent. Within six months after the judgment came into effect, the Plaintiff’s trademark was successfully registered, laying a good foundation for rights protection in the future. Meanwhile, in this case, after affirming that the infringement was established, the court also took into account that the infringing goods involved food related to the people’s livelihood and that the Defendant was the source of the infringing goods. Therefore, the court increased the infringement compensation in accordance with the law, reflecting the strictest concept for judicial protection of intellectual property rights and the value orientation of stopping squatting and maintaining integrity, improving the sense of gain of the right holder, and achieving good legal and social effects.
本案判决及时有效制止了抢注并使用他人未注册驰名商标的行为，并在一定程度上影响了商标行政授权程序。判决生效后半年内，原告商标顺利注册，为今后维权打下良好基础。同时，本案在认定侵权成立的基础上，考虑到侵权商品涉及民生食品领域，被告系侵权商品的生产源头，依法加大了侵权赔偿力度，体现了最严格知识产权司法保护理念以及制止抢注、维护诚信的价值导向，提高了权利人的获得感，取得了较好的法律效果和社会效果。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐
"Levis" brand jeans and clothing operator v. Company B et al.