“vivo”商标侵权纠纷案:对商标权惩罚性赔偿的具体适用问题的探索
Case Analysis
Vivo Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Youpintong Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
Docket No.: 16190, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in Guangdong Province (粤03)
Lower Court Docket No.: 3587, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2019) Futian District People's Court of Shenzhen (粤0304)
一审案号:(2019)粤0304民初3587号
二审案号:(2020)粤03民终16190号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
The essence of punitive damages is that the amount of compensation shall be greater than the actual damages (infringement profits). For malicious infringement of the exclusive right to use trademark with serious circumstance, if the right holder claims for punitive damages, the people's court may support its claim according to the principle of "case-by-case application and application as required". When determining the amount of compensation, the people's court should try to find the optimal solution. The people's courts should make full use of the general rule of evidence of "anyone who brings up the claim should bear the burden of proof" and apply special rules such as "documentary evidence order and evidence obstruction system" when necessary to guide the parties to actively, comprehensively, correctly and honestly provide evidence, and fundamentally crack the problem of "difficulty to prove" when determining the sales volume, infringement time, profits and other calculation bases of the infringing goods which make a profit by means of infringement, and should strictly implement the punitive damages system, correctly handle the relationship between compensation with punitive factors and multiple penalties, adhere to the value orientation of realizing claims > guiding proof > implementing punishment, strengthen intellectual property protection, and meet the legitimate and reasonable claims of right holders to the greatest extent.
惩罚性赔偿的实质为:赔偿数额>实际损失(侵权获利)。对恶意侵犯商标专用权,情节严重的,权利人请求相应惩罚性赔偿,根据“个案适用、因需适用”原则,人民法院可以依法予以支持。人民法院在确定赔偿数额时,应尽力寻求最优解。充分运用“谁主张、谁举证”的一般证据规则,必要时适用“书证提出命令、证据妨害制度”等特殊规则,引导当事人积极、全面、正确、诚实地提供证据,根本破解认定侵权获利的侵权商品销量、侵权时间、利润等计算依据的“举证难”问题。严格落实惩罚性赔偿制度,正确处理带有惩罚性因素的赔偿与倍数罚则的关系,坚持实现诉求>引导举证>落实惩罚的价值导向,加强知识产权保护,保障权利人合法合理诉求的最大化实现。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellee: VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS CO., LTD.
Defendant-Appellant: SHENZHEN YOUPINTONG ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
Defendant: SHENZHEN HUATANG DIXUN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
上诉人(原审被告):深圳市优品通电子科技有限公司(简称优品通公司)
被上诉人(原审原告):维沃移动通信有限公司(简称维沃公司)
一审被告:深圳市华唐迪讯科技有限公司(简称华唐迪讯公司)
Vivo Mobile Communications Co., Ltd. ("VIVO") has the exclusive right to use registered trademark "
维沃公司对第9773708号“
The registrant of the trademark "
第4764197号“
On August 6, 2018, vivo conducted notarized evidence collection from some vivi cell phone stores on Taobao, and concluded that the 30-day sales volume of vivi phones sold on Taobao was about 12621 by adding the monthly sales volume shown on the sales link. The "vivi" logo was used on the home page of www.vivi-china.com, the information of "vivi v9" "vivi v15" "vivi v12" "vivi X9" "vivi X7" "vivi R9S" and other vivi cell phones was shown on the web pages; and according to the pictures of goods, the "
2018年8月6日,维沃公司对淘宝网上部分vivi手机销售店铺进行公证取证,将销售链接显示的月销量逐一相加,得出淘宝网上部分v i v i手机的近30日销量为12621台。w w w.v i v ic h i n a.c o m网站首页使用标识,网页展示“vivi v9”“vivi v15”“vivi v12”“vivi X9”“vivi X7”“vivi R9S”等v i v i手机商品信息,商品图片显示手机上均使用“
vivo alleged that the manufacture and sale of cell phone products using the trademark "vivi" by Youpintong and the sale of cell phone products using the trademark "vivi" by Huatang Dixun infringed its exclusive right to use registered trademark "
维沃公司指控优品通公司制造、销售,华唐迪讯公司销售使用“vivi”商标的手机产品,侵害其第9773708号“
On May 28, 2019, the court of first instance issued the Assistance Enforcement Notice to Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd., ordering to immediately take down the cell phone products with the logo "
2019年5月28日,一审法院向浙江淘宝网络公司作出《协助执行通知书》,内容为:立即下架“华唐迪讯科技”网店销售的带有“
The court of first instance held that, Youpintong did not use the registered trademark "
一审法院认为,优品通公司在使用“
Youpintong refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in Guangdong Province. On November 20, 2020, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court made the second instance judgment. The court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment. The judgment in this case has come into effect.
优品通公司不服一审判决,向广东省深圳市中级人民法院提起上诉。法院于2020年11月20日作出二审判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。本案判决现已生效。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This is the first case in Shenzhen in which punitive damages for trademark rights were applied. The court of first instance applied the multiple penalty and the court of second instance introduced punitive elements in calculating the infringement profit. The court of first instance and the court of second instance both boldly explored the specific application of punitive damages for trademark rights, created the principle of “case-by-case application and application as required” for punitive damages for trademark rights, fully applied the general rules of evidence, and fully followed the value orientation of realizing claims > guiding proof > implementing punishment when choosing the basis for calculating infringement profits to determine the amount of compensation, creating a set of replicable trial experiences for improving the reasonableness and rationality of the calculation of compensation amounts.
本案系深圳首例适用商标权惩罚性赔偿的生效案例。一审法院适用倍数罚则,二审法院在计算侵权获利时引入惩罚性因素,两审法院均对商标权惩罚性赔偿的具体适用进行大胆探索,创设商标权惩罚性赔偿“个案适用、因需适用”原则,充分运用一般证据规则,在选择侵权获利计算依据确定赔偿数额时,充分遵循实现诉求>引导举证>落实惩罚的价值导向,为提高赔偿数额计算的科学性、合理性,创设出一整套可复制的审判经验。
This case was selected as one of the "Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases of Shenzhen Courts in 2020".
本案入选“2020年度深圳法院知识产权十大典型案例”。
英文投稿及市场合作:
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529(微信同号)
往期推荐