“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 "" (registration No.: 9773708) for "telephone, mobile phone" in Class 9 from September 21, 2012 to September 20, 2022. According to the Decision on Rejecting the Application for Registration of No. 19257768 "VIVO" Trademark, through the long-term use and extensive publicity of vivo, its registered trademark "" (registration No. 9773708), which was used on "mobile phone", had gained high awareness among the relevant public in China, and was recognized as a well-known trademark.

维沃公司对第9773708号“”享有注册商标专用权，其核定使用商品为第9类中的“电话机、手提电话”等，有效期限自2012年9月21日至2022年9月20日。《第19257768号“VIVO”商标不予注册的决定》认为，通过维沃公司的长期使用和广泛宣传，其注册使用在“手提电话”商品上的第9773708号“”注册商标已在我国相关公众中具有较高知名度，并认定该商标为驰名商标。

The registrant of the trademark "" (registration No.: 4764197) was Wenzhou Sikelei Trade Co., Ltd. and the approved goods were "telephone set, pager set, loudspeaker, camera, electric switch, glasses, ophthalmic glass, spectacle frame" in Class 9, with the validity period from October 28, 2008 to October 27, 2018. Upon renewal, the trademark was valid until October 27, 2028. On March 10, 2017, Wenzhou Sikelei Trade Co., Ltd. applied for registration of the trademark "" No. 23108311. The "vivi v9 Mobile Phone Network Access License" was issued on June 16, 2017. On June 27, 2018, Youpintong accepted the exclusive right to use registered trademarks "" (registration No.: 4764197) and "" (registration No.: 23108311).

第4764197号“”商标的注册人为温州思克雷贸易有限公司，核定使用商品为第9类中的“电话机套、寻呼机套、扬声器音箱、摄像机、电开关、眼镜、眼镜玻璃、眼镜架”，有效期限自2008年10月28日至2018年10月27日。经续展，该商标有效期限至2028年10月27日。2017年3月10日，温州思克雷贸易有限公司申请注册第23108311号“”商标。《vivi v9手机进网许可证》发证日期为2017年6月16日。2018年6月27日，优品通公司继受取得第4764197号“”、第23108311号“”注册商标专用权。

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 "" logo was shown on all cell phones. The website was operated by Shenzhen Youpintong Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. ("Youpintong") which also conducted the ICP filing of the website. On its official website, Youpintong claimed that the sales volume of one single series of "vivi phone" reached 300,000 on average. "Genuine viviv9- X6.0 inch full-screen smartphone" was sold on "Huatang Dixun Technology" online store on www.taobao.com. According to the pictures of goods, the above logo was shown on all cell phones. Huatang Dixun confirmed that the Taobao online store called "Shenzhen Huatang Dixun Technology Co., Ltd. ("Huatang Dixun")" was operated by it and the cell phones in dispute were sold by it. The cell phones in dispute were the same kind of goods as the mobile phone goods approved for use with respect to the above-mentioned registered trademark. Youpintong acknowledged that the profit of one phone was RMB 39.3.

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“”标识，该网站系优品通公司I C P备案并运营。优品通公司在官网上宣称，“vivi手机”单款产品的销售量平均达到30万台。w w w.t a o b a o.c o m上的“华唐迪讯科技”网店销售“正品vivi v9-X6.0寸全面屏智能手机”，商品图片显示手机上使用上述标识。华唐迪讯公司确认，淘宝网店“华唐迪讯科技”系其经营、涉案手机系其销售。涉案手机与上述注册商标核定使用的手提电话商品属于同一种商品。优品通公司自认每台手机利润为39.3元。

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 "" (registration No.: 9773708), and filed a lawsuit with Futian District People’s Court of Shenzhen, requesting the court to order the two companies to stop their infringement acts and jointly compensate vivo for its economic loss of RMB 5 million and reasonable expenses of RMB 126,000 incurred by vivo for protecting its rights.

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“”注册商标专用权，诉至深圳市福田区人民法院，请求法院判令两公司停止侵权，并共同赔偿其经济损失500万元及维权合理开支126000元。

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 "" sold by the online store called "Huatang Dixun Technology".

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“”标识的手机产品。

The court of first instance held that, Youpintong did not use the registered trademark "" strictly in accordance with the approved registered trademark and the specification of the approved goods, and "" was altered in its distinguishing features and turned into "" for actual use, which was similar to the registered trademark "". The goods on which both trademarks were used were cell phones, which belonged to the same kind of goods. If these two kinds of cell phones were sold in the market at the same time, it would make the relevant public misunderstand the source of the goods or think that the source had a specific connection with the registered goods. Youpintong used the mark "" similar to the registered trademark "" on the same kind of goods without the permission of the right holder, which was likely to cause confusion, and the cell phone on which the mark was used would become infringing goods; The sale of infringing cell phones by Huatang Dixun constituted infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark "", and Huatang Dixun shall bear civil liability for stopping the infringement act and compensating for damages. Accordingly, the court made the first instance judgment on February 21, 2020 as follows: (I) Youpintong shall immediately stop infringing the exclusive right of vivo to use the registered trademark "" (registration No.: 9773708), i.e. immediately stop the publicity and advertising of cell phones with the logo "" on www.vivi-china.com, stop producing and selling cell phones with the logo "", and remove the infringing logo on the infringing goods in stock; (II) Huatang Dixun shall immediately stop infringing the exclusive right of vivo to use the registered trademark "" (registration No.: 9773708), i.e. immediately stop selling cell phones with the logo of "" and remove the infringing logo on the infringing goods in stock; (III) Youpintong shall compensate vivo for its economic losses of RMB 1,035,000 as well as the reasonable expenses of RMB 100,000 incurred by it for protecting its rights; (IV) Huatang Dixun shall compensate vivo for its economic losses of RMB 200,000 as well as the reasonable expenses of RMB 26,000 incurred by it for protecting its rights; (V) Other claims of vivo were rejected.

一审法院认为，优品通公司在使用“”注册商标时，并没有严格按照核准注册的商标、核定使用的商品规范使用，“”被改变显著特征，变成“”进行实际使用，与注册商标“”构成近似。二者使用的商品均为手机，属于同一种商品，若共存于市场，易使相关公众对商品的来源产生误认或者认为来源与注册商标的商品有特定的联系。优品通公司未经权利人的许可，在同一商品上使用与注册商标“”近似的标识“”，容易导致混淆，其使用的手机构成侵权商品；华唐迪讯公司销售侵权商品手机，均属于侵害注册商标“”专用权的侵权行为，依法应承担停止侵害、赔偿损失等民事责任。据此，法院于2020年2月21日作出一审判决：（一）优品通公司应立即停止侵害维沃公司第9773708号“”注册商标专用权的行为，即立即停止在网站www.vivi-china.com宣传带有“”标识的手机，停止生产、销售带有“”标识的手机，去除库存侵权商品上的侵权标识；（二）华唐迪讯公司应立即停止侵害维沃公司第9773708号“”注册商标专用权的行为，即立即停止销售带有“”标识的手机，去除库存侵权商品上的侵权标识；（三）优品通公司赔偿维沃公司经济损失1035000元及维权合理开支100000元；（四）华唐迪讯公司赔偿维沃公司经济损失200000元及维权合理开支26000元；（五）驳回维沃公司的其他诉讼请求。

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

涉“平行进口”商店侵犯商标权纠纷案

“LV”商标侵权纠纷案：商业标识权利冲突与驰名商标保护问题

“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