“YEEZY”商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案
Case Analysis
Mascotte Holdings, Inc. v. CNIPA
“YEEZY”商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案
Docket No.: 3273, second instance (终), administrative case (行), (2019) the High People's Court of Beijing Municipality (京)
Lower Court Docket No.: 9208, first instance (初), administrative case (行), (2017) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京73)
一审案号：（2017）京73行初9208号
二审案号：（2019）京行终3273号
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellant：MASCOTTE HOLDINGS, INC.
Defendant-Appellee: CHINA NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
Third-party defendant：XIAMEN YEZHI TRADE CO., LTD.,
上诉人（原审原告）：马斯寇特控股公司（简称马斯寇特公司）
被上诉人（原审被告）：国家知识产权局
第三人：厦门椰智贸易有限公司（简称椰智公司）
The disputed trademark YEEZY with the application number 11161428 was applied for by Wenzhou Yinuo Information Technology Co., Ltd. ("Yinuo") on July 4, 2012, and its registration was approved on September 14, 2015. The registration was under Trademark Class 25 covering products such as clothing, footwear, layettes, swimsuits, underpants, hats, hosiery, underwear, scarves, belts (clothing use). The trademark was transferred to Xiamen Yezhi Trade Co., Ltd. ("Yezhi").
第11161428号“YEEZY”商标（简称诉争商标）由温州一诺信息科技有限公司（简称一诺公司）于2012年7月4日申请注册，于2015年9月14日核准注册，核定使用在第25类的“服装、鞋（脚上的穿着物）、婴儿全套衣、游泳衣、内裤、帽、袜、内衣、围巾、皮带（服饰用）”商品上，后该商标转让予椰智公司。
On December 22, 2015, Mascotte Holdings, Inc. ("Mascotte") filed an application for declaration of invalidity of the disputed trademark with a Chinese government agency formerly known as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China ("Trademark and Adjudication Board") on the basis that Kanye West had commissioned Mascotte to handle all issues regarding the intellectual property of his nickname "YEEZY". Kanye West is a famous American singer, producer, songwriter, designer, and 2020 US presidential candidate. "YEEZY" is his nickname. Used as a trademark for products such as shoes, clothing, bags, and accessories, and services, the YEEZY trademark enjoys great fame and popularity. Kanye West has the personality rights to "YEEZY". The Chinese company's registration of the disputed trademark constituted a bad-faith trademark filing since the trademark rights were acquired Mascotte by "priority of use" of the trademark, which even became well known.
2015年12月22日，马斯寇特公司向原国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会（简称商标评审委员会）提起商标权无效宣告申请，主要理由是Kanye West（坎耶·韦斯特）先生已授权马斯寇特公司处理与“YEEZY”艺名有关的全部知识产权事宜。 “YEEZY”系Kanye West的艺名/昵称/外号，Kanye West是美国著名歌手、唱片制作人、歌曲创作人、设计师及2020年美国总统竞选人。“YEEZY”亦作为商标进行商业使用，在全球娱乐、鞋、服装、包及相关产品和服务上享有极高的知名度。Kanye West先生对“YEEZY”享有姓名权。诉争商标的注册构成对马斯寇特公司在鞋、服装、包、袜等商品上在先使用并有一定影响商标的恶意抢注。
The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that it was difficult to determine that the registration of the disputed trademark constitutes the "bad-faith filing of a trademark that has been used by others and has a certain influence by improper means" as stated in Article 32 of the 2014 Trademark Law and decided to maintain the registration of the disputed trademark.
商标评审委员会作出被诉裁定认定：在案证据难以认定诉争商标的注册构成2014年《商标法》第三十二条规定所指“以不正当手段抢先注册他人已经使用并有一定影响商标”之情形，裁定：对诉争商标的注册予以维持。
Mascotte was not satisfied with the decision and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
马斯寇特公司不服，向北京知识产权法院提起诉讼。北京知识产权法院一审判决驳回马斯寇特公司的诉讼请求。
Mascott Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The court of second instance held that, based on the large amount of publicity and reported evidence in the case, it can be determined that "Nike Air Yeezy" sneakers, as a joint product of Mr. Kanye West and Nike, had a high reputation in China before the filing date of the disputed trademark. The "YEEZY" logo can play a role in distinguishing the source of goods, and it can also be determined that the "YEEZY" logo has had a certain impact through continuous joint cooperation on shoe products. After Mr. Kanye West finished his cooperation with Nike, he launched the "YEEZY" series of sports shoes in cooperation with other brands, which shows that "YEEZY" can independently play the role of identifying the source of goods without relying on other brand partners. Therefore, the "YEEZY" logo had already constituted a trademark that was previously used on shoe goods and had certain influence before the filing date of the disputed trademark. The registration of the disputed trademark constituted an improper means to preemptively register others who had already used it first and had certain influence. The situation of the trademark. At the same time, the registration of the disputed trademark harmed Mr. Kanye West's right to name. According to this, the court of second instance ruled: the State Intellectual Property Office shall make a new ruling if the judgment of the first instance and the ruling of the accused shall be revoked.
马斯寇特公司不服一审判决，向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。二审法院认为，根据在案大量的宣传、报道证据，可以认定“Nike Air Yeezy”运动鞋作为Kanye West先生与耐克公司合作的联名款商品，在诉争商标申请日之前在中国具有较高的知名度。“YEEZY”标志能够起到区分商品来源的作用，亦可以认定“YEEZY”标志经过在鞋商品上持续的联名合作，已经具有一定的影响。Kanye West先生结束与耐克公司合作后又与其他品牌合作推出了“YEEZY”系列运动鞋，足见“YEEZY”可以独立发挥识别商品来源的作用，而不依赖于其他品牌合作方。故“YEEZY”标志在诉争商标申请日之前，已经构成在鞋商品上在先使用并有一定影响的商标，诉争商标的注册构成以不正当手段抢先注册他人已经在先使用并有一定影响的商标之情形。同时，诉争商标的注册损害了Kanye West先生的姓名权。据此，二审法院判决：撤销一审判决和被诉裁定，由国家知识产权局重新作出裁定。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case not only involves the protection of the name right of Mr. Kanye West, a well-known American figure, but also the protection of signs in the new business model of joint-branded products.
本案既涉及美国知名人物Kanye West先生的姓名权保护问题，同时也涉及联名款商品新型商业模式中标志的保护问题。
Co-branded products are products that are cooperated by different brands, or products that a certain brand cooperates with a celebrity. Co-branded products rely on the advantages and influence of both parties in their respective fields to expand consumer groups and achieve a win-win situation for both parties. Co-branded products usually adopt a limited-release sales model. Although they cannot be compared with ordinary products in terms of pure sales volume, they are often more well-known due to their specific business models. The name of the co-branded product is generally a combination of the signs that refer to the two parties. Therefore, the market popularity and reputation of the product should be attributed to the two parties. When the well-known of the co-branded product is sufficiently high, the logo on behalf of the partners can be used to identify the source of the product. The role of. The situation in which one of the co-branded parties claimed rights on the mark representing his name in the joint-branded goods did not appear in previous cases.
联名款商品系由不同品牌合作的商品，或某品牌与某知名人士合作的商品。联名款商品凭借合作双方在各自领域的优势及影响力，能拓展消费群体进而实现双方共赢。联名款商品通常采取限量发行销售模式，虽在单纯销售数量上不能与普通商品相比，但往往因其特定商业模式而知名度更高。联名款商品名称一般由指代合作双方的标志组合而成，故商品的市场知名度和美誉度应归于合作双方，当联名款商品知名度足够高时，代表合作各方的标志均可发挥识别商品来源的作用。联名方之一就联名款商品中代表其名义的标志主张权利的情形，在之前案件中并未出现。
In this case, through the protection of the name mark of the joint product, the malicious registration was effectively combated and the market order of fair competition was maintained. This case was selected as one of the "Top Ten Cases of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Beijing Courts in 2020".
本案通过对联名款商品名称标志的保护，有效打击了恶意注册行为，维护了公平竞争的市场秩序。本案入选“2020年度北京法院知识产权司法保护十大案例”。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐