方某等假冒“Dyson”注册商标系列案：戴森全国打假第一案
Case Analysis
Pudong New Area People's Procuratorate of Shanghai v. Fang * et al.
方某等假冒“Dyson”注册商标系列案
Lower Court Docket No.: 4533, first instance (初), criminal case (刑), (2019) 0115, the Pudong Court of Shanghai (沪)
一审案号：（2019）沪0115刑初4533号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
In this case, the counterfeited goods are common household hair dryers in people's daily life, and if they cause personal injuries or property damages to the end-use consumers due to their hidden quality hazards, the social harm would be great, so it reflects the great subjective criminal malice of the defendants, and their punishments should not be reduced or probated.
本案被假冒注册商标的商品系日常生活中常见的家用吹风机，一旦因本身的质量隐患对最终消费者造成人身伤害或者财产损失，社会危害性极大，反映出被告人较大的主观犯罪恶性，不应对其减轻处罚或适用缓刑。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Public prosecution organ：PUDONG NEW AREA PEOPLE’S PROCURATORATE OF SHANGHAI
Defendants：FANG *, XIE *, YANG *, HUANG *
公诉机关：上海市浦东新区人民检察院
被告人：方某、谢某、杨某、黄某
"Dyson" is a trademark registered with the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China. In April 2018, the defendants Fang * and Xie * set up Shenzhen Longgang District Dimeisiao Electronics Trading Company ("Dimeisiao Trading"), in which the actual controller was Fang * and the legal representative was Xie *, who was responsible for the general affairs of the company under the requirement from Fang *. The company set up factories in different places including Shenzhen and Huizhou, employed over 30 workers (handled in a separate case), procured raw materials and parts from others and organized the workers to produce counterfeit hair dryers of the registered "Dyson" trademark through assembly lines, with product models divided into European, American, Australian and British versions and corresponding different colors, etc., which were later sold by defendant Yang * to his downstream buyers through online channels at an average price of about RMB 700 per piece. In May 2018, the defendant Huang * joined Dimeisiao Trading, responsible for the storage and management of counterfeit raw materials. According to auditing, the defendants Fang *, Xie *, Yang * and Huang * had participated in the production and sale of more than 19,000 pieces of hair dryers counterfeiting the registered trademark of "Dyson", with the sales value amounting to more than RMB 13.5 million. On December 14, 2018, the defendants Xie * and Huang * were caught by the public security authorities at their counterfeiting den, and 277 pieces of counterfeit hair dryers of the registered "Dyson" trademark and their accessories, packaging materials and other items worth over RMB 190,000 were seized on site. While the defendants Fang * and Yang * were arrested by the public security authorities at their residences respectively.
“Dyson”系我国国家工商行政管理总局商标局注册的商标。2018年4月，被告人方某、谢某成立深圳市龙岗区迪美丝奥电子商行（简称迪美丝奥商行），其中公司实际控制人为方某，法定代表人为谢某，谢某按照方某的要求负责总务。该公司先后在深圳、惠州等地开设工厂，雇佣工人30余人（另案处理），从他人处采购原料配件并组织工人以流水线形式生产假冒“Dyson”注册商标的吹风机，产品型号分为欧版、美版、澳版、英版及对应多种颜色等，后由被告人杨某通过网络渠道销售给下家，对外平均售价每台700元左右。2018年5月，被告人黄某入职迪美丝奥商行工作，负责造假原料的仓储和管理。经审计，被告人方某、谢某、杨某、黄某参与生产、销售假冒“Dyson”注册商标的吹风机共计19000余台，售金额达人民币1350万余元。2018年12月14日，被告人谢某、黄某在其造假窝点被公安机关抓获，现场查获假冒“Dyson”注册商标的吹风机277台及其配件、包装材料等物品，价值19万余元。被告人方某、杨某分别在其住处被公安机关抓获。
The Pudong Court held that the defendants Fang *, Xie *, Yang * and Huang * had used a trademark identical to the registered trademark on identical goods without the permission of the registered trademark owner, which was a particularly serious offense, and their acts had all constituted the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark. Dimeisiao Trading, the organization involved in the case, had been planned and incorporated by the defendants Fang * and Xie *. The defendant Fang * was the actual controller of the company, fully responsible for the business of the company, while the defendant Xie * was the legal representative, responsible for the general affairs of the company with a salary obviously higher than the rest of the staff. The two people had played a major role in the joint crime, and shall be considered the key offenders according to the law. Taking into consideration the position of the defendant Xie * in this case, whose role had been less compared to the defendants Fang *, so his punishment was lighter by discretionary judgment with reference to the punishment of the defendant Fang *. The defendants Yang * and Huang * had played a minor role in the joint crime, so they were treated as accessories and received lighter punishments accordingly.
浦东法院经审理认为，被告人方某、谢某、杨某、黄某未经注册商标所有人许可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标相同的商标，情节特别严重，其行为均已构成假冒注册商标罪。涉案迪美丝奥商行由被告人方某、谢某筹划设立，被告人方某系商行实际控制人，全面负责商行业务，被告人谢某任法定代表人，负责总务工作，其工资明显高于其余员工，2人在共同犯罪中均起主要作用，依法应当认定为主犯。结合被告人谢某在本案中的地位，其所起的作用相较于被告人方某较轻，故参照被告人方某酌情从轻处罚。被告人杨某、黄某在共同犯罪中起次要作用，系从犯，依法从轻处罚。
By the time of the case, the above four defendants had participated in the production and sale of more than 19,000 pieces of hairdryers counterfeiting the registered trademark of "Dyson", with the sales value amounting to more than RMB 13.5 million, all of which had constituted a particularly serious offense. Dyson-brand hairdryers have enjoyed a high awareness in the market, while hairdryers are commonly-used small household appliances in people's daily life. The acts of the four defendants had not only seriously infringed the rights of the trademark in dispute of the trademark owner and the rights and interests of consumers, but may also cause personal injuries or property damages to the end-use consumers due to the hidden quality hazards of the counterfeit hairdryers. Therefore, their acts have great social harm, and the subjective malice of each defendant is also great, so they should not be granted reduced punishment or probation.
至案发，上述4名被告人参与生产、销售涉案假冒“Dyson”注册商标的吹风机达19000余台，销售金额达1350万余元之巨，均属情节特别严重。戴森品牌吹风机在市场上有较高的知名度，且吹风机系日常生活中常用的家用小电器，4名被告人的行为不仅严重侵害了涉案商标权人的商标权及消费者的权益，亦可能因假冒吹风机本身的质量隐患对最终的消费者造成人身伤害或者财产损失，其行为具有较大的社会危害性，各被告人犯罪的主观恶性均较大，不应减轻处罚或适用缓刑。
Based on the above details of the case, the Pudong Court sentenced the key offenders Fang * and Xie * to six years' and five years' imprisonment plus a fine respectively for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and the accomplices Yang * and Huang * to three years and eight months' and three years and nine months' imprisonment and a fine respectively, confiscated their illegal proceeds, and seized the counterfeit hairdryers of the registered trademark and their accessories and packaging materials.
基于上述案情，浦东法院以假冒注册商标罪分别判处主犯方某、谢某有期徒刑六年和有期徒刑五年并处罚金，判处从犯杨某和黄某有期徒刑三年八个月和有期徒刑三年九个月并处罚金，同时没收违法所得，没收被扣押的假冒注册商标的吹风机、配件、包装材料。
After the first instance ruling, the defendants of this case pleaded guilty to the sentences and none appealed.
一审判决后，本案被告人认罪服判，均未提出上诉。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case involved the "Dyson" trademark, a well-known international brand for electrical appliances, and the amount involved exceeded RMB 13.5 million. The Pudong Court sentenced a total of 35 defendants in this series of cases to solid imprisonment terms ranging from six years to one year and six months, with a total fine of RMB 10.08 million in accordance with the law.
本案涉及国际知名电器品牌“Dyson”商标，涉案金额达人民币1350万余元。浦东法院依法对该批系列案件共35名被告人判处实刑，刑期从六年到一年六个月不等，罚金总额达人民币1008万元。
This series of cases has attracted wide attention from all walks of life due to its strict and severe sentences for the key offenders. The CCTV Finance Channel, Shanghai Media Group and many other TV stations reported on the sentencing process, while the new release of the case on the WeChat official account of the Pudong Court had 34,000 hits, and was retweeted by dozens of media such as Wen Wei Po and Xinmin Evening News. The case has been called Dyson's "first case of counterfeiting in China". And it was selected as a typical case of the year published by the People's Daily for "protecting intellectual property rights and combating infringement and counterfeiting", which has highlighted the active role China's courts have played in protecting intellectual property rights in the new pattern of cooperation, co-construction and sharing.
本案系对该批系列案件的主犯从严从重判罚，受到了社会各界广泛关注。央视财经频道、上海广播电视台等多家电视台对宣判过程进行了报道，浦东法院微信公众号发文点击量高达3.4万，并被文汇报、新民晚报等数十家媒体报道和转发，被称为戴森“全国打假第一案”。该案入选《人民日报》为“保护知识产权，打击侵权假冒”发布的年度典型案例，彰显了我国法院在保护知识产权共商共建共享新格局方面发挥的积极作用。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐