“平安”商标不正当竞争纠纷案
Case Analysis
Shenzhen Ping'an International Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China Ltd.
“平安”商标不正当竞争纠纷案
Lower Court Docket No.: 1624, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (粤03)
Docket No.: 1853, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Guangdong High People's Court (粤)
一审案号：（2017）粤03民初1624号
二审案号：（2019）粤民终1853号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
When it comes to cross-class protection, a right holder can choose the trademark with higher awareness and stronger prohibition right to exercise the holder's right, thus making the recognition of well-known trademarks necessary. Generic vocabulary can have acquired distinctiveness through long-term promotion and use, so the "proper use" of a trademark of the "generic term" nature is limited to the use of the first meaning of the term, i.e. the literal and inherent meaning of the word(s); The use of the second meaning of a "generic term" is actually an infringement act of the good reputation of another's well-known trademarks.
涉及跨类保护，权利人可以选择知名度更高、禁用权更强的商标行使权利，驰名商标认定因此成为必要。通用词汇通过长期的宣传、使用，能够获得后天的显著性，对于“通用词汇”性质的商标的“合理使用”，仅限于对词汇第一含义也即字面固有含义的使用；对“通用词汇”第二含义的利用，实际系攀附他人驰名商标良好声誉，属于侵权行为。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Defendant-Appellant: Shenzhen Ping'an International Hotel Co., Ltd. ("Ping'an International Hotel")
Plaintiff-Appellee: Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China, Ltd. ("Ping An China")
上诉人（原审被告）：深圳平安国际大酒店有限公司（简称平安国际大酒店）
被上诉人（原审原告）：中国平安保险（集团）股份有限公司（简称中国平安）
Ping An China was incorporated in 1988 and has expanded its business across the country and to many overseas countries and regions through continuous operations. Ping An China has registered several "Ping An" trademarks in different service categories such as insurance, banking and investment, and the "Ping An" trademark has been recognized as a well-known trademark many times with a high awareness. Now, Ping An China has developed into a large private financial company group, enjoying a high reputation both at home and abroad. Ping'an International Hotel Co., Ltd. was established on January 18, 2013. It had used the logo of "Ping'an International Hotel" in prominent positions of its hotel located in Caitian North Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, and promoted and engaged in business activities through the website www.szharmonyhotel.com, "Ctrip.com" and other means. Ping An China believed that when Ping'an International Hotel was established, the registered trademark of Ping An China numbered 6974784 "Ping An" was already a well-known trademark in the service categories of "insurance", "banking" and "investment", so Ping'an International Hotel's using "Ping An" as its registered brand name was an obvious subjective attempt to take advantage of the awareness of the "Ping An" well-known trademark, constituting an act of unfair competition. Ping An China thus appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court, requesting that the Defendant be ordered to immediately stop using the enterprise name and brand name that had infringed on the No. 6974784 "Ping An" well-known and registered trademark of the Plaintiff, immediately change its enterprise name, and the new enterprise name after the change shall not contain the words "Ping An", compensate the Plaintiff for an economic loss of RMB 2 million and reasonable costs of RMB 50,000, and bear the litigation costs of this case.
中国平安于1988年注册成立，通过持续经营，业务范围遍布全国并发展至海外多个国家和地区。中国平安在保险、银行和投资等服务类别上注册了多个“平安”商标，“平安”商标多次被认定为驰名商标，具有极高的知名度。中国平安现已发展为一家大型民营金融企业集团，在国内外享有较高的声誉。平安国际大酒店有限公司成立于2013年1月18日，在其位于深圳市福田区彩田北路的酒店醒目位置使用“平安国际酒店”标识，并通过www.szharmonyhotel.com网站、“携程网”等进行宣传推广、从事经营活动。中国平安认为，在平安国际大酒店成立时，中国平安第6974784号“平安”注册商标已属于“保险”“银行”“投资”服务类别上的驰名商标，平安国际大酒店将“平安”作为字号注册并使用，具有明显的攀附“平安”商标知名度的主观故意，构成不正当竞争行为。中国平安因此向深圳市中级人民法院提起诉讼，请求：判令被告立即停止使用侵害原告第6974784号“平安”驰名注册商标专用权的企业名称、字号，立即变更企业名称，变更后的企业名称不得包含“平安”文字，赔偿原告经济损失200万元及判维权合理费用5万元，并承担本案诉讼费用。
In the first instance, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court ruled that the Defendant Ping'an International Hotel should immediately stop using the company name containing the words "Ping An" and compensate the Plaintiff Ping An China an economic loss of RMB 2 million and reasonable expenses of RMB 33,222 for the defense of its rights, and dismissed other claims of the Plaintiff Ping An China.
深圳市中级人民法院一审判决：被告平安国际大酒店立即停止使用含有“平安”字号的企业名称，赔偿原告中国平安经济损失200万元及维权合理支出33222元；驳回原告中国平安的其他诉讼请求。
Ping'an International Hotel appealed to Guangdong Higher People's Court. Guangdong Higher People's Court ruled in the second instance to reject the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The judgment of first instance has now come into effect.
平安国际大酒店，向广东省高级人民法院提起上诉。广东高院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。一审判决现已生效。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case involves many theoretical issues in the judicial protection of well-known trademarks. For example, how should the principle of "recognition by necessity" of well-known trademarks be followed in judicial practice? Under the circumstance that Ping An China had already obtained the registration of the "Ping An" trademark No. 6974805 in the category of "restaurants and hotels" under Class 43, is it still necessary to recognize its trademark No. 6974784 as a well-known trademark in the category of "insurance, finance and capital investment"? For a well-known trademark under the category of "insurance, finance and capital investment", can the cross-category protection of well-known trademarks be extended to the category of "restaurants and hotels"?
本案涉及驰名商标司法保护中的诸多理论问题，例如：在司法实践中，如何把握驰名商标“因需认定”原则？在中国平安已经获得第43类包括“餐厅、饭店”类别的第6974805号“平安”商标注册的情况下，是否还有必要对其在“保险、金融、资本投资”类别上的第6974784号“平安”商标是否驰名进行认定？在“保险、金融、资本投资”类别上的驰名商标，其跨类保护能否扩大至“餐厅、饭店”类别？
In this case, the court held that "Ping An" was a common instead of a concocted term, so how should it accurately define the boundary between the "reasonable use" and the infringement of the common words by the parties, i.e. whether the use of "Ping An" by Ping'an International Hotel in this case was a use of the first meaning (i.e. the literal meaning of the term itself) or the second meaning (i.e. the reliable, trustworthy and quality insurance, banking and capital investment services implied by "Ping An") of the term "Ping An"? Did Ping'an International Hotel have the intention of taking advantage of the sound reputation of the well-known trademark "Ping An"?
本案中，法院认为，“平安”系普通而非臆造词汇，如何准确界定当事人对通用词汇的“合理使用”与侵权的界限，也即本案中平安国际大酒店对“平安”的使用是对“平安”第一含义（即词汇本身的字面含义）的使用，还是对“平安”第二含义（即“平安”所代表的可靠、可信赖、优质的保险、银行、资本投资服务）的使用？平安国际大酒店是否具有攀附“平安”驰名商标的良好声誉的意图？
In this case, the judgment contains a detailed analysis and discussion of the above-mentioned disputed issues, takes into account various factors such as the malicious and continuous infringement of Ping'an International Hotel, and orders Ping'an International Hotel to compensate Ping An China for an economic loss of RMB 2 million.
本案判决对上述争议问题均有详细分析与论述，并综合考虑平安国际大酒店恶意、持续侵权等各项因素，判令平安国际大酒店赔偿中国平安经济损失200万元。
This case was selected as one of the "2020 Top Ten Typical Intelectual Property Cases of Shenzhen Courts".
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