|
黄雪芳 Huang Xuefang (Partner) 麦仕奇北京办公室 中国：单纯商标抢注可以构成不正当竞争 China: Filing Bad-Faith Trade Mark Applications Alone May Constitute Unfair Competition 近日，中国法院在“艾默生电气公司诉厦门安吉尔水精灵饮水设备有限公司等”一案中首次明确，单纯进行商标抢注的行为也可能构成针对品牌所有人的不正当竞争侵权行为。案号（2021）闽民终1129号。此前，仅当抢注人恶意使用了抢注商标或者基于抢注所得的商标去恶意投诉或起诉品牌所有人时，才会被认为构成不正当竞争行为。 Recently, a Chinese court confirmed for the first time in Emerson Electric Co. v. Xiamen Water Angels Drinking Water Equipment Co. Ltd. and others that mere trade mark squatting may constitute an act of unfair competition against a brand owner. Case reference (2021) Min Min Zhong 1129. Previously, a finding of unfair competition required misleading use of the misappropriated trade mark or involved the filing of a maliciously complaint or infringement lawsuit against the genuine brand owner. 案件背景 Background of the case 艾默生电气公司（以下简称“艾默生”）出产的“爱适易 In Sink Erator”食物垃圾处理器在全球及中国广受欢迎。艾默生上世纪九十年代在中国注册了第一个“In-Sink-Erator”商标，之后又注册了前述英文、中文译名“爱适易”、设计图组合而成的系列商标。 Emerson Electric Co.'s ('Emerson') 'In Sink Erator' food waste disposals are popular worldwide, including in China. The 'In-Sink-Erator' trade mark was first registered in China in the 1990s and was followed by a multiple further registrations for marks incorporating “In-Sink-Erator” and/or its Chinese character version. 厦门安吉尔水精灵饮水设备有限公司（以下简称“安吉尔公司”）自2010年起在多个类别申请注册了超过20个“In-Sink-Erator爱适易及图”商标，代理机构为厦门兴浚知识产权事务有限公司（以下简称“兴浚IP”）。安吉尔公司同时也申请注册了其他知名第三方品牌，例如“陶氏”、“卡尔冈”以及“大疆”（中国著名的无人机品牌）等。安吉尔公司的法定代表人王先生也以自己的个人名义申请了“iphone”等商标，代理机构同样为兴浚IP。 Since 2010, Xiamen Water Angels Drinking Water Equipment Co. Ltd. ('Water Angels') applied to register more than 20 marks incorporating the 'In-Sink-Erator” mark”. The application were filed through Xiamen Xingjun IP Firm ('Xingjun IP'), a trade mark agency. The Chinese company also applied to register other famous third-party brands, such as DOW, CALGON and DJI (a well-known Chinese brand for drones). Mr. Wang, the legal representative of Water Angels, applied in his personal name to register 'iphone' and others through Xingjun IP. 为阻止相关商标注册，艾默生提起了众多异议、无效宣告请求、行政诉讼等行动。之后，王先生在2015年另外成立了“厦门海纳百川网络科技有限公司”（以下简称：海纳百川公司）。该公司自2017年起又申请注册了20多件“In-Sink-Erator 爱适易及图”商标，代理机构同样也为兴浚IP。艾默生针对这些商标也提起了异议等行动。 Emerson filed oppositions, sought invalidations, and pursued administrative remedies to try to prevent registration of the Water Angels marks. But Mr. Wang established another company (Xiamen Ocean-Accepts-All-Rivers Network Technology Co. Ltd. - “OAA-Rivers”) in 2015 and, using the same agent, Xingjun IP, applied register more than 20 'In-Sink-Erator'marks since 2017. Emerson again opposed the applications.
案件事实 Facts of the case 2020年3月，艾默生将安吉尔公司、海纳百川公司、王先生及兴浚IP列为被告向厦门市中级人民法院提起诉讼，请求法院判令前三个被告进行商标抢注的行为以及第四个被告协助前者提交商标抢注申请的行为构成对艾默生的不正当竞争。在该案一审开庭前，安吉尔公司、海纳百川公司撤回/注销了全部相关商标。 In March 2020, Emerson filed a lawsuit with Xiamen Intermediate People's Court naming Water Angels, OAA-Rivers, Mr. Wang and Xingjun IP as defendants. It asked the court to declare that the first three defendants' conduct in filing the applications, and the fourth defendant's conduct in providing assistance, constituted unfair competition. Prior to the first instance hearing, Water Angels and OAA-Rivers withdrew or revoked all their relevant trade marks. 2021年4月，法院作出一审判决，支持了艾默生的诉求，认为安吉尔公司、海纳百川公司的批量商标抢注行为构成了不正当竞争行为，并且认定此二公司与它们的实际控制人王先生实施了共同侵权，同时兴浚IP作为代理机构则实施了帮助侵权的行为。法院判令四被告停止申请注册相同或近似商标，并赔偿艾默生因制止抢注产生的律师费损失及合理支出，并且还需在全国性的媒体发布声明以消除侵权影响。 In April 2021, the court issued its judgment holding that the serial attempts to misappropriate the marks constituted unfair competition and that the two companies and their de facto controller, Mr. Wang, had jointly committed an infringement. Also, Xingjun IP had knowingly facilitated the infringement. The court ordered all four defendants to cease applying to register marks identical or similar to Ermerson’s trade marks and to compensate Emerson for its attorneys' fees and the reasonable expenses it had incurred, and to issue a statement in the national media to eliminate the impact of the infringement. 四被告对此判决不服，向福建省高级人民法院提起了上诉。2021年9月，法院作出了二审判决，维持了一审判决。该二审判决于2022年6月初公开。 The four defendants appealed this decision to the Fujian Provincial Higher People's Court. In September 2021, the appellate court issued its decision, upholding the first instance verdict. The second trial verdict was made available to the public in June 2022. 主要争议焦点 Major Issues of the case
安吉尔公司、海纳百川公司辩称，他们仅进行了商标注册申请，系发起行政程序的行为，而非民事行为，且这些商标在一审开庭前就已经被全部注销或撤回；所有商标均未投入使用，不存在生产经营活动，既不可能导致消费者混淆，也不可能扰乱艾默生的生产经营活动；因此，它们的行为不受《反不正当竞争法》管辖，也不属于该法列举的不正当竞争行为之一。 Water Angels and OAA-Rivers argued that they were only engaged in filing applications, an act to initiate administrative procedures, and that all trade marks had been revoked or withdrawn. None of the marks had been put into use, nor had they carried out any business activity. So there was no consumer confusion or disruption to Emerson's business activities. As such, their actions should not be subject to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, nor were they among any of the unfair competitive acts enumerated in the Law. 不过，两审法院认为，两家被告公司先后在多个类别的商品或服务上注册与艾默生公司商标相同或近似的诸多商标，导致艾默生公司不得不通过提起大量的商标异议、无效宣告请求、行政诉讼及本案民事诉讼来维护其合法权益，支出了大量成本，因此，被告公司的商标注册申请行为在一定程度上干扰了艾默生公司的正常生产经营，可以认定为构成不正当竞争行为。 However, the courts held that the two companies, in registering many identical or similar marks, forced Emerson to defend its legitimate rights and interests by undertaking multiple trade mark oppositions, invalidation petitions, administrative litigation and civil proceeding, and in doing so it had incurred significant cost. The defendant companies' trade mark filings had interfered with Emerson's operations to a a material extent and so could be found to constitute unfair competition.
安吉尔公司、海纳百川公司的法定代表人王先生辩称，他并未以自己的个人名义申请注册过与原告有关的商标，并未与两家公司共同实施侵权，而且公司的人格独立，公司行为应当由公司承担责任，不应当由法定代表人承担连带责任。 Mr. Wang, the legal representative of Water Angels and OAA-Rivers, argued that he did not apply for registration of the In-Sink-Erator related trade marks in his own name and therefore did not commit joint infringement, and that the companies had their own independent legal personality. Therefore, the companies were responsible for their actions, but the legal representative should not be held jointly and severally liable. 然而，法院认为，王先生除了是两家公司的法定代表人之外，还是两家公司的执行董事兼总经理、控股股东以及实际控制人，并且他在一家公司的商标申请行为被确认具有违法性后，又成立另一家公司继续实施抢注行为，因此主观上对侵权明知，并且以两家公司为其实施抢注行为的工具，因此应当构成共同侵权人，应当承担连带责任。 The court held that Mr. Wang, in addition to being legal representative of the two companies, was also the executive director and general manager, major shareholder and de facto controller of the two companies. Also, after the applications made by the first company were found illegal, he then set up the second company to continue the attempts at trade mark misappropriation. He was aware of the infringement and intentionally used the two companies as tools to carry out the infringement. He was therefore a joint infringer and should be held jointly and severally liable.
兴浚IP认为，其受委托为客户提交商标注册申请的行为不违法，不存在明知委托人抢注商标的情形，因此其没有违反商标法规定的代理机构的强制性诚信义务，也不应当承担侵权责任。 Xingjun IP argued that its acts of filing the applications for a client were not unlawful, nor was it aware that the principals were involved in trade mark squatting. So, it did not violate the good faith obligations of an agency and should not be liable for infringement. 法院则认为，兴浚IP代理了两家被告公司的绝大多数抢注商标，而且在此前行政诉讼程序中认定了两公司的行为的违法性后，兴浚IP仍然继续为其提交商标抢注申请，因此其代理行为构成帮助其他被告实施侵权的情形，应当共同承担侵权责任。 The courts, though, held that Xingjun IP represented the vast majority of the two defendant companies' infringing applications and continued to file infringing trade mark applications for the companies even after the illegality of the acts was recognised in earlier administrative proceedings. Therefore, its acts in representing these companies were acts of facilitating infringement and should bear joint infringement liability. 这一认定似乎是本案最有争议性的地方。本案判决书公开后，该认定引发了商标代理同行的热议。 This seems to be the most controversial finding of the case. After the verdict was made public, it sparked a heated debate among fellow trade mark professionals. 评论 Comments 近年来，商标抢注活动已越发职业化。一些抢注藉由同一群体控制的不同公司来实施，并专门针对某些特定品牌进行，其中也常常伴随着某些IP从业人员的身影。由于商标申请的成本比较低，并且申请人在受到挑战（例如异议或无效宣告）后无义务进行答辩，因此在品牌所有人发起挑战行动之后，抢注人往往不作回应，而是立即重新提交相同商标的注册申请。这就致使品牌所有人常常陷入应对层出不穷的抢注申请的境地，耗费大量精力及财力。 Recently, trade mark squatting activities have become more sophisticated. Such squatting activities may involve different companies controlled by the same group of people with the involvement of IP professionals targeting specific brands. Due to the relatively low cost of filing trademark applications, and the lack of any obligation on an applicant to defend or justify its application if challenged, it is increasingly common for squatters to choose not to respond to challenges brought by brand owners, but simply to immediately re-apply to register the same trade marks. This results in brand owners often being caught in the position of dealing with endless infringing applications and incurring significant time and expense. 本案判决将商标抢注行为定性为针对权利人的不正当竞争行为，并判处了适当的救济措施。这一突破性的判决应当可以在一定程度上对抢注人群体产生震慑效果，从而使得抢注现象能有所收敛，同时也能鼓励更多品牌所有人积极地进行维权。 The judgment in this case classified the act of trade mark “grabbing” to constitute unfair competition against the right holder and appropriate remedies were imposed. This groundbreaking ruling may go some way to deterring trade mark snatching and cool the squatting phenomenon, while also encouraging more brand owners to actively defend their rights. 虽然本案判决在商标代理人群体中引起了讨论和争议，引发为客户提交商标申请将导致承担侵权责任的担忧，不过，这对于恪守职业道德规范的诚信代理机构来说，谈不上有什么多大影响。 While the ruling in this case has sparked debate and controversy among trade mark professionals because of concerns that filing applications for clients could generate liability, this should not impact unduly on reputable agencies that do choose to abide by the code of professional ethics. END |
|
|
