大数跨境

案例研究:北京知识产权法院就共同侵权行为判罚五百万人民币

案例研究:北京知识产权法院就共同侵权行为判罚五百万人民币 麦仕奇知识产权
2022-05-31
2
导读:北京知产法院改判“威乐”侵害商标权及不正当竞争案

作者

阳威 Frank Yang

(Senior Associate)

麦仕奇北京办公室


案例研究:北京知识产权法院就共同侵权行为判罚五百万人民币

Case study: Beijing IP Court issues CNY 5M penalty for Joint Infringing Activities 

北京知识产权法院最近就威乐(中国)水泵系统有限公司(简称“威乐中国”)诉威乐泵业(江苏)有限公司(简称“江苏威乐”)及经销商北京阳光科宇新能源科技有限公司(简称“阳光科宇”)商标侵权和不正当竞争一案作出终审判决。在判决中,二审法院将酌定赔偿金从人民币五十万元大幅度提高至人民币五百万元。法院还撤销了经销商免于承担赔偿责任的一审判决,改为经销商应承担连带赔偿责任。判决结果反映了中国法院对于共同侵权行为更为积极的处理态度。


The Beijing IP Court recently issued its judgement on a trade mark infringement and unfair competition suit brought by Wilo (China) Water Pump System Co., Ltd. (Wilo China) against Weile Pumps (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Weile) and the distributor Beijing Sunlight Keyu New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (Sunlight Energy). In its judgement, the appellate court significantly increased the level of discretionary damages from CNY 500K to CNY 5M (approx US$ 75K to US$ 750K). The Court also reversed the first instance decision to exempt the distributor, Sunlight Energy, from liability for damages. Instead, it was held jointly liable. The outcome reflects a more proactive approach by Chinese courts to joint infringing activities.


  • 案情简介

  • Facts


威乐中国为威乐德国公司(“德国威乐”)的全资子公司,其主营业务为生产和销售水泵以及水泵系统产品。德国威乐在中国获得了对“Wilo”商标及其对应中文商标“威乐”(“Wilo”的音译)多项注册权利。


Wilo China is a subsidiary of Wilo SE (Wilo Germany). Its main business is manufacturing and sales of water pumps and pump systems. Wilo Germany has multiple registrations for its trade mark “Wilo” and its Chinese version “威乐” (Wei Le, a phonetic transliteration of “Wilo”).


德国威乐自二十世纪九十年代起就开始在中国推广和销售其泵类相关产品。德国威乐独家许可威乐中国将其中国注册商标用于产品上。威乐中国在中国已建立了广泛的销售网络,包括在中国的主要城市都设置了分支机构。威乐中国自2009年起就在中国推广和销售其品牌产品,所提交的证据显示其广告支出达到约两千万人民币。


Wilo Germany has promoted and sold its pumps and related products in China since the 1990s. Wilo Germany exclusively licensed Wilo China to use its locally registered marks on the products. Wilo China established an extensive sales network, including branch offices in major Chinese cities. Wilo China has promoted and sold the branded products in China since 2009 and the evidence attested to advertising expenditure of some CNY 20M  (approx. US$ 3M).


威乐泵业(江苏)有限公司成立于2014年,其经营范围包括生产和销售水泵和相关产品。其公司名称中的前两个汉字与德国威乐于2005年申请注册的中文商标完全相同。


Weile Pumps (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. (威乐泵业 (江苏)有限公司) was incorporated in 2014. Its business scope includes manufacture and sales of water pumps and related products. The initial two characters in its Chinese company name are the same characters that comprise Wilo Germany’s Chinese mark, which was first registered in 2005.


江苏威乐的泵及相关产品不仅通过经销商渠道进行销售,还通过其官方网站 www.wilopump.cn  以及其他在中国的第三方电商平台(如jd.com, taobao.com以及1688.com)上进行销售。


Jiangsu Weile sold its pumps and related products through distributors, but also via its official website www.wilopump.cn  and on other third party e-commerce platforms in China (e.g. JD.com, taobao.com and 1688.com)


江苏威乐在其官网上推广的产品(示例)
Jiangsu Weile’s Products promoted on its official website (example)


图片来源 Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160929061530/http://www.wilopump.cn/Ch/products.asp

注: “威乐泵业”在产品上突出显示。中文“威乐”为德国威乐的注册商标 .

Note: The four characters “威乐泵业” are prominently displayed on the product. The initial two characters “威乐” are Wilo Germany’s registered mark. The final two characters mean “pump industry”.


威乐集团在京东电商平台上推广的产品(示例)

Wilo Group’s Products promoted on JD.com (example)

图片来源 Source: https://mall.jd.com/index-807805.html?from=pc

注: 中英文商标“Wilo”及“威乐”均用于标识网页上的产品 

Note: Both English and Chinese marks Wilo and “威乐” are used to identify the product on the webpage.


江苏威乐的网站(截屏)

Jiangsu Weile’s Website(screenshot)

图片来源 Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160929061530/http://www.wilopump.cn/Ch/products.asp

注 : 域名“wilopump”完整包含德国威乐的注册商标“wilo”;中文“威乐泵业”被突出显示,其中“威乐”为德国威乐的中文商标。

Note: The domain name “wilopump” incorporates the English name “wilo”, which is the registered mark of Wilo Germany. The four characters are “威乐泵业” prominently displayed, the initial two characters “威乐” being Wilo Germany’s Chinese mark. The final two characters mean “pump industry”.


威乐集团的网站(截屏)

Wilo Group’s Website (screenshot)

图片来源 Source: 

https://wilo.com/cn/zh/%E4%BA%A7%E5%93%81%E5%92%8C%E4%B8%93%E4%B8%9A%E8%83%BD%E5%8A%9B/zh/chanpinyuzhuanyezhishi

注:中英文商标 “Wilo”及 “威乐”均用于标明威乐集团的业务的来源。

Note: Both English and Chinese marks Wilo and “威乐” are used to identify the business of Wilo Group.


阳光科宇成立于2008年,该公司同时经销威乐中国和江苏威乐供货的产品。


Sunlight Energy, established in 2008, is a re-seller of products supplied by both Wilo China and Jiangsu Weile.


  • 一审判决

  • First Instance Judgement

2019年1月,威乐中国起诉江苏威乐以及阳光科宇共同实施商标侵权及不正当竞争行为,并主张五百万人民币赔偿金。一审法院虽然注意到了江苏威乐使用“威乐”、“威乐泵业”、“江苏威乐泵业”以及域名“wilopump.cn”的事实,但是仍然决定对在第三方电商平台(jd.com, taobao.com, 1688.com)上发生的所有销售和推广行为不予处理,因为这些行为均独立于两被告所从事的共同侵权行为。因此。这些事实应当被排除出案件审理范围之外。


In January 2019, Wilo China sued Jiangsu and Sunlight Energy jointly for trade mark infringement and unfair competition and sought CNY 5M (approx. US$ 750K) in damages.  While the court took account of the use by Jaingsue Weile of the characters “威乐”, “威乐泵业”, “江苏威乐泵业”, and the domain name “wilopump.cn”, it decided to disregard all sales and promotional activities that occurred via third party e-commerce platforms (jd.com, taotao.com, 1688.com) as these were independent of the joint infringing activities of the two defendants.  Thus, they should be excluded from the scope of judicial review in this case.


在已查明认定的事实基础上,一审法院裁定江苏威乐的擅自使用行为以及阳光科宇的销售行为,共同侵犯了德国威乐的注册商标专用权。法院还确认江苏威乐注册及使用含有“威乐”字样的公司名称构成不正当竞争。因法院无法评估威乐中国所遭受的实际损失或江苏威乐获得的利润,其作出了五十万人民币的酌定赔偿金的判罚。但是,因阳光科宇出示了合法购买以及销售江苏威乐产品的证据,一审法院免除了阳光科宇的赔偿责任。


Based on its findings, the court ruled that the unauthorized use by Jiangsu Weile, and the sales by Sunlight Energy, jointly infringed the registered trade marks of Wilo Germany. The court also affirmed that Jiangsu Weile’s registration and use of its Chinese corporate name incorporating the characters “威乐” amounted to unfair competition. As the court was unable to assess actual loss suffered by Wilo China, or profit earned by Jiangsu Weile, it awarded CNY 500,000 (approx. US$75K) in discretionary damages. However, the court exempted Sunlight Energy from payment of damages as it had produced evidence of legitimate purchases and resale of products from Jiangsu Weile. 


  • 二审判决

  • Second Instance Judgement


诉讼双方均提出了上诉。北知院在上诉程序中确认了一审程序查明的全部事实。但是,基于这些证据,二审法院认为江苏威乐的在第三方电商平台上从事的销售和宣传行为与本诉讼中所诉争的行为密切相关,因此,这些行为不应被排除出现有案件的审理范围。


Both parties appealed. On appeal, the Beijing IP Court acknowledged the facts that had been established at first instance. But, based on this evidence, it held that Jiangsu Weile’s sales and promotional activities on third party e-commerce platforms were closely related to the activities complained of in this litigation and therefore these activities should not be omitted from the scope of the present case. 


最终,基于江苏威乐在1688.com网站上所声称获得的收入(约人民币一亿元每年)以及侵权行为的持续期间(2017-2022),二审法院决定全额支持威乐中国提出的赔偿请求(人民币五百万元)。


As a result, the appellate court upheld Wilo China’s right to all claimed damages (CNY 5M, approx US$750K) in light of the revenues generated by Jiangsu Weile on 1688.com (circa. CNY 100M per year / approx US$ 15M per year) and the duration of the infringing activities (2017-2022).


与此同时,法院基于经销商自2008年以来也同时在销售威乐中国的品牌产品,因此推定经销商应当知道从江苏威乐处购买的产品侵犯了德国威乐的商标权,从而认定阳光科宇存在恶意。在此基础上,法院判决阳光科宇应在十五万人民币的范围内承担连带赔偿责任。


The court also found bad faith on the part of Sunlight Energy by inferring that this reseller should have known that products purchased from Jiangsu Weile infringed the trade rights of Wilo Germany in view of its concurrent sales of Wilo China’s genuine products since 2008.  On this basis, the court ruled that Sunlight Energy should be jointly liable for damages up to CNY 150,000 (approx. US$ 22,500).


  • 案件点评

  • Comments


中国公司凭借在本地注册的中国公司名称以及域名不正当地利用品牌权利人的知名度“搭便车”的行为屡见不鲜。在本案中,两级法院虽然均认定两被告的行为构成侵权,但是在审理范围以及经销商承担的责任两个问题上却出现了不同的意见。


This practice of a Chinese company seeking to take advantage of its locally registered Chinese corporate name and domain name to unfairly trade on the reputation of a genuine brand owner is not uncommon.  While the courts were united in finding that the activities of both defendants constituted infringement, their views diverged on the scope of the judicial review and the liability of the distributor. 

 
审理范围 Scope of Judicial Review

在一审阶段,法院倾向于将审理范围局限于江苏威乐和阳光科宇共同实施的侵权行为。而二审法院则将审理范围扩展至主侵权人包括在第三方电商平台商的销售在内的所有侵权行为,尽管这些行为可能并不涉及另一共同被告。五百万元的判罚也正是基于源于第三方平台的收入而判罚。法院在本案中愿意对侵权行为采取一个更宽的视角来对待,对知识产权权利人将是有益的,使其不必要对同一个侵权人提出多个诉讼来达到目的。

At first instance, the court tended confined its review only to the joint infringing activities directly engaged in by Jiangsu Weile and Sunlight Energy.  By contrast, the appellate court extended its review to all the infringing activities of the principal infringer, including its sales on third party e-commerce platforms, even though these may not have involved the co-defendant. The CNY 5M (approx. US$ 750K) damages were then imposed based on revenues derived from sales on third party platforms.  The willingness of the Court in this case to take a broader view of infringing activity will benefit genuine IP holders who might now avoid the need to pursue multiple actions against the same defendant.  

经销商的责任 Liability of the Distributor

中国商标法规定,经销商不知道是侵权商品,能证明商品是自己合法取得的,并说明提供者的,不承担赔偿责任。

The China Trademark Law provides that a distributor may be exempted from payment of damages if it does not know the products are infringing, can prove they were acquired by legitimate means, and discloses the supplier’s identity. 

依据本条规定,阳光科宇在一审中得以逃避了赔偿责任,因为其提供了从江苏威乐处采购产品的合法凭证。但是,基于相同的事实,二审法院却作出了不同的判决。二审法院认定了经销商存在恶意,并判令其承担连带赔偿责任。二审法院合理论定经销商因同时销售双方产品,是应当知道存在侵权的。法院的决定似乎说明经销商应负有避免故意销售侵权产品的一般注意义务。

Following this provision, Sunlight Energy was at first instance able to escape liability for damages because it proved its legitimate acquisition of the products from Jiangsu Weile. But, based on the same facts, the appellate court decided differently. It established bad faith on the part of the distributor and found it jointly liable for damages. The appellate court reasonably concluded that the distributor should have had knowledge of the infringement as its was selling the products of both parties.  This finding by the court seems to imply some general duty of care to avoid knowingly selling infringing goods.



END


麦仕奇知识产权



1887年成立,专注国际知识产权服务,国际办公室分布:


   英国:  伦敦、伯明翰、 阿伯丁、剑桥、爱丁堡 

                格拉斯哥、曼彻斯特、牛津

   欧洲:  巴黎(法国)、索菲厄安蒂波(法国)、卢森堡

   美洲:  渥太华(加拿大)、多伦多(加拿大)

   亚洲:  北京、香港、吉隆坡(马来西亚)、新加坡



To be the leading provider of IP services


麦仕奇知识产权

微信:Marks-Clerk

领英:Marks&Clerk

推特:marksclerkscot


长按二维码关注




【声明】内容源于网络
0
0
麦仕奇知识产权
1234
内容 272
粉丝 0
麦仕奇知识产权 1234
总阅读113
粉丝0
内容272