广告之争，不只凉茶！——虚假宣传案例要旨汇编 | 法宝双语案例

虚假宣传双语案例

Case Summaries of False Publicity Cases

一

指导性案例 Guiding Case

成都同德福合川桃片有限公司诉重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司、余晓华侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案Chengdu Tongdefu Hechuan Peach Slices Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd. and Yu Xiaohua (case concerning dispute over infringement upon trademark right and unfair competition)【关键词】民事；侵害商标权；不正当竞争；老字号；虚假宣传[Key Words] civil; infringement upon trademark right; unfair competition; time-honored brand; false publicity【裁判理由】成都同德福公司的网站上登载的部分“同德福牌”桃片的历史及荣誉，与史料记载的同德福斋铺的历史及荣誉一致，且在其网站上标注了史料来源，但并未举证证明其与同德福斋铺存在何种联系。此外，成都同德福公司还在其产品外包装标明其为“百年老牌”“老字号”“始创于清朝乾隆年间”等字样，而其“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标核准注册的时间是1998年，就其采取前述标注行为的依据，成都同德福公司亦未举证证明。成都同德福公司的前述行为与事实不符，容易使消费者对于其品牌的起源、历史及其与同德福斋铺的关系产生误解，进而取得竞争上的优势，构成虚假宣传，应承担相应的停止侵权、消除影响的民事责任。[Judgment's Reasoning] The history and honors of peach slices with the brand of  “Tongdefu” published on the website of ChengduTongdefu Company were consistent with the history and honors of Tongdefu Fast Shop in historical records. Chengdu Tongdefu Company marked the source of such historical data, but it failed to prove the connection between it and Tongdefu Fast Shop. In addition, on the outer packaging of its products, ChengduTongdefu Company marked such characters as “Century-old Brand,” “Time-honored Brand,” and “Originated in the Period of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty”; however, the registration of the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” was approved in 1998. ChengduTongdefu Company did not prove the basis for committing the act of marking the aforesaid characters, either. The aforesaid acts of Chengdu Tongdefu Company did not conform to facts and easily caused consumers misunderstanding of the origin of its brand, history, and relationship with Tongdefu Fast Shop, so as to gain advantage in competition. Such acts constituted false publicity and Chengdu Tongdefu Company should assume the corresponding civil liability of ceasing infringement and eliminating adverse effects.【法宝引证码】CLI.C.8334774[CLI Code] CLI.C.8334774(EN)

二

典型案例 Model Case

开德阜国际贸易（上海）有限公司诉阔盛管道系统（上海）有限公司等侵害商标权、虚假宣传纠纷上诉案KDF Distribution (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Aquatherm Pipe System (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. et al. (appellate case regarding dispute over infringement upon trademark right and false publicity)
【关键词】商标权；虚假宣传；混淆[Key Words] trademark right；false publicity；confusion
【裁判理由】上海知识产权法院二审认为，基于“洁水”商标曾被用于推广阿垮瑟姆公司产品的事实，阔盛公司、欧苏公司在宣传活动中有必要向消费者告知“洁水”商标所指向的产品已经发生变化，两公司使用“洁水”商标主观上是善意的，且使用方式没有超出合理的限度，不会造成消费者对产品的来源产生混淆，属于商标的正当使用。阔盛公司、欧苏公司所使用宣传用语在文字表述上确有不准确之处，但并未产生引人误解的效果，不构成反不正当竞争法意义上的虚假宣传。遂驳回上诉，维持一审判决。[Judgment's Reasoning] After a trial of second instance, the Intellectual Property Court of Shanghai Municipality held that: Based on the fact that the trademark “洁水” was once used for popularizing products of Aquatherm GmbH, it was necessary for Aquatherm (Shanghai) Company and Ousu Company to inform consumers in publicity activities that the products with the trademark “洁水” have changed. The two companies were benign in using the trademark “洁水,” the use pattern did not exceed the rational limit and would not cause consumers' confusion in the product sources, and it was proper use of the trademark. The publicity expressions used by Aquatherm(Shanghai) Company and Ousu Company were actually inaccurate in terms of literal expressions; however, it did not generate any misleading effect and did not constitute false publicity under the Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Shanghai Municipality dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of first instance.【法宝引证码】CLI.C.6995216 [CLI Code] CLI.C.6995216(EN)

三

经典案例 Classic Case

河南南阳中院判决燕丽诉农夫山泉公司等虚假宣传案Yan Li v. Nongfu Spring Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over false publicity)
【核心术语】广告;绝对化用语;虚假宣传[Key Terms] advertising; absolute wording; false publicity【争议焦点】生产者在其生产的茶饮料上使用“上品饮茶极品饮花”的广告语，是否构成虚假宣传？[Disputed Issues] Where the producer uses the advertising slogan of “supreme tea drink” on its product, does such slogan constitute false publicity?【案例要旨】虚假宣传是指在商业活动中经营者利用广告或其他方法对商品或者服务做出与实际内容不相符的虚假信息，导致客户或消费者误解的行为。《中华人民共和国广告法》第三条规定：“广告应当真实合法，符合社会主义精神文明建设的要求”。第四条规定：“广告不得含有虚假的内容，不得欺骗和误导消费者”。同时，第七条还规定了广告不得使用最高级、最佳等绝对化用语。而生产者在其生产的茶饮料上使用“上品饮茶极品饮花”的广告语，是人类对于健康生活的主观追求和向往，也是一种保健饮用的方法，该词语没有绝对性、特定性、唯一性、排他性，不属于有关法律所禁止的绝对化用语，不能证明、也不代表该产品在同类产品中在质量和品级中是最高质量品级。因此，生产者在产品包装上使用该词语并不构成虚假宣传。[Case Summary] False publicity refers to the situation where the operator sends false information about its products or services, which is not in conformity with the fact, through advertising or other means in commercial activities which misleads clients or consumers. Article 3 of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China provides that the contents of an advertisement shall be true, lawful and conforming to the requirements in the building of a socialist spiritual civilization. Article 4 provides that an advertisement shall neither contain false content nor deceive or mislead consumers. In addition, Article 7 provides that an advertisement shall not use absolute wordings such as supreme or best. Nonetheless, the slogan of “supreme tea drink” put on the package of the tea drink by the producer reflects the pursuit and aspiration of the mankind for healthy life and is a healthy drinking method as well. Such slogan is not absolute, specific, unique or exclusive. It is not an absolute wording banned by relevant laws. It does not mean that the product is the best among products of the same category. Hence, the use of the slogan by the producer on the package of the product does not constitute false publicity.【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2109230[CLI Code] CLI.C.2109230(EN)
责任编辑：吴晓婧稿件来源：北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）审核人员：张文硕

▼往期精彩回顾▼

欢迎扫码获取法宝介绍和试用

OUR VISION

爱法律，有未来

为法律人打造美好的工作体验

北大法律信息网	北大法宝

北大法宝学堂

法宝智能