涉外案件争议类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

北大法律信息网 2021-09-21

目录
Contents

1. 亚洲光学股份有限公司（AsiaOpticalCo.,Inc.）等诉富士胶片株式会社等加工合同纠纷案
Asia Optical Co., Inc. et al. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd et al. (case of dispute over a processing contract)

2. 印度卡拉纳银行上海分行与南阳大地棉业有限公司信用证纠纷检察建议案
Shanghai Branch of India Carana Bank v. Nanyang Dadi Cotton Industry Co., Ltd. (case of a procuratorial recommendation on dispute over letter of credit)

3. 迪斯全球有限公司诉国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会公司商标异议复审行政纠纷案
Ragdoll Limited v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (case of administrative dispute over the review of trademark opposition)

一、亚洲光学股份有限公司（AsiaOpticalCo.,Inc.）等诉富士胶片株式会社等加工合同纠纷案

Asia Optical Co., Inc. et al. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd et al. (case of dispute over a processing contract)

【裁判要旨】

[Judgment Abstract]

在产品开发制造中，不应根据合同名称机械判断合作双方之间的法律关系。若协议双方在委托开发合同中除约定委托开发业务外，还就所开发产品的商品化进行了约定，即可认定双方间不仅存在着委托技术开发关系，还存在委托加工制造关系。双方当事人依据委托开发合同中的仲裁条款向仲裁机构提出仲裁后，又以委托加工制造关系纠纷为由向法院提起诉讼的，人民法院不予受理。

A legal relationship between two partners shall not be judged mechanically based on the contract name in the product development and manufacturing. If the commercialization of the developed products is agreed on, in addition to the entrusted development business stipulated in the development contract by the parties to the agreement, it can be concluded that there is not only a contracted technology development relationship but also a contracted manufacturing relationship between the two parties. Where the two parties file an arbitration to an arbitral institution based on the arbitration clause in the entrusted development contract, and then bring a lawsuit to a court on the grounds of the disputes over the entrusted processing and manufacturing relationship, the people's court shall not accept such suit.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.90058954

[CLI Code] CLI.C.90058954(EN)

二、印度卡拉纳银行上海分行与南阳大地棉业有限公司信用证纠纷检察建议案

Shanghai Branch of India Carana Bank v. Nanyang Dadi Cotton Industry Co., Ltd. (case of a procuratorial recommendation on dispute over letter of credit)

【裁判摘要】

[Judgment Abstract]

当事人以信用证欺诈为由向人民法院申请采取诉前保全措施并中止支付信用证项下款项时，应当同时满足《最高人民法院关于审理信用证纠纷案件若干问题的规定》第十一条第一款规定的第一至五项条件，否则人民法院将不予受理。开证行或议付行善意承兑或议付信用证项下款的行为，恰恰违背了上述规定的第五项要求，故此时人民法院将不予受理该申请。

When a party applies to the people's court for pre-pleading preservation measures and suspension of payment under the letter of credit on the grounds of letter of credit fraud, the conditions stipulated in subparagraph 1 to subparagraph 5 of Article 11 (1) of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases of Disputes over Letter of Credit shall be met, otherwise the people's court will not accept it. The issuing bank or negotiating bank's bona fide acceptance or negotiation of the payment under the letter of credit violates subparagraph 5 of the above provisions, therefore, the people's court will not accept the application at this time.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.8709371

[CLI Code] CLI.C.8709371(EN)

三、迪斯全球有限公司诉国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会公司商标异议复审行政纠纷案

Ragdoll Limited v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (case of administrative dispute over the review of trademark opposition)

【裁判要旨】

[Judgment Abstract]

判断被异议商标的申请注册是否损害他人在先的知名商品特有名称的权利，关键在于判断将与该知名商品特有名称相同或近似的名称作为商标使用在相关商品上，是否容易导致相关公众误认。相关公众误认的可能性越大的，在先权利受保护的范围越大。因此，知名商品特有名称虽具有较高知名度和显著性，但其所涉领域与被异议商标指定的商品相距较远，相关公众重合程度不高的，未损害知名商品的在先权利。

The key to judging whether an application for registration of a trademark to which an opposition has been filed damages the others earlier right of a unique name of a well-known commodity is to judge whether using the same or similar name of the well-known commodity as the trademark is liable to be mistaken for the trademark of the well-known commodity by relevant public. The more likely the relevant public is to misidentify the commodity, the greater the scope of protection of earlier rights. Therefore, where a name of a well-known commodity has high popularity and distinctiveness, but the domain is far from the domain of the trademark to which an opposition has been filed, and the relevant public does not have a high degree of confusion between commodities, it does not damage the earlier rights of the well-known commodity.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10921330

[CLI Code] CLI.C.10921330(EN)

责任编辑：富敬

稿件来源：北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）

审核人员：张文硕

更多精彩，请点击菜单栏“法宝盘点-法宝原创-双语新闻”：

▼往期精彩回顾▼