典型案例—— 涉“钓鱼取证”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案涉“钓鱼取证”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案

  Case Analysis

Lingchuang Lighting v. Homy Lighting

涉“钓鱼取证”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案涉“钓鱼取证”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案

Docket number of the case in the first instance: 519, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2020) Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (粤73)

Docket number of the case in the second instance: 2596, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Guangdong High People's Court (粤)

一审案号：（2020）粤73民初519号

二审案号：（2020）粤民终2596号 

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

The evidence obtained by the obligee or his entrusted agent by purchasing the infringing articles from the potential infringing party after fabricating or concealing their true identity or taking other measures for the purpose of evidence collection shall not be necessarily excluded because of the violation of the law; if this evidence collection provided an ordinary trading opportunity, rather than inducing the potential infringing party from scratch to commit infringement as instructed , that’s, the infringement on intellectual property rights is not committed solely based on the evidence collection act by the obligee or his entrusted agent, then relevant evidence collected may be used as evidence for the obligee to sue the accused infringing party for infringement.

权利人或其委托代理人以虚构或隐瞒真实身份、取证目的等方法向潜在侵权人购买侵权物品所获取的证据，并不必然因其违法而应排除；若该取证行为提供了一次普通交易机会，而非从无到有诱导潜在侵权人按照指示实施了侵权行为，即并非仅基于权利人或其委托代理人的取证行为而实施侵犯知识产权的行为，则相关证据可以作为权利人起诉被诉侵权人侵权的证据。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Appellant (Defendant in the case in the first instance): Guangdong Lingchuang Lighting Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Lingchuang Lighting)

Appellee (Plaintiff in the case in the first instance): Zhongshan Homy Lighting Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Homy Lighting)

上诉人（原审被告）：广东灵创照明灯饰有限公司（简称灵创公司）

被上诉人（原审原告）：中山市家有照明电器有限公司（简称家有公司）

Homy Lighting is the obligee of a “corrugated lamp" design patent. Homy Lighting found on the Internet that, in the exhibition publicity contents available at the official website of Lingchuang Lighting, Lingchuang Lighting displayed several corrugated lamps, one of which was similar to the patent involved. Homy Lighting entrusted Xie XX as its agent to initiatively add the WeChat ID of salesman Fu XX of Lingchuang Lighting. Xie fabricated his identity as Zhong XX from Fuxin Company and expressed his intention to purchase large quantities of corrugated lamp products for projects in other places. According to chat records between Xie and Fu, Xie asked Fu "Do you produce corrugated lamps?”, and Fu replied “Yes”, asking Xie to provide the appearance of the corrugated lamps to be produced. Xie sent a physical photo of corrugated lamps. Fu provided details on the size, power and other product information, and promise to supply in three days at the earliest. Later, the two sides concluded a transaction order. Three days later, Homy Lighting entrusted its agent Xie to pick up six sets of corrugated lamps at the site designated by Lingchuang Lighting in the presence of a notary, and obtained the sales receipt.

家有公司是一款“瓦当灯”外观设计专利的权利人。家有公司在互联网上发现，灵创公司在其官方网站宣传参加展会，并展示了几款瓦椤灯产品，其中一款与涉案专利相近。家有公司委托代理人谢某主动添加灵创公司业务员符某的微信号，自称为富鑫公司钟某，因在外地有项目工程需要采购大批量瓦楞灯产品。谢某与符某的聊天记录显示，谢某询问符某“你们做瓦楞灯不”，符某回应“做”，并要求谢某提供需要做的瓦楞灯外观样式。谢某发送了一张瓦楞灯的实物照片，符某随即详细描述该产品尺寸、功率等产品细节，并承诺最快三天可以供货，双方随后达成交易下单。三天后，家有公司委托代理人谢某在公证人员的监督下，在灵创公司指定地点提货6套瓦楞灯，并取得销售单据。

Homy Lighting filed a lawsuit with Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, claiming that Lingchuang Lighting that manufactured, sold and promised to sell corrugated lamps infringing on the patent rights involved shall stop infringement acts and pay a compensation of RMB 100,000 for its loss. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ruled in the first instance that Lingchuang Lighting committed infringement, ordering it to stop its infringement acts and pay a compensation of RMB 60,000 for loss incurred to Homy Lighting.

家有公司向广州知识产权法院提起诉讼，主张灵创公司制造、销售、许诺销售侵害涉案专利权的瓦楞灯，应停止侵权行为并赔偿其损失10万元。广州知识产权法院一审认定灵创公司构成侵权，判令其停止侵权，并赔偿家有公司损失6万元。

Lingchuang Lighting appealed to the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province against the first-instance verdict, claiming that Homy Lighting purchased the alleged infringing product through “entrapment” and relevant evidence collected is illegal and shall be excluded. In the second instance, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province held that: First, from several corrugated lamp products displayed on the official website of Lingchuang Lighting for sale, one of the products is identifiable as having a similar appearance to the alleged infringing product. Based on this, Homy Lighting suspected on good grounds that Lingchuang Lighting has sold or is selling infringing products. As the exhibition has ended, to confirm whether this product constitutes infringement and whether Lingchuang Lighting is still committing infringement acts, it’s reasonable for Homy Lighting to purchase the alleged infringing products by means of corresponding evidence collection methods. Second, according to the transaction negotiation records between the agent entrusted by Homy Lighting and the employee of Lingchuang Lighting, Lingchuang Lighting has not denied that it could sell relevant products, and there is also no evidence proving that he was gradually induced by Homy Lighting to commit infringement acts. At last, the business scope of Lingchuang Lighting covers R&D, production and sales of illumination lamps and lanterns. The above transaction process between Homy Lighting and Lingchuang Lighting conforms to the trading habit of purchasing lighting products.   

灵创公司不服一审判决，向广东省高级人民法院提起上诉，主张家有公司利用“钓鱼取证”方式购买被诉侵权产品，相关证据取得违法，应被排除。广东省高级人民法院二审认为：首先，从灵创公司在官方网站展示了几款销售的瓦楞灯产品来看，可辨认出其中一款产品与被诉侵权产品外观相似。基于此，家有公司有合理理由怀疑灵创公司已经销售或者正在销售侵权产品。因展会已经结束，为确认该产品是否侵权以及灵创公司是否仍实施侵权行为，家有公司采取相应取证方法购买被诉侵权产品具有一定合理性。其次，从家有公司委托代理人与灵创公司员工的交易洽谈记录看，灵创公司并未否认其可以销售相关产品，同时也没有证据表明其是在家有公司逐步诱导下才实施侵权行为。最后，灵创公司的经营范围包括研发、生产、销售照明灯具，家有公司与灵创公司的上述交易过程符合采购灯饰的交易习惯。

To sum up, under the circumstance that there is evidence that Lingchuang Lighting has a large possibility of infringement, this evidence collection of Homy Lighting provided an ordinary trading opportunity, rather than inducing Lingchuang Lighting from scratch to commit infringement as instructed. Therefore, the evidence collected by Homy Lighting can be used as evidence to establish the facts of this case. Based on the above grounds, the court ruled in the second instance to: Dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgement.

综上，在有证据表明灵创公司存在较大侵权可能性的情况下，家有公司该取证行为提供了一次普通交易机会，而非从无到有诱导灵创公司按照其指示实施了侵权行为，其所获取的证据可以作为认定案件事实的证据。综上，法院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。

Typical Significance

典型意义

In litigation for IPR protection, it’s very common for the obligee to purchase the infringing articles from the potential infringing party after fabricating or concealing their true identity or taking other measures for the purpose of evidence collection (also as entrapment). However, the accused infringing party disagrees on this kind of evidence collection, often defending that this kind of evidence collection violates the principle of honesty and integrity and disrupts its normal business order, and relevant evidence obtained shall not be accepted. Whether evidence collected with this method can be used has remained controversial in the field of theory and practice, and the judgment standards for this vary from place to place.

知识产权维权诉讼中，权利人采取虚构或隐瞒真实身份、取证目的等方法向潜在侵权人购买侵权物品（又称“钓鱼取证”或“陷阱取证”）的情况非常普遍，而被诉侵权人对于这种取证方式意见很大，经常抗辩认为该取证方式有违诚实信用原则，扰乱其正常经营秩序，有关证据不应被采纳。理论和实务界对该取证方式获取证据的可采性一直以来颇有争议，各地法院裁判标准不一。

This case is governed by Article 7 of Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures of Involving Intellectual Property Rights, that’s, the evidence obtained by the obligee or his entrusted agent by purchasing the infringing articles from the potential infringing party after fabricating or concealing their true identity or taking other measures for the purpose of evidence collection shall not be necessarily excluded because of the violation of the law, and shall be analyzed based on specific circumstances and evidence of cases. Although this case doesn’t exclude relevant evidence, its reasoning makes clear the judgment criteria for two different “inducing evidence collection”, i.e., “opportunity-provided forensics” and “malicious-induced forensics”, of which the former is reasonable and relevant evidence collected in this way can be used. It also clarifies that, the way that induces the potential infringing party from scratch to commit infringement as instructed is identified as committing infringement on intellectual property rights solely based on the evidence collection act by the obligee, and evidence collected in this way shall be excluded.

本案依法适用新实施的《最高人民法院关于知识产权民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第七条规定，权利人或其委托代理人以虚构或隐瞒真实身份、取证目的等方法向潜在侵权人购买侵权物品所获取的证据并不必然因违法而应排除，应当结合案件具体情况和证据进行分析。虽然本案没有排除相关证据，但其说理明确了对于“机会提供型”和“恶意诱发型”两种不同“钓鱼取证”方式的判断标准，对于前者认可其取证合理性，对相关证据可予采纳，同时指出对于从无到有诱导潜在侵权人按照指示实施侵权行为，属于“仅基于权利人的取证行为而实施侵害知识产权行为”，相关证据应被排除。

This case provides a way to judge whether evidence collected through “inducing evidence collection” can be used, which is of typical significance.

本案提供了判断“钓鱼取证”获取证据可采性的一种思路，具有典型意义。