“红牛”商标权权属纠纷案

  Case Analysis

Red Bull Vitamin Drink Co., Ltd. v. T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd.

“红牛”商标权权属纠纷案

Lower Court Docket No.: 166, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) the High People's Court of Beijing Municipality (京)

Docket No.: 394, second instance (终), civil case (民) , (2020) the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC (最高法)

一审案号：（2018）京民初166号

二审案号：（2020）最高法民终394号　

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

The fundamental difference between trademark assignment and trademark licensing lies in whether the ownership of the registered trademark is changed. In terms of trademark licensing, the licensee’s use and promotion of a trademark or the maintenance of the reputation of the licensed trademark is not the factual basis for the licensee’s derivative acquisition of the said trademark, nor is it a means of acquisition of the ownership of the said trademark provided by any existing law.

注册商标专用权的转让与注册商标专用权的许可使用之间的根本区别就在于注册商标专用权的权属是否发生变更。在注册商标许可使用关系中，被许可人使用并宣传商标，或维护被许可使用商标声誉的行为，不是被许可人继受取得取得注册商标专用权的事实依据，也不是现行法律规定的获得注册商标专用权的法定方式。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff-Appellant: RED BULL VITAMIN DRINK CO., LTD.,

Defendant-Appellee: T.C. PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.,

上诉人（原审原告）：红牛维他命饮料有限公司（简称红牛公司）

被上诉人（原审被告）：天丝医药保健有限公司（简称泰国天丝公司）

Thai drink maker T.C. Pharmaceutical Industries Co., Ltd. (“TCP”) set up a joint venture (JV), Red Bull Vitamin Drink Co., Ltd. (“RBVC”), in China with Chinese investment company Reignwood Group. TCP provided the formula, trademarks, production processes, and continuous improvement tools and techniques for the energy drink Red Bull manufactured by the JV. It’s clarified that the trademarks used for the drink were the property of TCP. Due diligence was exercised to determine that TCP retained the ownership of 17 Red Bull trademarks before a trademark licensing agreement was entered into by TCP and RBVC and RBVC paid the license fee. Since then, RBVC had invested heavily in the marketing and advertising of the Red Bull drink. RBVC and TCP claimed the exclusive ownership of the Red Bull trademarks respectively and filed lawsuits against each other. Later, RBVC filed a lawsuit with the High People's Court of Beijing Municipality to affirm its ownership of the Red Bull trademarks, requesting a refund of 3.753 billion CNY (0.581 billion USD) from TCP for its advertising expenses.

泰国天丝公司与案外人签订合资合同，约定成立合资公司，即红牛公司，泰国天丝公司为红牛公司提供产品配方、工艺技术、商标和后续改进技术。双方曾约定，红牛公司产品使用的商标是该公司的资产。经查，17枚“红牛”系列商标的商标权人均为泰国天丝公司。其后，泰国天丝公司与红牛公司先后就红牛系列商标签订多份商标许可使用合同，红牛公司支付了许可使用费。此后，红牛公司针对“红牛”系列商标的产品，进行了大量市场推广和广告投入。红牛公司和泰国天丝公司均对“红牛”系列商标进行过维权及诉讼事宜。后红牛公司向北京市高级人民法院提起诉讼，请求确认其享有“红牛”商标权，并判令泰国天丝公司支付广告宣传费用37.53亿元。

The court of first instance rejected all the claims of RBVC. RBVC was not satisfied with the decision and appealed it to the Supreme People's Court of the PRC.

一审法院判决驳回红牛公司的全部诉讼请求。红牛公司不服，上诉至最高人民法院。

The court of second instance held that original acquisition and derivative acquisition are two different methods of acquiring trademark ownership. To achieve a derivative acquisition, the previous and new owners must enter into an agreement on the transfer of ownership, term of use, nature of use, etc. And their genuine intentions and the actual performance of the agreement shall factor in the process as well. In terms of trademark licensing, the licensee’s use and promotion of a trademark or the maintenance of the reputation of the licensed trademark is not the factual basis for the licensee’s derivative acquisition of the said trademark. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

最高人民法院二审认为，原始取得与继受取得是获得注册商标专用权的两种方式。判断是否构成继受取得，应当审查当事人之间是否就权属变更、使用期限、使用性质等做出了明确约定，并根据当事人的真实意思表示及实际履行情况综合判断。在许可使用关系中，被许可人使用并宣传商标，或维护被许可使用商标声誉的行为，均不能当然地成为获得商标权的事实基础。最高人民法院遂终审判决驳回上诉、维持原判。　

Typical Significance

典型意义

Of a series of lawsuits filed against each other, this case concerns the core interests of the two parties involved. The decision clarifies the distinction between trademark assignment and trademark licensing. The reasoning the court has exerted on this case will be exemplary for similar cases. It signals strongly that equal treatment of foreign and domestic businesses is being provided in China. It is a solid development in optimizing the legal services for a favorable commercial environment.

本案是当事人系列纠纷中的核心争议。本案判决厘清了商标转让与商标许可使用的法律界限，裁判规则对同类案件具有示范意义，释放出平等保护国内外经营者合法权益的积极信号，是司法服务高质量发展、助力改善优化营商环境的生动实践。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐