Tencent v. Shanghai Kingnet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

  Case Analysis

Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Company Limited v. Shanghai Kingnet Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

《地下城与勇士》网络游戏商标侵权纠纷案

Lower Court Docket No.: No. 21467, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Beijing Haidian District People's Court (京0108)

Docket No.: 3794, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京73)

一审案号：（2018）京0108民初21467号

二审案号：（2019）京73民终3794号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

In cases related to online intellectual property infringement, the assumption of infringement by the online service provider shall be based on the existence of its fault in the infringement act. To decide whether such fault exists, we should fully consider the possibility that the online service provider has known the occurrence of the infringement act, and the characteristics of its provision of specific services, and judge whether the online service provider has fulfilled its duty of care. If the online service provider has fulfilled its duty of care, we should confirm that the platform is not liable for the infringement according to law.

涉网络知识产权侵权案件中，网络服务提供者承担侵权责任应当基于其对侵权行为的发生存在过错。是否具有过错，应当充分考虑网络服务提供者对侵权行为发生的认知可能性，以及其提供具体服务的特点，对网络服务提供者是否已经尽到注意义务进行判断。网络服务提供者已经尽到审查义务的，应依法确定平台不承担侵权责任。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff-Appellee: SHENZHEN TENCENT COMPUTER SYSTEMS COMPANY LIMITED.

Defendant-Appellant: SHANGHAI KINGNET TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,

Defendants: BEIJING LENOVO FM TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., BEIJING SHENQI TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

上诉人（原审被告）：上海恺英科技网络有限公司（简称恺英公司）

被上诉人（原审原告）：深圳市腾讯计算机公司（简称腾讯公司）

原审被告：北京联想调频科技有限公司（简称联想调频公司）、北京神奇工场科技有限公司（简称神奇工场公司）

Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Company Limited (“Tencent”) was exclusively licensed by a party not involved in this case to operate the online game Dungeon and Fighter (“DNF”) and exclusively use Trademarks No.10877354 (Class 9) and No.10877396 (Class 41) “DNF and Logo” applied for registration by Xinrenlei Co., Ltd. in the Chinese mainland.

腾讯公司经案外人授权，在中国大陆地区独家运营网络游戏《地下城与勇士》（简称《D N F》），并独占行使新人类股份有限公司在中国申请注册的第10877354号（第9类）和第10877396号（第41类）“DNF及图”商标。

Shanghai Kingnet Technology Co., Ltd. (“Kingnet”) (Defendant I) is the general operator of the game Dungeon and Leagues (“Involved Game”), and it provides access to download the Involved Game on several platforms. Beijing Lenovo FM Technology Co., Ltd. (“Lenovo FM”) (Defendant II) and Beijing SHENQI Technology Co., Ltd. (“SHENQI”) (Defendant III) are the operators of Lenovo LeStore. The Involved Game has been uploaded to LeStore by Suzhou Juhe while Lenovo FM and SHENQI are engaged in operating it and providing recharging service for its users. By asserting that the mark “DNL” used in the Involved Game (“Disputed Mark”) and the registered trademarks “DNF and Logo” are the registered trademarks used on similar goods, Tencent requested to order the three Defendants to stop their common infringement act and compensate for its economic losses and reasonable fees jointly and severally by paying RMB 40 million in total.

被告一恺英公司为游戏《阿拉德之怒》（下称“涉案游戏”）的总运营商，其通过多个平台提供涉案游戏的下载。被告二联想调频公司和被告三神奇工场公司分别为联想“乐商店”平台的运营方。涉案游戏由苏州聚和公司上传至“乐商店”平台，由联想调频公司和神奇工场公司负责在“乐商店”平台运营该游戏和提供用户充值服务。腾讯公司以涉案游戏使用的图标“D N L”（下称“诉争标识”）与“D N F及图”注册商标构成使用在类似商品上的注册商标为由，诉请判令三被告停止共同侵权行为，并连带赔偿其经济损失及合理开支共计4000万元。

Haidian District People's Court of Beijing held in the first instance that the Disputed Mark and the registered trademarks applied by the Plaintiff for protection were highly similar as a whole and the monograms “DNF” and “DNL” were similar in design to some extent. The goods and services on which the registered trademarks applied for protection by the Plaintiff have been approved to use are Classes 9 and 41 closely related to computer games. The Defendant Kingnet has widely used the Disputed Mark in releasing, promoting, providing the access to down, and operating the game, and thus the Disputed Mark is highly associated to the game. This constitutes use of trademark nature and accordingly constitutes infringement. To support the fulfillment of their duty of care, the Defendants Lenovo FM and SHENQI submitted evidencing documents about the Involved Game, including copyright registration certificate for software, the result of inquiry by State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television of the People's Republic of China on review and approval of the game, the issue of online game publication code with relevant approvals, the software copyright license granted by the copyright holder of the Involved Game to Suzhou Juhe in respect of exclusive distribution and other rights, and the Framework Agreement on Game Promotion Cooperation with Suzhou Juhe. The Defendants Lenovo FM and SHENQI had a high duty of care for the game Apps on LeStore. And the evidencing documents submitted by them could prove that they had reviewed relevant approvals when the Involved Game was downloaded and promoted, and they fulfilled the duty of care. They did not have the ill intention of infringement subjectively or know the infringement act by the Involved Game. Thus, they did not commit the crime of infringement. Therefore, the court of first instance ruled to dismiss all the claims of Tencent against the Defendants Lenovo FM and SHENQI and to attribute the trademark infringement liability to Kingnet, the operator of the Involved Game, which thus should compensate the Plaintiff Tencent for its economic losses (RMB 3 million) and reasonable expenses (RMB 110,860).

北京市海淀区人民法院一审认为，诉争标识与原告请求保护的注册商标标识整体上具有较高的相似度，字母“D N F”与“D N L”也具有一定程度的造型相似性。原告请求保护的注册商标核定使用的商品和服务为第9、41类，与计算机游戏紧密联系；被告恺英公司将诉争标识广泛应用于游戏的发布、推广、提供下载、运营活动中，具有显著的识别性，属于商标性使用，构成侵权。被告联想调频公司、神奇工场公司为证明其尽到了审查义务，提交了涉案游戏的软件著作权登记证书、国家新闻出版广电总局查询该游戏的审批查询结果、网络游戏出版物号核发单及有关批复、涉案游戏的著作权人授权苏州聚和公司独家发行等权利的软件著作权许可授权书、苏州聚和公司与其签署的《游戏推广合作框架协议》等证据。被告联想调频公司、神奇工场公司对“乐商店”上的游戏A p p具有较高的注意义务，而其提供的证据能够证明在涉案游戏下载推广过程中其已经审核了相关的批文文件，尽到了注意义务，主观上没有侵权恶意，对于涉案游戏的侵权行为并不知晓，故不构成侵权。综上，法院一审依法驳回腾讯公司对被告被告联想调频公司、神奇工场公司的诉讼请求，由涉案游戏的运营商即恺英公司承担商标侵权责任，赔偿原告腾讯公司经济损失三百万元及合理开支110860元。

Kingnet refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Beijing Intellectual Property Court in the second instance adjusted the amount of reasonable expenses that should be compensated for by Kingnet and upheld the decisions made by the court of first instance except for the reasonable expenses.

恺英公司不服一审判决，向北京知识产权法院提出上诉。北京知识产权法院二审对恺英公司应当承担的合理开支进行了调整，维持了一审法院除合理开支外的其他判决结果。

The lawyers from Beijing Lusheng Law Firm represented the defendants in the original trial (Lenovo FM and SHENQI) and appeared before the courts in the first instance and second instance of this case.

北京市路盛律师事务所律师分别作为两案原审被告（联想调频公司、神奇工场公司）的代理人，参与本案一审、二审诉讼。

Typical Significance

典型意义

Under relevant laws and regulations, an online service provider which "has known" or "should have known" an online service user's infringement act but fails to take necessary measures should be jointly and severally liable for the infringement act with the online service user. In juridical practice, the court should decide whether the online service provider "has known" or "should have known" the infringement act or not, based on specific facts of the case. If the platform could prove that it is difficult to identify the infringement act after the reasonable fulfillment of its duty of care, the court should decide that the platform has no fault. This is reflected in the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving Infringement of the Right of Dissemination on Information Networks, and relevant provisions shall be referred to and apply in trademark infringement cases.

根据相关法律规定，网络服务提供者对网络用户侵权构成“明知”或“应知”而未采取必要措施的，与网络用户承担连带责任。司法实践中，法院需要结合具体的案件事实，对于网络服务提供者是否构成“明知”和“应知”进行判断。平台能够证明已尽到合理的审查义务，仍然难以发现侵权行为存在的，法院应当认定其不具有过错。上述内容在《最高人民法院关于审理侵害信息网络传播权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》之中有所体现，相关规定在商标侵权案件中应当参照适用。

In this case, the Defendants Lenovo FM and SHENQI signed the Framework Agreement on Game Promotion Cooperation with the party not involved in this case and obtained certain economic benefits. Hence, the two Defendants have a high duty of care on whether there is infringement in the Involved Game. Meanwhile, the two Defendants have submitted sufficient evidence that they have conducted comprehensive review of the legality of the Involved Game. They do not have the ill intention of infringement subjectively or know the infringement by the Involved Game upon the Plaintiff's rights. In such circumstance, Haidian District People's Court of Beijing in pursuit of good faith principle and fault liability principle affirmed that the two Defendants did not commit the crime of infringement. This affirmation is legal and justified. The judgment of this case fully reflects that the people's court insists on seeking truth from facts and scientifically and rationally defining the platform's liability as its juridical thinking, can be referred to some extent when similar cases are heard, and can also play a good guiding role in the standardizing the operating activities in the game operation and promotion industry.

本案中，被告联想调频公司、神奇工场公司和案外主体签订了《游戏推广合作框架协议》，获取了一定的经济利益利益。因此，上述两被告对于涉案游戏是否存在侵权应当负有较高的注意义务。与此同时，上述两被告提供了充分的证据证明其对涉案游戏的合法性进行了的全面审查，主观上没有侵权恶意，亦不知晓涉案游戏侵犯原告权利。在此情况下，北京市海淀区人民法院基于诚实信用原则和过错责任原则，认定上述两被告不构成侵权，相关认定合理合法。本案判决充分体现了人民法院坚持实事求是、科学合理界定平台责任的裁判思路，对同类案件的审理具有一定的参考意义，对于游戏运营推广行业的规范经营亦能起到良好的指引效果。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐