Weitong v. Taokaenoi Food & Marketing Public Company
Case Analysis
Shanghai Weitong Trading Co., Ltd. v. Taokaenoi Food & Marketing Public Company Limited et al.
“小老板”海苔商标侵权纠纷案
Docket No.: 2139, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court
Lower Court Docket No.: 62173, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Pudong New District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (沪0115)
一审案号：（2018）沪0115民初62173号
二审案号：（2020）沪73民终223号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
The intellectual property infringement liability should be borne in a coordinated proportion that is to match the nature and influence of the infringement act when the amount of damages is determined. Even if the Defendant's act has committed trademark infringement, the Defendant generates earnings without using the Plaintiff's reputation, but it is the result of years of operation of its own brand under special background and origin, and it has produced high brand awareness in Chinese market. In this circumstance, if the economic profits earned by the Defendant from selling the asserted infringing products have no connection to the Plaintiff, neither do they impair the Plaintiff's market share of the involved products, the court may rule the Defendant to stop the infringement act, without the Defendant's liability to compensate for economic losses of the Plaintiff but the liability to compensate for reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement act.
知识产权侵权责任的承担方式应当遵循比例协调的原则，即在确定赔偿额时与侵权行为的性质、影响相适应。即使被告行为构成商标侵权，但其获利并非利用了原告的商誉，而是在具有特殊背景和渊源的前提下对自身品牌进行多年运营的产物，且已在国内市场上产生了较高的品牌知名度，此时被告销售涉案侵权产品所获得的经济利益与原告不存在关联性，也未损害原告涉案产品的市场份额，则可依法判决被告停止侵权行为，无须赔偿原告的经济损失，但应赔偿其为制止侵权行为所支出的合理费用。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellant: SHANGHAI WEITONG TRADING CO., LTD.,
Defendants-Appellees: TAOKAENOI FOOD & MARKETING PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED, GUANGDONG HENGYU FOOD TRADE CO., LTD., WAL-MART EAST CHINA STORES CO., LTD.,
被上诉人（原审原告）：上海微彤商贸有限公司（简称微彤公司）
上诉人（原审被告）：特卡诺食品和销售公共有限公司（简称特卡诺公司）、广东恒俞食品贸易有限公司（简称恒俞公司）、沃尔玛华东百货有限公司（简称沃尔玛公司）
The Plaintiff Shanghai Weitong Trading Co., Ltd. (“Weitong”) is a Chinese company and accepted the assignment of “小老板” Trademark of Xieqiao Vegetable, a party not involved in this case, as approved for registration in 1997 and approved to use on dried vegetable and pickled vegetable in Class 29. The Defendant Taokaenoi Food & Marketing Public Company Limited (“Taokaenoi”) is a Thai company and applied for registering “小老板” design mark in Thailand on crispy fried seaweed goods in Class 29 in 2010. The “小老板” seaweed produced and sold by Taokaenoi has certain awareness in both Thai and Chinese markets. A lot of reports thereon are published in newspapers, internet and other media, and the entrepreneurial experience of its founder has also been made into a film. To develop Chinese market, Taokaenoi has applied to Trademark Office of China for registering “小老板” logo, text, doll figure and other trademarks on seaweed, dried vegetable, laver and other goods in Class 29, successively from 2006. The Defendant Taokaenoi also applied for revocation of the Plaintiff's “小老板” registered trademark on the grounds that the Plaintiff had not used it for three consecutive years, but the application was not accepted. The Defendant Guangdong Hengyu Food Trade Co., Ltd. (“Hengyu”) is one of agents in China for Taokaenoi, and has imported and sold the “小老板” seaweed goods in dispute. The Defendant Wal-Mart East China Stores Co., Ltd. (“Wal-Mart”) is the retailer of the goods in dispute.
原告微彤公司是一家中国公司，受让了案外人斜桥蔬菜公司于1997年核准注册的“小老板”商标，核定使用在第29干制蔬菜、腌制蔬菜上。被告特卡诺公司是一家泰国公司，于2010年在泰国申请注册了“小老板”图文商标，核定使用在第29类脆炸海苔商品上。特卡诺公司生产销售的“小老板”海苔在泰国及中国市场上均具有一定的知名度，在报刊、网络等媒体有大量介绍，其创始人的创业经历还被拍成了电影。为了打开中国市场，特卡诺公司于2006年起先后向我国商标局申请注册了“小者板”图文、人偶图形等商标，核准注册于第29类海菜、干蔬菜、紫菜等商品上。被告特卡诺公司还以连续3年不使用为由申请撤销原告的“小老板”注册商标，但未获支持。被告恒俞公司系特卡诺公司在中国的代理商之一，进口销售涉案“小老板”海苔商品。被告沃尔玛公司是涉案产品的零售商。
In May 2018, the Plaintiff sent lawyer's letters respectively to the Defendants Hengyu and Wal-Mart, stating that the “小老板” seaweed offered for sales by the two Defendants had infringed its exclusive right to use registered trademark. Later, the Defendant Hengyu posted through its Taobao franchised store a letter of notice that to cater for Chinese market better, “小老板” laver series were officially changed to “老板仔” seaweed series. The Defendant Taokaenoi also posted through the Taobao franchised store of Hengyu a letter of notice that its “小老板” mark in China was under the examination under registration procedures of Trademark Office and in order to avoid missing business opportunities, it had issued the “老板仔” trademark until the final legal procedure would be completed.
2018年5月，原告分别向被告恒俞公司、沃尔玛公司发出《律师函》，称两被告上架销售的“小老板”海苔构成了对其注册商标专用权的侵害。之后，被告恒俞公司在其淘宝专卖店中发布《知会函》，称其为了更好地迎合中国市场，将“小老板”紫菜系列正式改名为“老板仔”海苔系列。被告特卡诺公司通过恒俞公司的淘宝专卖店也发布《知会函》，称其在中国的标志为“小老板”，由于处于商标局注册程序审核中，为避免错失商业机会，其已经发布“老板仔”商标，直到完成最后的法律程序。
In August 2018, the Plaintiff applied to Shanghai Customs for seizing 21,920 boxes of “小老板” seaweed imported from Thailand by the Defendant Hengyu, and filed a lawsuit with the court. Later, the seized goods were returned to Thailand. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant's such act constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition of false promotion, and requested to order the three Defendants to immediately stop their infringement and compensate the Plaintiff for the economic losses and the reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement in total of RMB 25.17 million.
2018年8月，原告申请上海海关查扣被告恒俞公司从泰国进口的“小老板”海苔21920箱，并向本院提起诉讼。后该批货被退回泰国。原告认为，被告的行为构成商标侵权和虚假宣传的不正当竞争行为，请求判令三被告立即停止侵权，并共同赔偿原告经济损失及制止侵权的合理开支共计人民币2517万元。
After trial, Pudong Court held that "dried vegetable and pickled vegetable" on which the Plaintiff's registered trademark was approved to use and the seaweed products in dispute were similar goods in terms of processing method, purpose, consumers, selling channel, etc. The exclusive right to use registered trademark in respect of “小老板” held by the Defendant Taokaenoi in Thailand cannot extend to China due to trademark's territoriality, and the act that the Defendant Taokaenoi produces and sells “小老板” seaweed has infringed the exclusive right to use registered trademark held by the Plaintiff Weitong in China. The trademark registered in Thailand for the seaweed in dispute contains “小老板”, and the seaweed in dispute is called “小老板” after being imported into China. The statement of two of the Defendants that “小老板” is officially changed to “老板仔” constitutes objective description of fact, other than false promotion.
浦东法院经审理认为，从加工方式、用途、消费群体、销售渠道等方面看，原告注册商标核定使用的“干制、腌制蔬菜”与涉案海苔产品属于类似商品。被告特卡诺公司在泰国享有的“小老板”注册商标专用权基于商标的地域性不能延展至我国，其在我国生产、销售“小老板”海苔的行为已经侵害了原告微彤公司在我国享有的注册商标专用权。涉案海苔在泰国注册的商标中含有“小老板”文字，在进入中国市场后亦被称为“小老板”，两被告称“小老板”更名为“老板仔”属于对客观事实的描述，不构成虚假宣传。
Regarding the compensation liability, in this case, the Defendant Taokaenoi did not generate earnings from sales with using the Plaintiff's reputation or "hitching a ride", nor did the Plaintiff suffer direct economic losses due to the infringement act of the Defendants. The seaweed product in dispute was named “小老板” for certain background and origin. This relates to the entrepreneurial experience of Aitthipat Kulapongvanich, the founder of Taokaenoi After entering the Chinese market ten years ago, the product immediately became an online famous snack and was loved by consumers. Thus, the Defendants in fact did not rely on the Plaintiff's reputation. The main products of the Plaintiff are pickles and other pickled products, and it does not produce seaweed products. The consumers' demand of pickled product will not be replaced by seaweed. Therefore, the proceeds from sales of the Defendant Taokaenoi have no connection to the Plaintiff, nor does it impair the Plaintiff's share in picked products. Thus, the Defendants Taokaenoi and Hengyu should stop their infringement act, without their liability to compensate for economic losses of the Plaintiff but the liability to compensate for reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement act.
关于赔偿责任，本案中，被告特卡诺公司的销售获利不是利用了原告的商誉，并未搭便车，原告也未因被告的侵权行为遭受直接的经济损失。涉案海苔产品取名“小老板”有特定的背景和渊源，与被告特卡诺公司创始人伊提帕的创业故事有关，十年前进入中国市场后立即成为网红零食，受到广大消费者的喜爱，故被告并不存在攀附原告商誉的事实。原告的主要产品是榨菜等酱腌菜，其自身并不生产海苔产品，消费者对酱腌菜的需求并不会被海苔所取代。故被告特卡诺公司的销售获利与原告不存在关联性，也未损害原告在酱腌菜产品上的市场份额。故被告特卡诺公司和恒俞公司应停止侵权，无需向原告赔偿经济损失，但应赔偿原告为制止侵权行为所支出的合理开支。
Pudong Court accordingly ruled: the Defendants Taokaenoi and Hengyu should stop their infringement upon the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use registered trademark; the Defendant Wal-Mart should stop selling the asserted infringing product; and the Defendants Taokaenoi and Hengyu should compensate the Plaintiff for reasonable expenses in total of RMB 195,680.40.
浦东法院遂判决：被告特卡诺公司、恒俞公司停止对原告注册商标专用权的侵害；被告沃尔玛公司停止销售涉案侵权产品；被告特卡诺公司、恒俞公司赔偿原告合理开支人民币195680.40元。
The Defendants refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in the second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
一审判决后，被告不服，向上海知识产权法院提起上诉。上海知识产权法院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case is typical in fully applying the proportion principle to determine the damages from IP infringement, provides a meaningful attempt to determine the damages from IP infringement that is carried out without using the Plaintiff's reputation, and especially has certain exploration and reference significance to solve the problem of damages compensation in reverse confusion.
本案系比例原则在知识产权损害赔偿中充分运用的典型案例，为并非利用原告商誉实施侵权行为的损害赔偿认定提供了有益尝试，尤其对解决反向混淆中的损害赔偿问题具有一定的探
索和借鉴意义。
In this case, the court has considered the contribution of the Plaintiff's registered trademark to the Defendants' profits, whether the Defendants have the subjective ill intention of "hitching a ride", whether the Plaintiff has suffered economic losses and other factors, and ordered the Defendants to stop the infringement and compensate the Plaintiff for reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement according to law. In addition to regulating the Defendants' infringement act caused by trademark's territoriality and protecting the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use the previously registered trademark in China, the judgment determines the liability scope of the Defendants reasonably following the proportion principle and avoids the deprivation of commercial achievements which are not obtained by seeking connections to existing reputation.
本案中，法院从原告注册商标对被告利润的贡献度、被告是否存在搭便车的主观恶意、原告是否遭受了经济损失等方面进行考量，依法判决被告停止侵权并只需赔偿原告制止侵权的合理开支。该判决既依法规制了被告因商标地域性引起的侵权行为，维护了原告在我国注册在先的商标专用权，又依据比例原则合理确定了被告的责任范围，避免了其非因攀附商誉获得的正常商业成果被无辜剥夺。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐