Paula's Choice, LLC v. Chongqing Kaimenhong Trading Co., Ltd.
Case Analysis
Paula's Choice, LLC v. Chongqing Kaimenhong Trading Co., Ltd.
美国“宝拉珍选”确认不侵害商标权纠纷案
Docket No.: 66480, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Pudong New District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (沪0115)
一审案号：（2017）沪0115民初66480号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
A registrant has the ill intention of trademark squatting if he with the knowledge that an unregistered trademark previously used by others has certain influence rushes to register the trademark. The registrant who abuses its right and causes economic losses to the prior user after trademark squatting shall bear civil liability for loss compensation according to law.
商标注册人明知他人在先使用的未注册商标有一定影响而抢注商标的，属恶意抢注。恶意抢注后违反诚实信用原则，滥用权利并造成在先使用人经济损失的，商标注册人依法应当承担赔偿损失的民事责任。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellant：PAULA’S CHOICE, LLC
Defendant-Appellee: CHONGQING KAIMENHONG TRADING CO., LTD.
原告：美国宝拉珍选有限责任公司（PAULA’SCHOICE,LLC，简称宝拉珍选公司）
被告：重庆开门红商贸有限责任公司（简称开门红公司）
The Plaintiff PAULA’S CHOICE, LLC (“PAULA’S CHOICE”) is a skin care company established in the United States in 1994 and has become a world-famous brand in the industry. Shanghai Yingwen Economic and Trading Co., Ltd. (“Yingwen”) has been licensed by PAULA’S CHOICE to sell the Plaintiff’s goods through Taobao, JD and other Chinese platforms, and has further granted Shanghai Bi’ao Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Bi’ao”) a license to operate an official PAULA’S CHOICE flagship store through Tmall platform.
原告宝拉珍选公司是1994年在美国设立的护肤品公司，在业内已成为世界知名品牌。上海颖文经贸有限公司（简称颖文公司）经宝拉珍选公司授权后，在国内淘宝、京东等平台销售原告商品，并许可上海碧奥网络科技有限公司（简称碧奥公司）在天猫平台经营宝拉珍选官方旗舰店。
In 2006, Liu X, a party not involved in this case, registered “PAULA’S CHOICE宝拉之选” in China in respect of soap, perfume for cosmetics, cosmetics and other goods in Class 3, and later assigned the trademark to the Defendant Chongqing Kaimenhong Trading Co., Ltd. (“Kaimenhong”). In 2017, Kaimenhong submitted an IP complaint to Tmall platform, claiming that the PAULA’S CHOICE flagship store operated through Tmall platform infringed its trademark rights. The complaint led to the removal of a variety of goods from the PAULA’S CHOICE flagship store, and forced the PAULA’S CHOICE distributor to stop or decrease its distributing activities.
2006年，案外人刘某在我国注册“P A U L A’S C H O I C E宝拉之选”商标，指定使用在第3类的肥皂、化妆品用香料、化妆品等商品上，并随后将该商标转让给被告开门红公司。2017年，开门红公司向天猫平台提起知识产权投诉，主张上述天猫平台的宝拉珍选旗舰店侵犯其商标权。该投诉导致宝拉珍选天猫旗舰店多款商品被下架，宝拉珍选的分销商被迫停止或减少分销活动。
Hence, PAULA’S CHOICE resorted to Pudong Court to confirm the non-infringement upon trademark rights. PAULA’S CHOICE claimed that it had good faith and prior legal rights and interests in the “宝拉珍选” and “PAULA’S CHOICE” commercial marks, and the complaint of Kaimenhong constituted malicious squatting, malicious complaining and abuse of rights, so Kaimenhong should bear the civil liability. The Defendant defended that this case did not met the condition for file a lawsuit to confirm the non-infringement upon trademark rights, that it was not idle in exercising its rights, and that the Plaintiff did not have prior right in the “宝拉珍选” and “PAULA’S CHOICE” commercial marks.
宝拉珍选公司据此向浦东法院提起确认不侵害商标权之诉，认为其对“宝拉珍选”“P A U L A’S C H O I C E”商业标识享有善意、在先的合法权益，开门红公司的投诉行为属于恶意抢注、恶意投诉的权利滥用行为，应当承担相应的民事责任。被告辩称，本案不符合确认不侵害商标权之诉的提起条件、被告不存在怠于行使权利的情形，且原告对“宝拉珍选”“PAULA’SCHOICE”商业标识不享有在先权利。
After trial, Pudong Court held that, for the infringement warning sent by the Defendant Kaimenhong to the PAULA’S CHOICE flagship store operated through Tmall and other Taobao distribution stores in respect of the trademark in dispute, the Plaintiff had fulfilled its obligation of interpellation, and the Defendant did not take action or other remedies but submitted a complaint to JD against the PAULA’S CHOICE flagship store so that the normal operation of the Plaintiff was affected. In this case, the Defendant delayed in claiming its rights so that it was very instable that the Plaintiff used the “宝拉珍选” and “PAULA’S CHOICE” marks on its goods, and further the operations of the Plaintiff’s distributors in China were affected. Hence, the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff to confirm the non-infringement upon trademark rights in this case met the condition for filing the lawsuit.
浦东法院经审理认为，针对被告开门红公司依据涉案商标向天猫网的宝拉珍选旗舰店及其他淘宝分销店铺发出的侵权警告，原告已尽催告义务，被告未行诉讼或采取其他救济方式，却又在京东网平台对宝拉珍选旗舰店发起投诉，使原告的正常经营活动处于危殆之中。被告在本案中延迟主张权利，使原告在其商品上使用“宝拉珍选”“PAULA’SCHOICE”等标识的行为处于效力极度不稳定的状态，进而影响到原告在中国各经销商的经营活动。故原告在本案中提起的确认不侵害商标权之诉符合起诉条件。
As the Defendant for an improper purpose rushed to register the trademark which had been used by the Plaintiff and had certain awareness, this constituted malicious squatting. Later, the Defendant complained against the Plaintiff, Yingwen, Bi’ao and other distribution stores. As they properly operated PAULA’S CHOICE goods, this violated the good faith principle and constituted abuse of rights. The Defendant’s asserted act caused long-term instability that the Plaintiff used the marks properly on the goods, and the malicious squatting and abuse of rights of the Defendant adversely impacted the Plaintiff’s reputation, so the Defendant should bear the civil liability to eliminate the adverse impact and clarify the fact.
被告出于不正当的目的抢先注册原告已经使用并有一定影响的商标，属恶意抢注。嗣后，被告投诉原告、颖文公司、碧奥公司等分销店铺正当经营宝拉珍选商品的行为，明显违反诚实信用原则，属滥用权利。被告涉案行为使原告在商品上正当使用标识的行为效力长期处于不稳定的状态，且被告的恶意抢注及滥用权利行为给原告商誉造成了不良影响，故还应当承担消除影响的民事责任，澄清事实。
Therefore, the court ruled to confirm: the use by the Plaintiff PAULA'S CHOICE of the “宝拉珍选” and “PAULA’S CHOICE” marks on cosmetics did not infringe the exclusive right to use registered trademark held by the Defendant Kaimenhong Taking into account the market margin, the decline in the Plaintiff's sales, the adverse impact caused and other relevant factors comprehensively, the court ruled that the Defendant Kaimenhong should compensate the Plaintiff for economic losses in the amount of RMB 373,000. Meanwhile, the Defendant was ordered to post a statement in Economic Daily to eliminate the adverse impact caused to the Plaintiff PAULA’S CHOICE by the act involved in this case.
综上，法院判决确认：原告美国宝拉珍选在化妆品上使用“宝拉珍选”“PAULA’SCHOICE”商标标识不侵害被告开门红商标享有的注册商标专用权；综合考虑市场利润率、原告销售额下降数据、遭受的不利影响等涉案因素，酌定被告开门红赔偿原告经济损失37.30万元；同时，判令被告在《经济日报》发表声明，消除因实施本案涉案行为给原告美国宝拉珍选有限责任公司造成的不良影响。
The Defendant refused to accept the first instance judgment, appealed to Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, and later withdrew its appeal. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ruled to permit the withdrawal of the appeal by the Appellant and the Parties should execute the judgment of the original trial.
一审判决后，被告不服，向上海知识产权法院提起上诉，后撤回上诉。上海知识产权法院裁定：准许上诉人撤回上诉，双方均按原审判决执行。
Typical Significance
典型意义
The judgment of this case defines the judging rules for confirming the non-infringement upon trade rights, protects legal rights and interests of the prior user in the trademark, and effectively regulates malicious trademark squatting and abuse of rights. In this case, the trademark in dispute is an US well-known skin care brand “PAULA’S CHOICE”. The judgment of this case fully protects legal rights and interests of a foreign company and shows the equal protection of intellectual property rights between Chinese and foreign entities by Chinese judicature. After the judgment of this case was published, a number of media reported it, and the legal representative of the Plaintiff also sent a personal letter of thanks from the United States, saying that as an American enterprise, they reinforced his confidence in expanding their business in China and further felt China's responsibility, ability and determination to continuously strengthen intellectual property protection for legitimate brand owners.
本案判决明确了确认不侵害商标权的相关裁判规则，保护了商标在先使用人的合法权益，有效规制了恶意抢注商标并滥用权利的行为。本案涉诉商标是美国知名护肤品品牌“宝拉珍选”，本案裁判充分保护了境外企业的合法权益，彰显了中国司法对中外主体知识产权的平等保护。本案判决后，多家媒体进行了报道，原告法定代表人还从美国寄出亲笔感谢信，称其作为美国企业，更加坚定了在中国业务拓展的信心，进一步感受到中国对合法品牌所有人不断加强知识产权保护的担当、能力和决心。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐