SAIC Volkswagen Automotive Co., Ltd. v. Shen XX et al.

  Case Analysis

SAIC Volkswagen Automotive Co., Ltd. v. Shen XX et al.

假冒大众、斯柯达安全气囊商标侵权纠纷案

Docket No.: 90, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (沪73)

Lower Court Docket No.: 6040, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2019) Yangpu District People’s Court of Shanghai (沪0110)

一审案号：（2019）沪0110民初6040号

二审案号：（2020）沪73民终90号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

Regarding the question whether there is civil liability, an infringer cannot be excluded from bearing civil liability for the part for which no criminal liability has not been identified or attempted to be identified. Regarding the sizing of civil liability, if a principal offender and an accessory offender are identified, it does not mean that there is civil liability difference between the principal offender and the accessory offender. Regarding the amount of civil compensation, the amount of civil compensation cannot be simply based on the amount of crime.

在民事责任有无的问题上，对于刑事未作认定或认定未遂的部分，不能排除侵权人承担民事责任；在民事责任大小的问题上，刑事判决主从犯的认定，并不当然意味着主从犯的民事责任存在差异；在民事赔偿多少的问题上，民事赔偿数额不能简单以犯罪数额为基准。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff-Appellant: SAIC VOLKSWAGEN AUTOMOTIVE CO., LTD.

Defendants-Appellees: SHEN XX, XU XX

原告：上汽大众汽车有限公司（简称上汽大众公司）

被告：沈某某、徐某某

On April 24, 2018, Cixi People’s Court of Zhejiang Province issued the Criminal Judgment (2017) Z. 0282 X.C. No. 666 against Shen XX and Xu XX over the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. It affirmed that, in April 2014, Shen XX rent the first floor warehouse of Boyuntong in which Xu XX was Deputy General Manager and assembled automobile airbags with Trademarks No. 205770 and No. G1110655 and others, with no license from the registered trademarks owners. Xu XX, with the knowledge that the airbags assembled by Shen XX was suspected of trademark infringement and with the aim to make profits from selling the airbags, still provided the warehouse and labors to help Shen XX assemble the airbags.

2018年4月24日，浙江省慈溪市人民法院就沈某某、徐某某犯假冒注册商标罪作出(2017)浙0282刑初666号刑事判决书，认定：2014年4月，沈某某在未取得注册商标所有人授权的情况下，租用徐某某担任副总经理的博运通公司一楼仓库作为生产场所，擅自组装标注第205770号、第G1110655号等商标的汽车安全气囊。徐某某明知沈某某所组装的气囊涉嫌商标侵权，为销售气囊袋赚取利润，仍提供场地、人员给沈某某，帮助其组装气囊。

The seized goods included 439 auxiliary airbags with “YFKSS” Trademark No. 205770 (their value was RMB 230,475 based on manufacturer’s price), 361 main airbags (without generator) with Trademark No. 205770, 590 main airbags (without generator) with Trademark No. G1110655 and a lot of auxiliary airbags with other brands or without brand. According to the Price Determination Report C.R.Z. (2018) No. 102 issued by Cixi Price Appraisal Center, for the finished goods of auxiliary airbags with “YFKSS” Trademark No. 205770, the manufacturer’s price of the infringed goods on the base date of price determination was RMB 525 per airbag.

被查获商品为同时标注第205770号、“YFKSS”商标的副气囊439个（按出厂价计价值230475元），标注第205770号商标的主气囊（无发生器）361个，标注第G1110655号商标的主气囊（无发生器）590个，另查获其他品牌气囊及无品牌副气囊若干。经慈溪市价格认证中心慈认字（2018）102号价格认定结论书认定，同时标注第205770号、“Y F K S S”商标的副气囊成品，在价格认定基准日的被侵权商品的出厂价格为525元／只。

Cixi People's Court of Zhejiang Province held that Shen XX and Xu XX, without the license from registered trademarks owners, used the trademarks identical to the owners' registered ones on the same goods, counterfeited more than two registered trademarks, and received business revenue more than RMB 620,000; with particularly serious circumstances, their behavior had already constituted the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks; and the crime proposed by the public prosecution organ was established. In the joint crime, Shen XX played a major role and was the principal offender; and Xu XX played a secondary role and was an accessory offender. Therefore, the court ruled that Shen XX committed the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and was sentenced to three years imprisonment with five years’ probation and fined RMB 320,000; Xu XX committed the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and was sentenced to six months imprisonment with one year probation and fined RMB 60,000.

浙江省慈溪市人民法院认为，沈某某、徐某某未经注册商标所有人许可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标相同的商标，且假冒两种以上注册商标，经营额达62万余元，情节特别严重，其行为均已构成假冒注册商标罪，公诉机关指控的罪名成立。在共同犯罪中，沈某某起主要作用，系主犯；徐某某起次要作用，系从犯。故判决沈某某犯假冒注册商标罪，判处有期徒刑三年，缓刑五年，并处罚金三十二万元；徐某某犯假冒注册商标罪，判处有期徒刑六个月，缓刑一年，并处罚金六万元。

Additionally, according to the Price Determination Report C.R.Z. [2016] No. 488 issued by Cixi Price Appraisal Center, for the counterfeit Volkswagen PAB airbags, the price of the infringed goods on the base date of price determination was RMB 2,750 per airbag. According to the Price Determination Report C.R.Z. [2016] No. 1086 issued by Cixi Price Appraisal Center, the price of the counterfeit Passat auxiliary airbag was RMB 2,750 per airbag. The selling price of a party not involved in this case, Yanfeng Key (Shanghai) Automotive Safety Systems Co., Ltd., indicated that the market price of both Volkswagen DAB airbags (without generator) and Skoda DAB airbags (without generator) was RMB 520.

另，慈溪市价格认证中心慈认字[2016]488号价格认定报告书载明，侵权大众P A B安全气囊在价格认定基准日的被侵权商品认定价格为2750元/只。慈溪市价格认证中心慈认字[2016]1086号价格认定报告书中载明，侵权帕萨特副气囊单价为2750元。案外人延锋百利得（上海）汽车安全系统有限公司的销售价说明表示，大众DAB安全气囊（无发生器）、斯柯达DAB安全气囊（无发生器）的组件市场销售价均约为520元。

After the aforesaid criminal judgment took effect, SAIC Volkswagen Automotive Co., Ltd. (“SAIC Volkswagen”) filed a civil lawsuit, requesting to order Shen XX and Xu XX to jointly compensate for its economic losses and the reasonable expenses incurred in protecting the rights in total of RMB 500,000. The two Defendants defended that: (I) they admitted that the seized auxiliary airbags constituted trademark infringement, but the seized main airbags were not finished goods as they did not have generator, so the latter did not constitute trademark infringement; (II) as the unit price of Volkswagen airbags determined in the criminal judgment was RMB 525, the two Defendants had been criminally punished and paid the fine before the infringing products were sold, and the amount of damages claimed by the Plaintiff was too large.

上述刑事判决生效后，上汽大众公司提起民事诉讼，要求沈某某、徐某某共同赔偿其经济损失及维权合理费用50万元。两被告辩称：（一）认可被查处的副气囊构成商标侵权，但被查处的主气囊没有发生器不属于成品，不构成侵权；（二）大众安全气囊按照刑事判决书的认定单价为525元，侵权产品尚未销售，两被告已受到了刑事处罚并交纳了罚金，原告索赔金额过高。

Yangpu District People’s Court of Shanghai held in the first instance that the two Defendants admitted that the seized auxiliary airbags constituted trademark infringement, and the court confirmed it.  Regarding the main airbags, the Defendants engaged in producing and selling the infringing products; the trademarks in dispute labeled on the airbags were prepared for selling; this also constituted use of the marks identical to the registered ones on the identical goods and further constituted trademark infringement. Therefore, the court decided in the first instance that the two Defendants shall jointly compensate for the Plaintiff's economic losses in the amount of RMB 45,000 and reasonable expenses in the amount of RMB 200,000.

上海市杨浦区人民法院一审认为，两被告认可被查处的副气囊构成商标侵权，法院予以确认。关于主气囊，被告从事侵权产品的生产销售，其在气囊上印有涉案商标明显是为销售做准备，亦属于在相同的产品上使用与注册商标相同的标识，构成商标侵权。综上，法院一审判决：两被告共同赔偿原告经济损失45000元及合理费用20000元。

Typical Significance

典型意义

In criminal-civil IP cases, there have been many controversies about how to impose civil liability after criminal punishment has been imposed for IP infringement, as there is no unified understanding on the liability mode, the determination standard or the compensation amount.

知识产权刑民交叉案件中，对于刑事处罚后民事侵权责任该如何承担，一直存在很多争议之处，在责任方式、认定标准、赔偿金额等方面尚无统一认识。

Regarding the question whether there is civil liability, an infringer cannot be excluded from bearing civil liability for the part for which no criminal liability has not been identified or attempted to be identified. The reasons are discussed below. First, there is essential difference in judging standards between a crime and civil infringement. The part for which no criminal liability has not been identified or attempted to be identified is the judgment made by the court according to the required crime elements and the evidence standards for conviction and sentencing. It only shows that the involved act does not have all the crime elements stipulated by law, but it does not mean that the act does not constitute infringement, nor does it mean that the offenders do not need to bear civil liability. Second, although the evidence rules in civil cases are clear that the basic facts confirmed by a legally effective judgment of people's court are the facts exempted from certification, the trademark infringement judgment does not constitute a fact determination, but a legal judgment. Even if the legal decision on the same legal fact in the prior criminal judgment may be very correct based on the strict standard of true and sufficient evidence in criminal cases, this cannot replace the legal decision in the follow-up civil judgment.

关于民事责任有无的问题，刑事未作认定或认定未遂的部分，不能排除侵权人承担民事责任。理由是：其一，犯罪的判断标准与民事侵权的判断标准存在本质区别。刑事未认定的部分或认定未遂的部分，是法院根据犯罪构成要件、定罪量刑的证据标准等所作出的判断，只是说明被评价的行为没有具备法律规定的犯罪要件，但并不意味着该行为不构成侵权，也并不意味着行为人不需要承担民事责任。其二，尽管民事诉讼证据规则明确，已为人民法院发生法律效力的裁判所确认的基本事实，属于免证事实，但商标侵权判断不是一个事实认定，而是一个法律判断。即便基于刑事案件确实、充分的高证据标准，在先刑事判决对于同一法律事实的法律判断可能是十分正确的，但仍不能替代在 后民事裁判的法律判断。

Regarding the sizing of civil liability, the principal offender and the accessory offender in the criminal case are distinguished according to the different roles of the Defendants in the joint crime. However, the criminal liability sizing cannot be directly transplanted into the civil case. In other words, it does not mean that there is civil liability size difference between the principal offender and the accessory offender.

关于民事责任大小的问题，刑事中的主从犯，是根据各个被告人在共同犯罪中所起的作用大小不同来区分的。但这种刑事责任大小并不能平行移植到民事责任中。换言之，主从犯并不当然意味着其民事责任大小不同。

Regarding the amount of civil compensation, the amount of civil compensation cannot be simply based on the amount of crime. The reasons are discussed below. First, “illegal operating amount” and “illegal income amount” each only consider the factors on the side of the Defendant/infringer, and the evidence mainly includes the sales amount shown on the account book, and the value of the goods seized for this case. In addition to the infringer’ profit, the amount of civil liability can also include the loss of the infringed party or the license fee paid to others, and the factors such as awareness and market share can be considered comprehensively. Second, criminal evidence is very different from civil evidence. The amount of crime is determined strictly according to the crime. The truthfulness and sufficiency standards should be met, and reasonable doubts should be eliminated. The civil compensation liability should be evidenced by the parties to the “highly probability” standard. Thus, in juridical practice, the actual operating amount of the Defendant is always higher than the amount of crime determined in the criminal judgment. But in civil cases, it is normal that the amount is re-determined and increased.

关于民事赔偿多少的问题，不能简单地将刑事犯罪数额作为民事案件的赔偿标准。理由是：其一，无论“非法经营数额”还是“违法所得数额”，都只是考虑被告人/侵权人一方的因素，证据主要是账本上显示的销售数额、查扣在案的货值数额等，而确定民事责任数额除了根据侵权人获利外，还可以计算被侵权人方的损失或给他人的许可使用费，并根据知名度、市场份额等因素综合考虑。其二，刑事与民事的证据标准截然不同。犯罪数额是严格按照罪刑法定，必须达到确实充分、排除合理怀疑的程度；而民事赔偿责任由当事人举证，达到“高度盖然性”的证明标准即可。因此，在司法实践中被告人实际经营数额往往高于刑事判决书认定的犯罪数额，在民事案件中重新予以认定、调高，是完全正常的。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐