“科罗娜”啤酒商标侵权纠纷案：索赔800万元! 进口商标翻译或构成侵权！

  Case Analysis

Anheuser-Busch InBev Brewing Group China v. Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co., Ltd.

“科罗娜”啤酒商标侵权纠纷案

Docket No.: 326, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Zhejiang Higher People's Court (浙)

Lower Court Docket No.: 1822, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (浙02)

一审案号：（2018）浙02民初1822号

二审案号：（2020）浙民终326号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

China’s laws do not require that foreign trademarks must be translated into Chinese when parallel imported goods are sold. When selling imported goods, importers should keep original appearance of the goods as much as possible. If an importer attaches a self-translated Chinese logo that is inconsistent with the Chinese trademark registered and used by the right holder in China to the parallel imported goods, this will destroy the correspondence between the Chinese and English trademarks of the right holder, impair the efforts made by the right holder to improve the awareness of the Chinese trademark and expand the Chinese market, separate the corresponding relationship between the Chinese trademark and the goods of the right holder, damage the identifying function of the Chinese trademark, become the circumstance of “otherwise damaging the exclusive right to use registered trademark of others” pursuant to Paragraph 7, Article 57 of the Trademark Law, and thus constitute trademark infringement.

我国法律并未强制要求出售进口商品时必须将外文商标翻译为中文，进口商在销售平行进口商品时，应尽可能保持商品原貌。进口商在平行进口商品上加贴自行翻译的、与权利人在境内注册并使用的中文商标不一致的中文标识，会破坏权利人中文商标与其英文商标之间的对应性，削弱其为提高中文商标知名度、开拓境内市场而做出的努力，同时也割裂了权利人中文商标与其商品之间的对应关系，损害了中文商标的来源识别作用，属于《商标法》第五十七条第七项规定的“给他人的注册商标专用权造成其他损害”的情形，构成商标侵权。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff-Appellee：ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV BREWING GROUP CHINA

Defendant-Appellant： XIAMEN GULONG IMPORT & EXPORT CO., LTD.

上诉人（原审被告）：厦门古龙进出口有限公司（简称古龙公司）

被上诉人（原审原告）：百威英博投资（中国）有限公司（简称百威公司）

Anheuser-Busch InBev Brewing Group China ("Anheuser-Busch InBev") is the licensee of “卡罗娜•爱科拉”“科罗娜”“Coronita Extra and picture” trademarks. When selling beer in China, it uses "科罗娜" Chinese trademark and "Coronita Extra and picture" English trademark at the same time. In 2018, Xiamen Gulong Import & Export Co., Ltd. ("Gulong") declared to the customs to import a batch of beer with "Coronita Extra and picture" and other trademarks on the beer bottles, and put "卡罗娜" on the customs declaration form, the inspection and quarantine certificate of entry goods and the Chinese label sample. As ascertained through trial, the imported batch of beer came from the same right holder of the trademark in dispute. Anheuser-Busch InBev asserted that Gulong's act infringed its trademark right, and resorted to Ningbo Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province, requesting to order Gulong to stop the infringement act, to eliminate the impact thereof and to compensate for its economic losses and reasonable expenses in total of RMB 8.2 million.

百威公司系“卡罗娜•爱科拉”“科罗娜”“Coronita Extra及图形”商标的被许可使用人，其在我国境内销售啤酒时，均将中文“科罗娜”与英文“Coronita Extra及图形”商标同时使用。2018年，古龙公司向海关申报进口一批啤酒，该批啤酒瓶身上使用了“Coronita Extra及图形”等商标，并在报关单、入境货物检验检疫证明和中文标签样张上使用了“卡罗娜”字样。经审理查明，该批进口啤酒来源于涉案商标的同一权利人。百威公司认为古龙公司的行为侵害了其商标权，遂诉至浙江省宁波市中级人民法院，请求判令古龙公司停止侵害、消除影响，并赔偿其经济损失及合理开支820万元。

Ningbo Intermediate People's Court held in trial: Gulong's importing of involved beer through legal channel constituted parallel import and did not constitute the infringement upon the trademark rights in dispute of Anheuser-Busch InBev. However, the use of "卡罗娜" in customs declaration and inspection and quarantine materials as Chinese name and mark affected the trademark use strategies of Anheuser-Busch InBev and the right holder, hindered Anheuser-Busch InBev's domination of trademark rights, and constituted trademark infringement. Therefore, the court ruled in the first instance: Gulong should immediately stop the use of "卡罗娜" mark in customs declaration and inspection and quarantine materials of the imported beer, and should compensate Anheuser-Busch InBev for economic losses (including reasonable expenses) in the amount of RMB 100,000.

宁波中院经审理认为：古龙公司通过合法途径进口涉案啤酒的行为属于平行进口，不构成对百威公司涉案商标权的侵害。但其在报关、检验检疫材料中使用“卡罗娜”作为产品中文名称和标识，影响了百威公司及权利人的商标使用策略，妨碍了百威公司对商标权的支配，构成商标侵权。综上，法院一审判决：古龙公司立即停止其在进口啤酒的报关、检验检疫材料中使用“卡罗娜”标识，并赔偿百威公司经济损失（含合理开支）10万元。

Gulong refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Zhejiang Higher People's Court.

古龙公司不服一审判决，向浙江省高级人民法院提起上诉。

The Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province held in the second instance that the current laws and regulations of China had no mandatory provision that operators must translate foreign trademarks of imported goods into Chinese. The decision made by the court of first instance that "the use of the Chinese trademark in customs declaration and inspection declaration materials followed the rule that Gulong should comply with" was incorrect, and Gulong had no legal or justified reason to use the "卡罗娜" Chinese mark. By long-term operation in good faith and much promotional investment, Anheuser-Busch InBev has established close correspondence between the "科罗娜" Chinese trademark and the "Coronita Extra and picture" English trademark, both related to the same goods source. Now, Gulong is using the "卡罗娜" mark on the involved beer and on the customs declaration form and the inspection and quarantine certificate of entry goods. This destroys the correspondence between the "科罗娜" Chinese trademark and the "Coronita Extra and picture" English trademark, separates the corresponding relationship between the "科罗娜" Chinese trademark and the goods, impairs the efforts made by Anheuser-Busch InBev to improve the awareness of the "科罗娜" trademark and expand the Chinese market, becomes the circumstance of "otherwise damaging the exclusive right to use registered trademark of others" pursuant to Paragraph 7, Article 57 of the Trademark Law, and thus infringes the exclusive right to use the trademark in dispute.

浙江高院二审认为：我国现行法律法规中并没有关于经营者必须将进口商品的外文商标翻译为中文的强制性规定，一审法院关于“在报关、报检材料中使用中文商标系古龙公司应当遵守的相关规则”的认定有误，古龙公司并没有使用“卡罗娜”中文标识的合法、合理理由。百威公司通过长期诚信经营和大量宣传投入，使中文“科罗娜”与英文“Coronita Extra及图形”商标建立起紧密的对应关系，两者均指向同一商品来源。现古龙公司在标有英文“Coronita Extra及图形”标识的涉案啤酒及进口货物报关单、入境货物检验检疫证明上使用“卡罗娜”标识，破坏了“科罗娜”商标与英文“Coronita Extra及图形”商标之间的对应性，割裂了“科罗娜”商标与商品之间的对应关系，削弱了“科罗娜”商标的来源识别作用，亦使得百威公司为提高“科罗娜”商标知名度、开拓国内市场所作出的努力受到损害，属于《商标法》第五十七条第七项规定的“给他人的注册商标专用权造成其他损害”的情形，侵害了涉案商标专用权。

Therefore, the court ruled in the second instance to dismiss the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

综上，法院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。

Typical Significance

典型意义

With the globalization and liberalization in trading, parallel import has become an increasingly common trade mode. In business practice, as relevant administrations and importers have different understandings on how to use Chinese labels on parallel imported goods, there is chaos in translating and creating Chinese trademarks at will, leading to various lawsuits.

随着贸易全球化、自由化的推进，平行进口已经成为一种越来越普遍的贸易方式。在商业实践中，由于相关行政部门和进口商对于如何在平行进口商品上使用中文标签的理解不一，因此出现了随意翻译并标注中文商标的混乱现象，进而引发了各种不同形态的诉讼。

This case provides constructive exploration into deciding the transliterate trademarks of parallel imported goods, makes clear that if an importer arbitrarily translates a mark that is inconsistent with the Chinese trademark of the right holder, this constitutes trademark infringement act, and also advocates that even if Chinese labels need to be affixed, the original foreign trademark marked on imported goods should be used as much as possible, for balanced protection of right holders, importers and consumers.

本案就平行进口商品音译商标的侵权判定问题进行了有益探索，明确进口商自行任意翻译与权利人中文商标不一致的标识，构成商标侵权行为，并提倡即使在需要加贴中文标签的情况下，也应当尽可能使用进口商品上标注的原外文商标，进而实现对权利人、进口商和消费者三方利益的均衡保护。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐

OPPO Invalidates VoiceAge EVS’s Patent

1978年6月1日 英国新修订的《专利法1977》正式生效

典型案例—— 涉“钓鱼取证”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案