“LV”商标侵权纠纷案：商业标识权利冲突与驰名商标保护问题

  Case Analysis

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Guangzhou Ruiwang Leatherware Co., Ltd. et al.

“LV”商标侵权纠纷案

Docket No.: 1857, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Guangdong Higher People's Court (粤)

Lower Court Docket No.: 1211, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (粤73)

一审案号：（2017）粤73民初1211号

二审案号：（2019）粤民终1857号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

If the right holder of a well-known trademark files a civil lawsuit with the court in the course of administrative litigation with the trademark infringer with respect to the validity of the alleged infringing registered trademark and requests the infringed infringer to stop the infringement act and compensate for its loss, the people's court shall accept the case, and shall not reject the case on the ground that it is a dispute between two registered trademarks. In those cases involving the aforementioned issues, the right holder of a well-known trademark is entitled to request the recognition of a well-known trademark and the special protection of the distinctiveness of the well-known trademark, even if the lawsuit is filed by the right holder against the infringement act of using the well-known trademark on the identical or similar goods.

驰名商标权利人在与商标侵权人针对被诉侵权注册商标的效力问题进行行政诉讼过程中，向法院提起民事诉讼，要求被诉侵权人停止侵权并赔偿损失的，人民法院应当对该案件予以受理，而不应当以该案属于两个注册商标之间的争议为由不予受理。在涉及前述问题的案件中，驰名商标权利人即使是针对在相同和类似商品上使用该商标的侵权行为提起诉讼，亦有权请求认定驰名商标，并请求给予与驰名商标的显著性相对应的特别保护。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff-Appellant：LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER

Defendants-Appellees：GUANGZHOU RUIWANG LEATHERWARE CO., LTD.

Defendants-Appellees：Wang X

上诉人（原审原告）：路易威登马利蒂（Louis Vuitton Malletier）（简称路易威登）

上诉人（原审被告）：广州锐王皮具有限公司（简称锐王公司）

上诉人（原审被告）：王某

On January 15, 1986, Louis Vuitton Malletier was granted by the Trademark Office of China of the exclusive right to use the trademark "", which has become a well-known trademark in China by 2012. On September 17, 2015, Wang X obtained the registered trademark "" (registration No. 11724660) assigned by others, and produced and sold handbags, wallets and other products using the aforementioned infringing mark through Guangzhou Ruiwang Leatherware Co., Ltd.. In addition to the alleged infringing trademark in this case, there are several other trademarks under Wang X's name that are similar to the "" trademark. On June 14, 2018, the Trademark Office issued a ruling declaring that the registered trademark "" (registration No.: 11724660) was invalid. Ruiwang refused to accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit with the court. The court has not yet made a decision on the case.

1986年1月15日，路易威登马利蒂经我国商标局核准取得“”商标专用权，该商标在不晚于2012年时在中国已经成为驰名商标。2015年9月17日，王某受让取得第11724660号“”注册商标，并通过锐王公司生产、销售使用前述被诉侵权标识的手提包、钱包等产品。除了本案被诉侵权商标以外，王某名下还有多个与“ ”商标相近似的商标。2018年6月14日，商标局作出裁定宣告第11724660号“”注册商标无效。锐王公司对该裁定不服，向法院提起行政诉讼，法院尚未对该案作出判决。

Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit with Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, requesting that its trademark in dispute be recognized as a well-known trademark and that Ruiwang and Wang X be ordered to stop their infringement acts and compensate for its loss. Ruiwang argued that this case belonged to the dispute between registered trademarks; according to the relevant laws, the people's court had no right to accept and hear this case.

路易威登起诉至广州知识产权法院，请求认定其涉案商标为驰名商标，并要求判令锐王公司、王某停止侵权并赔偿损失。锐王公司抗辩称，本案属于注册商标之间的争议，根据相关法律规定，人民法院无权受理。

Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held in the first instance that after the invalid ruling was made, this case was not a dispute between registered trademarks and should be accepted by the court. Since the class of goods of the alleged infringing trademark in this case is identical with the approved scope of use of the trademark "", it is not necessary to recognize the well-known trademark. In summary, the court of first instance affirmed that Ruiwang constituted infringement, ruled that Ruiwang should stop its infringement act and that Ruiwang and Wang X should jointly compensate Louis Vuitton RMB 140,000, and rejected Louis Vuitton's other claims.

广州知识产权法院一审认为：在无效裁定作出后，本案不属于注册商标之间的纠纷，法院应当受理。由于本案被诉侵权商标的商品类别与“”商标核定使用范围相同，故无需认定驰名商标。综上，一审法院认定锐王公司的行为构成侵权，判决锐王公司停止侵权，锐王公司、王某共同赔偿路易威登14万元，并驳回路易威登的其他诉讼请求。

Louis Vuitton, Ruiwang and Wang X all refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Guangdong Higher People's Court. In the second instance, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province held that, Wang X filed an administrative lawsuit against the ruling which declared the invalidity of the trademark, and no legally effective judgment was made in the administrative lawsuit, so the aforementioned ruling did not take effect and this case still belonged to the dispute between the registered trademarks; in general such dispute would not be handled by the court. However, if the registered trademark in dispute was recognized as a well-known trademark and the owner of such trademark filed a lawsuit with the court in accordance with the relevant laws, the conditions for filing a lawsuit were met and the case should be handled by the court. The essence of well-known trademark protection is to better protect well-known trademark. Since Article 13(3) of the Trademark Law provides for the protection of well-known trademark against the infringement of trademark rights of non-identical and non-similar goods by recognizing the well-known trademark, a stronger protection can surely be given to well-known trademark with respect to identical or similar goods.

路易威登、锐王公司、王某均不服一审判决，向广东省高级人民法院提出上诉。广东省高级人民法院二审认为，由于王某就宣告商标无效裁定提起行政诉讼，该行政诉讼未作生效判决，故前述裁定并未生效，本案仍属于注册商标之间的纠纷，在一般情况下本争议不属于法院应当处理争议的范围。但是，如果涉案注册商标被认定为驰名商标，且该商标权人依据相关法律向法院起诉的，则符合起诉的条件，属于法院应当处理的争议。驰名商标保护的本质在于对驰名商标给予更强保护，既然《商标法》第十三条第三款对在非相同、非类似商品上的侵害商标权行为都可以通过认定驰名商标予以保护，举重以明轻，在相同和类似商品上当然可以给予驰名商标更强的保护。

In this case, Louis Vuitton claimed that its registered trademark "" was a well-known trademark, and that the alleged infringement act violated the provisions of Article 13 of the Trademark Law, constituting an infringement of the trademark right of the well-known trademark in dispute. In the course of this case, the alleged infringing registered trademark was still a valid registered trademark, and Louis Vuitton could not prohibit the use of the alleged infringing registered trademark on the grounds that the registered trademark "" was a general registered trademark. Ruiwang and Wang X even argued that this case should not be placed on file on the ground that the alleged infringing trademark was a registered trademark. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the registered trademark "" was a well-known trademark in this case. The evidence in this case proved that the registered trademark "" was already a well-known trademark at the time of the infringement, and Ruiwang constituted an infringement of the trademark right and should stop its infringement act and compensate for the loss.

本案中，路易威登主张其“”注册商标为驰名商标、被诉侵权行为违反《商标法》第十三条的规定，构成侵害涉案驰名商标商标权；而在本案诉讼过程中，被诉侵权注册商标仍为有效注册商标，路易威登无法以“”注册商标是一般注册商标为由，禁止被诉侵权注册商标的使用。锐王公司、王某甚至以被诉侵权商标属注册商标为由，抗辩称本案不应立案。因此，本案有必要审核“”注册商标是否为驰名商标。本案证据证明，“”注册商标在被诉侵权行为实施时已为驰名商标，锐王公司构成侵害商标权，应当停止侵权并赔偿损失。

In summary, the court of second instance ruled as follows: the first item of the first instance judgment should be affirmed; the third item of the first instance judgment should be abrogated; the second item of the first instance judgment should be altered, and Ruiwang and Wang X should jointly compensate Louis Vuitton for its economic losses and reasonable costs incurred for protecting its rights which amounted to RMB 500,000; other claims of Louis Vuitton should be rejected.

综上，二审法院判决：维持一审判决第一项；撤销一审判决第三项；变更一审判决第二项为锐王公司、王某共同赔偿路易威登经济损失及维权合理费用共计50万元；驳回路易威登的其他诉讼请求。

Typical Significance

典型意义

This case is a typical case involving both the right conflict of commercial marks and the protection of well-known trademarks. In recent years, some infringers maliciously register or assign infringing trademarks for goods which are in the identical or similar categories of the approved range of use of well-known trademarks so as to lean on famous brands. After the well-known trademark right holder applied for the invalidation of the alleged infringing trademark and the administrative organ made a ruling declaring invalidity of the trademark, some infringers obstructed the well-known trademark right holder from obtaining relief timely by filing administrative lawsuits so as to prolong the time for them to obtain improper gains. If the well-known trademark right holder files a civil lawsuit against the infringement act before the administrative litigation is closed, the civil lawsuit may not be accepted and the well-known trademark right holder may have no right to request for recognition of the well-known trademark in the case and get appropriate protection, which is very unfavorable to the timely and adequate protection of the well-known trademark.

本案是同时涉及商业标识权利冲突问题和驰名商标保护问题的典型案例。近年来，部分侵权人以“傍名牌”为目的，在与驰名商标核定使用范围相同或类似的商品类别上恶意注册或受让侵权商标。驰名商标权利人申请宣告被诉侵权商标无效，且行政管理机关作出宣告该商标无效的裁定书后，部分侵权人通过提起行政诉讼，阻碍驰名商标权利人及时获得救济，以延长获取不当收益的时间。行政诉讼未了结前，驰名商标权利人针对该侵权行为提起民事诉讼，则面临民事诉讼案件可能不会被受理，以及无权在该案中请求认定驰名商标并获得相应力度保护的困境，这对于驰名商标获得及时、充分的保护非常不利。

In this case, the judgment of second instance, which is oriented towards strengthening the protection of well-known trademarks and cracking down on attaching other high-reputation trademarks, has made a useful exploration for properly resolving disputes involving both the protection of well-known trademarks and right conflict of commercial marks at the same time, effectively protecting well-known trademarks, cracking down on the impropriety of malicious trademark registration, purifying the market competition environment, playing the role of correctly guiding market players to operate in good faith, and achieving a good social effect, which is of reference significance to the trial of similar cases in the future.

本案二审判决以强化驰名商标保护、严厉打击不诚信的商标攀附行为作为导向，对于妥善解决同时涉及驰名商标保护和商业标识权利冲突的纠纷作出了有益探索，有力地保护了驰名商标，打击了恶意注册商标者的不正当行为，净化了市场竞争环境，发挥了正确引导市场主体诚信经营的作用，取得很好的社会效果，对今后类似案件的审理具有借鉴意义。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐