涉“平行进口”商店侵犯商标权纠纷案
Case Analysis
Michael Kors (Switzerland) International GmbH v. Shanghai Yiteng Brand Management Co., Ltd. Dongguan Guomaocheng Branch et al.
涉“平行进口”商店侵犯商标权纠纷案
Docket No.: 4517, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Dongguan Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province (粤19)
Lower Court Docket No.: 4196, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2019) the First People's Court of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province (粤1971)
一审案号：（2019）粤1971民初4196号
二审案号：（2020）粤19民终4517号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
When the right holder points out that the "parallel imported" goods do not have the relevant anti-counterfeiting mark, the goods can be deemed to infringe the exclusive right to use registered trademark, and the vendor of the goods shall prove the legal source of the goods.
在权利人指出“平行进口”商品无相关防伪标识时，可认定该商品侵犯注册商标专用权，并由商品销售者证明商品的合法来源。
If the logo used on the decoration of a "parallel import" store is a service mark that goes beyond what is necessary for the sale of goods, it will constitute an infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademark.
“平行进口”商店在装潢上使用的标识属于服务商标，超出指示销售商品所必需使用的范围时侵犯注册商标专用权。
Even if a warning letter is received, shopping malls will not be jointly and severally liable for the infringement act of the "parallel import" stores because shopping malls haven't committed any related intentional act.
即使收到警告函，大型商场如对进驻的“平行进口”商店侵权不具故意，仍无须承担连带赔偿责任。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellee: MICHAEL KORS (SWITZERLAND) INTERNATIONAL GMBH,
Defendants-Appellants: SHANGHAI YITENG BRAND MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. DONGGUAN GUOMAOCHENG BRANCH,SHANGHAI YITENG BRAND MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
Defendants: DONGGUAN MINYING REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD., DONGGUAN MINYING COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT CO., LTD.
上诉人(原审被告): 上海屹腾品牌管理有限公司东莞国贸城分公司（简称屹腾公司国贸城分公司）、上海屹腾品牌管理有限公司（简称屹腾公司）
被上诉人（原审原告）：迈可寇斯（瑞士）国际股份有限公司（简称迈可寇斯公司）
原审被告：东莞市民盈房地产开发有限公司（简称民盈房地产公司）、东莞市民盈商业经营管理有限公司（简称民盈管理公司）
Michael Kors (Switzerland) International GmbH (“Michael Kors”) is the owner of the exclusive right to use registered trademark “MICHAEL KORS” for goods in Class 18 (including handbags, wallets, etc.) and the owner of the exclusive right to use registered trademark “MICHAEL KORS” for services in Class 35 (including advertising, marketing, selling for others, demonstration of goods, etc.). After Michael Kors failed in requesting Dongguan Minying Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (“Minying Real Estate”) and Dongguan Minying Commercial Management Co., Ltd. (“Minying Management”) to prevent the unauthorized “MK exclusive shop” from being operated in the shopping mall, it purchased a “MK” handbag from the “MK” store operated by Shanghai Yiteng Brand Management Co., Ltd. Dongguan Guomaocheng Branch (“Yiteng Dongguan”), and filed a lawsuit against Yiteng Dongguan, Shanghai Yiteng Brand Management Co., Ltd. (“Yiteng”), Minying Real Estate and Minying Management on the ground that the handbags sold in the store and the decorative mark “MICHAEL KORS” of the store infringed its exclusive right to use registered trademark, and claimed for compensation of RMB 500,000.
迈可寇斯公司是注册在第18类商品（包括手提包、钱包等）上的“MICHAEL KORS”等注册商标专用权人，以及注册在第35类服务（包括广告、市场营销、替他人推销、货物展出等）上的“MICHAEL KORS”注册商标专用权人。迈可寇斯公司要求民盈开发公司、民盈管理公司停止未经授权的“MK专卖店”进驻商场未果后，在屹腾公司东莞分公司经营的该“MK”品牌商品卖场购买了一个“MK”手提包，并起诉屹腾公司东莞分公司、屹腾公司、民盈开发公司、民盈管理公司销售的手提包以及商铺使用的“MICHAEL KORS”等装潢标识侵犯了其注册商标专用权，主张50万元赔偿。
Yiteng Dongguan and Yiteng argued that they were operating a "parallel import" store and that the alleged infringing "MK" handbag belonged to "parallel imported" genuine product. Minying Real Estate and Minying Management argued that they had checked the authorization materials and performed their duty of examination.
屹腾公司东莞分公司、屹腾公司辩称其经营的是“平行进口”商店，被诉侵权“MK”手提包是“平行进口”的正品。民盈开发公司、民盈管理公司辩称其已查看了授权材料，尽到了审查义务。
The First People's Court of Dongguan City, Guangdong Province held in the first instance that, Michael Kors, as the right holder, had the ability and qualification to identify whether the handbag in dispute was genuine, who also pointed out the difference between the handbag in dispute and the genuine product, so the handbag in dispute was an infringing product. Yiteng Dongguan and Yiteng failed to prove the legal source of the handbag in dispute and should be held liable for compensation. The "MICHAEL KORS" logo shown on the decoration of the store in dispute did not fall into any specific category of goods trademark, so it was a service mark; its use on the decoration was obviously unnecessary for the sale of goods and constituted trademark infringement act. Although Minying Real Estate and Minying Management had received the notice from the right holder, they had performed their duty to reasonably examine the "authorization information" submitted by Yiteng Dongguan, and there was no subjective intentional behavior, so they would not be jointly and severally liable. The court ruled at first instance that Yiteng Dongguan and Yiteng should stop selling the infringing handbags and using the infringing trademark on the store decoration, and should compensate Michael Kors RMB 300,000.
广东省东莞市第一人民法院一审认为，迈可寇斯公司作为权利人，具有辨识涉案手提包是否为正品的能力和资格，亦指出了涉案手提包与正品的区别，故涉案手提包为侵权商品。屹腾公司东莞分公司、屹腾公司未能举证涉案手提包的合法来源，应承担赔偿责任。涉案店铺装潢上使用的“MICHAEL KORS”标识无法对应确定的商品商标类别，故属于服务商标，其使用明显超出了指示所销售商品所必需使用的范围，属商标侵权行为。民盈开发公司、民盈管理公司虽收到权利人的通知，但在屹腾公司东莞分公司提交“授权资料”的情况下，已尽到合理审查责任，主观上不存在故意，故无须承担连带赔偿责任。综上，法院一审判决：屹腾公司东莞分公司、屹腾公司停止销售侵权手提包，并停止在店铺装潢上的商标侵权行为，赔偿迈可寇斯公司30万元。
Yiteng Dongguan and Yiteng refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to Dongguan Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province. Michael Kors withdrew its claim that the decoration mark of the store in dispute infringed its exclusive right to use registered trademark because Yiteng Dongguan made corrections during the second instance. Based on the above-mentioned changes in the case, the court of second instance decided to abrogate that item of the first instance judgment and affirmed other items of the first instance judgment.
屹腾公司东莞分公司、屹腾公司不服一审判决，向广东省东莞市中级人民法院提出上诉。因屹腾公司东莞分公司在二审期间进行了整改，迈可寇斯公司撤回关于涉案店铺装潢标识侵犯注册商标专用权的诉请。二审法院基于上述案情发生的变化，判决撤销一审该判项内容，维持其他项判决内容。
Typical Significance
典型意义
The rapid development of "parallel import" stores has brought consumers more choices but also increases the risk of intellectual property infringement. This case clarifies the burden of proof in determining whether the goods sold by "parallel import" stores constitute infringement, whether the logo used in their decoration is a trademark for goods or a service mark, as well as the responsibility of large shopping malls for examining the introduction of "parallel import" stores. Therefore, this case is conducive to regulating the "parallel import" industry.
快速发展的“平行进口”商店在给消费者带来更丰富选择的同时，亦加大了侵犯知识产权的风险。本案厘清了判断“平行进口”商店销售商品是否侵权的举证责任、其装潢使用的标识属于商品商标还是服务商标、大型商场引入“平行进口”商店时的审查责任等问题，有利于规范“平行进口”行业。
In this case, although the goods sold in "parallel import" store was alleged to be genuine, the right holder had the ability and qualification to identify whether the goods were genuine and could point out that the infringing goods did not have the relevant anti-counterfeit mark, so the relevant goods could be considered as infringing ones. In this case, the right holder had performed its burden of proof, so the court affirmed that the goods in dispute were infringing goods, and ordered Yiteng Dongguan and Yiteng to bear the responsibility of compensation when they could not prove the legal source of the goods.
本案中，虽然“平行进口”商店标榜销售的是正品，但因权利人具有辨识商品是否为正品的能力和资格，且能指出侵权商品不具有相关防伪标识，故可认定相关商品为侵权商品。本案中权利人正是完成了举证责任，故法院认定相关商品为侵权商品，并在屹腾公司东莞分公司、屹腾公司无法提交商品合法来源的情况下，判令其承担赔偿责任。
Whether the logo used on the decoration of a "parallel import" store is a service mark or a trademark depends on the category of goods or services to which the logo refers. In this case, although all of the goods sold in the "parallel import" store were produced by Michael Kors, there were many categories of goods involved, and the decoration mark did not fall into any specific category of commodity trademark. Before opening, the store in dispute also called itself "MK exclusive shop ", so the above-mentioned decoration mark was a service mark. The "parallel import" store placed the logo of Michael Kors on many conspicuous parts of its decoration, which went beyond what was necessary for the sale of goods, and therefore constituted trademark infringement.
“平行进口”商店在装潢上使用的标识属于服务商标还是商品商标，取决于标识所指向的商品或服务类别。本案中，“平行进口”商店虽然销售的都是迈可寇斯公司的商品，但商品涉及的类别较多，装潢标识无法对应确定的商品商标类别；在开业前，涉案商店也自称为“MK专卖店”，故上述装潢标识属于服务商标。“平行进口”商店多处装潢突出使用迈可寇斯公司标识，超出了指示所销售商品必要的限度，故构成商标侵权。
The act of helping others to infringe the exclusive right to use registered trademark should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The act of infringing the exclusive right to use registered trademark does exist; 2. The actor objectively facilitates the trademark infringement; 3. There is a subjective intention on the part of the actor. In this case, although Minying Real Estate and Minying Management had received the notice from the right holder, they had timely required Yiteng Dongguan to submit its authorization materials and have performed their duty to reasonably examine the authorization materials submitted by Yiteng Dongguan. Therefore, there was no subjective intentional behavior on the part of Minying Real Estate and Minying Management and they would not be jointly and severally liable.
帮助他人侵犯注册商标专用权的行为至少应满足以下要件：第一，有侵犯他人注册商标专用权的行为存在；第二，行为者客观上为该商标侵权行为提供了便利条件；第三，行为者主观上存在故意。本案中，民盈开发公司、民盈管理公司虽收到权利人的通知，但及时要求屹腾公司东莞分公司提交了授权资料，已尽到合理审查责任，主观上不存在故意，故无须承担连带赔偿责任。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐