“雷朋”商标侵权纠纷案：授权经销商真假混卖并“刷单”，被判赔300万元
Case Analysis
Luxottica Group SpA v. Shenzhen Aisimo Trading Co., Ltd.
“雷朋”商标侵权纠纷案
Docket No.: 7361, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (粤03)
Lower Court Docket No.: 34027, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Futian District People's Court of Shenzhen, Guangdong Province (粤0304)
一审案号：（2018）粤0304民初34027号
二审案号：（2020）粤03民终7361号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
The authorized distributor did not follow the right holder's formal purchase process and purchased the goods at a lower price from factories selling products collected from after-sales services. If the right holder identified that the products were not authorized by it, the distributor's defense of "legitimate source" could not be established and its above-mentioned behavior constituted trademark infringement.
授权经销商未遵循权利人的正规进货流程，购进与正当进货方式不同、价格也较低的工厂“售后服务单”进行销售，在权利人鉴定不属于其授权产品的情形下，经销商的“合法来源”抗辩不能成立，其上述行为构成商标侵权。
Staging "fictitious sales" is a dishonest business behavior. The court should strictly review the evidence provided by the vendor. Only if the transaction records, payment vouchers, chat records and other evidence are sufficient to form a closed-loop chain and can corroborate each other, the relevant sales quantity could be excluded.
“刷单”属不诚信经营行为，法院对销售商提供的“刷单”证据应当严格审核，只有在交易记录、付款凭证、聊天记录等证据足以形成闭环链条且可以相互印证的情况下，方可对该部分销售数量予以剔除。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellant: LUXOTTICA GROUP SPA
Defendant-Appellee: SHENZHEN AISIMO TRADING CO., LTD.
上诉人（原审原告）：陆逊梯卡集团股份有限公司（简称陆逊梯卡集团）
被上诉人（原审被告）：深圳市艾思默贸易有限公司（简称艾思默公司）
Luxottica Group SpA ("Luxottica") (Chinese: 雷朋) is a world-renowned eyewear brand of Luxottica, a world-renowned designer, manufacturer and distributor of eyewear, holding the trademarks No. 5212742 "
陆逊梯卡集团是世界著名的眼镜设计、制造和经销商，旗下“R a y.B a n”（中文名：雷朋）是全球知名的眼镜品牌，在中国持有第5212742号“
Aisimo argued that it purchased 4,279 pairs of "Ray.Ban" sunglasses from Luxottica (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. during the authorized distribution period. Except for 773 pairs of sunglasses confirmed by the Plaintiff, the remaining 3,506 pairs were purchased from after-sales worker Hu Yuanyuan, and the sales record had a large number of "fictitious sales" data.
艾思默公司辩称，其在授权经销期间从陆逊梯卡上海公司进货的“R a y.B a n”太阳镜数量为4279副，除原告确认的773副外，其余3506副系从售后胡媛媛处进货，且其销售记录存在大量“刷单”的情况。
After trial, the court found that Luxottica (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. authorized Aisimo to sell its eyeglasses in China (excluding Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao) during the year of 2015, January 1 to March 31, 2016 and April 1 to June 30, 2017. During the above distribution periods, Aisimo purchased a total of 773 pairs of genuine "Ray Ban" eyeglasses totaled RMB 420,843.8, which were supported by the corresponding "delivery notes" and "proforma invoices". But the 3,506 pairs of sunglasses aforementioned by Aisimo purchased from the after-sales worker Hu Yuanyuan were only supported by "delivery notes". Luxottica confirmed that Hu Yuanyuan was an employee of its affiliated company Luxottica Commercial Service (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. However, because of the low position as an after-sales service worker, Hu Yuanyuan had no authority to make external sales, so the 3,506 pairs of sunglasses were not confirmed by the company. Aisimo operated a Taobao Shop named "Aisimo Genuine & Famous Brand Glasses". During the period from October 1, 2015 to August 10, 2018, the successful transaction records of "RAYBAN/雷朋" in this shop were 6,257 items, with a total sales amount of RMB 3,457,208.76. Moreover, it also operated on JD Mall with the name "Aisimo Glasses Store", and the successful transaction records were 9,583 items with a total sales amount of RMB 5,616,410.07.
法院经审理查明：陆逊梯卡上海公司授权艾思默公司在2015年、2016年1月1日-3月31日、2017年4月1日-6月30日期间在中国境内（不含台湾、香港和澳门地区）销售其提供的眼镜产品。上述经销期间，艾思默公司共计购进了773副正品“R a y.B a n”眼镜，金额合计420843.8元，有相应的“送货单”和“形式发票”佐证。艾思默公司辩称的从售后胡媛媛处进货的3506副太阳镜则仅有“送货单”，陆逊梯卡集团确认胡媛媛为其关联公司陆逊梯卡商业服务（东莞）有限公司员工，但其职务很低，没有任何权限对外销售，对该3506副太阳镜不予确认。2015年10月1日至2018年8月10日期间，艾思默公司经营的淘宝店铺“艾思默正规名品眼镜店”关于“R A Y B A N/雷朋”商品的交易成功记录为6257条，销售总金额3457208.76元；京东商城“艾思默眼镜专营店”店铺的交易成功记录为9583条，销售总金额5616410.07元。
By comparing the bank transfer statements, WeChat transfer records, QQ chat records and other records submitted by Aisimo with the sales statements obtained from Taobao and JD, the court found that there were a total of 270 items of bank card records consistent with the orders, and the total amount was RMB 174,862.8. The inconsistent amounts were as follows: bank card records had 718 items with the notes "making up differences", a total of 2,106 inconsistent items of WeChat transfer screenshots, a total of 282 inconsistent items of Tenpay, 246 inconsistent items of payments from others, a total of 22 inconsistent items of WeChat and Alipay payments, 12 inconsistent items of Alipay payments, 38 inconsistent records of bank transfer and WeChat transfer, and a total of 17 inconsistent records of WeChat and third-party cash payments. In the above records, there were 270 items of data in which the fictitious sales amount consistent with the orders, and such orders were from October 15, 2016 to July 4, 2017. During this period, there were 65 orders in the authorized distribution period from April 1 to June 30, 2017, and the total amount was RMB 44,974.8. During the trial, the court ordered Aisimo to submit the original authorization letters of 2017 and 2018, but it failed to provide such letters and did not give reasonable explanations. Moreover, it did not apply for the court to carry out investigation and evidence collection, nor did it submit evidence of continuous delivery by Luxottica (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd.
将艾思默公司提交的银行转账流水、微信转账记录、Q Q聊天记录等与淘宝、京东调取的销量表进行比对：银行卡记录金额跟订单完全一致的共有270条，总金额合计174862.8元；银行卡记录金额不一致、备注为“补差”的共有718条；微信转账截屏、金额无法对应的，共有2106条；充值财付通、金额不一致的共有282条；他人支付、金额不一致的共有246条；微信加支付宝支付、金额不一致的共有22条；支付宝支付、金额不一致的共有12条；银行转账加微信转账、金额无法对应的共有38条；微信加第三方现金支付、金额无法对应的共有17条。前述刷单金额与订单一致的270条数据的订单时间为2016年10月15日-2017年7月4日，其中处于2017年4月1日-6月30日的授权经销期间的订单有65条，金额合计44974.8元。庭审中，法庭责令艾思默公司提交2017、2018年授权书原件，艾思默公司未能提供，亦未提供合理解释，且未申请法院调查取证，也未提交陆逊梯卡上海公司持续发货的证据。
In the first instance, Futian District People's Court held that in the authorized distribution period, the number of sunglasses purchased by Aisimo in the legal way was 773 pairs, and only 65 items of "fictitious sales" data could be confirmed by investigation, which was notably inconsistent with the sales volumes of Taobao platform and JD Mall. So it sufficiently demonstrated that the sunglasses being sued for infringement sold by Aisimo were not all from Luxottica (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. As the authorized distributor of Luxottica, Aisimo was clear about its legal purchase process, but instead of legitimate purchase method, it purchased the sunglasses at a lower price from factories selling products collected from after-sales services. In the situation that Luxottica identified that it was not its authorized product, Aisimo's "legal source" defense could not be established, constituting trademark infringement. Because the losses and benefits resulted from infringement could not be determined, based on comprehensive consideration given to the awareness of the trademark in dispute, the malicious infringement of Aisimo providing false authorization letters on Taobao and other acts, Aisimo's operation scale and the quantity of infringing products sold, the large profit of infringing products, the reasonable expenditure for stopping infringement act by Luxottica and other factors, the court made the first instance judgment on November 28, 2019: (1) the Defendant Aisimo should immediately stop the infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademark of the Plaintiff Luxottica with No.5212742 "
福田法院一审认为，艾思默公司在授权经销期间的正规进货数量为773副，经审查后可以确认的“刷单”数据亦只有65条，与淘宝平台、京东商城的销售数量严重不符，足以说明艾思默公司销售的被诉侵权太阳镜并非全部来源于陆逊梯卡上海公司。艾思默公司作为陆逊梯卡集团的授权经销商，清楚其正规进货流程，仍然购进与正当进货方式不同、价格也较低的工厂“售后服务单”进行销售，在陆逊梯卡集团鉴定不属于其授权产品的情形下，艾思默公司的“合法来源”抗辩不能成立，构成商标侵权。在侵权损失和侵权获益不能确定的情形下，综合考虑涉案商标知名度、艾思默公司具有在淘宝网提供虚假授权书等侵权恶意、艾思默公司的经营规模和销售侵权产品的数量、侵权产品利润较大以及陆逊梯卡集团为制止侵权行为支出的合理费用等因素，法院于2019年11月28日作出一审判决：（一）被告艾思默公司应立即停止侵害原告陆逊梯卡集团第5212742号“
Aisimo refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. On September 8, 2020, Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court made judgment of the second instance. The court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment. This case has taken legal effect on October 13, 2020.
艾思默公司不服一审判决，向深圳市中级人民法院提起上诉。深圳中院于2020年9月8日作出二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。本案已于2020年10月13日发生法律效力。
Typical Significance
典型意义
The act of authorized distributor mixing the genuine and false goods has increased the difficulty for consumers to distinguish genuine goods, and also damaged the legal rights and interests of brand owners. As a part of the grey industry, making "fictitious sales" is a dishonest business behavior by damaging the trading statistics mechanism and credit rating mechanism of the platform. In this case, the court identified the infringement of authorized distributors for mixing the genuine and false goods, and strictly examined the "fictitious sales" data, so it has guided the market participants to regulate their operation, and developed a law-abiding and honest business environment. Moreover, we can see from this case that the judiciary system of China has provided strong protection for foreign trademark owners.
授权经销商真假混卖的行为增加了消费者辨别真伪的难度，亦损害了品牌权利人的合法权益；而“刷单”作为灰色产业一环，损害了平台的交易统计机制和信用评级机制，属不诚信经营行为。本案通过对授权经销商真假混卖侵权的认定和对“刷单”数据的严格审核，引导市场主体规范经营，营造守法、诚信的营商环境，同时也体现了我国司法对涉外品牌权利人的强有力保护。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐