“碧然德”商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案

  Case Analysis

BRITA GMBG et al. v. Shanghai Kangdian Industrial Co., Ltd.

“碧然德”商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Docket No.: 204, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2021) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (沪73)

Lower Court Docket No.: 26614, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Minhang District People's Court (沪0112)

一审案号：（2017）沪0112民初26614号

二审案号：（2021）沪73民终204号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

Trademark owners should follow the principle of good faith and business ethics, and exercise their rights within the scope stipulated by the law. In the case of infringement acts done by abusing the trademark system and administrative procedures, damaging the legal rights and interests of others, and disrupting the order of market competition, such acts constitute unfair competition. In trademark infringement cases, the application of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China in evaluating and judging the abuse of procedural rights can provide the best relief scheme for trademark owners. The necessary expenses incurred by the Plaintiff for the abused trademark administrative procedure are the economic losses directly caused by the unfair competition and should be compensated.

商标权人应遵守诚实信用原则和商业伦理道德，在法律规定的范围内行使权利。滥用商标制度和行政程序实施侵权行为，损害他人合法权益、扰乱市场竞争秩序的，构成不正当竞争。在商标侵权案件中，适用《反不正当竞争法》第二条对滥用程序权利行为进行评价和裁判，可为商标权人提供最佳救济方案。原告为了被滥用的商标行政程序所支出的必要费用，属于该不正当竞争行为所导致的直接经济损失，应得到赔偿。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiffs-Appellees: BRITA GMBG, BRITA WATER FILTRATION SYSTEMS (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD.

Defendant-Appellant: SHANGHAI KANGDIAN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

上诉人（原审被告）：上海康点实业有限公司（简称康点公司）

被上诉人（原审原告）：碧然德有限公司（BRITA GMBG）（简称碧然德公司）、碧然德净水系统（上海）有限公司（简称上海碧然德公司）

BRITA GMBG ("BRITA") was incorporated in Germany in 1966. Since 1993, BRITA has registered many trademarks including "BRITA" and "碧然德" in China, and has marketed and operated brands through wholly-owned subsidiaries and agents. Shanghai Kangdian Industrial Co., Ltd. ("Kangdian") was registered and established in 2010. It has advertised and sold its "碧然德" filter kettle, filter elements and other products on a number of network platforms. On the web page of Taobao, it has described itself as the "wholesale merchant of original German BRITA filter kettle" and other text introduction, and on the WeChat platform, it has operated online store with the WeChat name of "碧然德". The above official accounts were cancelled after complaints from BRITA, but later, Kangdian changed its name and re-registered for sale. Moreover, Kangdian applied for registration of up to 21 trademarks such as "碧然德", "德碧然德" and "BRITA" under various categories of goods and services, and used the trademark "德碧然德" as reference mark (which was under registration application for its kettles, kitchen containers and other goods) for the purpose of requesting the invalidation of the registered trademark "碧然德" of BRITA. It also instituted opposition to six other "碧然德" trademarks that BRITA was applying for registration, but it failed to obtain support after examination. Since then, BRITA had filed a request for invalidation of Kangdian's "德碧然德" trademark application, and it had finally obtained support through administrative and judicial procedures. BRITA then filed a lawsuit with the Minhang District People's Court of Shanghai, requesting confirmation that Kangdian had infringed on the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use registered trademark, made false publicity and other acts of unfair competition, and claiming that the Defendant to eliminate the ill effects and compensate RMB 3 million for its economic losses.

碧然德公司于1966年在德国注册成立。自1993年起，碧然德公司在中国陆续登记注册了“B R I T A”“碧然德”等多件商标，并通过代理商、成立全资子公司进行品牌销售与经营。2010年，康点公司注册成立，并在多个网络平台上宣传和销售其“碧然德”滤水壶、滤芯等产品，在淘宝网页使用“德国碧然德滤水壶原装正品批发招商”等文字介绍，在微信平台以“碧然德”的微信名称开设网店经营销售。上述公众号经碧然德公司投诉而被注销，但之后康点公司又更换名称重新注册进行销售。与此同时，康点公司在多个商品及服务类别上申请注册“碧然德”“德碧然德”“B R I T A”等商标多达21件，还以其正在水壶、厨房容器等商品上申请注册的“德碧然德”商标作为引证商标，请求宣告碧然德公司“碧然德”注册商标无效，并对碧然德公司正在申请注册的其他6件“碧然德”商标提出异议，经审查均未获支持。此后，碧然德公司对康点公司“德碧然德”商标申请提出无效宣告请求，但历经行政、司法程序最终获得支持。碧然德公司遂向上海市闵行区人民法院提起诉讼，请求确认康点公司实施了侵犯原告注册商标专用权、虚假宣传以及其他不正当竞争行为，判令被告消除影响，并赔偿其经济损失300万元。

In the first instance, Minhang District People's Court held that Kangdian's acts in the case constituted trademark infringement, false publicity, malicious registration of trademarks and abuse of trademark opposition procedures and other acts of unfair competition, and ordered Kangdian to compensate RMB 2.8 million to BRITA for its economic losses.

闵行区法院一审认为，康点公司的涉案行为构成商标侵权、虚假宣传、恶意抢注商标、滥用商标异议程序的不正当竞争行为，判令康点公司赔偿碧然德公司经济损失等280万元。

Kangdian refused to accept the first instance judgment and appealed to the Shanghai High People's Court. During the court of second instance, the Appellant failed to pay the appeal fee in advance within the time limit specified by the court, which was treated by the court as the appeal withdrawn by the Appellant Kangdian. At present, the judgment of first instance has come into effect.

康点公司不服一审判决，向上海市高级人民法院提起上诉。二审法院审理过程中，上诉人在法院指定的期限内未预交上诉费，法院按上诉人康点公司自动撤回上诉处理。目前，一审判决已生效。

The lawyers from Beijing Lusheng Law Firm represented the Plaintiffs of two cases (BRITA and Shanghai BRITA) and appeared before the courts in the first instance and second instance of this case.

北京市路盛律师事务所律师分别作为两案原告（碧然德公司、上海碧然德公司）的代理人，参与本案一审、二审诉讼。

Typical Significance

典型意义

This case is the first judgment applying Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law in China to provide civil remedy for the loss of the trademark owner due to the abuse of trademark administrative procedures by malicious registration. In general, the behavior of malicious preemptive registration of trademarks should be remedied through administrative procedures. But in this case, the Defendant in the process of infringement, on the one hand, disguised its infringement acts by long-term preemptive registration of a number of trademarks on an ongoing basis and in a batch manner, which were identical with or very similar to those of Plaintiff, on the other hand, with the preemptive registered trademarks, it had maliciously filed for the court for invalidation and opposition to the trademark applied and registered by the Plaintiff, which disturbed the normal business behavior of the Plaintiff. As pointed out in the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant's acts of preemptive registration of trademarks and instituting opposition proceedings were not simply the abuse of rights. In fact, it was a supporting method used by the Defendant, and the intention was to execute the trademark infringement act and interfere with the normal exercise of trademark rights by the Plaintiff, which was a part of the long-term and comprehensive infringement acts by Defendant. Furthermore, in terms of the Plaintiff, it not only suffered from the damaged competitive advantage, and also incurred the cost of legal service resulted from the above administrative procedures, which formed a part of the actual loss suffered by the Plaintiff. On the basis of expounding the essence of the Defendant's acts, the judgment judged that the case had constituted an unfair competition regulated by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The judgment has a strong deterrent effect on malicious preemptive registration by abusing administrative procedures, and effectively maintained the fair market competition order. It has actively played the role both in optimal relief for the trademark owner and the protection of public and private laws.

本案是全国首例启用《反不正当竞争法》第二条，对权利人因恶意抢注人滥用商标行政程序遭受损失提供民事救济的判决。通常而言，对恶意抢注商标的行为应通过行政程序进行救济、但本案中，被告在实施侵权行为的同时，长期、持续、批量抢注与原告系列商标相同或极为近似的商标，一方面以抢注的商标庇护其侵权行为，另一方面又以抢注的商标为基础，对原告正常申请、注册的商标提出恶意的无效宣告、异议请求，对原告的正常经营行为造成了干扰。正如一审判决指出的，被告抢注商标和提起异议程序的举动，并非单独的权利滥用行为，实则是被告用以实施商标侵权并干扰原告正常行使商标权利的辅助手段，是被告长时间、综合性侵权行为的一部分。此外，原告在竞争优势受损的同时，还不得不支出法律服务成本应对上述行政程序，这也属于原告遭受的实际损失。判决在深入阐述被告行为实质的基础上，认定该案已经构成《反不正当竞争法》第二条所规制的不正当竞争行为，对滥用行政程序的恶意抢注人起到了有力的震慑作用，同时也有效维护了公平的市场竞争秩序，体现了对权利人的最优救济和公私法保护的双重生命力。

In the long run, the implementation of the administrative procedures for trademark registration application, trademark opposition and invalidation in China takes time to correct inherent issues, so there are preemptive registrants taking advantage of time difference and using the registered trademark to disguise infringement acts, even maliciously complaining and interfering with the normal operation of the trademark owner. This case has a strong response to such acts from the perspective of civil law, which has a far-reaching impact on purifying the act of trademark registration, reducing administrative costs caused by a large number of malicious preemptive registrations, encouraging honest business principle and maintaining fair competition order.

从更长远看，我国实行商标注册申请商标异议、无效行政程序需要一定的时间来进行自我纠错，实践中存在抢注人利用该时间差，利用抢注商标庇护其侵权行为甚至恶意投诉、干扰权利人正常经营的情况。本案从民法角度对这类行为进行了有力回应，对净化商标注册行为、减少大量恶意抢注带来的行政成本、鼓励诚信经营、维护公平竞争秩序均有深远影响。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐