“百威”啤酒商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案: 商标侵权行为和不正当竞争行为边界的厘清

  Case Analysis

Budweiser China Sales Co., Ltd. v. Jiangxi Lanse Rouqing Beer Co., Ltd et al.

“百威”啤酒商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Docket No.: 17015, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Pudong New District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality (沪0115)

一审案号：（2018）沪0115民初17015号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

In the case of the act fully imitating the trade dress of well-known goods, If the plaintiff's claim can be supported in accordance with the Trademark Law, the anti-unfair competition law shall not be used for additional protection. If the plaintiff's claim cannot be supported by the Trademark Law and does not conflict with the legislative policy of trademark law, it can still be regulated by anti-unfair competition law, so as to achieve full and comprehensive protection of trade dress.

对知名商品的商业外观进行全面模仿的行为，当原告的主张能够依据商标法获得支持的，则不得再利用反不正当竞争法进行附加保护；当原告的主张不能依据商标法获得支持，在与商标法立法政策不冲突时，仍可依据反不正当竞争法进行规制，以实现对商业外观立体、全面的保护。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff: BUDWEISER CHINA SALES CO., LTD.,

Defendants: JIANGXI LANSE ROUQING BEER CO., LTD.,GANZHOU BAIHUI WINE CO., LTD.,SHANGHAI PUDONG NEW AREA ZHANGJIANG TOWN QIANGLING FOOD STORE.

原告：百威（中国）销售有限公司（简称百威公司）

被告：江西蓝色柔情啤酒有限公司（简称蓝色柔情公司）、赣州百惠酒业有限公司（简称百惠公司）、上海市浦东新区张江镇强玲食品店（简称强玲食品店）

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, a party not involved in this case, is the trademark owner of "百威 Budweiser China Sales Co., Ltd. ("Budweiser")", "Budweiser" and related graphic registered trademarks ("the trademark in dispute"). The Plaintiff Budweiser is authorized to enjoy the right to use the trademarks in dispute, and has the right to bring a lawsuit against the infringement of the exclusive right to use the trademark in dispute. In 2017, the Plaintiff found that the Defendant Shanghai Pudong New Area Zhangjiang Town Qiangling Food Store ("Qiangling Food Store") sold 500ml pop-canned beer named "baiwan beer" ("the product being sued for infringement") in its store. The product being sued for infringement was marked with the Defendant Ganzhou Baihui Wine Co., Ltd. ("Baihui") as the manufacturer, Defendant Jiangxi Lanse Rouqing Beer Co., Ltd ("Lanse Rouqing") as supervisor, and the words including "authorized by American Budweiser Beer (Jiangxi) Group Co., Ltd.".

案外人安海斯-布希有限责任公司（A N H E U S E R-B U S C H，LLC）系“百威”“Budweiser”及相关图形注册商标（简称涉案商标）的商标权人。原告百威公司经授权享有涉案商标的使用权，并有权对侵犯涉案商标专用权的行为提起诉讼。2017年，原告发现被告强玲食品店在其店铺内销售500毫升名为“b a i w a n b e e r”的易拉罐装啤酒（简称被诉侵权产品），该被诉侵权产品上标注的制造商为被告百惠公司，监制为被告蓝色柔情公司，并有“美国百威啤酒（江西）集团有限公司授权”的字样。

The Plaintiff believed that the product being sued for infringement had infringed the exclusive right of it to use the registered trademark in dispute, which was evidenced by red and white as the main color of overall trade dress of the product being sued for infringement, eagle, ribbon, wheat ear, "Baiwanbeer" and "SINCE2016" in art font and other elements on the front of the can, the words "authorized by American Budweiser Beer (Jiangxi) Group Co., Ltd." prominently shown on the can, and the words "Baiwan beer" on the front and side of the can. Furthermore, because the overall trade dress of the Plaintiff's product used red and white as the main color, the front of the can included elements such as ribbon with English words, round seal with AB letters, leaves, wheat ears, words "Budweiser" in art font and "SINCE1876", they had obvious distinctive characteristics, making the trade dress have a certain of influence. The words "authorized by American Budweiser Beer (Jiangxi) Group Co., Ltd." was prominently shown on the body of the product being sued for infringement, which was the Plaintiff's influential enterprise name, but the Defendants used it without authorization, so constituted unfair competition. The Plaintiff then appealed to the court to request the Defendants to stop the infringement, eliminate ill effects and claimed RMB 3 million for economic losses.

原告认为，被诉侵权产品的整体装潢以红白搭配为主基调，罐体正面使用老鹰、绶带、麦穗、艺术体“Baiwanbeer”“SINCE2016”字样等要素、罐体上突出使用“美国百威啤酒（江西）集团有限公司授权”字样、罐体正面及侧面“B a i w a n b e e r”字样等均侵害了原告涉案注册商标的专用权。此外，原告产品整体装潢以红白搭配为主基调，产品罐体正面由绶带加英文文字、圆章加A B字母、叶子、麦穗、艺术体“Budweiser”字样、“SINCE1876”等要素组成，具有明显的区别特征，属于具有一定影响的装潢。被诉侵权产品罐体上突出使用“美国百威啤酒（江西）集团有限公司授权”字样系擅自使用原告具有一定影响力的企业名称的不正当竞争行为。原告遂诉至法院请求各被告停止侵权、消除影响并赔偿损失300万元。

After trial, Pudong Court held that the design of the registered trademark of graphics in dispute was sophisticated. The court compared the products of the Plaintiff and Defendants in terms of their overall appearance and main parts, it judged that both products were similar in structure, color matching, elements and composition, the subtle differences were not easy to be identified  by the relevant public with general observation, which was a sufficient reason to cause confusion among consumers, so the marks on the front of the product being sued for infringement had infringed the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use registered trademark of graphics in dispute. Because the infringement act in this case occurred before registration of the trademark, the act after the registration of trademark was the infringement of the exclusive right to use registered trademark. For the infringement act before the trademark registration, the court held that because the mark had long been used by the Plaintiff, so it fell into the trade dress with a certain influence within the meaning of anti-unfair competition law, accordingly, the act of Defendants using it without authorization was unfair competition.

浦东法院经审理认为，涉案图形注册商标设计较为复杂。在通过总体比对法与主要部分比对法相结合的方式进行判定后认为，二者在结构、色彩搭配、要素、构图等方面均较为相似，相关公众施以一般注意力，不易察觉到二者的细微差异，足以造成消费者混淆，被诉侵权产品罐体正面的标识侵害了原告涉案图形注册商标专用权。因涉案被诉侵权行为发生于该商标注册之前，对于商标注册之后的行为属于侵权该注册商标专用权的行为，对于该商标注册之前的侵权行为，法院认为该标识经过原告长时间的使用，属于反不正当竞争法意义上的有一定影响的装潢，被告在该标识注册为商标之前的使用属于擅自使有一定影响的装潢的不正当竞争行为。

With regard to the words "authorized by American Budweiser Beer (Jiangxi) Group Co., Ltd.", the above words were presented in the same font, color and size, without prominently showing the word "Budweiser". The court judged that such act of Defendants should not be identified as trademark infringement act because the Defendants did not prominently use the words that were identical with or similar to other's registered trademark as its brand name on the identical or similar goods. However, this act not only disturbed the order of market competition and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of the Plaintiff, but also easily led to confusion among the relevant public about the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and the source of the product being sued for infringement. According to Item 4 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, such act was other confusion act that was sufficient to lead people to mistakenly believe that the product was the goods of others or had a specific connection with others, resulting in unfair competition against the Plaintiff.

关于“美国百威啤酒（江西）集团有限公司授权”字样，上述文字均以相同字体、相同颜色、相同大小的方式予以呈现，并未将“百威”二字突出使用，该使用方式不属将与他人注册商标相同或近似的文字作为企业的字号在相同或类似商品上的突出使用，不能将其认定为商标侵权行为。但该行为不仅扰乱了市场竞争秩序，损害了原告的合法权益，亦容易导致相关公众对原被告之间的关系以及被诉侵权产品的来源产生混淆，属于《反不正当竞争法》第六条第四项规定的其他足以引人误认为是他人商品或与他人存在特定联系的混淆行为，构成对原告的不正当竞争。

With regard to the compensation amount, the court held that the amount of statutory compensation for intellectual property rights should not only reflect the compensatory nature of covering losses of the Plaintiff, but also be punitive in curbing recurrence of infringement act, so as to bring out the role of intellectual property civil liability in guidance and prevention, particularly in the field of food, which was closely related to the life health of consumers. By giving comprehensive consideration to the awareness of the trademark in dispute, the circumstances of the infringement act and the subjective state of the Defendants, the court finally applied the statutory maximum compensation with RMB 3 million awarded.

关于赔偿数额，法院认为，知识产权的法定赔偿数额不仅要体现填平原告损失的补偿性，亦应具有足以制止侵权行为再次发生的惩罚性，以实现知识产权民事责任的引导和预防功能，这在与广大消费者生命健康息息相关的食品领域更应如此。法院在综合考虑涉案商标的知名度、被诉侵权行为情节、被告主观状态的基础上，最终适用法定赔偿上限顶格判赔300万元。

Typical Significance

典型意义

This case is a typical case in comprehensive imitation of the trade dress of well-known goods, the judgment of this case has clarified the boundary between trademark infringement act and unfair competition act in such cases, and awarded maximum compensation based on the awareness of the trademark in dispute, the subjective state of the Defendants, the circumstances of infringement and other considerations, thus protecting the life, health and safety of consumers. It has brought out the role of intellectual property civil liability in guidance and prevention, and embodied the social governance role of the judiciary system.

本案系对知名商品的商业外观进行全面模仿的典型案件，本案判决厘清了此类案件中商标侵权行为和不正当竞争行为的边界，并综合涉案商标的知名度、被告的主观状态和侵权情节等作出顶格判赔，保护了广大消费者的生命健康安全，实现了知识产权民事责任的引导和预防作用，体现了司法的社会治理功能。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐