“惠氏”商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案：被告恶意侵权被判赔3000万元！
Case Analysis
Wyeth, LLC et al v. Guangzhou Wyeth Baby Maternal and Infant Product Co., Ltd. et al
“惠氏”商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案
Docket No.: 294, second instance (终), civil case (民) , (2021) Zhejiang High People's Court (浙)
Lower Court Docket No.: 412, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court (浙01)
一审案号：（2019）浙01民初412号
二审案号：（2021）浙民终294号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
Taking the defendant's malice and the attendant circumstances of the infringement into account, the court applied punitive damages and supported the plaintiff's request for compensation of 30.55 million yuan ($4.7 million).
法院全面考量了被告的恶意及侵权的情节，适用惩罚性赔偿，全额支持了原告提出的3055万元的赔偿请求。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiffs-Appellees: WYETH, LLC, WYETH SHANGHAI TRADING CO., LTD.,
Defendants-Appellants: GUANGZHOU WYETH BABY MATERNAL AND INFANT PRODUCTS CO., LTD., GUANGZHOU ZHEGN'AI CONSUMER PRODUCT CO., LTD., QINGDAO WYETH BABY PRODUCT CO., LTD., CHEN XX, GUAN XX, HANGZHOU SHANHENG MATERNAL AND INFANT PRODUCT CO., LTD.
上诉人（原审被告）：914401115583999384（原广州惠氏宝贝母婴用品有限公司，简称原广州惠氏公司）、广州正爱日用品有限公司（简称正爱公司）、青岛惠氏宝贝母婴用品有限公司（简称青岛惠氏公司）、陈某某、管某某、杭州向笛母婴用品有限公司（原杭州单恒母婴用品有限公司，简称向笛公司）
被上诉人（原审原告）：惠氏有限责任公司（WYETH LLC，简称惠氏公司）、惠氏（上海）贸易有限公司（简称惠氏上海公司）
Since the 1980s, WYETH, LLC ("Wyeth") has applied for the registration of trademarks such as "Wyeth" and "Wyeth" in China. The approved products include baby food and infant milk powder. After long-term use and publicity, the "Wyeth" and "Wyeth" trademarks have gained a very high reputation.
惠氏公司自20世纪80年代起就陆续在中国申请注册“惠氏”“Wyeth”等商标，核定使用的商品包括婴儿食品、婴儿奶粉等。经过长期的使用和宣传，“惠氏”“Wyeth”商标具备了极高的知名度。
Guangzhou Wyeth Baby Maternal and Infant Products Co., Ltd. ("Guangzhou Wyeth") was established on July 27, 2010. It produced and sold baby care products such as talcum powder and shampoo with the trademarks of "Wyeth" and included "Wyeth" in its domain name. Besides, Guangzhou Wyeth implied that it was associated with Wyeth in its marketing campaigns. Guan XX and Chen XX were a couple. Guan XX established Wyeth China Co., Ltd. (later renamed Huihui Company) in Hong Kong. Guan XX and Chen XX established Guangzhou Zheng'ai Consumer Product Co., Ltd. ("Zheng'ai"), Qingdao Wyeth Baby Product Co., Ltd. ("Qingdao Wyeth") separately or jointly. Xu XX, a relative of the former Guangzhou Wyeth's shareholder, established Hangzhou Shanheng Maternal and Infant Product Co., Ltd. ("Shanheng"). Zheng'ai, Shanheng, and Qingdao Wyeth were authorized by Guangzhou Wyeth to sell the alleged infringing goods on the online store.
原广州惠氏公司于2010年7月27日成立，生产、销售带有“Wyeth”“惠氏”商标的爽身粉、洗发露等婴幼儿护理用品和纸尿裤、奶瓶、奶嘴等产品，并使用含有“Wyeth”的域名，且在其宣传推广过程中暗示其与惠氏公司相关联。管某某与陈某某曾系夫妻关系，管某某曾在香港成立惠氏中国有限公司（后更名为辉惠公司），管某某和陈某某分别或共同设立原广州惠氏公司、广州正爱公司、青岛惠氏公司并存在交叉持股。原广州惠氏公司股东徐某的亲属设立了向笛公司（设立名称为金华惠氏公司）。正爱公司、向笛公司、青岛惠氏公司经原广州惠氏公司授权，在网店上销售被控侵权商品。
Wyeth and Wyeth Shanghai Trading Co., Ltd. ("Wyeth Shanghai") sued Guangzhou Wyeth for trademark infringement and unfair competition at the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court in 2011. The case was finally brought to China's Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Court made a decision ordering Guangzhou Wyeth to stop trademark infringement, cease using domain names containing the word "Wyeth", and change its trademarks containing the word "Wyeth". Guangzhou Wyeth was also ordered to compensate Wyeth for its economic losses. After that, Guangzhou Wyeth continued to use the "Wyeth", "Wyeth" and "Wyeth Little Lion" logos to produce and sell related maternal and child care products.
惠氏公司、惠氏上海公司等曾于2011年向广州市中级人民法院起诉原广州惠氏公司商标侵权及不正当竞争。案件最终诉至最高人民法院，最高人民法院做出（2016）最高法民再85号判决，判令广州惠氏公司停止商标侵权、停止使用含有“Wyeth”字样的域名、变更含有“惠氏”字样的企业名称，并赔偿惠氏公司等经济损失。之后，原广州惠氏公司仍继续使用“惠氏”“Wyeth”“惠氏小狮子”标识生产、销售相关母婴洗护等商品。
In December 2018, Wyeth and Wyeth Shanghai filed a lawsuit with the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court, requiring the six defendants including Guangzhou Wyeth to stop trademark infringement and unfair competition, and to apply for punitive damages in accordance with three times of their infringement profits and compensate of 30 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 550,000 yuan. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court found that the six defendants had infringed on the exclusive right of Wyeth's "Wyeth" and "Wyeth" registered trademarks, and found that Qingdao Wyeth's use of "Wyeth" in the company name constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance applied punitive damages in this case, and ruled that Guangzhou Wyeth, Chen XX, and Guan XX jointly compensated the plaintiff's economic losses of 30 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 550,000 yuan. Zheng'ai, Qingdao Wyeth, and Shanheng should be jointly or separately liable for the aforementioned compensation amount according to their degrees of infringement.
2018年12月，惠氏公司、惠氏上海公司向杭州市中级人民法院起诉，要求广州惠氏公司等六被告停止商标侵权及不正当竞争行为，并按照其侵权获利的三倍适用惩罚性赔偿，共赔偿原告经济损失3000万元及合理费用55万元。杭州市中级人民法院一审判决认定，六被告侵害了惠氏公司“Wyeth”“惠氏”注册商标专用权，并认定青岛惠氏公司在企业名称中使用“惠氏”构成不正当竞争。法院一审对本案适用惩罚性赔偿，判决广州惠氏公司、陈某某、管某某连带赔偿原告经济损失3000万元及合理费用55万元，正爱公司、青岛惠氏公司、单恒公司分别根据其侵权行为程度对前述赔偿金额承担相应的连带责任。
The six defendants refused to accept the decision and all appealed to the Zhejiang High People's Court. The Zhejiang High People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision.
六被告不服一审判决，均向浙江省高级人民法院提起上诉。浙江省高级人民法院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
Typical Significance
典型意义
Firstly, the case clarifies the applicable conditions of punitive damages and the calculation rules of the compensation base and multiples, and severely crack down on infringements. This case is the first case in Zhejiang Province where the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights has been applied. Among them, the criteria for determining the elements of "intentional" and "serious circumstances" in the applicable conditions of punitive damages, the second instance The court made further clarification. At the same time, the court of second instance calculated the infringement profits with reference to the evidence submitted by each party, and determined the scope of the compensation base based on this. Regarding the total damages, the court of second instance corrected the deviation of the first instance and separately calculated the base and multiples of punitive damages. This provided a more severe blow to curb infringement as a business, which has important reference value.
首先，明确惩罚性赔偿的适用条件，厘清赔偿基数和倍数的计算法则，严厉打击侵权行为。本案是浙江省首例适用《最高人民法院关于审理侵害知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》的案件，其中对于惩罚性赔偿适用条件中“故意”和“情节严重”要件的认定标准，二审法院做了进一步明确。同时，二审法院参考各当事人提交的证据分别计算了侵权获利，并以此确定赔偿基数的范围。对于损害赔偿总额，二审法院纠正了一审的偏差，将惩罚性赔偿的基数和倍数分别单独计算，对遏制以侵权为业的行为进行了更加严厉的打击，具有重要的参考价值。
Secondly, as the actual controller of the company, natural persons should bear joint and several liability with the company to punish the infringement from the source. The second-instance judgment determined that two natural persons, Guan XX and Chen XX, and Guangzhou Wyeth constitute joint infringement and bear joint and several liability. Guan XX and Chen XX, as the company's shareholders and actual controllers, used Guangzhou Wyeth, Zheng'ai, Qingdao Wyeth and other infringing entities as infringement tools. They not only obtained illegitimate benefits by controlling the company's operations, but also tried to use the company. The legal personality independence system avoids tort liability and should be punished. The verdict of this case not only strengthened the crackdown on the source of the infringement, but also played a guiding role in regulating the company's business order, and was of great significance to the protection of the interests of the infringed.
其次，自然人作为公司实际控制人应与公司承担连带责任，从源头对侵权行为进行惩治。二审判决认定管某某与陈某某两自然人与广州惠氏公司构成共同侵权，承担连带责任。管某某与陈某某作为公司股东和实际控制人，以原广州惠氏公司、正爱公司、青岛惠氏公司等侵权实体作为侵权工具，既通过控制公司经营获取了不正当利益，又试图利用公司法人人格独立制度规避承担侵权责任，应当对其进行惩治。本案判决结果不仅加大了对侵权行为源头的打击力度，亦起到了规范公司经营秩序的导向作用，对被侵权人利益的保护意义重大。
Finally, in the judgment, the enterprise code is used to refer to the infringer, which reflects the implementation of the mandatory renaming regulations for the responsible entities that do not actively perform the renaming obligation. In the Supreme People's Court (2016) Judgment No. 85, the Supreme People's Court has ordered the original Guangzhou Wyeth to change the company name containing the word "Wyeth", but Guangzhou Wyeth has not changed it. Therefore, the second-instance judgment in this case refers to the original Guangzhou Wyeth with the enterprise code, which reflects the execution of the previous judgment.
最后，判决中以企业代码指代侵权人，体现对不主动履行更名义务的责任主体强制更名规定的执行。最高人民法院在（2016）最高法民再85号判决中，已判令原广州惠氏公司变更含有“惠氏”字样的企业名称，但原广州惠氏公司未予变更。故本案二审判决以企业代码指代原广州惠氏公司，体现出对前案判决的执行。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐