擅用“抖音”不正当竞争行为行政处罚纠纷案

  Case Analysis

Guangzhou Blue Whale Short Video Technology Co., Ltd. v. Yuexiu District Administration for Market Regulation of Guangzhou City

擅用“抖音”不正当竞争行为行政处罚纠纷案

Lower Court Docket No.: 4, first instance (初), administrative case (行), (2019) Guangzhou Yuexiu District People's Court (粤0101)

一审案号：（2019）粤0101行初4号

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Plaintiff: Guangzhou Blue Whale Short Video Technology Co., Ltd.

Defendant: Yuexiu District Administration for Market Regulation of Guangzhou City

原告：广州蓝鲸短视频科技有限公司

被告：广州市越秀区市场监督管理局

Beijing Bytedance Technology Co., Ltd. is the registrant of "Tik Tok", "", "" and other trademarks. The Plaintiff, Guangzhou Blue Whale Short Video Technology Co., Ltd, formerly named Guangzhou Tik Tok Information Technology Co., Ltd, had a large number of logos of the above-mentioned trademarks and "Tik Tok" related slogans in its business premises and agreed to provide its customers with information operation services on the Tik Tok Short Video App when signing contracts with them. Defendant Yuexiu District Administration for Market Regulation of Guangzhou City issued a decision for an administrative penalty that asserted that the Plaintiff had constituted unfair competition acts, and ordered the Plaintiff to immediately stop its illegal acts of confusion and apply for name change registration, and imposed on the Plaintiff a fine of RMB 90,000. The Plaintiff refused to accept the administrative penalty decision and thus appealed to the court, requesting the decision be revoked.

北京字节跳动科技有限公司是“抖音”“”“”等商标的注册人。原告广州蓝鲸短视频科技有限公司原名广州抖音信息技术有限公司，其在经营场所内有大量上述商标标识及“抖音”相关宣传标语，并在与客户签订合同时约定为客户提供抖音短视频App的信息运营服务。被告广州市越秀区市场监督管理局作出行政处罚决定，认为原告构成不正当竞争行为，责令原告立即停止混淆的违法行为、办理名称变更登记，并处罚款9万元。原告不服该行政处罚决定，起诉至法院，请求撤销该决定。

In the first instance, the Guangzhou Yuexiu District People's Court, Guangdong Province, held that the Plaintiff's business name contained "Tik Tok", which overlapped with the name of the "Tik Tok" app and related trademarks; nevertheless, the Plaintiff was engaged in the business activities of providing services related to "Tik Tok" app account and content, used the relevant trademark logos extensively in its business premises, and had related words like "Beijing Tik Tok Headquarters" in the text of its contracts. According to the general cognitive understanding of the public, it would be easy for them to think that the Plaintiff and the services it provided had a specific connection with the owner of the trademarks or apps such as "Tik Tok". And from inquiries of the Plaintiff's relevant customers, it appeared that the Plaintiff's acts had indeed had the effect of confusion. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the business name and related business practices of the Plaintiff had constituted unfair competition with sufficient proof and justification. The administrative penalty decision of the Defendant based on this was in compliance with the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and was thus not unfair. In summary of the above, the Court ruled in the first instance that all the claims of the Plaintiff were rejected. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant accepted the verdict and rested their cases.

广东省广州市越秀区人民法院一审认为，原告企业名称中包含“抖音”，与“抖音”App名称以及相关商标重合；而原告恰恰从事提供“抖音”App账号及内容服务的经营活动，且在其经营场所中大规模使用相关商标标识，在合同文本中又有“北京抖音总部”等字样。根据公众的一般认知理解，极易认为原告及其提供的服务与“抖音”等商标或App的权利人存在特定联系。且从对原告的相关客户所作询问来看，原告行为事实上也已经产生了混淆的后果。故被告认定原告的企业名称以及相关经营行为构成不正当竞争，理据充分。被告基于此作出的行政处罚决定符合《反不正当竞争法》的规定，并无不当。综上，法院一审判决：驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。判决后，原被告均服判息诉。

Typical Significance

典型意义

The verdict of this case clarified that, by registering a company name with the name "Tik Tok", which was the registered trademark and mobile app name of another entity, and by operating in the business of "Tik Tok" app account and content under the relevant trademarks and logos, had led to confusion and constituted unfair competition. It also made clear that if an application for business name registration was for the implementation of unfair competition, it would not be applicable to the principle of administrative trust protection due to its impropriety. The verdict of this case is helpful in guiding operators to operate legally in the new market environment and jointly create a fair and orderly market economic order, playing a good social effect of optimizing the business environment.

本案判决明确了以他人注册商标以及运营手机App名称“抖音”作为字号登记，又以相关商标标识从事经营“抖音”App账号及内容业务引人混淆的，构成不正当竞争；同时也明确了申请企业名称登记用于实施不正当竞争行为，因具有不当性而不适用行政信赖保护原则。本案判决有利于指引经营者在新型市场环境下合法经营，共同营造公平、有序的市场经济秩序，起到了优化营商环境的良好社会效果。

This case has been selected as one of the "2020 Top Ten Typical Intellectual Property Cases of Guangdong Courts".

本案入选“2020年度广东省知识产权审判十大案件”。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）

往期推荐