| Ten Model Cases concerning Intellectual Property Protection by National Procuratorial Organs in 2017 as Issued by the Supreme People's Procuratorate | | 最高人民检察院发布2017年度全国检察机关保护知识产权十大典型案例 |
| (April 2018) | | （2018年4月） |
| Contents | | 目录 |
| 1. People v. Zhang Chengbing et al. from Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province for Counterfeiting a Registered Trademark, Hong Lizhou et al. for Selling Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark, and Huang Menghao for Illegally Manufacturing and Selling Illegally Manufactured Registered Trademark Symbols; | | 1.江苏无锡市张承兵等人假冒注册商标、洪立洲等人销售假冒注册商标的商品、黄孟浩非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识案； |
| 2. People v. Zong Ran, Chen Lingjie, and Wang Xu from Haidian District, Beijing for Infringing Copyright; | | 2.北京海淀区宗冉、陈令杰、王旭侵犯著作权案； |
| 3. People v. Nie Zhongqiao and Wu Chuanxia from Shangluo City, Shaanxi Province for Selling Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark; | | 3.陕西商洛市聂忠桥、吴传霞销售假冒注册商标的商品案； |
| 4. People v. Seven Persons Including Wei Wei and Zhang Yupeng from Hebei District, Tianjin for Counterfeiting a Registered Trademark; | | 4.天津河北区魏伟、张玉鹏等7人假冒注册商标案； |
| 5. People v. Six Persons Including Zhao Guangsheng from Qujing City, Yunnan Province for Counterfeiting a Registered Trademark; | | 5.云南曲靖市赵广生等6人假冒注册商标案； |
| 6. People v. Lin Wenyong, Ma Jun, and Zhang Xiang from Chengdu City, Sichuan Province for Infringing Copyright; | | 6.四川成都市林文勇、马骏、张翔侵犯著作权案； |
| 7. People v. Xu Lin and Li Yufu from Hefei City, Anhui Province for Selling Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark; | | 7.安徽合肥市徐林、李玉福销售假冒注册商标的商品案； |
| 8. People v. Liu Zhuli and Liu Zhuchun from Yishui County, Shandong Province for Illegally Selling Illegally Manufactured Registered Trademark Symbols and Selling Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark; | | 8.山东沂水县刘竹丽、刘竹春非法销售非法制造的注册商标标识、销售假冒注册商标的商品案； |
| 9. People v. Zhang Wutang and Zhong Kaifu from Ningde City, Fujian Province for Infringing Trade Secrets; | | 9.福建宁德市张五堂、钟开富侵犯商业秘密案； |
| 10. Application of the China Audio-Video Copyright Association in Changsha City, Hunan Province for Supporting the Filing of a Lawsuit for Disputes over Copyright Infringement. | | 10.湖南长沙市中国音像著作权集体管理协会因著作权侵权纠纷申请支持起诉系列案。 |
| Model Case No. 1 | | 典型案例一： |
| People v. Zhang Chengbing et al. from Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province for Counterfeiting a Registered Trademark, Hong Lizhou et al. for Selling Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark, and Huang Menghao for Illegally Manufacturing and Selling Illegally Manufactured Registered Trademark Symbols; | | 江苏无锡市张承兵等人假冒注册商标、洪立洲等人销售假冒注册商标的商品、黄孟浩非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识案 |
| I. Facts of the case | | 一、案件事实 |
| 1. Counterfeit registered trademarks | | （一）假冒注册商标部分 |
| 1. From September 2014 to December 2015, as proposed by defendant Zhang Chengbing, defendants Wang Jiacai, Xu Shaobing, and Zhang Chengbing conspired, jointly invested, and counterfeited and used the registered trademark "德芙DOVE" of Mars, Incorporated from United States without a license from the owner of the registered trademark to produce and make and sell chocolates at Huate Rubber and Plastics Factory in Wanzhi Town, Wuhu County, Anhui Province, with illegal sales amounting to CNY2,103,850. | | 1. 2014年9月至2015年12月间，由被告人张承兵提议，被告人王家财、徐绍兵与张承兵三人经合谋并共同出资，在未经注册商标所有权人许可的情况下，假冒使用美国玛氏公司的“德芙DOVE”注册商标，在安徽省芜湖县湾沚镇华特橡塑厂内生产、制作巧克力并进行销售，非法经营数额共计人民币2103850元。 |
| On January 7, 2016, the public security department seized 12,100 pieces of counterfeit "德芙" chocolate in bulk and 306,000 pieces of counterfeit "德芙" chocolate packaged in 153 boxes at Huate Rubber and Plastics Factory in Wanzhi Town, Wuhu County, Anhui Province where defendants Wang Jiacai, Zhang Chengbing, and Xu Shaobing conducted production. | | 2016年1月7日，公安机关在被告人王家财、张承兵、徐绍兵进行生产的安徽省芜湖县湾沚镇华特橡塑厂内查获假冒的散装“德芙”巧克力12100粒、整箱“德芙”巧克力153箱计306000粒。 |
| 2. From October to December 2015, as conspired by defendants Wang Jiacai and Hu Kehua, Wang Jiacai who was in charge of funding and production and Hu Kehua who was in charge of contacting and making trademark symbols counterfeited and used the registered trademark "FERRERO ROCHER" of the Ferrero SpA in Italy without a license from the owner of the registered trademark to produce and make chocolates in a residential building in Labakou Avenue, Wanzhi Town, Wuhu County, Anhui Province. Later, defendant Wang Jiacai sold 300 boxes of counterfeit "Ferrero" chocolate to Hong Lizhou, Xu Zhongsheng and Lin Ruiping at a price of CNY400 per box, with sales amounting to CNY118,700. | | 2. 2015年10月至12月，被告人王家财、胡克华经合谋，由王家财负责出资、生产，胡克华负责联系制作商标标识，在未经注册商标所有权人许可的情况下，假冒使用意大利费列罗集团的“FERRERO ROCHER”的注册商标，在安徽省芜湖县湾沚镇喇叭口大道一处民房内生产、制作巧克力。后被告人王家财以每箱人民币400元的价格，销售给洪立洲、徐中生、林瑞平等人假冒的“费列罗”巧克力计300箱，非法经营数额计人民币118700元。 |
| On January 8, 2016, the public security department seized 18,360 pieces of counterfeit “Ferrero” chocolate in the residential building where defendants Wang Jiacai and Hu Kehua conducted production. | | 2016年1月8日，公安机关在被告人王家财、胡克华进行生产的民房内查获假冒的“费列罗”巧克力18360粒。 |
| 2. Sale of Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark | | （二）销售假冒注册商标的商品部分 |
| From October to December 2014, defendant Hong Lizhou who knew that the “德芙” chocolate purchased from defendant Wang Jiacai was goods with a counterfeit registered trademark sold 749 boxes of the counterfeit “德芙” chocolate to defendant Xu Liujun at the store owned by Hong Lizhou in the Non-Staple Food Market of the Tangnan Merchants Shopping Mall in Xinwu District, Wuxi City, with sales amounting to CNY462,500. | | 2014年10月至12月，被告人洪立洲明知从被告人王家财处购得的“德芙”巧克力系假冒注册商标的商品，仍在其经营的无锡市新吴区塘南招商城副食品市场店铺内销售给被告人徐留军假冒的“德芙”巧克力749箱，销售金额共计人民币462500元。 |
| From October to December 2014, defendant Xu Liujun who knew that the “德芙” chocolate purchased from defendant Hong Lizhou was goods with a counterfeit registered trademark sold the aforesaid 749 boxes of counterfeit “德芙” chocolate to Ye Yuqing in Liyang City, Jiangsu Province, with the sales amounting to CNY570,840. | | 2014年10月至12月，被告人徐留军明知从被告人洪立洲处购得的“德芙”巧克力系假冒注册商标的商品，仍在江苏省溧阳市将上述749箱假冒的“德芙”巧克力销售给叶玉庆，销售金额共计人民币570840元。 |
| From October 2015 to March 2016, defendant Qian Sheming who knew that the “德芙” chocolate purchased from defendant Zhang Chengbing was goods with a counterfeit registered trademark sold 600 boxes of the counterfeit “德芙” chocolate to Kong Lingjin at Zhongcai Logistics and Agricultural and Sideline Products Distribution Center in Jiangning District, Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, with the sales amounting to CNY302,200. | | 2015年10月至2016年3月，被告人钱社明明知从被告人张承兵处购得的“德芙”巧克力系假冒注册商标的商品，仍在江苏省南京市江宁区众彩物流农副产品配送中心销售给孔令金假冒的“德芙”巧克力约600箱，销售金额共计人民币302200元。 |
| On January 7, 2016, the public security department seized 5,370 pieces of counterfeit “Ferreiro” chocolate in No. 100 and warehouses No. 7 and No. 14 at Non-Staple Food Market of the Tangnan Merchants Shopping Mall in Xinwu District, Wuxi City, where defendant Hong Lizhou operated. On January 20, 2016, the public security department seized 139 boxes of counterfeit "德芙" chocolate from Ye Yuqing. | | 2016年1月7日，公安机关在被告人洪立洲经营的无锡市新吴区塘南招商城副食品市场100号及7号、14号仓库内查获假冒的“费列罗”巧克力5370粒。2016年1月20日，公安机关在叶玉庆处查获假冒的“德芙”巧克力139箱。 |
| 3. Illegal manufacturing and sale of illegally manufactured registered trademark symbols | | （三）非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识部分 |
| From September to November 2015, defendant Huang Menghao illegally manufactured 50,000 plastic wrappers, 50,000 sheets of photographic paper, and more than one million small round stickers printed with the registered trademark symbols “FERRERO ROCHER” of the Ferrero SpA without a license from the owner of the registered trademark, and later defendant Huang Menghao sold such trademark symbols to defendant Wang Jiacai at a price of more than CNY100,000. | | 2015年9月至11月，被告人黄孟浩未经注册商标所有权人授权许可的情况下，非法制造印有费列罗集团的“FERRERO ROCHER”注册商标标识的塑料包装纸5万张、底版纸5万张、圆形小贴纸100万余枚，后被告人黄孟浩将上述商标标识以人民币10万余元的价格销售给被告人王家财。 |
| II. Proceedings | | 二、诉讼过程 |
| On May 7, 2015, the police of the Security Team of the former New District Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Wuxi City and the Wangzhuang Police Station discovered during the work that the Hongyunxi Shop No. 100 at Non-Staple Food Market of the Tangnan Zhaoshangcheng was suspected of the sale of counterfeit Dove Chocolate and Hong Lizhou in charge of the store and other persons, were suspected of crime. After receiving the report, the public security department placed the case on file for investigation. After being informed, the former People's Procuratorate of the Development Zone in Wuxi City promptly and actively sent personnel to intervene and guide evidence collection in the case and promptly decided to approve the arrest of the case-related persons meeting the arrest conditions. On April 6, 2016, the former New District Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Wuxi City terminated the investigation and transferred the case to the procuratorate for examination and prosecution on the grounds that defendants Zhang Chengbing, Wang Jiacai, Xu Shaobing, and Hu Kehua were suspected of committing the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark, defendants Xu Liujun, Hong Lizhou, and Qian Sheming were suspected of committing the crime of selling goods with a counterfeit registered trademark, and defendant Huang Menghao was suspected of committing the crime of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark symbols. The People's Procuratorate of Xinwu District, Wuxi City instituted a public prosecution in the former People's Court of Wuxi Hi-Tech Zone on October 20, and on January 17, 2017, the People's Court of Xinwu District, Wuxi City (formerly the People's Court of Wuxi Hi-Tech Zone) entered a judgment as the court of first instance that defendant Zhang Chengbing was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of five years in addition to a fine of CNY1.85 million for committing the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark; defendant Wang Jiacai was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of five years in addition to a fine of CNY1.74 million for committing the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark; defendant Xu Shaobing was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of four years in addition to a fine of CNY1.63 million for committing the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark; defendant Xu Liujun was sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of four years in addition to a fine of CNY350,000 for committing the crime of selling goods with a counterfeit registered trademark; and other defendants were also sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment or probation in addition to a fine. None of the defendants appealed and the judgment has come into effect. | | 2015年5月7日，原无锡市公安局新区分局治安大队、旺庄派出所民警在工作中发现塘南招商城副食品市场100号鸿运喜铺涉嫌销售假冒的德芙巧克力，店方负责人洪立洲等人有犯罪嫌疑。公安机关接报后，对该案立案侦查。原无锡市开发区人民检察院了解情况后，及时、主动派员介入，对该案进行引导取证，并及时对符合逮捕条件的涉案人员作出批准逮捕决定。2016年4月6日，原无锡市公安局新区分局侦查终结，以被告人张承兵、王家财、徐绍兵、胡克华涉嫌假冒注册商标罪、被告人徐留军、洪立洲、钱社明涉嫌销售假冒注册商标的商品罪、被告人黄孟浩涉嫌非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识罪向检察院移送审查起诉。无锡市新吴区人民检察院于同年10月20日向原无锡高新区人民法院提起公诉，2017年1月17日，无锡市新吴区人民法院（原无锡高新区人民法院）作出一审判决，被告人张承兵犯假冒注册商标罪被判处有期徒刑五年，并处罚金人民币185万元；被告人王家财犯假冒注册商标罪被判处有期徒刑五年，并处罚金人民币174万元；被告人徐绍兵犯假冒注册商标罪被判处有期徒刑四年，并处罚金人民币163万元；被告人徐留军犯销售假冒注册商标的商品罪被判处有期徒刑四年，并处罚金人民币35万元；其他被告人也被判有期徒刑、缓刑，并处罚金。被告人均未上诉，判决生效。 |
| III. Significance | | 三、典型意义 |
| This case is a case with multi-defendants involving four regions in Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui Provinces and the manufacturing and sale of a large amount of chocolate under the internationally famous brands "Dove" and "Ferrero" and is one of the cases which were supervised in the "Sharp Sword" Campaign of the Ministry of Public Security in 2016. After being informed by the public security department, the People's Procuratorate of Wuxi Hi-Tech Zone (currently, Xinwu District) immediately elected and dispatched the business backbone of the Professional Team of Solving Intellectual Property Cases to quickly intervene in and guide the investigation, held several talks with the police of the Food, Drug and Environment Squad of the Public Security Bureau of Wuxi City and the special group for the handling of this case of the former New District Branch, and put forward proposals for evidence collection according to the nature and direction of the case. | | 本案是一起横跨苏浙皖三省四地、大量制贩国际知名品牌“德芙” “费列罗”巧克力的窝案，系公安部2016年“利剑”行动督办案件之一。无锡高新区（现新吴区）人民检察院接到公安机关情况通报后，第一时间选派“知识产权办案专业小组”业务骨干迅速介入引导侦查，与无锡市公安局食药环支队及原新区分局专案组民警多次商讨，并根据案件定性走向提出收集证据的建议。 |
| First, offering proposals as to how to collect evidence with priorities for different crimes. This case involved all the crimes of infringement of a registered trademark, namely, the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark, selling goods with a counterfeit registered trademark, and illegally manufacturing and selling illegally manufactured registered trademark symbols. The intervening prosecutors put forward opinions to the public security department on the general and special questions in respect of evidence collection. For example, the general question, namely, how was subjective knowledge judicially determined by taking objective evidence especially if the producer was not the same as the seller? The prosecutors proposed taking evidence in consideration of the purchase channels, selling prices, accounting books, selling means, knowledge and experience, living environment, and other aspects of Hong Lizhou and Xu Liujun et al. Targeted evidence collection opinions in respect of the critical problems involved in different crimes were put forward, for example, in respect of the case-related amount of the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark of which Zhang Chengbing and Wang Jiacai et al. were suspected, the prosecutors proposed that the public security department should ascertain the actual selling price and marked price of the sold infringing products and the aggregate value of sold products to facilitate the subsequent determination of the amount of crime and the form of crime. | | 首先，针对不同罪名提出如何重点取证的建议。本案涉及了侵犯注册商标犯罪全部罪名，即假冒注册商标罪、销售假冒注册商标的商品罪和非法制造、销售非法制造的注册商标标识罪三个罪名。介入的检察官向公安机关就取证的共性和个性问题分别提出意见。如共性的问题，即主观明知的认定，尤其是在生产者与销售者相分离的情况下，如何通过调取客观性证据进行司法认定，检察官建议要结合洪立洲、徐留军等人的进货渠道、销售价格、会计账目、销售手段、知识经验、生活环境等多方面调取证据。针对不同罪名涉及的关键性问题提出针对性的取证意见，如关于张承兵、王家财等人涉嫌假冒注册商标罪涉案金额，检察官建议公安机关查明涉案的销售侵权产品实际销售价格、标价、销售产品的货值金额，便于后续犯罪金额、犯罪形态的认定。 |
| Second, offering proposals as to the identification of whether the case-related goods were counterfeit and inferior products. Article 149 of China's Criminal Law expressly provided for the relationship between the crime of infringing a trademark and the crime of producing and selling inferior products, namely, there may be imaginary joinder of the crime of infringing a trademark and the crime of producing and selling inferior products committed by the actor. Whether the products were "inferior" was critical for the conduct of producing counterfeit products to be a suspected crime of producing and selling counterfeit and inferior products. Therefore, it was proposed that the public security department should identify the seized case-related physical evidence and ascertain whether the case-related chocolate was counterfeit and inferior products. | | 其次，提出对涉案商品是否属于伪劣产品进行鉴定的建议。我国刑法第一百四十九条明确规定了侵犯商标类犯罪与生产、销售伪劣产品罪的关系，即行为人侵犯商标类犯罪与生产、销售伪劣产品罪可能存在想象竞合。对于制假行为是否涉嫌生产、销售伪劣产品罪，关键在于产品是否“劣”。故建议公安机关对涉案扣押的物证进行鉴定，查明涉案巧克力是否属于伪劣产品。 |
| Third, offering proposals as to how to determine the conduct of employees. As the actors in this case not only personally committed the infringement of the registered trademarks, but also employed a large number of personnel to process and produce infringing products and even conduct management and operations for them, in order to avoid excessive crackdown and doing justice, the prosecutors proposed collecting evidence in two aspects from the perspective of the accomplice theory: determination of evidence by taking into account the subjective knowledge and the conduct of employees in the production, processing, and management, and that the public security department should ascertain the subjective knowledge and objective conduct of employees in the crime. The public security department promptly adjusted the direction of investigation by sorting out objective evidence such as case-related bank transaction details. | | 第三，提出雇员行为如何认定的建议。本案行为人不仅自己实施了侵犯注册商标权行为，同时也雇用大量人员为其加工、生产侵权产品，甚至进行管理和经营，为避免打击面过大，又要做到不枉不纵，检察官从共犯原理角度，提出两方面取证建议：即雇员的主观明知和在生产、加工或管理中的行为相结合进行认定，建议公安机关查明雇员在犯罪中的主观明知及客观行为。公安机关通过梳理涉案银行交易明细等客观证据，及时调整侦查方向。 |
| The procuratorate carried out the criminal policy tempering with mercy and severity and implemented the custodial necessity examination to propose according to the law that the court should modify the compulsory measures against the two defendants who pleaded guilty, repented of their crime, were willing to pay bail, and need not to remain in custody, producing good legal effect and social effect. | | 同时，该院贯彻宽严相济的刑事政策，落实羁押必要性审查工作，对两名确有认罪悔罪表现、愿意缴纳保证金、已不需要继续羁押的被告人，依法向法院建议变更强制措施，收到了良好的法律效果和社会效果。 |
| This case reflected the great attention that procuratorial organs have attached to "food safety" for the people and effectively crack down on the criminal activities of infringing intellectual property and manufacturing and sale of counterfeit goods to successfully deal with the case. | | 该案的成功办理体现了检察机关对人民群众“舌尖上的安全”高度重视，有力地打击了侵犯知识产权和制售假冒商品犯罪活动。 |
| Model Case No. 2 | | 典型案例二： |
| People v. Zong Ran, Chen Lingjie, and Wang Xu from Haidian District, Beijing for Infringing Copyright; | | 北京海淀区宗冉、陈令杰、王旭侵犯著作权案 |
| I. Facts of the case | | 一、案件事实 |
| From 2015, defendant Zong Ran and defendant Wang Xu reproduced and stored in a cloud server the copyrighted written works of Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yuewen Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Huanxiang Zongheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. without the permission of the copyright owners. Defendant Zong Ran wrote a program enabling his WeChat official account to push the written works stored in the cloud server to designated email addresses according to the instructions and thus realized the function of dissemination of written works. | | 2015年开始，被告人宗冉伙同被告人王旭未经著作权人许可，复制上海玄霆娱乐信息科技有限公司、上海阅文信息技术有限公司、北京幻想纵横网络技术有限公司享有著作权的文字作品存储在云服务器上。被告人宗冉负责编写程序，使微信公众号可依据指令将存储在云服务器上的文字作品推送到指定邮箱，实现传播文字作品的功能。 |
| In August 2015, defendant Chen Lingjie paid cooperation fees to defendants Zong Ran and Wang Xu and obtained the program permissions of the aforesaid function of dissemination of written works without the permission of the copyright owners. Defendant Wang Xu provided his personal Alipay account to collect the cooperation fees. Thereupon, defendant Chen Lingjie sold activation codes through Taobao stores "Momo's Book Cafe" and "Youjia Cloud Push", and users used the activation codes in the WeChat official accounts "Youjia Books" and "Youjia Cloud Push" run by defendant Chen Lingjie to access the written works stored in the cloud server through their email. | | 2015年8月，被告人陈令杰未经著作权人许可，向被告人宗冉、王旭支付合作费用，获得上述传播文字作品功能的权限。被告人王旭提供个人支付宝账号收取合作费用。后被告人陈令杰通过淘宝网店“墨墨的图书小馆”“优加云推送”销售激活码，用户使用该激活码在被告人陈令杰运营的“优加书院”“优加云推送”微信公众号平台进行操作后，可通过邮箱获得存储在云服务器上的文字作品。 |
| It was ascertained that the case-related works infringed the written works, amounting to 700, in which Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd. (with servers in Haidian District, Beijing), Shanghai Yuewen Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Huanxiang Zongheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. | | 经查明，涉案作品侵犯上海玄霆娱乐信息科技有限公司（服务器在北京市海淀区）、上海阅文信息技术有限公司和北京幻想纵横网络技术有限公司享有独家信息网络传播权的文字作品共计700部。 |
| On May 5, 2017, defendants Zong Ran, Chen Lingjie, and Wang Xu were arrested and all confessed the facts of the aforesaid crime. | | 2017年5月5日，被告人宗冉、陈令杰、王旭先后被抓获后均如实供述了上述犯罪事实。 |
| II. Proceedings | | 二、诉讼过程 |
| On April 25, 2017, the Shuangyushu Police Station of the Haidian Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Beijing Municipality received a report from Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd. and put the case on file for investigation. On June 3, 2017, with the approval of the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District, the Haidian Branch of the Public Security Bureau of Beijing Municipality arrested defendants Zong Ran, Chen Lingjie, and Wang Xu. On December 1, 2017, the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District filed a public prosecution against defendants Zong Ran, Chen Lingjie, and Wang Xu for the crime of infringement of copyright, and on January 12, 2018, the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing sentenced defendant Chen Lingjie to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year in addition to a fine of CNY50,000, sentenced Zong Ran to a fixed-term imprisonment of nine months in addition to a fine of CNY10,000, and sentenced Wang Xu to a fixed-term imprisonment of nine months in addition to a fine of CNY5,000 for infringement of copyright. Neither defendants Zong Ran, Chen Lingjie, and Wang Xu nor the procuratorial organ appealed, and the judgment has come into effect. | | 2017年4月25日，北京市公安局海淀分局双榆树派出所接到上海玄霆娱乐信息科技有限公司报案，遂立案侦查。2017年6月3日，经海淀区人民检察院批准，北京市公安局海淀分局对被告人宗冉、陈令杰、王旭执行逮捕。2017年12月1日，海淀区人民检察院以被告人宗冉、陈令杰、王旭侵犯著作权罪提起公诉，2018年1月12日，北京市海淀区人民法院以侵犯著作权罪判处被告人陈令杰有期徒刑一年，并处罚金人民币5万元，判处宗冉有期徒刑九个月，并处罚金人民币1万元，判处王旭有期徒刑九个月，并处罚金人民币5000元。被告人宗冉、陈令杰、王旭均未上诉，检察机关未抗诉，判决生效。 |
| III. Significance | | 三、典型意义 |
| This case is the first criminal case in China in which e-commerce, social media, and cloud storage were used to infringe copyright. The three defendants exploited Internet technology, store infringing resources in the cloud storage platform, connected social media with infringing resources by communication protocol ports, and sold “pass” activation codes making infringing works accessible to Internet users in e-commerce platforms. What was committed was a kind of infringement by using the interrelated role of multi-platform fields, by concealed means, involving a wide range, and having a large social impact, and caused serious damage to the copyright owners. Since the acceptance of the case, the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District had used its advantages in handling cases, organized backbone personnel handling cases, guided the investigation in advance, applied evidence standards for trials, and promoted the improvement of the quality of investigation; and enhanced the capability to appear in court to bring criminal charges, and ensure through quality claims and defenses that the court adjudicated impartially. | | 本案系国内首例利用电商、社交、云存储多平台侵犯著作权的刑事案件，三名被告人借助互联网技术，通过云存储平台存储侵权资源，利用通讯协议端口搭建社交平台与侵权资源的联系，后在电子商务平台向互联网用户销售获得侵权作品的“通行证”激活码，实施的是一种利用多平台领域相互关联作用的侵权行为，作案手段隐蔽、涉及面广、社会影响大，给著作权人造成严重损失。在案件受理之初，海淀区人民检察院即利用专业化办案优势，组织骨干办案力量，向前延伸引导侦查，传导庭审证明标准，促使提高侦查质量；向后提高出庭指控犯罪的能力，通过庭审中高质量的控辩对抗，确保法庭公正裁判。 |
| 1. Giving full play to the pre-trial leading role and laying a solid foundation for charges. (1) Intervening in and guiding investigation in advance and applying the evidence standards for trials. Before the request for arrest in the case, the People's Procuratorate of Haidian District assigned at the request of the public security department a prosecutor with experience in handling such cases to intervene in the investigation in a timely manner, advise the investigation department on the direction of investigation, fix key evidence, and heighten the awareness of well-regulated evidence collection, so as to preliminarily ensure the quality of the case. (2) Guiding relevant personnel to produce evidence in a scientific and well-regulated manner. The prosecutor interviewed the in-house counsels of the victim companies at the procuratorate several times and guided them in providing ancillary supporting documents on infringement, giving the total number of the infringed works and making an inventory of the infringed works. This case involved massive electronic evidence, which was vulnerable to modification or destruction, difficult to collect, and demanding in well-regulated evidence collection. For that reason, the prosecutor repeatedly invited the cybersecurity body, legal affairs body, and police station of the public security department to communicate at the procuratorate and required the investigation department to fix and take key evidence by multiple means such as remote crime scene inspection and commissioned notarization, so as to ensure the accuracy of the determination of facts of the case and the completeness and standardization of on-record evidence. (3) Adhering to the combination of the return for supplementary investigation with self-supplementary investigation and better taking the initiative. | | 第一，充分发挥审前主导作用，打牢指控基础。一是提前介入引导侦查，传导庭审证明标准。在本案提请逮捕之前，海淀区人民检察院便应公安机关的请求，指派具有此类案件办理经验的检察官及时介入侦查，向侦查机关建议侦查方向，锁定关键证据，强化规范取证意识，初步保障了案件质量。二是引导相关人员科学规范举证。检察官多次在该院接待被害公司法务，引导其提供配套侵权证明文件，出具被侵权作品的总数和被侵权作品的明细。本案涉及海量电子证据，电子证据具有易被修改或灭失的特点，取证难度大、取证规范化要求高。为此，检察官多次邀请公安机关网安、法制、派出所来该院进行沟通，要求侦查机关通过远程勘验、委托公证等多重手段固定和提取关键证据，保证案件事实认定的准确性和在案证据的完备性及规范性。三是坚持退回补充侦查和自行补充侦查双管齐下，更多掌握工作主动权。 |
| 2. Strengthening the primary role in bring charges and proving crime to ensure accurate charges. (1) Actively responding in the trial to ensure accurate charges. During the trial, the prosecutor produced and showed evidence in a reasonable and orderly manner to display to the court the process that defendants used multi-platform interactive features to disseminate written works to the public through the information network for profit without the permission of the copyright owners. The prosecutor also gave targeted answers to the essential issues such as “determination of the number of works” and “the amount of sales of case-related Taobao stores,” and ensured the accuracy of the charges through the debate between the prosecution and the defense. (2) Educating defendants in repenting of their crime in court to ensure the effect of the trial. At the stage of giving public prosecution opinions, defendants were given timely and competent court education, the social harm and criminal illegality of their criminal conduct were explained, several defendants repented in court and expressed that they accepted the judgment, and good political, legal, and social effects are achieved. | | 第二，强化指控和证明犯罪主体作用，确保指控精准。一是庭审中积极应对，确保精准指控。在庭审中，检察官通过合理有序的举证示证，向法庭完整展示被告人未经著作权人许可，使用多平台的交互功能，通过信息网络向公众传播文字作品和营利的过程。检察官并就“作品数量的认定”“涉案淘宝店铺销售金额”等核心问题作出有针对性的答辩，通过控辩对抗确保指控的准确性。二是教育被告人当庭悔罪，确保庭审效果。在发表公诉意见阶段对被告人进行适时有力的法庭教育，说明其犯罪行为的社会危害性和刑事违法性，多名被告人当庭悔罪，表示服从判决，取得了良好的政治效果、法律效果和社会效果。 |
| Model Case No. 3 | | 典型案例三： |
| People v. Nie Zhongqiao and Wu Chuanxia from Shangluo City, Shaanxi Province for Selling Goods with a Counterfeit Registered Trademark; | | 陕西商洛市聂忠桥、吴传霞销售假冒注册商标的商品案 |
| I. Facts of the case | | 一、案件事实 |
| In April 2016, defendants Nie Zhongqiao and Du Guohua (handled in a separate case) agreed to market Moutai in Shangluo City, Shaanxi Province. In May of the same year, Du Guohua marketed Moutai with a bait that he was familiar with the employees of Kweichow Moutai Distillery (Group) Co., Ltd. and could buy Feitian Moutai with a price lower than the market price for Ma Haoqi, legal representative of Shangluo Jinhui Trade Co., Ltd. On May 23, defendants Nie Zhongqiao and Wu Chuanxia forged false ID cards and, under the name Nie Zhongqiang and Wu Chuanying, together with Du Guohua, entered into a Moutai sales agreement with Jinhui Trade Co., Ltd., stipulating that prices should be agreed upon according to the market prices and the purchased goods were products up to standards produced by Kweichow Moutai Distillery (Group) Co., Ltd. Nie Zhongqiao and Wu Chuanxia later sold Feitian Maotai at a price of CNY300 per bottle to Du Guohua, and Du Guohua sold the liquor to Shangluo Jinhui Trade Co., Ltd. several times at a price of CNY750 to CNY780 per bottle. Before being revealed, Nie Zhongqiao and Wu Chuanxia sold 650 boxes of Feitian Maotai (6 bottles per box), totaling 3,900 bottles, with sales amounting to CNY1.17 million, to Shangluo Jinhui Trade Co., Ltd. The liquor was found in the market, and the public security department recovered 2,951 bottles. As inspected by Kweichow Moutai Distillery (Group) Co., Ltd., the Maotai was goods infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark “Kweichow Moutai” of the company. As inspected by the Product Quality Supervision and Inspection Office of Shangluo City, the recovered Maotai complied with the requirements of the National Standard for Food Safety: Distilled Liquor and Prepared Distilled Liquor. In February and March 2017, defendants Nie Zhongqiao and Wu Chuanxia were arrested. | | 2016年4月，被告人聂忠桥与杜国华（另案处理）商议在陕西省商洛市推销茅台酒。同年5月，杜国华以与贵州茅台酒厂（集团）有限责任公司职工熟悉，可以购买到低于市场价的飞天茅台酒为诱饵，向商洛市金晖商贸有限责任公司法人麻浩奇推销茅台酒。5月23日，被告人聂忠桥、吴传霞伪造虚假身份证，以聂忠强、吴传英的名义连同杜国华和金晖商贸有限责任公司签订了茅台酒购销协议书，协议规定：价格按市场价随机协商，确保所购商品为贵州茅台酒厂（集团）有限责任公司生产的合格商品。后聂忠桥和吴传霞以每瓶300元的价格向杜国华销售飞天茅台酒，再由杜国华以每瓶780元到750元的价格先后多次销售给商洛市金晖商贸有限责任公司。案发前，聂忠桥、吴传霞通过杜国华共销售给商洛市金晖商贸有限责任公司飞天茅台酒650箱（每箱6瓶），合计3900瓶，销售金额117万元。该批酒部分流入市场后被发现，公安机关追回2951瓶。经贵州茅台酒厂（集团）有限责任公司检验，该批茅台酒属于侵犯该公司“贵州茅台”注册商标专用权的商品。经商洛市产品质量监督检验所检验，追回的“茅台酒”符合《食品安全国家标准蒸馏酒及其配制酒》的要求。2017年2月、3月，被告人聂忠桥、吴传霞先后被抓获归案。 |
| II. Proceedings | | 二、诉讼过程
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1600.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |