| Notice by the Supreme People's Court of Issuing the Twenty-Second Group of Guiding Cases | | 最高人民法院关于发布第22批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 293 [2019] of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法〔2019〕293号） |
| The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, four cases (Guiding Cases No. 113-116) including Michael Jeffrey Jordan v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. (administrative dispute over a trademark) are hereby issued as the twenty-second group of guiding cases for reference in the trial of similar cases. | | 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定，现将迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、乔丹体育股份有限公司“乔丹”商标争议行政纠纷案等四个案例（指导案例113-116号），作为第22批指导性案例发布，供在审判类似案件时参照。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| December 24, 2019 | | 2019年12月24日 |
| Guiding Case No. 113 | | 指导案例113号 |
| Michael Jeffrey Jordan v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. (Administrative dispute over a trademark) | | 迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、乔丹体育股份有限公司“乔丹”商标争议行政纠纷案 |
| (Issued on December 24, 2019, as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2019年12月24日发布） |
| Keywords: administrative, trademark dispute, personal name rights, good faith | | 关键词 行政/商标争议/姓名权/诚实信用 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| 1. Personal name rights are personality rights of a natural person in his or her personal name, and may constitute the prior rights under the Trademark Law. Where the Chinese translation of the personal name of a foreign natural person meets the prescribed conditions, the foreign natural person may claim protection of the Chinese translation as a specific name in accordance with the relevant provisions on personal name rights. | | 1.姓名权是自然人对其姓名享有的人身权，姓名权可以构成商标法规定的在先权利。外国自然人外文姓名的中文译名符合条件的，可以依法主张作为特定名称按照姓名权的有关规定予以保护。 |
| 2. Where a foreign natural person claims personal name rights protection in respect of a specific name, the specific name should meet the following three conditions: (a) the specific name has a certain level of popularity in China and is known to the relevant public; (b) the relevant public uses the specific name to refer to the natural person; and (c) a stable correlation has been established between the natural person and the specific name. | | 2.外国自然人就特定名称主张姓名权保护的，该特定名称应当符合以下三项条件：（1）该特定名称在我国具有一定的知名度，为相关公众所知悉；（2）相关公众使用该特定名称指代该自然人；（3）该特定名称已经与该自然人之间建立了稳定的对应关系。 |
| 3. “Use” is one of the components of the personal name rights of a natural person, but is not a legal prerequisite for the natural person to claim protection of his or her personal name rights. A specific name is protected by law based on personal name rights, and even if a natural person does not proactively use it, it does not affect his or her claim in accordance with the provisions of the Trademark Law on prior rights. | | 3.使用是姓名权人享有的权利内容之一，并非姓名权人主张保护其姓名权的法定前提条件。特定名称按照姓名权受法律保护的，即使自然人并未主动使用，也不影响姓名权人按照商标法关于在先权利的规定主张权利。 |
| 4. Where a “trademark holder” that, in violation of the principle of good faith, maliciously applied for trademark registration to infringe upon the existing prior rights of others claims that the registered trademark is legal and valid on the grounds that its promotion and use of, winning of awards for, and protection of the trademark and other efforts have formed a “market order” or “commercial success,” the people's court should not uphold such claim. | | 4.违反诚实信用原则，恶意申请注册商标，侵犯他人现有在先权利的“商标权人”，以该商标的宣传、使用、获奖、被保护等情况形成了“市场秩序”或者“商业成功”为由，主张该注册商标合法有效的，人民法院不予支持。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| 1. Article 32 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2013 Amendment) (Article 31 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2001 Amendment) as applied in this case) | | 1．《中华人民共和国商标法》（2013年修正）第32条（本案适用的是2001年修正的《中华人民共和国商标法》第31条） |
| 2. Article 4 and paragraph 1 of Article 99 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China | | 2．《中华人民共和国民法通则》第4条、第99条第1款 |
| 3. Articles 7 and 110 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China | | 3.《中华人民共和国民法总则》第7条、第110条 |
| 4. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China | | 4.《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第2条第2款 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| The trademark administrative dispute case of Michael Jeffrey Jordan (retrial petitioner, hereinafter referred to as “Michael Jordan”) v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (respondent, hereinafter referred to as the “TRAB”) and Qiaodan Sports Co., Ltd. (a third party in the original trial, hereinafter referred to as “Qiaodan Company”) involved the trademark of “乔丹” (No. 6020569) of Qiaodan Company, as approved for use on sports equipment, swimming pools (for recreation), roller skates, and Christmas tree decorations (excluding lighting and sweets) under class 28 of the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (hereinafter referred to as the “Nice Classification”). The retrial petitioner alleged that the trademark contained the Chinese translation, “乔丹,” of his English personal name, which infringed upon the existing prior rights of others under Article 31 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2001 Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Law”), and therefore, requested the TRAB to revoke the disputed trademark. | | 再审申请人迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹（以下简称迈克尔·乔丹）与被申请人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会（以下简称商标评审委员会）、一审第三人乔丹体育股份有限公司（以下简称乔丹公司）商标争议行政纠纷案中，涉及乔丹公司的第6020569号“乔丹”商标（即涉案商标），核定使用在国际分类第28类的体育活动器械、游泳池（娱乐用）、旱冰鞋、圣诞树装饰品（灯饰和糖果除外）。再审申请人主张该商标含有其英文姓名的中文译名“乔丹”，属于2001年修正的商标法第三十一条规定的“损害他人现有的在先权利”的情形，故向商标评审委员会提出撤销申请。 |
| The TRAB held that the trademark “乔丹” was different from “Michael Jordan” and its Chinese translation, “迈克尔·乔丹,” and because “Jordan” was a common surname in Britain and the United States, it was difficult to determine a sure correspondence between this surname and Michael Jordan. The TRAB ruled to maintain the trademark in dispute. The retrial petitioner then filed an administrative lawsuit against the TRAB's ruling with the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality. | | 商标评审委员会认为，涉案商标“乔丹”与“Michael Jordan”及其中文译名“迈克尔·乔丹”存在一定区别，并且“乔丹”为英美普通姓氏，难以认定这一姓氏与迈克尔·乔丹之间存在当然的对应关系，故裁定维持涉案商标。再审申请人不服，向北京市第一中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On April 1, 2015, the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality entered an administrative judgment (No. 9163 [2014], Original, Administrative Division, Intellectual Property, First IPC, Beijing) to dismiss the claims of Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance. On August 17, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality entered an administrative judgment (No. 1915 [2015], Final, Administrative Division, Intellectual Property, HPC, Beijing) to dismiss Michael Jordan's appeal and uphold the original judgment. Michael Jordan then filed a retrial petition with the Supreme People's Court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme People's Court entered an administrative judgment (No. 27 [2016], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC) on December 7, 2016, as follows: (a) the administrative judgment (No. 9163 [2014], Original, Administrative Division, Intellectual Property, First IPC, Beijing) of the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality should be revoked; (b) the administrative judgment (No. 1915 [2015], Final, Administrative Division, Intellectual Property, HPC, Beijing) of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality should be revoked; (c) the TRAB's ruling on the disputed trademark “乔丹” (No. 6020569) (No. 052058 [2014], Trademark Review and Adjudication, TRAB) should be revoked; and (d) the TRAB should enter a new ruling on the trademark “乔丹” (No. 6020569). | | 北京市第一中级人民法院于2015年4月1日作出（2014）一中行（知）初字第9163号行政判决，驳回迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹的诉讼请求。迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹不服一审判决，提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院于2015年8月17日作出（2015）高行（知）终字第1915号行政判决，驳回迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹上诉，维持原判。迈克尔·杰弗里·乔丹仍不服，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院提审后，于2016年12月7日作出（2016）最高法行再27号行政判决：一、撤销北京市第一中级人民法院（2014）一中行（知）初字第9163号行政判决；二、撤销北京市高级人民法院（2015）高行（知）终字第1915号行政判决；三、撤销国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商评字〔2014〕第052058号关于第6020569号“乔丹”商标争议裁定；四、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会对第6020569号“乔丹”商标重新作出裁定。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the opinion of the Supreme People's Court, the issues in this case focused on whether the registration of the disputed trademark infringed upon the personal name rights claimed by the retrial petitioner in respect of “乔丹” and violated Article 31 of the Trademark Law (2001 Amendment), which provided that “no application for trademark registration may infringe upon the existing prior rights of others.” In its judgment, the main findings are as follows: | | 最高人民法院认为，本案争议焦点为争议商标的注册是否损害了再审申请人就“乔丹”主张的姓名权，违反2001年修正的商标法第三十一条关于“申请商标注册不得损害他人现有的在先权利”的规定。判决主要认定如下： |
| I. Legal basis for the retrial petitioner to claim protection of personal name rights | | 一、关于再审申请人主张保护姓名权的法律依据 |
| Article 31 of the Trademark Law provided that “no application for trademark registration may infringe upon the existing prior rights of others.” The prior rights that were specially provided for by the Trademark Law should be protected in accordance with the special provisions of the Trademark Law. The civil rights or interests legally owned by parties to civil legal relations prior to the application date of the disputed trademark that were not specially provided for by the Trademark Law but should be protected in accordance with the provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law, the Tort Law, and other laws should be protected in accordance with the aforesaid general provision. Paragraph 1 of Article 99 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Tort Law both clearly provided that a natural person should legally have personal name rights. Therefore, the personal name rights may constitute the “prior rights” in Article 31 of the Trademark Law. Where the registration of the disputed trademark infringed upon the prior personal name rights of another person, it should be determined to have violated the provision of Article 31 of the Trademark Law. | | 商标法第三十一条规定：“申请商标注册不得损害他人现有的在先权利”。对于商标法已有特别规定的在先权利，应当根据商标法的特别规定予以保护。对于商标法虽无特别规定，但根据民法通则、侵权责任法和其他法律的规定应予保护，并且在争议商标申请日之前已由民事主体依法享有的民事权利或者民事权益，应当根据该概括性规定给予保护。《中华人民共和国民法通则》第九十九条第一款、《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第二条第二款均明确规定，自然人依法享有姓名权。故姓名权可以构成商标法第三十一条规定的“在先权利”。争议商标的注册损害他人在先姓名权的，应当认定该争议商标的注册违反商标法第三十一条的规定。 |
| A personal name is used to refer to, address, or distinguish a specific natural person, and the personal name rights are the important personality rights of a natural person in his or her personal name. With the continuous development of China's socialist market economy, it has become increasingly common for natural persons with a certain level of popularity to use their personal names for commercial purposes and obtain economic interests by endorsing specific goods or services under contracts. In the protection of others' prior personal name rights by the application of Article 31 of the Trademark Law, not only is the personal dignity of a natural person protected, but also the economic interests of the natural person in his or her personal name, especially the personal name of a celebrity, are protected. The registration as a trademark of the personal name of another person who has prior rights in his or her personal name without his or her permission may easily mislead the relevant public into believing that the goods or services bearing the trademark have any endorsement, license, or other specific connection with the natural person, and should be determined to have infringed upon another person's prior personal name rights and violated the provision of Article 31 of the Trademark Law. | | 姓名被用于指代、称呼、区分特定的自然人，姓名权是自然人对其姓名享有的重要人身权。随着我国社会主义市场经济不断发展，具有一定知名度的自然人将其姓名进行商业化利用，通过合同等方式为特定商品、服务代言并获得经济利益的现象已经日益普遍。在适用商标法第三十一条的规定对他人的在先姓名权予以保护时，不仅涉及对自然人人格尊严的保护，而且涉及对自然人姓名，尤其是知名人物姓名所蕴含的经济利益的保护。未经许可擅自将他人享有在先姓名权的姓名注册为商标，容易导致相关公众误认为标记有该商标的商品或者服务与该自然人存在代言、许可等特定联系的，应当认定该商标的注册损害他人的在先姓名权，违反商标法第三十一条的规定。 |
| II. Specific content of protection based on personal name rights claimed by the retrial petitioner | | 二、关于再审申请人主张的姓名权所保护的具体内容 |
| When a natural person claims personal name rights protection in respect of a specific name in accordance with Article 31 of the Trademark Law, the following necessary conditions should be satisfied: | | 自然人依据商标法第三十一条的规定，就特定名称主张姓名权保护时，应当满足必要的条件。 |
| First, the specific name should have a certain level of popularity, be known to the relevant public, and be used to refer to the natural person. Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition addresses acts of unfair competition by “using the name of another person without permission so that people would mistake its commodity for another's commodity.” Such acts of unfair competition are, in essence, acts of infringement upon others' personal name rights. The mistake for another person's commodity involved in the determination of such acts is closely related to the determination of whether the registration of the disputed trademark may easily mislead the relevant public into believing that there is any endorsement, license, or other specific connection in this case. Therefore, the provision of the aforesaid judicial interpretation may be applied mutatis mutandis in this case to the establishment of conditions for the protection of a natural person's personal name rights. | | 其一，该特定名称应具有一定知名度、为相关公众所知悉，并用于指代该自然人。《最高人民法院关于审理不正当竞争民事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第六条第二款是针对“擅自使用他人的姓名，引人误认为是他人的商品”的不正当竞争行为的认定作出的司法解释，该不正当竞争行为本质上也是损害他人姓名权的侵权行为。认定该行为时所涉及的“引人误认为是他人的商品”，与本案中认定争议商标的注册是否容易导致相关公众误认为存在代言、许可等特定联系是密切相关的。因此，在本案中可参照适用上述司法解释的规定，确定自然人姓名权保护的条件。 |
| Second, a stable correspondence must have been established between the specific name and the natural person. In the resolution of conflicts involved in this case between the prior personal name rights and the rights to a registered trademark, the standard of protection for the prior personal name rights should be reasonably determined to balance the interests of the holder of the prior personal name rights and the trademark holder. On the one hand, the registration of the disputed trademark should not be deemed to have infringed upon the personal name rights of a natural person just because the disputed trademark uses or incorporates the natural person's personal name that is known only to a limited number of people or is used only occasionally. On the other hand, too rigorous standards should not be imposed on a natural person asserting protection of his or her personal name rights, as the TRAB did by requiring a “unique” correspondence between the personal name asserted by a natural person and the natural person. When a stable correspondence has been established between the specific name claimed by a natural person and the natural person, even if the correspondence is not “unique,” the personal name rights of the natural person may also be protected according to the law. To conclude, where a natural person claims protection of his or her personal name rights in respect of a specific name by applying the provision of Article 31 of the Trademark Law that “no application for trademark registration may infringe upon the existing prior rights of others,” the specific name must meet the following three conditions: (a) the specific name has a certain level of popularity in China and is known to the relevant public; (b) the specific name is used by the relevant public to refer to the natural person; and (c) a stable correspondence has been established between the specific name and the natural person. | | 其二，该特定名称应与该自然人之间已建立稳定的对应关系。在解决本案涉及的在先姓名权与注册商标权的权利冲突时，应合理确定在先姓名权的保护标准，平衡在先姓名权人与商标权人的利益。既不能由于争议商标标志中使用或包含有仅为部分人所知悉或临时性使用的自然人“姓名”，即认定争议商标的注册损害该自然人的姓名权；也不能如商标评审委员会所主张的那样，以自然人主张的“姓名”与该自然人形成“唯一”对应为前提，对自然人主张姓名权的保护提出过苛的标准。自然人所主张的特定名称与该自然人已经建立稳定的对应关系时，即使该对应关系达不到“唯一”的程度，也可以依法获得姓名权的保护。综上，在适用商标法第三十一条关于“不得损害他人现有的在先权利”的规定时，自然人就特定名称主张姓名权保护的，该特定名称应当符合以下三项条件：一是该特定名称在我国具有一定的知名度、为相关公众所知悉；二是相关公众使用该特定名称指代该自然人；三是该特定名称已经与该自然人之间建立了稳定的对应关系。 |
| In the determination of whether a foreigner may claim protection of his or her personal name rights in respect of a portion of the Chinese translation of his or her foreign name, it is necessary to consider how a foreigner is customarily addressed by the relevant public in China. If the Chinese translation of name meets the aforesaid three conditions, the foreigner may claim protection of his or her personal name rights according to the law. The existing evidence in this case was sufficient to prove that “乔丹” had a relatively high level of popularity in China and was known to the relevant public, the relevant public in China usually referred to the retrial petitioner as “乔丹” and a stable correspondence had been established between “乔丹” and the retrial petitioner. Therefore, the retrial petitioner may claim his personal name rights in “乔丹.” | | 在判断外国人能否就其外文姓名的部分中文译名主张姓名权保护时，需要考虑我国相关公众对外国人的称谓习惯。中文译名符合前述三项条件的，可以依法主张姓名权的保护。本案现有证据足以证明“乔丹”在我国具有较高的知名度、为相关公众所知悉，我国相关公众通常以“乔丹”指代再审申请人，并且“乔丹”已经与再审申请人之间形成了稳定的对应关系，故再审申请人就“乔丹”享有姓名权。 |
| III. Whether the retrial petitioner and Nike Company as authorized by the retrial petitioner have proactively used “乔丹” and the impact of any facts of proactive use on the personal name rights claimed by the retrial petitioner in this case | | 三、关于再审申请人及其授权的耐克公司是否主动使用“乔丹”，其是否主动使用的事实对于再审申请人在本案中主张的姓名权有何影响 |
First, in accordance with the provision of paragraph 1 of Article 99 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, “use” is one of rights of the holder of personal name rights, rather than his or her obligation, and by no means is a legal prerequisite for the holder of personal name rights to prohibit others from “interference, theft, and counterfeiting” and claim protection of his or her personal name rights.
．．．．．． | | 首先，根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第九十九条第一款的规定，“使用”是姓名权人享有的权利内容之一，并非其承担的义务，更不是姓名权人“禁止他人干涉、盗用、假冒”，主张保护其姓名权的法定前提条件。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1400.00】 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
|
| | | |
| | | |