>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Twelfth Group of Guiding Cases [Effective]
最高人民法院关于发布第12批指导性案例的通知 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Twelfth Group of Guiding Cases 

最高人民法院关于发布第12批指导性案例的通知

(No. 172 [2016] of the Supreme People's Court) (法〔2016〕172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, the case of Ningbo Branch of Wenzhou Bank Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Province Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. et al. regarding dispute over a financial loan contract and other three cases (Guiding Cases No. 57-60) are hereby issued as the twelfth group of guiding cases for references in trial of similar cases. 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定,现将温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行诉浙江创菱电器有限公司等金融借款合同纠纷案等四个案例(指导案例57-60号),作为第12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
May 30, 2016 2016年5月30日
Guiding Case No. 57 指导案例57号
Ningbo Branch of Wenzhou Bank Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. et al. 温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行
(Case concerning dispute over a financial loan contract) 诉浙江创菱电器有限公司等金融借款合同纠纷案
(Issued on May 20, 2016 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 2016年5月20日发布)
Keywords: civil; financial loan contract; maximum guarantee 关键词 民事/金融借款合同/最高额担保
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
Where there are multiple contracts on the maximum guarantee and some contracts on the maximum guarantee are selectively listed in the specific loan contract, if debts are incurred during the period of financial settlement as agreed upon in the contracts on the maximum guarantee and the creditor does not expressly indicate that it will waive the guarantee rights, the guarantor in the contract on the maximum guarantee that is not listed shall also assume the guarantee liability within the quota of the maximum guarantee. 在有数份最高额担保合同情形下,具体贷款合同中选择性列明部分最高额担保合同,如债务发生在最高额担保合同约定的决算期内,且债权人未明示放弃担保权利,未列明的最高额担保合同的担保人也应当在最高债权限额内承担担保责任。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 14 of the Guarantee Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国担保法》第14条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff Ningbo Branch of Jiangsu Province Wenzhou Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wenzhou Bank”) alleged that: It concluded the “contracts on the maximum guarantee” separately with defendants Ningbo Tingwei Electric Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tingwei Electric Company”), Cen Jianfeng, and Ningbo Sanhao Mold Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanhao Mold Company”), which stipulated that the three defendants provided the joint and several liability guarantee for the loan of Zhejiang Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chuangling Electric Appliance Company”) within a given period and the maximum quota. After borrowing a loan from Wenzhou Bank, Chuangling Electric Appliance Company failed to repay partial loan on schedule. Therefore, Wenzhou Bank requested the court to order that Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should repay it the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan and pay the interest, default interest, and lawyers' fees; and Cen Jianfeng, Sanhao Mold Company, and Tingwei Electric Company should assume the joint and several liability guarantee for the aforesaid debts. 原告浙江省温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行(以下简称温州银行)诉称:其与被告宁波婷微电子科技有限公司(以下简称婷微电子公司)、岑建锋、宁波三好塑模制造有限公司(以下简称三好塑模公司)分别签订了“最高额保证合同”,约定三被告为浙江创菱电器有限公司(以下简称创菱电器公司)一定时期和最高额度内借款,提供连带责任担保。创菱电器公司从温州银行借款后,不能按期归还部分贷款,故诉请判令被告创菱电器公司归还原告借款本金250万元,支付利息、罚息和律师费用;岑建锋、三好塑模公司、婷微电子公司对上述债务承担连带保证责任。
Defendants Chuangling Electric Appliance Company and Cen Jianfeng did not submit any defense. 被告创菱电器公司、岑建锋未作答辩。
Defendant Sanhao Mold Company contended that: Plaintiff's claim for the repayment of lawyers' expenses should not be upheld. 被告三好塑模公司辩称:原告诉请的律师费不应支持。
Defendant Tingwei Electric Company contended that: The contract on the maximum guarantee it concluded with Wenzhou Bank was not listed in guarantee contracts as agreed upon in the loan contract. Therefore, it should not assume the guarantee liability. 被告婷微电子公司辩称:其与温州银行签订的最高额保证合同,并未被列入借款合同所约定的担保合同范围,故其不应承担保证责任。
Upon trial, the court found that: On September 10, 2010, Wenzhou Bank concluded the contracts on the maximum guarantee (No. 01003 and No. 01004 [2010], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 separately with Tingwei Electric Company and Cen Jianfeng, which stipulated that Tingwei Electric Company and Cen Jianfeng voluntarily provided joint and several liability guarantee for Chuangling Electric Appliance Company's debt principal whose remaining balance does not exceed 11 million yuan incurred from September 10, 2010 to October 18, 2011, the interest thereof, and the default interest. 法院经审理查明:2010年9月10日,温州银行与婷微电子公司、岑建锋分别签订了编号为温银9022010年高保字01003号、01004号的最高额保证合同,约定婷微电子公司、岑建锋自愿为创菱电器公司在2010年9月10日至2011年10月18日期间发生的余额不超过1100万元的债务本金及利息、罚息等提供连带责任保证担保。
On September 10, 2011, Wenzhou Bank concluded the contracts on the maximum guarantee (No. 00808 and No. 00809 [2011], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 separately with Cen Jianfeng and Sanhao Mold Company, which stipulated that Cen Jianfeng and Sanhao Mold Company voluntarily provided joint and several liability guarantee for Chuangling Electric Appliance Company's debt principal whose remaining balance does not exceed 5.5 million yuan incurred from September 10, 2010 to October 18, 2011, the interest thereof, and the default interest. 2011年10月12日,温州银行与岑建锋、三好塑模公司分别签署了编号为温银9022011年高保字00808号、00809号最高额保证合同,岑建锋、三好塑模公司自愿为创菱电器公司在2010年9月10日至2011年10月18日期间发生的余额不超过550万元的债务本金及利息、罚息等提供连带责任保证担保。
On October 14, 2011, Wenzhou Bank concluded a loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 with Chuangling Electric Appliance Company, which stipulated that Wenzhou Bank issued a loan of 5 million yuan to Chuangling Electric Appliance Company with the due date of October 13, 2012 and the numberings of the contracts on the maximum guarantee were (No. 00808 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) and (No. 00809 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902. After the loan was issued, Chuangling Electric Appliance Company repaid the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan on August 6, 2012 and Tingwei Electric Company paid the loan interests of 31,115.3 yuan, 53,693.71 yuan, and 21,312.59 yuan successively on June 29, October 31, and November 30, 2012. Up to April 24, 2013, Chuangling Electric Appliance Company still owed the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan and the interest of 141,509.01 yuan. It was also found that in order to realize the creditor's rights in this case, Wenzhou Bank paid the lawyers' fees of 95,200 yuan. 2011年10月14日,温州银行与创菱电器公司签署了编号为温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同,约定温州银行向创菱电器公司发放贷款500万元,到期日为2012年10月13日,并列明担保合同编号分别为温银9022011年高保字00808号、00809号。贷款发放后,创菱电器公司于2012年8月6日归还了借款本金250万元,婷微电子公司于2012年6月29日、10月31日、11月30日先后支付了贷款利息31115.3元、53693.71元、21312.59元。截至2013年4月24日,创菱电器公司尚欠借款本金250万元、利息141509.01元。另查明,温州银行为实现本案债权而发生律师费用95200元。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 12, 2013, the People's Court of Jiangdong District, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 1261 [2013], First, Commercial Division, Jiangdong District, Ningbo) that: (1) Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, repay Wenzhou Bank the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan and pay the interest of 141,509.01 yuan and the interest calculated from April 25, 2013 to the date of performance as determined in the judgment in accordance with the stipulations of the loan contract; (2) Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, compensate Wenzhou Bank 95,200 yuan for the lawyers' fees paid by Wenzhou Bank to realize its creditor's rights; (3) Cen Jianfeng, Sanhao Mold Company, and Tingwei Electric Company should assume the joint and several liability for the repayment of the aforesaid debts as prescribed in items (1) and (2) and after assuming the guarantee liability, they had the right to recover compensation from Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. After this judgment was pronounced, Tingwei Electric Company appealed on the ground that it was not listed in the loan contract and therefore it should not assume the guarantee liability. On May 14, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 369 [2014], Final, Commercial Division, Ningbo) that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed. 浙江省宁波市江东区人民法院于2013年12月12日作出(2013)甬东商初字第1261号民事判决:一、创菱电器公司于本判决生效之日起十日内归还温州银行借款本金250万元,支付利息141509.01元,并支付自2013年4月25日起至本判决确定的履行之日止按借款合同约定计算的利息、罚息;二、创菱电器公司于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿温州银行为实现债权而发生的律师费用95200元;三、岑建锋、三好塑模公司、婷微电子公司对上述第一、二项款项承担连带清偿责任,其承担保证责任后,有权向创菱电器公司追偿。宣判后,婷微电子公司以其未被列入借款合同,不应承担保证责任为由,提起上诉。浙江省宁波市中级人民法院于2014年5月14日作出(2014)浙甬商终字第369号民事判决,驳回上诉,维持原判。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: The loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Chuangling Electric Appliance Company was legal and valid. After Wenzhou Bank issued the loan, Chuangling Company failed to repay the principal and interest on schedule and its acts have constituted breach of contract. Plaintiff Wenzhou Bank's claims that Chuangling Electric Appliance Company should repay the loan principal of 2.5 million yuan, pay the interest and default interest as calculated in accordance with the stipulations of the loan contract, and compensate plaintiff 95,200 yuan for its lawyers' fees to realize the creditor's rights should be upheld. Since Cen Jianfeng and Sanhao Mold Company voluntarily provided the maximum guarantee for the aforesaid debts, they should assume the joint and several compensation liability. After having assumed the guarantee liability, they had the right to recover compensation from Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. 法院生效裁判认为:温州银行与创菱电器公司之间签订的编号为温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同合法有效,温州银行发放贷款后,创菱电器公司未按约还本付息,已经构成违约。原告要求创菱电器公司归还贷款本金250万元,支付按合同约定方式计算的利息、罚息,并支付原告为实现债权而发生的律师费95200元,应予支持。岑建锋、三好塑模公司自愿为上述债务提供最高额保证担保,应承担连带清偿责任,其承担保证责任后,有权向创菱电器公司追偿。
The issue of this case was whether Tingwei Electric Company should assume the guarantee liability for debts under the loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902, considering that the contract on the maximum guarantee (No. 01003 [2010], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 concluded between Tingwei Electric Company and Wenzhou Bank was not listed in the guarantee contracts as stipulated in the loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902. Upon trial, the court held that Tingwei Electric Company should assume the guarantee liability on the following grounds: First, the waiver of civil rights can be legally effective only after it is expressly indicated. The implied intention can be legally effective under circumstances with specific legal provisions and special agreements between the parties. It is inappropriate to presume that a party waives its rights under circumstances without specific agreements or special legal provisions. In this case, although the contract on the maximum guarantee concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Tingwei Electric Company was not listed in the loan contract (No. 00542 [2011], Enterprise Loan, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Chuangling Electric Appliance Company, plaintiff Wenzhou Bank did not expressly indicate that it waived the maximum guarantee provided by Tingwei Electric Company. Therefore, Tingwei Company was still the guarantor of the maximum guarantee in the disputed loan contract. Second, the time points of the conclusion of the disputed loan contract and the issuance of the loan were all within the period of final settlement as stipulated in the contract on the maximum guarantee (No. 01003 [2010], Maximum Guarantee, Wenzhou Bank) numbering 902 (from September 10, 2010 to October 18, 2011). Wenzhou Bank's claim for creditor's rights against Tingwei Electric Company did not exceed the guarantee period as stipulated in the contract. Therefore, Tingwei Electric Company should, within the quota of its promised maximum guarantee, assume the joint and several guarantee liability for the debts of Chuangling Electric Appliance Company owed to Wenzhou Bank. Third, the contract on the maximum guarantee is the direct basis for the creditor and guarantor to agree upon the legal relation of guarantee and the corresponding rights and obligations. The content of a collateral contract cannot be replaced by that of the principal contract. In this case, Wenzhou Bank and Tingwei Electric Company concluded a contract on the maximum guarantee. The guarantee rights and obligations of both parties should be governed by the contract and was not subject to the restraint or alternation of the non-natural person loan contract concluded between Wenzhou Bank and Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. Fourth, Tingwei Electric Company once repaid loan interests in June, October, and November of 2012 and its act was also the representation of Tingwei Electric Company's performance of guarantee liability for the loan involved. In conclusion, Tingwei Electric Company should assume the joint and several liability for the repayment of the aforesaid debts of Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. After having assumed the guarantee liability, Tingwei Electric Company had the right to recover compensation from Chuangling Electric Appliance Company. 本案的争议焦点为,婷微电子公司签订的温银9022010年高保字01003号最高额保证合同未被选择列入温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同所约定的担保合同范围,婷微电子公司是否应当对温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同项下债务承担保证责任。对此,法院经审理认为,婷微电子公司应当承担保证责任。理由如下:第一,民事权利的放弃必须采取明示的意思表示才能发生法律效力,默示的意思表示只有在法律有明确规定及当事人有特别约定的情况下才能发生法律效力,不宜在无明确约定或者法律无特别规定的情况下,推定当事人对权利进行放弃。具体到本案,温州银行与创菱电器公司签订的温银9022011企贷字00542号借款合同虽未将婷微电子公司签订的最高额保证合同列入,但原告未以明示方式放弃婷微电子公司提供的最高额保证,故婷微电子公司仍是该诉争借款合同的最高额保证人。第二,本案诉争借款合同签订时间及贷款发放时间均在婷微电子公司签订的编号温银9022010年高保字01003号最高额保证合同约定的决算期内(2010年9月10日至2011年10月18日),温州银行向婷微电子公司主张权利并未超过合同约定的保证期间,故婷微电子公司应依约在其承诺的最高债权限额内为创菱电器公司对温州银行的欠债承担连带保证责任。第三,最高额担保合同是债权人和担保人之间约定担保法律关系和相关权利义务关系的直接合同依据,不能以主合同内容取代从合同的内容。具体到本案,温州银行与婷微电子公司签订了最高额保证合同,双方的担保权利义务应以该合同为准,不受温州银行与创菱电器公司之间签订的温州银行非自然人借款合同约束或变更。第四,婷微电子公司曾于2012年6月、10月、11月三次归还过本案借款利息,上述行为也是婷微电子公司对本案借款履行保证责任的行为表征。综上,婷微电子公司应对创菱电器公司的上述债务承担连带清偿责任,其承担保证责任后,有权向创菱电器公司追偿。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Zhao Wenjun, Xu Mengmeng, and Mao Jiao) (生效裁判审判人员:赵文君、徐梦梦、毛姣)
Guiding Case No. 58 指导案例58号
Chengdu Tongdefu Hechuan Peach Slices Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd. and Yu Xiaohua 成都同德福合川桃片有限公司诉重庆市合川区同德福桃片
(Case concerning dispute over infringement upon trademark right and unfair competition) 有限公司、余晓华侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案
(Issued on May 20, 2016 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 2016年5月20日发布)
Keywords: civil; infringement upon trademark right; unfair competition; time-honored brand; false publicity 关键词 民事/侵害商标权/不正当竞争/老字号/虚假宣传
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. Where an individual or enterprise without any historical origin of a “time-honored brand” registers the “time-honored brand” or trade name similar thereto as a trademark and publicizes his or its products by using the history of the “time-honored brand,” it shall be determined as false publicity and constitute unfair competition. 1.与“老字号”无历史渊源的个人或企业将“老字号”或与其近似的字号注册为商标后,以“老字号”的历史进行宣传的,应认定为虚假宣传,构成不正当竞争。
2. Where an individual or enterprise with historical origin of a “time-honored brand” registers the “time-honored brand” as the trade name or enterprise name of an individual industrial and commercial household under the premise of not violating the principle of good faith, and the individual or enterprise does not cause any confusing or highlight the use of such trade name, it does not constitute unfair competition or infringement upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. 2.与“老字号”具有历史渊源的个人或企业在未违反诚实信用原则的前提下,将“老字号”注册为个体工商户字号或企业名称,未引人误认且未突出使用该字号的,不构成不正当竞争或侵犯注册商标专用权。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Item (7) of Article 57 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国商标法》第57条第7项
Articles 2 and 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第2条、第9条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff (defendant in the counterclaim) Chengdu Tongdefu Hechuan Peach Slices Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chengdu Tongdefu Company”) alleged that: It was the owner of trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device.” The individual industrial and commercial household and Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Chongqing Tongdefu Company”) successively established by Yu Xiaohua highlighted “Tongdefu” in the trade name and the outer packaging of peach slices they produced, which has infringed upon plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” and constituted unfair competition. Therefore, plaintiff requested the court to order that Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua should cease the use and cancel the enterprise name with the trade name “Tongdefu”; cease the infringement upon plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark, extend a formal apology in the newspaper, eliminate the adverse effects, and compensate plaintiff 500,000 yuan for its economic and business reputation losses and other reasonable expenses of 5,066.4 yuan. 原告(反诉被告)成都同德福合川桃片食品有限公司(以下简称成都同德福公司)诉称,成都同德福公司为“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标权人,余晓华先后成立的个体工商户和重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司(以下简称重庆同德福公司),在其字号及生产的桃片外包装上突出使用了“同德福”,侵害了原告享有的“同德福TONGDEFU及图”注册商标专用权并构成不正当竞争。请求法院判令重庆同德福公司、余晓华停止使用并注销含有“同德福”字号的企业名称;停止侵犯原告商标专用权的行为,登报赔礼道歉、消除影响,赔偿原告经济、商誉损失50万元及合理开支5066.4元。
Defendants (plaintiffs in the counterclaim) Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua co-responded in the defense and counterclaimed that the predecessor of Chongqing Tongdefu Company was Tongdefu Fast Shop originated in 1898. Although Tongdefu Fast Shop ceased production due to public-private partnership, the pass-on of the unique technique from generation to generation was not interrupted. Yu Xiaohua, the fourth-generation successor, inherited the ancestral property, successively registered an individual industrial and commercial household and a company, and used the enterprise name and trade name in a standardized manner. The registration of Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua was bona fide and did not constitute infringement. Chengdu Tongdefu Company had no direct historical origin with the time-honored brand “Tongdefu,” but it made associated publicity of the trademark “Tongdefu” and the trade name “Tongdefu,” which was false publicity. In addition, Chengdu Tongdefu Company used “Tongdefu,” name of a famous commodity without approval, which constituted unfair competition. Therefore, defendants requested the court to order that Chengdu Tongdefu Company should cease the false publicity and extend a formal apology in a national newspaper to eliminate adverse effects; and cease infringement upon “Tongdefu,” the specific name of a famous commodity. 被告(反诉原告)重庆同德福公司、余晓华共同答辩并反诉称,重庆同德福公司的前身为始创于1898年的同德福斋铺,虽然同德福斋铺因公私合营而停止生产,但未中断独特技艺的代代相传。“同德福”第四代传人余晓华继承祖业先后注册了个体工商户和公司,规范使用其企业名称及字号,重庆同德福公司、余晓华的注册行为是善意的,不构成侵权。成都同德福公司与老字号“同德福”并没有直接的历史渊源,但其将“同德福”商标与老字号“同德福”进行关联的宣传,属于虚假宣传。而且,成都同德福公司擅自使用“同德福”知名商品名称,构成不正当竞争。请求法院判令成都同德福公司停止虚假宣传,在全国性报纸上登报消除影响;停止对“同德福”知名商品特有名称的侵权行为。
Upon trial, the court found that: During the period from 1916 to 1956, Tongdefu Fast Shop established in 1898 was successively operated by three generations represented by Yu Hongchun, Yu Fuguang, and Yu Yongzuo. During the period from the 1920s to 1950s, the trade name “Tongdefu” enjoyed high popularity. In 1956, due to public-private partnership, the business operations of Tongdefu Fast Shop were ceased. In 1988, upon approval, Wenjiang Branch of Hechuan City Peach Slices Factory registered the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” (No. 1215206), with the approved use scope of Category 30, namely, pastries, peach slices (pastries), cocoa products, and man-made coffee. On November 7, 2000, upon approval, the name of the registrant of the aforesaid trademark was altered to Chengdu Tongdefu Company. On the outer packaging of multiple products of Chengdu Tongdefu Company, such characters as “time-honored brand” and “century-old brand” and introduction to peach slices with the brand “Tongdefu”, namely, “Created during the period of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty (or 1840), peach slices with the brand ‘Tongdefu' enjoy a long history and culture.” On the page of “Company Profile” of Chengdu Tongdefu Company's website, the history of Tongdefu Fast Shop in the Collection of Hechuan Historical Accounts of Past Events (Volume 2) was used in the publicity of Hechuan peach slices with the brand “Tongdefu”. 法院经审理查明:开业于1898年的同德福斋铺,在1916年至1956年期间,先后由余鸿春、余复光、余永祚三代人经营。在20世纪20年代至50年代期间,“同德福”商号享有较高知名度。1956年,由于公私合营,同德福斋铺停止经营。1998年,合川市桃片厂温江分厂获准注册了第1215206号“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标,核定使用范围为第30类,即糕点、桃片(糕点)、可可产品、人造咖啡。2000年11月7日,前述商标的注册人名义经核准变更为成都同德福公司。成都同德福公司的多种产品外包装使用了“老字号”“百年老牌”字样、“‘同德福牌'桃片简介:‘同德福牌'桃片创制于清乾隆年间(或1840年),有着悠久的历史文化”等字样。成都同德福公司网站中“公司简介”页面将《合川文史资料选辑(第二辑)》中关于同德福斋铺的历史用于其“同德福”牌合川桃片的宣传。
On January 4, 2002, Yu Xiaohua, son of Yu Yongzuo, registered an individual industrial and commercial household with the trade name of Hechuan City Time-honored Brand Tongdefu Peach Slices Factory and the business scope of self-production and marketing of peach slices and snacks. In 2007, its trade name was altered to Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Factory and was later cancelled. On May 6, 2011, Chongqing Tongdefu Company was formed with Yu Xiaohua as the legal representative and the business scope of production of pastries (baked pastries and prepared powder pastries). The Company was the owner of the exclusive right to use the registered graphic trademarks “Yu Fuguang 1898” (No. 6626473) and “Yu Xiaohua” (No. 7587928). The outer packaging of multiple products of Chongqing Tongdefu Company used such information on the introduction to the history and awards of Tongdefu Fast Shop that “Originated in the 23rd year of the period of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty (1898), the time-honored brand “Tongdefu” has a long history.” For some products, it was indicated behind such information that “the aforesaid characters are excerpted from the Hechuan County Annals”; “Ode to Tongdefu: Tongdefu is renowned in Hechuan. Originated one century ago, its techniques of producing peach slices are passed down by four generations. With high quality and competitive price, Tongdefu honors integrity, no-bullying, fair trade, and warm services”; and such characters as “Hechuan Peach Slices” and “Chongqing Municipality Hechuan District Tongdefu Peach Slices Co., Ltd.” 2002年1月4日,余永祚之子余晓华注册个体工商户,字号名称为合川市老字号同德福桃片厂,经营范围为桃片、小食品自产自销。2007年,其字号名称变更为重庆市合川区同德福桃片厂,后注销。2011年5月6日,重庆同德福公司成立,法定代表人为余晓华,经营范围为糕点(烘烤类糕点、熟粉类糕点)生产,该公司是第6626473号“余复光1898”图文商标、第7587928号“余晓华”图文商标的注册商标专用权人。重庆同德福公司的多种产品外包装使用了“老字号【同德福】商号,始创于清光绪23年(1898年)历史悠久”等介绍同德福斋铺历史及获奖情况的内容,部分产品在该段文字后注明“以上文字内容摘自《合川县志》”;“【同德福】颂:同德福,在合川,驰名远,开百年,做桃片,四代传,品质高,价亦廉,讲诚信,无欺言,买卖公,热情谈”;“合川桃片”“重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司”等字样。
Judgment 裁判结果
On July 3, 2013, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality rendered a civil judgment (No. 00273 [2013], First, Civil Division, No. 1 IPC, Chongqing) that: (1) Chengdu Tongdefu Company should immediately cease the false publicity involved. (2) Chengdu Tongdefu Company should publish a declaration for its false publicity on its website for consecutive five days after this judgment came into force, so as to eliminate adverse effects. (3) All claims of Chengdu Tongdefu Company should be dismissed. (4) Other counterclaims of Chongqing Tongdefu Company and Yu Xiaohua should be dismissed. After the judgment of first instance was pronounced, Chengdu Tongdefu Company refused to accept it and appealed. On December 17, 2013, the Higher People's Court of Chongqing Municipality rendered a civil judgment (No. 00292 [2013], Final, Civil Division, HPC, Chongqing) that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed. 重庆市第一中级人民法院于2013年7月3日作出(2013)渝一中法民初字第00273号民事判决:一、成都同德福公司立即停止涉案的虚假宣传行为。二、成都同德福公司就其虚假宣传行为于本判决生效之日起连续五日在其网站刊登声明消除影响。三、驳回成都同德福公司的全部诉讼请求。四、驳回重庆同德福公司、余晓华的其他反诉请求。一审宣判后,成都同德福公司不服,提起上诉。重庆市高级人民法院于2013年12月17日作出(2013)渝高法民终字00292号民事判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: Yu Xiaohua, an individual industrial and commercial household, Chongqing Tongdefu Company, and Chengdu Tongdefu Company had similar business scope and there was competition among them; “Tongdefu” contained in the trade name was identical with the characters of the registered trademark of Chengdu Tongdefu Company “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” and they were similar trademarks. The key to whether the registration of a trade name constitutes unfair competition focuses on whether it violates the principle of good faith. The evidence submitted by Chengdu Tongdefu Company was insufficient to prove that the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” has gained certain popularity. Even though others registered “Tongdefu” as a trade name and used it in a standardized manner, it would not cause any false recognition of the relevant public. Therefore, it was unaccountable that Yu Xiaohua's registration of the trade name of his individual industrial and commercial household as “Tongdefu” had the malice of “free-riding.” In addition, during the period from the 1920s to 1950s, the trade name “Tongdefu” enjoyed high goodwill. Tongdefu Fast Shop was successively operated by three generations represented by Yu Hongchun, Yu Fuguang, and Yu Yongzuo. Especially during the period of Yu Fuguang's operation, peach slices produced by Tongdefu Fast Shop obtained multiple honors. Yu Xiaohua was grandson of Yu Fuguang and son of Yu Yongzuo. On the basis of the popularity of the trade name of Tongdefu Fast Shop and the direct family relationship between Yu Xiaohua and operators of Tongdefu Fast Shop, it was rational for Yu Xiaohua to register the trade name of his individual industrial and commercial household as “Tongdefu.” The registration of the trade name of the individual industrial and commercial household by Yu Xiaohua was bona fide. Without violating the principle of good faith, it did not constitute unfair competition. Based on the continuity of operation, Yu Xiaohua's alteration of the trade name of his individual industrial and commercial household and Chongqing Tongdefu Company's registration of the company name did not constitute unfair competition. 法院生效裁判认为:个体工商户余晓华及重庆同德福公司与成都同德福公司经营范围相似,存在竞争关系;其字号中包含“同德福”三个字与成都同德福公司的“同德福TONGDEFU及图”注册商标的文字部分相同,与该商标构成近似。其登记字号的行为是否构成不正当竞争关键在于该行为是否违反诚实信用原则。成都同德福公司的证据不足以证明“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标已经具有相当知名度,即便他人将“同德福”登记为字号并规范使用,不会引起相关公众误认,因而不能说明余晓华将个体工商户字号注册为“同德福”具有“搭便车”的恶意。而且,在二十世纪二十年代至五十年代期间,“同德福”商号享有较高商誉。同德福斋铺先后由余鸿春、余复光、余永祚三代人经营,尤其是在余复光经营期间,同德福斋铺生产的桃片获得了较多荣誉。余晓华系余复光之孙、余永祚之子,基于同德福斋铺的商号曾经获得的知名度及其与同德福斋铺经营者之间的直系亲属关系,将个体工商户字号登记为“同德福”具有合理性。余晓华登记个体工商户字号的行为是善意的,并未违反诚实信用原则,不构成不正当竞争。基于经营的延续性,其变更个体工商户字号的行为以及重庆同德福公司登记公司名称的行为亦不构成不正当竞争。
On the outer packaging of products of Chongqing Tongdefu Company, the full name of the enterprise was used and marked at the bottom of the front page of the outer packaging. Positioned in the full name of the enterprise, the characters “Tongdefu” were consistent with the integral part. Such characters were not highlighted in abbreviation and other forms, there was no change made for highlighting, and the size, pattern, and color of such characters were not prominent compared to those of other part. Therefore, Chongqing Tongfude Company's act of marking its enterprise name on the outer packaging of products was a standardized use of its enterprise name and did not constitute highlighted use of a trade name or infringement upon trademark right. As far as Chongqing Tongdefu Company's marking of “Ode to Tongdefu” was concerned, the size of characters “Ode to Tongdefu” was somewhat larger than that of the specific content of the ragged verse, but they were an integral part visually. The specific content was recomposed according to a similar text once used on the outer packaging of products of Tongdefu Fast Shop in historical records, with the purpose of indicating the history and operation concepts of the trade name “Tongdefu” other than highlighting the characters “Tongdefu.” In addition, multiple business marks were used on the outer packaging of Chongqing Tongdefu Company's products, in which the collective mark “Hechuan Peach Slices” was especially prominent and its private marks were also obvious. The geographical indication of “Hechuan Peach Slices” and an intangible cultural heritage of Chongqing Municipality were also marked. Compared to the aforesaid marks, “Ode to Tongdefu” and its specific content were a common descriptive text and obviously, they were not of the form of business marks and were not highlighted enough. Objectively, it was not easy for consumers to falsely recognize the source of commodities and “Ode to Tongdefu” did not have the function of replacing a trademark. Therefore, Chongqing Tongdefu Company's act of marking “Ode to Tongdefu” was not “highlighted use” in the sense of infringement upon trademark right and therefore it did not constitute infringement upon trademark right. 从重庆同德福公司产品的外包装来看,重庆同德福公司使用的是企业全称,标注于外包装正面底部,“同德福”三字位于企业全称之中,与整体保持一致,没有以简称等形式单独突出使用,也没有为突出显示而采取任何变化,且整体文字大小、字形、颜色与其他部分相比不突出。因此,重庆同德福公司在产品外包装上标注企业名称的行为系规范使用,不构成突出使用字号,也不构成侵犯商标权。就重庆同德福公司标注“同德福颂”的行为而言,“同德福颂”四字相对于其具体内容(三十六字打油诗)字体略大,但视觉上形成一个整体。其具体内容系根据史料记载的同德福斋铺曾经在商品外包装上使用过的一段类似文字改编,意在表明“同德福”商号的历史和经营理念,并非为突出“同德福”三个字。且重庆同德福公司的产品外包装使用了多项商业标识,其中“合川桃片”集体商标特别突出,其自有商标也比较明显,并同时标注了“合川桃片”地理标志及重庆市非物质文化遗产,相对于这些标识来看,“同德福颂”及其具体内容仅属于普通描述性文字,明显不具有商业标识的形式,也不够突出醒目,客观上不容易使消费者对商品来源产生误认,亦不具备替代商标的功能。因此,重庆同德福公司标注“同德福颂”的行为不属于侵犯商标权意义上的“突出使用”,不构成侵犯商标权。
The history and honors of peach slices with the brand of “Tongdefu” published on the website of Chengdu Tongdefu Company were consistent with the history and honors of Tongdefu Fast Shop in historical records. Chengdu Tongdefu Company marked the source of such historical data, but it failed to prove the connection between it and Tongdefu Fast Shop. In addition, on the outer packaging of its products, Chengdu Tongdefu Company marked such characters as “Century-old Brand,” “Time-honored Brand,” and “Originated in the Period of Emperor Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty”; however, the registration of the trademark “同德福TONGDEFU and Device” was approved in 1998. Chengdu Tongdefu Company did not prove the basis for committing the act of marking the aforesaid characters, either. The aforesaid acts of Chengdu Tongdefu Company did not conform to facts and easily caused consumers misunderstanding of the origin of its brand, history, and relationship with Tongdefu Fast Shop, so as to gain advantage in competition. Such acts constituted false publicity and Chengdu Tongdefu Company should assume the corresponding civil liability of ceasing infringement and eliminating adverse effects. 成都同德福公司的网站上登载的部分“同德福牌”桃片的历史及荣誉,与史料记载的同德福斋铺的历史及荣誉一致,且在其网站上标注了史料来源,但并未举证证明其与同德福斋铺存在何种联系。此外,成都同德福公司还在其产品外包装标明其为“百年老牌”“老字号”“始创于清朝乾隆年间”等字样,而其“同德福TONGDEFU及图”商标核准注册的时间是1998年,就其采取前述标注行为的依据,成都同德福公司亦未举证证明。成都同德福公司的前述行为与事实不符,容易使消费者对于其品牌的起源、历史及其与同德福斋铺的关系产生误解,进而取得竞争上的优势,构成虚假宣传,应承担相应的停止侵权、消除影响的民事责任。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Li Jian, Zhou Lu, and Song Lili) (生效裁判审判人员:李剑、周露、宋黎黎)
Guiding Case No. 59 指导案例59号
Dai Shihua v. Fire Control Detachment of Public Security Organ of Jinan City (Case concerning dispute over fire control acceptance) 戴世华诉济南市公安消防支队消防验收纠纷案
(Issued on May 20, 2016 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 2016年5月20日发布)
Keywords: administrative litigation; scope of case acceptance; administrative affirmation; fire control acceptance; notice on recordation results 关键词 行政诉讼/受案范围/行政确认/消防验收/备案结果通知
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
The notice on recordation results of fire control acceptance of construction projects contains assessment on whether fire control facilities pass the acceptance inspection and it is of the nature of administrative affirmation. Where a party brings an administrative lawsuit against the act of the fire control department of the public security organ of notifying the recordation results of fire control acceptance, the people's court shall accept it according to the law. 建设工程消防验收备案结果通知含有消防竣工验收是否合格的评定,具有行政确认的性质,当事人对公安机关消防机构的消防验收备案结果通知行为提起行政诉讼的,人民法院应当依法予以受理。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Articles 4 and 13 of the Fire Control Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国消防法》第4条卡在了奇怪的地方、第13条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff Dai Shihua alleged that: There are one elevator and four rooms on each floor of the apartment where he resides. Room 801 in which he resides faces west and the entry gate opens outward. The fire hydrant, 1.6 m high, 0.7 m wide, and 0.25 m thick, is hung on the south wall, 0.35 m away from the gate of plaintiff's room. If any person wants to enter the room, he or she has to stand back after the door is open and then enters the room. Plaintiff cannot go out at all if the gate is opened less than 60 to 70 degrees. The setting and construction of the fire hydrant has affected plaintiff's normal living. Therefore, plaintiff requested the court to revoke the decision of defendant the Fire Control Detachment of Public Security Organ of Jinan City on approving the acceptance of the setting of a fire hydrant in front of plaintiff's gate according to the law; and order that defendant should demand the entity filing the application for approval to make rectifications within a prescribed time limit according to the national standards. 原告戴世华诉称:原告所住单元一梯四户,其居住的801室坐东朝西,进户门朝外开启。距离原告门口0.35米处的南墙挂有高1.6米、宽0.7米、厚0.25米的消火栓。人员入室需后退避让,等门扇开启后再前行入室。原告的门扇开不到60至70度根本出不来。消防栓的设置和建设影响原告的生活。请求依法撤销被告济南市公安消防支队批准在其门前设置的消防栓通过验收的决定;依法判令被告责令报批单位依据国家标准限期整改。
Defendant the Fire Control Detachment of Public Security Organ of Jinan City contended that: The notice on recordation results of fire control acceptance of construction projects embodied inspection records after the project inspection was completed according to the assessment standards for fire control acceptance of construction projects. If the setting of the fire hydrant passed the acceptance inspection in the recordation results, it showed that the construction project conformed to the relevant fire control specifications; if it did not pass the acceptance inspection, the fire control department of the public security organ would take measures according to the law and require the construction undertaker to rectify the relevant problems. As technical acceptance in nature, it was not an independent and complete specific administrative act and was not actionable. Therefore, it was not within the acceptance scope of administrative lawsuits and the Fire Control Detachment of Jinan City requested the court to dismiss plaintiff's action. 被告济南市公安消防支队辩称:建设工程消防验收备案结果通知是按照建设工程消防验收评定标准完成工程检查,是检查记录的体现。如果备案结果合格,则表明建设工程是符合相关消防技术规范的;如果不合格,公安机关消防机构将依法采取措施,要求建设单位整改有关问题,其性质属于技术性验收,并不是一项独立、完整的具体行政行为,不具有可诉性,不属于人民法院行政诉讼的受案范围,请求驳回原告的起诉。
Upon trial, the court found that: For buildings No. 1-8 and underground garages in the renovation project of shanty houses located south of Guanyi Street where Dai Shihua resides, after conducting a spot check of the fire control facilities, the Fire Control Detachment of Public Security Organ of Jinan City issued the Notice on Recordation Results of Fire Control Acceptance of Construction Projects (No. 0172 [2011], Fire Control Detachment of Public Security Organ, Jinan) on November 21, 2011. 法院经审理查明:针对戴世华居住的馆驿街以南棚户区改造工程1-8号楼及地下车库工程,济南市公安消防支队对其消防设施抽查后,于2011年11月21日作出济公消验备[2011]第0172号《建设工程消防验收备案结果通知》。
Judgment 裁判结果
On November 13, 2012, the People's Court of Hi-tech Industry Development Zone of Jinan City rendered an administrative ruling (No. 2 [2012], First, Administrative Division, Jinan) to dismiss the action filed by plaintiff Dai Shihua. Dai Shihua refused to accept the ruling of first instance and appealed. Upon trial, on January 17, 2013, the Intermediate People's Court of Jinan City rendered an administrative ruling (No. 223 [2012], Final, Administrative Division, IPC, Jinan) that: (1) the administrative ruling (No. 2 [2012], First, Administrative Division, Jinan) rendered by the People's Court of Hi-tech Industry Development Zone of Jinan City should be reversed; and (2) this case should be tried again by the People's Court of Hi-tech Industry Development Zone of Jinan City. 济南高新技术产业开发区人民法院于2012年11月13日作出(2012)高行初字第2号行政裁定,驳回原告戴世华的起诉。戴世华不服一审裁定提起上诉。济南市中级人民法院经审理,于2013年1月17日作出(2012)济行终字第223号行政裁定:一、撤销济南高新技术产业开发区人民法院作出的(2012)高行初字第2号行政裁定;二、本案由济南高新技术产业开发区人民法院继续审理。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: As for the nature of the act, Article 4 of the Fire Control Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Fire Control Law”) provides that “The public security organs under the local people's governments at or above the county level shall conduct supervision and administration over the work of fire control within their respective administrative areas and the fire control departments of public security organs under the people's governments at the corresponding levels shall be responsible for the implementation thereof.” Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Provisions of the Ministry of Public Security on the Supervision and Administration of Fire Control of Construction Projects provides that “The fire control department of the public security organ shall conduct the fire control design review, fire control acceptance and recordation, and spot check, so as to supervise the fire control of construction projects.” Article 24 provides that “For construction projects other than those in Articles 13 and 14 of these Provisions, the construction undertaker shall, within seven days of obtaining the construction permit or passing the acceptance of the project, undergo the fire control recordation formalities for the fire control design or acceptance through the website of the fire control department of the public security organ at the provincial level or at the service office of the fire control department of the public security organ.” The aforesaid provisions showed that in the recordation of fire control acceptance of construction projects, the undertaker of a specific construction project reported information on the projection completion and acceptance to the fire control department of the public security organ and the fire control department conducted registration and recordation for the inspection and supervision of the fire control department. The recordation was an act of the fire control department of the public security organ for conducting the supervision and administration over the fire control of construction projects. The recordation of fire control acceptance of a construction project and spot check conducted by the fire control department were of the nature of exercising specific administrative authority and embodied the state will, legality, public welfare, exclusiveness, and enforceability. The notice on recordation results was a component of the recordation act. It was the specific representation of recordation results and the feature of the aforesaid administrative authority, and therefore it should be included in the scope of judicial review. 法院生效裁判认为:关于行为的性质。《中华人民共和国消防法》(以下简称《消防法》)第四条规定:“县级以上地方人民政府公安机关对本行政区域内的消防工作实施监督管理,并由本级人民政府公安机关消防机构负责实施。”《公安部建设工程消防监督管理规定》第三条第二款规定:“公安机关消防机构依法实施建设工程消防设计审核、消防验收和备案、抽查,对建设工程进行消防监督。”第二十四条规定:“对本规定第十三条、第十四条规定以外的建设工程,建设单位应当在取得施工许可、工程竣工验收合格之日起七日内,通过省级公安机关消防机构网站进行消防设计、竣工验收消防备案,或者到公安机关消防机构业务受理场所进行消防设计、竣工验收消防备案。”上述规定表明,建设工程消防验收备案就是特定的建设工程施工人向公安机关消防机构报告工程完成验收情况,消防机构予以登记备案,以供消防机构检查和监督,备案行为是公安机关消防机构对建设工程实施消防监督和管理的行为。消防机构实施的建设工程消防备案、抽查的行为具有行使行政职权的性质,体现出国家意志性、法律性、公益性、专属性和强制性,备案结果通知是备案行为的组成部分,是备案行为结果的具体表现形式,也具有上述行政职权的特性,应该纳入司法审查的范围。
As for the consequence of the act, Article 13 of the Fire Control Law provides that “Where the construction of a construction project that needs a fire control design according to the national fire control technical standards for project construction is completed, the fire control acceptance or recordation shall be conducted as follows: …(2) For any other construction project, the construction undertaker shall, after the acceptance, report it to the fire control department of the public security organ for recordation and the fire control department of the public security organ shall conduct a spot check. A construction project that is subject to fire control acceptance according to the law but fails to undergo or pass the fire control acceptance shall be forbidden to be put into use. Any other construction project that fails to pass a spot check shall cease to be used.” Article 25 of the Provisions of the Ministry of Public Security on the Supervision and Administration of Fire Control of Construction Projects provides that “The fire control department of the public security organ shall, among the recorded fire control design or acceptance, randomly determine the inspectees and announce them to the public. For the determined inspectees, the fire control department of the public security organ shall, complete drawings inspection within 20 days in accordance with the regulations on fire control and the national fire control technical standards for project construction, or complete the construction inspection in accordance with the assessment standards for fire control acceptance inspection of construction projects, and prepare inspection records. The inspection results shall be announced to the public. Where the construction undertaker fails to pass the inspection, the fire control department of the public security organ shall also notify the construction undertaker in writing. Upon receipt of the notice, the construction undertaker shall cease construction or stop use, and apply for re-inspection to the fire control department of the public security organ after organizing rectifications. The fire control department of the public security organ shall, within 20 days from receipt of the written application, conduct re-inspection and issue a written re-inspection opinion.” The aforesaid provisions showed that in the act of acceptance recordation, the fire control department of the public security organ not just simply accepts the relevant materials reported to it by the construction undertaker, it is also responsible for conducting examination of the recordation materials and completing the project inspection. The recordation of fire control acceptance of construction projects and spot check conducted by the fire control department could generate the binding force in the sense of administrative regulations. For the construction undertaker, it should undergo formalities for the acceptance recordation at the fire control department of the public security organ after the completion of the project acceptance; otherwise, it should assume the corresponding administrative liability. Where the fire control facilities are unqualified upon a spot check, the construction undertaker should cease the use of them and organize rectifications. For the fire control department of the public security organ, there is assessment of whether fire control facilities passed the spot check in the recordation results. It is, in essence, an act of administrative affirmation, namely, an act of the fire control department of the public security organ to determine and affirm the legal fact and legal relationship of the administrative counterpart. Once fire control facilities are assessed as qualified, it shall be deemed that the fire control department actually affirms that the fire control project is up to standard and the administrative counterpart shall also be bound by the act. 关于行为的后果。《消防法》十三条规定:“按照国家工程建设消防技术标准需要进行消防设计的建设工程竣工,依照下列规定进行消防验收、备案:……(二)其他建设工程,建设单位在验收后应当报公安机关消防机构备案,公安机关消防机构应当进行抽查。依法应当进行消防验收的建设工程,未经消防验收或者消防验收不合格的,禁止投入使用;其他建设工程经依法抽查不合格的,应当停止使用。”公安部《建设工程消防监督管理规定》第二十五条规定:“公安机关消防机构应当在已经备案的消防设计、竣工验收工程中,随机确定检查对象并向社会公告。对确定为检查对象的,公安机关消防机构应当在二十日内按照消防法规和国家工程建设消防技术标准完成图纸检查,或者按照建设工程消防验收评定标准完成工程检查,制作检查记录。检查结果应当向社会公告,检查不合格的,还应当书面通知建设单位。建设单位收到通知后,应当停止施工或者停止使用,组织整改后向公安机关消防机构申请复查。公安机关消防机构应当在收到书面申请之日起二十日内进行复查并出具书面复查意见。”上述规定表明,在竣工验收备案行为中,公安机关消防机构并非仅仅是简单地接受建设单位向其报送的相关资料,还要对备案资料进行审查,完成工程检查。消防机构实施的建设工程消防备案、抽查的行为能产生行政法上的拘束力。对建设单位而言,在工程竣工验收后应当到公安机关消防机构进行验收备案,否则,应当承担相应的行政责任,消防设施经依法抽查不合格的,应当停止使用,并组织整改;对公安机关消防机构而言,备案结果中有抽查是否合格的评定,实质上是一种行政确认行为,即公安机关消防机构对行政相对人的法律事实、法律关系予以认定、确认的行政行为,一旦消防设施被消防机构评定为合格,那就视为消防机构在事实上确认了消防工程质量合格,行政相关人也将受到该行为的拘束。
Based thereon, the court held that the issuance of a notice on the recordation of fire control acceptance of construction projects was the last link in the supervision and administration over the quality of fire control facilities of construction projects. The notice on recordation results contained the assessment of whether fire control facilities passed the acceptance inspection. It was of the nature of administrative affirmation and was a specific administrative act committed by the fire control department of the public security organ. The completion of recordation formalities could generate the binding force in the sense of administrative regulations. Therefore, the recordation was an actionable administrative act and the people's court may conduct a judicial review on it. According to the original ruling, the notice on recordation results of fire control acceptance of construction projects was a notice on technical acceptance in nature and was not a specific administrative act and based thereon, it was actually inappropriate for the court to dismiss the action of appellant Dai Shihua. 据此,法院认为作出建设工程消防验收备案通知,是对建设工程消防设施质量监督管理的最后环节,备案结果通知含有消防竣工验收是否合格的评定,具有行政确认的性质,是公安机关消防机构作出的具体行政行为。备案手续的完成能产生行政法上的拘束力。故备案行为是可诉的行政行为,人民法院可以对其进行司法审查。原审裁定认为建设工程消防验收备案结果通知性质属于技术性验收通知,不是具体行政行为,并据此驳回上诉人戴世华的起诉,确有不当。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Zhang Jifeng, Sun Jifa, and Shan Lei) (生效裁判审判人员:张极峰、孙继发、单蕾)
Guiding Case No. 60 指导案例60号
Dongtai Branch of Yancheng City Aokang Food Co., Ltd. v. Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai County-Level City of Yancheng City 盐城市奥康食品有限公司东台分公司
(Case concerning dispute over an industrial and commercial administrative penalty) 诉盐城市东台工商行政管理局工商行政处罚案
(Issued on May 20, 2016 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 2016年5月20日发布)
Keywords: administrative; administrative penalty; food safety standard; food label; food instruction 关键词 行政/行政处罚/食品安全标准/食品标签/食品说明书
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. Where a food distributor particularly emphasizes on the food label and instruction one or more valuable and characteristic ingredients or components added or contained in the food, it shall indicate the volume of addition or content of such emphasized ingredients or components. The food distributor's failure to indicate such information was a violation of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China. The administrative department of industry and commerce shall impose an administrative penalty on it according to the law and the people's court shall support such administrative penalty. 1.食品经营者在食品标签、食品说明书上特别强调添加、含有一种或多种有价值、有特性的配料、成分,应标示所强调配料、成分的添加量或含量,未标示的,属于违反《中华人民共和国食品安全法装完逼就跑》的行为,工商行政管理部门依法对其实施行政处罚的,人民法院应予支持。
2. The so-called “emphasize” refers to particular identification in such forms as name, color difference, typeface, font size, graph, sequence, literal statement, repeated occurrences of the same item, and multiple items pointing to the same object. The so-called “valuable and characteristic ingredients” refers to special ingredients different from other common ingredients, highly nutrient for human bodies, and whose market price and nutrient content are higher than those of other ingredients. 2.所谓“强调”,是指通过名称、色差、字体、字号、图形、排列顺序、文字说明、同一内容反复出现或多个内容都指向同一事物等形式进行着重标识。所谓“有价值、有特性的配料”,是指不同于一般配料的特殊配料,对人体有较高的营养作用,其市场价格、营养成分往往高于其他配料。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 20 and paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (Article 26 and paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China revised on April 24, 2015) 中华人民共和国食品安全法》第20条、第42条第1款(该法于2015年4月24日修订,新法相关法条为第26条、第67条第1款)
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff Dongtai Branch of Yancheng City Aokang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Aokang Company”) alleged that: On May 15, 2012, defendant Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai County-Level City of Yancheng City (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City”) issued a Written Decision on Administrative Penalty (No. 00298 [2012], Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce, Dongtai) and determined that the Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil sold by plaintiff failed to indicate the content of olive oil, which violated the provisions of the General Standard for Labeling of Packaged Food (GB7718-2004). Defendant ordered Aokang Company to make corrections and impose a total fine of 60,000 yuan on it. Plaintiff held that “Olive Original Fragrance” on the label of the Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil distributed by plaintiff was an objective description of the physical property of the product other than emphasis on a certain ingredient. Therefore, it was unnecessary to indicate ingredients or volume of addition. Olive oil was a common edible oil ingredient, the same as other ingredients, including canola oil and soybean oil. It had no special effect or value and was not “a valuable or characteristic ingredient.” The national standard for food safety issued by the health administrative department of the State Council as prescribed in the Food Safety Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Food Safety Law”) should apply to this case; however, the General Standard for Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2004) defendant applied was not a national standard for food safety. Therefore, the application of law was erroneous. In conclusion, plaintiff requested the court to render a judgment to cancel the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty involved issued by defendant. 原告盐城市奥康食品有限公司东台分公司(以下简称奥康公司)诉称:2012年5月15日,被告盐城市东台工商行政管理局(以下简称东台工商局)作出东工商案字[2012]第00298号《行政处罚决定书》,认定原告销售的金龙鱼橄榄原香食用调和油没有标明橄榄油的含量,违反了GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》的规定,责令其改正,并处以合计60000元的罚没款。原告认为,其经营的金龙鱼橄榄原香食用调和油标签上的“橄榄原香”是对产品物理属性的客观描述,并非对某种配料的强调,不需要标明含量或者添加量。橄榄油是和其他配料菜籽油、大豆油相同的普通食用油配料,并无特殊功效或价值,不是“有价值、有特性的配料”。本案应适用《中华人民共和国食品安全法》(以下简称《食品安全法》)规定的国务院卫生行政部门颁布的食品安全国家标准,而被告适用的GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》并不是食品安全国家标准,适用法律错误。综上,请求法院判决撤销被告对其作出的涉案行政处罚决定书。
Defendant Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City contended that: “Olive” was highlighted on the right side of the label of the Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil distributed by Aokang Company, accompanied with a graph of olive. It was indicated on the hangtag that “100% super virgin olive oil from Italy is added”; however, the volume of addition was not indicated. It fell under the circumstance where a certain valuable and characteristic ingredient was particularly emphasized on the food label but the volume of addition was not indicated. As a mandatory standard for food labeling, the General Standard for Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2004) was deemed as one food safety standard after the Food Safety Law came into force until it was replaced by the General Standard for the Administration of Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2011). Therefore, the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty issued by defendant was accurate in the determination of nature, reasonable and appropriate, and legitimate in procedures and defendant requested the court to affirm the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty. 被告东台工商局辩称:原告奥康公司经营的金龙鱼牌橄榄原香食用调和油标签正面突出“橄榄”二字,配有橄榄图形,吊牌写明“添加了来自意大利的100%特级初榨橄榄油”,但未注明添加量,这就属于食品标签上特别强调添加某种有价值、有特性配料而未标示添加量的情形。GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》作为食品标签强制性标准,在《食品安全法》生效后,即被视为食品安全标准之一,直至被GB7718-2011《预包装食品标签管理通则》替代。因此,其所作出的行政处罚决定定性准确,合理适当,程序合法,请求法院予以维持。
Upon trial, the court found that: From September 1, 2011 to February 29, 2012, Aokang Company purchased 290 pieces of Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil with the net content of 5 L, sold them to Qianjiahui Supermarket at an increased price, and obtained the sales proceeds of 34,800 yuan, with the net profit of 2,836.9 yuan. On February 21, 2012, when conducting an inspection in Qianjiahui Supermarket, the law enforcement officers of the Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City found that the volume of olive oil addition was not indicated on the aforesaid Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil. With the name of “Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil,” there was “Olive” on the label of the aforesaid Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil, accompanied with a graph of olive; such information as “Ingredients: canola oil, soybean oil, and olive oil” was indicated on the side of the label; and it was indicated on the hangtag that “Added with 100% super virgin olive oil from Italy, Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil has subtle fragrance of olive fruits. Rich in multiple vitamins, mono-unsaturated fatty acids, and other healthy materials, the native olive essence includes multi-phenol and other natural antioxidant ingredients and can satisfy your high-quality pursuit for natural health.” 法院经审理查明:2011年9月1日至2012年2月29日,奥康公司购进净含量5升的金龙鱼牌橄榄原香食用调和油290瓶,加价销售给千家惠超市,获得销售收入34800元,净利润2836.9元。2012年2月21日,东台工商局行政执法人员在千家惠超市检查时,发现上述金龙鱼牌橄榄原香食用调和油未标示橄榄油的添加量。上述金龙鱼牌橄榄原香食用调和油名称为“橄榄原香食用调和油”,其标签上有“橄榄”二字,配有橄榄图形,标签侧面标示“配料:菜籽油、大豆油、橄榄油”等内容,吊牌上写明:“金龙鱼橄榄原香食用调和油,添加了来自意大利的100%特级初榨橄榄油,洋溢着淡淡的橄榄果清香。除富含多种维生素、单不饱和脂肪酸等健康物质外,其橄榄原生精华含有多本酚等天然抗氧化成分,满足自然健康的高品质生活追求。”
On February 27, 2012, the Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City placed the case on file for investigation and on May 9, it served a notification on administrative penalty hearing upon plaintiff Aokang Company. During the statutory period, plaintiff failed to make statement, submit defense, or require hearing. On May 15, defendant served the written decision on administrative penalty (No. 298 [2012], Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce, Dongtai) upon plaintiff, determined that plaintiff engaged in the distribution of food whose label did not comply with the provisions of the Food Safety Law and which fell under the circumstance where the addition of some valuable and characteristic ingredients was particularly emphasized on the food label, but the volume of addition was not indicated, and imposed an administrative penalty that Aokang Company was ordered to make corrections, its illegal gains of 2,836.9 yuan should be confiscated, and a fine of 57,163.1 yuan, 60,000 yuan in total should be imposed on it, in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Penalty Law of the People's Republic of China and the Food Safety Law. Plaintiff refused to accept the written decision on administrative penalty and filed an application for administrative reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Yancheng City affirmed the written decision on administrative penalty. 东台工商局于2012年2月27日立案调查,并于5月9日向原告奥康公司送达行政处罚听证告知书。原告在法定期限内未提出陈述和申辩,也未要求举行听证。5月15日被告向原告送达东工商案字〔2012〕第298号行政处罚决定书,认定原告经营标签不符合《食品安全法》规定的食品,属于食品标签上特别强调添加某种有价值、有特性配料而未标示添加量的情形,依照《中华人民共和国行政处罚法《食品安全法》规定,作出责令改正、没收违法所得2836.9元和罚款57163.1元,合计罚没款60000元的行政处罚。原告不服,申请行政复议,盐城市工商行政管理局复议维持该处罚决定。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 15, 2012, the People's Court of Dongtai City, Jiangsu Province rendered an administrative judgment (No. 0068 [2012], First, Administrative Decision, Dongtai) to affirm the Written Decision on Administrative Penalty (No. 00298 [2012], Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce, Dongtai) rendered by the Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City on May 15, 2012. After the judgment was pronounced, Aokang Company appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province. On May 9, 2013, the Intermediate People's Court of Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province rendered an administrative judgment (No. 0032 [2013], Final, Administrative Division, Yancheng) to affirm the judgment of first instance. 江苏省东台市人民法院于2012年12月15日作出(2012)东行初字第0068号行政判决:维持东台工商局2012年5月15日作出的东工商案字[2012]第00298号《行政处罚决定书》。宣判后,奥康公司向江苏省盐城市中级人民法院提起上诉。江苏省盐城市中级人民法院于2013年5月9日作出(2013)盐行终字第0032号行政判决,维持一审判决。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that in accordance with the provisions of item (4) of Article 20 of the Food Safety Law, “the food safety standards should contain the requirements for labels, marks, and instructions related to food safety and nutrition.” Article 22 thereof provides that “before the national food safety standards as prescribed in this Law are issued, the food producers and distributors shall produce food and engage in the distribution of food under the existing edible agricultural product quality and safety standards, food hygiene standards, food quality standards as well as the relevant industrial standards on food. The General Standard for Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2004) was formulated by the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine and the Standardization Administration of China and came into force on October 1, 2005; the Food Safety Law came into force on June 1, 2009; and the new-edition General Standard for the Administration of Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2011) was formulated by the hygiene administrative department of the State Council and specified as a national standard for food safety, and came into force on April 20, 2012. The violation of plaintiff Aokang Company in this case was committed during the period from September 2011 to February 2012 and the General Standard for the Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2004) was one of the national standards for food safety at the time. Therefore, it was not inappropriate that defendant Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City imposed an administrative penalty on plaintiff by applying the General Standard for Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2004). 法院生效裁判认为:《食品安全法》二十条第四项规定,食品安全标准应当包括对与食品安全、营养有关的标签、标识、说明书的要求。第二十二条规定,本法规定的食品安全国家标准公布前,食品生产经营者应当按照现行食用农产品质量安全标准、食品卫生标准、食品质量标准和有关食品的行业标准生产经营食品。GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》由国家质量监督检验检疫总局和国家标准化管理委员会制定,于2005年10月1日实施;《食品安全法》于2009年6月1日实施,新版的GB7718-2011《预包装食品标签管理通则》是由国务院卫生行政部门制定,且明确是食品安全国家标准,于2012年4月20日实施。本案原告奥康公司违法行为发生在2011年9月至2012年2月,GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》属于当时的食品安全国家标准之一。因此,被告东台工商局适用GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》对原告作出行政处罚,并无不当。
In accordance with the General Standard for Labeling of Prepackaged Food (GB7718-2004), “All content of a label of prepackaged food may not introduce food in literal or graphical description that is false, misleading, or deceptive for consumers; and may not mislead consumers by means of font size or color difference.” “If the addition of one or more varieties of valuable and characteristic ingredients is particularly emphasized on the food label or food instruction, the volume of addition of such emphasized ingredients shall be indicated.” The term “emphasize” as mentioned therein refers to stress in particular. In the common sense, such formal expressions as name, color difference, typeface, font size, graph, sequence, literal statement, repeated occurrences of the same item, and multiple items pointing to the same object should be understood as emphasis on a certain object. The term “valuable and characteristic ingredients” as mentioned therein refers to special ingredients that are highly nutrient for human bodies and different from general ingredients. In the common sense, the market value or nutrient component of such ingredients is higher than that of other ingredients. In this case, plaintiff Aokang Company held that “Olive Original Fragrance” was an objective description of the physical property of the product other than emphasis on a certain ingredient; however, it could be seen from the outer packaging of the Jinlongyu Olive Original Fragrance Blended Edible Oil sold by plaintiff that “Olive” was highlighted on the label by means of graph, typeface, and literal statement, so as to emphasize that the ingredient olive oil was added to the blended edible oil. In addition, there was such literal statement that “100% super virgin olive oil from Italy is added” on the hangtag (a component of the food label), which obviously stressed the addition of the ingredient olive oil to the product to the consumers. Such practice itself was actually an emphasis on the value and characteristic of “olive” in this product. Generally speaking, the market value or nutrition of olive oil is higher than that of soybean oil or canola oil. If olive oil is added to blended edible oil, it may be determined that olive oil is “a valuable and characteristic ingredient.” Therefore, Aokang Company's failure to indicate the volume of addition of olive oil was a violation of the food safety standard. The Written Decision on Administrative Penalty rendered by the Administrative Bureau of Industry and Commerce of Dongtai City had factual and legal basis and should be affirmed. GB7718-2004《预包装食品标签通则》规定:“预包装食品标签的所有内容,不得以虚假、使消费者误解或欺骗性的文字、图形等方式介绍食品;也不得利用字号大小或色差误导消费者。”“如果在食品标签或食品说明书上特别强调添加了某种或数种有价值、有特性的配料,应标示所强调配料的添加量。”这里所指的“强调”,是特别着重或着重提出,一般意义上,通过名称、色差、字体、字号、图形、排列顺序、文字说明、同一内容反复出现或多个内容都指向同一事物等形式表现,均可理解为对某事物的强调。“有价值、有特性的配料”,是指对人体有较高的营养作用,配料本身不同于一般配料的特殊配料。通常理解,此种配料的市场价格或营养成分应高于其他配料。本案中,原告奥康公司认为“橄榄原香”是对产品物理属性的客观描述,并非对某种配料的强调,但从原告销售的金龙鱼牌橄榄原香食用调和油的外包装来看,其标签上以图形、字体、文字说明等方式突出了“橄榄”二字,强调了该食用调和油添加了橄榄油的配料,且在吊牌(食品标签的组成部分)上有“添加了来自意大利的 100%特级初榨橄榄油”等文字叙述,显而易见地向消费者强调该产品添加了橄榄油的配料,该做法本身实际上就是强调“橄榄”在该产品中的价值和特性。一般来说,橄榄油的市场价格或营养作用均高于一般的大豆油、菜籽油等,因此,如在食用调和油中添加了橄榄油,可以认定橄榄油是“有价值、有特性的配料”。因此,奥康公司未标示橄榄油的添加量,属于违反食品安全标准的行为。东台工商局所作行政处罚决定具有事实和法律依据,应予维持。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Liu Hong, Wang Weihua, and Zhou He)菊花碎了一地 (生效裁判审判人员:刘红、王为华、周和)
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese