>>>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
 
Anti-Unfair Competition Case--- Ju County Winery V.Wendeng Brewery Factory (Anti-Unfair Competition Case)
莒县酒厂诉文登酿酒厂不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->Others
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 01-02-1990
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 3,1990

Anti-Unfair Competition Case--- Ju County Winery V.Wendeng Brewery Factory (Anti-Unfair Competition Case)
(Anti-Unfair Competition Case)
莒县酒厂诉文登酿酒厂不正当竞争纠纷案

ANTI-UNFAIR COMPETITION CASE JU COUNTY WINERY V.WENDENG BREWERY FACTORY

 

莒县酒厂诉文登酿酒厂不正当竞争纠纷案

BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Ju County Winery, Shandong Province. 原告:山东省莒县酒厂。
Legal representative: Feng Yongseng, director. 法定代表人:冯永森,厂长。
Agent: Wang Zhuqing, deputy director, Ju County winery. 委托代理人:王竹青,莒县酒厂副厂长。
Agent: Li Yuqin, Lawyer, Ju County Law Consultancy Office. 委托代理人:李玉勤,莒县法律顾问处律师。
Defendant: Wendeng Brewery Factory, Shandong Province. 被告:山东省文登酿酒厂。
Legal representative: Sun Jingfu, director. 法定代表人:孙敬富,厂长。
Agent: Sun Xuejian, deputy director, Wendeng Brewery Factory. 委托代理人:孙学建,文登酿酒厂副厂长。
Agent: Lu Shanrong, Wendeng City Law Consultancy Office. 委托代理人:吕善荣,文登市法律顾问处律师。
The plaintiff Ju County winery, Shandong Province brought a suit before the Linyi Prefecture Intermediate People's Court or against Wendeng Brewery Factory, Shandong Province for infringement on its exclusive trademark rights. 原告山东省莒县酒厂以被告山东省文登酿酒厂侵害了该厂商标专用权为由,向山东省临沂地区中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiff claims: The defendant has used words and designs as the specific name and decoration for the white spirits produced by the defendant which are very similar to the registered trademark of the Happy Phoenix brand white spirits produced by the plaintiff, which has caused the misunderstanding and mispurchasing by consumers. As a result, the sales amount of the Happy Phoenix white spirits decreased and the plaintiff suffered serious economic losses. The plaintiff requests the defendant to stop immediately infringement on the plaintiff's exclusive trademark right and compensate for the loss one million yuan arising therefrom. 原告诉称:被告采用与原告生产的“喜凰”牌白酒注册商标相近似的文字、图形,作为被告生产的白酒的特定名称及装潢,造成消费者误认误购,使“喜凰”牌白洒销量下降,原告蒙受重大经济损失。请求被告立即停止对原告商标专用权的侵害,并赔偿由此而造成的经济损失100万元。
The defendant states: The registered trademark of the defendant's products is "Tianfu Mountain" brand, and the registered trademark of the plaintiff's products is "Happy Phoenix" brand. The name of the white spirits produced by the defendant is "Happy Phoenix" (Xihuang Jiu) and the name for that of the plaintiff is "Happy Phoenix" (Xihuang Jiu). The registered trademarks for the white spirits of both parties are not the same, nor similar. Therefore, there does not exist the facts of infringement on the exclusive trademark right. 被告辩称:被告产品的注册商标是“天福山”牌,原告产品的注册商标是“喜凰”牌。被告生产的白酒名称是“喜凤”酒,原告生产的白酒名称是“喜凰”酒。双方白酒的商标既不相同也不近似,不存在侵害商标专用权的事实。
The Linyi Prefecture Intermediate People's Court formed the collegial panel in accordance with the law and by conducting public hearings, ascertains: 临沂地区中级人民法院依法组成合议庭,经进行公开审理,查明:
The plaintiff Ju County Winery, Shandong Province registered with approval its circle design Happy Phoenix (Xihuang) brand trademark on January 30, 1987 with the State Trademark Office and uses the trademark for the white spirits produced by it. On the bottle decorating stamps for the white spirits, in addition to the Happy Phoenix (Xihuang) brand registered trademark in circle design printed, there is also the specific name Xihuang Jiu printed. 原告山东省莒县酒厂于1987年1月30日,在国家商标局核准注册了圆圈图形喜凰牌商标1枚,用于本厂生产的白酒。此酒的瓶贴装璜上,除印有圆圈图形喜凰牌的注册商标外,还印有“喜凰酒”这一特定名称。
The registered trademark for the white spirits produced by the defendant Wendeng Brewery Factory, Shandong Province is Tianfu Mountain brand in circle design. In order to fight for markets with the plaintiff, the defendant carried the bottle decorating stamp printed with the plaintiff's trademark Happy Phoenix (Xihuang Jiu) to the Laizhou City Color Printing House and had the Printing House print decorating stamps by imitation except for the Tianfu Mountain brand registered trademark replacing the Happy Phoenix brand registered trademark and the "huang" in the name Xihuang Jiu replaced by the character "feng". The defendant uses the printed Tianfu Mountain brand Happy Phoenix (Xifeng Jiu) bottle decorating stamps for the white spirits produced by it. From February 1987 to August 1988, there have been on the whole produced 4,509,320 bottles with a sales number of 3,421,308 bottles. The sales amount has reached 2,443,284.34 yuan. 被告山东省文登酿酒厂生产的白酒,注册商标为圆圈图形天福山牌。被告为与原告争夺市场,拿着带有原告商标标识“喜凰”酒的瓶贴装璜到莱州市彩印厂,让其除把喜凰牌注册商标更换为天福山牌注册商标,喜凰酒的“凰”字更换为“凤”字外,其余均仿照印制。被告将印好的天福山牌喜凤酒瓶贴装璜用于本厂生产的白酒。从1987年2月至1988年8月,共生产4509320瓶,销售3421308瓶,销售金额达2443284.34元。
Because of the similarity in design composition, type of the characters and colour between the bottle decorating stamps of the defendant and those of the plaintiff, misunderstanding and mispurchasing have been caused among the consumers. At the same time, the defendant competed with the plaintiff in the same market by means of cutting down prices, which resulted in a slow selling of the Happy Phoenix white spirits (Xihuang Jiu) of the plaintiff and made the contracts between the plaintiff and his clients unable or partly unable to execute. Consequently, the plaintiff suffered a great loss. To solve this problem, the plaintiff had put on a statement in the Popular Daily of Shandong that any person may not infringe upon its exclusive trademark right. The administrative division for trademark and advertisement, Shandong Province Administration for Industry and Commerce had noticed the defendant to immediately stop the use of the Happy Phoenix white spirits (Xifeng Jiu) bottle decorating stamps. However, the defendant cast all these aside. 被告的瓶贴装璜由于在设计构图、字型、颜色方面与原告的近似,因此造成消费者误认误购。被告同时还在同一市场中,采用压价的手段与原告竞争,致使原告的“喜凰”酒滞销,客户与原告订的合同不能履行或不能完全履行,给原告造成重大经济损失。原告为此曾通过山东《大众日报》刊登过不得侵害其商标专用权的声明。山东省工商行政管理局商标广告管理处也通知被告立即停止使用“喜凤”酒瓶贴装璜,但被告置之不理。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The Linyi Prefecture Intermediate People's Court, through conducting public hearings, holds: The Happy Phoenix white spirits (Xihuang Jiu) have been approved for registration by the State Trademark Office and issued the registered certificate. In accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, the plaintiff's exclusive registered trademark right shall be protected by the law. The defendant violated the provisions that the trademarks of white spirits should be consolidated with their specific names stipulated in the Joint Circular concerning the Improvement of Trademarks of White Spirits Products issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the Ministry of light Industry and the Ministry of Commerce on October 11, 1980, and used on the same commodity the words different from his own registered trademark but similar to the trademark of the plaintiff as the specific name for the white spirits, Thus misleading the consumers to purchase the defendant's Happy Phoenix white spirits (Xifeng Jiu) for Happy Phoenix white spirits (Xihuang Jiu) for Happy Phoenix white spirit (Xihuang Jiu) of the plaintiff. Subparagraph 2, Article 41 of the Implementation Rules for the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China 我能说我还比较喜欢洗碗吗stipulates that "using words or designs which are identical with or similar to the registered trademarks of others as the specific name of the products or decorations of the products on the same or similar products and which are easy to cause misidentification", falls within the acts of infringement on the exclusive registered trademark right referred to by subparagraph 3, Article 38 of the Trademark Law. In accordance with the provisions of Article 118 of the General Principle of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, it is justified for the plaintiff to request the defendant to stop infringement and claim damages compensation, which shall be supported. And in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 果然是京城土著of the Implementation Rules for the Trademark Law, the defendant shall be imposed on a fine for his infringement acts. 临沂地区中级人民法院审理认为:原告生产的“喜凰”酒已由国家商标局核准注册,发给注册证,依照《中华人民共和国商标法》第三条的规定,其注册商标专用权受法律保护。被告违反国家工商行政管理局、轻工业部、商业部1980年10月11日《关于改进酒类商品商标的联合通知》中关于“酒的商标应当同其特定名称统一起来”的规定,在同一种商品上,使用与自己的注册商标不同、却与原告的注册商标相近似的文字做酒的特定名称,从而使消费者极易把被告的“喜凤”酒误认为原告的“喜凰”酒购买。《中华人民共和国商标法实施细则》第四十一条第二项规定,“在同一种或者类似商品上,将与他人注册商标相同或者近似的文字、图形作为商品名称或者商品装璜使用,并足以造成误认的”,属于商标法中小学减的负已经加到家长身上了三十八条第(3)项所指的侵害注册商标专用权的行为。依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百一十八条的规定,原告要求被告停止侵害,赔偿损失,是正当的,应予支持。根据被告的侵权行为,依照商标法实施细则四十三条的规定,应处以罚款。
Based on the above, the court made the decision on August 5, 1989: 据此,临沂地区中级人民法院于1989年8月5日判决如下:
I. The defendant shall stop immediately the infringement acts. 一、被告立即停止侵权行为:
II. The Xifeng Jiu bottle stamps remained unused by the defendant shall be confiscated and the trademark labels for Xifeng Jiu and its package in store shall be extinguished. 二、收缴被告未使用的喜凤酒瓶贴,并消除现存喜凤酒和包装上的商标标识;
III. The defendant shall compensate for the actual loss of the plaintiff 263,139 yuan. Plus a fine 30,000 yuan, which shall be turned over to the state treasury within ten days after the judgment becomes effective. 三、被告赔偿原告实际损失263139元。另对被告处以罚款3万元,判决生效后10日内上缴国库。
After the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance, the defendant Wendeng Brewery Factory appealed to the Shandong Province High People's Court on the ground that it is not in conformity with the law for the original judgment to depart from the appellee's registered trademark and to determine that the appellant infringed upon the exclusive registered trademark right of the appellee based upon the similarity between the unregistered decoration and the specific names of the white spirits of the appellant and those of the appellee. 第一审宣判后,被告山东省文登酿酒厂不服,以“原审判决离开被上诉人的注册商标,依其没有注册的装璜和酒的特定名称与上诉人的近似,认定上诉人侵害了被上诉人的注册商标专用权于法不符”为由,向山东省高级人民法院提出上诉。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The second instance conducted by the Shandong Province High People's Court holds: Article 37 of the Trademark Law stipulates:" The right to exclusive use of a registered Trademark shall be limited to trademarks which have been approved for registration and to goods on which the use of a trademark has been approved. In accordance with these provisions, the Happy Phoenix brand (Xihuang) registered trademark in circle design used by the appellee Ju County Winery for the white spirit produced by it is within the scope of protection for exclusive trademark right. Except for this, the pattern, words, colour and etc. on the bottle decorating stamps of the appellee are not within the scope of exclusive registered trade mark right protection. The appellant Wendeng Brewery Factory imitated the appellee's bottle decorating stamps and made very similar ones to those of the appellee for using on the white spirits produced by it. It is inappropriate in the application of law for the original judgment to determine these acts as infringement on the exclusive trademark right. 山东省高级人民法院第二审认为:商标法第三十七条规定:“注册商标的专用权,以核准注册的商标和核定使用的商品为限。”依此规定,被上诉人山东省莒县酒三在本厂生产的白酒上使用的圆圈图形喜凰牌注册商标,属商标专用权的保护范围。除此之外,被上诉人瓶贴装璜上的图案、文字、颜色等,不属注册商标专用权保护之列。上诉人山东省文登酿酒厂仿照被上诉人的瓶贴装璜,制作了与被上诉人相近似的瓶贴装璜,使用在自己生产的白洒上,原审判决把这种行为认定为侵害商标专用权,是适用法律不当。
However, to compete with the appellee, the appellant, in violation of the provisions that the trademarks of white spirits should be consolidated with their specific names by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the Ministry of Light Industry and the Ministry of Commerce, used the three words Xifeng Jiu totally different from the registered trademark of himself as the specific name of his white spirits, thus making the bottle decorating stamps similar to those of the appellee and causing the consumers to misunderstand and mispurchase. Meanwhile, the appellant competed with the appellee in the same market by means of cutting down prices and caused economic losses to the appellee. The above acts of the appellant not only violate Article 4 of the General Principles of Civil Law that in civil activities, the principles of honesty and credibility shall be observed by citizens and legal persons, but also violate the provisions of Article 5 by infringing upon the lawful civil rights and interests of the appellee. And pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 of the General Principles, such acts of the appellant also harmed the social and public interests and disrupted social economic order. They are therefore unfair competitive acts and must be checked up. The economic losses encounted by the appellee arising therefrom must be compensated by the appellant. 但是,上诉人为与被上诉人竞争,违反国家工商行政管理局、轻工业部、商业部关于酒的商标应当同其特定名称统一起来的规定,使用与自己的注册商标完全不同的“喜凤酒”三个字作为自己酒的特定名称,从而制作出与被上诉人相近似的瓶贴装璜,造成消费者误认误购。同时,上诉人还在同一市场上采用压价的手段与被上诉人竞争,致使其在经济上遭受一定损失。上诉人的上述行为,不仅违反了民法通则四条规定的公民、法人在民事活动中,应当遵循诚实、信用的原则,而且违反了第五条的规定,侵害了被上诉人合法的民事权益。依照民法通则七条的规定,上诉人的这种行为,还损害了社会公共利益,扰乱了社会经济秩序,是不正当的竞争行为,必须予以制止。被上诉人由此遭受的经济损失,必须由上诉人赔偿。
JUDGMENT 
Pursuant to the provisions of Subparagraph 2, Paragraph 1, Article 151 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (for trial implementation), the Shandong Province High People's Court made the judgment on January 2, 1990: 山东省高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法(试行)》第一百五十一条第一款第二项的规定,于1990年1月2日判决如下:
I. Abrogate the Linyi Prefecture Intermediate People's Court's Civil (1988) Ling Zhang Fa Jing Zi No. 5. 一、撤销临沂地区中级人民法院(1988)临中法经字第5号民事判决。
II. The appellant Wendeng Winery must immediately stop infringement on the lawful civil rights and interests of the appellee Ju County Brewery Factory; Extinguish the Xifeng Jiu bottle decorating stamps in store; The Xifeng white spirits already delivered shall be fixed with changed decorating stamps before selling. 二、上诉人文登酿酒厂必须立即停止对被上诉人莒县酒厂合法民事权益的侵害;销毁现丰的喜凤酒瓶贴;已出厂的喜凤酒应更换瓶贴后出售。
III. The appellant shall compensate for the actual losses of the appellee 276,838 yuan which shall be paid within ten days after the judgment becomes effective.

 三、上诉人赔偿被上诉人实际经济损失276838元,判决生效后10日内付清
 

     
     
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