>>>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
 
FERRERO S.p.A v. Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone (unfair competition dispute)
意大利费列罗公司与蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->Others
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 03-24-2008
  • Procedural status: Retrial
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 6,2008

FERRERO S.p.A v. Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone (unfair competition dispute)
(unfair competition dispute)
意大利费列罗公司与蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

FERRERO S.p.A v. Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone
(unfair competition dispute)

 

意大利费列罗公司与蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract] 【裁判摘要】
1. Famous Products mentioned in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China refer to products which have a certain degree of popularity in the Chinese Market and are well known to the relevant public. As for internationally known products, its awareness among relevant public in China is necessary for the protection of their names, packaging and decoration. Hence, when recognizing a famous product, a variety of factors shall be taken into account including the sales duration, regions and the amount, the target customers of the products in China, the duration, extent and regions of any publicity, and existing protection received as a famous product, so that the judgment is made on a comprehensive basis. The fact that the product has been famous abroad shall also be taken into account appropriately. 一、《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》所指的知名商品,是在中国境内具有一定的市场知名度,为相关公众所知悉的商品。在国际上已知名的商品,我国对其特有名称、包装、装潢的保护,仍应以其在中国境内为相关公众所知悉为必要。故认定知名商品,应当考虑该商品在中国的销售时间、销售区域、销售额和销售对象,进行任何宣传的持续时间、程度和地域范围,作为知名商品受保护的情况等因素,进行综合判断。也不排除适当考虑该商品在国外已知名的因素。
2. Packages such as containers or vessels used for protection of products, decoration on products or their packages such as words, patterns, colors and the combination of them, as far as they can identify the source of a product, belong to packages and decoration protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. 二、盛装或者保护商品的容器等包装,以及在商品或者其包装上附加的文字、图案、色彩及其排列组合所构成的装潢,在其能够区别商品来源时,即属于《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》所保护的特有包装、装潢。
3. As for the design of packages and decoration of products, operators can learn from each other, but they cannot imitate others' package and decoration which serves to identify the source of a product in such a manner that may lead to market confusion and misconception; otherwise, the imitation shall be held as unfair competition.Supreme People's Court 三、对于商品包装、装潢的设计,不同经营者之间可以相互学习、借鉴,但不能对他人具有识别商品来源意义的特有包装、装潢进行足以引起市场混淆、误认的全面模仿,否则即构成不正当竞争。
Civil judgment 最高人民法院
No. 3 (2006), Civil Division III, Direct Retrial 民事判决书
 (2006)民三提字第3号
BASIC FACTS 
Retrial petitioner (defendant and appellee): Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd., at 9 Zhenxing Road, Zhangjiagang, Jiangsu Province, the People's Republic of China 再审申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司。
Legal representative: Cai Xinghua, chairman of the board of directors of this company 法定代表人:蔡兴华,该公司董事长。
Authorized representative: Huang Bin, manager of the administration department of this company 委托代理人:黄斌,该公司行政部经理。
Attorney: Zhou Mian, lawyer of Beijing Tonghaolin Law Firm 委托代理人:周缅,北京市同昊林律师事务所律师。
Retrial respondent (plaintiff and appellant): FERRERO S.p.A at 1 Piazzale Pietro Ferrero, 12051 Alba, Cuneo, Italy 再审被申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):意大利费列罗公司(FERRERO S.p.A)。
Legal representative: Sergio Testa and Massimo Gaidano 法定代表人:塞尔焦·特斯塔(SERGIO TESTA)、马斯姆·格丹诺 (MASSIMO GAIDANO)。
Attorney: Baitao, lawyer of Junhe Law Offices 委托代理人:白涛,北京市君合律师事务所律师。
Attorney: Teng Yue, lawyer of Junhe Law Offices 委托代理人:滕悦,北京市君合律师事务所律师。
Defendant in original trial: Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone, at 12E, Tower B, Triumph Arch Building, Nanjing Road, Hexi District, Tianjin, the People's Republic of China 原审被告:天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司。
Legal representative: Guo Yongxin, manager of this company 法定代表人:郭永新,该公司经理。
Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Montresor Ltd.” filed a retrial petition with this Court against a civil judgment (No. 36 [2005] Civil Division III, Final, Tianjin HPC) of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin for a case about unfair competition disputes with FERRERO S.p.A and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone (hereinafter referred to as “Zhengyuan Company.” Upon examination, this Court held that the petition met the conditions for opening a retrial as set forth in Article 179.1(3) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and therefore issued a civil ruling (No. 4 [2006] Civil Division III, Supervisory) on May 10, 2006 to directly retry this case. On January 10, 2007, this Court legally formed a collegial bench, comprising presiding judge Kong Xiangjun, deputy chief of Civil Division III, judge Wang Yongchang, and acting judge He Zhonglin, and retried this case in an open session. Clerk Wang Xin kept a record of the retrial. Huang Bin and Zhou Mian, authorized representative and attorney of Montresor Ltd., and Bai Tao and Teng Yue, attorneys of FERRERO S.p.A, appeared before this Court in the retrial. As Zhengyuan Company refused to appear before this Court without good reasons after being legally summoned by this Court, this Court tried this case in its absence according to law. Now, the retrial of this case is concluded. 蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司(以下简称蒙特莎公司)因与意大利费列罗公司(FERRERO S.p.A)(以下简称费列罗公司)、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司(以下简称正元公司)不正当竞争纠纷一案,不服天津市高级人民法院(2005)津高民三终字第36号民事判决,向本院申请再审。本院经审查认为,再审申请人的申请符合《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十九条第一款第(三)项规定的再审立案条件,于2006年5月10日以(2006)民三监字第4号民事裁定提审本案。2007年1月10日,本院依法组成由民事审判第三庭副庭长孔祥俊担任审判长、审判员王永昌、代理审判员郃中林参加的合议庭,公开开庭审理了本案,书记员王新担任法庭记录。蒙特莎公司的委托代理人黄斌、周缅,费列罗公司的委托代理人白涛、滕悦到庭参加诉讼。正元公司经本院依法传唤,无正当理由拒不到庭,本院依法缺席审理。本案现已审理终结。
FERRERO S.p.A instituted an action in the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality, alleging that: FERRERO S.p.A had been selling a chocolate product in the Chinese market through China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation since 1984, and this product had a very big share in the Chinese market. This product of the plaintiff was well-known around the world, including China. Over years, this product had maintained its original and unique packaging and decorations, covering multiple intellectual property rights of the plaintiff such as trademark, design and copyright, as an integrated representation of the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff. The unique packaging and decorations used for the chocolate product of FERRERO S.p.A were: (1) a ball-shaped golden paper packaging; (2) a label fitted with an elliptical golden brim and a print of “FERRERO ROCHER,” the trademark of the plaintiff, on the ball-shaped golden paper packaging as a decoration; (3) a coffee-colored paper base as a decoration for each chocolate ball wrapped in the golden paper; (4) hard plastic packing boxes in various shapes with transparent covers to show the ball-shaped golden packaging inside; and (5) a combination mark held by the plaintiff as a decoration fitted with a product design and a red ribbon-like pattern stretching out from the mark. The ball-shaped golden paper packaging and the elliptical golden-brimmed label pasted on it formed in fact a three-dimensional trademark of the product of the plaintiff, which enjoyed a very high degree of popularity among consumers. Any consumer would identify a chocolate product in the above packaging and decorations as a product of the plaintiff. For years, defendant Montresor Ltd. had produced mimic products illegally using packaging and decorations identical with or similar to those unique to the well-known product of the plaintiff to mislead and confuse consumers. Moreover, once the plaintiff launched a new product or a seasonal product, Montresor Ltd. would produce mimic products so quickly that sometimes, a new product launched in European was imitated even before its entry into the Chinese market. The above acts of Montresor Ltd. and the marketing of the mimic product by Zhengyuan Company had adversely affected the plaintiff's production and sale, damaged the lawful interests of consumers, and caused heavy economic losses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the court to order that Montresor Ltd. should cease producing and selling and Zhengyuan Company should cease marketing any product identical with any or any combination of the packaging and decorations above unique to the chocolate product of FERRERO S.p.A or any other chocolate product with packaging and decorations similar to those of FERRERO S.p.A which would cause misidentification on the part of consumers; that both defendants should make a formal apology, eliminate adverse effects and assume all litigation costs; and that Montresor Ltd. should compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 3 million yuan. 费列罗公司向天津市第二中级人民法院起诉称:费列罗公司自1984年起通过中国粮油食品进出口总公司在中国市场销售巧克力产品,目前该产品在中国市场有很大的占有率。原告产品不仅在世界范围内,而且在中国也是尽人皆知的知名商品。多年来该产品一直保持特有的包装、装潢,其涵盖了原告商标、外观设计、著作权等多项知识产权,具有独创性,是原告知识产权的综合性体现。费列罗公司的巧克力产品使用的特有包装、装潢为:①金色呈球状的纸质包装;②在金纸球状包装上配以椭圆形金边并且印有原告“FERRERO ROCHER”商标的标签作为装潢;③每一粒金纸球状包装的巧克力均有咖啡色纸质底托作为装潢;④具有各种形状的塑料制硬包装盒,但包装盒的盒盖均为透明,以呈现金纸球状内包装;⑤使用原告所持有的配有产品图案的组合商标作为装潢,并由商标标识处延伸出红金颜色的绶带状图案。该产品的金纸球状包装,以及金纸球状包装上贴有的椭圆形金边标签,实际上构成了原告产品的立体商标,在广大消费者中具有极高的认知度,任何消费者看到符合上述包装、装潢的巧克力产品都会认同为原告的产品。被告蒙特莎公司多年来一直仿冒原告产品,擅自使用与原告知名商品特有的包装、装潢相同或近似的包装、装潢,误导消费者,使消费者产生混淆。而且,原告一推出新产品或时节性产品马上就会遭到蒙特莎公司仿冒,甚至在欧洲推出的新产品尚未进入中国市场即遭仿冒。蒙特莎公司的上述行为及被告正元公司销售仿冒产品的行为已经给原告的生产和销售造成了恶劣影响,并侵害了广大消费者的合法利益,造成原告重大经济损失。请求判令蒙特莎公司不得生产、销售,正元公司不得销售符合前述费列罗公司巧克力产品特有的任意一项或者几项组合的包装、装潢的产品或者任何与费列罗公司的上述包装、装潢相似的足以引起消费者误认的巧克力产品,并赔礼道歉、消除影响、承担诉讼费用,蒙特莎公司赔偿原告经济损失人民币300万元。
Montresor Ltd. argued that: The involved product of the plaintiff was not well-known to the relevant public in the Chinese market, and there was no evidence on the product's sales volume and market share in China. On the contrary, the “金莎” chocolate product of Montresor Ltd. enjoyed a very high degree of popularity among Chinese consumers and had won many awards as a known product. The packaging and decorations of which the plaintiff claimed protection were common packaging and decorations used for the same kind of chocolate products at home and abroad, without originality or uniqueness. In addition, as determined by the function and nature of the commodity, such packaging and decorations should not be deemed unique. The packaging and decorations used for the “金莎” chocolate product of Montresor Ltd. were developed jointly by the staff of Montresor Ltd. and the professional designers of Zhangjiagang Arts and Crafts Printing House and finalized after many improvements, rather than by imitating any existing packaging and decorations of others. Consumers with common sense would not confuse the chocolate product of the plaintiff with that of the defendant when buying the products. The plaintiff alleged that its product packaging covered multiple intellectual property rights such as trademark, design and copyright but failed to specify which particular rights the packaging and decorations of the alleged infringing product had infringed upon, meaning that the object of which the plaintiff claimed protection was unclear. Therefore, the action instituted by the plaintiff lacked both factual and legal basis. Montresor Ltd. requested the court to dismiss the claims of the plaintiff. 蒙特莎公司答辩称:原告涉案产品在中国境内市场并没有被相关公众所知悉,无证据证明其在中国境内的市场销售量和占有率。相反,蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力产品在中国境内消费者中享有很高的知名度,多次获奖,属于知名商品。原告诉请中要求保护的包装、装潢是国内外同类巧克力产品的通用包装、装潢,不具有独创性和特异性。而且,该包装、装潢是由商品的功能性质所决定的,不能认定是特有的包装、装潢。蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力使用的包装、装潢是自己的工作人员和张家港市工艺美术印刷厂的专业设计人员合作开发,经过多次改进最终定型的,并非仿冒他人已有的包装、装潢。普通消费者在购买时只需施加一般的注意义务,就不会混淆原、被告各自生产的巧克力产品。原告认为自己产品的包装涵盖了商标、外观设计、著作权等多项知识产权,但未明确指出被控侵权产品的包装、装潢具体侵犯了其何种权利,其起诉要求保护的客体模糊不清。故,原告起诉无事实和法律依据,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。
Defendant Zhengyuan Company submitted neither a statement of defense nor any evidence. 被告正元公司未答辩亦未提供证据。
The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality as the court of first instance found that: In 1986, FERRERO S.p.A registered its trademark “FERRERO ROCHER” in China with approval, and its “FERRERO ROCHER” series of chocolate products (hereinafter referred to as the “FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate”) entered the Chinese market before 1988 through China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation by means of consignment sales. Such products sold had since not changed basically in terms of overall appearance and layout, only with minor changes in details. Since 1993, FERRERO S.p.A had gradually strengthened its promotional efforts for its FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate via domestic newspapers, periodicals and outdoor advertisements in core regions including Guangdong, Shanghai and Beijing. It set special sales counters in some large and medium-sized cities and sponsored some commercial and sports events to improve the popularity of its products. In June 2000, its trademark “FERRERO ROCHER” was included by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in the List of Major Trademarks for Nationwide Protection. 天津市第二中级人民法院一审查明:1986年费列罗公司在中国核准注册了“FERRERO ROCHER”商标,其“FERRERO ROCHER”系列巧克力产品(以下简称FERRERO ROCHER巧克力)在1988年前通过中国粮油食品进出口总公司采取寄售方式进入中国市场。其产品总体外观、布局与其当前销售的产品基本没有差别,细节略有变化。费列罗公司自1993年开始,以广东、上海、北京地区为核心逐步加大FERRERO ROCHER巧克力在国内的报纸、期刊和室外广告的宣传力度。相继在一些大中城市设立专柜进行销售,并通过赞助一些商业和体育活动,提高其产品的知名度。2000年6月,其“FERRERO ROCHER”商标被国家工商行政管理部门列入全国重点商标保护名录。
Montresor Ltd. was a Chinese-foreign joint venture established by Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant, China and MONTRESOR ET FITRADEAL S.A., Belgium to produce and sell various chocolate products. Established in December 1989, Zhangjiagang First Diary Plant was a collective enterprise dealing in malted milk, chocolate and other products. In June 1993, with the approval of the System Reform Committee of Jiangsu Province, Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Corporation mainly based on Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant was founded and later renamed Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. Montresor Ltd. was one of the close-layer businesses affiliated to Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Co., Ltd., and its Chinese investor was later changed into Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. On April 23, 1990, Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant applied for the registration of the word mark “金莎,” which was registered in April 1991 with the approval of the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. In 1994, FERRERO S.p.A once applied to the Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for cancellation of that mark, but such an application failed. Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant was established in March 1989 as an unincorporated enterprise jointly owned by the state and collective and became a legal person dealing in malted milk and chocolate products in March 1992. Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant was one of its affiliates. Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant was also a subsidiary of Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. All the qualification certificates issued by the competent government agencies to Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant contained references to Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant. Before 1993, all awards won by chocolate products using the trademark “金莎” (hereinafter referred to as “金莎 chocolate”) were conferred on Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant. However, since the second half of 1992, all the publicity and sales activities for 金莎 chocolate were conducted in the name of Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant or contained an indication to Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. before Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant. 蒙特莎公司是1991年12月张家港市乳品一厂与比利时费塔代尔有限公司合资成立的生产、销售各种花色巧克力的中外合资企业。张家港市乳品一厂是1989年12月成立的经营麦乳精、巧克力等产品的集体企业。1993年6月经江苏省体制改革委员会批准,以张家港市乳品一厂为主体,成立了江苏梁丰食品集团公司,后变更为江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司。蒙特莎公司为江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司所属的紧密层企业之一,其中方投资者随后变更为江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司。1990年4月23日,张家港市乳品一厂申请注册“金莎”文字商标,1991年4月经国家工商行政管理局商标局核准注册。费列罗公司在1994年曾向国家工商行政管理局商标评审委员会提出撤销该商标,但未获支持。上海外贸申港食品厂是1989年3月成立的非法人国家、集体联营企业,1992年3月取得法人资格,主营麦乳精、巧克力产品。张家港市乳品一厂为其联营企业之一,同时,上海外贸申港食品厂也是江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司的下属公司。有关政府部门对张家港市乳品一厂的资质认证中均同时附注上海外贸申港食品厂。1993年以前,使用“金莎”商标的巧克力(以下简称金莎巧克力)获得的荣誉均颁发给张家港市乳品一厂。1992年下半年开始,金莎巧克力的宣传、销售均冠以上海外贸申港食品厂或者在上海外贸申港食品厂前加注江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司。
Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant began producing 金莎 chocolate in 1990. The packaging and decorations used for the said product were basically the same as those used for the alleged infringing chocolate produced and sold by Montresor Ltd. since 2002 and was similar to those used for the FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. The said product was determined as a city-level new product by the Zhangjiagang Economic Committee in 1990; won a Silver Award in the Second International Exposition of Beijing Municipality, a Gold Award in the Seventh Excellent New Products in the Light Industry of Jiangsu Province and a Second Prize in the Third Light Industry Fine Arts Design Exhibition and Appraisal of Jiangsu Province in 1991; and won an award in the Second Excellent New Products of Suzhou in 1992. During these years, 金莎 chocolate was also publicized and marketed externally as a product of Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant. 金莎 chocolate was rated as one of recommended excellent chocolate brands in Chinese market by the China Association of Bakery and Confectionary Industry in 1998; was rated as a national quality foodstuff by the China National Food Industry Association consecutively in 2000 and 2001 and won the award of Reputable Known Food Brand in China in 2000; was determined as a “Key Product for Protection” of Jiangsu Province by the Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision of Jiangsu Province in 2000; won a Gold Award of the Famous-brand Product Trade Fair for Western Regions in 2001; and was rated as a famous-brand product of China and determined as a national inspection-free product in 2004. The trademark “金莎” was determined as a known trademark of Suzhou City and a famous trademark of Jiangsu Province in 2001. Thanks to the extensive publicity efforts made by Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant and Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. since 1992, 金莎 chocolate became more and more popular. While wining the above awards and titles, 金莎 chocolate was one of the leading products during 1997-2002 in the nationwide food market surveys and nationwide chain store sales statistics and monitoring released by the China National Commercial Information Center or the National Chain Store and Supermarket Information Office and other entities as published in China Food Newspaper. FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate did not appear in any of such rankings. 张家港市乳品一厂自1990年开始生产金莎巧克力,该巧克力的包装、装潢与蒙特莎公司自2002年起生产销售的被控侵权巧克力使用的包装、装潢基本一致,与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢较为近似。该产品1990年被张家港市经济委员会确认为市级新产品;1991年荣获北京市第二届国际博览会银奖、江苏省第七届轻工业优秀新产品金奖、江苏省第三届轻工美术设计展评会二等奖;1992年获得苏州市第二届优秀新产品。在此期间,金莎巧克力也作为上海外贸申港食品厂的产品对外宣传并销售。金莎巧克力在1998年被中国焙烤食品糖制品工业协会评为中国市场优秀品牌巧克力推荐产品之一;在2000年和2001年连续被中国食品工业协会评为国家质量达标食品,并在2000年获得中国知名食品信誉品牌;在2000年被江苏省质量技术监督局认定为江苏省重点保护产品;在2001年获得西部名牌产品贸易洽谈会金奖;在2004年被评为中国名牌产品并被确定为国家免检产品。“金莎”商标在2001年被认定为苏州市知名商标、江苏省著名商标。经上海外贸申港食品厂及江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司自1992年以来的对金莎巧克力的广泛宣传,其知名度逐步提高,在获得上述荣誉的同时,在《中国食品报》公布的由中华全国商业信息中心或者全国连锁店超市信息办公室等单位发布的全国食品市场调查及全国连锁店销售统计、监测排行中,1997年至2002年,金莎巧克力排名靠前。该统计排名中未出现FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力。
In 2002, Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant assigned the trademark “金莎” to Montresor Ltd. (The application for assignment was filed on November 25, 2002 and was approved by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on April 21, 2004), and the latter started to produce and sell金莎 chocolate. Zhengyuan Company acted as a dealer in Tianjin for 金莎 chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. In January 2003, as notarized by the Public Notary Office of Tianjin, FERRERO S.p.A purchased the alleged infringing product from Zhengyuan Company in Hexi District, Tianjin Municipality. 2002年张家港市乳品一厂向蒙特莎公司转让“金莎”商标(2002年11月25日提出申请,2004年4月21日国家工商管理总局商标局核准转让),蒙特莎公司开始生产、销售金莎巧克力。正元公司为蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力在天津市的经销商。2003年1月,费列罗公司经天津市公证处公证,在天津市河东区正元公司处购买了被控侵权产品。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality as the court of first instance held that: A well-known product was a product enjoying a certain degree of popularity in a market and known to the relevant public. As it had an obvious territorial characteristic, its popularity abroad did not represent its popularity in China. Whether a commodity was well-known and to which extent it was known by the relevant public should be determined according to the specific condition of the market in which it existed. As early as in 1970s, many other chocolate manufacturers started to adopt the method of using golden tinfoil paper to wrap chocolate balls and transparent plastic outer packaging to show the inner packaging of chocolate, which was commonly used in the industry rather than unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate and should not be protected. However, the decorations for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, which had been used by FERRERO S.p.A before it entered the Chinese market in 1988 and had distinctive characteristics for identifying and beatifying the commodity and distinguishing between sources of commodities, constituted decorations unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. Although the金莎chocolate produced and sold by Montresor Ltd. continued to use decorations which Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant formerly used, the decorations for 金莎 chocolate were first used in 1990, later than those used by FERRERO S.p.A. The other evidence provided by Montresor Ltd. was insufficient to negate the uniqueness of the decorations of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. It should be determined that the decorations (2), (4) and (5) of which FERRERO S.p.A claimed protection were unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. It was a marketing strategy of Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. for its subsidiaries regarding金莎 chocolate to allow Montresor Ltd. to produce and sell the alleged infringing product. Montresor Ltd. continued to produce the product following Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant and Shanghai Foreign Trade Shengang Foods Plant. The evolution of金莎 chocolate should not be dissevered due to adjustments of manufacturers inside the group, and instead, the overall continuity of the product should be regarded as the basis for review and appraisal of the product. 金莎 chocolate had used decorations identical with the alleged infringing chocolate and similar to those used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate since it was launched by Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant in 1990. Later, thanks to the extensive publicity efforts made by many manufacturers led by Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd., 金莎 chocolate gained a leading market share among chocolate products and won many awards from government agencies and relevant associations, becoming a product with a relatively high degree of popularity in China. As both chocolate products of the plaintiff and the defendant were well-known products in China, the sequence of time when both products became well-known products and the degree of popularity should be regarded as the factors to determine whether ordinary consumers would mistake the product of the defendant for that of the plaintiff. As indicated by an analysis of the time when both chocolate products became well-known to the relevant public, 金莎 chocolate of Montresor Ltd. had gradually become a commodity well known nationwide from a commodity recognized by local government and consumers and gained a large market share by the middle of 1990s and was rated as a national famous-brand product in 2004. FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate was only sold in places such as duty-free shops and airports in some cities during the period from it entered the Chinese market through 1993, and because it was far away from the life of ordinary consumers, it was not known to the relevant public during that period of time. After 1993, FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate strengthened its publicity and marketing in Guangdong, Shanghai and Beijing and gradually expanded its territory of sales on the basis of these three regions and had become a nationwide well-known product in recent years. Therefore, it became well-known later than金莎 Chocolate. In terms of popularity of both chocolate products, the market share rankings in many consecutive years provided by Montresor Ltd. showed that金莎 chocolate was greatly recognized by consumers and was often seen in the front rankings but FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate had never appeared in such rankings, which sufficed to prove that the popularity of金莎 chocolate was significantly higher than that of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. As 金莎chocolate had a high degree of popularity for a long period of time, which enabled the product to be strongly distinctive from other chocolate brands, with an increasingly distinctiveness, consumers would not confuse金莎 chocolate of Montresor Ltd. with FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate of FERRERO S.p.A. Moreover, during their co-existence and publicity and marketing in the Chinese market for more than a decade, both Montresor Ltd. and FERRERO S.p.A had paid great attention to the trademark and origin of their respective products, and the different requirements for quality, price, taste and consumption level had resulted in their different consumer bases. As both the “FERRERO ROCHER” mark of FERRERO S.p.A and the “金莎” mark of Montresor Ltd. were in a conspicuous position of the product packaging, consumers could distinguish between them according to the trademarks and manufacturers to buy their needed products. Similar decorations would not prevent consumers from making their choices. Therefore, although the two products had similar decorations, such similarity was not sufficient to cause misidentification by consumers regarding the two products. In sum, Montresor Ltd. did not constitute any unfair competition against FERRERO S.p.A by using the alleged packaging and decorations for金莎 chocolate, nor did Zhengyuan Company commit any infringement by selling金莎chocolate. 天津市第二中级人民法院一审审理认为:知名商品是在市场上具有一定知名度,为相关公众所知悉的商品。由于其具有明显的地域特点,商品在国外的知名程度并不代表在中国境内的知名度,商品是否知名以及知名程度应根据其存在的市场具体情况予以认定。早在上世纪七十年代,采用金色锡箔纸包裹球状巧克力,使用透明塑料外包装,呈现巧克力内包装,已为其他巧克力生产企业所使用,并非FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力所特有,该包装属通用包装,不应保护。但是,FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力的装潢是费列罗公司在1988年前进入国内市场即已使用,具有识别和美化商品、区别商品来源的显著特征,构成其特有的装潢。蒙特莎公司生产、销售的金莎巧克力虽是延续使用张家港市乳品一厂的装潢,但金莎巧克力最早使用该装潢是在1990年,晚于费列罗公司。蒙特莎公司提供的其他证据不足以否定FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力产品装潢的特有性。应当认定费列罗公司诉状中请求保护的②、④、⑤项装潢为FERRERO ROCHER巧克力所特有。蒙特莎公司生产、销售被控侵权的金莎巧克力产品是江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司对所属公司经营该产品采取的营销策略。蒙特莎公司承继张家港市乳品一厂、上海外贸申港食品厂生产该产品,具有延续性。不能因集团内部生产厂家的调整而将金莎巧克力的发展过程割裂,而应以产品的整体连续性作为其考察、评价基准。金莎巧克力自张家港市乳品一厂于1990年推出以来,一直采用与被控侵权巧克力一致、同时与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力近似的装潢。此后,经过以江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司为龙头的各生产企业的广泛宣传,金莎巧克力的市场占有率在巧克力产品中名列前茅,并多次获得国家政府部门和相关协会的褒奖,成为在中国知名度较高的商品。在原、被告的巧克力商品均为我国知名商品的情况下,二者商品知名的时间先后及知名度的高低应当作为普通消费者能否将被告商品误认为原告商品的具体认定因素。从双方巧克力商品知名的时间分析,蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力至上世纪九十年代中期已经逐步从地方政府及消费者认可的商品发展为全国知名商品,市场占有率较高,并于2004年被评为中国名牌产品。FERRERO ROCHER巧克力进入国内市场后的一段时间直至1993年前,仅在一些城市的免税商店、机场等场所销售,与普通消费者的生活距离较远,其在该段时间不具有知名性。1993年以后,FERRERO ROCHER巧克力以广东、上海、北京为主要宣传、销售市场,并以此三地为核心逐步扩展销售范围,近几年成为国内知名商品,其知名的时间要晚于蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力。就双方巧克力商品的知名度而言,蒙特莎公司提供的连续多年的市场销售占有率排行榜表明,消费者对金莎巧克力商品的认可度较高,经常出现在排行榜前列,而排行榜中从未出现FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力,足以说明金莎巧克力知名度明显高于FERRERO ROCHER巧克力。由于金莎巧克力的知名度高、知名持续时间长,使其相对于其他品牌的巧克力产生较强的区别性特征,产品外观的显著性日益提高,在此种情况下,消费者不会将蒙特莎公司的金莎巧克力误认为是费列罗公司的FERRERO ROCHER巧克力。再者,蒙特莎公司与费列罗公司的巧克力产品在国内市场十多年的并行存在和宣传、销售的过程中,对各自产品的商标及产地来源极为注重,对产品的质量、价格、口味及消费层次的不同需要使双方拥有各自的消费群。由于费列罗公司的“FERRERO ROCHER”商标与蒙特莎公司的“金莎”商标均处于产品包装的显著位置,消费者能从巧克力的商标及生产厂家等不同之处进行分辨,购买自己所需要的产品,近似的装潢已经不能成为消费者选择的障碍。因此,尽管二者产品装潢近似,亦不足以使消费者产生误认,混淆二者的产品。综上,蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力使用的包装、装潢不构成对费列罗公司的不正当竞争,正元公司销售金莎巧克力的行为亦不构成侵权。
On February 7, 2005, the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Tianjin Municipality as the court of first instance entered a judgment as follows: The claims of FERRERO S.p.A against Montresor Ltd. and Zhengyuan Company should be dismissed. 2005年2月7日,天津市第二中级人民法院一审判决:驳回费列罗公司对蒙特莎公司、正元公司的诉讼请求。
FERRERO S.p.A appealed against the above judgment, asserting that: (1) By confusing the TRESOR DORE Chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. with the confectionary food using the trademark “金莎”, the court of first instance erroneously determined the time when FERRERO ROCHER chocolate became well-known in China and the fact that the alleged infringing TRESOR DORE Chocolate was well-known in China. (2) The court of first instance ignored the evidence on the world popularity of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate and erroneously determined that the overseas popularity of a product did not extend to the territory of China. In fact, both the Trademark Office and Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce recognized that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate had become widely known as early as in 1980s, which was significantly related to its international popularity. (3) The court of first instance erroneously negated the uniqueness of part of the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate and ignored the principles of isolated comparison, overall comparison and essential part comparison, which was against the basic principles of relevant laws and regulations, resulting in the erroneous conclusion that TRESOR DORE Chocolate did not cause any confusion with FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate despite similar packaging and decorations. (4) With a wrong understanding of the “relevant public” concept, the court of first instance erroneously excluded consumers who went to duty-free shops from relevant public and classified the relevant public according to commodity prices and requirements of different consumption levels. (5) The court of first instance failed to make determinations regarding FERRERO S.P.A's assertions that Montresor Ltd violated the principle of good faith by squatting the trademark “金莎” and falsely indicating “Since 1968” on the trademark labels, among others. Therefore, FERRERO S.p.A requested the court of second instance to reverse the original judgment, support all of its claims and order Montresor Ltd. to assume all litigation costs for this case. 费列罗公司对一审判决不服,提起上诉称:1、一审法院将蒙特莎公司生产的TRESOR DORE巧克力与使用“金莎”商标的糖果食品混为一谈,错误认定了FERRERO ROCHER巧克力在中国境内知名的时间以及被控侵权产品TRESOR DORE巧克力在中国境内知名的事实。2、一审法院忽视FERRERO ROCHER巧克力在国际范围内的知名性证据,错误认定产品在国外的知名程度并不延伸至国内。而实际上,国家工商行政管理总局商标局及商标评审委员会均认可FERRERO ROCHER巧克力早在上世纪八十年代即有广泛的知名性,这与其在国际上形成的知名程度有重要联系。3、一审法院错误否定FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的部分包装、装潢的特有性,忽视基本的隔离比对、整体比对和主要部分的比对原则,违背有关法律法规的基本原则,导致已经认定TRESOR DORE 巧克力与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢近似却得出不构成混淆的错误结论。4、一审法院错误理解相关公众的概念,将接触免税商店商品的消费者错误地排除在相关公众之外,并将相关公众按照商品的价格及消费层次的不同需求进行分层。5、一审法院对费列罗公司坚持主张蒙特莎公司违反诚实信用原则,如抢注“金莎”商标以及在商标标签上虚假标注“始于1968年”等恶意行为也未予认定。故,请求二审法院撤销一审判决,支持其诉讼请求,本案全部诉讼费用由蒙特莎公司负担。
Montresor Ltd. argued that: The alleged infringing commodity was non other than 金莎 chocolate, and the packaging and decorations of the alleged infringing commodity were non other than those used for金莎 chocolate. The mark “TRESOR DORE” was a trademark registered in 2003, and Montresor Ltd. used a combination of “TRESOR DORE” and “金莎” on its product, which would not change the origin of the product. According to the single fact that FERRERO S.p.A sold FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate on a consignment basis, it could be determined that it was impossible for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate to become well-known in the Chinese market in 1990s. It was absolutely correct for the court of first instance to determine that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate had gradually become well-known to the relevant public only in recent years, later than Montresor Ltd., after an overall consideration of the sales period, sales territory, market share, advertisements and publicity, and other factors. The packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, except the part regarding trademarks, were not unique. The court of first instance was basically right in determining the claims of FERRERO S.p.A, except the erroneous determination that the decorations (2), (4) and (5) for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate were unique. FERRERO S.p.A misunderstood the “relevant public” concept and the criteria for determination of it. The original judgment was correct in the fact finding, application of law and substantive award. Therefore, Montresor Ltd. requested the court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment. 蒙特莎公司答辩称:被控侵权商品就是金莎巧克力,被控侵权商品的包装、装潢就是金莎巧克力使用的包装、装潢。“TRESOR DORE”商标是2003年获得注册的商标,蒙特莎公司将“TRESOR DORE”商标和“金莎”组合使用在自己的产品上并没有改变产品的来源。仅从费列罗公司寄售方式销售FERRERO ROCHER巧克力这一事实就可以认定其在上世纪九十年代的国内市场不可能知名。一审判决综合考虑商品的销售时间、范围、市场占有率及广告宣传等要素,认定FERRERO ROCHER巧克力近几年才逐渐发展为在相关公众中知名的商品,知名时间晚于蒙特莎公司完全正确。FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢除涉及商标的部分外不具有特有性。一审法院除认定费列罗公司诉请中②、④、⑤项为特有有误以外,其他基本正确。费列罗公司错误理解了相关公众和判断的标准。一审判决在认定事实、法律适用和实体裁决上正确。故,请求驳回上诉,维持原判。
The Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality as the court of second instance affirmed the majority of facts found by the court of first instance and also found that: FERRERO S.p.A, established in Italy in 1946, put its FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate into market in 1982 and had since advertised the product on televisions, newspapers, periodicals and magazines in many Asian countries and regions. FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate had a Chinese name “金莎” in Taiwan and Hong Kong regions of China, where it registered the trademark “金莎” in June 1990 and 1993 respectively. In February 1984, FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate entered the Chinese market by means of consignment sales through China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation and was sold mainly in duty-free shops and airport shops as allowed by then policies, which continued until 1993. In October 1986, FERRERO S.p.A registered upon approval its series of trademarks comprising “FERRERO ROCHER” and device (elliptical brim designs) and a combination thereof in China and used them on the chocolate product sold in the Chinese market. The main characteristics of the packaging and decorations for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate were as follows: (1) each chocolate ball was wrapped in golden paper; (2) a label fitted with elliptical brims and a print of the trademark “FERRERO ROCHER” was attached to the ball-shaped golden packaging as a decoration; (3) each chocolate ball wrapped in golden paper had a coffee-colored paper base as a decoration; (4) there was plastic transparent packaging in various shapes to show the inner golden ball-shaped packaging; and (5) the plastic transparent packaging was decorated with elliptical golden brim patterns, with the product design and trademark inside the ellipse and a red ribbon-like design extending from the trademark. An application was filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization for registration of a three-dimensional trademark for the 8pcs, 16pcs, 24pcs and 30pcs three-dimensional packaging of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate products. The administrations for industry and commerce of Guangdong Province, Hebei Province and other regions once investigated and punished many acts of imitating the packaging and decorations of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. In producing and selling TRESOR DORE Chocolate, Montresor Ltd. continued using the packaging and decorations for金莎chocolate of Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant, except that the trademark “金莎” was replaced with a combination mark “金莎TRESOR DORE.” In July 2003, the trademark “TRESOR DORE” was registered with the approval of the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce to Jiangsu Liangfeng Foods Group Co., Ltd. The main characteristics of the packaging and decorations used for金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. and distributed by Zhengyuan Company were basically the same as those used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. 天津市高级人民法院二审经审理认定了一审法院查明的大部分事实。同时另查明:费列罗公司于1946年在意大利成立,1982年其生产的FERRERO ROCHER巧克力投放市场,在亚洲多个国家和地区的电视、报刊、杂志曾发布广告。在我国台湾地区和香港市场,FERRERO ROCHER巧克力取名“金莎”巧克力,并分别于1990年6月和1993年在我国台湾地区和香港地区注册“金莎”商标。1984年2月,FERRERO ROCHER巧克力通过中国粮油食品进出口总公司采取寄售方式进入了国内市场,主要在免税店和机场商店等当时政策所允许的场所销售,并延续到1993年前。1986年10月,费列罗公司在中国核准注册了“FERRERO ROCHER”和图形(椭圆花边图案)以及其组合的系列商标,并在中国境内销售的巧克力商品上使用。FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢的主要特征是:1、每一粒球状巧克力用金色纸质包装;2、在金色球状包装上配以印有“FERRERO ROCHER”商标的椭圆形金边标签作为装潢;3、每一粒金球状巧克力均有咖啡色纸质底托作为装潢;4、若干形状的塑料透明包装,以呈现金球状内包装;5、塑料透明包装上使用椭圆形金边图案作为装潢,椭圆形内配有产品图案和商标,并由商标处延伸出红金颜色的绶带状图案。FERRERO ROCHER巧克力产品的8粒装、16粒装、24粒装以及30粒装立体包装于1984年在世界知识产权组织申请为立体商标。我国广东、河北等地工商行政管理部门曾多次查处仿冒FERRERO ROCHER巧克力包装、装潢的行为。蒙特莎公司生产、销售金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力商品,其除将“金莎”更换为“金莎TRESOR DORE”组合商标外,仍延续使用张家港市乳品一厂金莎巧克力商品使用的包装、装潢。2003年7月,“TRESOR DORE”商标经国家工商行政管理总局商标局核准注册,注册人为江苏梁丰食品集团有限公司。正元公司所经销的蒙特莎公司生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力商品使用的包装、装潢与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢主要特征基本相同。
The Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality as the court of second instance held that: The well-known commodity as mentioned in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China meant a commodity which was already available on a specific market and known to the relevant public. The popularity of a commodity should be evaluated comprehensively based on its popularity in specific markets at home and abroad, rather than popularity only in the Chinese market. FERRERO S.p.A was a world-known enterprise specializing in the production of chocolate food, which was a widely known fact in the industry. FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate produced by it had been well know and enjoyed a high degree of popularity among the relevant public in the chocolate market before its entry into the Chinese market in 1984. This product was sold openly in China for the first time in 1984. The packaging and decorations, as a whole unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate products, had distinctive visual features and effects in the then Chinese market. This product had been on the Chinese market and known to the relevant public for a long period of time afterwards, so it should be identified as a well-known commodity. The packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate constituted an integral design which expressed specific meanings and formed a unique packaging and decoration style. The TRESOR DORE Chocolate of Montresor Ltd. used packaging and decorations basically the same as those used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, but Montresor Ltd. could not prove that it had designed the packaging and decorations independently or used them earlier. Therefore, it should be determined that Montresor Ltd. had used the packaging and decorations unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate without authorization. According to the principle of good faith and generally accepted business ethics, a well-known commodity should be a result of honest business. In law, a business result acquired by means of unfair competition should not serve as a basis for evaluation of popularity of a commodity. Montresor Ltd. used the packaging and decorations unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate without authorization to produce and sell its TRESOR DORE Chocolate, which directly affected the sales and popularity of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. Therefore, if the claims of FERRERO S.p.A were dismissed on the grounds that the current popularity of the金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. was higher than that of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, the result of unfair competition in this case was in effect supported. According to the provisions of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China concerning the application of law for foreign-related civil relationships, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China should be applicable to the trial of this case. As both China and Italy were members of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, in case of any discrepancies between Chinese law and this convention, the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property should prevail. According to the provisions of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the application of Article 5(2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China to this case should not be limited to the general circumstances as set forth therein. In this case, it should be determined that the act of Montresor Ltd. constituted unfair competition which caused confusion to the commodity and business activities of FERRERO S.p.A and should be repressed according to law. This case should be tried in accordance with the purposes of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and the provisions of the relevant international convention to maintain good faith and fair competition in business activities. The court of first instance was improper in the application of law and unfair in handling the case. The main grounds for appeal of FERRERO S.p.A were well-founded and should be supported. 天津市高级人民法院二审审理认为,我国反不正当竞争法规定的知名商品,是指已在特定市场销售并为相关公众知晓的商品。对商品的知名状况的评价应根据其在国内外特定市场的知名度综合判定,不能理解为仅指在中国境内知名的商品。费列罗公司作为专业生产巧克力食品的国际知名企业,此系该行业公知的事实。其生产的FERRERO ROCHER巧克力在1984年进入国内市场销售前,已经在巧克力市场为相关公众知晓,具有较高的知名度。该产品自1984年开始在国内公开销售,在当时中国市场上,FERRERO ROCHER巧克力商品特有的包装、装潢作为整体,具有显著的视觉特征和效果。此后,该产品在中国市场长期销售,已为相关公众知晓,应当认定为知名商品。FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢为整体设计,表达了特定的含义,形成特有的包装、装潢形式。蒙特莎公司金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力使用了与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力基本相同的包装、装潢,而蒙特莎公司不能证明系自己独立设计或者在先使用,因此,认定其擅自使用了FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有的包装、装潢。根据诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德准则,知名商品应当是诚实经营的成果。在法律上不能把使用不正当竞争手段获取的经营成果作为商品知名度的评价依据。蒙特莎公司擅自使用FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有的包装、装潢,生产、销售金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力,直接影响了FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的销售和知名度。故,如果以蒙特莎公司生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力现在在我国的市场知名度高于FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的知名度为由,驳回费列罗公司的诉讼请求,实际上是维持了本案不正当竞争的后果。本案的审理根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》关于涉外民事关系法律适用之规定,应适用《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》。同时,我国与意大利共和国均为《保护工业产权巴黎公约》成员国,遇有我国法律与公约有不同规定的情形,应当适用《保护工业产权巴黎公约》的规定。依据《保护工业产权巴黎公约》第十条之二的规定,本案在适用《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条

法宝

第(二)项时,应当不限于法律所列举的一般情形,本案应认定蒙特莎公司的行为构成对费列罗公司的商品及商业活动造成混淆的不正当竞争,依法应予制止。故本案的审理应依据我国反不正当竞争法规定的宗旨和原则及相关国际公约规定,维护商业活动的诚实信用和公平竞争。一审判决适用法律不当,处理有失公允。上诉人费列罗公司的主要上诉理由成立,予以支持。
On January 9, 2006, in accordance with Articles 130 and 153.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Articles 1, 2 and 5(2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and Articles 10bis and 10ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality entered a judgment as follows: (1) The judgment of the court of first instance should be reversed; (2) Montresor Ltd. should immediately cease using the infringing packaging and decorations for 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate; (3) Montresor Ltd. should compensate FERRERO S.p.A in the amount of 700,000 yuan, which should be paid within 15 days after the effective date of this judgment; (4) Zhengyuan Company should be ordered to immediately cease distributing the 金莎TRESOR DORE series of chocolate using the infringing packaging and decorations; and (5) other claims of FERRERO S.p.A should be dismissed. Of the case acceptance fee for the original trial, 25,010 yuan, Montresor Ltd. should assume 20,000 yuan and FERRERO S.p.A should assume 5,010 yuan. Of the case acceptance fee for the trial upon appeal, 25,010 yuan, Montresor Ltd. should assume 20,000 yuan and FERRERO S.p.A should assume 5,010 yuan. 2006年1月9日,天津市高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十条、第一百五十三条第一款第二项,《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第一条、第二条和第五条第(二)项,并适用《保护工业产权巴黎公约》第十条之二、之三的规定,判决:一、撤销一审判决;二、蒙特莎公司立即停止使用金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力侵权包装、装潢;三、蒙特莎公司赔偿费列罗公司人民币700,000元,于本判决生效后十五日内给付;四、责令正元公司立即停止销售使用侵权包装、装潢的金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力;五、驳回费列罗公司其他诉讼请求。一审案件受理费25,010元,由蒙特莎公司承担20,000元,费列罗公司负担5010元。二审案件受理费25,010元,由蒙特莎公司承担20,000元,费列罗公司负担5010元。
Montresor Ltd. filed a petition with this Court for a retrial against the judgment of the court of second instance, claiming that: The judgment of the court of second instance was erroneous in the application of law, the legal basis and the substantive award, on the following grounds: (1) The broadened interpretation of the specific market by the court of second instance was not in conformity with the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, which also did not provide for the specific recognition of a well-known commodity. The fact that the products of FERRERO S.p.A were well-known in the international market would not necessarily mean that such products were also well-known in the Chinese market. (2) The market share of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate was smaller than that of 金莎chocolate. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the court of second instance erroneously overthrew the fact affirmed by the court of first instance that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate became well known later than 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. (3) The packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate were commonly used in the international chocolate industry rather than unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. Determining such packaging and decorations as unique would lead to FERRERO S.p.A's exclusive use of common packaging and decorations in the industry and monopoly of the chocolate ball market in China. Moreover, in FERRERO S.p.A v. DAIICHIKOSHO Trading Co., Ltd. for suspicious violations of the Fair Trading Act, the “Fair Trade Commission of Executive Yuan” in the Taiwan region of China held that the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate were not unique. The packaging and decorations used by Montresor Ltd. for 金莎Chocolate were developed and designed independently by employed professionals. Since 1990, Montresor Ltd. had used such packaging and decorations for 15 years, and such packaging and decorations had been adopted by a number of chocolate manufacturers at home and abroad. FERRERO S.p.A had never filed any claim with a people's court or a government agency under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law that Montresor Ltd. imitated the packaging and decorations of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, and such claims had lost their value of protection. (4) When buying chocolate, a kind of high-grade sweets, consumers would make their choices mostly by identifying trademarks rather than the packaging and decorations. Similar packaging and decorations would not make consumers confuse one product with another. (5) The judgment of the court of second instance went beyond the claims of FERRERO S.p.A, which only claimed that the packaging and decorations used for T3, T8, T16 and T24金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate (i.e. 3pcs, 8pcs, 16pcs and 24pcs packed) constituted an infringement, by ordering Montresor Ltd. to immediately cease using the packaging and decorations used for 金莎TRESOR DORE series of chocolate, which illegally included the T12, T36, T42, T45 and paper-box packed 4pcs, 8pcs and 16pcs products of Montresor Ltd. in violation of the principle of “no complaint, no trial” in civil procedure. Therefore, Montresor Ltd. requested this Court to reverse the judgment of the court of second instance, uphold the original judgment and order FERRERO S.p.A to assume all litigation costs for this case. 蒙特莎公司不服二审判决,向本院提出再审申请称,二审判决在事实认定、法律依据以及实体判决中均存在错误。主要理由为:1、二审判决对特定市场作出的扩大解释不符合《保护工业产权巴黎公约》的规定,而且,该公约并未就如何认定知名商品作出具体规定。费列罗公司的产品在国际市场上的知名不能当然地推导其在国内市场也知名。2、FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的市场占有率低于金莎巧克力,二审在无相反证据情况下,错误地推翻了一审认定的FERRERO ROCHER巧克力知名的时间晚于蒙特莎公司生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力的事实。3、FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢是国际巧克力行业通用的包装、装潢,不具有特有性。认定该包装、装潢为特有会使巧克力行业的通用包装、装潢被费列罗公司排他性独占使用,垄断国内球形巧克力市场。而且,我国台湾地区“行政院公平交易委员会”就费列罗公司检举台湾大昌贸易有限公司涉嫌违反公平交易法一案中认为,FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢不具有特有性。蒙特莎公司使用的金莎巧克力产品的包装、装潢是委托专业人员自主开发设计的。蒙特莎公司自1990年起对此包装、装潢已经使用了长达15年,且此种包装、装潢现已被国内外众多巧克力生产企业所采用。费列罗公司从未依照反不正当竞争法向人民法院或者行政机关主张过蒙特莎公司仿冒FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力的包装、装潢,现该主张权利已无保护价值。4、巧克力作为高档甜食,消费者购买时主要依靠对商标的识别,不会根据包装、装潢进行识别,相似的包装、装潢不会导致消费者混淆。5、二审判决超越了当事人诉讼请求,费列罗公司仅起诉金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力T3、T8、T16、T24(分别指3粒装、8粒装、16粒装、24粒装)使用的包装、装潢侵权,但二审判决蒙特莎公司立即停止使用金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力使用的包装、装潢,不合法地包括了蒙特莎公司生产的T12、T36、T42、T45以及纸盒包装的4粒、8粒、16粒等七种产品,违反了民事诉讼不告不理的原则。故,请求撤销二审判决,维持一审判决并判令费列罗公司承担本案全部诉讼费用。
FERRERO S.p.A argued that, the judgment of the court of second instance was clear in the fact finding and correct in the application of law and the grounds of Montresor Ltd. for retrial were supported by no factual and legal basis. The grounds of FERRERO S.p.A included: (1) It was correct for the court of second instance to affirm that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate was well known and that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate entered the Chinese market in 1984. (2) Montresor Ltd. could not prove that the packaging and decorations involved were designed by it independently or used by it earlier. (3) The court of second instance determined that Montresor Ltd. violated the good faith principle and generally accepted business ethics by imitating the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate and the time when the product of Montresor became well-known was not determined because such product should not be determined as a well-known commodity. Meanwhile, the court of second instance rejected the comparison of popularity between two products by the court of first instance. Therefore, the judgment of the court of second instance fundamentally maintained the good faith principle established in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China. (4) The packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate had unique characteristics distinctive from other products. Such packaging and decorations resulted in the unique identity of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate through shape, size, pattern, color, arrangement, combination and location. Once seeing such unique packaging and decorations, ordinary consumers would identify and associate them with FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. (5) The packaging and decorations used for 金莎 chocolate of Zhangjiagang First Dairy Plant had changed several times since its debut in 1990s. So far, the packaging and decorations for 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate of Montresor Ltd. had been much different from those used for the product initially launched and been very similar to those used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, sufficient to cause confusion and misidentification on the part of consumers. Even if Montresor Ltd. had long used the current packaging and decorations, the application of FERRERO S.p.A for protection of its relevant rights would not be affected. (6) The judicial decision made by a court in the Taiwan region of China concerning the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate should not serve as a reference for the trial of this case. (7) The infringing packaging and decorations used for 金莎TRESOR DORE series of chocolate which Montresor Ltd. was ordered by the court of second instance to cease using were exactly the packaging and decorations of which FERRERO S.p.A claimed protection to the court of first instance, not beyond its claims. Therefore, FERRERO S.p.A requested this Court to dismiss the retrial petition of Montresor Ltd. and uphold the judgment of the court of second instance. 费列罗公司答辩称,二审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,蒙特莎公司的再审理由缺乏事实和法律依据。主要理由为:1、二审对FERRERO ROCHER巧克力知名性以及FERRERO ROCHER巧克力1984年进入中国市场的认定正确。2、蒙特莎公司不能证明涉案包装、装潢是自己独立设计或者在先使用。3、二审认定蒙特莎公司违反诚实信用原则和公认的道德准则,仿冒FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢,不能认定其产品为知名商品,故没有就其知名的时间进行认定;同时反驳了一审法院对两个产品知名度进行比较的做法。因此,二审判决从根本上维护了我国反不正当竞争法确立的诚实信用准则。4、FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢具有区别其他产品的显著特征,具有特有性。该包装、装潢通过形状、大小、图案、颜色以及排列组合、摆放位置综合形成了FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的独有识别性。一般消费者看到该特有包装、装潢即可识别并联想到是FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力。5、张家港市乳品一厂生产的金莎巧克力使用的包装、装潢自上世纪九十年代面世以来,出现了很多次变动,发展至今,蒙特莎公司生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力已经与当初面世使用的包装、装潢有很大区别,且与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢非常相似,足以使消费者造成混淆,引起误认。即使蒙特莎公司长期使用现有包装、装潢,也不影响费列罗公司申请保护相关权利。6、我国台湾地区法院对FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力使用的包装、装潢的司法判决不能作为本案审理的参考依据。7、二审判决蒙特莎公司停止使用金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力的侵权包装、装潢正是费列罗公司一审诉请所请求保护的包装、装潢,并没有超越诉讼请求。故请求驳回蒙特莎公司的再审申请,维持二审判决。
The new evidence submitted by retrial petitioner Montresor Ltd. during the period of evidence submission includes: (1) A letter issued by China Association of Bakery & Confectionary Industry, to prove that the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are commonly used packaging and decorations. (2) The written reexamination decisions issued by the Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on dismissing the application of FERRERO S.p.A for the protection of its three three-dimensional trademarks through territorial extension (No. 3190 [2006] Trademark Appeal; No. 3191 [2006] Trademark Appeal; No. 3192 [2006] Trademark Appeal), to prove that the applications of FERRERO S.p.A for the three-dimensional trademarks regarding the packaging and decorations of the product involved were dismissed. (3) The written review decisions (No. 6606, 6607 and 6913 respectively) issued by the Patent Review Board of the State Intellectual Property Office regarding a request for invalidation of three design patents of FERRERO S.p.A, to prove that the design patents for which FERRERO S.p.A applied for the packaging and decorations of its product involved in this case were invalidated. (4) The ruling of the “Supreme Administrative Court” in the Taiwan region of China, to prove that the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are not unique. (5) Three kinds of chocolate products, Capitol, Capricci and Anio, which are produced and sold outside of the Chinese market with packaging and decorations similar to those used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, to prove that the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are commonly used in the industry. (6) Three written review decisions regarding trademark objections issued by the Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (No. 4134 [2006] Trademark Appeal; No. 4135 [2006] Trademark Appeal; No. 4135 [2006] Trademark Appeal), to prove that although the Trademark Appeal Board affirmed in priority right cases that the “FERRERO ROCHER and device” trademark of FERRERO S.p.A enjoyed a high degree of popularity, it is insufficient to prove that the trademark had enjoyed a high degree of popularity in China before November 27, 1995. 在举证期限内,再审申请人蒙特莎公司向本院提交的新证据有:1、中国焙烤食品糖制品工业协会出具的证明FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢是通用包装、装潢的函。2、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会驳回费列罗公司申请其三个立体商标领土延伸保护的复审决定书,分别为商评字(2006)第3190号、商评字(2006)第3191号、商评字(2006)第3192号。证明费列罗公司就涉案产品的包装、装潢申请的立体商标已被驳回。3、国家知识产权局专利复审委员会对费列罗公司的三项外观设计专利无效宣告请求审查决定书,分别为第6606号、第6607号、第6913号。证明费列罗公司就涉案产品的包装、装潢申请的外观设计专利被宣告无效。4、我国台湾地区“最高行政法院”裁定,证明FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢不具有特有性。5、三种在中国市场以外生产和销售的与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢相似的巧克力产品,分别为Capitol、Capricci、Anio巧克力。证明FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢是通用包装、装潢。6、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会的三份商标异议复审裁定书,分别为商评字(2006)第4134号、商评字(2006)第4135号、商评字(2006)第4136号。证明商标评审委员会的在先案例中虽然认定费列罗公司“FERRERO ROCHER及图”商标有较高的知名度,但不足以引证该商标在1995年11月27日前在中国境内已具有较高知名度。
The new evidence submitted by retrial respondent FERRERO S.p.A during the period of evidence submission includes: (1) Judgments of foreign courts which affirmed infringement by imitating packaging and decorations for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, to prove that the courts in France, Germany, Czech, Turkey and other countries held that the packaging and decorations for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate were unique and provided with protection. (2) The judgment of a local court in Tel Aviv of Israel determining that the 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. was an infringing product. (3) The judgments entered by the Shihlin Court and the High Court in the Taiwan region of China, to prove that the trial of the infringement case involving the packaging and decorations for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate in Taiwan as mentioned by Montresor Ltd. is still pending. (4) The Letter of Opinion on Trademark Legal Argumentation issued by the Chinese Enterprise Trademark Authentication Center, to prove that the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate is unique rather than commonly used in the industry. (5) The registration documents for the three-dimensional trademark of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate in Taiwan, to prove that the packaging and decorations used for FERRER ROCHER Chocolate are unique. (6) The market survey report prepared by Millward Brown ACSR, to prove that both the popularity and market penetration of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are higher than those of 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate. (7) The survey data from Shanghai Nielsen Market Research Co., Ltd. regarding FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate and 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate, to prove that both the sales volume and market share of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate in large cities of China in 2004 and 2005 were higher than those of 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate. (8) The advertisement posted on CAAC magazine, Issue 4, 1990, to prove that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate identical with the alleged packaging and decorations in this case was advertized and sold in China in the name of “金莎” in 1990. (9) Other chocolate products of FERRERO S.p.A not yet available in China and the real objects of other foreign well-known chocolate products which Montresor Ltd. imitates, to prove Montresor Ltd.'s malevolence in committing imitation. 在举证期限内,再审被申请人费列罗公司向本院提交的新证据有:1、国外法院对仿冒FERRERO ROCHER巧克力包装、装潢构成侵权的判决。证明法国、德国、捷克、土耳其等国的法院认定FERRERO ROCHER巧克力包装、装潢具有特有性,并给予了保护。2、以色列特拉维夫地方法院认定蒙特莎公司生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力产品为侵权产品的判决。3、我国台湾地区士林法院及台湾地区高等法院的判决。证明蒙特莎公司提及的在台湾地区的涉及FERRERO ROCHER巧克力包装、装潢的侵权诉讼案件尚未终审。4、中企商标鉴定中心出具的《商标法律论证意见书》。证明FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢并非通用包装、装潢,具有特有性。5、FERRERO ROCHER巧克力三维立体商标在台湾地区注册的文件。证明FERRER ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢具有特有性。6、北京华通明略信息咨询有限公司市场调查报告。证明FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的品牌认知度和市场渗透度均高于金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力产品。7、上海尼尔森市场研究有限公司就FERRERO ROCHER巧克力及金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力的调查数据。证明FERRERO ROCHER巧克力2004年和2005年的销售量及市场占有份额在全国大城市均高于金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力。8、在1990年第四期《中国民航》杂志上刊登的广告。证明与涉案包装、装潢一致的FERRERO ROCHER巧克力在1990年是以“金莎”巧克力的名义在中国进行的广告宣传及销售。9、蒙特莎公司模仿的费列罗公司尚未在中国销售的其他巧克力产品以及其他国外知名巧克力产品实物。证明蒙特莎公司仿冒行为的主观恶意。
Through retrial, this Court finds that the facts found by the courts of first and second instances are basically true. 本院经再审审理查明:一、二审法院认定的事实基本属实。
This Court also finds that: The packaging and decorations for the alleged infringing 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate are as follows: each 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate ball is wrapped in golden tinfoil paper; a label with elliptical golden brims and a print of the trademark “金莎TRESOR DORE” is attached to the top of each golden ball-shaped packaging; each golden ball-shaped chocolate has a coffee-colored paper base in the shape of a bowl with smooth bottom and corrugated sides; the outer packing is transparent plastic sheet or plastic box; a design of elliptical golden brims is in the middle of the outer packing, and inside it there are a product design and the trademark “金莎TRESOR DORE,” from which a red golden ribbon stretches out. The characteristics above are similar to the packaging and decorations of which FERRERO S.p.A claimed protection in terms of overall impression and essential part. 本院另查明:被控侵权的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力包装、装潢为:每粒金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力呈球状并均由金色锡纸包装;在每粒金球状包装顶部均配以印有“金莎TRESOR DORE”商标的椭圆形金边标签;每粒金球状巧克力均配有底面平滑无褶皱、侧面带波浪褶皱的呈碗状的咖啡色纸质底托;外包装为透明塑料纸或塑料盒;外包装正中处使用椭圆金边图案,内配产品图案及金莎TRESOR DORE商标,并由此延伸出红金色绶带。以上特征与费列罗公司起诉中请求保护的包装、装潢在整体印象和主要部分上相近似。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
In the opinion of this Court, the disputes in this case mainly focus on whether FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate is a prior well-known commodity, whether the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are unique and whether the packaging and decorations used for 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate of Montresor Ltd. constitute unfair competition. 本院认为,本案主要涉及FERRERO ROCHER巧克力是否为在先知名商品,FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢是否为特有包装、装潢,以及蒙特莎公司生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力使用包装、装潢是否构成不正当竞争行为等争议焦点问题。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING北京大学互联网法律中心 
1. Whether FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate is a prior well-known commodity 一、关于FERRERO ROCHER巧克力是否为在先知名商品
According to the consignment contract and the letter of confirmation of the consignment contract entered into between China National Cereals, Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation and FERRERO S.p.A and other relevant evidence, it was correct for the court of second instance to determine that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate became available in the territory of China in 1984. The well-known commodity as referred to in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China means a commodity which enjoys certain popularity in the Chinese market and is known by the relevant public. The protection of the unique name, packaging and decorations under Chinese law of a commodity already well known internationally is still conditioned upon that it is known by the relevant public in China. The claimed popularity of a product or service is often developed from the production, sales or other business activities related to it in China. To recognize a well-known commodity, one must consider the sales period, territory, volume and target of the commodity, the duration, extent and geographical scope of publicity, any protection of it as a well-known commodity and other factors, so as to make a comprehensive judgment; its established popularity abroad may also be considered appropriately. In the judgment of the court of second instance, the expression that “the popularity of a commodity should be evaluated comprehensively based on its popularity in specific markets at home and abroad, rather than its popularity only in the Chinese market” is flawed. However, it was correct for the court of second instance to determine that FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate was a well-known commodity with a high degree of popularity in relevant markets in China according to the time of its debut in China, its sales condition and various publicity activities conducted by FERRERO S.p.A. The claim of the retrial petitioner that “FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate became well known in Chinese markets later than 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate” was unfounded. 根据中国粮油食品进出口总公司与费列罗公司签订的寄售合同、寄售合同确认书等有关证据,二审法院认定FERRERO ROCHER巧克力自1984年开始在中国境内销售无误。反不正当竞争法所指的知名商品,是在中国境内具有一定的市场知名度,为相关公众所知悉的商品。在国际已知名的商品,我国法律对其特有名称、包装、装潢的保护,仍应以在中国境内为相关公众所知悉为必要。所主张的商品或者服务具有知名度,通常系由在中国境内生产、销售或者从事其他经营活动而产生。认定知名商品,应当考虑该商品的销售时间、销售区域、销售额和销售对象,进行任何宣传的持续时间、程度和地域范围,作为知名商品受保护的情况等因素,进行综合判断;也不排除适当考虑国外已知名的因素。本案二审判决中关于“对商品知名状况的评价应根据其在国内外特定市场的知名度综合判定,不能理解为仅指在中国境内知名的商品”的表述欠当,但根据FERRERO ROCHER巧克力进入中国市场的时间、销售情况以及费列罗公司进行的多种宣传活动,认定其属于在中国境内的相关市场中具有较高知名度的知名商品正确。再审申请人关于FERRERO ROCHER巧克力在中国境内市场知名的时间晚于金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力的主张不能成立。
2. Whether the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are unique 二、关于FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢是否具有特有性
The packaging such as containers holding or protecting a commodity and the decorations comprising words, designs and colors and their arrangements and combinations attached to the commodity or the packaging thereof should be the unique packaging and decorations protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law if the source of the commodity is distinguishable from others through them. The packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate of which FERRERO S.p.A claimed protection comprise a series of elements. If the packaging and decorations only comprise a simple combination of tinfoil paper used to wrap chocolate balls and transparent plastic outer packing used to indicate the inner packing of chocolate, such packaging and decorations are not unique, because they have no distinct characteristics for distinguishing between the sources of commodities; and all elements of such a combination are commonly used packaging and decoration elements in the food packaging industry and may not be used exclusively. However, the arrangement and combination options for tinfoil paper, paper base, public boxes and other packaging materials and colors and shapes are many; and if a trademark label is attached to the packaging, there is also considerable freedom regarding the size, design and composition methodology of the label. Within the extent of freedom in designing, a unique arrangement or combination of packaging and decoration elements which makes them distinctive in the source of commodity may constitute the unique packaging and decorations of the commodity. The packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, with unique arrangement and combination of components in word, pattern, color, shape and size, form a distinctive overall image, irrelevant to the functionality of the commodity. Years of use and publicity are sufficient to make the relevant public to associate the above overall image of the packaging and decorations with FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate of FERRERO S.p.A. As they play the role of identifying the source of a commodity, they should be the unique packaging and decorations protected under Article 5(2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The grounds of the retrial petitioner that “determining such packaging and decorations as unique would lead to FERRERO S.p.A's exclusive use of packaging and decorations commonly used in the industry and monopoly of the chocolate ball market in China” are unfounded. 盛装或者保护商品的容器等包装,以及在商品或者其包装上附加的文字、图案、色彩及其排列组合所构成的装潢,在其能够区别商品来源时,即属于反不正当竞争法北大法宝,版权所有保护的特有包装、装潢。费列罗公司请求保护的FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢系由一系列要素构成。如果仅仅以锡箔纸包裹球状巧克力,采用透明塑料外包装,呈现巧克力内包装等方式进行简单的组合,所形成的包装、装潢因无区别商品来源的显著特征而不具有特有性;而且,这种组合中的各个要素也属于食品包装行业中通用的包装、装潢元素,不能被独占使用。但是,锡纸、纸托、塑料盒等包装材质与形状、颜色的排列组合有很大的选择空间;将商标标签附加在包装上,该标签的尺寸、图案、构图方法等亦有很大的设计自由度。在可以自由设计的范围内,将包装、装潢各要素独特排列组合,使其具有区别商品来源的显著特征,可以构成商品特有的包装、装潢。FERRERO ROCHER巧克力所使用的包装、装潢因其构成要素在文字、图形、色彩、形状、大小等方面的排列组合具有独特性,形成了显著的整体形象,且与商品的功能性无关,经过长时间使用和大量宣传,已足以使相关公众将上述包装、装潢的整体形象与费列罗公司的FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力商品联系起来,具有识别其商品来源的作用,应当属于反不正当竞争法五条第(二)项所保护的特有的包装、装潢。再审申请人关于判定涉案包装、装潢为特有会使巧克力行业的通用包装、装潢被费列罗公司排他性独占使用,垄断国内球形巧克力市场等理由不能成立。
Moreover, the packaging and decorations for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate of FERRERO S.p.A were used earlier. The claim of Montresor Ltd. that the alleged packaging and decorations used by it were developed and designed independently by it” is not supported by sufficient evidence. It is correct for the court of second instance to determine that Montresor Ltd. used packaging and decorations unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate without authorization. 此外,费列罗公司FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的包装、装潢使用在先,蒙特莎公司主张其使用的涉案包装、装潢为自主开发设计缺乏充分证据支持,二审判决认定蒙特莎公司擅自使用FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有包装、装潢正确。
The purpose of the claims in this case is t, o protect the overall des, ign of the packaging and decorations comprising words, patterns, colors, shapes, sizes and other elements , , used for FERRERO ROCHER Choc, olate by repressing unfair competition. The protected overall image design is different from a three-dimensional symbolic mark and does not affect the independent judgment of competent authorities concerning the registrability of a three-dimensional mark. The written reexamination decisions of the Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce regarding dismissing the applications of FERRERO S.p.A for the protection of its three three-dimensional trademarks through territorial extension as submitted by Montresor Ltd. are not directly related to this case and would not affect the handling of this case. The legal protection requirements for the unique packaging and decorations for well-known commodities are different from those for design patents. The review decision of the Patent Review Board of the State Intellectual Property Office regarding a request for invalidation of three design patents of FERRERO S.p.A as submitted by Montresor Ltd. are also not directly related to determining whether the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate are unique. The ruling of the “Supreme Administrative Court” in the Taiwan region of China submitted by Montresor Ltd. and judgments of foreign courts submitted by FERRERO S.p.A are also irrelevant to the relevant markets involved in this case and should not serve as a basis for the fact finding in this case. 本案诉请是以制止不正当竞争行为的方式保护FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力使用的由文字、图形、色彩、形状、大小等诸要素构成的包装、装潢的整体设计,该受保护的整体形象设计不同于三维标志性的立体商标,不影响相关部门对于有关立体商标可注册性的独立判断。蒙特莎公司提交的国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会驳回费列罗公司立体商标领土延伸保护的复审决定等与本案并无直接关联,不影响本案的处理。知名商品的特有包装、装潢与外观设计专利的法律保护要求也不同,蒙特莎公司提交的国家知识产权局专利复审委员会对费列罗公司外观设计专利无效宣告请求审查决定与判断FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢是否具有特有性亦无直接关联。蒙特莎公司提交的我国台湾地区“最高行政法院”的裁定以及费列罗公司提交的国外法院的判决等亦与本案所涉相关市场不具有关联性,不能作为本案认定事实的依据。
3. Whether the relevant public tends to confuse FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate with 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate and misidentify them 三、关于相关公众是否容易对FERRERO ROCHER巧克力与金莎TRESOR DORE 巧克力引起混淆、误认
In the design of packaging and decorations for a commodity, enterprises may learn from each other and innovate based on existing designs to develop distinctive packaging and decorations distinguishing their own commodities from those of others. This approach is an inevitable requirement of market operation and competition. As far as this case is concerned, Montresor Ltd. may freely design its own packing and decorations distinctive from prior unique packaging and decorations by making full use of the common elements for chocolate packaging and decoration designing. However, no one is allowed to fully imitate the unique packaging and decorations of others with the function of identifying the source of a commodity to cause confusion and misrecognition in the market; and such full imitation constitutes unfair competition. The confusion and misidentification as referred to in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China mean that it suffices to make the relevant public misidentify the source of a commodity, including a misunderstanding that there is any particular relationship with the producer or dealer of the well-known commodity such as a relationship of licensed use or an affiliation. In this case, as the overall image of the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate has distinct characteristics distinguishing the source of it from those of other commodities, and the packaging and decorations used for the chocolate products of Montresor Ltd. are very similar visually to the packaging and decorations unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, even if the commodities of both parties are different in terms of price, quality, taste and consumption level as well as trade name and trademark, it is still inevitable that the relevant public tends to have a misunderstanding that the 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate is economically associated with FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate in some way. Therefore, the grounds of the retrial petitioner that similar packaging and decorations in this case would not cause confusion and misidentification among consumers are unfounded. 对商品包装、装潢的设计,不同经营者之间可以相互学习、借鉴,并在此基础上进行创新设计,形成有明显区别各自商品的包装、装潢。这种作法是市场经营和竞争的必然要求。就本案而言,蒙特莎公司可以充分利用巧克力包装、装潢设计中的通用要素,自由设计与他人在先使用的特有包装、装潢具有明显区别的包装、装潢。但是,对他人具有识别商品来源意义的特有包装、装潢,则不能作足以引起市场混淆、误认的全面模仿,否则就会构成不正当的市场竞争。我国反不正当竞争法中规定的混淆、误认,是指足以使相关公众对商品的来源产生误认,包括误认为与知名商品的经营者具有许可使用、关联企业关系等特定联系。本案中,由于FERRERO ROCHER巧克力使用的包装、装潢的整体形象具有区别商品来源的显著特征,蒙特莎公司在其巧克力商品上使用的包装、装潢与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有包装、装潢又达到在视觉上非常近似的程度,即使双方商品存在价格、质量、口味、消费层次等方面的差异和厂商名称、商标不同等因素,仍不免使相关公众易于误认金莎TRESOR DORE 巧克力与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力存在某种经济上的联系。据此,再审申请人关于本案相似包装、装潢不会构成消费者混淆、误认的理由不能成立。
4. Whether the judgment of the court of second instance went beyond the claims of the parties and whether the amount of compensation awarded is appropriate 四、关于二审判决是否超越当事人诉讼请求以及判决赔偿数额是否适当
During the trial by the court of first instance, FERRERO S.p.A enumerated T3, T8, T16 and T24 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate of Montresor Ltd. which used the packaging and decorations similar to its unique packaging and decorations without authorization, causing confusion and misidentification among consumers. Although the seven kinds of chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. including T12, T36, T42 and T45 and paper box-packed 4pcs, 8pcs and 16pcs were not expressly enumerated in the infringement accusation, in its complaint, FERRERO S.p.A requested the court to order the infringers to cease producing and selling any product using packaging and decorations identical with any or any combination of the packaging and decorations unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate or any product using packaging and decorations so similar to those unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate that they may cause misidentification among consumers. The above another seven kinds of chocolate produced by Montresor Ltd. also used the packaging and decorations similar to those unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate. It is not beyond the claims of FERRERO S.p.A for the court of second instance ordered Montresor Ltd. to immediately cease using the infringing packaging and decorations for 金莎TRESOR DORE series of products. 在原审审理期间,费列罗公司列举提出蒙特莎公司生产的T3、T8、T16、T24金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力擅自使用了与其特有包装、装潢近似的包装、装潢,使消费者产生混淆、误认。虽然未明确列举对蒙特莎公司生产的T12、T36、T42、T45以及纸盒包装的4粒、8粒、16粒等7种巧克力商品的侵权指控,但在费列罗公司的起诉状中,请求判令不得生产、销售符合FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有的任意一项或者几项组合的包装、装潢的产品或者任何与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有包装、装潢相似的足以引起消费者误认的产品。蒙特莎公司生产的上述另外7种巧克力也均采用了与FERRERO ROCHER巧克力特有包装、装潢近似的包装、装潢。二审判令蒙特莎公司立即停止使用金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力侵权包装、装潢并未超出费列罗公司的诉讼请求。
The unique packaging and decorations for a well-known commodity are within the scope of commercial identifications. In the determination of damages for unfair competition in Article 5(2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, one may refer to the method for determining damages for infringement upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. As FERRERO S.p.A failed to provide evidence on the economic losses incurred by it or the profits acquired by Montresor Ltd. due to the unfair competition in this case, a people's court may grant damages in the amount of less than 500,000 yuan by referring to the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law concerning statutory damages according to the circumstances of the infringement. Accordingly, the 700,000 yuan damages paid by Montresor Ltd. to FERRERO S.p.A as awarded by the court of second instance are lack of legal basis and should be corrected. Taking into comprehensive consideration the popularity of FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate, the time and scale of the unfair competition committed by Montresor Ltd. and other factors, this Court determines at its discretion that Montresor Ltd. should pay 500,000 yuan to FERRERO S.p.A as compensation for the latter's economic losses. 知名商品的特有包装、装潢属于商业标识的范畴,确定反不正当竞争法五条第(二)项规定的不正当竞争行为的损害赔偿额,可以参照确定侵犯注册商标专用权的损害赔偿额的方法。由于费列罗公司未能提供证据证明其因本案不正当竞争行为所遭受的经济损失或者蒙特莎公司因本案不正当竞争行为所获得的利润,人民法院在确定赔偿数额时可以参照商标法有关法定赔偿的规定,根据侵权行为的情节,给予人民币50万元以下的赔偿。据此,二审法院判令蒙特莎公司赔偿费列罗公司人民币70万元于法无据,应予纠正。本院综合考虑FERRERO ROCHER巧克力的知名度、蒙特莎公司实施不正当竞争行为的时间、规模等因素,酌情确定蒙特莎公司赔偿费列罗公司人民币50万元的经济损失。
In addition, the object of protection which FERRERO S.p.A claimed in this case is the unique packaging and decorations for a well-known commodity. Article 5 (2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of China has specifically provided for the protection of such commodities, without any conflict with the relevant provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. As the provisions of the national law are consistent with this convention, it is unnecessary to invoke the relevant provision of this convention. Therefore, the grounds in the judgment of the court of second instance that “In case of any discrepancies between Chinese law and this convention, the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property should prevail. For this case, the application of Article 5 (2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China to this case should not be limited to the general circumstances listed therein. It should be determined that the acts of Montresor Ltd. constituted unfair competition which caused confusion to the commodity and business activities of FERRERO S.p.A” are inappropriate and should be corrected. 此外,本案费列罗公司请求保护的是知名商品特有的包装、装潢,我国反不正当竞争法第五条第(二)项对此已有明确的保护规定,而且该规定与《保护工业产权巴黎公约》的有关规定并无不合,在国内已有符合条约要求的法律规定的情况下,无需再援引条约的相关规定。因此,二审判决关于“遇有我国法律与《保护工业产权巴黎公约》有不同规定的情形,应当适用公约的规定,本案适用反不正当竞争法五条第(二)项时,应当不限于法律所列举的一般情形,应认定蒙特莎公司的行为构成对费列罗公司的商品及商业活动造成混淆的不正当竞争”的理由不当,应予纠正。
JUDGMENT 
In conclusion, Montresor Ltd. committed unfair competition by using without authorization the packaging and decorations similar to those unique to FERRERO ROCHER Chocolate of FERRERO S.p.A on 金莎TRESOR DORE Chocolate commodity produced by it, sufficient to cause confusion and misidentification on the part of the relevant public regarding the source of commodity. The reasons in the judgment of the court of second instance is partially flawed, but it is not inappropriate to hold that Montresor Ltd. constituted unfair competition and order it to immediately cease using the infringing packaging and decorations for 金莎TRESOR DORE series chocolate. To draw a clear line between the uniqueness of the overall image of the packaging and decorations which should be protected by law and the generality of certain components therein and between the unique packaging and decorations and the related three-dimensional trademarks which FERRERO S.p.A claimed in separate cases, so as to more accurately define the scope of unfair competition in this case, the principal text of the judgment of the court of second instance should be adjusted appropriately. The amount of damages determined in the judgment of the court of second instance is inappropriate and should be corrected. In accordance with Article 5 (2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 177.2 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court enters the following judgment: 综上,蒙特莎公司在其生产的金莎TRESOR DORE巧克力商品上,擅自使用与费列罗公司的FERRERO ROCHER 巧克力包装、装潢相近似的包装、装潢,足以引起相关公众对商品来源的混淆、误认,构成不正当竞争行为。二审判决部分理由不妥,但判决蒙特莎公司的行为构成不正当竞争并责令立即停止使用金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力违法包装、装潢并无不当。为划清本案依法应受保护的包装、装潢整体形象的特有性与其中某些构成要素的通用性,以及该特有包装、装潢与费列罗公司另案主张的相关立体商标之间的界限,更加准确地界定本案不正当竞争行为的范围,对二审有关判决主文作适当调整。二审判决对赔偿额的确定不当,应予纠正。根据《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条第(二)项和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十七条第二款的规定,判决如下:
1. Items 1 and 5 in the civil judgment (No. 36 [2005], Civil Division III, Final, Tianjin HPC) of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality shall be upheld. 一、维持天津市高级人民法院(2005)津高民三终字第36号民事判决第一项、第五项;
2. Item 2 in the civil judgment (No. 36 [2005], Civil Division III, Final, Tianjin HPC) of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality shall be amended to read: “Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. shall immediately cease its acts of unfair competition, that is, using the packaging and decorations similar to those unique to FERRERO ROCHER series of chocolate commodities of FERRERO S.p.A on the alleged 金莎TRESOR DORE series of chocolate commodities.” 二、变更天津市高级人民法院(2005)津高民三终字第36号民事判决第二项为:蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司立即停止在本案金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力商品上使用与意大利费列罗公司(FERRERO S.p.A)的FERRERO ROCHER 系列巧克力商品的特有包装、装潢相近似的包装、装潢的不正当竞争行为;
3. Item 3 in the civil judgment (No. 36 [2005], Civil Division III, Final, Tianjin HPC) of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality shall be amended to read: “Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. shall compensate FERRERO S.p.A in the amount of 500,000 yuan within 15 days after the service of this judgment. In case of deferred payment, double interest on the debt for the period of deferred performance shall be paid in accordance with Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.” 三、变更天津市高级人民法院(2005)津高民三终字第36号民事判决第三项为:蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司自本判决送达后十五日内,赔偿意大利费列罗公司(FERRERO S.p.A)人民币500,000元。逾期支付,按照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十二条之规定,加倍支付迟延履行期间的债务利息。
4. Item 4 in the civil judgment (No. 36 [2005], Civil Division III, Final, Tianjin HPC) of the Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality shall be amended to read: “Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone shall be ordered to immediately cease selling the above金莎TRESOR DORE series of chocolate commodities.” 四、变更天津市高级人民法院(2005)津高民三终字第36号民事判决第四项为:责令天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司立即停止销售上述金莎TRESOR DORE系列巧克力商品。
Of the case acceptance fee for the original trial, 25,010 yuan, Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. shall assume 20,000 yuan and FERRERO S.p.A shall assume 5,010 yuan. Of the case acceptance fee for the trial upon appeal, 25,010 yuan, Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. shall assume 20,000 yuan and FERRERO S.p.A shall assume 5,010 yuan. 本案一审案件受理费25,010元,由蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司承担20,000元,意大利费列罗公司(FERRERO S.p.A)负担5010元。二审案件受理费25,010元,由蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司承担20,000元,意大利费列罗公司(FERRERO S.p.A)负担5010元。
This judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
Presiding judge: Kong Xiangjun 审 判 长 孔祥俊
Judge: Wang Yongchang 审 判 员 王永昌
Acting judge: He Zhonglin 代理审判员 郃中林
March 24, 2008 二○○八年三月二十四日
Clerk: Wang Xin

 书 记 员 王 新
 

     
     
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