>>>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
 
Aitefu Company v. Beijing Ditan Hospital (Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition)
爱特福公司诉北京地坛医院等不正当竞争纠纷上诉案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->Others
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 03-23-2003
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 5,2003

Aitefu Company v. Beijing Ditan Hospital (Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition)
(Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition)
爱特福公司诉北京地坛医院等不正当竞争纠纷上诉案

Aitefu Company v. Beijing Ditan Hospital
(Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition)

 

爱特福公司诉北京地坛医院等不正当竞争纠纷上诉案

Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院
Civil Judgment 民事判决书
Final Judgment No.1 [2002] of No.3 Civil Tribunal (2002)民三终字第1号
BASIC FACTS 
Appellant (Defendant of the Original Trial): Jiangsu Aitefu Medicine Health Care Products Co., Ltd.. Address: Chenqiao Town of Jinhu County, Huaiyin City, Jiangsu. 上诉人(原审被告):江苏爱特福药物保健品有限公司,住所地:江苏省淮阴市金湖县陈桥镇。
Legal Representative: Shen Kaicheng, Board Chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:沈开成,该公司董事长。
Entrusted Agent: Ji Dazhu, Attorney of Beijing Huizhong Law Firm. 委托代理人:吉达珠,北京市惠中律师事务所律师。
Appellee (Plaintiff of the Original Trial): Beijing Ditan Hospital. Address: No.13 of Ditan Park, Andingmen Wai, Dongcheng District, Beijing. 被上诉人(原审原告):北京地坛医院,住所地:北京市东城区安定门外地坛公园13号。
Legal Representative: Feng Huizhong, Director of the Hospital. 法定代表人:冯惠忠,该院院长。
Entrusted Agent: Wei Daling, Attorney of Beijing Zhongtianzhongrui Law Firm. 委托代理人:魏大凌,北京市众天中瑞律师事务所律师。
Entrusted Agent: Feng Jinwei, Attorney of Beijing Haituo Law Firm. 委托代理人:冯锦卫,北京市海拓律师事务所律师。
Defendant of the Original Trial: Aitefu Chemical Co., Ltd. Of Jinhu County. Address: Chenqiao Town of Jinhu County, Huaiyin City, Jiangsu. 原审被告:金湖县爱特福化工有限责任公司,住所地:江苏省淮阴市金湖县陈桥镇。
Legal Representative: Shen Kaicheng, Board Chairman of the Company. 法定代表人:沈开成,该公司董事长。
Defendant of the Original Trial: Beijing Qingyu Pharmaceutical Operation Division. Address: First Floor of Suite No.22 of Eastern Zhongjie, Dongcheng District, Beijing. 原审被告:北京庆余药品经营部,住所地:北京市东城区东中街22号楼首层。
Legal Representative: Feng Qiue, Manager of the Operation Division. 法定代表人:冯秋娥,该经营部经理。
Entrusted Agent: Ni Xiaowen, Attorney of Beijing Dacheng Law Firm. 委托代理人:倪晓文,北京市大成律师事务所律师。
Appellant Jiangsu Aitefu Medicine Health Care Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Aitefu Health Care Products Co., Ltd.”) was dissatisfied with the Civil Judgment No.79 [2001] of Beijing Higher People's Court on the case of dispute over unfair competition with appellee Beijing Ditan Hospital (hereinafter referred to as Ditan Hospital), defendant of the original trial Aitefu Chemical Co., Ltd. of Jinhu County(hereinafter referred to as Aitefu Chemical Company), and defendant of the original trial Beijing Qingyu Pharmaceutical Operation Division (hereinafter referred to as Qingyu POD), and appealed to this Court. This Court formed a collegial bench according to law and heard the case openly. The legal representative of the appellant, Aitefu Health Care Products Company, Shen Kaicheng and his entrusted agent, entrusted agents of the appellee, Ditan Hospital, the entrusted agent of the defendant of the original trial, Qingyu POD, and the legal representative of the defendant of the original trial, Aitefu Chemical Company appeared in the court and participated in the litigation. This case was now concluded after trial. 上诉人江苏爱特福药物保健品有限公司(以下简称爱特福保健品公司)与被上诉人北京地坛医院(以下简称地坛医院)、原审被告金湖县爱特福化工有限责任公司(以下简称爱特福化工公司)、原审被告北京庆余药品经营部不正当竞争纠纷一案,不服北京市高级人民法院(2001)高知初字第79号民事判决,向本院提起上诉,本院依法组成合议庭公开审理了本案。上诉人爱特福保健品公司法定代表人沈开成及其委托代理人、被上诉人地坛医院委托代理人、原审被告北京庆余药品经营部委托代理人、原审被告爱特福化工公司法定代表人到庭参加诉讼。本案现已审理终结。
Beijing Higher People's Court ascertained after trial that: In 1984, the predecessor of Ditan Hospital, Beijing No. 1 Infectious Diseases Hospital developed the disinfectant solution that could promptly kill various hepatitis viruses, which was granted a second-level award of application achievements after being authenticated by the experts organized by Beijing Municipal Bureau of Health, and named as “84 cleaning disinfectant solution for hepatitis”, and whose name was later changed into “84 disinfectant solution”. In March 1985, the people's government of Beijing Municipality granted a third-level award of scientific and technological achievement to Ditan Hospital. In 1984, Ditan Hospital established the “Labor Service Company of Beijng No.1 Infectious Diseases Hospital” to produce and sell “84 disinfectant solution”. In June 1992, Ditan Hospital made investment and established “Beijing Long'an Medical Technology Development Company” (hereinafter referred to as Long'an Company), and entrusted the Company to produce and sell “84 disinfectant solution”. The two parties agreed that: All the legal disputes arising from the production, research and development, and operation and sale of “84 disinfectant solution” in the future shall be solved by Ditan Hospital in its own name. Ditan Hospital also transferred and licensed the use of its technology to more than thirty manufacturers all over the country in March 1997 through forming group companies to produce and sell “84 disinfectant solution”. 北京市高级人民法院审理查明:1984年,地坛医院的前身北京第一传染病医院研制成功能迅速杀灭各类肝炎病毒的消毒液,经北京市卫生局组织专家鉴定,授予应用成果二等奖,定名为“84”肝炎洗消液,后更名为“84消毒液”。1985年3月,北京市人民政府授予地坛医院科技成果三等奖。1984年,地坛医院设立“北京第一传染病医院劳动服务公司”,生产销售“84”消毒液。1992年6月,地坛医院出资设立“北京龙安医学技术开发公司”(以下简称龙安公司),委托该公司生产销售“84”消毒液:双方约定,凡今后在“84”消毒液的生产、研制开发及经营销售中处理有关法律纠纷均以地坛医院的名义,由地坛医院出面解决。地坛医院还于1997年3月通过组建集团公司的形式,向全国三十多个生产厂家转让、许可使用其技术,生产、销售“84”消毒液。
With the increase of the popularity of “84 disinfectant solution”, many fake commodities of 84 disinfectant solutions appeared in the market, which resulted in the disorder of the market. The Fair Trade Bureau of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the SAIC) issued the Letter No. 26 [2000] on May 30, 2000 requesting to make investigation into the acts of forging the well-known commodity of “84 disinfectant solution”. 随着“84”消毒液知名度的提高,在市场中出现了许多仿冒“84”消毒液商品,造成了市场的混乱。国家工商行政管理局公平交易局于2000年5月30日发出公函字[2000]第26号函,要求对仿冒“84”消毒液知名商品的行为进行查处。
On August 21, 1987, Ditan Hospital and Organic Chemical Factory of Jinhu County (hereinafter referred to as “Jinhu Chemical Factory”) signed the Contract on Joint Production of 84 Cleaning Disinfectant for Hepatitis, stipulating that: the two parties shall jointly produce 84 cleaning disinfectant for hepatitis. Ditan Hospital shall provide technology to train the production technicians and testing personnel for Jinhu Chemical Factory. Jinhu Chemical Factory shall pay 10,000 yuan to Ditan Hospital as financial support for its scientific research, and withdraw 10% net profit of the product each year as the profit for the joint production with Ditan Hospital. Ditan Hospital shall keep the ownership and assignment right of the technology achievement and shall not transfer or make joint management any more in northern Changjiang of Jiangsu province and Nanjing. In October 1999, Jinhu Chemical Factory changed its name into Aitefu Chemical Company. 1987年8月21日,地坛医院与金湖县有机化工厂(以下简称金湖化工厂)签订《关于联合生产“84”肝炎洗消剂合同书》,约定:双方联合生产“84”肝炎洗消剂,由地坛医院提供技术,为金湖化工厂培训生产技术人员和检测人员,金湖化工厂向地坛医院支付科研经费1万元,每年分别由本项产品纯利润中提取10%作为地坛医院联合生产的利润,地坛医院保留技术成果的所有权和转让权,在江苏省长江以北及南京市范围内不得再行转让或联营。1999年10月,金湖化工厂变更名称为爱特福化工公司。
On July 2, 1992, Jinhu Chemical Factory established Aitefu Health Care Products Company with Hong Kong Liqianghang Co., Ltd. as a joint venture enterprise with its cash, workshop, equipment and the right to the exclusive use of its registered trademark to produce disinfection and cleaning, hygiene and daily use chemical products. The company began to produce and sell 84 disinfectant solution in the current year. From May 1994 till now, Aitefu Health Care Products Company publicized the 84 disinfectant solution with the brand of “Aitefu” by advertisements in newspapers and periodicals, TV advertisements and poster advertisements. 1992年7月2日,金湖化工厂以现金、厂房、设备及商标专用权与香港励锵行有限公司合资成立了爱特福保健品公司,生产消毒清洁、卫生及日化用品。该公司当年即开始生产、销售“84”消毒液。自1994年5月至今爱特福保健品公司先后以报刊广告、电视广告及广告招贴等形式宣传其生产的爱特福牌“84”消毒液。
“Aitefu 84 disinfectant solution” sold in Beijing by Beijing Qingyu POD was stocked from Beijing Anqihuaer Medical Development Co., Ltd. on a commission basis. 北京庆余药品经营部在京销售“爱特福牌84消毒液”,系从北京安琪华尔医药发展有限公司进的货,其性质为代销。
Beijing Higher People's Court held that: Since 84 disinfectant solution was put into market in 1985, it had been widely recognized by the consumers, and had certain degree of popularity in the market. It was the commodity known to the general public, and shall be determined as a well-known commodity. “84” was used by Ditan Hospital for the first time as the name of a kind of disinfectant solution, and became famous due to the use of the Hospital. The term “84” was closely related to Ditan Hospital and the disinfectant solution developed and produced by it had became the symbol of the commodity. Therefore, “84” had the outstanding character that can be distinguished from other relevant commodities, and shall be determined as the specific name of the disinfectant solution produced by Ditan Hospital. Although Ditan Hospital was not the production operator of the product, its capital source was balance subsidy and it had the right to entrust others to produce and sell “84” disinfectant solution, which did not affect it to claim rights as the owner of the rights. Ditan Hospital enjoyed the right to the specific name of the well-known commodity according to law. 北京市高级人民法院认为,“84”消毒液自1985年投放市场以来,受到消费者的广泛认同,在市场上具有一定的知名度,属于为公众所知悉的商品,应认定为知名商品。“84”作为一种消毒液的名称由地坛医院最早使用,并由于该院的使用而知名。“84”一词与地坛医院及其研制生产的消毒液密切相关,成为该商品的代表和象征,故“84”已经具有了与其他相关商品相区别的显著特征,应认定“84”为地坛医院生产的消毒液的特有名称。地坛医院虽不是该产品的生产经营者,但由于其资金来源为差额补贴,有权委托他人生产、销售“84”消毒液,且不影响其作为权利主体来主张权利。地坛医院依法享有该知名商品特有名称权。
Aitefu Health Care Products Company used “84” disinfectant solution as the name of its product without the permission of Ditan Hospital, which was sufficient to result in the confusion of its product with that of Ditan Hospital and the mistake of judgment of consumers, and had constituted unfair competition. Therefore it shall under take civil liabilities. Ditan Hospital had no factual basis to charge Aitefu Chemical Company with the latter's transferring of the relevant technology of “84” disinfectant solution to Aitefu Health Care Products Company. Beijing Qingyu POD purchased “Aitefu 84 disinfectant solution” by legal and formal channel, it had no fault in the present case. Therefore, Aitefu Chemical Company and Beijing Qingyu POD shall not undertake infringement liabilities. The amount of loss of Ditan Hospital and the amount of profit earned by Aitefu Health Care Products Company could not be computed accurately and confirmed according to the present evidence. The amount of compensation in this case shall be determined according to the relevant provisions of the Summary of Symposiums of the Trail Work of Part Courts Countrywide on Intellectual Property Rights of the Supreme People's Court on July 20, 1998, and by taking into consideration the concrete conditions of this case. 爱特福保健品公司未经地坛医院许可,擅自使用“84”消毒液作为其产品名称,足以造成与地坛医院产品的混淆和消费者的误认,已构成不正当竞争,应承担民事责任。地坛医院指控爱特福化工公司将有关“84”消毒液技术转让给爱特福保健品公司无事实依据。北京庆余药品经营部系从合法、正式渠道购进“爱特福牌84消毒液”,在本案中没有过错。故爱特福化工公司、北京庆余药品经营部不应承担侵权责任。根据现有证据对地坛医院的损失额与爱特福保健品公司的获利额均不能准确计算并予以确认,依据最高人民法院1998年7月20日《关于全国部分法院知识产权审判工作座谈会纪要》的相关规定,并考虑本案的具体情况,酌情确定本案的赔偿数额。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Beijing Higher People's Court held in accordance with the provisions of Item (2), paragraph one of Article 5 and paragraph one of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China that: 1. Aitefu Health Care Products Company shall stop using “84” as the name of its commodity in the disinfectant solution produced and sold by it, and stop making advertisements and publicity in all the media in the name of “84” disinfectant solution; 2. Aitefu Health Care Products Company shall, within 30 days from the day when this judgment took effect, publicly apologize to Ditan Hospital in Xinmin Evening and Beijing Evening; and 3. Aitefu Health Care Products Company shall compensate for the economic loss of Ditan Hospital 250,000 yuan. For the case acceptance fee 28,010 yuan, Ditan Hospital shall bear 26,066.1 yuan and Aitefu Health Care Products Company shall bear 1,943.9 yuan. 北京市高级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条第一款第(二)项、第二十条第一款的规定,判决:1、爱特福保健品公司立即停止在其生产销售的消毒液上使用“84”作为其商品名称,停止在各媒体上以“84”消毒液为名称进行广告宣传;2、爱特福保健品公司于本判决生效之日起30日内,在《新民晚报》、《北京晚报》上,向地坛医院公开赔礼道歉;3、爱特福保健品公司赔偿地坛医院经济损失25万元。案件受理费28010元,由地坛医院负担26066.1元,由爱特福保健品公司负担1943.9元。
Aitefu Health Care Products Company was dissatisfied with the judgment of the original trial and appealed to this Court that: 1. The judgment of first instance erred in determining the fact that “84” disinfectant solution became a famous product due to the use of the appellee. The appellee had no evidence to prove how this technology became marketization and the shares it accounted for in the similar markets countrywide. “84” disinfectant solution became famous due to the “Aitefu ‘84' disinfectant solution” produced by the appellant. 2. “84”was the general name of the similar disinfectant solution products, and shall not be determined as the name owned solely by the appellee. And 3. The appellee did not have the qualification of a subject of action as the plaintiff. Therefore, the appellant pleaded to revoke the original trial and reject the claims of the appellee. 爱特福保健品公司不服一审判决,向本院上诉称:1、一审判决认定“84消毒液”系由被上诉人的使用而成为知名商品属认定事实错误。被上诉人没有提供证据证明该技术如何市场化,在全国同类市场上占有的份额。“84消毒液”是因上诉人生产的“爱特福牌‘84'消毒液”而知名。2、“84”系同类消毒液产品的通用名称,不应认定为被上诉人所特有。3、被上诉人不具备原告的诉讼主体资格。故请求撤销原判,驳回被上诉人的诉讼请求。
Ditan Hospital pleaded that: 1. The product name of “84” disinfectant solution consisted of the part of general name “disinfectant solution” and the part of specific name of “84”, which was obviously different from the general name, and was the specific name of the chlorine (CL) disinfectant solution products produced by the pleader, but not the general name of all the CL disinfectant solution products. 2. “84” disinfectant solution had certain popularity in the market, was known to the general public, and was a well-known commodity. 3. The pleader had the qualification of litigation subject in this case according to law. And 4. The appellee used the specific name “84” in its disinfectant solution products without the approval of the pleader, which constituted unfair competition. 地坛医院答辩称:1、“84”消毒液产品名称由“消毒液”的通用名称部分和“84”特有名称部分组成,与通用名称有显著区别,系答辩人生产的含氯消毒液产品的特有名称,而非所有含氯消毒液产品的通用名称。2、“84”消毒液在市场上具有一定知名度,为相关公众所知悉,系知名商品。3、答辩人依法具备本案的诉讼主体资格。4、上诉人未经答辩人同意,在其消毒液产品上擅自使用“84”这一特有名称,构成不正当竞争。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
During the second trial of this case, after inquiry and exchange of evidence at court, this court confirmed that the dispute of the parties focused on that: 1. Whether “84” disinfectant solution became a well-known commodity due to the operation and use of appellant or appellee? 2. Whether “84” disinfectant solution constituted the specific name of a well-known commodity? And 3. Whether Ditan Hospital had the qualification of a litigation subject in this case? 本院二审审理期间,经询问和庭前交换证据,确认当事人的争议焦点为:1、是由于上诉人还是被上诉人的经营使用,使“84”消毒液成为知名商品?2、“84”消毒液是否构成知名商品的特有名称?3、地坛医院是否具备本案诉讼主体资格?
This Court ascertained after trial that the facts ascertained by the court of first instance were basically true to the facts, but it had omitted some facts of the case that may affect the handling result of this case. 本院经审理查明,一审法院所查明的事实基本属实,但对影响本案处理结果的案件事实有所遗漏。
This Court also ascertained that: In 1984, the predecessor of Ditan Hospital, Beijing No.1 Infectious Diseases Hospital successfully developed “84” cleaning disinfectant for hepatitis, and transferred this technology successively to more than thirty companies countrywide. Each assignee had marked in its product the trademark and name of “84” cleaning disinfectant solution for hepatitis or “84” disinfectant solution. On August 21, 1987, Ditan Hospital also concluded the Contract on Joint Production of “84” Cleaning Disinfectant for Hepatitis with Jinhu Chemical Factory, stipulating that Ditan Hospital should provide the relevant technical materials and keep the ownership and assignment right of the technological achievement, but should not transfer or make joint management in northern Changjiang of Jiangsu Province and Nanjing City; Jinhu Chemical Factory should pay 10,000 yuan as financial support for scientific research, and withdraw 10% net profit of this product each year as the profit shared by Ditan Hospital for joint production, and settle it in December each year. The joint production contract only stipulated the ownership of the technical achievement of “84” cleaning disinfectant for hepatitis, but did not stipulate other intellectual property rights of the product and their ownerships. On March 14, 1988, Jinhu Chemical Factory paid 10,000 yuan technology transfer fee to Ditan Hospital according to the stipulations of the contract, and began to put “84” disinfectant solution into mass production. Ditan Hospital and Jinhu Chemical Factory and several companies made publicity to promote the production technology of “84” disinfectant solution by forming a loose “84” medical equipment group to expand the sale of the commodity in the market. In February 1990, Jinhu Chemical Factory paid Ditan Hospital the agreed-upon 2,310 yuan as profit. Around 1992, Jinhu Chemical Factory did not pay the profit of the product to Ditan Hospital any more by the reason that Ditan Hospital violated the stipulations of the contract and transferred the technology of “84” disinfectant solution in northern Changjiang of Jiangsu province and Nanjing city. On July 2, 1992, Jinhu Chemical Factory and Hongkong Liqianghang established Aitefu Health Care Products Company through joint venture to produce and sell “84” disinfectant solution. 本院另查明,1984年地坛医院的前身北京第一传染病医院研制成功“84”肝炎洗消剂后,先后在全国范围内转让该项技术达三十余家。各受让企业在其产品上均标明商标及“84”肝炎洗消液或“84”消毒液名称。1987年8月21日,地坛医院亦与金湖化工厂签订《关于联合生产“84”肝炎洗消剂合同书》,约定地坛医院提供有关技术资料,保留本技术成果的所有权和转让权,但在江苏省长江以北及南京市范围内不得再行转让或联营;金湖化工厂支付科研经费1万元,并每年由本项产品纯利润中提取10%作为地坛医院联合生产的分得利润,每年十二月份结清。该联合生产合同只对“84”肝炎洗消剂技术成果的权利归属作出约定,并未约定该产品的其他知识产权等及归属。1988年3月14日,金湖化工厂依合同约定向地坛医院支付了技术转让费1万元,并开始批量生产“84”消毒液。地坛医院和金湖化工厂以及多家企业以组成松散的“84”药械集团的形式进行宣传,推广“84”消毒液生产技术,扩大商品市场销售。1990年2月,金湖化工厂依约支付地坛医院2310元利润分成。1992年前后,金湖化工厂以地坛医院违反合同约定,在江苏省长江以北及南京市再行转让“84”消毒液技术为由,未再向地坛医院支付产品利润分成。1992年7月2日,金湖化工厂与香港励锵行合资成立爱特福保健品公司,生产销售“84”消毒液。
Aitefu Health Care Products Company obtained the hygiene license of the Public Health Bureau of Jiangsu Province for the production of “84” disinfectant solution in July 1994, and the hygiene license was reviewed in August 1997. In October 1999, the “84” disinfectant solution produced by the company obtained the documents of approval of the Ministry of Health for hygiene license of domestic disinfectant and disinfectors. Aitefu Health Care Products Company increased its input in the advertisements on the product of “Aitefu ‘84' disinfectant solution” year by year. 爱特福保健品公司于1994年7月获得江苏省卫生厅生产84消毒液卫生许可证,1997年8月该卫生许可证获得复核。1999年10月,该公司生产的“爱特福‘84'消毒液”获得卫生部国产消毒剂和消毒器械卫生许可证批件。爱特福保健品公司对“爱特福‘84'消毒液”产品的广告投入逐年增加。
On August 29, 1996, Aitefu Health Care Products Company applied for registering the trademark “84” in the commodities of the Category V to the Trademark Office of SAIC (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office). The Trademark Office believed after examination that the trademark represented the type and character of this commodity and rejected the registration application of Aitefu Health Care Products Company in August 1997. 1996年8月29日,爱特福保健品公司向国家工商行政管理局商标局(以下简称商标局)申请在第5类商品上注册“84”商标。经商标局审查认为,该商标表示了本商品的型号、特点,于1997年8月驳回爱特福保健品公司的注册申请。
On January 29, 1999, The Long'an Company established with the investment of Ditan Hospital also applied for registering the trademark of “Long'an 84” in the disinfectants of Category V to the Trademark Office. Since “84” in the trademark represented directly the type and character of this commodity, the Trademark Office issued examination opinions to Long'an Company on April 8, 1999, requesting the applicant Long'an Company to make revisions. Long'an Company did not make any revision and the registration application was rejected by the Trademark Office. 1999年1月29日,由地坛医院出资设立的龙安公司也向商标局申请在第5类消毒剂上注册“龙安84”商标。由于该商标中“84”直接表示了本商品的型号特点,商标局于1999年4月8日向龙安公司发出审查意见书,要求申请人龙安公司修正。由于龙安公司未作修正,该注册申请被商标局驳回。
This court also ascertained that: In March 1999, Ditan Hospital applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the SAIC (hereinafter referred to as the TRAB) for revoking the “84” trademark registration certificate No. 1104561 issued erroneously by the Trademark Office to Aitefu Health Care Products Company in the commodities of Category V (the Category of Disinfectants). Ditan Hospital claimed in the application letter that: the technology of “84” disinfectant solution had been transferred to more than 38 companies in China and had played an important role in the disinfectant solution market, and this category of products was called jointly as “84 disinfectant solution”. 本院另查明:1999年3月,地坛医院向国家工商行政管理局商标评审委员会(以下简称商标评审委员会)申请撤销商标局误发给爱特福保健品公司在第5类(消毒剂类)商品第1104561号“84”商标注册证。地坛医院在申请书中称:“84”消毒液技术已在国内转让达38家企业,在消毒液市场占有重要的一席之地,该类产品被统称为“84消毒液”。
Ditan Hospital also admitted that it had registered the trademark of “Long'an” for “84” disinfectant solution in its application letter and allowed all the assignees to register the trademark respectively. One of the assignees, Wuhan Qiaokou Yangzi Cleaning Disinfectant Factory applied to the Trademark Office for registering the brand “84” in the commodities of Category V on April 29, 1990, which was rejected by the Trademark Office according to Item (5) of Paragraph 8 of the Trademark Law that no trademark may use general name or design. 地坛医院在该申请书中还承认其将“84”消毒液注册了“龙安”牌商标,各受让企业也分别注册了商标,其中一受让企业武汉市硚口扬子洗消剂厂于1990年4月29日向商标局申请拟在第五类商品中注册“84”牌,被商标局以商标法八条第一款第(5)项即商标不得使用通用名称和图形的规定驳回。
On December 6, 1999, TRAC rejected the application of Aitefu Health Care Products Company for the review of its application for registering the trademark “84” in the disinfectant commodities of Category V by the Letter of Final Determination of the Review on the Trademark “84” No. 2750 [1999] of TRAC. It was claimed in the Letter of Final Determination of the Review on the Trademark “84” that: although there were changes in the design of the applied trademark “84”, it could still be clearly read. At present, “84” disinfectant solution produced by other companies were being sold in the market, and this name had become the general name of the product, and shall not be registered and used exclusively by one company. This Letter of Determination had taken legal effect. 1999年12月6日,商标评审委员会以商评字(1999)第2750号《“84”商标驳回复审终局决定书》,驳回爱特福保健品公司在第5类消毒剂商品上申请注册“84”商标的复审申请。《“84”商标驳回复审终局决定书》称,经评审,申请商标“84”虽然已有图形变化,但仍能清晰认读。目前,市场上尚有其他企业生产的84消毒液销售,此种称谓已成为该种产品的俗称,不应由一家注册专用。该决定书已经发生法律效力。
This court also ascertained that: On April 30, 2000, Ditan Hospital made a complaint to the Fair Trade Bureau of the SAIC requesting to protect the credit standing of “84” disinfectant products against the fake products in the market. On May 30 of the same year, the Fair Trade Bureau gave the Official Letter No.26 [2000] to the fair trade bureaus(economic inspection department) of the administrations for industry and commerce of Shandong, Hebei, Henan, Jiangsu, and Hunan Provinces requiring them to organize personnel to make investigation and severely punish acts of forging “84” disinfectant solution. After investigation, it is found that the administrative department of industry and commerce at each locality had never made investigation and given punishment on acts of Aitefu Health Care Products Company for its production and sale of “Aitefu ‘84' disinfectant solution” in accordance with the said official letter. 本院还查明:2000年4月30日,地坛医院向国家工商行政管理局公平交易局投诉市场中的假冒产品,请求保护“84”消毒剂产品的信誉。同年5月30日,国家工商行政管理局公平交易局向山东、河北、河南、江苏、湖南省工商行政管理局公平交易局(经济检查处)发出公函字[2000]第26号函,要求组织力量进行调查,依法严肃查处仿冒“84”消毒液的行为。经查,各地工商行政管理部门从未依据上述公函对爱特福保健品公司生产销售“爱特福牌‘84'消毒液”的行为进行过查处。
On April 11, 2001, the Ministry of Health enacted the Notice of the Ministry of Health on Printing and Distributing the Provisions on Naming the Relevant Health Products, and brought forward requirements for the naming of the relevant health products including disinfectants and disinfectors, and etc.. Item (3) of Article 4 of the Provisions on Naming the Relevant Health Products prescribes that: The principles for the naming of the relevant health products shall include: The name shall consist of such three parts as the name of the trademark, general name and the name of the attribute. Up till September 2002, there were five “84 disinfectant solutions” that had obtained the documents of approval of the Ministry of Health for hygiene license within the period of validity. Except for Long'an 84 disinfectant solution of the Long'an Company and “Aitefu ‘84' disinfectant solution” of Aitefu Health Care Products Company, there were also “Jiandun ‘84' disinfectant solution” of Qingdao Jiandu Cleaning Disinfectant Factory, “Yakang ‘84' disinfectant solution” of Anhui Bengbu Anti-epidemic Products Factory, and “Zhongzhi ‘84' disinfectant solution” of Nanjing Jiangnan Disinfectant Factory. 2001年4月11日,卫生部发布《卫生部关于印发健康相关产品命名规定的通知》,对包括消毒剂、消毒器械在内的健康相关产品的命名提出了要求。《健康相关产品命名规定》第四条第(三)项规定,健康相关产品命名必须符合的原则包括:名称由商标名、通用名、属性名三部分组成。截止2002年9月,已经获得卫生部卫生许可批件并在有效期内的“84”消毒液有五个,除龙安公司“龙安牌84消毒液”、爱特福保健品公司“爱特福牌84消毒液”外,尚有青岛剑盾洗消剂厂“剑盾牌84消毒液”、安徽省蚌埠防疫制品厂“亚康牌84消毒液”、南京江南消毒剂厂“众智牌84消毒液”等。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
This Court held that: Although Ditan Hospital was not the direct production operator of ‘84' disinfectant solution product, its capital sources for an institution was balance subsidy, and it did not violate state laws to entrust Long'an Company to produce and sell “84” disinfectant solution. The stipulations between Ditan Hospital and Long'an Company on dealing with the relevant legal disputes over the production, research and development and operation and sale involving “84” disinfectant solution in the name of Ditan Hospital were legitimate and lawful, and Ditan Hospital shall have the qualification of the subject of litigation in this case as a plaintiff. The appellant Aitefu Health Care Products Company lacked factual and legal basis to appeal that Ditan Hospital did not have the qualification of the subject of litigation of this case as a plaintiff, which shall not be supported by this court. 本院认为:地坛医院虽然不是“84”消毒液产品的直接生产经营者,但是其事业单位的资金来源为差额补贴,其委托龙安公司生产销售“84”消毒液,并不违反国家法律规定。地坛医院与龙安公司达成的以地坛医院名义处理涉及“84”消毒液生产、研制开发及经营销售中的有关法律纠纷的约定,合法有效,因此,地坛医院依法享有本案原告诉讼主体资格。上诉人爱特福保健品公司关于地坛医院不具备原告诉讼主体资格的上诉理由缺乏事实和法律依据,本院不予支持。
According to the provisions of item (2) of Article 5 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China爬数据可耻 that: The specific name of a famous commodity shall be protected by law. No one may use the specific name of any well-known commodity of others without permission. The “84” disinfectant solution involved in this case was a well-known commodity, with which neither Ditan Hospital nor Aitefu Health Care Products Company dissented, but the two parties dissented with whether “84” was the specific name of this commodity, and whose operation made “84” disinfectant solution well-known, and they sharply contradicted with each, and therefore formed the main focal point of this case. 根据《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条离婚不离婚是人家自己的事第(二)项之规定,知名商品的特有名称应当受到法律保护,未经许可,任何人不得擅自使用他人知名商品的特有名称。本案涉及的“84”消毒液为知名商品,地坛医院和爱特福保健品公司均无异议,但双方对“84”是否为该商品的特有名称,谁的经营使“84”消毒液知名各执一词,尖锐对立,形成本案主要争议焦点。
The specific name of a famous or noted commodity shall refer to the commodity name not used in common by the relevant commodities and having distinguishable characteristic, which enables consumers to distinguish this commodity from the similar commodities by using the name on the commodity. If the commodity has been registered as a trademark, it shall no longer have the attribute of the specific name of a famous commodity, but shall have the speciality of the registered trademark right. The specific name contrasts with the general name of a commodity, and the general name of a commodity cannot obtain the exclusive right to the specific name of a famous commodity. When judging the general name, not only the commodity names that have been listed into the national or industrial standards and in the books of special professional tools and dictionaries, but also the terms of names showing certain commodities, which are accepted through common practice and widely used by the operators in the same industry, shall be determines as the general name of certain commodity. Since the appellant Ditan Hospital in this case made research and development on “84” cleaning disinfectant solution for hepatitis (which was later changed into “84” disinfectant solution) in 1984, it had transferred the technology to many enterprises countrywide, allowing them to produce and sell “84” disinfectant solution. There were no special stipulations on the name of “84” in the relevant technology transfer license contracts, which resulted in the wide use of “84” disinfectant solution as the name of this category of commodities. What's more, each assignee had marked the trademark used by itself at the time of using the name of the commodity. At present, with respect to the documents of approval for the license approved by the Ministry of Health, which were obtained by the enterprises producing and selling “84” disinfectant solution, and according to the requirements of the Provisions on Naming the Relevant Health Products, which were promulgated by the Ministry of Health, all the names of their products consist of the combination of the trademark and the characters of “84” disinfectant solution of each production enterprise. We could not distinguish the source of the commodity only on the basis of the name of “84” disinfectant solution. The distinction of the marks of this category of products was the trademark of each production enterprise, but not the commodity name of “84” disinfectant solution. Therefore, we were unable to support Ditan Hospital's contentions that “84” disinfectant solution was the specific name of its famous commodity, and shall be thus owned exclusively by it. 所谓知名商品的特有名称,是指不为相关商品所通用,具有显著区别性特征,并通过在商品上的使用,使消费者能够将该商品与其他经营者的同类商品相区别的商品名称,但已经注册为商标就不再具有知名商品特有名称的属性,而具有了注册商标权的专有性。特有名称又相对于商品的通用名称,商品的通用名称不能获得知名商品特有名称的独占使用权。判断通用名称时,不仅国家或者行业标准以及专业工具书、辞典中已经列入的商品名称,应当认定为通用名称,而且对于已为同行业经营者约定俗成、普遍使用的表示某类商品的名词,也应认定为该商品的通用名称。本案被上诉人地坛医院自1984年研制开发“84”肝炎洗消液(后更名为“84”消毒液)以来,向全国多家企业转让该技术,许可其生产销售“84”消毒液。在有关技术转让许可合同中,并未对“84”名称有何特殊约定,以至于“84”消毒液作为该类商品的名称被普遍使用,且各个受让企业均在使用该商品名称的同时,标明各自所使用的商标。目前市场上生产销售“84”消毒液企业获得的经卫生部批准的许可批件上,按照卫生部发布的《健康相关产品命名规定》的要求,其产品名称均是各生产企业的商标与“84”消毒液的文字组合,仅凭“‘84'消毒液”的名称已不能区别该商品来源。区别该类产品的标志是各生产厂家的商标,而非“84”消毒液的商品名称,因此,地坛医院所提出的“84”消毒液为其知名商品的特有名称,进而由其专有的主张实难支持。
In fact, both parties clearly knew the use of “84” as the name of disinfectant commodities, and both parties had applied to the Trademark Office for registering “84” as the trademark for using the name of “84” exclusively. What should be mentioned specially was that Ditan Hospital had applied to TRAC for revoking the trademark “84” registered by others in the commodities of Category V (of the Category of Disinfectants) by the reason that “84” was the general name of the commodities of disinfectants. The contents that “84” was the general name of this category of commodities recognized by Ditan Hospital during the dispute of trademark registration truly reflected the actual conditions on the use of the name of “84”, which had certain binding force to Ditan Hospital for its going back on its promise and suing others for infringing upon its civil rights and interests on the basis of the specific name of a famous commodity. For many years, the Ministry of Health, when issuing license concerning the production and sale of “84” disinfectant solutions, and TRAC, when handling the dispute of registration of the trademark “84” and other relevant competent departments had also administered “84” as the general name of disinfectant or determined that “84” had showed the type and character of this commodity and shall not be registered as a trademark. “84” disinfectant solution had been used as the name of a commodity widely recognized in the industry, in addition to the two parties in dispute of this case, there were also other enterprises that had used the name lawfully upon the approval of the administrative department of health of the state, therefore, the reasons for appeal of the appellant Aitefu Health Care Products Company that “84” was the general name of the similar disinfectant solution products could be established, and this Court shall support it. 实际上双方当事人对“84”作为消毒液商品名称的使用状况是明知的,双方都为专有使用“84”的名称而向商标局申请将“84”注册为商标。特别应提到,地坛医院曾以“84”为消毒剂类商品的通用名称为由,向商标评审委员会申请撤销他人在第5类(消毒剂类)商品上注册“84”商标。地坛医院在商标注册争议过程中所认可的“84”为该类商品的通用名称的内容,如实地反映了“84”名称使用的真实情况,又对其反悔这种陈述并以知名商品特有名称起诉他人侵犯其民事权益的请求,具有一定的约束力。多年来,涉及“84”消毒液生产经销的卫生部、涉及“84”商标的注册争议的商标评审委员会等有关主管部门,也将“84”作为消毒剂的一种通用名称管理,或者认定“84”表现了本商品的型号特点不予注册商标。“84”消毒液已作为本行业普遍认可的商品名称所使用,除本案诉争的双方当事人以外,尚有其他企业经国家卫生行政部门批准合法使用该名称,因此,上诉人爱特福保健品公司关于“84”系同类消毒液产品的通用名称的上诉理由成立,本院应予支持。
JUDGMENT 
To sum up, the specific name of a famous commodity shall be protected by law, and the owner of the commodity shall have the right to prevent others from using the specific name of its famous commodity without permission to conduct unfair competition act. But “84” disinfectant solution was not the specific name of the famous commodity, and shall not be owned by one company exclusively. The judgment of original trial did not clearly determine the facts whether “84” disinfectant solution under dispute was the specific name of a famous commodity, and erred in applying law, which shall be corrected. This Court had made adequate mediation in the litigation for the purpose of solving the dispute of the two parties fairly and reasonably, and also arranged opportunity for the two parties to solve their dispute through negotiation by themselves. But each stuck to its own arguments and the two parties could not reach an agreement. Therefore, this Court ruled in accordance with the provisions of item (2) of Article 5 of the Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China and Item (3), paragraph one of Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China that: 综上,知名商品的特有名称依法受到保护,权利人有权制止他人未经许可擅自使用其知名商品特有名称进行不正当竞争的行为。但是本案诉争的“84”消毒液不是知名商品的特有名称,不能为一家所独占使用。原审判决对“84”消毒液是否为知名商品特有名称的事实认定不清,适用法律错误,应当予以纠正。本院为公正、合理解决双方当事人之间的纠纷,曾在诉讼中做了充分的调解工作,又给双方当事人安排自行协商解决纠纷的机会,但双方当事人仍各执己见,未能达成协议,故此,本院根据《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条第(二)项、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第一款第(三)项的规定,判决如下:
1. The Civil Judgment No. 79 [2001] of Beijing Higher People's Court shall be revoked. And 一、撤销北京市高级人民法院(2001)高知初字第79号民事判决。
2. The pleadings of Beijing Ditan Hospital shall be rejected. 二、驳回北京地坛医院的诉讼请求。
The case acceptance fees of the first instance and the second instance totaled 56,020 yuan shall be assumed by Beijing Ditan Hospital. 一、二审案件受理费共计56020元,由北京地坛医院承担。
This judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。
Chief Justice: Jiang Zhipei 审 判 长  蒋志培
Acting Judge: Duan Lihong 代理审判员  段立红
Acting Judge: Xia Junli 代理审判员  夏君丽
March 23, 2003 二00三年三月二十三日
Clerk: Li Jian

 书 记 员  李 剑
 

     
     
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