Fenghua Buyun Company v. Shanghai Worldbest Company
(Case of Rejection of the Dispute over the Transfer of Trademark Ownership)@#

@#

@#

Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court@#
Final Civil Ruling No. 169 [2003] of the Second Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Appellant (Plaintiff of the Original Trial): Fenghua Buyun Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., situated at Qianfang Road, Daqiao Township, Fenghua City, Zhejiang Province.@#
Legal Representative: Jiang Xun, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
Appellee (Defendant of the Original Trial): Shanghai Worldbest Industrial Development Co., Ltd., situated at No. 660, Shangcheng Road, Shanghai Municipality.@#
Legal Representative: Qian Feng, chairman of the board of directors of this company.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
Fenghua Buyun Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. was not satisfied with the Civil Ruling of Dismissal of Acceptance No. 1 [2003] of the Case Filing Division of the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province and filed an appeal to this court. This court has formed a collegial bench and tried this case according to law.@#
It was found upon trial that: On August 10, 2003, Fenghua Buyun Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Buyun Company) filed a lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province and complained that: on December 9, 1997, Fenghua Buyun Group Co., Ltd., the predecessor of Buyun Company, concluded the Agreement on Equity Joint Operation of Fenghua WorldBest Buyun Trousers Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement on Joint Operation) with Shanghai Worldbest Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Worldbest Company). At the beginning of 1999, Fenghua Buyun Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Buyun Group) and Worldbest Company concluded the Settlement Agreement regarding the gratuitous transfer of trademarks, however, according to Article 39 of the Trademark Law and Paragraph 2 of Article 44 of the Contract Law, the term on gratuitous transfer of trademarks in the Agreement on Joint Operation and the Settlement Agreement does not meet the statutory conditions for effectiveness, so its effectiveness remain to be decided. At the same time, Worldbest Company had used the registered trademarks of Buyun Company free of charge for a long time, and attempted to occupy them without payment, which seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of Buyun Company, so Buyun Company pleaded to: 1. affirm that the Agreement on Joint Operation has been rescinded; 2. order that the Settlement Agreement on the gratuitous transfer of trademarks be rescind or canceled; and 3. order Worldbest Company to compensate 10 million yuan of economic losses.@#
．．．．．．

奉化步云公司与上海华源公司商标所有权转让纠纷不予受理案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
人民法院经依法审判民事案件，作出发生法律效力的民事判决后，该案的被告又就同一事实向人民法院起诉的，虽然不属重复起诉，但依据“一事不再理”的原则，人民法院仍应当作出不予受理的裁定。@#
中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事裁定书@#
(2003)民二终字第169号@#
@#
上诉人(原审原告)：奉化步云工贸有限公司，住所地：浙江省奉化市大桥镇前方路。@#
法定代表人：江汛，董事长。@#
被上诉人(原审被告)：上海华源企业发展股份有限公司，住所地：上海市商城路 660号。@#
法定代表人：钱锋，董事长。@#
@#
上诉人奉化步云工贸有限公司因不服浙江省高级人民法院(2003)浙立受初字第 1号不予受理的民事裁定书，向本院提起上诉，本院依法组成合议庭，对本案进行了审理。@#
经审理查明：2003年8月10日，上诉人奉化步云工贸有限公司向浙江省高级人民法院起诉称，1997年12月9日，其前身奉化步云集团有限公司曾与被上诉人签订《合资经营奉化华源步云西裤有限公司协议书》(简称合资协议)。1999年初，双方曾就商标无偿转让问题达成《和解协议书》。但根据《商标法》第三十九条和《合同法》第四十四条第二款规定，合资协议中关于商标无偿转让条款，以及商标无偿转让的和解协议书均因不符合法定生效条件而处于效力未定状态。而被上诉人长期无偿使用其注册商标，并企图无偿占有，严重侵害了其合法权益，故请求：1．确认《合作经营奉化华源步云西裤有限公司协议书》解除；2．判决解除或者撤销关于商标无偿转让的《和解协议书》；3．判令被上诉人赔偿经济损失人民币1000万元。@#
一审法院审理认为，根据奉化步云工贸有限公司的诉讼请求和理由，本案实质是要求解决服饰类“步云”系列商标的归属问题，而不论是《合作经营奉化华源步云西裤有限公司协议书》的效力，还是《和解协议书》的效力，都已经(2001)浙经一终字第 348号判决所确认。虽然(2001)浙经一终字第348号判决效力因该案正在再审程序中而处于待定状态，但《合作经营奉化华源步云西裤有限公司协议书》和《和解协议书》的效力问题及服饰类“步云”系列商标的归属应在该案再审程序中解决。因此奉化步云工贸有限公司的起诉，属重复起诉，不符合民事案件的受理条件。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百零八条、第一百一十二条的规定，裁定对奉化步云工贸有限公司的起诉，不予受理。@#
．．．．．．