>>>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
 
Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over infringement on the exclusive right to use a trademark)
苏州静冈刀具有限公司诉太仓天华刀具有限公司侵犯商标专用权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over infringement on the exclusive right to use a trademark)
(Case of disputes over infringement on the exclusive right to use a trademark)
苏州静冈刀具有限公司诉太仓天华刀具有限公司侵犯商标专用权纠纷案
Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. (Case of disputes over infringement on the exclusive right to use a trademark) 

苏州静冈刀具有限公司诉太仓天华刀具有限公司侵犯商标专用权纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
Completely embedding a trademark owned by another in an unregistered product logo of one's own and using such a trademark in similar goods without authorization shall be asserted as approximate infringement on trademark, since the act easily makes relevant public mistakenly believe that the source of the product in dispute has particular association with the goods of the registered trademark. 未经许可擅自将他人所有的注册商标完全嵌入在自己未经注册的产品标识中,并使用在同类商品上,易使相关公众误认为涉案产品的来源与注册商标的商品具有特定的关联,应当被认定为商标近似侵权。
Plaintiff: Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., domiciled at South Xingye Road, Economic Development Zone, Taicang City, Jiangsu Province. 原告:苏州静冈刀具有限公司,住所地:江苏省太仓市经济开发区兴业南路。
Legal representative: Shunichi Hagita, chairman of the board of directors of this company. 法定代表人:萩田俊一,该公司董事长。
Defendant: Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd., domiciled at Yuewang Xingye Street, Shaxi Town, Taicang City, Jiangsu Province. 被告:太仓天华刀具有限公司,住所地:江苏省太仓市沙溪镇岳王兴业街。
Legal representative: Chen Tianhua. 法定代表人:陈天华。
Plaintiff Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shizuoka Company”) filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Taicang City, Jiangsu Province against defendant Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tianhua Company”) for disputes over infringement on the exclusive right to use a trademark. 原告苏州静冈刀具有限公司(以下简称静冈公司)因与被告太仓天华刀具有限公司(以下简称天华公司)发生侵犯商标专用权纠纷,向江苏省太仓市人民法院提起诉讼。
Plaintiff Shizuoka Company alleged that: the plaintiff registered the picture and word trademark of “Shizuoka Tools” with which the seventh category of goods, namely blade, tool apron, knife, etc. were approved to be used. The trademark registration is valid from November 14, 2010 to November 13, 2020. Chen Tianhua, defendant Tianhua Company's legal representative, once served as a salesman of plaintiff and subsequently left the plaintiff's company. In 2012, the plaintiff found in a market survey that the defendant severely infringed the plaintiff's exclusive right to use trademark by using a trademark of the plaintiff and a trademark similar to the plaintiff's without authorization during the process of producing and selling products. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the court to order: (1) The defendant should immediately stop infringing the trademark right of the plaintiff, and destroy all infringing products, logos, relevant packaging boxes, promotional materials, etc.; (2) The defendant should compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 160,000 yuan (including reasonable expenses paid for stopping the infringement); (3) The defendant should publish statements in the magazines of the China Pulp & Paper and the Fortune Paper in order to eliminate the influence; and (4) The litigation costs should be assumed by the defendant. 原告静冈公司诉称:原告核准注册了“静冈刀具”图形及文字商标,核准使用商品为第七类,即刀片、刀座、刀具等,商标注册的有效期限为2010年11月14日至 2020年11月13日。被告天华公司法定代表人陈天华曾在原告公司担任业务员一职,后离职。2012年,原告在市场调查中发现,被告在生产和销售其公司产品过程中,未经原告许可擅自使用原告商标及与原告近似的商标,严重侵犯了原告商标专用权。请求法院判令:(1)被告立即停止侵犯原告商标权的行为,销毁所有侵权产品、标识、相关包装盒、宣传资料等;(2)被告赔偿原告经济损失16万元(含为制止侵权支付的合理费用);(3)被告在《中国造纸》和《财富纸业》杂志刊登声明以消除影响;(4)诉讼费用由被告承担。
The defendant Tianhua Company argued that: the defendant did not infringe plaintiff Shizuoka Company's trademark right and was unwilling to pay compensation or render apology, on the ground that Tianhua Company was established beforehand and the plaintiff registered the trademark afterwards. The trademark currently used by the defendant was designed by a person who is not a party to a case and the defendant did not intentionally implement infringement act. The defendant, with only 11-12% of extremely low operating profit, did not accept the amount of compensation requested by the plaintiff. In addition, Taicang Administration for Industry and Commerce had imposed 150,000 yuan of penalty against the defendant on the grounds of trademark right infringement. The defendant had ceased production and had no funds. The scrapers and clamps in dispute had been treated as wastes. 被告天华公司辩称:被告没有侵犯原告静冈公司商标权,不愿赔偿、赔礼道歉。理由是:天华公司成立在先,原告注册商标在后。被告现在使用的商标是案外人设计的,被告没有侵权的故意。被告的营业利润很低,只有11%至12%,因此不认可原告要求的赔偿数额。此外,太仓工商局已以侵犯商标权为由对被告处罚了15万元,被告已经停产,没有资金。涉案刮刀夹具也已作为废品处理了。
The People's Court of Taicang City, as the court of first instance, found that: 太仓市人民法院一审查明:
Plaintiff Shizuoka Company was established on April 14, 2003. Its business scope is production and sale of a variety of self-produced tools and related products. The trademark used for the products is a registered trademark with some reputation in this industry and the papermaking industry. On November 14, 2010, Shizuoka Company, upon verification and approval by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China, registered the trademark of the pattern of letter D plus a circle with a cross line and an arrow (the registration certificate number is No. 7601794). The goods verified and approved to use the trademark are the seventh category “paper mill (paper machine); blade (machinery parts); tool apron (machinery parts); and tools (machinery parts)”. The validity period of the registration lasts from November 14, 2010 to November 13, 2020. The defendant Tianhua Company was founded on June 12, 2010. The business scope is production, processing, and sale of tools, and hardware accessories; sale of metal products, and rubber products. 原告静冈公司于2003年4月14日成立,经营范围为生产、销售公司自产的各种刀具及关联产品。产品使用的商标为注册商标,在本行业内和造纸行业内具有一定的知名度。2010年11月14日,静冈公司经中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理总局商标局核准注册了字母D加圆圈带十字线及箭头图案的商标(注册证号为第 7601794号),核定使用商品为第7类“造纸机(纸业机器);刀片(机器部件);刀座 (机器部件);刀具(机器零件)”。注册有效期限自2010年11月14日至2020年11月13日止。被告天华公司成立于2010年 6月12日,经营范围为生产加工、销售刀具、五金配件;销售金属制品、橡胶制品。
In 2012, the defendant Tianhua Company sold 14 sets of scraper and clamps, and 1 set of scraper, with a total price of 258,000 yuan, to Zhejiang Yongtai Paper Group Stock Co., Ltd. When selling the products, Tianhua Company used the combined pattern of TH and the Chinese characters of Tianhua Tools, embedded the logo and the aluminum nameplate of plaintiff Shizuoka Company's registered trademark, and used the logo in the wooden packaging box. The logo was also used in the quotations, brochures, and the website (www.tctian-hua.com) provided by Tianhua Company. The registered trademark of the plaintiff was also directly printed on the business card given by Chen Tianhua, the legal representative of Tianhua Company, to clients. In addition, Tianhua Company sold 1 set of pneumatic scraper and clamp with a scraper blade as gift, totaling 15,000 yuan, to Hangzhou Chunsheng Paper Co., Ltd., and used the aluminum nameplate with the logo in dispute in the products sold. 2012年,被告天华公司销售给浙江永泰纸业集团股份有限公司刮刀夹具改造 14套和刮刀体1套,总价格为258 000元,并在销售该产品时使用了TH及天华刀具汉字组合图形并在其中完整嵌入原告静冈公司注册商标的标识及铝制铭牌,且在木质包装箱上使用了该标识。天华公司提供的报价单、宣传册、公司网站(www.tctian- hua.com)上,也使用了该标识,天华公司法定代表人陈天华给客户的名片上,更直接印有原告的注册商标。此外,天华公司销售给杭州春胜纸业有限公司气动刮刀夹具1套,配送刮刀片1把,总价格为15 000元,并在销售该产品时使用了带有争议标识的铝制铭牌。
In May 2012, Taicang Administration for Industry and Commerce, Suzhou City, investigated defendant Tianhua Company's act of suspected infringement of plaintiff Shizuoka Company's trademark right and issued the Decision of Administrative Penalty (No. 00600 [2012] of Taicang Administration for Industry and Commerce) which ordered Tianhua Company to immediately cease the infringement act, confiscated 30 brochures, 181 nameplates, and 2 word templates with the trademark infringed, and imposed a fine of 150,000 yuan against Tianhua Company which was asserted as having infringed the trademark right of Shizuoka Company. During the case investigation process, Tianhua Company actively cooperated with the investigation, took initiative to close the website, and stopped using the relevant nameplates, brochures, and word templates with the trademark infringed. Subsequently, Tianhua Company filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting the revocation of the Decision of Administrative Penalty (No. 00600 [2012] of Taicang Administration for Industry and Commerce). The court of first instance dismissed the claims of Tianhua Company with the Administrative Judgment (No. 0001 [2012], First, Taicang). After the judgment was pronounced, Tianhua Company appealed. The Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict with the Administrative Judgment (No. 0001 [2013], Final, the Intermediate People's Court of Suzhou City). 2012年5月,苏州市太仓工商行政管理局对被告天华公司上述涉嫌侵犯原告静冈公司商标权的行为展开调查,并于7月 26日出具太工商案[2012]00600号行政处罚决定书,认定天华公司侵犯了静冈公司的商标权,责令其立即停止侵权行为,没收带侵权商标的宣传册30本、铭牌181只、字模板2块,并处罚款15万元。在案件调查过程中,天华公司积极配合调查,主动关闭网站,停止使用相关带侵权商标的铭牌、宣传册、字模板。后天华公司诉至一审法院要求撤销太工商案[2012]00600号行政处罚决定书。一审法院以(2012)太知行初字第0001号行政判决书驳回了天华公司的诉讼请求。宣判后天华公司提起上诉,苏州市中级人民法院以(2013)苏中知行终字第 0001号行政判决书驳回上诉,维持原判。
It was otherwise found out that plaintiff Shizuoka Company had paid 10,000 yuan of attorney fees for litigation of the case. 另查明,原告静冈公司为本案诉讼已支出律师费10 000元。
The People's Court of Taicang City found that plaintiff Shizuoka Company, as the right owner of the registered trademark with No. 7601794 registration certificate which was within the valid period, was protected by the law for the exclusive right to use trademarks. According to the provision of Article 52 (1) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2001), using a trademark which is identical with or similar to the registered trademark on the same kind of commodities or similar commodities without a license from the registrant of that trademark shall be an infringement upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Meanwhile, in accordance with the provision of paragraph 2, Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks, the term “similar trademarks” refers to that the trademark charged of infringement and the registered trademark of the plaintiff are similar in the font style, pronunciation, meaning of the words, or in the composition and color of the pictures, or in the overall structure of all the elements combined, or in the cubic form or combination of colors so that the relevant general public may be confused about the origin of the commodity or believe that there exist certain connections between the origin and the commodity which is represented by the registered trademark of the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff's registered trademark was specially designed with significant visual effect, rather than a simple combination of letters. And according to the available evidence, the plaintiff's trademark in dispute enjoys high reputation in the industry and the papermaking industry. The defendant completely embedded the picture identical to the registered trademark of Shizuoka Company in the logo used and also used the plaintiff's registered trademark and logo into which the plaintiff's trademark was embedded in the business cards of Tianhua Company's legal representative, its brochures, website, etc., which may make the relevant general public be confused about the origin of the product of Tianhua Company in dispute or believe that there exist certain connections between the origin and the commodity which is represented by the registered trademark of the Shizuoka Company in dispute, showing significant amplectant intent. Therefore, it should be determined that the logo in dispute used by Tianhua Company was similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to provide evidence to substantiate its prior legal use of the logo in dispute. And the defendant adopted the trademark similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark in the same kind of goods or similar goods, which infringed the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark. Therefore, the defendant should assume the legal liabilities of ceasing infringement, eliminating effects, and compensating for losses. 太仓市人民法院认为,原告静冈公司系注册证号为第7601794号注册商标的权利人,现处有效期内,其商标专用权依法受法律保护。根据《中华人民共和国商标法》 (2001年)第五十二条第(一)项规定,未经商标注册人的许可,在同一种商品或者类似商品上使用与其注册商标相同或者近似的商标的,属侵犯注册商标专用权行为。同时,根据最高人民法院《关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第九条第二款规定,商标近似是指被控侵权的商标与原告的注册商标相比较,其文字的字形、读音、含义或者图形的构图及颜色,或者其各要素组合后的整体结构相似,或者其立体形状、颜色组合近似,易使相关公众对商品的来源产生误认或者认为其来源与原告注册商标的商品有特定的联系。本案中,原告注册商标经过特殊设计而成,并不是简单的字母组合,在视觉效果上具有显著性,且根据现有证据,原告涉案商标在本行业内和造纸行业内具有较高知名度。被告在其使用的标识中完整嵌入了与静冈公司注册商标相同的图形,且天华公司法定代表人的名片、宣传册、网站等亦使用了原告商标及嵌入原告商标的标识,易使相关公众认为天华公司的涉案产品来源与静冈公司使用涉案注册商标的商品具有特定的联系,明显具有攀附的故意,故应当认定天华公司使用争议标识与原告注册商标构成近似。被告并未提供证据证实其在先合法使用争议标识,且其未经许可,属在同一种商品或类似商品使用与原告注册商标近似的商标,侵犯了原告注册商标专用权,依法应承担停止侵害、消除影响、赔偿损失的法律责任。
For plaintiff Shizuoka Company's request that Tianhua Company should destroy all infringing products, logos, relevant packaging boxes, promotional materials, etc., the court of first instance found that: the Taicang Administration for Industry and Commerce, Suzhou City had confiscated the brochures, nameplates, word templates, etc. with the infringing trademark; during the investigation process of the case, Tianhua Company took initiative to close the website, stopped using the relevant brochures, nameplates, and word templates with the infringing trademark; and it was difficult to prove that the defendant kept infringing products, logos, relevant packaging boxes, promotional materials, etc., with the existing evidence. In accordance with the provision of paragraph 2, Article 21 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks, where the administrative department for industry and commerce has already imposed administrative punishments to a same act of infringing upon the exclusive right of the registered trademark, the people's court shall not give any more civil sanctions. In this case, Tianhua Company had been subject to punishment by an administrative department for industry and commerce. No more civil sanctions should be given thereto according to the law. Therefore, Shizuoka Company's request that Tianhua Company should destroy all infringing products, logos, relevant packaging boxes, promotional materials, etc. should not be supported. 关于原告静冈公司要求被告天华公司销毁所有侵权产品、标识、相关包装盒、宣传资料等。一审法院认为,苏州市太仓工商行政管理局已没收带侵权商标的宣传册、铭牌、字模板等,且在案件调查过程中,天华公司主动关闭网站,停止使用相关侵权商标的铭牌、宣传册、字模板,同时现有证据尚难予以证明被告处存有侵权产品、标识、相关包装盒、宣传资料等。根据最高人民法院《关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第二十一条第二款规定,工商行政管理部门对同一侵犯注册商标专用权行为已给予行政处罚的,人民法院不再予以民事制裁,本案中天华公司已受到工商行政管理部门的处罚,依法不再予以民事制裁。因此,对静冈公司要求天华公司销毁所有侵权产品、标识、相关包装盒、宣传资料等相关侵权物品的诉讼请求已无需支持。
For the amount of compensation to be assumed by defendant Tianhua Company, as plaintiff Shizuoka Company failed to provide evidence in litigation to prove its specific losses suffered due to the infringement act or provide direct evidence proving the defendant's earning profits from infringement, therefore the amount of compensation should be appropriately determined with comprehensive consideration to the reputation of the registered trademark in dispute, the nature and scale of the infringement act, the value of the infringing stuffs, and the reasonable expenses paid by Shizuoka Company to stop the infringement act. 关于被告天华公司应承担的赔偿数额,因原告静冈公司未能举证证明其因侵权行为所遭受的具体损失,亦未能提供被告侵权获利的直接证据,故综合考虑涉案注册商标的知名度、侵权行为的性质和规模、侵权物品的价值、静冈公司为制止侵权行为所支出的合理费用等因素酌情确定。
For plaintiff Shizuoka Company's claim requesting that defendant Tianhua Company should publish statements in the magazines of the China Pulp & Paper and the Fortune Paper in order to eliminate the influence, as Tianhua Company would mislead relevant consumers by using the trademark of Shizuoka Company in the business cards of its legal representative, brochures, website, etc. and embedding the trademark of Shizuoka Company, Shizuoka Company's request of eliminating the impact of the infringement act should be supported and the specific manner should be appropriately determined in combination with the nature, scale, and influence of the infringement act. 关于原告静冈公司诉请被告天华公司在《中国造纸》和《财富纸业》上刊登声明以消除影响,由于天华公司在法定代表人名片、宣传册、网站等使用静冈公司商标及嵌入静冈公司商标会误导相关消费者,故静冈公司要求其就涉案侵权行为消除影响的诉请予以支持,具体方式将结合侵权行为的性质、规模及影响等因素酌情确定。
In conclusion, the People's Court of Taicang City, in accordance with the provision of Article 118 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 52 (1) and paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, paragraph 2 of Article 9, Article 10, Article 16, Article 17, and Article 21 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks, rendered the judgment on July 5, 2013: 综上,太仓市人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百一十八条,《中华人民共和国商标法》(2001年)第五十二条第(一)项、第五十六条第二款,最高人民法院《关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第九条第二款、第十条、第十六条、第十七条、第二十一条之规定,于2013年7月5日作出判决:
(1) Defendant Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. should immediately stop infringing the exclusive right of plaintiff Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. to use No. 7601794 registered trademark. 一、被告太仓天华刀具有限公司立即停止侵犯原告苏州静冈刀具有限公司第 7601794号注册商标专用权的行为;
(2) Defendant Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. should, within ten days from the judgment's entry into force, compensate plaintiff Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. for the economic losses and reasonable expenses paid for ceasing the infringement act, totaling 50,000. 二、被告太仓天华刀具有限公司于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿原告苏州静冈刀具有限公司经济损失及为制止侵权行为所支付的合理费用合计人民币50000元;
(3) Defendant Taicang Tianhua Tools Co., Ltd. should, within thirty days from the judgment's entry into force, publish a statement respectively in the magazines of the China Pulp & Paper and the Fortune Paper in order to eliminate the influence (the contents should be reviewed and approved by the court). 三、被告太仓天华刀具有限公司于本判决生效之日起三十日内就其侵权行为在《中国造纸》和《财富纸业》杂志上各刊登声明一次以消除影响(内容须经法院审核);
(4) Other claims of plaintiff Suzhou Shizuoka Doctor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. should be dismissed. 四、驳回原告苏州静冈刀具有限公司的其他诉讼请求。
After the judgment of first instance was pronounced, neither defendant nor plaintiff appealed within the statutory time limit. The judgment of first instance has come into force. 一审宣判后,双方当事人在法定期间均未上诉,一审判决已发生法律效力。
fnl_3439074 
     
     
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