>>>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
 
Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Group Co. v. Kunming Branch of Harbin Fucheng Catering Co. Ltd. (A case of dispute over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)
河北三河福成养牛集团总公司诉哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司昆明分公司侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->IPR Ownership & Infringement ; IPR-->Others
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 04-05-2007
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 6,2008

Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Group Co. v. Kunming Branch of Harbin Fucheng Catering Co. Ltd. (A case of dispute over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)
(A case of dispute over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)
河北三河福成养牛集团总公司诉哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司昆明分公司侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Group Co. v. Kunming Branch of Harbin Fucheng Catering Co. Ltd.
(A case of dispute over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)

 

河北三河福成养牛集团总公司诉哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司昆明分公司侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Judgment Summary

 【裁判摘要】
1.Under Item 1 of Article 1 of theInterpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Lawsconcerning Hearing of Cases Involving Trademarks Civil Disputes, use of charactersidentical with or similar to others' registered trademark as the name of anenterprise that can easily mislead relevant public shall be held as a conduct causingdamage to the right to the exclusive use of others' registered trademark. UnderParagraph 2 of Article 7 of the Opinions of the State Trademark Office onSeveral Issues concerning the Protection of Service Trademarks, other people'snormal use of a customary mark in the service sector and the normal use oftrade name, individual name, name of geographic location and the site where theservice is provided to present the attributes of the service and introduce theservice items, does not constitute infringement upon the right to the exclusiveuse of the service trademark, except for acts with the obvious purpose ofunfair competition. According to the provisions stated above, an enterpriseshall comply with the principle of good faith when it uses characters identicalwith or similar to others' registered trademark as its trade name on similar oridentical products. Where the actor takes advantage of others' famous trademarkwith the purpose of causing confusion of relevant public about the recognitionon relevant products and arbitrarily simplifies its trade name and used on itsproduct, such act shall be held as acts of infringement upon the right to theexclusive use of others' registered trademark 一、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》第一条第(一)项的规定,将与他人注册商标相同或相近似的文字作为企业的字号在相同或者类似商品上突出使用,容易使相关公众产生误认的属于给他人注册商标专用权造成损害的行为。根据国家商标局《关于保护服务商标若干问题的意见》第七条第二款的规定,他人正常使用服务行业惯用标志,以及正常方式使用商号(字号)、姓名、地名、服务场所名称,表示服务特点,对服务事项进行说明等不构成侵犯服务商标专用权行为,但具有明显不正当竞争意图的除外。根据上述规定,企业将与他人注册商标相同或相近似的文字作为字号在相同或者类似商品上使用时应遵循诚实信用原则。行为人以攀附他人知名商标,混淆相关公众对于相关商品的认知为目的,随意简化自己的商号在商品上使用的,属于侵犯他人注册商标专用权的行为。
2. under Article 5 of the Anti-unfairCompetition Law, an operator may not take the following unfair approaches inmarket transactions to the detriment of competitors: (1) counterfeiting others'registered trademark; (2) using without authorization the unique name, packageor decoration of a famous product, or using a name, package or decoration whichis similar to that of a famous product, so as to confuse its product withothers' famous product and make consumers falsely identify its product as thefamous product……”.  Under the provisionsstated above, using without authorization the unique name, package ordecoration of a famous product, or using a name, package or decoration which issimilar to that of a famous product to confuse its product with others' famousproduct and make consumers falsely identify its product as the famous product shallbe held as unfair competition conduct.

BASIC FACTS

 二、反不正当竞争法五条规定:“经营者不得采用下列不正当手段从事市场交易,损害竞争对手:(一)假冒他人的注册商标;(二)擅自使用知名商品特有的名称、包装、装璜,或者使用与知名商品近似的名称、包装、装璜,造成和他人的知名商品相混淆,使购买者误认为是该知名商品;……”根据上述规定,擅自使用他人知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢,或者使用与他人知名商品近似的名称、包装、装潢,造成和他人的知名商品相混淆,使消费者误认为是该知名商品的行为属不正当竞争行为。
Plaintiff: Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Group Co., domiciled at Xingrong Village, Sanhe City, Hebei Province. 原告:河北三河福成养牛集团总公司,住所地:河北省三河市兴隆庄。
Legal representative: Li Gaoqi, chairman of the board of this company. 法定代表人:李高起,该公司董事长。
Defendant: Kunming Branch of Harbin Fucheng Catering Co., Ltd. domiciled at Chajie Street, Kunming City, Yunnan Province. 被告:哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司昆明分公司,住所地:云南省昆明市岔街。
Person in charge: Chen Mengdi, manager of this branch. 负责人:陈梦迪,该分公司经理。
The plaintiff, Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Group Co. (referred to as Sanhe Fucheng Co.) filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming City, Yunnan Province for the dispute over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and for the unfair competition conducted by the defendant, Harbin Fucheng Catering Co., Ltd (referred to as Kunming Fucheng Co.). 原告河北三河福成养牛集团总公司 (以下简称三河福成公司)因与被告哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司昆明分公司(以下简称昆明福成公司)发生侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷,向云南省昆明市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiff, Sanhe Fucheng Co. alleged that: Sanhe Fucheng Co. obtained No.1344801 certificate of trademark registration issued by State Trademark Office in 1999 and enjoyed the right to the exclusive use of “Fucheng” on services such as restaurants and hotels, etc. The defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. distinctively used the characters “Fucheng” without permission of the plaintiff, Sanhe Fucheng Co. in the advertisement words on the front, left and upper part of the door of the business place, the internal food-ordering cards, the advertisement documents pasted inside the store and the distributed leaflets, and used the name and special decoration of the well-known service “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” of Sanhe Fucheng Co. without authorization, which were serious enough to mislead and confuse the relevant public, and thus infringed the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. and constituted unfair competition. The plaintiff required the court to order Kunming Fucheng Co. to stop the use of the enterprise name with the characters “Fucheng”, immediately stop the various advertisement and propaganda with the characters “Fucheng”, replace the propaganda signboards with the characters “Fucheng” and eliminate the adverse effects, make an apology to Sanhe Fucheng Co. on Kunming Daily and compensate Sanhe Fucheng Co. 200,000 yuan for the economic losses it had suffered. 原告三河福成公司诉称:三河福成公司于1999年获得国家商标局颁发的第 1344801号商标注册证书,对餐馆、旅馆等服务项目享有“福成”注册商标专用权。被告昆明福成公司未经原告许可,在其经营场所店门的正面、左侧和上方的广告宣传文字、店内定餐卡、店内张贴的广告宣传资料和散发的宣传单中突出使用三河福成公司的注册商标文字“福成”,并擅自使用三河福成公司知名服务“福成肥牛火锅”的名称和特有装潢,足以使相关公众产生混淆和误认,侵犯三河福成公司注册商标专用权,并构成不正当竞争。请求法院判令昆明福成公司停止使用带有“福成”文字的企业名称,立即停止带有“福成”文字的各类广告宣传,更换带有“福成”文字的宣传招牌,消除影响,在《昆明日报》上向三河福成公司赔礼道歉,并赔偿三河福成公司经济损失人民币20万元。
The defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co., argued that: Firstly, on April 7, 2003, No.1344801 registered trademark at issue had been transferred by the plaintiff, Sanhe Fucheng Co. to a party not involved in this case, i.e., Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle-raising Co., Ltd, which had been cancelled by now, so Sanhe Fucheng Co. was not a qualified litigation subject and had no right to file a lawsuit. Secondly, the acts of Kunming Fucheng Co. did not confuse or mislead the relevant public. “Fucheng”, as the enterprise name of Kunming Fucheng Co., had been approved and registered by the administrative authority of industry and commerce in early December 1997. It was completely legal for the company to use its own name, which neither infringed any other person's right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark, nor constituted unfair competition. The defendant pleaded with the court to overrule the claim of Sanhe Fucheng Co. 被告昆明福成公司辩称:第一、涉案第 1344801号注册商标已于2003年4月7日由原告三河福成公司转让给案外人河北三河福成养牛有限公司,该公司现已被注销,三河福成公司不具备适格的诉讼主体资格,无权提起诉讼。第二、昆明福成公司的行为并不会导致相关公众产生混淆和误认。“福成”作为昆明福成公司的企业字号,早在1997年12月就通过了工商行政机关的核准登记,本公司完全是合法使用自己的字号,不侵犯他人的注册商标专用权,也不构成不正当竞争。请求法院驳回三河福成公司的诉讼请求。
Through the first trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming found that: 昆明市中级人民法院一审审理查明:
Sanhe Fucheng Co. was an enterprise mainly engaged in raising cattle and the provision of relevant services. On December 14, 1999, Sanhe Fucheng Co. obtained the right to the exclusive use of No.1344801 registered trademark. The trademark was a composite trademark consisting of Chinese characters, pinyin and drawings (the upper part was Chinese characters “Fucheng”, the lower part was Chinese pinyin “fucheng” with drawing of a cattle head). The services approved under the trademark were restaurant, hotel and animal-raising. Sanhe Fucheng Co. started to run the catering industry of hotpot, carry out franchised chain operation, and use the registered trademark on the plaque and the upper part of the door of these business places, by the side of which were labeled the characters “Fucheng Beef”, “Fucheng”, “Fucheng Beef City” and “Fucheng Beef Seafood City” etc. On May 21, 2003, Sanhe Fucheng Co. transferred the registered trademark to a party not involved in this case, Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Co., Ltd. On August 18, 2004, Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Co., Ltd. concluded a contract for licensed use of registered trademark with Sanhe Fucheng Co. and agreed that Sanhe Fucheng Co should obtain the right to the exclusive use of No.1344801 registered trademark and the right to separately file a lawsuit of right protection. On that day, both parties also signed power of attorney to reaffirm the above rights obtained by Sanhe Fucheng Co. 原告三河福成公司系主营畜牧养殖与经营相关服务项目的企业。1999年12月 14日,三河福成公司获得第1344801号注册商标专用权。该商标系汉字、拼音加图形的组合商标(上部为汉字“福成”,下部为汉语拼音fucheng加牛头形图案)。该商标核定服务项目为餐馆、旅馆和动物养殖。三河福成公司开始经营以肥牛为主的火锅餐饮业,并进行连锁加盟经营,在这些经营场所的牌匾、店门抬头上使用了该注册商标,在商标旁则配合标明“福成肥牛”、“福成”、“福成肥牛城”和“福成肥牛海鲜城”等文字。2003年5月21日,三河福成公司将该注册商标转让给案外人河北三河福成养牛有限公司。2004年8月18日,三河福成养牛有限公司与三河福成公司签订注册商标使用许可合同,约定三河福成公司获得独占使用第1344801号注册商标及单独提起维权诉讼的权利。同日双方还签订一份授权委托书,重申三河福成公司取得的上述权利。
The defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. was a branch of Harbin Fucheng Catering Co., Ltd. (referred to as Harbin Fucheng Co.). Harbin Fucheng Co. was established on June 10, 1999 whose business scope was catering and retailing tobacco and wine, also engaged in running beef hotpot, and also started to carry out the franchised chain operation. Kunming Fucheng Co. used the characters “Fucheng Hotpot” on the plaque hung outside the business places, it used the characters “Fucheng Beef Chafing Cattle” on the wall outside the restaurant, and used the characters “Kunming Flagship of Fucheng Beef Hotpot” in the introduction of Harbin Fucheng Co., the promotional documents, and the ordering cards. 被告昆明福成公司系哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司(以下简称哈尔滨福成公司)的分支机构。哈尔滨福成公司登记成立于1999年6月10日,经营范围为餐饮和烟酒零售,其同样经营以肥牛为主的火锅餐饮业,并且也开始进行连锁经营。昆明福成公司在其经营场所外悬挂的牌匾上标明“福成火锅”文字,在店外墙面上标明“福成肥牛火锅”文字,在其宣传材料和订餐卡上写有“福成肥牛火锅昆明旗舰店”文字以及哈尔滨福成公司的企业介绍。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The focuses of dispute in the first instance were: 1.Whether or not the plaintiff, Sanhe Fucheng Co. was a qualified plaintiff; 2. Whether the acts conducted by the defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. was a proper use of enterprise name within the reasonable use extent or an infringement upon others' right to the use of a registered trademark. 一审争议焦点为:1.原告三河福成公司是否为适格原告;2.被告昆明福成公司实施的行为属于在合理使用范围内对企业名称的正当使用,还是属于侵犯他人注册商标权。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
Upon first trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming held that: 昆明市中级人民法院一审认为:
1. As for whether or not Sanhe Fucheng Co. was a qualified plaintiff, Article 53 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China prescribes that: “In the event of any of the acts as listed in Article 52 of this law, whereby the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark has been infringed upon so that a dispute has arisen, the parties shall settle the dispute through negotiations; if any party refuses to negotiate or the negotiation fails, the registrant of that trademark or the interested persons may bring a suit before a people's court, either may they request the administrative department for industry and commerce to handle the matter. …” Article 4 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 stipulates that: “The term ‘interested parties' as used in Article 53 of the Trademark Law shall include the licensee to a contract for the licensed use of registered trademarks and the lawful heirs of the property rights of a registered trademark, etc. When the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is infringed upon, the licensee to the contract for the monopolized license may institute an action with the people's court; the licensee to the contract for exclusive license may institute a joint action with the trademark registrant or file an action on its own initiative in case the trademark registrant refuses to institute an action, and the licensee to the contract for normal license may, upon explicit authorization of the trademark registrant, file an action.” According to the above provisions, the interested parties of the registered trademark shall have the relevant right of action, the “interested parties” include the licensee to a contract for licensed use of registered trademark, and the licensee to the contract for monopolized license may institute an action with the people's court. Sanhe Fucheng Co. was the licensee to the contract for monopolized use of the registered trademark involved in this case, and was a qualified plaintiff in this case. 一、关于原告三河福成公司是否为适格原告的问题。《中华人民共和国商标法》 (以下简称商标法)第五十三条规定:“有本法第五十二条所列侵犯注册商标专用权行为之一,引起纠纷的,由当事人协商解决;不愿协商或者协商不成的,商标注册人或者利害关系人可以向人民法院起诉,也可以请求工商行政管理部门处理。……”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》第四条规定:“商标法五十三条我能说我还比较喜欢洗碗吗规定的利害关系人,包括注册商标使用许可合同的被许可人、注册商标财产权利的合法继承人等。在发生注册商标专用权被侵害时,独占使用许可合同的被许可人可以向人民法院提起诉讼;排他使用许可合同的被许可人可以和商标注册人共同起诉,也可以在商标注册人不起诉的情况下,自行提起诉讼;普通使用许可合同的被许可人经商标注册人明确授权,可以提起诉讼。”根据上述规定,注册商标的利害关系人享有相应的诉权,利害关系人的范围包括注册商标许可使用合同的被许可人,独占使用许可合同的被许可人可以向人民法院提起诉讼。三河福成公司系涉案注册商标独占使用许可合同的被许可人,是本案适格原告。
2. As for whether the acts conducted by the defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. was a proper use of enterprise name within the reasonable extent or an infringement upon any other person's right to the use of registered trademark. 二、关于被告昆明福成公司实施的行为是属于在合理使用范围内对企业名称的正当使用,还是属于侵犯他人注册商标权的问题。
Firstly, according to the provision of Article 99 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China开弓没有回头箭, the legal persons shall enjoy the right of name. In this case, the time for the defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. to obtain the right of enterprise name before Sanhe Fucheng Co. obtained the right to the exclusive use of No.1344801 registered trademark. Both the right to the exclusive use of registered trademark and the right of enterprise name are civil rights protected by law. No matter whether the right in question is a right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark or the right to enterprise name, the owner shall adhere to the principle of good faith, and avoid the conflict of rights incurred due to the improper use of the rights. 首先,根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第九十九条之规定,法人享有名称权。本案中,被告昆明福成公司企业名称权取得时间先于原告三河福成公司第1344801号注册商标专用权取得的时间。注册商标专用权和企业名称权均属受法律保护的民事权利,不论注册商标专用权还是企业名称权,权利人在行使的时候都应遵循诚实信用原则,避免因不当使用而造成权利冲突。
Secondly, according to the provisions of Article 14 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the establishment of a branch company is a legal right of a legal person, it was not improper for Harbin Fucheng Co. to register and establish Kunming Fucheng Co. as a branch, and use the name of the enterprise in the name of the branch, and there was no legal basis for Sanhe Fucheng Co. to require Kunming Fucheng Co. to stop the use of the enterprise name bearing the characters “Fucheng”. 第二,根据《中华人民共和国公司法》第十四条的规定,设立分公司是法人的合法权利,哈尔滨福成公司登记设立被告昆明福成公司作为其分支机构,并在该分支机构名称中使用涉案企业名称并无不当,原告三河福成公司要求昆明福成公司停止使用带有“福成”文字的企业名称没有法律依据。
Thirdly, according to the provision of Article 7 (2) of the Opinions of the Trademark Office of State Administration of Industry and Commerce on Several Issues on the Protection of Service Trademarks, other person's normal use of practical signs of a service industry and use of a trade name (shop name), family name, place name, name of the service place for indication of service characters and specification on the service matters etc. shall not constitute an infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a service trademark. It is a general practice of the catering industry to adopt the mode of shop operation with its enterprise name appearing in an eye-catching position of the shop hall (plaque, upper part of the door etc), which helps consumers distinguish the service provider correctly and intuitively, use of the full name of the enterprise may not impress the consumers easily, so through long business practice, there developed a simplified way of using the trade name only. But the enterprise name used in a reasonably simplified way should include the trade name and the nature of the trade so as to ensure the basic distinctiveness of the enterprise name, and should not give undue prominence to the trade name, otherwise it will exceed the extent of normal use. The defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. was an enterprise engaging in the catering service with “Beef” as the general name of the materials, the formulations of “Fucheng Hotpot”, “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” and “Kunming Flagship of Fucheng Beef Hotpot” etc used by the Kunming Fucheng Co. included the enterprise name and its approved business operation, and did not give prominence to the characters “Fucheng” of the trade name, so it should be a reasonably simplified use of the enterprise name and did not constitute an infringement upon the legal rights and interests of the plaintiff, Sanhe Fucheng Co. 第三,根据国家工商管理总局商标局《关于保护服务商标若干问题的意见》第七条第二款的规定,他人正常使用服务行业惯用标志,以及正常方式使用商号(字号)、姓名、地名、服务场所名称,表示服务特点,对服务事项进行说明等不构成侵犯服务商标专用权行为。餐饮行业的经营方式一般采取店堂经营,在店堂的醒目位置(牌匾、门头等处)突出使用企业名称可以使消费者准确、直观地识别服务的提供者,而完整使用企业名称不易强化消费者对字号部分的识别印象,故在长期商业实践中逐渐发展出仅保留其中字号部分的简化使用方式。但合理简化使用的企业名称应当包括字号和行业性质部分,以确保企业名称的基本识别性,且不得刻意突出字号部分,否则就超出了正当使用的范围。被告昆明福成公司系从事餐饮服务的企业,“肥牛”是原料的通用名称,昆明福成公司使用的“福成火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅”和“福成肥牛火锅昆明旗舰店”等表述包括了企业字号,并且反映了该企业经核准经营的内容,没有突出其中的字号“福成”文字部分,属于合理简化使用企业名称,并不构成对原告三河福成公司合法权益的侵害。
In conclusion, as the defendant, Kunming Fucheng Co. did not infringe upon the right to the exclusive use of registered trademark of the plaintiff, Sanhe Fucheng Co. the claims of Sanhe Fucheng Co. was untenable. Hence, on November 24, 2006, the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming rendered a judgment: the claims of Sanhe Fucheng Co. shall be overruled. The case acceptance fee of 5,510 yuan shall be borne by Sanhe Fucheng Co. 综上,被告昆明福成公司并未侵犯原告三河福成公司注册商标专用权,三河福成公司的诉讼请求不能成立。据此,昆明市中级人民法院于2006年11月24日判决:驳回三河福成公司的诉讼请求。案件受理费5510元,由三河福成公司负担。
Sanhe Fucheng Co. was dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance, and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province, requiring the court to quash the original judgment and change the judgment according to law. The main grounds were: 1. According to the provision of Article 1 (1) of the Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademarks, the distinctive use of the words that are identical or similar to the registered trademark of any other person as the name of one's enterprise on identical or similar commodities so that the relevant public are liable to be misled is an act of infringement upon trademark. It was groundless for the original judgment to rule that the time of trademark registration shall precede the time of approval and registration for the enterprise name as a precondition for such provisions to be applicable; 2. The simplified use of an enterprise name shall adhere to the principle of good faith and be reported to the competent authority of registration for record. As No.1344801 registered trademark had high market reputation, and Harbin Fucheng Co. was a customer of Sanhe Fucheng Co. before the establishment of Kunming Fucheng Co., so the latter should have full knowledge of the reputation of No.13441801 registered trademark, but it still viciously used the words “Fucheng” without any procedure of record, therefore, its use was in no way a reasonable simplification of the enterprise name; 3. “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” of Sanhe Fucheng Co. was a well-known service, the decoration, advertisement, and menu, etc. were similar to the that of Sanhe Fucheng Co. in both name and decoration, and thus constituted the unfair competition; 4. Kunming Fucheng's revenue from illegal use of the name could be determined according to law; and its business profits should be used as basis for compensation. Furthermore, the new evidence provided by Sanhe Fucheng proved that No.13441801 registered trademark in question had been lawfully transferred by Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Co., Ltd. to Sanhe Fucheng Co., and Sanhe Fucheng Co. thus became the owner of the right to the exclusive use of the trademark. In conclusion, the facts determined in the judgment of the first instance were unclear, the application of law was incorrect, and the judgment of the first instance should be modified according to law. 三河福成公司不服一审判决,向云南省高级人民法院提出上诉,请求撤销原判,依法改判。主要理由是:1.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》第一条第(一)项之规定,将与他人注册商标相同或近似的文字在相同或近似商品上突出使用,容易使相关公众产生误认的即为商标侵权行为,原判将商标注册时间需先于企业字号核准登记时间作为适用该条规定的前提条件缺乏根据;2.企业名称的简化使用必须遵循诚实信用原则,且必须报登记主管机关备案,第 1344801号注册商标具有很高的市场知名度,哈尔滨福成公司在设立昆明福成公司之前即是上诉人三河福成公司的客户,其完全知晓第1344801号注册商标的知名度,但仍恶意使用该商标“福成”文字,且未经任何备案程序,其使用行为并非企业名称的合理简化;3.三河福成公司的“福成肥牛火锅”系知名服务,昆明福成公司的装潢、广告用语、菜单等均与三河福成公司的特有名称、特有装潢相同,已构成不正当竞争。4.昆明福成公司的非法经营额依法可以确定,其营业利润应作为赔偿依据。此外,三河福成公司提出新证据证明涉案的 1344801号注册商标已由河北三河福成养牛有限公司依法转让给三河福成公司,三河福成公司在本案中系商标专用权人。综上,一审判决认定事实不清,适用法律错误,应当依法改判。
The appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. argued that: 1. Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Co., Ltd. was cancelled in March 2005, and its capacity for civil disposition and civil rights were eliminated accordingly, the transfer of No.13441801 registered trademark by the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co. was invalid. Sanhe Fucheng Co. had no right to file the action in the name of the owner of the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark; 2. Kunming Fucheng Co. was a branch duly established in Kunming by Harbin Fucheng Co., and should enjoy the right to the enterprise name; 3. The formulations of “Fucheng Hotpot”, “Fucheng Beef Hotpot”, and “Kunming Flagship of Fucheng Beef Hotpot” etc. used by Kunming Fucheng Co. was a reasonably simplified use of the enterprise name, and did not constitute the infringement upon the legal rights and interests of Sanhe Fucheng Co. The appellee pleaded with the court of the second instance to dismiss the appeal and maintain the original judgment. 被上诉人昆明福成公司辩称:1.河北三河福成养牛有限公司于2005年3月已被注销,其民事行为及权利能力消灭,上诉人三河福成公司受让1344801号注册商标专用权无效,无权以注册商标专用权人名义提起本案诉讼;2.昆明福成公司系哈尔滨福成公司在昆明市依法设立的分支机构,依法享有企业名称权;3.昆明福成公司使用“福成火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅旗舰店”等表述属于合理简化使用企业名称,不构成对三河福成公司合法权益的侵害。请求二审法院驳回上诉,维持原判。
Through the second trial, the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province ascertained that: 云南省高级人民法院二审审理查明:
The appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co. obtained the right of exclusive use of No.13441801 registered trademark on December 14, 1999. The trademark was a composite trademark consisting of Chinese characters, pinyin and drawing (the upper part was Chinese characters “Fucheng”, the lower part was Chinese pinyin “Fucheng” with the drawing of a cattle head), and the approved services include restaurant, hotel and animal-raising. On May 21, 2003, Sanhe Fucheng Co. transferred the trademark to Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Co., Ltd, a party not involved in the present case. On August 18, 2004, Hebei Sanhe Fucheng Cattle Co., Ltd concluded a License Contract on Use of Registered Trademark and issued a power of attorney, clarifying that Sanhe Fucheng Co. shall obtain the right to the monopolized use of No.13441801 registered trademark and have the right to seek legal protection in its own name. On November 17, 2006, Sanhe Fucheng Co. accepted the trademark, and became the owner of the right to the exclusive use of No. 13441801 registered trademark. 上诉人三河福成公司于1999年12月 14日获得第1344801号注册商标专用权。该商标系汉字、拼音加图形的组合商标(上部为汉字“福成”,下部为汉语拼音fucheng加牛头形图案),核定服务项目为餐馆、旅馆和动物养殖。三河福成公司于2003年5月21日将该商标转让给案外人河北三河福成养牛有限公司。2004年8月18日,河北三河福成养牛有限公司与三河福成公司签订《注册商标使用许可合同》,并出具《授权委托书》,明确三河福成公司获得独占使用1344801号注册商标的权利,并有权单独提起维权诉讼。2006年11月17日,三河福成公司再次受让该商标,成为第 1344801号注册商标专用权人。
“Fucheng Beef Hotpot” was a well-known brand of hotpot continuously operated for many years by Sanhe Fucheng Co., which won the good words of the relevant department and the market, and had occupied a certain market share, and developed tens of franchised chain stores in many provinces and municipalities. The plaques of the franchised chain stores were completely labeled with No. 13441801 registered trademark and such characters as “Fucheng Beef”, “Fucheng” and “Fucheng Beef Seafood City” etc. “福成肥牛火锅”系上诉人三河福成公司多年持续经营的知名火锅服务,该服务在现阶段得到了有关部门及市场的肯定,并已形成一定市场规模,在国内多个省市发展了数十家加盟连锁店。以上连锁加盟店牌匾上均完整标明1344801号注册商标及“福成肥牛”、“福成”、“福成肥牛城”、“福成肥牛海鲜城”等文字。
Kunming Fucheng Co. was a branch lawfully established on August 19, 2005 by Harbin Fucheng Co., which was established on June 10, 1999. Both Harbin Fucheng Co. and Kunming Fucheng Co. had long-term business contacts with the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co., and purchased its “Fucheng” beef from Sanhe Fucheng Co. for many times. 被上诉人昆明福成公司系哈尔滨福成公司依法设立的分支机构。哈尔滨福成公司成立于1999年6月10日,昆明福成公司成立于2005年8月19日。哈尔滨福成公司及昆明福成公司均与上诉人三河福成公司具有长期业务往来,多次向三河福成公司购买其“福成”牌牛肉。
As a provider of hotpot services in Kunming City, the place where it was registered for establishment, Kunming Fucheng used on the plaques, external wall, internal decoration, advertising documents, food-ordering cards and menus, etc of its business place such characters as “Fucheng”, “Fucheng Group”, “Fucheng Beef”, “Fucheng Hotpot”, “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” and “Kunming Flagship of Fucheng Beef Hotpot” etc. There hung a picture in the hall of the store describing the different parts where beef was taken from, and thus different names were accorded to the beef taken from that part (such as “eye”, “outer loins”, “upper head” and “S eye”) as marked in the picture. Also used in the advertisement were such words as “Eating Fucheng Beef, Good Fortune will come” on the advertising banner inside the store. On the lamp box was an animated ox lifting a flag affiliated with the characters “Fucheng”. Moreover, the characters “Long Fucheng Beef Hotpot” appeared on the lamp box outside the store, but the character “Long” was evidently smaller than the two characters “Fucheng”. 被上诉人昆明福成公司在注册登记地昆明市经营火锅餐饮业,在其经营场所的牌匾、外墙、内外装饰、宣传资料、定餐卡、菜单等显著标有“福成”、“福成集团”、“福成肥牛”、“福成火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅昆明旗舰店”等文字;店堂内悬挂牛肉分割图,并配合该牛肉分割图中标明的牛肉部位称谓(如“眼肉”、“外脊”、“上脑”、“S眼肉”)制作菜单;在店内宣传横幅上使用“吃福成肥牛福到事成”的广告语,在牌匾上灯箱中标注有卡通牛举旗图案并附有“福成”字样的图案,此外,在店外灯箱上标有“龙福成肥牛火锅”文字,其中“龙”字明显小于“福成”二字。
Kunming Fucheng Co. turned over a total of 557,324 yuan of business tax for a business turnover of 11,146,480 yuan from its establishment up to the present. 被上诉人昆明福成公司自2005年成立至今共上缴营业税557 324元,营业额为11 146 480元。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The focuses of the dispute in the second instance were: 1. Whether Kunming Fucheng Co. infringed the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co.; 2. Whether the acts of Kunming Fucheng Co. constituted unfair competition; 3. If the acts of Kunming Fucheng Co. constituted the infringement, how to determine the compensation amount for the infringement. 二审争议焦点为:1.被上诉人昆明福成公司是否侵犯上诉人三河福成公司注册商标专用权;2.昆明福成公司的行为是否构成不正当竞争;3.昆明福成公司的行为如果构成侵权,侵权赔偿数额应当如何确定。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
Through the second trial, the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province held that: 云南省高级人民法院二审认为:
1. As for whether Kunming Fucheng Co. infringed the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co. 一、关于被上诉人昆明福成公司是否侵犯上诉人三河福成公司注册商标专用权的问题。
In this case, the characters in the No.13441801 registered trademark, whose exclusive use right belonged to Sanhe Fucheng Co., were “Fucheng”, which was used by Kunming Fucheng Co. in its business place. Both the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. and the right to the enterprise name of Kunming Fucheng Co. were lawful rights. The laws protects the lawful exercise of rights on the one hand, on the other hand it also prohibits the abuse of rights. As far as the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark is concerned, Article 44 of the Trademark Law prescribes that: “In the event of any of the following acts concerning the use of a registered trademark, the Trademark Office shall order rectification of the situation within a specified period or shall revoke the registered trademark: (1) if the registered trademark is altered without authorization; (2) if the registrant's name, address or any other registered matter concerning the registered trademark is changed without authorization; (3) if the registered trademark is assigned without authorization; and (4) if the registered trademark has not been used for three consecutive years.” Article 51 prescribes that: “The right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark shall be limited to the trademarks whose registration has been approved and to the commodities on which the use of a trademark has been approved.” According to the above provisions, the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark shall be limited to the trademarks whose registration has been approved and to the commodities on which the use of a trademark has been approved. The laws protects the integrated use of a registered trademark and prohibits the altered use and partial use of the registered trademark altered without authorization. In this case, it was legal use for Sanhe Fucheng Co. to completely and clearly label its No.13441801 registered trademark on the plaque at its business place, but whether or not the use of the enterprise name of Kunming Fucheng Co. was normal use according to law was a key issue in this case. Article 1 (1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes Arising from Trademark stipulates that: “The use of words that are identical or similar to the registered trademark of any other person as the name of one's enterprise name on identical or similar commodities so that the relevant public are liable to be misled shall be the acts of causing other damages to the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark of other people.” Hence, in order to determine whether or not Kunming Fucheng Co. infringed the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co., it is necessary to examine whether or not the use of the name by Kunming Fucheng Co. was a normal use and whether or not the use was liable to mislead the relevant public. 本案中,上诉人三河福成公司享有注册商标专用权的1344801号注册商标的文字部分为汉字“福成”,被上诉人昆明福成公司在其经营场所将“福成”二字作为字号使用。三河福成公司的注册商标专用权及昆明福成公司的企业名称权均为依法成立的权利,法律一方面保护权利依法行使,另一方面也禁止权利滥用。就注册商标专用权而言,商标法四十四条规定:“使用注册商标,有下列行为之一的,由商标局责令限期改正或者撤销其注册商标:(一)自行改变注册商标的;(二)自行改变注册商标的注册人名义、地址或者其他注册事项的; (三)自行转让注册商标的;(四)连续三年停止使用的。”第五十一条规定:“注册商标的专用权,以核准注册的商标和核定使用的商品为限。”根据上述规定,注册商标专用权以核准注册的商标和核定使用的商品为限,法律保护的是完整使用注册商标的行为,禁止自行改变注册商标的变更使用和部分使用。本案中,三河福成公司在其经营场所的牌匾上完整、显著地标明了其 1344801号注册商标,属依法使用,而昆明福成公司就其企业名称的使用是否属依法正常使用则是本案的关键。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》第一条第(一)项规定:“将与他人注册商标相同或相近似的文字作为企业的字号在相同或者类似商品上突出使用,容易使相关公众产生误认的属于给他人注册商标专用权造成损害的行为。”故要确定昆明福成公司是否侵犯三河福成公司注册商标专用权,需要审查昆明福成公司对其名称的使用是否属正常使用以及该使用是否容易使相关公众产生误认。
(1) As for whether or not the use of the name by the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co., was a normal use. 1.关于被上诉人昆明福成公司对其企业名称的使用是否属正常使用的问题。
Article 39 of the Measures of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the Implementation of Enterprise Name Registration 都拉黑名单了,还接个Pstipulates that the use of an enterprise name shall be in line with the principle of honesty and credibility. Article 20 of the Provision of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on Administration of Enterprise Names prescribes that: “The name used for seal, bank account, signboard and correspondence papers of an enterprise shall be identical with the registered enterprise name. The signboard of an enterprise name of commerce, public catering or service trade may be duly simplified, but the simplified name shall be reported to the competent registration authority for record.” Article 2 of the Reply of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce Concerning Relevant Issues about the Administrative Rule for Enterprise name Registration (No.28 [2001] explicitly prescribes that: The relevant provisions of the Rule shall be applicable to the name of enterprise's branches.” According to the above provisions, the enterprise name shall be generally used in a lawful manner, and shall be identical with the registered enterprise name at the time of use. It is allowed in certain industrial sectors to appropriately use the enterprise name in a simplified way provided that it is used in line with the principle of good faith, but such use is limited to plaques. The registered enterprise name of the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co., was “Kunming Branch of Harbin Fucheng Catering Co., Ltd.”, but the defendant failed to use the enterprise name in its business place in a lawful and integrated manner; on the contrary, it used such characters as “Fucheng”, “Fucheng Group”, “Fucheng Beef”, “Fucheng Hotpot”, “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” and “Kunming Flagship of Fucheng Beef Hotpot” etc., which was not identical with the enterprise name used on the plaque, the external wall, the internal decoration, the advertising documents, food-ordering cards and menu at the business place. The law only prescribes that the enterprise shall enjoy the right to “simplify” the enterprise name according to law, but does not prescribe that the enterprise may unlawfully alter the enterprise name. The simplification is a reasonable curtailment based on the full name but not a thoroughly abandonment of the original name in using a new name which is completely different from the original name. Moreover, the laws prescribe that the abbreviated enterprise name is allowed to be used on plaques only and shall be reported to the competent authority of registration for record. So Kunming Fucheng's use was evidently inconsistent with the provisions of law, and is thus not a normal use of the enterprise name. 国家工商行政管理局《企业名称登记管理实施办法》第三十九条不能给市场做人工呼吸规定,企业使用名称,应当遵循诚实信用原则。国家工商行政管理局《企业名称登记管理规定》第二十条明确规定:“企业的印章、银行账户、牌匾、信笺所使用的名称应当与登记注册的企业名称相同。从事商业、公共饮食、服务等行业的企业名称牌匾可适当简化,但应当报登记主管机关备案。”国家工商行政管理局《关于<企业名称登记管理规定>有关问题的答复》(工商企字[2001]第28号)第二条明确规定:“企业分支机构名称适用《企业名称登记管理规定》的有关规定。”根据上述规定,企业名称一般应当规范使用,使用时应当与登记注册的企业名称相同。特定行业允许在符合诚实信用原则的前提下依法适当简化使用企业名称,但仅限于在牌匾上使用。被上诉人昆明福成公司登记注册的企业名称为“哈尔滨福成饮食有限公司昆明分公司”,但并没有在经营场所规范、完整地使用其企业名称,相反,昆明福成公司在其经营场所的牌匾、外墙、内外装饰、宣传资料、定餐卡、菜单上,大量使用“福成”、“福成集团”、“福成肥牛”、“福成火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅昆明旗舰店”等与其企业名称不符的文字。法律只规定企业有依法“简化”企业名称的权利,而未规定企业可以随意变更企业名称。简化是在全称基础上的合理缩减,而非彻底抛弃原名称,随意使用与原名称完全不同的新名称,况且法律规定,企业名称的简化只允许在牌匾上使用,还须报登记主管机关备案,昆明福成公司的行为明显不符合法律的规定,故昆明福成公司并非正常使用其企业名称。
(2) As for whether or not the use of the words “Fucheng” by the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. was liable to mislead the relevant public. 2.关于被上诉人昆明福成公司对“福成”文字的使用是否容易使相关公众产生误认的问题。
From the specific use of the words “Fucheng” by the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co., we can see that it had the intent of unfair competition against the principle of good faith and had the subjective intention to confuse the origin of service. Firstly, there hung above the plaque at the business place of Kunming Fucheng Co. the lamp box with the characters “Long Fucheng” to which it claimed that it enjoyed the right to its exclusive use. The registered trademark was originally a drawing of an animated ox holding a flag accompanied with the characters “Long Fucheng”, but what was marked on the lamp box was an animated ox holding a flag accompanied with the characters “Fucheng”, so we can see that Kunming Fucheng Co. intentionally altered the words of the trademark and made it identical with the words of the registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. Secondly, the lamp box outside the store of Kunming Fucheng Co. was labeled with the characters “Long Fucheng Beef Hotpot”, but the character “Long” was evidently smaller than other characters, which gave prominence to the two characters “Fucheng”. Thirdly, in view of the other uses of the characters “Fucheng” by Kunming Fucheng Co., such as the use of the characters “Fucheng Group”, “Fucheng Beef”, “Fucheng Hotpot”, “Fucheng Hotpot”, “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” and “Kunming Flagship of Fucheng Beef Hotpot”, which was different from the enterprise name, and its use in the food-ordering cards and decoration of the business place, Kunming Fucheng Co. was highlighting the two words in the impression of consumers and diluting the source of the two words “Fucheng” by means of distinctively using the two characters “Fucheng”, which confused the public about whether “Fucheng” was an integral part of the trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. or an integral part of the enterprise name of Kunming Fucheng Co. Moreover, in view of the objective facts that Harbin Fucheng Co. had long-term business contacts with Kunming Fucheng Co. and Sanhe Fucheng Co., and had knowledge of the registered trademark at issue, it could be determined that Kunming Fucheng Co. had the intent of unfair competition and improperly used the enterprise name against the principle of good faith. Article 7 (2) of the Opinions on Several Issues on the Protection of Service Trademarks as formulated by the Trademark Office of State Administration for Industry and Commerce prescribes that: any other person's normal use of the conventional signs of the service industry and use of a trade name (shop name), personal name, place name, name of the service place for indication of service characters and specification of the service matters etc. shall not constitute an infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a service trademark, except for those with evident intent of unfair competition.” As Kunming Fucheng Co. was not its trade name in a normal manner and had the evident intent of unfair competition, the original judgment's determination, based on the aforesaid provisions, that Kunming Fucheng Co. did not infringe the right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. was an incorrect application of law. 从被上诉人昆明福成公司对“福成”文字的具体使用情况上看,昆明福成公司具有违背诚实信用原则的不正当竞争意图,主观上具有混淆服务来源的故意。首先,昆明福成公司经营场所牌匾上方挂有昆明福成公司自称享有商标专用权的“龙福成”注册商标灯箱,该商标本为卡通牛举旗图案并附有“龙福成”文字,但灯箱中标注的是卡通牛举旗图案并附有“福成”文字,昆明福成公司故意改变了其商标文字,使之与三河福成公司注册商标文字完全相同;第二,昆明福成公司店外灯箱上标有“龙福成肥牛火锅”文字,其中“龙”字明显小于其他文字,客观上突出了“福成”二字。第三,结合昆明福成公司对于“福成”文字的其他具体使用方法,如在定餐卡、经营场所装饰中广泛使用与其企业名称不符的“福成集团”、“福成肥牛”、“福成火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅”、“福成肥牛火锅昆明旗舰店”等文字来看,昆明福成公司正以突出“福成”二字的方法强化该二字在消费者认知中的印象,淡化“福成”二字来源,使公众不能明确“福成”究竟是三河福成公司商标的组成部分还是昆明福成公司企业名称的组成部分。此外,结合哈尔滨福成公司与昆明福成公司均和三河福成公司具有长期业务往来,知晓三河福成公司涉案注册商标相关情况的客观事实,可以认定昆明福成公司具有不正当竞争故意,违背诚实信用原则不当使用企业名称。国家工商管理总局商标局制订的《关于保护服务商标若干问题的意见》第七条第二款规定:“他人正常使用服务行业惯用标志,以及正常方式使用商号(字号)、姓名、地名、服务场所名称,表示服务特点,对服务事项进行说明等不构成侵犯服务商标专用权行为,但具有明显不正当竞争意图的除外。”由于昆明福成公司并非正常使用其字号,且具有明显不正当竞争故意,原判适用该规定认定昆明福成公司未侵犯三河福成公司注册商标专用权属适用法律错误。
Secondly, from the consequence of the improper use of the characters “Fucheng” in the registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. by the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co., it would objectively confuse and mislead the average consumers with regard to who is the real holder of the rights. Firstly, as for the visual impression, the registered trademark in question was a composite trademark composed of Chinese characters “Fucheng” and Chinese pinyin “Fucheng”, as well as the drawing of a cattle head, with the Chinese characters “Fucheng” in the upper part, which usually had stronger visual appeal, and was the visually prominent part of the trademark; the pinyin and the drawing were in the lower part, which had weaker visual attractiveness, and the visual effect was obscure and not remarkable. Under common circumstances, when the consumers saw the trademark, the Chinese characters “Fucheng” should firstly attract the visual attention, while when the consumers saw the registered trademark involved in this case and the enterprise name (Fucheng) of Kunming Fucheng Co. at different places, they would produce a similar recognition in vision. Secondly, as for the recognition of the Chinese character of the trademark in question and the enterprise name, the enterprise name usually realized its identification function by the semantic expression of the Chinese characters. In this case, the enterprise name “Fucheng” was identical with the visually remarkable Chinese character “Fucheng” of the registered trademark at issue, it was liable to mislead the consumers into believing that both subjects were identical or closely related. Additionally, Kunming Fucheng Co. was not using its enterprise name in a normal way in its business place; on the contrary, it distinctively used the Chinese characters “Fucheng” in the plaque, external wall, internal decoration etc., so it was liable to mislead the relevant public. 其次,从被上诉人昆明福成公司不当使用上诉人三河福成公司涉案注册商标文字“福成”的后果看,客观上会使普通消费者在认知上对权利主体产生混淆和误认。首先,从视觉印象上看,涉案注册商标是由汉字“福成”和汉语拼音“fucheng”与牛头型图案组合构成的组合商标,而汉字“福成”位于通常有较强视觉吸引力的上部,是该商标的视觉显著部分;拼音和图案结合在一起位于视觉吸引力较弱的下部,且从视觉效果上看比较模糊,并不十分醒目。一般情况下,消费者看到此商标时,视觉注意力首先是被汉字“福成”所吸引,消费者在不同场合分别看到涉案注册商标和昆明福成公司企业字号(福成)之后,会产生视觉上相似的认识。其次,从对涉案商标和企业名称的汉字部分的认知上看,企业名称通常只能通过汉字语义表达方式来实现其识别功能,就本案来看,涉案企业字号“福成”与涉案注册商标视觉显著部分汉字“福成”语义完全相同,很可能使消费者产生两者的主体相同或有密切关联的认识。加之昆明福成公司在其经营场所并未正常使用其企业名称,相反在牌匾、外墙、内外装饰等处突出使用“福成”文字,容易使相关公众产生误认。
In conclusion, the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. distinctively used the characters “Fucheng”, which was identical with the registered trademark of the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co. as its enterprise name in the provision of a same service, which was liable to mislead the relevant public, and had thus constituted an infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of No.13441801 registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. 综上所述,被上诉人昆明福成公司将与上诉人三河福成公司注册商标相同的文字“福成”作为企业的字号在相同服务上突出使用,容易使相关公众产生误认,已构成对三河福成公司1344801号注册商标专用权的侵害。
2. As for whether or not the acts of Kunming Fucheng Co. constituted an unfair competition; 二、关于被上诉人昆明福成公司的行为是否构成不正当竞争的问题。
Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (referred to as Anti-Unfair Competition Law) prescribes that: “Managers should not use the following unfair methods in their business transactions which can damage other competitors: (1) to pass off the registered trademark of any other person; (2) to use the specific name, package, decoration of a famous or well-known commodity, or use a name, package, decoration similar to that of a famous or well-known commodity, which may mislead consumers into believing that the commodity in question is identical to the famous or well-known commodity; …” According to the above provisions, the use of the specific name, package, decoration of a famous or well-known commodity, or use a name, package, decoration similar to that of a famous or well-known commodity may mislead consumers into believing that the commodity in question is the same as the famous or well-known commodity should be an act of unfair competition. The appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co. held that the use of the specific name and decoration of the famous service of “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” by Kunming Fucheng Co. constituted unfair competition. Kunming Fucheng Co. insisted, however, that what it had used was its own enterprise name and did not constitute unfair competition. “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” was a well-known service of hotpot operated by Sanhe Fucheng Co. for many years, and this case meets the condition for Article 5 (2) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to apply. Kunming Fucheng Co. used the specific name of “Fucheng Beef Hotpot”, the famous service of hotpot of Sanhe Fucheng Co. in its business place, which is apt to mislead the consumers and has thus constituted unfair competition. 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》 (以下简称反不正当竞争法)第五条规定:“经营者不得采用下列不正当手段从事市场交易,损害竞争对手:(一)假冒他人的注册商标;(二)擅自使用知名商品特有的名称、包装、装璜,或者使用与知名商品近似的名称、包装、装璜,造成和他人的知名商品相混淆,使购买者误认为是该知名商品;……”根据上述规定,擅自使用知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢,或者使用与知名商品近似的名称、包装、装潢,造成和他人的知名商品相混淆,使消费者误认为是该知名商品的行为属不正当竞争行为。上诉人三河福成公司认为,被上诉人昆明福成公司擅自使用“福成肥牛火锅”这一知名服务的特有名称及其装潢,构成不正当竞争。昆明福成公司仍坚持其使用的是自己的企业名称,不构成不正当竞争。“福成肥牛火锅”系三河福成公司多年经营的知名火锅服务,本案具有适用反不正当竞争法五条第(二)项之规定的前提。昆明福成公司在其经营场所明显标注“福成肥牛火锅”这一三河福成公司知名火锅服务的特有名称,该行为易使消费者产生误认,已构成不正当竞争。
3. As for how to calculate the compensation amount for infringement. 三、关于如何计算侵权赔偿数额的问题。
The appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. distinctively used the characters “Fucheng”, which was identical with the registered trademark of the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co. as its enterprise name in a similar service, and used the specific name of “Fucheng Beef Hotpot”, a famous service of hotpot of Sanhe Fucheng Co., which misled the consumers, so its acts had constituted an infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of No. 13441801 registered trademark of Sanhe Fucheng Co. and is thus an unfair competition. The appellee should assume the liability for infringement, stop the infringement, eliminate the bad effects, make an apology and compensate for its losses. 被上诉人昆明福成公司将与上诉人三河福成公司注册商标相同的文字“福成”作为企业的字号在相同服务上突出使用,并擅自使用三河福成公司“福成肥牛火锅”这一知名火锅服务的特有名称,使消费者产生误认,已构成对三河福成公司1344801号注册商标专用权的侵害,并构成不正当竞争,应承担侵权责任,停止侵权、消除影响、赔礼道歉并赔偿损失。
Article 56 (1) of the Trademark Law prescribes that: “The amount of compensation for infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a trademark shall be the proceeds obtained form the infringement during the period of infringement, or the losses suffered by the infringement due to the infringement during the period of being infringed, including the reasonable expenses paid by the infringed to stop the infringing acts.” Article 56 (2) prescribes that: “If it is difficult to determine the proceeds obtained from the infringement referred to in the preceding paragraph, or it is difficult to determine the losses suffered by the infringement due to the infringement, the people's court shall determine a compensation of 500,000 yuan or less according to the circumstances of the infringing acts.” Article 20 (1) of Anti-Unfair Competition Law prescribes that: “A business operator shall bear the responsibility for compensating the damage done by the tortfeasor to the victim for its violation of this law. The amount of compensation shall be equivalent to the profit made by the damager during its damaging, if it is difficult to measure the amount of damage. And it also shall compensate the reasonable cost to the damaged party who has paid the cost to investigate the unfair competition made by damager.” In this case, as Sanhe Fucheng Co., was unable to prove the proceeds (profit) that Kunming Fucheng had obtained from the infringement or the losses it had suffered, hence, the amount of compensation in this case should be determined below 500,000 yuan according to the provision of Article 56 (2) of the Trademark Law. Kunming Fucheng Co. paid a total business tax of 557, 324 yuan with a business turnover of 11,146,480 yuan since it was established in 2005. The claim of Sanhe Fucheng Co. on compensation of 200,000 yuan was reasonable and should be supported. 商标法五十六条第一款规定:“侵犯商标专用权的赔偿数额,为侵权人在侵权期间因侵权所获得的利益,或者被侵权人在侵权期间因被侵权所受到的损失,包括被侵权人为制止侵权行为所支付的合理开支。”第二款规定:“前款所称侵权人因侵权所得利益,或者被侵权人因被侵权所收损失难以确定的,由人民法院根据侵权行为的情节判决给予50万元以下的赔偿。”反不正当竞争法二十条第一款规定:“经营者违反本法规定,给被侵害的经营者造成损害的,应当承担损害赔偿责任,被侵害的经营者的损失难以计算的,赔偿额为侵权人在侵权期间因侵权所获得的利润;并应当承担被侵害的经营者因调查该经营者侵害其合法权益的不正当竞争行为所支付的合理费用。”本案中,因根据上诉人三河福成公司举证情况不足以认定被上诉人昆明福成公司因侵权所得利益(经营利润)或三河福成公司因侵权所受损失,故本案应根据商标法第二款之规定在50万元以下确定赔偿金额。昆明福成公司自2005年成立至今共上缴营业税557 324元,营业额为 11 146 480元。三河福成公司要求的20万元赔偿金额合理,应予支持。
JUDGMENT 
Hence, on April 5, 2007, the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province rendered a judgment: 据此,云南省高级人民法院于2007年 4月5日判决:
1. The civil judgment of the first instance made by the Intermediate People's Court of Kunming City, Yunnan Province shall be quashed; 一、撤销云南省昆明市中级人民法院作出的一审民事判决;
2. The appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. shall immediately stop the illegal use of the characters “Fucheng” of No.13441801 registered trademark and the specific name of “Fucheng Beef Hotpot” of the famous service of the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co.; 二、被上诉人昆明福成公司立即停止对上诉人三河福成公司第1344801号注册商标文字“福成”及其知名服务的特有名称“福成肥牛火锅”的违法使用;
3. The appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. shall, within 10 days after the effectiveness of this judgment, make a public apology on Kunming Daily to the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co., to as to eliminate the bad effect of infringement; 三、被上诉人昆明福成公司于本判决生效后十日内在《昆明日报》发表声明,向上诉人三河福成公司赔礼道歉,消除侵权影响;
4. The appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. shall, within 10 days after the effectiveness of this judgment, compensate the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co., 200,000 yuan for its economic losses; 四、被上诉人昆明福成公司于本判决生效后十日内赔偿上诉人三河福成公司经济损失人民币20万元;
5. The other claims of the appellant, Sanhe Fucheng Co., shall be rejected. 五、驳回上诉人三河福成公司的其他诉讼请求。
The case acceptance fee in both the first instance and the second instance, 5,510 yuan for each, shall be borne by the appellee, Kunming Fucheng Co. 一、二审案件受理费各5510元,均由被上诉人昆明福成公司负担。
This judgment shall be final. 本判决为终审判决。

 

     
     
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