>>>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
 
Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. v. Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd. and Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd. (case about disputes over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)
山东鲁锦实业有限公司诉鄄城县鲁锦工艺品有限责任公司、济宁礼之邦家纺有限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: 08-05-2009
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 1,2010

Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. v. Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd. and Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd. (case about disputes over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)
(case about disputes over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)
山东鲁锦实业有限公司诉鄄城县鲁锦工艺品有限责任公司、济宁礼之邦家纺有限公司侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. v. Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd. and Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd.
(A case about disputes over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition)

 

山东鲁锦实业有限公司诉鄄城县鲁锦工艺品有限责任公司、济宁礼之邦家纺有限公司侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract] [裁判摘要]
1. Under Article 49 of the Regulation for the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, for a registered trademark whose product contains a generic name, logo, model number or that directly conveys product quality, key raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity or other distinctive features or a geographic name, the person with the exclusive right to use the registered trademark does not have the right to prohibit fair use by others. Hence, the exercise of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is limited in some ways. A trademark's function is primarily based on distinguishing products; that is, purchasers and consumers can distinguish corresponding products or services through different trademarks so that they are not confused regarding the sources of the products or services. Hence, the use in products or services of a generic name that is contained in the trademark of others is fair use, and such use does not constitute infringement upon the exclusive right of others to use a trademark. 一、《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》第四十九条规定:“注册商标中含有的本商品的通用名称、图形、型号,或者直接表示商品的质量、主要原料、功能、用途、重量、数量及其他特点,或者含有地名,注册商标专用权人无权禁止他人正当使用。”据此,注册商标专用权的行使应有所限制。商标的作用主要在于商品的识别性,即购买者、消费者能够通过不同的商标而区别相应的商品或者服务,防止购买者、消费者对商品及服务的来源产生混淆。因此,虽然在商品或服务上使用了他人注册商标中含有的本商品的通用名称等,属于正当使用,不构成对他人注册商标专用权的侵犯。
2. The generic name of a product shall be pervasive and standardized. For those names which possess regional characteristics, when determining whether they are persuasive, the standard shall be the extent of acceptance within the specific regions where the product is produced and extent of acceptance by the relevant public, rather than whether the name is widely used across the nation. When determining whether a generic name is standardized, the standard shall be the general recognition of the relevant public and whether what the generic name refers to is specific. For those names that have become a convention already acknowledged by the relevant public, even if they do not conform to relevant scientific principles, it does not have an impact on a ruling regarding whether they are generic names. The following points are to be paid attention to when determining whether a product has a generic name: 1. whether the name is widely used in a certain region or a certain field and accepted by the relevant public; 2. whether the craft to which the name refers has been formed in a certain region or field through collective work over a lengthy period; and 3. whether the raw materials of the product to which the name refers are widely produced in a certain area or certain field. 二、商品通用名称应当具有广泛性、规范性。对于具有地域性特点的商品通用名称,判断其是否具有广泛性,应以特定产区及相关公众的接受程度为标准,而不应以是否在全国范围内广泛使用为标准;判断其是否具有规范性,应当以相关公众的一般认识及其指代是否明确为标准。对于约定俗成、已为相关公众认可的名称,即使其不尽符合相关科学原理,亦不影响将其认定为通用名称。具体判断是否构成商品的通用名称,应当注意把握以下几点:1.该名称是否在某一地区或领域普遍使用并为相关公众所接受;2.该名称所指代的商品生产工艺是否经某一地区或领域长期共同劳动实践而形成;3.该名称所指代的商品生产原料是否在某一地区或领域普遍生产。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd., domiciled at east side of 327 national highway, west of Jiaxiang County. 原告:山东鲁锦实业有限公司。
Legal Representative: Zhang Chengrui, chairman of the board of directors of this company. 法定代表人:张呈瑞,该公司董事长。
Defendant: Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd., domiciled at 113, north of West Renmin Road, Juancheng County. 被告:鄄城县鲁锦工艺品有限责任公司。
Legal Representative: Lu Weimin, general manager of this company. 法定代表人:路维民,该公司总经理。
Defendant: Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd., domiciled at Business Street, Yunhe Road, Jining City. 被告:济宁礼之邦家纺有限公司。
Person in charge: Gong Xiucheng, manager of this company. 负责人:龚修成,该公司经理。
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 
The plaintiff, Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “Lujin Co.”) filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City, Shandong Province for disputes over infringement upon the right to the exclusive use of a registered trademark and unfair competition against the defendants, Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Juancheng Lujin Co.”) and Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lizhibang Co.”). 原告山东鲁锦实业有限公司(以下简称鲁锦公司)因与被告鄄城县鲁锦工艺品有限责任公司(以下简称鄄城鲁锦公司)、济宁礼之邦家纺有限公司(以下简称礼之邦公司)发生侵犯注册商标专用权及不正当竞争纠纷,向山东省济宁市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiff, Lujin Co., claimed that: Its predecessor was Ruijin Folk Crafts Factory of Jiaxiang County. Since 1985, the plaintiff had used a general term “Lujin” for the cotton cloth, crafts, clothes, beddings and other products produced by it. In 1999, the plaintiff applied for and registered the word trademark “LUJIN”; in 2001, it applied for and registered the composite trademark “Device + LUJIN (pinyin).” In 2006, the plaintiff became a member of “China Time-honored Brands” of China General Chamber of Commerce. In the same year, the plaintiff's trademark “LUJIN” was recognized as a “famous trademark of Shandong Province” by the Industrial and Commercial Administration of Shandong Province. The plaintiff found that there was a large quantity of Lujin products produced and sold by the defendants, Juancheng Lujin Co. and Lizhibang Co. within the area of Jining City. All these products used the word “Lujin” in a conspicuous position, and were sold by Lizhibang Lujin exclusive stores and many other exclusive stores. The aforesaid products of the defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark “LUJIN”. Furthermore, the name of Juancheng Lujin Co. contained “LUJIN,” the word in the plaintiff's registered trademark, which misled the consumers and constituted unfair competition. The plaintiff thus requested the court to order the two defendants to immediately stop the production and sale of the infringing products which used the word “LUJIN” and destroy the infringing products and packages already produced; to order Juancheng Lujin Co. to change its name by removing the word “LUJIN” from its name; to order the stores of Lizhibang Co. to stop the use of the word “LUJIN” on their shop names; and to order the two defendants to compensate the plaintiff in the amount of 500, 000 yuan for economic loss and bear all costs paid by the plaintiff in order to stop the defendants' infringement including but not limited to court costs, investigation fees and lawyers' fees. 原告鲁锦公司诉称:原告前身是嘉祥县瑞锦民间工艺品厂。1985年起原告将所产棉布、工艺品、服装和床上用品等产品统称为“鲁锦”。1999年原告申请注册了“鲁锦”文字商标;2001年申请注册了“图形+ LUJIN(鲁锦拼音)”组合商标。2006年,原告被中国商业联合会吸收为“中华老字号”会员单位。同年,原告的“鲁锦”商标被山东省工商局认定为“山东省著名商标”。原告发现在济宁市区域内,有大量被告鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司生产、销售的鲁锦产品。这些产品都在显著位置标明了“鲁锦”字样,并由礼之邦鲁锦专卖店等众多专卖店进行销售。被告的上述产品侵犯了原告的“鲁锦”注册商标专用权。另外,鄄城鲁锦公司企业名称中含有原告的“鲁锦”注册商标字样,误导消费者,构成不正当竞争。请求判令二被告立即停止生产、销售带有“鲁锦”字样的侵权产品,并销毁已生产的侵权产品和包装;判令鄄城鲁锦公司变更企业名称,去掉其名称中的“鲁锦”字样;判令礼之邦公司所属店堂门面不得使用“鲁锦”字样;判令二被告赔偿经济损失50万元,并承担本案诉讼费、调查费、律师费等原告为制止被告侵权行为所支出的一切费用。
The defendant, Juancheng Lujin Co., pleaded that: The plaintiff, Lujin Co., was incorporated on February 9, 2001, and before that and before the completion of registration of the trademark “LUJIN” in 1999, the word “LUJIN” had become a generic term and a representation of a kind of technical skill and culture which all walks of life were entitled to use. Therefore, the claims of the plaintiff that the defendants infringed upon its exclusive right to use a registered trademark and committed unfair competition and that the defendants should pay 500, 000 yuan compensation for its economic loss were wrong. It thus requested the court to dismiss all claims of the plaintiff according to law. 被告鄄城鲁锦公司辩称:原告鲁锦公司注册成立于2001年2月9日,在原告成立之前及1999年鲁锦商标注册完成之前,“鲁锦”这两个文字已经变成了通用名称,成为一种工艺技术、文化的代表,各行各业都有权加以使用。因此,原告认为被告侵犯其注册商标专用权,构成不正当竞争,要求赔偿其50万元经济损失的诉讼请求不成立。请求依法驳回原告的全部诉讼请求。
The defendant, Lizhibang Co., did not submit any statement of defense. 被告礼之邦公司未作答辩。
At trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City, court of first instance, found that: 济宁市中级人民法院一审查明:
Ruijin Folk Crafts Factory of Jiaxiang County, the predecessor of the plaintiff, obtained the word trademark “LUJIN” with a registered No. 1345914 on December 21, 1999 after applying to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Its term of validity was from December 21, 1999 to December 20, 2009, and it was approved to be used on the following goods: “clothes, suits, T-shirts, uniforms, jackets (garments), vests (waistcoats), children's garments, sleepwear (including pajamas), sport shirts and absorbent underwear” in Subcategory “Clothes, Shoes and Hats” of Category 25. The plaintiff obtained the composite trademark “Lj + LUJIN” with a registered No. 1665032 on November 14, 2001. Its term of validity was from November 14, 2001 to November 13, 2011, and it was approved to be used on the following goods: “textile fabrics, cotton goods, lingerie fabrics, gauzes, textiles, toweling, nonwovens, bath towels, bed sheets, coverings of textile, etc.” in Category 24. Ruijin Folk Crafts Factory of Jiaxiang County was lawfully renamed Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. of Jiaxiang County with the approval of the industry and commerce administrative authority on February 9, 2001, and was renamed again Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. on June 11, 2007. 原告鲁锦公司的前身嘉祥县瑞锦民间工艺品厂经向国家工商总局商标局申请,于1999年12月21日取得注册号为第 1345914号的“鲁锦”文字商标,有效期为 1999年12月21日至2009年12月20日,核定使用商品为第25类服装、鞋、帽类,具体为“服装、套装、汗衫、制服、茄克 (服装)、背心(马甲)、童装、睡衣(含睡衣裤)、运动衫、吸汗内衣等”。原告又于2001年11月14日取得注册号为第1665032号的“Li+LUJIN”的组合商标,有效期为2001年11月14日至2011年11月13日,核定使用商品为第24类的“纺织物、棉织品、内衣用织物、纱布、纺织品、毛巾布、无纺布、浴巾、床单、纺织品家具罩等”。嘉祥县瑞锦民间工艺品厂于2001年2月9日经工商部门核准依法更名为嘉祥县鲁锦实业有限公司,后于2007年6月11日更名为山东鲁锦实业有限公司。
On April 22, 1993, Ruijin Folk Crafts Factory of Jiaxiang County, the predecessor of the plaintiff, and Japan Yijiu Dyeing and Weaving Research Institute jointly established Jiaxiang Jinglu Yijiu Weaving Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff authorized this company to use the trademark “LUJIN” after obtaining the exclusive right to use the registered mark. The plaintiff advertized its products and the registered trademark many times on media such as newspapers, periodicals and televisions. In March 2006, the plaintiff was accepted as a member of the working committee of “China Time-honored Brands.” After years' hard work, large numbers of advertisements and market promotion, the plaintiff's “LUJIN” series of products, especially “LUJIN” clothes had enjoyed a certain reputation in China. On November 16, 2006, the registered trademark “LUJIN” was recognized as a famous trademark of Shandong Province by the Industrial and Commercial Administration of Shandong Province. 1993年4月22日,原告鲁锦公司的前身嘉祥县瑞锦民间工艺品厂与日本国益久染织研究所合资成立嘉祥京鲁益久织造有限公司,原告在获得“鲁锦”注册商标专用权后授权该公司使用,并在多家报社、杂志社、电视台等媒体栏目多次宣传报道其产品及注册商标。2006年3月,原告被“中华老字号”工作委员会接纳为会员单位。原告经过多年的艰苦努力及长期大量的广告宣传和市场推广,其“鲁锦”牌系列产品,特别是“鲁锦”牌服装,在国内享有一定的知名度。2006年11月16日,“鲁锦”注册商标被山东省工商行政管理局审定为山东省著名商标。
In March 2007, the plaintiff, Lujin Co., bought goods produced by Juancheng Lujin Co., which were identical with or similar to those on which the plaintiff's registered trademark was approved to be used, from Lizhibang Lujin Exclusive Store. The labels (tags), packaging boxes and packaging bags of these goods and the shop name all carried the word “LUJIN” contained in the plaintiff's registered trademark. In the opinion of Lujin Co., the defendant obviously misled the consumers by using a word identical with or similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark “LUJIN” as its product name or design on identical or similar goods, and the name of the defendant was identical with or similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark “LUJIN,” which could easily mislead the relevant public. Lizhibang Co. marketed the infringing products of Juancheng Lujin Co., and the acts of the two defendants infringed upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark, causing a large quantity of products of the plaintiff to be unmarketable and a tremendous economic loss to the plaintiff. 2007年3月,原告鲁锦公司从礼之邦鲁锦专卖店购买到由被告鄄城鲁锦公司生产的同原告注册商标所核定使用的商品相同或类似的商品,该商品上的标签(吊牌)、包装盒、包装袋及店堂门面上均带有原告注册商标“鲁锦”字样。鲁锦公司认为被告在相同或类似商品上,将-与原告注册商标“鲁锦”相同或者近似的文字作为商品名称或者商品装潢使用,明显误导了消费者,且被告企业的字号与原告的注册商标“鲁锦”相同或者近似,易使相关公众产生误认。被告礼之邦公司销售鄄城鲁锦公司的侵权产品,二被告的行为均侵犯了原告的注册商标专用权,使原告的产品大量滞销,给原告造成很大的经济损失。为此原告诉至一审法院。
The court of first instance also found that: the defendant, Juancheng Lujin Co., was registered as a limited liability company with the approval of the industrial and commercial administrative authority on March 3, 2003, and the trademark used on its products was a composite trademark “JINGYIFANG + device” which had not been approved after a registration application was filed with the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. In September 2007, Juancheng Lujin Co. applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for revocation of the No. 1345914 “LUJIN” trademark registered to the plaintiff, Lujin Co. This Board had accepted the application but not made any decision yet. The plaintiff bought the alleged goods as evidence from Lizhibang Lujin Exclusive Store. The word “LUJIN” was highlighted in the shop name, but the seal affixed to the invoices issued was the company seal of Lizhibang Co. 另查明,被告鄄城鲁锦公司于2003年 3月3日经工商局核准登记成立,系有限责任公司,其在产品上所使用的商标是“精一坊文字+图形”组合商标,该商标已向国家工商总局商标局申请注册,但尚未核准。 2007年9月,鄄城鲁锦公司向国家工商总局商标评审委员会申请撤销原告鲁锦公司已注册的第1345914号“鲁锦”商标,商评委已经受理但至今未作出裁定。原告系从礼之邦鲁锦专卖店购买涉案商品取证,在该店门面上“鲁锦”已被突出放大使用,但其出具的发票上所加盖的印章为被告礼之邦公司公章。
Upon application of the plaintiff, the court of first instance preserved evidence against the defendants according to law, finding that the two defendants stored a large quantity of goods identical with or similar to those on which the plaintiff's registered trademark “LUJIN” was approved to be used and that the labels (tags), packaging boxes, packaging bags and price tags of these goods and the shop name all carried the word “LUJIN” contained in the plaintiff's registered trademark. According to the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the photographs and footages took by the court of first instance for evidence preservation, the word “LUJIN” was enlarged on the labels (tags), packaging boxes and packaging bags of the alleged infringing goods and distinctively used as the name or design of goods, but the packaging bags did not show the name and address of the manufacturer. 一审法院根据原告鲁锦公司的申请,依法对被告鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司进行了证据保全,发现二被告处存有大量同原告“鲁锦”注册商标所核准使用的商品同类或者类似的商品,该商品上的标签(吊牌)、包装盒、包装袋、商品标价签以及被告店堂门面上均带有原告注册商标“鲁锦”字样。根据原告提供的证据和一审法院证据保全所拍摄的照片、录像,被控侵权商品的标签(吊牌)、包装盒、包装袋上已将“鲁锦”文字放大,且醒目突出的作为商品的名称或者商品装潢使用,且包装袋上未标识生产商及其地址。
The focal disputes in this case were: whether the acts of the defendants constituted infringement upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark; whether the use of “LUJIN” by Juancheng Lujin Co. in its name constituted unfair competition. 本案的争议焦点是:被告鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司的行为是否构成对原告鲁锦公司注册商标专用权的侵犯;鄄城鲁锦公司在字号中使用“鲁锦”,是否构成不正当竞争。
The Intermediate People's Court of Jining City held that: 济宁市中级人民法院一审认为:
The plaintiff's word trademark “LUJIN” and composite trademark “Lj + LUJIN” had been registered and approved to be used on the goods in Categories 25 and 24 by the Trademark Office, so the plaintiff's exclusive right to use these registered trademarks on goods in the above categories was protected by law. Juancheng Lujin Co. provided an Notice of Acceptance of an Application on a Disputed Registered Trademark of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to prove that a dispute over the registered trademark “LUJIN” arose and an application about it was accepted, but failed to provide a conclusive decision of this Board. The above notice could not negate the plaintiff's legal right to exclusively use the registered trademark “LUJIN.” Juancheng Lujin Co. provided a large number of books, periodicals, newspapers, news reports, advertisements, special films, honor certificates and other documentary and audiovisual evidence in court, which, however, could neither sufficiently prove that “LUJIN” was a historical cultural heritage and a social public resource nor sufficiently prove that “LUJIN” was a generic term of the goods in Categories 25 and 24 of the Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services issued by the Trademark Office or a generic term of a certain item in Category 25 or 24. Therefore, the arguments of Juancheng Lujin Co. that “LUJIN” was a historic cultural heritage, a social public resource and a generic term and that the plaintiff had no right to prohibit it from using “LUJIN” on goods in Categories 25 and 24 were lack of both legal and factual basis, and should not be supported. 原告鲁锦公司的“鲁锦”文字商标和“Lj+LUJIN”的组合商标,已经国家商标局核准注册并核定使用于第25类、第24类商品上,在该类商品上原告依法享有注册商标的专用权,受法律保护。被告鄄城鲁锦公司提供商评委的《注册商标争议申请受理通知书》,用于证明“鲁锦”注册商标发生争议并已被受理,但未提供商评委作出的结论性裁定,不能据此否认原告对“鲁锦”注册商标依法享有的专用权。鄄城鲁锦公司庭审中虽然提供了大量丛书、期刊、报纸、报道、宣传资料、专题片、获奖证书等书面、视听资料证据,但均不足以证明“鲁锦”是历史文化遗产,属于社会公共资源,也不能证明“鲁锦”属于国家商标局制定的《类似商品和服务区分表》中的第25、24类商品的通用名称或者第25、24类商品中某一具体商品的通用名称。故鄄城鲁锦公司关于“鲁锦”是历史文化遗产、社会公共资源、通用名称,原告无权禁止被告在第25、24类商品上使用“鲁锦”的理由无法律依据和事实根据,不予支持。
According to Article 50.1 (1) of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, where a mark identical with or similar to a registered trademark of any other person was used as the name or design of commodities on identical or similar commodities, if the general public was misled by it, it would constitute an infringement upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. According to the facts in this case, Juancheng Lujin Co. used “LUJIN” which was identical with or similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark as the name or design of products on products identical with or similar to those of the plaintiff, and highlighted it when it was used on the labels (tags), packaging boxes and packaging bags of the alleged infringing goods and the shop name, which could easily make consumers visually attracted to the word “LUJIN” and implied that the defendant had a special relationship with “LUJIN”. Both the name and the registered trademark of the plaintiff were “LUJIN” and the plaintiff was the first to use it. The plaintiff's trademark “LUJIN” was recognized as a famous trademark of Shandong Province in 2006, and because the “LUJIN” products of the plaintiff enjoyed a great reputation among the relevant public, they should be recognized as famous products according to law. The defendant's highlighted use of “LUJIN” was very likely to cause the relevant public who knew “LUJIN” to mistake the source of the alleged infringing goods or buy them by mistake. So, it may be determined that the defendant was at fault, and committed infringement upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark. 根据《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》第五十条第一款(一)项的规定,在同一种或者类似商品上,将与他人注册商标相同或者近似的标志作为商品名称或者商品装潢使用,误导公众的,属侵犯注册商标专用权的行为。根据本案事实,被告鄄城鲁锦公司在与原告鲁锦公司相同或者类似的商品上,将与原告注册商标相同或者近似的“鲁锦”作为商品名称或者商品装潢,在被控侵权商品的标签(吊牌)、包装盒、包装袋及其店堂门面上使用,且特意放大显示、醒目突出,容易使消费者在视觉上将注意力集中在“鲁锦”上,暗示自己同“鲁锦”之间存在特殊的关系。原告的企业字号和注册商标均为“鲁锦”且使用在先,2006年原告的“鲁锦”商标又被认定为山东省著名商标,原告的“鲁锦”商品在相关公众中具有较高的知名度,依法应当认定为知名商品。被告突出使用“鲁锦”的行为,客观上极易使了解“鲁锦”的相关公众对被控侵权商品的来源产生误认、误购,可以认定其存在主观过错,构成对原告注册商标专用权的侵犯。
According to the invoices issued by Lizhibang Co. for the goods sold, it may be determined that Lizhibang Co. actually sold the infringing products of Juancheng Lujin Co. Lizhibang Co. enlarged and highlighted the word “LUJIN” in its shop name, which could easily mislead the relevant public. So, its acts also constituted an infringement upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark. 根据被告礼之邦公司对其售出商品所出具的发票,可以认定其客观上销售了被告鄄城鲁锦公司所生产的侵权商品,且被告礼之邦公司将“鲁锦”文字放大、突出使用在其店堂门面上,客观上容易使相关公众产生误认,其行为亦构成对原告鲁锦公司注册商标专用权的侵犯。
The plaintiff had produced “LUJIN” series of clothes, textiles and beddings for more than a decade, and the various honors received by it showed that “LUJIN” series of clothes enjoyed a certain reputation in the garment industry, enjoyed a great reputation in the garment industry of Shandong Province, and enjoyed a even greater reputation in Jining City and its surrounding areas. As they were well known by the relevant operators or consumers, they were famous commodities. The registered trademark “LUJIN” was approved by the Trademark Office in December of 1999 and had since been used. It was still valid and was a famous trademark of Shandong Province. After the plaintiff started to use “LUJIN” in its name with approval from February 2001, both the brands and the name of manufacturer of the plaintiff's products contained the word “LUJIN”, so “LUJIN” should be recognized as a unique mark of the plaintiff's famous products. The name of Juancheng Lujin Co. was approved in March 2003, and the word “LUJIN” in it was exactly the same with the “LUJIN” used by the plaintiff. The plaintiff used the word earlier than the defendant. Given that the defendant enlarged and highlighted the word “LUJIN” on the packaging bags of the infringing goods but did not mark the name and address of manufacturer, it may be determined that the defendant obviously attempted to take advantage of a famous brand of the plaintiff and mislead the public and its act constituted unfair competition for violation of the principle of good faith. 原告鲁锦公司生产“鲁锦”系列服装及纺织品、床上用品已有十几年的历史,所获得的各类荣誉称号表明“鲁锦”系列服装在服装生产行业具有一定的知名度,在山东省境内服装行业享有很高的知名度,在济宁市及其周边地区的知名度则更高,已为相关的经营者或者消费者知悉,属知名商品。“鲁锦”注册商标于1999年12月经国家商标局核准注册并使用至今,现仍在有效期内且系山东省著名商标。2001年2月原告经核准使用“鲁锦”作为企业字号后,原告商品的品牌和生产者名称中均含有“鲁锦”,因此“鲁锦”应当认定为原告知名商品特有标识。被告鄄城鲁锦公司的企业名称获得核准的时间为2003年3月,被告企业名称中的字号“鲁锦”与原告使用的“鲁锦”完全相同,但原告使用在先,被告使用在后。结合被告在侵权商品的包装袋上将“鲁锦”文字放大、突出使用,且未标识生产商、地址的实际情况,可以认定被告明显具有傍明牌及误导公众的主观故意,其行为违反了诚实信用原则,构成不正当竞争。
In conclusion, the claims of the plaintiff that Juancheng Lujin Co. should stop using “LUJIN” in its name, Lizhibang Co. should stop using the word “LUJIN” in its shop name and the two defendants should immediately stop producing and selling the infringing products bearing the word “LUJIN” should be supported. The plaintiff required the two defendants to compensate it in the amount of 500, 000 yuan for its losses, but failed to submit evidence on its losses caused by the alleged infringements and the benefits gained by the defendants from their infringements. In light of the nature of infringement, the degree of subjective fault, the duration and impact of infringement, the quantity of the infringing goods produced or sold and other factors, this court decided that Juancheng Lujin Co. should compensate the plaintiff in the amount of 250, 000 yuan and Lizhibang Co. should compensate the plaintiff in the amount of 10, 000 yuan for its economic losses. 综上,原告鲁锦公司关于被告鄄城鲁锦公司停止使用“鲁锦”作为企业名称,被告礼之邦公司停止在其店堂门面上使用“鲁锦”字样,二被告立即停止生产、销售带有“鲁锦”字样的侵权产品的诉讼请求,应予支持。原告要求二被告赔偿损失50万元,但未就其因被控侵权行为遭受的损失、被告因被控侵权行为获得的利益提交相关证据。结合二被告各自侵权行为的性质、主观恶意程度、侵权时间长短及影响、生产、销售侵权商品的数量等各方面的因素,酌定鄄城鲁锦公司赔偿原告经济损失人民币 25万元,礼之邦公司赔偿原告经济损失人民币1万元。
In accordance with Article 118 and items (1) and (7) of Article 134 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the People's Republic of China, items (2) and (5) of Article 52 and paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 56 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 50.1 (1) of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China光宗耀祖支撑着我去教室, Article 1.1 (1) and Article 17 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court of Some Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases about Trademark Disputes, Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 4 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Trial of Civil Cases about Disputes over Conflicts between a Registered Trademark or Enterprise Name and a Prior Right and Article 130 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China你怀了我的猴子, on August 25, 2008, the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City rendered the following judgment: 据此,济宁市中级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第-百一十八条,第一百三十四条第(一)项、第(七)项,《中华人民共和国商标法》第五十二条第(二)项、第(五)项,第五十六条第一款、第二款,《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例装完逼就跑》第五十条第一款(一)项及最高人民法院《关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第一条第一款(一)、第十七条,《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二条最高人民法院《关于审理注册商标、企业名称与在先权利冲突的民事纠纷案件若干问题的规定》第四条光宗耀祖支撑着我去教室,《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百三十条之规定,于2008年8月25日判决如下:
1. Juancheng Lujin Co., should immediately stop using “LUJIN” as the name or design of commodity on the series of garments in Category 25 produced and sold by it after this judgment took effect, and, within 30 days after this judgment took effect, eliminate the word “LUJIN” from the alleged infringing products; Lizhibang Co. should immediately stop selling the alleged infringing goods produced by Juancheng Lujin Co. 一、被告鄄城鲁锦公司于本判决生效之日立即停止在其生产、销售的第25类服装类系列商品上使用“鲁锦”作为其商品名称或者商品装潢,并于本判决生效之日起 30日内,销除其现存被控侵权产品上标明的“鲁锦”字样;被告礼之邦公司立即停止销售被告鄄城鲁锦公司生产的被控侵权商品。
2. Juancheng Lujin Co. should compensate Lujin Co. in the amount of 250, 000 yuan and Lizhibang Co. should compensate Lujin Co. in the amount of 10, 000 yuan for economic losses within 15 days after this judgment took effect. 二、被告鄄城鲁锦公司于本判决生效之日起十五日内赔偿原告鲁锦公司经济损失人民币25万元;被告礼之邦公司赔偿原告鲁锦公司经济损失人民币1万元。
3. Juancheng Lujin Co. should change its name within 30 days after this judgment took effect, and the name after change should not contain the word “LUJIN”; Lizhibang Co. should remove the word “LUJIN” from the name of its shop located at 3 Business Street, Yunhe Road, Jining City immediately after this judgment took effect. 三、被告鄄城鲁锦公司于本判决生效之日起30日内变更企业名称,变更后的企业名称中不得包含“鲁锦”文字;被告礼之邦公司于本判决生效之日立即将其位于济宁运河路商业街3号店堂门面上的“鲁锦”字样消除。
Juancheng Lujin Co. appealed the first-instance judgment to the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, requesting the court of second instance to quash the first-instance judgment and render a new judgment to dismiss the claims of Lujin Co. in accordance with law. Its main appeal grounds were: Before Lujin Co. registered the trademark “LUJIN” in 1999, “LUJIN” had become a generic term as a public asset and a historic cultural heritage. Article 49 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law provided that: “The holder of the right to exclusively use a registered trademark shall have no right to prohibit others from the normal use of a generic name, logo, graphic or model of products, a direct indication of quality, main raw materials, functions, purpose, weight, quantity or any other feature of products or a geographic name contained in the registered trademark.” The appellant's use of “LUJIN” only meant that the appellant's products were made from LUJIN fabric, which was a “normal use” that neither constituted trademark infringement nor constituted unfair competition. 鄄城鲁锦公司不服一审判决,向山东省高级人民法院提起上诉,请求撤销一审判决,依法改判驳回被上诉人鲁锦公司的诉讼请求。主要理由是:在1999年鲁锦公司注册“鲁锦”商标之前,“鲁锦”就已成为通用名称,是社会公共财富,历史文化遗产。《商标法实施条例》第49条规定:“注册商标中含有的本商品的通用名称、图形、型号,或者直接表示商品的质量、主要原料、功能、用途、重量、数量及其他特点,或者含有地名,注册商标专用权人无权禁止他人正当使用。”上诉人使用“鲁锦”的行为,仅是表明上诉人的商品是用鲁锦面料制成的,属于“正当使用”,不构成商标侵权,也不构成不正当竞争。
Lizhibang Co. also appealed the first-instance judgment to the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, requesting the court to quash the first-instance judgment and render a new judgment to dismiss the claims of Lujin Co. in accordance with law. Its main appeal grounds were: “LUJIN” was a generic term for the unique handmade folk pure cotton textile in southwestern Shandong province, it did not know “LUJIN” was a registered trademark of Lujin Co., and it stopped the relevant use after receiving the complaint; thus it should not bear the compensatory liability. 礼之邦公司不服一审判决,向山东省高级人民法院提起上诉,请求撤销一审判决,依法改判驳回鲁锦公司诉讼请求。主要理由是:“鲁锦”是鲁西南一带特有的民间纯棉手工纺织品的通用名称,上诉人不知道“鲁锦”是被上诉人鲁锦公司的注册商标,接到诉状后已停止了相关使用行为,故不应承担赔偿责任。
The appellee, Lujin Co., did not submit any statement of defense, but argued in court that: (1) “LUJIN” was independently created and used by the appellee in 1985, and was a trademark lawfully registered by the appellee rather than a generic term. The local people called their woven fabrics as “homespun” or “hand-woven cloth” instead of “LUJIN”. The appellants deemed “LUJIN” a generic term, but were not sure whether “LUJIN” referred to the brocade, the brocade skill or the LUJIN clothes in southwestern Shandong; so they failed to prove “LUJIN” as a generic term. (2) A generic term should not only have a strong relevancy, but also be standard and comprehensive. It was not scientific to define cotton cloth as “brocade”, and “homespun” was not called LUJIN in many places. So, “LUJIN” lacked universality and could not be determined as a generic term. (3) Since the registration of the trademark “LUJIN” in 1999, the appellee had extensively used and promoted it, and a unique correspondence had been formed between it with the appellee. The appellants' acts constituted infringements upon the appellee's exclusive right to use the registered trademark and also constituted unfair competition. (4) Even if “LUJIN” were a generic term, the appellant's highlighted use of “LUJIN” was not a normal use and still constituted infringement. The appellee requested the court to dismiss the appeals and uphold the original judgment. 被上诉人鲁锦公司未提交答辩状,在二审庭审中辩称:1.“鲁锦”是被上诉人于 1985年独自创造使用的,是被上诉人依法注册的商标,不是通用名称。当地人称他们所织造的织物为“土布”、“粗布”,不用“鲁锦”一词。上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司认为“鲁锦”是通用名称,但对于“鲁锦”到底是指鲁西南织锦,还是指鲁西南织锦技艺,或者是指鲁锦服饰并不确定,所以不能证明“鲁锦”是通用名称。2.商品的通用名称除了要具备较强的针对性外,还必须具备名称的规范性和公众知晓的广泛性。将棉布定义为“锦”反科学,且很多地方并不将“土布”称为鲁锦,不具有广泛性。故不能认定“鲁锦”为通用名称。3.自1999年“鲁锦”商标申请注册至今,被上诉人进行了广泛的使用和宣传,与被上诉人形成了唯一对应的关系,上诉人的行为构成了对被上诉人注册商标专用权的侵犯,也构成了不正当竞争。4.即使能够认定“鲁锦”是通用名称,上诉人的使用行为突出了“鲁锦”两字,也不属于正当使用,仍然构成侵权。请求驳回上诉,维持原判。
The appellant, Juancheng Lujin Co., submitted the following evidence to prove that “LUJIN” was a generic term for the handmade folk pure cotton textile in Shandong province: 上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司为证明“鲁锦”是山东民间纯棉手工纺织品的通用名称,提交以下证据:
Evidence Group A: testimonies of witnesses and other documentary evidence, to prove the origin and early use of the word “LUJIN.” 第一组证据:证人证言及部分书证,用以证明“鲁锦”一词的来源及最初使用的情况。
1. Testimonies of Li Baijun, instructor for master's degree candidates of Shandong College of Arts, and Weng Mingxing, manager of the former Shandong Arts and Handicrafts Company, to prove the origin and early use of “LUJIN”. The main contents were: Since 1985, Li Baijun, Weng Mingxing and other people had jointly investigated the folk brocade in Heze, Jining and Liaocheng regions, and submitted a feasibility report on developing the folk brocade in southwestern Shandong to Shandong Provincial Party Committee and provincial government. Shandong Provincial Party Committee and provincial government organized the development of the brocade in southwestern Shandong, and held a “Southwest Brocade and Modern Life Exhibition” on January 8, 1986, which caused wide social attention. During the exhibition, the Provincial Party Committee and provincial government specially invited many experts from Beijing and Shandong Province for a lively discussion over issues such as the development direction and naming of the folk brocade in southwestern Shandong, and they unanimously agreed to name Shandong's folk brocade as “LUJIN”. After that, the research, development and production of LUJIN gradually spread and continued to grow. 1.山东艺术学院硕士生导师李百钧、原山东工艺美术公司经理翁明星出庭作证,证明“鲁锦”一词的来源及早期的使用情况。主要内容是:自1985年开始,李百钧与翁明星等同志一同调研了菏泽、济宁和聊城地区的民间织锦现状后,向山东省委、省政府提出开发鲁西南民间织锦的可行性报告。山东省委省政府组织了鲁西南织锦开发工作,并于1986年1月8日举办了“鲁西南织锦与现代生活汇报展”,受到社会各界的广泛关注和强烈反响。展览期间省委省政府特邀北京和山东省的多名专家就鲁西南民间织锦的发展方向和定名等问题进行了认真的讨论,一致同意用“鲁锦”这个词定名山东的民间织锦。此后鲁锦的研究、开发和生产逐渐普及,不断发展壮大。
2. Document No. 164 [1986] of Shandong Provincial Economic Commission and the corresponding briefing, to prove that LUJIN exhibitions were held in Jinan, Beijing and other places. 2.省经委存档的山东省经济委员会 (86)鲁经调字第164号文件及相应简报。证明在济南、北京等地举办鲁锦展览的事实。
3. The Publicity Outline, the Agenda of the Training Class of CIDA Aid to Yangtun LUJIN Women's Spinning Association of Juancheng of Shandong and the relevant speeches of the leaders in the archives of the Women's Federation of Juancheng County, to prove that the training class of Yangtun LUJIN women's spinning association of Juancheng -a bilateral cooperation project of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and China Women's Federation was held in Yangtun Village of Juancheng County. 3.鄄城县妇联存档的《宣传提纲》、《CIDA扶助山东鄄城杨屯鲁锦妇女纺织联社培训班大会议程》、有关领导讲话等文件。证明加拿大国际发展署(CIDA)与中华全国妇女联合会双边合作项目-鄄城杨屯妇女鲁锦纺织联社培训班在鄄城县杨屯村举行的事实。
Evidence Group B: the relevant news reports on such medias as People's Daily, Guangming Daily, Economic Daily News, Farmers' Daily, China Art Weekly, China Textile, English edition of Women of China, Shandong TV and CCTV, to prove that “LUJIN” referred to the folk brocade in southwestern Shandong and this word had been recognized and disseminated by the press after it was put to use and had become a generic term. 第二组证据:《人民日报》、《光明日报》、《经济日报》、《农民日报》、《中国美术报》、《中国纺织报》、《中国妇女》杂志英文版以及山东电视台、中央电视台等媒体的相关报道,用以证明“鲁锦”指代鲁西南民间织锦,这一名词自开始使用后被我国新闻界所公认和传播,已成为通用名称。
Evidence Group C: the local history records of Shandong Province, Jining and Heze, to prove that “LUJIN” was also deemed a generic term of the folk brocade in southwestern Shandong in these history records. 第三组证据:山东省及济宁、菏泽的地方史志资料,用以证明在这些史志资料中也将“鲁锦”作为鲁西南民间织锦的通用名称。
Evidence Group D: China Art Yearbook, Design Art of Chinese Nationalities, Handbook of Shandong Folk Art, Shandong Culture Series and other relevant reference books and publications, to prove that “LUJIN” was deemed a generic term in the field of folk arts and crafts. 第四组证据:《中国美术年鉴》、《中国民族图案艺术》、《齐鲁民间艺术通览》、《齐鲁特色文化丛书》等相关的工具书和出版物,用以证明“鲁锦”在民间工艺美术领域被作为通用名称。
Evidence Group E: the relevant government documents, to prove that “LUJIN” was identified as a generic term of products and a name of an intangible cultural heritage by the documents of governments at various levels. 第五组证据,相关政府文件等,用以证明“鲁锦”作为商品通用名称和一种非物质文化遗产的名称,已为各级政府的文件所认同。
1. Document No. 95 [1995] of Shandong Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics, which approved the establishment of China LUJIN Art Museum in Juancheng County. 1.山东省文物事业管理局鲁文物 (1995)第95号文件,批复同意鄄城县成立中国鲁锦艺术博物馆。
2. Document No. 52 [2004] of the Tourist Administration of Shandong Province: the Development Plan of Tourist Goods of Shandong Province, which stated that the category of arts and crafts in Jining's tourist goods should include Kai wood carving, Nishan ink stone, LUJIN, clay sculptures of Water Margin characters, etc., and the folk artwork in the tourist goods of Heze City was “LUJIN.” 2.2004年山东省旅游局鲁旅发[2004]第52号文件《山东省旅游商品开发规划》,规定济宁旅游商品中的工艺美术品类包括楷木雕、尼山砚、鲁锦、水浒人物泥塑等,菏泽市旅游商品中的民间艺术品是“鲁锦”。
3. Document No. 149 [2006] of the People's Government of Shandong Province, which announced that “LUJIN weaving skill” was among the first batch of provincial-level intangible cultural heritages announced by the People's Government of Shandong Province. 3.山东省人民政府鲁政法(2006)149号文件,公布“鲁锦织造技艺”是山东省人民政府公布的第一批省级非物质文化遗产。
4. Document No. 19 [2008] of the State Council, which announced that “LUJIN weaving skill” was a national-level intangible cultural heritage. 4.国务院国发(2008)19号文件,公布“鲁锦织造技艺”是国家级非物质文化遗产。
The appellee, Lujin Co., raised no objection to the authenticity of all the above evidence submitted by Juancheng Lujin Co., but made the following arguments during cross-examination: (1) In the trial at first instance, the appellant failed to show the originals of the above evidence, so such evidence could not be admitted as new evidence in the trial at second instance. (2) The appellant could not clearly define what kind of goods “LUJIN” was or what kind of goods the brocade in southwestern Shandong was. “LUJIN” could not be determined as a generic term due to the ambiguity. “Old homespun or hand-woven cloth” was the generic term. (3) It had been several thousand years since “JIN” became the generic name of silk fabrics, and it was not scientific and not consistent with the history to define “JIN” as the generic term for cotton cloth goods. 被上诉人鲁锦公司对上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司提交的上述证据的真实性均无异议,综合发表质证意见如下:1.一审中,上诉人没有出示上述证据的原件,因此不能采纳为二审新证据。2.上诉人不能明确界定“鲁锦”是什么商品,鲁西南织锦是什么商品。由于指代不明确,故“鲁锦”不能认定为通用名称,“老土布、粗布”等才是通用名称。 3.“锦”成为丝织品的通用名称已经具有几千年的历史,上诉人将“锦”定义成棉布类物品的通用名称是反科学、反历史的。
The appellee, Lujin Co., provided the following new evidence to prove that “LUJIN” was not a generic term of goods: 被上诉人鲁锦公司为证明“鲁锦”不是商品的通用名称,提供如下新证据:
1. The History of China Textile Science and Technology published by the Science Press in 1984, to prove the features of silk fabrics as JIN and cotton fabrics as patch cloth and explain that it was not scientific to use “LUJIN” for cotton goods. 1.1984年科学出版社出版的《中国纺织科学技术史》,用以证明丝织物锦与棉织物斑布等物品的特点,说明以“鲁锦”指代棉制品不科学。
2. The biography of Huang Daopo and the classification of clothes and adornments, to prove that rural colored cotton cloth was not the unique product in southwestern Shandong. 2.黄道婆简历和服装、服饰等商品的分类,用以证明农村彩色棉布不是鲁西南特有的产物。
3. The color flyer of “Lingzi Old Hand-woven Cloth” of Jinan Zhongheng Mall, to prove that other relevant business entities selling old hand-woven cloths in Shandong used “old hand-woven cloth” instead of “LUJIN”. 3.济南中恒商城“苓子老粗布”宣传彩页,用以证明山东其他经销老粗布的相关实体不使用“鲁锦”名称,而是使用“老粗布”一词。
4. A video: Mother's Old Homespun, broadcasted by CCTV-2 in April 2008, to prove that there was old homespun not called “LUJIN” in many places of China. 4.2008年4月中央2台播放的《妈妈的老土布》视频,用以证明在全国很多地方都有老土布,没有称为“鲁锦”。
5. The certification materials issued by China National Garment Association, to prove the contributions made to LUJIN clothes by the appellee. 5.中国服装协会出具的证明材料,用以证明被上诉人鲁锦公司为鲁锦服装所做出的贡献。
6. Page 9 of the application on disputed trademark “LUJIN” of Juancheng Lujin Co., to prove that the appellant had no clear knowledge of the concept “LUJIN.” 6.上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司对“鲁锦”商标争议的申请书第9页,用以证明上诉人自己对“鲁锦”的概念也没有明确的认识。
Juancheng Lujin Co. raised no objection to the authenticity of the above evidence submitted by the appellee, but it made the following arguments during cross-examination: There were differences in the professional circles about the scientific definition of brocade and cotton, but they were irrelevant to the determination of whether “LUJIN” was a generic term. The generic term of goods may be a short name, a folk name or an abbreviation, and goods may have more than one generic term. There was no contradiction between “old hand-woven cloth” or “homespun” and “LUJIN” as a generic term. 上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司对被上诉人鲁锦公司提交的上述证据的真实性没有异议,综合质证意见为:从科学的角度解释锦与棉,在专业界有分歧,但这和认定“鲁锦”是否为通用名称没有关联性。商品的通用名称包括简称、俗称及缩写等,一个商品不是只有一个通用名称,称为“老粗布”或“土布”与“鲁锦”是通用名称并无矛盾。
According to the evidence adduced and cross-examined by both parties and the facts found by the court of first instance, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, court of second instance, found that: 根据双方当事人的举证质证情况,在一审法院查明事实的基础上,山东省高级人民法院二审查明:
The folk brocade in southwestern Shandong was a kind of handmade folk pure cotton textile, famous for its gorgeous colors. It had a history of several thousand years in southwestern Shandong, as part of Shandong's culture. Since mid-1980s, the brocade in southwestern Shandong had been developed and brought into the modern economy. On January 8, 1986, the “Southwest Brocade and Modern Life Exhibition” was held in Jinan. On August 20, 1986, Shandong Provincial Economic Commission, Women's Federation, College of Art, Light Industry Department and other relevant entities jointly held an “Exhibition of LUJIN and Modern Life” at Beijing Nationality Culture Palace, which caused enormous attention of the public. Around 1986, the People's Daily, Economic Information Daily, Farmers' Daily, China Art Weekly and other newspapers and periodicals published special reports on “LUJIN”, and Shandong TV and CCTV also shot several featured programs about “LUJIN”. Since then, “LUJIN” had been widely used as the general name of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles, and the research, development and production of LUJIN had gradually spread and continued to grow. To promote the further combination of LUJIN culture and modern life and promote the productivity of women workers in rural areas, on November 15, 1987, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and China Women's Federation jointly launched a bilateral cooperation project-the Training Class of Yangtun LUJIN Women's Spinning Association of Juancheng in Yangtun Village of Juancheng County. 鲁西南民间织锦,是一种山东民间纯棉手工纺织品,因其纹彩绚丽、灿烂似锦而得名,在鲁西南地区已有上千年的历史,是历史悠久的齐鲁文化的一部分。从二十世纪八十年代中期开始,鲁西南织锦开始被开发利用,引进现代生活。1986年1月8日在济南举行了“鲁西南织锦与现代生活展览汇报会”。1986年8月20日,由山东省经委、省妇联、省艺术学院、省二轻厅等有关单位共同在北京民族文化宫举办了“鲁锦与现代生活展”,引起强烈反响。1986年前后,《人民日报》、《经济参考》、《农民日报》、《中国美术报》等报刊发表关于“鲁锦”的专题报道,山东电视台、中央电视台也拍摄了多部关于“鲁锦”的专题片。自此,“鲁锦”作为山东民间手工棉纺织品通称被广泛使用。此后,鲁锦的研究、开发和生产逐渐普及并不断发展壮大。1987年11月15日,为促进鲁锦文化与现代生活的进一步结合,发展农村妇女的生产,加拿大国际发展署(CIDA)与中华全国妇女联合会共同在鄄城县杨屯村举行了双边合作项目---鄄城杨屯妇女鲁锦纺织联社培训班。
When it came to local specialties or traditional crafts, the local history records of Shandong Province, Jining and Heze showed in many places that “LUJIN” was a kind of traditional textile products using cotton yarns as the major raw materials, popular in the vast rural areas of Southwest Shandong, and was one of Shandong's main folk arts. The reference books and publications introducing “LUJIN” all treated “LUJIN” as folk handmade broche cotton of Shandong which, with cotton as the major raw materials, was spun, dyed and woven by hand and traditionally called “homespun” or “hand woven fabric.” It was also called “LUJIN” for its gorgeous colors. 山东省及济宁、菏泽等地方的史志资料在谈及历史、地方特产或传统工艺时,对“鲁锦”也多有记载,均认为“鲁锦”是流行在鲁西南地区广大农村的一种以棉纱为主要原料的传统纺织产品,是山东的主要民间美术品种之一。相关工具书及出版物也对“鲁锦”多有介绍,均认为“鲁锦”是山东民间手工织花棉布,以棉花为主要原料,手工织线,手工染色,手工织造,俗称“土布”或“手织布”,因此布色彩斑斓,似锦似绣,故而称为“鲁锦”。
On December 25, 1995, Shandong Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics made a Reply on the Construction of “China LUJIN Museum”, approving Heze Bureau of Culture to establish “China LUJIN Museum” in Juancheng County. On December 23, 2006, the people's government of Shandong Province announced the first batch of provincial intangible cultural heritages, among which was “LUJIN folk handmade skill” as recommended by Shandong Provincial Department of Culture, Juancheng County and Jiaxiang County. On June 7, 2008, the “LUJIN weaving skill” recommended by Juancheng County and Jiaxiang County of Shandong Province was listed in the directory of the second batch of national intangible cultural heritages by Document No. 19 [2008] of the State Council. 1995年12月25日,山东省文物局作出《关于建设“中国鲁锦博物馆”的批复》,同意菏泽地区文化局在鄄城县成立“中国鲁锦博物馆”。2006年12月23日,山东省人民政府公布第一批省级非物质文化遗产,其中省文化厅、鄄城县、嘉祥县作为申报单位申报的“鲁锦民间手工技艺”被评定为非物质文化遗产。 2008年6月7日,国务院国发(2008)19号文件确定由山东省鄄城县、嘉祥县申报的“鲁锦织造技艺”被列入第二批国家级非物质文化遗产名录。
The focal disputes in the trial at second instance still were: whether the acts of Juancheng Lujin Co. and Lizhibang Co. constituted infringements upon the exclusive right of Lujin Co. to use a registered trademark; and whether the use of “LUJIN” by Juancheng Lujin Co. in its name constituted unfair competition. 本案二审的争议焦点仍然是:上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司的行为是否构成对被上诉人鲁锦公司注册商标专用权的侵犯;鄄城鲁锦公司在字号中使用“鲁锦”,是否构成不正当竞争。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
The Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, court of second instance, held that: 山东省高级人民法院二审认为:
According to the facts in this case, it may be determined that before Lujin Co. registered “LUJIN” as its trademark in 1999, “LUJIN” had already been a generic term of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles and that “LUJIN” weaving skill was an intangible cultural heritage. The acts of Juancheng Lujin Co. and Jining Lizhibang Co. constituted neither trademark infringement nor unfair competition. Firstly, the word trademark “LUJIN” and composite trademark “Lj + LUJIN” of Lujin Co. was approved by the Traemark Office to be used on goods in Categories 25 and 24, and the exclusive right to use these registered trademarks should be protected by law. Juancheng Lujin Co. filed an application for revocation of these trademarks with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the Trademark Office, but the legal validity of these two trademarks should still be confirmed before this Board made a decision. However, any right was limited, and a right without limitation could be misused to damage the public interests. The exclusive right to use a registered trademark was also limited. Article 49 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law provided that: “The holder of the right to exclusively use a registered trademark shall have no right to prohibit others from the normal use of a generic name, logo, graphic or model of products, a direct indication of quality, main raw materials, functions, purpose, weight, quantity or any other feature of products or a geographic name contained in the registered trademark.” The main effect of a trademark was distinctiveness, i.e. the consumers could distinguish between the providers of goods and services according to different trademarks. The purpose of protecting trademark was to avoid confusion of the sources of goods and services. Accordingly, the use of another person's trademark on goods or services should not be determined as infringing upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark if the use was a normal use without the intention of infringing upon another person's trademark and without causing confusions on the part of the consumers about the sources of goods or services. 根据本案事实,可以认定,在1999年被上诉人鲁锦公司将“鲁锦”注册为商标之前,已是山东民间手工棉纺织品的通用名称,“鲁锦”织造技艺为非物质文化遗产。上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司、济宁礼之邦公司的行为不构成商标侵权,也不构成不正当竞争。首先,被上诉人鲁锦公司的“鲁锦”文字商标和“Lj+LUJIN”的组合商标已经国家商标局核准注册并核定使用于第25类、第24类商品上,此注册商标专用权应依法受法律保护。虽然上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司对此商标提出撤销申请,国家商标局商标评审委员会也已经受理,但在商评委未做出决定之前,仍应确认此两商标的法律效力。但任何权利均有限制,没有限制的权利就会被滥用,从而威胁到公共利益。注册商标专用权也有其权利限制。《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》第四十九条规定:“注册商标中含有的本商品的通用名称、图形、型号,或者直接表示商品的质量、主要原料、功能、用途、重量、数量及其他特点,或者含有地名,注册商标专用权人无权禁止他人正当使用。”商标的作用主要为识别性,即消费者能够依不同的商标而区别相应的商品及服务的提供者。保护商标权的目的,就是防止对商品及服务的来源产生混淆,故虽然在商品或服务上使用了他人商标,但属于正当使用,不具有侵犯他人商标权的目的,不会使消费者对商品或服务来源产生误认的,不应认定为侵犯注册商标专用权的行为。
Secondly, according to the facts in this case, it may be determined that “LUJIN” specially referred to the folk brocade in southwestern Shandong, i.e. a kind of Shandong folk pure cotton handmade textile with gorgeous colors which had a history of several thousand years in southwestern Shandong. “LUJIN” had been recognized as a generic term for such Shandong handmade textile by the national mainstream media, various newspapers and news media within Shandong Province. The history records of Shandong, Jining, Heze, Jiaxiang and Juancheng at three levels (province, city and county) all mentioned “LUJIN” as a “new name” of traditional folk brocade in southwestern Shandong, and the relevant reference books of arts and crafts also confirmed that “LUJIN” was a kind of folk pure cotton handmade textile produced in Shandong. A large quantity of evidence proved that “LUJIN” weaving skills had a long history, and the textiles woven by such skills were characterized by “handmade, pure cotton, gorgeous colors, classic and elegant designs, environmental friendly, comfortable and durable.” When people talked about “LUJIN,” what's on their mind was Shandong folk handmade cotton textile and weaving skills with distinctive local characteristics. Upon the joint application by Jiaxiang County and Juancheng County of Shandong Province, “LUJIN weaving skill” was determined as one of the first batch of intangible cultural heritages of Shandong Province in 2006, and was determined as one of the national intangible cultural heritages in 2008. The production skills of pure cotton hand-weaving represented by “LUJIN” was not invented by a certain natural person or legal person, but was formed during the longtime labor of the people in Shandong, especially southwestern Shandong. The raw material of the pure cotton handmade textiles represented by “LUJIN” was cotton widely planted in unspecific areas of Shandong and not specially planted by a certain natural person or legal person. Since mid-1980s, the traditional folk brocade of southwestern Shandong had gradually entered the modern economy. Starting at the “Exhibition of LUJIN and Modern Life” held at Beijing Nationality Culture Palace and after the massive publicity on media, the word “LUJIN” had entered the visual field of the public and become a general name of the unique folk handmade textiles in Shandong which used cotton as the major raw materials and was spun, dyed and woven by hand. This term had been commonly used in the field of textile industry in Shandong and accepted by the relevant public. To sum up, it may be determined that “LUJIN” was a generic term for the folk pure cotton handmade textiles in Shandong, especially in southwestern Shandong, as intangible public asset, and should be shared by the producers and operators in this region. Lujin Co. contended that the word “LUJIN” lacked universality and old hand-woven cloth was also produced in other places of China but not called “LUJIN”. In this court's opinion, the determination of universality of a generic term of goods with regional characteristics should be based on the specific producing area and the relevant group of people, instead of the whole county. The fact that handmade cotton textiles were not called “LUJIN” in other provinces of China did not affect the fact that “LUJIN” specially meant the unique folk handmade cotton textiles in Shandong. Lujin Co. considered that “LUJIN” was not scientific and cotton fabrics should be called “cotton” rather than “JIN”. In this court's opinion, science was not a necessary factor in naming, and whether a clearly defined conventional name accepted by the relevant public was scientific or not should not affect its being a generic term. Lujin Co. also argued that “LUJIN” was not comprehensive and some business operators and consumers in Shandong Province called this kind of folk handmade cotton textiles “hand-woven cloth” or “old homespun.” In this court's opinion, the cotton textile industry in Shandong had a long history, and the people there had always called the folk handmade cotton textiles “hand-woven cloth” or “old homespun.” The appellation “LUJIN” was a new name established in mid-1980s, and had been known and accepted by the relevant public after years' publicity and use. The existence of “hand-woven cloth,” “old homespun” and other old names did not affect the determination of “LUJIN” as a generic term. In short, all of the above claims of Lujin Co. were wrong and should not be adopted. 其次,根据本案事实可以认定,“鲁锦”专指鲁西南民间织锦,即一种山东民间纯棉手工纺织品,其纹彩绚丽,灿烂似锦,在鲁西南地区已有上千年的历史。“鲁锦'作为这种具有山东特色的手工纺织品的通用名称,为国家级主流媒体、各类专业报纸以及山东省内新闻媒体所公认,山东省及济宁、菏泽、嘉祥、鄄城省市县三级史志资料均将“鲁锦”记载为传统鲁西南民间织锦的“新名”,有关工艺美术、艺术的工具书中也确认“鲁锦”就是产自山东的一种民间纯棉手工纺织品。大量证据表明,“鲁锦”织造工艺历史悠久,用这种工艺织造出的纺织品具有手工织造、纯棉质地、色彩绚丽、图案古雅、绿色环保、舒适耐用等特点。在提到“鲁锦”两字时,人们想到的就是具有鲜明地方特色、传统悠久的山东民间手工棉纺织品及其织造工艺。经山东省嘉祥县、鄄城县共同申报,“鲁锦织造技艺”于2006年被确定为第一批山东省非物质文化遗产, 2008年被确定为国家级非物质文化遗产。“鲁锦”代表的纯棉手工纺织生产工艺并非由某一自然人或企业法人发明而成,而是由山东地区特别是鲁西南地区人民长期劳动实践而形成。“鲁锦”代表的纯棉手工纺织品的生产原料亦非某一自然人或企业法人特定种植,而是山东不特定地区广泛种植的棉花。自上世纪八十年代中期后,传统鲁西南民间织锦开始走入现代生活,以在北京民族文化宫举办“鲁锦与现代生活方式展”为起点,经过媒体的大量宣传,“鲁锦”一词进入公众视野,已成为以棉花为主要原料、手工织线、手工染色、手工织造的山东地区特有民间手工纺织品的通称,且已在山东地区纺织行业领域内通用并被相关社会公众所接受。综上,可以认定“鲁锦”是专指山东地区特别是鲁西南地区民间纯棉手工纺织品的通用名称,是一种无形的公共资产,应为该地区的生产、经营者共同享有。被上诉人鲁锦公司认为“鲁锦'这一名称不具有广泛性,主张在我国其他地方也出产老粗布,但不叫“鲁锦”。对此法院认为,对于具有地域性特点的商品通用名称,判断其广泛性应以特定产区及相关人群为标准,而不应以全国为标准。我国其他省份的手工棉纺织品不叫“鲁锦”,并不影响“鲁锦”专指山东地区特有的民间手工棉纺织品这一事实。鲁锦公司认为“鲁锦”这一名称不具有科学性,主张棉织品应称为“棉” 而不应称为“锦”。对此法院认为,名称的确定与其是否符合科学没有必然关系,对于已为相关公众接受、指代明确、约定俗成的名称,即使不符合科学,亦不影响其成为通用名称。鲁锦公司还认为“鲁锦”这一名称不具有普遍性,主张山东省内有些经营者、消费者将这种民间手工棉纺织品称为“粗布”或“老土布”。对此法院认为,山东棉纺织业历史悠久,人们一直将民间手工棉纺织品称为“粗布”、“老土布”,“鲁锦”这一称谓是上世纪80年代中期确定的新的名称,经过多年的宣传与使用,现已为相关公众所知悉和接受。“粗布”、“老土布”等旧有名称的存在,不影响“鲁锦”通用名称的认定。综上,鲁锦公司的上述诉讼主张均不能成立,不予采纳。
Thirdly, Lujin Co. registered the word trademark “LUJIN” in 1999 on goods in Subcategory “Clothes, Shoes and Hats” of Category 25. In 2001, it registered the composite trademark “Lj + LUJIN” on goods of textile fabrics and cotton fabrics in Category 24. As the word used in the above trademarks was identical with “LUJIN” as the generic name of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles, the distinctive features of them were weakened, and the features protected as trademarks were also weakened. Although “LUJIN” was not a generic term of LUJIN clothes, it was a generic term of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles. There were quite a few manufacturers of beddings, arts, crafts and garments using LUJIN as the fabrics in southwestern Shandong, and in order to highlight the features of “LUJIN” as “handmade, environmental friendly and comfortable,” all these manufacturers had the right to properly use “LUJIN” and indicate on their products that LUJIN was adopted as the fabrics. In this case, Juancheng Lujin Co. used “LUJIN” on the packaging boxes and packaging bags of its products only to indicate that its products adopted LUJIN as the fabrics. Its production skill had LUJIN features, but it had no intention to infringe upon the exclusive right of Lujin Co. to use the registered trademark “LUJIN,” and did not use it as a business logo. Since no confusions would be caused among the relevant consumers about the sources of goods, the use was reasonable and proper and did not constitute infringement upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark “LUJIN”. For the same reasons, the use of “LUJIN” by Juancheng Lujin Co. in its name was also proper and did not constitute unfair competition. Likewise, the LUJIN product outlet of Lizhibang Co. also had the right to use “LUJIN”, and did not commit infringement upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark “LUJIN.” 第三,被上诉人鲁锦公司于1999年注册“鲁锦”文字商标,核定使用商品为第25类服装、鞋、帽类等。2001年注册“Lj+LUJIN”组合商标,核定使用商品为第24类纺织物、棉织品等。由于鲁锦公司上述商标所使用的文字与作为山东民间手工棉纺织品通用名称的“鲁锦”一致,其应具备的显著性区别特征因此趋于弱化,作为商标被保护的特性亦相应弱化。“鲁锦”虽不是鲁锦服装的通用名称,但却是山东民间手工棉纺织品的通用名称。鲁西南地区有不少以鲁锦为面料生产床上用品、工艺品、服饰的厂家,这些厂家为了突出“手工、绿色、环保、舒适”的“鲁锦”特点,均有权正当使用“鲁锦”名称,在其产品上叙述性标明其面料采用鲁锦。本案中,上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司在其生产的涉案产品的包装盒、包装袋上使用“鲁锦”两字,仅是为了表明其产品采用鲁锦面料,其生产技艺具备鲁锦特点,并不具有侵犯鲁锦公司“鲁锦”注册商标专用权的主观恶意,也并非作为商业标识使用,不会造成相关消费者对商品来源的误认和混淆,属于合理、正当使用,故不构成对“鲁锦”注册商标专用权的侵犯。基于同样的理由,鄄城鲁锦公司在其企业名称中使用“鲁锦”字样,也系正当使用,不构成不正当竞争。上诉人礼之邦公司作为鲁锦制品的专卖店,同样有权使用“鲁锦”字样,亦不构成对“鲁锦”注册商标专用权的侵犯。
As “LUJIN” was still a valid registered trademark, for regulation of market order and protection of fair competition, Juancheng Lujin Co. should, when using “LUJIN” to indicate the fabrics of its products in the future, reasonably avoid conflicts with the exclusive right of Lujin Co. to use the registered trademark at issue, and should highlight its own trademark “JINGYIFANG” on the packaging of its products to clarify the source of products and facilitate differentiation by the consumers. 鉴于“鲁锦”目前仍是合法有效的注册商标,为规范市场秩序,保护公平竞争,鄄城鲁锦公司在今后使用“鲁锦”字样以标明其产品面料性质的同时,应合理避让鲁锦公司的注册商标专用权,应在其产品包装上突出使用自己的“精一坊”商标,以显著区别产品来源,方便消费者加以识别。
In conclusion, some facts found in the judgment of first instance were wrong and the conclusion was improper. The appeal grounds of Juancheng Lujin Co. and Lizhibang Co. were sufficient and should be supported according to law. On August 5, 2009, in accordance with Article 49 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law and Article 153.2 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province rendered the following judgment: 综上,一审判决认定事实部分有误,判决结果不当。上诉人鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司提出的上诉理由充分,依法应予支持。根据《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》第四十九条、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十三条第二款之规定,山东省高级人民法院于2009年8月5日判决如下:
JUDGMENT 
1. The Civil Judgment (No. 6 [2007], Civil Division V, First Instance) of the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City should be quashed; and 一、撤销山东省济宁市中级人民法院 (2007)济民五初字第6号民事判决;
2. The claims of Lujin Co. should be rejected. 二、驳回被上诉人鲁锦公司的诉讼请求。
This judgment should 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