>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Tenth Group of Guiding Cases [Effective]
最高人民法院关于发布第十批指导性案例的通知 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Tenth Group of Guiding Cases 

最高人民法院关于发布第十批指导性案例的通知

(No. 85 [2015] of the Supreme People's Court) (法〔2015〕85号)

The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院,解放军军事法院,新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院:
In accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Case Guidance, the Supreme People's Court has reviewed and compiled cases published on the Gazette of the Supreme People's Court that are of significance in guiding the adjudication and enforcement work of courts across the country. Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, the eights case including Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd. et al. for dispute over unfair competition (Guiding Cases No. 45-52) are hereby issued as the tenth group of guiding cases for references in trial of similar cases. 根据《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》第九条的规定,最高人民法院对《最高人民法院公报》刊发的对全国法院审判、执行工作具有指导意义的案例,进行了清理和编纂。经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定,现将经清理和编纂的北京百度网讯科技有限公司诉青岛奥商网络技术有限公司等不正当竞争纠纷案等八个案例(指导案例45-52号),作为第十批指导性案例发布,供在审判类似案件时参照。
Supreme People's Court 

最高人民法院

April 15, 2015 2015年4月15日

Guiding Case No. 45 指导案例45号
Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd. et al.(Dispute over unfair competition) 

  北京百度网讯科技有限公司诉青岛奥商网络技术有限公司等不正当竞争纠纷案

Keywords 关键词
Civil; unfair competition; network services; principle of good faith 民事 不正当竞争 网络服务 诚信原则
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
Where a business engaged in Internet services forces the pop-up of advertisements on the search result pages of a website of any other business, it violates the principle of good faith and commonly accepted business ethics, and hampers the normal operations and impairs the lawful rights and interests of the other business. Such an act may be determined as unfair competition in accordance with the abstract provision of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. 从事互联网服务的经营者,在其他经营者网站的搜索结果页面强行弹出广告的行为,违反诚实信用原则和公认商业道德,妨碍其他经营者正当经营并损害其合法权益,可以依照《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二条的原则性规定认定为不正当竞争。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Baidu Company”) alleged that: Its website, www.baidu.com (hereinafter referred to as the “Baidu website”), was a Chinese search engine site. By using the Internet access service provided by CNC in Qingdao area of Shandong Province, the three defendants, Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Osun Network”), Qingdao Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Unicom Qingdao Branch”), and Shandong Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Unicom Shandong Branch”), forcibly implanted advertisements in the search result pages of Baidu Company, causing damage to Baidu Company's goodwill and economic returns. The acts of the three defendants violated the principle of good faith and constituted unfair competition. Baidu Company requested the court to order that: (1) the acts of Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao Branch constituted unfair competition and they should stop their acts of unfair competition; and the third party should assume the joint and several liability; (2) the three defendants should publish a statement in newspapers to eliminate the adverse effect; and (3) the three defendants should jointly compensate plaintiff for its economic losses of 4.8 million yuan and reasonable expenses related to this case of 100,000 yuan. 原告北京百度网讯科技有限公司(以下简称百度公司)诉称:其拥有的www.baidu.com网站(以下简称百度网站)是中文搜索引擎网站。三被告青岛奥商网络技术有限公司(以下简称奥商网络公司)、中国联合网络通信有限公司青岛市分公司(以下简称联通青岛公司)、中国联合网络通信有限公司山东省分公司(以下简称联通山东公司)在山东省青岛地区,利用网通的互联网接入网络服务,在百度公司网站的搜索结果页面强行增加广告的行为,损害了百度公司的商誉和经济效益,违背了诚实信用原则,构成不正当竞争。请求判令:1.奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司的行为构成对原告的不正当竞争行为,并停止该不正当竞争行为;第三人承担连带责任;2.三被告在报上刊登声明以消除影响;3.三被告共同赔偿原告经济损失480万元和因本案的合理支出10万元。
Defendant Osun Network contended that it did not carry out any unfair competition and should neither make an apology nor make compensation of 4.8 million yuan. 被告奥商网络公司辩称:其不存在不正当竞争行为,不应赔礼道歉和赔偿480万元。
Defendant Unicom Qingdao Branch contended that the plaintiff adduced no evidence that Unicom Qingdao Branch had committed the alleged acts and it had suffered actual losses; there was no competitive relationship between the plaintiff and Unicom Qingdao Branch; and the court should dismiss all claims of the plaintiff. 被告联通青岛公司辩称:原告没有证据证明其实施了被指控行为,没有提交证据证明遭受的实际损失,原告与其不存在竞争关系,应当驳回原告全部诉讼请求。
Defendant Unicom Shandong Branch contended that the plaintiff provided no evidence that Unicom Shandong Branch had committed the alleged acts of unfair competition or any tort and there was no legal basis for Unicom Shandong Branch to assume the joint and several liability. 被告联通山东公司辩称:原告没有证据证明其实施了被指控的不正当竞争或侵权行为,承担连带责任没有法律依据。
The third party, Qingdao Pengfei International Air Travel Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pengfei Company”) stated that this case had nothing to do with it. 第三人青岛鹏飞国际航空旅游服务有限公司(以下简称鹏飞航空公司)述称:本案与第三人无关。
In the trial of the case, the court found that: The business scope of Baidu Company was Internet information services, which were provided through its approved website, www.baidu.com, mainly including Internet information search services for network users. The business scope of Osun Network included network engineering construction, network technology and application services, and computer software design and development. Its website was www.og.com.cn. As stated under “About us” on this website, Osun Network owned four websites: Osun Network China (www.og.com.cn), Ouge Internet Marketing Partner (www.og.net.cn), Qingdao Real Name Telephony (www.0532114.org), and Peninsula Human Resources (www.job17.com). Also on this website, the introduction to Osun Network's “Network Through Train” service said: “No additional plug-ins required. Advertising pages will pop up forcibly.” In describing the features of its product “Speedy Search,” the following steps were illustrated: “First, you enter a key word in the dialog box of the search engine; second, the advertising spots of Network Through Train appear preemptively (for 5 seconds); third, click the above advertising spots to directly enter the promotional website in a new window; and fourth, after 5 seconds, the search results automatically display in the original window as requested in step 1.” This service was also introduced in other forms on this website. The business scope of Unicom Qingdao Branch included Internet access services and information services. Qingdao Info Hub (domain name: qd.sd.cn) was owned by Unicom Qingdao Branch. “Real Name Telephony” was a voice search service jointly provided by Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network. On the website of “114 Real Name Telephony Voice Search,” www.0532114.org, it was clearly stated that Unicom Qingdao Branch was the copyright owner of this website and Osun Network was the sole registration center. The business scope of Unicom Shandong Branch included Internet access services and information services. As shown on the website of Unicom Shandong Branch (www.sdcnc.cn), Unicom Qingdao Branch was one of its branches. The business scope of Pengfei Company included air ticket agency and other services. 法院经审理查明:百度公司经营范围为互联网信息服务业务,核准经营网址为www.baidu.com的百度网站,主要向网络用户提供互联网信息搜索服务。奥商网络公司经营范围包括网络工程建设、网络技术应用服务、计算机软件设计开发等,其网站为www.og.com.cn。该公司在上述网站“企业概况”中称其拥有4个网站:中国奥商网(www.og.com.cn)、讴歌网络营销伴侣(www.og.net.cn)、青岛电话实名网(www.0532114.org)、半岛人才网(www.job17.com)。该公司在其网站介绍其“网络直通车”业务时称:无需安装任何插件,广告网页强制出现。介绍“搜索通”产品表现形式时,以图文方式列举了下列步骤:第一步在搜索引擎对话框中输入关键词;第二步优先出现网络直通车广告位(5秒钟展现);第三步同时点击上面广告位直接进入宣传网站新窗口;第四步5秒后原窗口自动展示第一步请求的搜索结果。该网站还以其他形式介绍了上述服务。联通青岛公司的经营范围包括因特网接入服务和信息服务等,青岛信息港(域名为qd.sd.cn)为其所有的网站。“电话实名”系联通青岛公司与奥商公司共同合作的一项语音搜索业务,网址为www.0532114.org的“114电话实名语音搜索”网站表明该网站版权所有人为联通青岛公司,独家注册中心为奥商网络公司。联通山东公司经营范围包括因特网接入服务和信息服务业务。其网站(www.sdcnc.cn)显示,联通青岛公司是其下属分公司。鹏飞航空公司经营范围包括航空机票销售代理等。
On April 14, 2009, Baidu Company discovered that: After accessing the Internet through CNC, Qingdao City, Shandong Province, if one logged on to Baidu website (www.baidu.com), entered “Pengfei Airlines” in the dialog box on this website, and clicked on “Baidu it,” a page displaying “Call 114 and grab your discounted airline tickets now” popped up, and if one promptly clicked on this page, a new page was opened with the URL of http://air.qd.sd.cn/. If one entered “Qingdao Human Resources Network” and clicked on “Baidu it,” a page displaying “Find a good job on Peninsula Human Resources, www.job17.com” popped up, and if one promptly clicked on the words “Enter Now” on this page, a new page was opened with the URL of http://www.job17.com/. If one entered “legal name telephony” in the dialog box on this website and clicked on “Baidu it,” a page displaying “Call 114 for easier-to-use voice search” popped up, and was redirected to the search result page of “legal name telephony.” The agent authorized by Baidu Company performed a series of search operations on the Baidu website using a computer at the Notary Office, which were all notarized. The Notarization Certificate recorded the aforesaid. According to experts, the hyperlinked website (http://air.qd.sd.cn/) had the same domain name (qd.sd.cn) as Qingdao Info Hub (www.qd.sd.cn), a website under Unicom Shandong Branch, and the website air.qd.sd.cn belonged to the Qingdao division of Unicom Shandong Branch. 2009年4月14日,百度公司发现通过山东省青岛市网通接入互联网,登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),在该网站显示对话框中:输入“鹏飞航空”,点击“百度一下”,弹出显示有“打折机票抢先拿就打114”的页面,迅速点击该页面,打开了显示地址为http://air.qd.sd.cn/的页面;输入“青岛人才网”,点击“百度一下”,弹出显示有“找好工作到半岛人才网www.job17.com”的页面,迅速点击该页面中显示的“马上点击”,打开了显示地址为http://www.job17.com/的页面;输入“电话实名”,点击“百度一下”,弹出显示有“查信息打114,语音搜索更好用”的页面,随后该页面转至相应的“电话实名”搜索结果页面。百度公司委托代理人利用公证处的计算机对登录百度搜索等网站操作过程予以公证,公证书记载了前述内容。经专家论证,所链接的网站(http://air.qd.sd.cn/)与联通山东公司的下属网站青岛信息港(www.qd.sd.cn)具有相同域(qd.sd.cn),网站air.qd.sd.cn是联通山东公司下属网站青岛站点所属。
Judgment 裁判结果
On September 2, 2009, the Intermediate Peoples' Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province entered a civil judgment (No. 110 [2009], First, Civil DivisionIII, Qingdao) that: (1) Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao Branch should, from the effective date of this judgment, immediately stop the acts of unfair competition against Baidu Company, i.e. they should not cause advertising pages to pop up by technical means when a network user accessing the Internet via the access service of Unicom Qingdao Branch logged on to Baidu website and started a key word search. (2) Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao Branch should, within ten days after this judgment took effect, compensate Baidu Company for economic losses of 200,000 yuan. (3) Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao Branch should, within ten days after this judgment took effect, publish statements on the homepages of their respective websites to eliminate the adverse effect. The statements should last 15 consecutive days. (4) The other claims of Baidu Company should be dismissed. After this judgment was pronounced, Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network appealed. On March 30, 2010, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province entered a civil judgment (No. 5-2 [2010], Final, Civil DivisionIII, HPC, Shandong) to dismiss the appeals and sustain the original judgment. 山东省青岛市中级人民法院于2009年9月2日作出(2009)青民三初字第110号民事判决:一、奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司于本判决生效之日起立即停止针对百度公司的不正当竞争行为,即不得利用技术手段,使通过联通青岛公司提供互联网接入服务的网络用户,在登录百度网站进行关键词搜索时,弹出奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司的广告页面;二、奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿百度公司经济损失二十万元;三、奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司于本判决生效之日起十日内在各自网站首页位置上刊登声明以消除影响,声明刊登时间应为连续的十五天;四、驳回百度公司的其他诉讼请求。宣判后,联通青岛公司、奥商网络公司提起上诉。山东省高级人民法院于2010年3月20日作出(2010)鲁民三终字第5-2号民事判决,驳回上诉,维持原判。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgments, the courts held that: Baidu Company brought a lawsuit against Osun Network, Unicom Qingdao Branch, and Unicom Shandong Branch, requiring them to stop their acts of unfair competition and assume the corresponding civil liabilities. Therefore, whether the allegations of the plaintiff were well-founded should be judged in the following steps: (1) whether the defendants had committed the alleged acts; (2) if they had committed the alleged acts, whether such acts constituted unfair competition; and (3) if such alleged acts constituted unfair competition, what civil liabilities they should assume. 法院生效裁判认为:本案百度公司起诉奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司、联通山东公司,要求其停止不正当竞争行为并承担相应的民事责任。据此,判断原告的主张能否成立应按以下步骤进行:一、本案被告是否实施了被指控的行为;二、如果实施了被指控行为,该行为是否构成不正当竞争;三、如果构成不正当竞争,如何承担民事责任。
1. Whether the defendants had committed the alleged acts 一、关于被告是否实施了被指控的行为
A domain name is a hierarchical character identifier for identifying and locating a computer on the Internet. According to the facts found, www.job17.com was Peninsula Human Resources website owned by Osun Network, and the “Legal Name Telephony Voice Search” service was jointly provided by Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao Branch. The domain name qd.sd.cn was owned by Unicom Qingdao Branch, which used it as the domain name of “Qingdao Info Hub.” As a sub-domain of qd.sd.cn, air.qd.sd.cn was distributed and managed under its upper-level domain name qd.sd.cn. Unicom Qingdao Branch, as the holder of the domain name qd.sd.cn, denied that it owned the domain name air.qd.sd.cn, but failed to provide any evidence. It should be determined that the user of the sub-domain name was Unicom Qingdao Branch at the time of evidence preservation by notarization. 域名是互联网络上识别和定位计算机的层次结构式的字符标识。根据查明的事实,www.job17.com系奥商网络公司所属的半岛人才网站,“电话实名语音搜索”系联通青岛公司与奥商网络公司合作经营的业务。域名qd.sd.cn属于联通青岛公司所有,并将其作为“青岛信息港”的域名实际使用。air.qd.sd.cn作为qd.sd.cn的子域,是其上级域名qd.sd.cn分配与管理的。联通青岛公司作为域名qd.sd.cn的持有人否认域名air.qd.sd.cn为其所有,但没有提供证据予以证明,应认定在公证保全时该子域名的使用人为联通青岛公司。
Normally, when a user logged on to a search engine website on the Internet and started a key word search, the user would expect a search result page generated by the search engine website rather than any pop-up of irrelevant pages. However, within the coverage of the network access service provided by Unicom Qingdao Branch, there were forced pop-ups of advertising pages irrelevant to search results. These pop-up advertising pages were not caused by any program installed in the computer connected to the Internet at the Notary Office. Unicom Qingdao Branch neither provided evidence that the same happened within the coverage of other network access service providers nor provided a reasonable explanation for the above pop-ups within its network access service area. It may be determined that within the coverage of the Internet access service provided by Unicom Qingdao Branch, the search requests sent from network customers to Baidu website were artificially intervened so that the intervener could have the desired advertising pages forcibly pop up before the search result pages were normally displayed. 在互联网上登录搜索引擎网站进行关键词搜索时,正常出现的应该是搜索引擎网站搜索结果页面,不应弹出与搜索引擎网站无关的其他页面,但是在联通青岛公司所提供的网络接入服务网络区域内,却出现了与搜索结果无关的广告页面强行弹出的现象。这种广告页面的弹出并非接入互联网的公证处计算机本身安装程序所导致,联通青岛公司既没有证据证明在其他网络接入服务商网络区域内会出现同样情况,又没有对在其网络接入服务区域内出现的上述情况给予合理解释,可以认定在联通青岛公司提供互联网接入服务的区域内,对于网络服务对象针对百度网站所发出的搜索请求进行了人为干预,使干预者想要发布的广告页面在正常搜索结果页面出现前强行弹出。
Regarding the interveners, according to the facts found, the description of forced pop-up advertisements in the introduction to the “Network Through Train” business on Osun Network's homepage was completely consistent with the evidence preserved through notarization. Additionally, “Peninsula Human Resources” and “114 Telephone Voice Search” as shown on the pop-up advertising pages during evidence preservation by notarization were Osun Network's website or business. Therefore, Osun Network was a beneficiary of the intervention. Since it failed to adduce evidence that there was any other party committing the said advertising acts, it may be determined that Osun Network was a party implementing the above intervention. 关于上述干预行为的实施主体问题,从查明的事实来看,奥商网络公司在其主页中对其“网络直通车”业务的介绍表明,其中关于广告强行弹出的介绍与公证保全的形式完全一致,且公证保全中所出现的弹出广告页面“半岛人才网”“114电话语音搜索”均是其正在经营的网站或业务。因此,奥商网络公司是该干预行为的受益者,在其没有提供证据证明存在其他主体为其实施上述广告行为的情况下,可以认定奥商网络公司是上述干预行为的实施主体。
Regarding whether Unicom Qingdao Branch committed the alleged infringement, Osun Network could achieve such intervention anywhere within a specific network access service region without the need of installing any additional plug-in or program into the user-end computers. Such acts could not go without the network access service provider's cooperation. Unicom Qingdao Branch failed to adduce evidence that Osun Network achieved the intervention by illegally tampering with the Internet access service of this Branch. Because Unicom Qingdao Branch was the owner of the domain name air.qd.sd.cn, it should be held liable for infringement upon any other person's lawful rights and interests due to its ownership or use of the domain name. Unicom Qingdao Branch was providing a legal name telephony service in cooperation with Osun Network, i.e. this Branch was also a beneficiary of the said acts of intervention. Therefore, it may be determined that Unicom Qingdao Branch was also a party implementing the above intervention. 关于联通青岛公司是否被控侵权行为的实施主体问题,奥商网络公司这种干预行为不是通过在客户端计算机安装插件、程序等方式实现,而是在特定网络接入服务区域内均可实现,因此这种行为如果没有网络接入服务商的配合则无法实现。联通青岛公司没有证据证明奥商网络公司是通过非法手段干预其互联网接入服务而实施上述行为。同时,联通青岛公司是域名air.qd.sd.cn的所有人,因持有或使用域名而侵害他人合法权益的责任,由域名持有者承担。联通青岛公司与奥商网络公司合作经营电话实名业务,即联通青岛公司也是上述行为的受益人。因此,可以认定联通青岛公司也是上述干预行为的实施主体。
Regarding whether Unicom Shandong Branch was an intervener, because this Branch and Unicom Qingdao Branch were both braches of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd., the plaintiff had neither evidence that Unicom Qingdao Branch was established and managed by Unicom Shandong Branch nor evidence that Unicom Shandong Branch took part in the intervention, and Unicom Qingdao Branch was competent in civil law, the plaintiff's claims against Unicom Shandong Branch should not be supported. Baidu Company listed Pengfei Company as a third party in this case, but neither articulated any unfair competition by Pengfei Company in its complaint and during the court proceedings nor required Pengfei Company to assume any civil liability. It was improper for the plaintiff to list Pengfei Company as a third party to this case, and the plaintiff's claims against Pengfei Company should not be supported. 关于联通山东公司是否实施了干预行为,因联通山东公司、联通青岛公司同属于中国联合网络通信有限公司分支机构,无证据证明两公司具有开办和被开办的关系,也无证据证明联通山东公司参与实施了干预行为,联通青岛公司作为民事主体有承担民事责任的资格,故对联通山东公司的诉讼请求,不予支持。百度公司将鹏飞航空公司作为本案第三人,但是在诉状及庭审过程中并未指出第三人有不正当竞争行为,也未要求第三人承担民事责任,故将鹏飞航空公司作为第三人属于列举当事人不当,不予支持。
2. Whether the alleged acts constituted unfair competition 二、关于被控侵权行为是否构成不正当竞争
Articles 5 to 15 of Chapter II of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law”) enumerated acts of unfair competition. Acts not appearing therein may be considered unfair only if they violated the abstract provision of Article 2 thereof according to the commonly accepted business ethics and common sense. In the determination of whether the acts of a business constituted unfair competition, the following aspects must be taken into account: (1) the actor was a business within the meaning of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; (2) the business failed to abide by the principles of free will, equality, fairness, and good faith in its business activities, and violated the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the commonly accepted business ethics; and (3) the acts of unfair competition committed by the business impaired the lawful rights and interests of any other legitimate business. 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》(简称《反不正当竞争法》)第二章第五条至第十五条,对不正当竞争行为进行了列举式规定,对于没有在具体条文中列举的行为,只有按照公认的商业道德和普遍认识能够认定违反该法第二条原则性规定时,才可以认定为不正当竞争行为。判断经营者的行为构成不正当竞争,应当考虑以下方面:一是行为实施者是反不正当竞争法意义上的经营者;二是经营者从事商业活动时,没有遵循自愿、平等、公平、诚实信用原则,违反了反不正当竞争法律规定和公认的商业道德;三是经营者的不正当竞争行为损害正当经营者的合法权益。
First, in accordance with the provision on businesses in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the definition of a business did not require that the plaintiff and defendants be in the same industry or service category. A market participant that traded in goods or provided services for profits was a business. Unicom Qingdao Branch, Osun Network, and Baidu Company, as market participants engaged in Internet-related business, were businesses within the meaning of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Although Unicom Qingdao Branch was an Internet access service provider while Baidu Company was a search service provider, their service categories were not exactly the same. However, the commercial activity of Unicom Qingdao Branch to cause pop-up advertisements before the display of Baidu Company's search results competed with the for-profit search model of Baidu Company. 首先,根据《反不正当竞争法》二条有关经营者的规定,经营者的确定并不要求原、被告属同一行业或服务类别,只要是从事商品经营或者营利性服务的市场主体,就可成为经营者。联通青岛公司、奥商网络公司与百度公司均属于从事互联网业务的市场主体,属于反不正当竞争法意义上的经营者。虽然联通青岛公司是互联网接入服务经营者,百度公司是搜索服务经营者,服务类别上不完全相同,但是联通青岛公司实施的在百度搜索结果出现之前弹出广告的商业行为,与百度公司的付费搜索模式存在竞争关系。
Second, where, in violation of the principle of good faith and the commonly accepted business ethics, a business improperly hampered the normal operations of any other business with which it had business connections in the market competition, causing damage to the lawful rights and interests of the other business, it may be determined as unfair competition in accordance with the abstract provision of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Although publishing advertisements and conducting business activities on the Internet were considerably different from a traditional business model, an Internet-related business should adhere to honest operations and fair competition in the pursuit of competitive edge, and should not seek profits through commercial operations that took advantage of another person's services or market share without the latter's permit. Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network took advantage of the prevalence of Baidu Company's search engine website among Internet users in China and by technical means, set the forced pop-up advertising pages closely related to search words and content, which appeared before Baidu Company's search results when a network user using the Internet access service provided by Unicom Qingdao Branch logged on to Baidu website and conducted keyword search. Such acts of Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network induced network users, who could otherwise obtain the needed information through Baidu Company's search results, to click on the advertising pages, which affected Baidu Company's provision of paid search services and promotional services, and were acts of making profits by taking advantage of Baidu Company's search services. Such acts were not permitted by Baidu Company, and violated the will of users using Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network's Internet access service, which may make Internet users wrongly believe that the pop-up advertising pages were generated by Baidu Company and downgrade their satisfaction of Baidu Company's services. Such acts had an adverse effect on the good will of Baidu Company, impaired the lawful rights and interests of Baidu Company, and went against the principle of goods faith and the commonly accepted business ethics. Therefore, such acts constituted unfair competition. 其次,在市场竞争中存在商业联系的经营者,违反诚信原则和公认商业道德,不正当地妨碍了其他经营者正当经营,并损害其他经营者合法权益的,可以依照《反不正当竞争法》二条的原则性规定,认定为不正当竞争。尽管在互联网上发布广告、进行商业活动与传统商业模式有较大差异,但是从事互联网业务的经营者仍应当通过诚信经营、公平竞争来获得竞争优势,不能未经他人许可,利用他人的服务行为或市场份额来进行商业运作并从中获利。联通青岛公司与奥商网络公司实施的行为,是利用了百度网站搜索引擎在我国互联网用户中被广泛使用优势,利用技术手段,让使用联通青岛公司提供互联网接入服务的网络用户,在登录百度网站进行关键词搜索时,在正常搜索结果显示前强行弹出奥商公司发布的与搜索的关键词及内容有紧密关系的广告页面。这种行为诱使本可能通过百度公司搜索结果检索相应信息的网络用户点击该广告页面,影响了百度公司向网络用户提供付费搜索服务与推广服务,属于利用百度公司提供的搜索服务来为自己牟利。该行为既没有征得百度公司同意,又违背了使用其互联网接入服务用户的意志,容易导致上网用户误以为弹出的广告页面系百度公司所为,会使上网用户对百度公司提供服务的评价降低,对百度公司的商业信誉产生不利影响,损害了百度公司的合法权益,同时也违背了诚实信用和公认的商业道德,已构成不正当竞争。
3. Assumption of civil liability 三、关于民事责任的承担
Since Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network jointly committed the acts of unfair competition, they should assume joint and several liability in accordance with Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with Article 134 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network should assume the civil liabilities of ceasing infringement, compensating for losses, and eliminating the adverse effect. First, Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao Branch should immediately stop their acts of unfair competition, i.e. they should not cause, by technical means, their advertising pages to pop up when a network user who had access to the Internet via Unicom Qingdao Branch's Internet access service logged on to Baidu website and started a keyword search. Second, after taking into account the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff for this case, the specific circumstances and duration of unfair competition by the defendants, and other factors, the courts determined that the two defendants should compensate the plaintiff for economic losses in the amount of 200,000 yuan. Finally, when an Internet user started a search via Baidu website, the user generally regarded the pop-up advertising pages as something caused by Baidu Company. Therefore, the acts of the two defendants did have certain adverse effect on Baidu Company, and they should assume the civil liability of eliminating the adverse effect. Since the above acts occurred on the Internet within the region of Internet access service provided by Unicom Qingdao Branch, the two defendants should publish statements on the homepages of their respective websites to eliminate the adverse effect. 由于联通青岛公司与奥商网络公司共同实施了不正当竞争行为,依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百三十条的规定应当承担连带责任。依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百三十四条《反不正当竞争法》二十条的规定,应当承担停止侵权、赔偿损失、消除影响的民事责任。首先,奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司应当立即停止不正当竞争行为,即不得利用技术手段使通过联通青岛公司提供互联网接入服务的网络用户,在登录百度网站进行关键词搜索时,弹出两被告的广告页面。其次,根据原告为本案支出的合理费用、被告不正当竞争行为的情节、持续时间等,酌定两被告共同赔偿经济损失20万元。最后,互联网用户在登录百度进行搜索时,面对弹出的广告页面,通常会认为该行为系百度公司所为。因此两被告的行为给百度公司造成了一定负面影响,应当承担消除影响的民事责任。由于该行为发生在互联网上,且发生在联通青岛公司提供互联网接入服务的区域内,故确定两被告应在其各自网站的首页上刊登消除影响的声明。
Guiding Case No. 46 指导案例46号
Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. v. Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd. and Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd.(Dispute over trademark infringement 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害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Keywords 关键词
Civil; trademark infringement; unfair competition; generic name of a product 民事 商标侵权 不正当竞争 商品通用名称
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
Attention should be paid to the following aspects in the determination of whether a product has a generic name with regional characteristics: (1) whether the name is accepted through common practice in a certain region or field, widely used for a long time, 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 of the people over a long period of time; and (3) whether the raw materials of the product to which the name refers are widely produced in a certain region or field. 判断具有地域性特点的商品通用名称,应当注意从以下方面综合分析:(1)该名称在某一地区或领域约定俗成,长期普遍使用并为相关公众认可;(2)该名称所指代的商品生产工艺经某一地区或领域群众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在某一地区或领域普遍生产。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 59 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国商标法》第五十九条
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lujin Company”) alleged that: The defendants, Juancheng Lujin Crafts Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Juancheng Lujin Company”) and Jining Lizhibang Home Textile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lizhibang Company”), had produced and sold a large quantity of products marked with the Chinese characters “鲁锦” (which read “LUJIN”), infringing upon the plaintiff's right to the exclusive use of the registered trademark of “鲁锦.” The name of Juancheng Lujin Company contained “鲁锦,” the Chinese characters in the plaintiff's registered trademark, misleading consumers and constituting unfair competition. The Chinese characters “鲁锦” were not a generic name. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the court to hold the two defendants legally liable for their infringement upon the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark and unfair competition. 原告山东鲁锦实业有限公司(以下简称鲁锦公司)诉称: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)大量生产、销售标有“鲁锦”字样的鲁锦产品,侵犯其“鲁锦”注册商标专用权。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。“鲁锦”不是通用名称。请求判令二被告承担侵犯商标专用权和不正当竞争的法律责任。
Defendant Juancheng Lujin Company contended that: Before the registration and formation of plaintiff Lujin Company and before the completion of registration of the trademark “鲁锦,” the Chinese characters “鲁锦” had become a generic name. In accordance with the relevant provisions, its act was “legitimate use” and did not constitute trademark infringement or unfair competition. 被告鄄城鲁锦公司辩称:原告鲁锦公司注册成立前及鲁锦商标注册完成前,“鲁锦”已成为通用名称。按照有关规定,其属于“正当使用”,不构成商标侵权,也不构成不正当竞争。
Defendant Lizhibang Company did not submit a statement of defense to the court of first instance. In the trial on appeal, it claimed that: The Chinese characters “鲁锦” were the generic name of folk pure cotton handmade textile in southwestern Shandong, and it did not know that the Chinese characters “鲁锦” were the registered trademark of Lujin Company. Upon receipt of the written complaint, it had stopped using “鲁锦.” Therefore, it should not assume the compensatory liability. 被告礼之邦公司一审未作答辩,二审上诉称:“鲁锦”是鲁西南一带民间纯棉手工纺织品的通用名称,不知道“鲁锦”是鲁锦公司的注册商标,接到诉状后已停止相关使用行为,故不应承担赔偿责任。
Upon trial, the courts found that: Jiaxiang County Ruijin Folk Crafts Factory, the predecessor of Lujin Company, obtained the word trademark “鲁锦” with the registration number 1345914 on December 21, 1999, valid from December 21, 1999, to December 20, 2009, and allowed to be used on “clothes, shoes, and hats” in Category 25 of commodities. On November 14, 2001, Lujin Company obtained the composite trademark “Lj + LUJIN” with the registration number 1665032, valid from November 14, 2001, to November 13, 2011, and allowed to be used on “textile fabrics, cotton goods, lingerie fabrics, gauzes, textiles, toweling, nonwovens, bath towels, bed sheets, coverings of textile, etc.” in Category 24 of commodities. On February 9, 2001, Ruijin Folk Crafts Factory in Jiaxiang County was renamed Jiaxiang County Lujin Industry Co., Ltd., which, on June 11, 2007, was renamed Shandong Lujin Industry Co., Ltd. 法院经审理查明:鲁锦公司的前身嘉祥县瑞锦民间工艺品厂于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。鲁锦公司又于2001年11月14日取得注册号为第1665032号的“Lj+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。
After obtaining the exclusive right to use the trademark “鲁锦,” Lujin Company advertized its products and the registered trademark frequently on multiple media. In March 2006, it was accepted as a member of the Working Committee on “China Time-Honored Brands.” After years of efforts and large numbers of advertisements and market promotion, the plaintiff's “鲁锦” series of products, especially “鲁锦” clothes had enjoyed a certain reputation in China. On November 16, 2006, the registered trademark of “鲁锦” was recognized as a famous trademark of Shandong Province. 鲁锦公司在获得“鲁锦”注册商标专用权后,在多家媒体多次宣传其产品及注册商标,并于2006年3月被“中华老字号”工作委员会接纳为会员单位。鲁锦公司经过多年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”注册商标被审定为山东省著名商标。
In March 2007, at Lizhibang Lujin Boutique, Lujin Company bought commodities identical with or similar to those on which Lujin Company's registered trademark was allowed to be used, which were produced by Juancheng Lujin Co., Ltd. The labels (tags) and packaging boxes and bags of these commodities and the shop name all carried the Chinese characters “鲁锦.” The Chinese characters “鲁锦” were highlighted in the shop name, and the seal of Lizhibang Company was affixed to the invoices issued. 2007年3月,鲁锦公司从礼之邦鲁锦专卖店购买到由鄄城鲁锦公司生产的同鲁锦公司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“鲁锦”字样。在该店门面上“鲁锦”已被突出放大使用,其出具的发票上加盖的印章为礼之邦公司公章。
Juancheng Lujin Company was incorporated on March 3, 2003. The trademark used on its products was a composite trademark “JINGYIFANG + Device” pending approval after a registration application was filed. In September 2007, Juancheng Lujin Company applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for revocation of the No. 1345914 “鲁锦” trademark registered by Lujin Company. This Board had accepted the application but not made any ruling yet. 鄄城鲁锦公司于2003年3月3日成立,在产品上使用的商标是“精一坊文字+图形”组合商标,该商标已申请注册,但尚未核准。2007年9月,鄄城鲁锦公司申请撤销鲁锦公司已注册的第1345914号“鲁锦”商标,国家工商总局商标评审委员会已受理但未作出裁定。
Upon application of Lujin Company, the court of first instance preserved evidence against Juancheng Lujin Company and Lizhibang Company according to the law, finding that the two defendants had a large quantity of commodities in stock identical with or similar to those on which the registered trademark “鲁锦” was allowed to be used and that the labels (tags), packaging boxes and bags, and price tags of those commodities and the shop name of the defendant all carried the Chinese characters “鲁锦” as contained in plaintiff's registered trademark. The Chinese characters “鲁锦” were highlighted on the labels (tags) and packaging boxes and bags of the alleged infringing commodities and used as the name or design of commodities, but the packaging bags did not show the name and address of the manufacturer. 一审法院根据鲁锦公司的申请,依法对鄄城鲁锦公司、礼之邦公司进行了证据保全,发现二被告处存有大量同“鲁锦”注册商标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。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,作为商品的名称或者商品装潢醒目突出使用,且包装袋上未标识生产商及其地址。
It was also found by the courts that: 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 utilized. On January 8, 1986, the Report Meeting on the Exhibition of Brocade in Southwestern Shandong and Modern Life was held in Jinan, capital city of Shandong. On August 20, 1986, the Exhibition of LUJIN and Modern Life was held at Beijing Nationality Culture Palace. Around 1986, the People's Daily, Economic Information Daily, Farmers' Daily, and other newspapers and periodicals published special reports on “鲁锦,” and Shandong TV and CCTV also shot several programs featuring “鲁锦.” Since then, “鲁锦” had been widely used as the generic name of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles, and the research, development and production of “鲁锦” had gradually spread and continued to grow. On November 15, 1987, to promote the further combination of LUJIN culture and modern life, the Canadian International Development Agency (“CIDA”) and the China Women's Federation jointly launched a bilateral cooperation project—the Training Class of Yangtun LUNJIN Women's Spinning Association of Juancheng in Yangtun Village of Juancheng County. 另查明: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20世纪80年代中期开始,鲁西南织锦开始被开发利用。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,在北京民族文化宫举办了“鲁锦与现代生活展”。1986年前后,《人民日报》《经济参考》《农民日报》等报刊发表“鲁锦”的专题报道,中央电视台、山东电视台也拍摄了多部“鲁锦”的专题片。自此,“鲁锦”作为山东民间手工棉纺织品的通称被广泛使用。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,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 history, local specialties, or traditional crafts, the local history records of Shandong Province, Jining City, and Heze City showed that the Chinese characters “鲁锦” meant a kind of traditional textile products using cotton yarns as the major raw materials, popular in the vast rural areas of southwestern Shandong, and was one of Shandong's main folk arts. The reference books and publications introducing “鲁锦” all treated “鲁锦” 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 “鲁锦” for its gorgeous colors. 山东省及济宁、菏泽等地方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、染色、织造,俗称“土布”或“手织布”,因此布色彩斑斓,似锦似绣,故称为“鲁锦”。
On December 25, 1995, the Bureau of Cultural Relics of Shandong Province issued an Official Reply regarding the Construction of “China LUJIN Museum,” approving the Bureau of Culture of Heze Prefecture to establish the “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 craftsmanship” recommended by the Department of Culture of Shandong Province, 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 in 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,其中山东省文化厅、鄄城县、嘉祥县申报的“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。
Judgment 裁判结果
On August 25, 2008, the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City, Shandong Province entered a civil judgment (No. 6 [2007], First, Civil DivisionV, Jining IPC) that: (1) Juancheng Lujin Company should, immediately after this judgment took effect, stop using “鲁锦” as the name or design of commodities on the series of clothes in Category 25 produced and sold by it and, within 30 days after this judgment took effect, remove the Chinese characters “鲁锦” from the alleged infringing products; and Lizhibang Company should immediately stop selling the alleged infringing products produced by Juancheng Lujin Company. (2) Juancheng Lujin Company should compensate Lujin Company in the amount of 250,000 yuan and Lizhibang Lujin Company should compensate Lujin Company in the amount of 10,000 yuan for Lujin Company's economic losses, within 15 days after the judgment took effect. (3) Juancheng Lujin Company should, within 30 days after the judgment took effect, change its name, and its new name should not contain the Chinese characters “鲁锦”; Lizhibang Company should remove the Chinese characters “鲁锦” from the name of its shop on the date when the judgment took effect. After the judgment was pronounced, Juancheng Lujin Company and Lizhibang Company appealed. On August 5, 2009, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province entered a civil judgment (No. 34 [2009], Final, Civil DivisionIII, Shandong HPC) that: The civil judgment (No. 6 [2007], First, Civil DivisionV, Jining IPC) entered by the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City, Shandong Province, should be revoked and the claims of Lujin Company should be dismissed. 山东省济宁市中级人民法院于2008年8月25日作出(2007)济民五初字第6号民事判决:一、鄄城鲁锦公司于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,并于判决生效之日起30日内,消除其现存被控侵权产品上标明的“鲁锦”字样;礼之邦公司立即停止销售鄄城鲁锦公司生产的被控侵权商品。二、鄄城鲁锦公司于判决生效之日起15日内赔偿鲁锦公司经济损失25万元;礼之邦公司赔偿鲁锦公司经济损失1万元。三、鄄城鲁锦公司于判决生效之日起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;礼之邦公司于判决生效之日立即消除店堂门面上的“鲁锦”字样。宣判后,鄄城鲁锦公司与礼之邦公司提出上诉。山东省高级人民法院于2009年8月5日作出(2009)鲁民三终字第34号民事判决: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;驳回鲁锦公司的诉讼请求。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: According to the facts in this case, it may be determined that “鲁锦” had already been the generic name of Shandong folk handmade cotton textile before Lujin Company registered “鲁锦” as its trademark in 1999 and that “LUJIN weaving skill” was an intangible cultural heritage. The acts of Juancheng Lujin Company and Lizhibang Company constituted neither trademark infringement nor unfair competition. 法院生效裁判认为:根据本案事实可以认定,在1999年鲁锦公司将“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。鄄城鲁锦公司、济宁礼之邦公司的行为不构成商标侵权,也非不正当竞争。
First, “鲁锦” had been the generic name of cotton textile with regional characteristics. The generic name of a product was the general appellation of a product defined under industry norms or accepted by the public. The generic name may be an appellation prescribed in industry norms or an abbreviation accepted by the public. “鲁锦” referred to the folk brocade in southwestern Shandong with gorgeous colors and a history of several thousand years in southwestern Shandong. “鲁锦” as the generic name of Shandong handmade textile had been recognized by the national mainstream media, various professional newspapers, and news media within Shandong Province. The history records of Shandong, Jining, Heze, Jiaxiang, and Juancheng at the three levels of province, city, and county all mentioned “鲁锦” as a “new name” of traditional folk brocade in southwestern Shandong, and the relevant reference books of arts and crafts also confirmed that “鲁锦” meant a kind of folk pure cotton handmade textile produced in Shandong. “LUJIN weaving skill” had a long history. When people talked about “鲁锦,” what was on their mind was Shandong folk handmade cotton textile and weaving skill with a long history. “LUJIN weaving skill” was determined as one of the national intangible cultural heritages. The production skills of pure cotton hand-weaving represented by “鲁锦” were not invented by a certain natural person or enterprise as a legal person, but were formed during the longtime labor of the people in Shandong, especially southwestern Shandong. The raw material of the pure cotton handmade textiles represented by “鲁锦” was cotton widely planted in unspecific areas of Shandong and not specially planted by a certain natural person or enterprise as a legal person. Since mid-1980s, after the massive publicity on media, “鲁锦” had become the general name of the folk handmade textiles in Shandong which used cotton as the major raw material and were spun, dyed, and woven by hand. This name 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 the Chinese characters “鲁锦” were the generic name of the folk pure cotton handmade textiles in Shandong, especially in southwestern Shandong. 首先,“鲁锦”已成为具有地域性特点的棉纺织品的通用名称。商品通用名称是指行业规范或社会公众约定俗成的对某一商品的通常称谓。该通用名称可以是行业规范规定的称谓,也可以是公众约定俗成的简称。鲁锦指鲁西南民间纯棉手工织锦,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”作为具有山东特色的手工纺织品的通用名称,为国家主流媒体、各类专业报纸以及山东省新闻媒体所公认,山东省、济宁、菏泽、嘉祥、鄄城的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”,有关工艺美术和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。“鲁锦”织造工艺历史悠久,在提到“鲁锦”时,人们想到的就是传统悠久的山东民间手工棉纺织品及其织造工艺。“鲁锦织造技艺”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群众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20世纪80年代中期后,经过媒体的大量宣传,“鲁锦”已成为以棉花为主要原料、手工织线、染色、织造的山东地区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。
Lujin Company contended that the name “鲁锦” lacked universality and old hand-woven cloth was also produced in other places of China but not called “鲁锦.” In the opinion of the court, the determination of universality of the generic name of commodities with regional characteristics should be based on the specific producing area and the relevant group of people, instead of the whole country. The fact that handmade cotton textiles were not called “鲁锦” in other provinces of China did not affect the fact that “鲁锦” specially meant the unique folk handmade cotton textiles in Shandong. 关于鲁锦公司主张“鲁锦”这一名称不具有广泛性,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公众为标准,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。
Lujin Company argued that the name “鲁锦” was not scientific and cotton fabrics should be called “cotton” rather than “JIN.” In the opinion of the court, 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 the generic name even if it was not scientific. Lujin Company also considered that the name “鲁锦” was not universal and some businesses and consumers in Shandong Province called this kind of folk handmade cotton textiles “hand-woven cloth” or “old homespun.” In the opinion of the court, the Chinese characters “鲁锦” were a new name established in mid-1980s, and had since been known and accepted by the relevant public after years of publicity and use. The existence of “hand-woven cloth,” “old homespun” and other old names did not affect the determination of “鲁锦” as a generic name. 关于鲁锦公司主张“鲁锦”不具有科学性,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,即使有不科学之处,也不影响其成为通用名称。关于鲁锦公司还主张“鲁锦”不具有普遍性,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,“鲁锦”这一称谓是20世纪80年代中期确定的新名称,经过多年宣传与使用,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。
Second, the holder of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark was not entitled to prohibit others from the legitimate use of the generic name of products as contained in its registered trademark. Article 49 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China provided that: “The holder of the right to exclusively use a registered trademark shall have no right to prohibit others from the legitimate use of the generic name, 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 as contained in the registered trademark.” The main role of a trademark was distinctiveness, namely, 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. As the word trademark “鲁锦” and the composite trademark of “Lj + LUJIN” of Lujin Company were consistent with “鲁锦” as the generic name of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles, the distinctiveness of these trademarks was weakened. Although the Chinese characters “鲁锦” were not the generic name of LUJIN clothes, they were the generic name of Shandong folk handmade cotton textiles. The trademark registrant did not have the exclusive right to use the generic name in the trademark, and its registered trademarks did not preclude other persons from the legitimate use of “鲁锦” as a generic name. There were quite a few manufacturers of beddings, arts, crafts, and garments using LUJIN as the fabrics in southwestern Shandong, and such manufacturers had the right to properly use “鲁锦” and indicate on their products that LUJIN fabrics were adopted. 其次,注册商标中含有的本商品的通用名称,注册商标专用权人无权禁止他人正当使用。《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。由于鲁锦公司“鲁锦”文字商标和“Lj+LUJIN”组合商标,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。“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商标注册人对商标中通用名称部分不享有专用权,不影响他人将“鲁锦”作为通用名称正当使用。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,这些厂家均可以正当使用“鲁锦”名称,在其产品上叙述性标明其面料采用鲁锦。
In this case, Juancheng Lujin Company used the Chinese characters “鲁锦” on the packaging boxes and bags of its alleged products. It used the generic name of products contained in Lujin Company's trademarks on its own products, only to indicate that its products adopted LUJIN as the fabrics and its production skills had LUJIN features. It had no intention to infringe upon the exclusive right of Lujin Company to use the registered trademark of “鲁锦” and did not use it as a business logo. The use was legitimate and did not constitute infringement upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of “鲁锦.” For the same reasons, the use of “鲁锦” by Juancheng Lujin Company in its name was also legitimate and did not constitute unfair competition. Likewise, the LUJIN product boutique of Lizhibang Company also had the right to use the Chinese characters “鲁锦” and did not commit infringement upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark “鲁锦.” 本案中,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,虽然在商品上使用了鲁锦公司商标中含有的商品通用名称,但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,属于正当使用,故不应认定为侵犯“鲁锦”注册商标专用权的行为。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。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。
In addition, Lujin Company's word trademark “鲁锦” and composite trademark “Lj + LUJIN” had been registered with the State Trademark Office, allowed to be used on commodities in Category 25 and Category 24. The exclusive right to use such trademarks should be legally protected. Although Juancheng Lujin Company filed an application for revocation of these trademarks, the aforesaid valid registered trademarks should still be legally protected before the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Trademark Office revoked them. As the Chinese characters “鲁锦” were a registered trademark, for the purposes of regulating the market order and protecting fair competition, Juancheng Lujin Company should, when using “鲁锦” to indicate the fabrics of its products in the future, reasonably avoid conflicts with the exclusive right of Lujin Company to use the registered trademark, and should highlight its own trademark “JINGYIFANG” on the packaging of its products to clarify the source of products and facilitate differentiation by consumers. 此外,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,该注册商标专用权应依法受法律保护。虽然鄄城鲁锦公司对此商标提出撤销申请,但在国家商标局商标评审委员会未撤销前,仍应依法保护上述有效注册商标。鉴于“鲁锦”是注册商标,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,方便消费者识别。
Guiding Case No. 47 指导案例47号
FERRERO S.p.A. v. Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone (Dispute over unfair competition) 

意大利费列罗公司诉蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

Keywords 关键词
Civil; unfair competition; well-known commodities; unique packaging and decorations 民事 不正当竞争 知名商品 特有包装、装潢
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
1. For the purpose of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, “well-known commodities” means commodities that have a certain degree of knowledge in the Chinese market and in the relevant public. As for internationally well-known commodities, the knowledge of them in the relevant public within China is necessary for the protection of their names, packaging, and decorations. Therefore, in the determination of a well-known commodity, a variety of factors should be taken into account, including but not limited to the sales duration, sales territory, sales volume, and target customers of the commodity in China, the duration, extent, and geographical area of promotion of the commodity in China, and existing protection received as a well-known commodity, and the well-known status of such commodity abroad should also be appropriately considered, so as to draw a conclusion on a comprehensive basis. 1.反不正当竞争法卡在了奇怪的地方所称的知名商品,是指在中国境内具有一定的市场知名度,为相关公众所知悉的商品。在国际上已知名的商品,我国对其特有的名称、包装、装潢的保护,仍应以其在中国境内为相关公众所知悉为必要。故认定该知名商品,应当结合该商品在中国境内的销售时间、销售区域、销售额和销售对象,进行宣传的持续时间、程度和地域范围,作为知名商品受保护的情况等因素,并适当考虑该商品在国外已知名的情况,进行综合判断。
2. Packaging and decorations of a well-known commodity protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law refer to packaging, such as a container of or a vessel used for protection of the commodity, and decorations on the commodity or packaging composed of words, patterns, colors, and the arrangement and combination thereof, as far as they can identify the source of the commodity. 2.反不正当竞争法所保护的知名商品特有的包装、装潢,是指能够区别商品来源的盛装或者保护商品的容器等包装,以及在商品或者其包装上附加的文字、图案、色彩及其排列组合所构成的装潢。
3. The imitation of the unique packaging and decorations of another person's commodity which can distinguish the source of the commodity in such an extensive manner that may lead to market confusion and misidentification should be held as unfair competition. 3.对他人能够区别商品来源的知名商品特有的包装、装潢,进行足以引起市场混淆、误认的全面模仿,属于不正当竞争行为。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Item (2) of Article 5

我不休息我还能学

of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China
 中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条第二项
Basic Facts 基本案情
Plaintiff FERRERO S.p.A (hereinafter referred to as “FERRERO S.p.A”) alleged that: Defendant Montresor Food (Zhangjiagang) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Montresor Company”) had produced mimic products illegally using packaging and decorations identical with or similar to those unique to the well-known product of the plaintiff to mislead and confuse consumers. The aforesaid acts of defendant Montresor Company and the marketing of the counterfeit products by defendant Zhengyuan Marketing Company in Tianjin Economic and Technological Development Zone (hereinafter referred to as “Zhengyuan Company”) had caused significant economic losses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the court to order that Montresor Company should cease producing and selling and Zhengyuan Company should cease marketing any product identical with any or any combination of the above packaging and decorations unique to the chocolate products of FERRERO S.p.A or any other chocolate product with packaging and decorations similar to those of FERRERO S.p.A which would cause misidentification by consumers; that both defendants should make a formal apology, eliminate adverse effects, and assume all litigation costs; and that Montresor Company should compensate plaintiff for economic losses in the amount of three million yuan. 原告意大利费列罗公司(以下简称费列罗公司)诉称:被告蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司(以下简称蒙特莎公司)仿冒原告产品,擅自使用与原告知名商品特有的包装、装潢相同或近似的包装、装潢,使消费者产生混淆。被告蒙特莎公司的上述行为及被告天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司(以下简称正元公司)销售仿冒产品的行为已给原告造成重大经济损失。请求判令蒙特莎公司不得生产、销售,正元公司不得销售符合前述费列罗公司巧克力产品特有的任意一项或者几项组合的包装、装潢的产品或者任何与费列罗公司的上述包装、装潢相似的足以引起消费者误认的巧克力产品,并赔礼道歉、消除影响、承担诉讼费用,蒙特莎公司赔偿损失300万元。
Defendant Montresor Company contended that: The involved products of the plaintiff were not well known in the Chinese market by the relevant public; on the contrary, the 金莎 (which read “Jinsha”) chocolate products of Montresor Company enjoyed a high degree of knowledge among Chinese consumers and were well-known products. The packaging and decorations of which the plaintiff claimed protection were common packaging and decorations used for the same kind of chocolate products at home and abroad, without originality or uniqueness. The packaging and decorations used for the 金莎 chocolate produced by Montresor Company were jointly developed by the staff members of Montresor Company and professional designers, rather than by imitating any existing packaging and decorations of others. Common consumers with normal attention would not confuse the chocolate products of the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that its product packaging contained multiple intellectual property rights such as trademark, design, and copyright, but failed to specify which particular rights the packaging and decorations of the alleged infringing product had infringed upon, meaning that the object of protection which the plaintiff claimed was unclear. As the action instituted by the plaintiff lacked both factual and legal basis, Montresor Company requested the court to dismiss the claims of the plaintiff. 被告蒙特莎公司辩称:原告涉案产品在中国境内市场并没有被相关公众所知悉,而蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力产品在中国境内消费者中享有很高的知名度,属于知名商品。原告诉请中要求保护的包装、装潢是国内外同类巧克力产品的通用包装、装潢,不具有独创性和特异性。蒙特莎公司生产的金莎巧克力使用的包装、装潢是其和专业设计人员合作开发的,并非仿冒他人已有的包装、装潢。普通消费者只需施加一般的注意,就不会混淆原、被告各自生产的巧克力产品。原告认为自己产品的包装涵盖了商标、外观设计、著作权等多项知识产权,但未明确指出被控侵权产品的包装、装潢具体侵犯了其何种权利,其起诉要求保护的客体模糊不清。故原告起诉无事实和法律依据,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。
Upon trial, the courts found that: FERRERO S.p.A was formed in Italy in 1946, and the FERRERO chocolate produced by it was put onto the market in 1982, with advertisements once published on televisions, newspapers, periodicals, and magazines of many Asian countries and regions. In Taiwan and Hong Kong of China, FERRERO chocolates were entitled “金莎” chocolates, and the trademark “金莎” was registered in Taiwan and Hong Kong in June 1990 and 1993 respectively. In February 1984, FERRERO chocolate products entered the Chinese market by means of consignment sales through China National Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, and were mainly sold in duty-free shops, airport shops, and other premises permitted by policies at that time until 1993. In October 1986, FERRERO S.p.A registered a series of trademarks of “FERRERO ROCHER” and a device (an ellipse lacy pattern) as well as the combination thereof for usage on chocolate products sold within the territory of China. The main characteristics of the packaging and decorations used for FERRERO chocolates include: (1) a ball-shaped golden paper packaging; (2) a label fitted with an elliptical golden brim and a print of “FERRERO ROCHER,” the trademark of the plaintiff, on the ball-shaped golden paper packaging as a decoration; (3) a coffee-colored paper base as a decoration for each chocolate ball wrapped in golden paper; (4) transparent packaging in plastic paper in certain shapes to display the ball-shaped golden packaging inside; and (5) a transparent plastic packaging fitted with an elliptical golden-brimmed pattern as a decoration, with product pattern and trademark inside the ellipse and a red ribbon-like pattern stretching out from the mark. In 1984, FERRERO S.p.A applied for a three-dimensional mark for its volumetric packaging of eight pieces, 16 pieces, 24 pieces, and 30 pieces of chocolate products. Since 1993, FERRERO S.p.A had gradually increased its promotional efforts for its FERRERO chocolates via domestic newspapers, periodicals, and outdoor advertisements in core regions including Guangdong, Shanghai, and Beijing. It had set up special sales counters in some large and medium-sized cities and sponsored some commercial and sports events to improve the popularity of its products. In June 2000, its trademark “FERRERO ROCHER” was included by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in the List of Major Trademarks for Nationwide Protection. The administrations for industry and commerce in Guangdong, Hebei, and other places of China repeatedly investigated and punished acts of counterfeiting the packaging and decorations of FERRERO chocolates.
......
 法院经审理查明:费列罗公司于1946年在意大利成立,1982年其生产的费列罗巧克力投放市场,曾在亚洲多个国家和地区的电视、报刊、杂志发布广告。在我国台湾和香港地区,费列罗巧克力取名“金莎”巧克力,并分别于1990年6月和1993年在我国台湾和香港地区注册“金莎”商标。1984年2月,费列罗巧克力通过中国粮油食品进出口总公司采取寄售方式进入了国内市场,主要在免税店和机场商店等当时政策所允许的场所销售,并延续到1993年前。1986年10月,费列罗公司在中国注册了“FERRERO ROCHER”和图形(椭圆花边图案)以及其组合的系列商标,并在中国境内销售的巧克力商品上使用。费列罗巧克力使用的包装、装潢的主要特征是:1.每一粒球状巧克力用金色纸质包装;2.在金色球状包装上配以印有“FERRERO ROCHER”商标的椭圆形金边标签作为装潢;3.每一粒金球状巧克力均有咖啡色纸质底托作为装潢;4.若干形状的塑料透明包装,以呈现金球状内包装;5.塑料透明包装上使用椭圆形金边图案作为装潢,椭圆形内配有产品图案和商标,并由商标处延伸出红金颜色的绶带状图案。费列罗巧克力产品的8粒装、16粒装、24粒装以及30粒装立体包装于1984年在世界知识产权组织申请为立体商标。费列罗公司自1993年开始,以广东、上海、北京地区为核心逐步加大费列罗巧克力在国内的报纸、期刊和室外广告的宣传力度,相继在一些大中城市设立专柜进行销售,并通过赞助一些商业和体育活动,提高其产品的知名度。2000年6月,其“FERRERO ROCHER”商标被国家工商行政管理部门列入全国重点商标保护名录。我国广东、河北等地工商行政管理部门曾多次查处仿冒费列罗巧克力包装、装潢的行为。
......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
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