本案为证明第三方恶意抢注商标的行为提供了具体指引。当商标权利人主张其商标属于“在先权利”不受法院认可时，代理律师转变诉讼策略，重点关注《商标法》第四十四条第一款的情形，以第三方以其他不正当手段取得商标为切入点，反败为胜！受委托人委托，百一高级合伙人陈少兰律师、李晓岩律师代理原告对诉争商标提出无效宣告，最终获得法院支持。

This case offered a practice guidance on bad faith. When plaintiff claims that its trademark owns “prior right” but not recognized by the judge in the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the attorney has shift litigation strategy and won the case by focusing on the bad faith of the third party who acquired trademark by fraud or any other illicit means.
Entrusted by the client, Foridom IP Law Firm senior partners, Attorney Chen Shaolan and Li Xiaoyan, represented the plaintiffs to declare invalidation of the disputed trademarks, and finally earned the support of the court.

案情简介

introduction

原告对诉争商标提出无效宣告请求，国知局认为诉争商标未违反《中华人民共和国商标法》予以维持，故原告委托代理人提起行政诉讼。该案中，在驰名商标、字号权方面均未得到法院支持的情况下，陈少兰律师、李晓岩律师改变诉讼策略，从申请人取得注册商标的恶意、扰乱市场秩序出发，依据商标法第四十四条第一款取得了胜诉。

The plaintiff filed application for trademark invalidation and appointed Fridom IP law firm to initiate an administrative lawsuit.

In this case, Ms. Chen an Ms. Li has changed the litigation strategy to bad faith when the dispute trademark failed to be recognized by the court as a well-known trademarks and prior trade name. And it turns out to be successful litigation in the end based on Article 44(1) of Trademark Law.

争议焦点及法院观点

Opinions

首先，商标法第十三条第三款规定，就不相同或者不相类似商品申请注册的商标是复制、摹仿或者翻译他人已经在中国注册的驰名商标，误导公众，致使该驰名商标注册人的利益可能受到损害的，不予注册并禁止使用。

Firstly, Article 13(3) of Trademark Law stipulates that

 “Where a trademark for registration to be used on different or dissimilar goods is a copy, imitation, or translation of a well-known trademark of another party which has been registered in China, misleads the public, and may cause damage to the interests of the registrant of the well-known trademark, it shall not be registered and shall be prohibited from use.”

本案中，因原告未就其使用商标商品的经济指标、广告范围、广告投入、市场排名等情况进行充分举证，在案证据不足以证明在诉争商标申请注册之前，其商标已为相关公众广为知晓，且该商标有固定含义，不足以判定诉争商标是对引证商标的复制、摹仿、抄袭。

The plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence on the economic indicators, advertising scope, advertising investment, market rankings, etc. of the goods used by the trademark.

Therefore, it was insufficient to prove that the trademark had been widely used by the relevant public before the trademark application for registration in dispute.

此外，诉争商标指定使用的范围与原告在商品性质、功能用途、生产部门、消费对象、销售渠道等方面区别明显，不具有关联性。

In addition,the scope of the designated use of the disputed trademark is obviously different from plaintiff commodity’s nature, function, production department, consumers, and sales channels.

其次，判断商标的注册是否构成对他人字号权的侵犯时，需考虑企业字号的登记使用是否早于诉争商标申请日；是否具有市场知名度；是否与在后商标的商品或服务相同或类似；是否与在后商标相同或近似。

Secondly, whether the registration of a trademark constitutes an infringement on the trade name depending on the register date of the trade name, the previous trade name market reputation，dispute trademark classification and outlook.

具体到本案中，原告提交的荣誉证书等证据可以证明其在动物饲料领域具有一定的市场知名度，但诉争商标指定使用的非金属制管套农业用塑料膜等商品与原告赖以知名的动物饲料等商品在商品性质、功能用途、生产部门、消费对象、销售渠道等方面区别明显，不具有关联性。

Evidence submitted by the plaintiff proved that plaintiff’s trademark has certain market reputation in the animal feed field, but it is irrelevant to the third party’s market regarding to the commodities nature, function, production departments, consumers, and sales channels.

原告登记的经营范围为实业投资，金属材料及制品的销售，提交的证据不足以证明诉争商标的使用会导致相关公众易将商品来源与原告的商号产生联系，从而产生误认。

The business scope registered by the plaintiff was industrial investment and the sale of metal materials and products. Thus, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the use of the disputed trademark would cause the confusion relevant public.

然而，商标法第四十四条第一款规定，已经注册的商标，违反本法第十条、第十一条、第十二条规定的，或者是以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得注册的，由商标局宣告该注册商标无效；其他单位或者个人可以请求商标评审委员会宣告该注册商标无效。其中“以其他不正当手段”取得商标注册的情形主要是指以欺骗手段以外的其他方式扰乱商标注册秩序、损害公共利益、不正当占用公共资源或者谋取不正当利益的情形。

However, Article 44(1) stipulates that

“Where a registered trademark violates Article 4, Article 10, Article 11,Article 12, or paragraph 4 of Article 19 of this Law, or its registration was acquired by fraud or any other illicit means, the Trademark Office shall declare invalidation of the registered trademark; and any other organization or individual may petition the Trademark Appeal Board to declare invalidation ofthe registered trademark.”

“Any other illicit means” obtaining trademark registration by “other improper means” mainly refers to the situation of disrupting the order of trademark registration, damaging public interests, improperly occupying public resources, or seeking improper benefits by other means other than deception.

本案中，诉争商标除与引证商标一至五中的文字完全相同外，第三人还先后注册20余件与他人知名品牌相同或近似的商标，且第三人未提交其注册多个商标的任何使用证据，该行为不仅会导致相关公众对商品来源产生误认，更扰乱了正常的商标注册管理秩序，并有损于公平竞争的市场秩序，故诉争商标的申请注册违反了商标法第四十四条第一款的规定。最终法院判决国家知识产权局就原告提出的无效宣告请求重新作出裁定。

Despite of that, the third party registered more than 20 trademarks which are the same or similar to other brands.

Moreover, the third party has no evidence of using those multiple trademarks. In that case, it will not only cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the goods, but also disrupt trademark administration order.

In the end, the court ruled that the National Intellectual Property Administration shall make a new decision on the dispute trademark.

代理人简介

Attorney Introduction

陈少兰律师，百一知识产权的高级合伙人，曾被评为：

   《世界商标评论》（World Trademark Review）2020年度“商标保护及诉讼”领域杰出个人；国际商标协会公共信息委员会委员；优秀知识产权诉讼卓著团队；全国十佳著作权诉讼律师；上海市徐汇区人民政府兼职法律顾问；上海知识产权服务之星；上海市闵行区知识产权协会专家委员会专家。

    代理的商标行政诉讼案件入选2019-2020年中华商标协会全国优秀商标代理案例，2019-2020年度上海十佳商标代理案例；代理的不正当竞争案件收入2006年上海市高级人民法院知识产权经典案例，《中国知识产权报》、《中华商标》、《上海知识产权》常年专家撰稿人。

The senior partner of Foridom Law Firm, who has been award as 2020 Outstanding Individual in the Field of "Trademark Protection and Litigation" (World Trademark Review)

Member of the Public Information Committee of the International Trademark Association; Outstanding Team of Intellectual Property Litigation; National Top 10 Copyright Litigation Lawyers; Part-time Legal Counsel of the People's Government of Xuhui District, Shanghai; Shanghai Intellectual Property Service Star; Expert Committee of Shanghai Minhang District Intellectual Property Association.

The trademark administrative litigation cases represented were selected as the 2019-2020 China Trademark Association National Excellent Trademark Agency Cases, and the Shanghai Top Ten Trademark Agency Cases 2019-2020. 

The unfair competition cases represented by the Shanghai High People’s Court Intellectual Property Leading Cases in 2006, Perennial expert writer of “China Intellectual Property News”, “China Trademark” and “Shanghai Intellectual Property”.

李晓岩律师，百一知识产权的专职律师

   主要执业方向：知识产权、民商事；代理商标行政诉讼案件、著作权民事诉讼案件、不正当竞争民事诉讼案件、商标民事诉讼案件等逾百件，多件代表性案例被《中国知识产权报》、北京知识产权法院等专文报告；担任多家单位常年法律顾问，为其提供民商事法律咨询以及法律代理服务。

Full-time lawyer of Foridom Law Firm. Focus on intellectual property rights, civil and commercial matters, representing more than 100 cases including trademark administrative, copyright, unfair competition, civil litigation cases etc. 

Reported by “China Intellectual Property News”, Beijing Intellectual Property Court etc. Ms.Li also serves as perennial legal counsel for many companies, providing them with civil and commercial legal consultation and legal agency services.