美国宝洁公司(Procter & Gamble Company)与被申请人国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(简称商标评审委员会)、汕头市威仕达化妆品有限公司(简称威仕达公司)商标争议行政纠纷一案

中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 (2016)最高法行再12号

The case of Administrative Dispute on Trademark Invalidation of Procter & Gamble Company (hereinafter referred to as P&G company) 

 against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) and Shantoushi Weishida Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Weishida cosmetic Company)

Administrative Judgment XZ No.12 (2016) of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China

案情介绍：

再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):宝洁公司(ThePr0cter&GambleC0mpany)。

被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。

被申请人(一审第三人):汕头市威仕达化妆品有限公司。

Case Introduction:

Retrial Applicant (plaintiff in first instance, appellant in second instance): Procter & Gamble Company

Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (TRAB).

Respondent (third person in first instance): Weishida cosmetic Company

争议商标系第3475589号“威仕达玉兰”商标,于2003年3月5日由威仕达公司申请注册,核准注册日为2005年1月7日,核定使用在第3类护发素、花露水、去污剂、鞋油、研磨膏、化妆品用香料、洗衣剂、牙膏、芳香袋(干花瓣与香料的混合物)、动物用化妆品等商品上。商标专用权期限至2015年1月6日。 2010年8月4日,宝洁公司对争议商标提出争议申请。引证商标一系第380392号“玉兰”商标,核定使用在第3类雪花膏等商品上。 引证商标二系第1684381号“玉兰油”商标,核定使用在第3类化妆品等商品上。

The Dispute Trademark No. 3475589 “Weishida Yulan” was filled for registration by WeiShida Company on March 5, 2003. The registration date was January 7, 2005, and it was approved for use in Class 3, hair conditioner, toilet water, detergent, shoe polish, abrasive paste, cosmetic fragrance, laundry detergent, toothpaste, aromatic bag (mixture of dried petals and spices), animal cosmetics, etc. The period of exclusive right to use the trademark extents to January 6, 2015. On August 4, 2010, Procter & Gamble filed invalidation application to the disputed trademark. The reference trademark No. 380392 “Yulan” is approved for use in the class of creams and other goods. The reference trademark No. 1684831 “Yulan Oil”, is approved for use in cosmetics products.

2011年12月30日,商标评审委员会作出商评字[2011]第36176号《关于第3475589号“威仕达玉兰”商标争议裁定书》(简称第36176号裁定)。该裁定认定:本案争议申请提起日期为2010年8月4日,已超出商标法第四十一条第二款、第三款规定的自争议商标注册之日起五年的法定期限。宝洁公司在案证据虽然可以证明其“玉兰”、“0LAY”商标在洁面、护肤品等商品上具有一定知名度,但由于在本案中宝洁公司未就争议商标申请日前合理期限内,其使用引证商标商品的销售范围、经济指标、广告范围、广告投入、市场排名等情况充分举证,故在案证据尚不足以证明在争议商标申请注册之前引证商标已经成为驰名商标。同时并无证据证明争议商标系恶意注册。争议商标文字本身未对我国政治、经济、文化、宗教、民族等社会公共利益和公共秩序产生消极的、负面的影响,故未违反商标法第十条第一款第(八)项之规定。因此裁定：争议商标予以维持。

On December 30, 2011, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made decision [2011] No. 36176 on No. 3475589 “Weishida Yulan” trademark dispute ruling" (referred to as Decision No. 36176). Under Trademark Law Article 41, the the ruling confirmed that the filing date of the dispute trademark application in this case was August 4, 2010, which exceeded the statutory time limit of five years from the date of registration of the disputed trademark. Although the evidence of Procter & Gamble Company can prove that its “Yulan” and “0LAY” trademarks have certain popularity in cleansing and skin care products, but in this case, within a reasonable period before the application for the disputed trademark, Procter & Gamble did not prove the reference trademarks had become well-known by sufficient evidence such as scope of sales of goods, economic data, advertising volume and cost, brand rankings, before the application of the disputed trademark registered. There is also no evidence that the disputed trademark is a malicious registration. The content of the disputed trademark itself has not a bad impact on China's political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic and other social public interests and public order. So, the disputed trademark does not violate the provisions of Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the TRAB ruled that the disputed trademark is maintained.

宝洁公司不服第36176号裁定,向北京市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院认为：判断一个商标是否为驰名商标,应当考虑相关公众对该商标的知晓程度、该商标使用和宣传的持续时间、程度及地理范围、是否作为驰名商标受保护的记录以及个案的相关因素。商标法第四十一条第二、三款规定提起商标争议的法定期限为争议商标注册之日起五年,本案争议商标于2005年1月7日获准注册,宝洁公司提起争议申请的日期为2010年8月4日,即宝洁公司在本案中的商标争议申请已经超出了上述法定期限。鉴于宝洁公司在商标争议评审阶段,未提交充分证据证明威仕达公司注册争议商标存在恶意,未提交充分证据证明引证商标达到驰名,故本案不适用商标法第四十一条第二款“驰名商标所有人不受五年的时间限制”的例外规定,亦不符合商标法第四十一条第一款规定的情形。因此判决：维持第36176号裁定。

Procter & Gamble Company appealed to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court. The court held that: to determine whether a trademark is well-known, the factors of the extent popularity to the relevant public, the duration, extent and geographic of the use and advertisement of the trademark, whether it is protected as a famous trademark. Under the second and third paragraphs of Article 41 of the Trademark Law, the time limit for filing a trademark invalidation shall be in five years from the date of registration of the disputed trademark. The disputed trademark in this case was approved for registration on January 7, 2005. The date of application for invalidation is On August 4, 2010. So, the application date for trademark invalidation by P&G in this case has exceeded the captioned statutory time limit. P&G company did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that WeiShida's registered disputed trademark in malicious, and also did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that the cited trademark was well-known. Therefore, this case does not apply to Article 41, paragraph 2 of Trademark Law for protection. The exception to the five-year time limit for trademark owners is not in comply with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, the court ruled the No. 36176 decision maintained.

宝洁公司不服一审判决,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院认为,商标法第四十一条第二款规定,“已经注册的商标,违反本法第十三条、第十五条、第十六条、第三十一条规定的,自商标注册之日起五年内,商标所有人或者利害关系人可以请求商标评审委员会裁定撤销该注册商标。对恶意注册的,驰名商标所有人不受五年的时间限制。”宝洁公司提供的在案证据大多为反映引证商标二或者“0LAY玉兰油”知名度的证据。虽然宝洁公司放弃了引证商标二“玉兰油”中的“油”的专用权,但并不能因此将对于“玉兰油”的宣传和使用视为对“玉兰”即引证商标一的宣传和使用,相关公众对引证商标二的知晓程度也不能当然等同于对引证商标一的知晓程度。因而,宝洁公司未能提供证据证明引证商标一经过大量使用,已经成为为相关公众所广泛知晓的驰名商标,第36176号裁定及一审判决对此认定正确,宝洁公司的此项诉讼主张不能成立。宝洁公司提交证据虽然可以证明威仕达公司在实际使用争议商标的过程中有攀附“玉兰油”商标知名度的恶意,但宝洁公司不属于商标法第四十一条第二款规定的驰名商标所有人,因而,其在争议商标核准注册之日起五年届满后提起撤销申请,不符合法律规定,第36176号裁定及一审判决对此认定正确,应予维持。因此判决：驳回上诉,维持一审判决。

Procter & Gamble Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The Court held that the second paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law ruled that “the trademark owner or interested party may request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to revoke the registered trademark which is in violation of the provisions of Articles 13, 15 and 16 of trademark Law in five years after the registration of the disputed trademark. For malicious registration, the well-known trademark owner is not limited to the five-year period. Most of the evidence Procter & Gamble provided in the case are of the popularity of the reference trademark 2 or “0LAY Yulan Oil”. Although Procter & Gamble gave up the exclusive right to use the “oil” in the trademark “Olay Oil”, but the evidence could not be regarded as the use of “Olay”. Therefore, Procter & Gamble failed to provide evidence to prove the reference marks has been used in a large amount, and has become well-known trademarks which are known to the relevant public. The decision of No.36176 and the judgment of the first instance are correct. Although Procter & Gamble can prove that WeiShida has maliciously intention to attach the trademark of “Olay Oil”, but P&G is not the well-known trademark owner under Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, after the expiration of the five-year period from the date of approval of the registration of the disputed trademark, the application for invalidation is failed, which does not comply with the law. Decision No. 36176 and the judgment of the first instance are correct and should be uphold. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

宝洁公司申请再审，认为其提交的在案证据足以证明引证商标在争议商标申请日即2003年3月5日前已经成为驰名商标。威仕达公司注册及使用争议商标明显具有搭便车、攀附他人商誉以牟取不正当利益的主观恶意, 宝洁公司为驰名的引证商标所有人,且争议商标系恶意注册,故援引商标法第十三条第二款、第四十一条第二款对在相同或者类似商品上注册的争议商标提出撤销申请,符合法律规定,不受五年的时间限制。威仕达公司恶意注册争议商标违反诚实信用原则, 违反了商标法第四十一条第一款和第十条第一款第(八)项的规定,应予撤销。

Procter & Gamble Company petitioned for retrial and believed that the evidence submitted was sufficient to prove that the reference trademark had become a well-known trademark before the disputed trademark application date, that is, March 5, 2003. Weisida's registration and use of disputed trademarks clearly has the malice intention of hitchhiking the goodwill of others to obtain illegitimate purpose. Procter & Gamble is the well-known trademark owner and the disputed trademark is maliciously registered. Under Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 41, paragraph 2 of trademark law, the petitioner who apply for invalidation of disputed trademarks registered on the identical or proximity of the goods, should be in compliance with the law, and are not exceed to the five-year time limit. WeiShida maliciously registered the disputed trademark violated the principle of good faith, and Article 41, paragraph 1, and Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark Law.

终审判决认定：

本院再审认为，本案争议焦点为:

一、本案能否适用商标法第十三条第二款。

商标法第十三条的规定旨在给予驰名商标较之于一般注册商标更强的保护,一般注册商标权利人享有专用权以及禁止他人在相同或者类似商品上使用相同或者近似商标的权利,驰名商标权利人除享有上述权利外,还享有禁止他人在不相同或者不相类似商品上使用相同或者近似驰名商标的权利。因此,虽然商标法第十三条第二款仅规定了对“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”之行为予以禁止,根据商标法对驰名商标强保护的立法本意,在“相同或者类似商品”上复制、摹仿、翻译他人已经在中国注册的驰名商标申请注册商标的行为,亦属该条所调整的对象。本案争议商标与引证商标一、二核定使用的商品,在功能、用途、销售渠道、消费对象等方面基本相同,属于类似商品,故本案可以适用商标法第十三条第二款的规定。

The final judgment is:

The supreme court re-reviewed the case and concluded that the issues in this case are below.

1. Whether the case can be ruled by the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law.

The second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law are intended to give stronger protection to famous trademarks than to ordinary trademarks. Generally, the ordinary trademark owners have exclusive rights to prohibit others from using the identical or similar trademarks on the identical or proximity goods. In addition to the above rights, trademark owners also have the right to prohibit others from using the identical or similar famous trademarks on different or non-proximity goods. Therefore, although the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law only stipulates that the act of “copying, imitation or translation of a registered famous trademark on the identical or similar goods is prohibited”, but, according to the legislative policy of trademark law, the behaviors to copy, imitate, and translate the registered famous trademarks on the identical or similar goods are also prohibited. The goods designated in the disputed trademark and the reference trademark in this case are basically identical in terms of functions, uses, market channels, and consumers, and belong to the proximity goods. Therefore, the disputed trademark violated Article 13 (2) of the Trademark Law.

二、争议商标的注册是否违反了商标法第十三条第二款以及第四十一条第二款的规定。

根据商标法第十三条第二款及第四十一条第二款的规定,争议商标是否应予撤销,需要考虑以下因素:引证商标一在争议商标申请注册日前是否已经成为驰名商标；争议商标是否构成对引证商标一的复制、摹仿；威仕达公司申请注册争议商标是否具有恶意。

关于引证商标一在争议商标申请注册日前是否已经成为驰名商标的问题。根据宝洁公司在商标评审阶段和诉讼阶段补充提交的大量证据表明,在争议商标申请注册日前,与相关品牌的护肤品产品相比较,玉兰油护肤品的市场占有率高、销售量大、影响力广、消费者认知程度高,并参考“玉兰0il0f0LAY”商标入选2000年《全国重点商标保护名录》的相关事实,宝洁公司的上述证据足以证明引证商标一经过长期使用和广泛宣传,已为中国境内相关公众所熟知,在争议商标申请注册日前在洁面、护肤品等商品上已经成为驰名商标。二审法院认为“宝洁公司提交的在案证据大多反映引证商标二或者‘0LAY玉兰油’知名度的证据,不能因此将对于‘玉兰油’的宣传和使用视为对‘玉兰’的宣传和使用,相关公众对引证商标二的知晓程度也不能当然等同于对引证商标一的知晓程度”。对此本院认为,首先,引证商标一、二的识别部分均为“玉兰”,引证商标二中的“油”已放弃专用权,相关公众通过“玉兰”而不是“油”识别商品来源。其次,引证商标一、二核定使用商品均属于第3类化妆品商品,在功能、用途、销售渠道、消费对象等方面基本相同,两者属于类似商品。第三,宝洁公司在实际生产经营和广告宣传中,将“玉兰”品牌的产品统称为“玉兰油”,既可以视为对玉兰油的使用,也可以视为对玉兰的使用。

关于争议商标是否构成对引证商标一的复制、摹仿的问题。本案中,争议商标“威仕达玉兰”完整包含了引证商标一“玉兰”,且引证商标一具有很高的知名度和显著性。因此,争议商标构成对引证商标一的复制、摹仿。

关于威仕达公司申请注册争议商标是否具有恶意的问题。本院认为,根据商标法第四十一条第二款“对恶意注册的,驰名商标所有人不受五年的时间限制”的规定,判断争议商标的注册是否具有恶意,不能仅仅考虑商标是否已经达到驰名的程度,即只要是驰名商标,就推定申请注册人具有恶意,而应该根据案件具体情形,从主观意图、客观表现等方面综合判断。本案中,威仕达公司与宝洁公司同为洗化行业经营者,引证商标一在争议商标申请注册日前已经具有很高知名度,威仕达公司应当知晓宝洁公司的引证商标一而申请注册争议商标。此外,威仕达公司在实际使用争议商标的过程中具有攀附宝洁公司商标商誉的意图之行为,亦进一步佐证了该公司申请注册争议商标具有恶意。

商标评审委员会及一、二审法院认定错误，本院予以纠正。

2. Whether the registration of the disputed trademark violates the Article 13 (2) and Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law.

According to the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law and the second paragraph of Article 41, whether the disputed trademark should be revoked, the following factors need to be considered. Whether the reference trademark is famous before the filling date of application, whether the disputed trademark constitutes copy and imitation of the reference trademarks, whether Weishida company applied for registration of the disputed trademark with malicious intention.

Regarding whether the reference trademark is famous before the filing date of registration of the disputed trademark. Depending the large amount of evidence submitted by P&G in the trademark review procedure and the litigation procedure, the high market share percentage of Olay oil skin care products, the large sales volumes, and the wide spread of the trademark, the consumers have a high degree of recognition of the “Yulan 0il 0LAY” trademark in the “National ranking for Famous Trademark” in 2000. The above evidence is sufficient to prove that the reference trademark has been used for a long time and widely propagated. It is well known to the relevant public and has become a famous trademark on cleansing, skin care products and other goods before the registration date of the disputed trademark application. The Beijing Higher People’s Court held that “the evidence submitted by P&G mostly reflects the evidence of the second reference trademark or “Yulan Oil”, not the use of “Yulan” as a trademark. The relevant public cannot have a good knowledge of secondary reference trademark as the trademark which is actually used. For consideration of this issue, the Supreme Court believes that the identification parts of the reference trademark one and two are “Yulan”, not the “oil” which was abandoned the exclusive right. The relevant public identify the source of goods by “Yulan” instead of “Oil”. Secondly, the approval goods of the trademarks are proximity to the third category of cosmetic goods, which are basically the same in terms of functions, uses, market channels, and consumers. Third, in the actual production and advertising, P&G Company referred to the products of “Yulan” brand as “Yulan Oil”, which can be regarded as the use of “Yulan” or “Olay”.

Whether the disputed trademark constitutes copying and imitation of the reference trademarks. In this case, the disputed trademark “Weishida Yulan” completely consists of the reference trademark “Yu Lan”, and the reference trademark has a high reputation and distinctiveness. Therefore, the disputed trademark constitutes copying and imitation.

The issue of whether Weishda has the malicious intention when apply for registration of the disputed trademark. The Supreme Court believes that, under  Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law, “the owner of a well-known trademark is not limit to the five-year period of apply for invalidation when the registration with malicious intention.” To make the decision of whether the registration with malicious intention, it is not only to presume the registrant is malicious because of famous trademark, but to consider the subjective intention and objective performance of the specific circumstances of the case. In this case, WeiShiDa Company and Procter & Gamble Company are both in the washing industry. The reference  trademarks have a high reputation before the registration of the disputed trademark application. Weishida Company should know the reference trademark of Procter & Gamble. In addition, the company's intention to catch to the reference trademark’s goodwill is proved in the actual use. Therefore, the company's intention to apply for registration of the disputed trademark is malicious.

The decisions of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the first and second instance of the courts are all reversed, the TRAB should retrial.

400/5000

Comments from Right & Able Law Firm

Because different courts may have different standards for the certification of well-known trademarks, whether the trademark of Olay can be protected as a well-known trademark or the standard of recognition of well-known trademarks is a legal issue to be resolved in this case.

Regarding the criteria for the recognition of well-known trademarks, China's trademark law and related regulations and regulations are described, mainly including the extent to which the relevant public knows the trademark, the time, extent and geographical scope of any promotion of the trademark, and the use of the trademark. Whether the infringer has subjective malice, duration, degree and geographical scope, the trademark of the infringer constitutes the copying, imitation and translation of the well-known trademark, and whether the infringer’s behavior will damage.

In this case, we believe that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the First-instance Court and the Second-instance Court did not identify the reason why the trademarked trademark Yulan was a well-known trademark. The trademarks of Yulan Oil and OALY were highly recognized, but there was not much evidence of the use of the trademark of Yulan and the popularity. Therefore, the Yulan trademark does not constitute a well-known trademark, and “Wishida Magnolia” does not constitute a violation of the well-known trademark. In fact, the trademark of “Yulan Oil” completely contains the trademark “Yulan”. The facts of the use and popularity of the “Olay Oil” trademark should also be applied and protected for the “Magnolia” trademark. The Supreme Court’s understanding of the expansion of trademark law is correct.

因为不同的法院对于驰名商标认定的证明标准可能存在不统一的情况，所以，玉兰油商标是否可以作为驰名商标受到保护，或者说是驰名商标的认定标准的问题，是本案要解决的法律问题。

关于驰名商标的认定标准，中国的商标法和相关的法规和规定都有说明，主要包括相关公众对该商标的知晓程度，该商标的任何宣传的时间、程度、地理范围，该商标的使用的持续时间、程度和地理范围，侵权人是否存在主观上的恶意，侵权人的商标构成对驰名商标的复制、模仿和翻译，侵权人的行为是否会损害驰名商标所有人的利益。此外，还有驰名商标保护的是不相同不相类似商品项目上的注册，不保护相同或者类似商品上的注册等等。实际上，驰名商标的法律保护问题，在法理上和中国的侵权行为法的侵权人定存在一定程度相似性。也就是说是否存在侵犯驰名商标权利人的行为，是否发生了侵犯驰名商标权利人的结果，行为和结果之间是否存在因果关系，侵权人是否存在主观上的侵权故意。

本案中，我们认为商标评审委员会、一审法院和二审法院没有认定引证商标玉兰为驰名商标的原因，是玉兰油和OALY商标的知名度较高，但是“玉兰”商标的使用证据和知名度证据并不多，因此玉兰商标不构成驰名商标，“威士达玉兰”因此也不构成对驰名商标的侵犯。实际上，“玉兰油”商标完整包含了“玉兰”商标，“玉兰油”商标的使用和知名度的事实，应该对“玉兰”商标也同样适用和获得保护。最高法院对于商标法的扩充理解是正确的。