(德国) 采埃孚转向系统有限公司(ZFLENK SYSTEME GMBH 

)与中华人民共和国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)、台州汇昌机电有限公司(简称汇昌机电公司)商标异议复审行政纠纷一案

中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 (2014)行提字第2号

The case of Administrative Dispute on Trademark Opposition Review of ZFLENK SYSTEME GMBH (Germany) (hereinafter referred to as ZF 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 Taizhou Huichang Electronic Engine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huichang Company)

Administrative Judgment XTZ No.2 (2014) 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):采埃孚转向系统有限公司(ZFLENK SYSTEME GMBH)。

被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人):中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。

第三人:台州汇昌机电有限公司。

Case Introduction:

Retrial Applicant (plaintiff in first instance, appellant in second instance): ZFLENK SYSTEME GMBH 

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): Taizhou Huichang Electronic Engine Co., Ltd.

2002年1月4日,汇昌机电公司向中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理总局商标局(简称商标局)申请注册第3060409号“采埃孚”商标(简称争议商标)。2003年7月28日,争议商标被核准注册在第7类“液压泵、液压阀,泵(机器)；真空泵(机器)；泵(机器、发动机或马达部件)；液压元件(不包括车辆液压系统)；润滑油泵”等商品上。2004年9月10日,采埃孚公司向商标评审委员会提出争议申请,请求撤销争议商标。

On January 4, 2002, Huichang Electromechanical Company filed the registration application for the trademark “采埃孚” No. 3060409(hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark) in Trademark Office. On July 28, 2003, the disputed trademark was approved for registration in Class 7 “hydraulic pumps, hydraulic valves, pumps (machines); vacuum pumps (machines); pumps (machines, engines or motor components); hydraulic components (excluding vehicle hydraulics) System); lubricant pump” and other products. On September 10, 2004, ZFLENK SYSTEME GMBH filed an invalidation with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to request the invalidation of the disputed trademark.

2010年7月26日,商标评审委员会作出商评字(2010)第17687号《关于第3060409号“采埃孚”商标争议裁定书》(简称第17687号裁定),该裁定认为:采埃孚公司提交的使用和宣传证据中未显示该公司名称,亦不足以证明该公司与上述证据中显示的上海采埃孚转向机有限公司(简称上海采埃孚公司)、柳州采埃孚机械有限公司(简称柳州采埃孚公司)等单位存在商标权或商号权上的利害关系。同时采埃孚公司提交的仅有商号权的使用证据,上述证据体现上海采埃孚公司、柳州采埃孚公司的经营范围主要为生产销售汽车转向机及相关汽车零部件,与争议商标核定使用商品所属行业分属不同的行业领域,且在案证据或为单方证据,或未显示证据形成时间或形成时间晚于争议商标申请日,不足以证明在争议商标申请日前,采埃孚公司或其利害关系人在中国在先使用“采埃孚”商号在争议商标核定商品所属行业中具有一定知名度,争议商标的注册使用应不致相关公众混淆。因此裁定：争议商标的注册未构成商标法第三十一条规定的情形,争议商标予以维持。

On July 26, 2010, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made a decision of (2010) No.17687 on the “采埃孚” trademark dispute ruling of No. 3060409 (referred to as Decision No. 17687), which held that The name of the company in the use evidence is not shown in the public which submitted by the company, and it is not sufficient to prove that there is a kind of benefit relationship has been set up between the company and Shanghai ZF Steering Gear Co., Ltd. (Shanghai ZF) and Liuzhou ZF Machinery Co., Ltd. (referred to as Liuzhou ZF company) and other companies in the rights of trademark or trade names. Meanwhile, ZF only provided the use evidence of the trade name. The above evidence showed that the business of Shanghai ZF and Liuzhou ZF is mainly the manufacture and sale of automobile steering gear and related auto parts, not related to the use of disputed trademarks. The industry of the goods are belong to two different sectors, and the evidence in this case is either unilateral evidence, or the time of the evidence is not clear or formed later than the filing date of the disputed trademark. So, it is insufficient to prove that ZF tradename have a certain reputation in the industry before the disputed trademark filling date in China. The registration of the disputed trademark should not be confused by the relevant public. Therefore, TRAB ruled that the registration of the disputed trademark does not violated Article 31 of the Trademark Law, and the registration of disputed trademark can be maintained.

采埃孚公司不服第17687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一审认为:本案的焦点问题在于争议商标的注册是否侵犯了采埃孚公司的在先商号权。在案证据均不能证明在争议商标申请日前,采埃孚公司或其商号权的利害关系人在争议商标核定使用的商品或类似商品上在先将中文“采埃孚”作为商号在中国大陆地区使用并具有一定的知名度。第17687号裁定关于争议商标注册未构成商标法第三十一条规定情形的认定正确。据此,一审法院判决维持第17687号裁定。

ZF Company dissatisfied with the decision of No. 17687 and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court. The Court held that the disputes of the case was whether the registration of the disputed trademark violated ZF's prior trade name. None of the evidence in the case can prove that before the filling date of the disputed trademark, the shareholders of ZF or ZF company used the “ZF” as the trade name in mainland China on the identical or proximity of the goods, nor have a certain of reputation. The decision No. 17687 of TRAB ruled that the registration of a disputed trademark does not violated the Article 31 of the Trademark Law. Accordingly, dismissed.

采埃孚公司不服一审判决,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院二审认为: 商标法第四十一条第二款中的 “利害关系人”应当主要包括相关权利的被许可使用人、合法继承人。本案中,采埃孚公司主张争议商标的注册侵犯了其在先商号权,但其提交的使用和宣传证据中均未显示该公司名称,同时也不能证明其与证据中显示的上海采埃孚公司、柳州采埃孚公司等单位存在商标权或商号权上的利害关系。且采埃孚公司提交的证据均不能证明在争议商标申请日前,采埃孚公司或其商号权的利害关系人在争议商标核定使用的商品或类似商品上在先将“采埃孚”作为商号在中国大陆地区使用并具有一定的知名度。故一审法院及第17687号裁定关于争议商标注册未构成商标法第三十一条规定情形的认定正确。据此,二审法院判决:驳回上诉,维持一审判决。

采埃孚公司向最高人民法院申请再审。认为争议商标“采埃孚”与采埃孚公司及其利害关系人在先使用的中文商号“采埃孚”完全相同,并且指定使用在采埃孚公司的主要商品或者类似商品项目上,在采埃孚公司的商号“采埃孚”已经在先使用并有较高知名度的情况下,争议商标的注册与使用极易导致相关公众产生混淆,侵犯了采埃孚公司及其子公司的在先商号权。被异议商标应当予以撤销。

ZF Company appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The second instance of the Court held that, “the interested parties” in the second paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law shall mainly refer to the licensee and legal heir of the rights. In this case, ZF Company claimed that the registration of the disputed trademark infringed its prior trade name, but the company’s trade name was not displayed in the submitted use evidence, and it also could not prove that it was shown in Shanghai ZF Companies, Liuzhou ZF and other companies benefit in trademark or trade name. Moreover, the evidence submitted by ZF cannot prove that before the filling date of the disputed trademark, the shareholders of ZF or ZF company used the “ZF” as the trade name in mainland China on the identical or proximity of the goods, nor have a certain of reputation. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment of the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court.

ZF Corporation petitioned to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. It is considered that the disputed trademark “采埃孚” is identical to ZF’s first Chinese-language company name “ZF” which is designated in ZF’s main business. When ZF's trade name “ZF” has been firstly used and has a high reputation, the registration and use of the disputed trademark can easily lead to confusion among the relevant public. ZF company and its subsidiaries were infringed for the trade name. The disputed trademark shall be revoked.

终审判决认定：

 本院再审认为，本案涉及如下法律问题:

一、关于采埃孚公司能否对“采埃孚”主张在先商号权。

第一,现行法律法规并未对商标法第四十一条第二款规定的“利害关系人”的范围作出明确界定,参照商标局和商标评审委员会颁布的《商标审查及审理标准》的规定,商标法第三十一条所称的“利害关系人”,是指在先权利的被许可人以及其他有证据证明与案件有利害关系的主体。司法实践中,虽然利害关系人多以被许可使用人、合法继承人的形式表现,但利害关系人的范围不应仅限于此,其他有证据证明与案件具有利害关系的主体,亦可依据商标法第三十一条的规定对争议商标提出撤销申请。第二, 根据再审程序中已经查明的事实, 上海采埃孚公司、柳州采埃孚公司等使用“采埃孚”商号的国内企业,均是由采埃孚公司参与投资而设立,上述企业对“采埃孚”商号的使用显然是基于采埃孚公司的投资而获得采埃孚公司的授权或许可。据此,采埃孚公司应有权根据上海采埃孚公司等企业对“采埃孚”商号的使用行为,提出将“采埃孚”作为在先商号权进行保护的法律上的利益。

The supreme court reviewed the case and concluded the following legal issues:

1. Whether ZF company qualified to claim the trade name of “ZF”.

First, the laws and regulations do not clearly define the scope of “interested parties” as stipulated in Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Trademark Law. According to the provisions of the “Trademark Review and Trial Standards” promulgated by the Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, the term “interested parties” used in Article 31 of the Trademark Law refers to the licensee or heir of the prior right or other evidence can prove they have an interest in the case. In judicial practice, although the shareholders are mostly in the form of licensed users and legal heirs, the scope of the interested parties should not be limited to this. Other parties with evidence to prove that they have interests in the case may also be regardes as interested parties under the trademark law. The provisions of Article 31 may apply for the invalidation of the disputed trademark.

Second, according to the facts already identified in the retrial procedure, domestic companies such as Shanghai ZF and Liuzhou ZF, which use the “ZF” trade name, were all established by ZF’s investment. The use of the ZF tradename is clearly authorized or licensed by ZF company based on the investment of ZF. Accordingly, ZF company should have the right to propose the legal interest in protecting ZF as a prior trade name based on the use of ZF by companies such as Shanghai ZF and Liuzhou ZF.

二、“采埃孚”是否为有一定知名度的商号。

本院认为,具有一定的市场知名度、为相关公众所知悉的企业名称中的字号,可以认定为《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第五条第(三)项规定的“企业名称”,作为商标法第三十一条所规定的“在先权利”予以保护。

至争议商标申请日即2002年1月4日,通过上海采埃孚公司等企业的使用,“采埃孚”已经成为在中国大陆境内具有一定市场知名度的商号,应当作为商标法第三十一条所称的“在先权利”予以保护。

2. Whether the tradename “采埃孚” has a certain reputation.

The Court hold that the trade name that has a certain reputation and is known to the relevant public can be identified as the “trade name” as stipulated in Article 5(3) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. The trade name can be protected as prior right under Article 31 of the Trademark Law.

Up to January 4, 2002, the application filling date of the disputed trademark, “ZF” has become a trade name with a certain market reputation in mainland China by the use of companies such as Shanghai ZF. “ZF” trade name should be protected as the “prior rights under the trademark law.

三、关于争议商标的注册是否损害了“采埃孚”的在先商号权。

“采埃孚”作为采埃孚公司及其关联企业上海采埃孚公司等在先使用并具有一定知名度的商号,本身为无中文含义的臆造词,具有较强的固有显著性。争议商标由中文文字“采埃孚”构成,与上海采埃孚公司等在先使用的商号“采埃孚”的文字构成、呼叫完全一致,为相同标识。且争议商标核定使用的商品与上海采埃孚公司生产和销售的转向系统以及汽车零部件等具有较为紧密的商品关联关系。作为同业经营者的汇昌机电公司,应当知道采埃孚公司及上海采埃孚公司在先使用的“采埃孚”商号已经在转向机等汽车零配件等商品上具有一定知名度,却将与该商号完全相同的“采埃孚”文字作为商标注册在与上海采埃孚公司的实际经营范围联系紧密的液压泵、液压阀等商品上,损害了采埃孚公司及其关联公司对“采埃孚”享有的在先商号权,违反了商标法第三十一条的规定。

因此，争议商标侵犯了采埃孚公司及其关联公司对“采埃孚”享有的在先商号权,违反了商标法第三十一条的规定,争议商标应当予以撤销。采埃孚公司申请再审的理由成立,第17687号裁定、一审、二审判决认定事实不清,适用法律错误,应予撤销,商标评审委员会应当重新作出争议裁定。

3. Whether the registration of the disputed trademark has infringed the prior trade name of “ZF”.

“ZF”, as a previously used and well-known trade name of ZF company and its affiliated company, is an arbitrary word without Chinese meaning and has strong inherent distinctiveness. The disputed trademark consists of the Chinese character “采埃孚”, which is identical to the previous Chinese trade name “采埃孚”, such as Shanghai ZF Corporation. Moreover, the goods used for the disputed trademarks have a close relationship with the steering systems and automobile parts produced and sold by Shanghai ZF company. Huichang Electro mechanical Co., Ltd., as a competitor of the same industry, should has known that, the ZF trade name previously used by ZF company and Shanghai ZF company, has already gained a certain reputation in steering gears and other auto parts. Huichang Electro mechanical Co., Ltd., filed “ZF” trademark registration application in  hydraulic pumps, hydraulic valves and other goods which are related to the business of Shanghai ZF, infringed the trade name of ZF company and its affiliates, violated Article 31 of the Trademark Law.

Therefore, the respondent registered the disputed trademark infringed ZF company and its affiliates' prior trade name right, violated Article 31 of the Trademark Law. The disputed trademark should be revoked. The petition should be granted. The decision of No.17687 made by TRAB, the judgment of the first and second trials should be revoked. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board should re-trial the dispute.

本案的主要法律问题是如何判定侵犯在先企业名称权的法律问题。商标评审委员会和法院在审查判断这一法律问题的时候，主要考虑的因素有：在先企业名称权的显著性和知名度情况，争议商标和引证商标的相同或者近似程度，争议商标的注册人是否和引证商标属于相同或相近的行业，争议商标的注册人是否存在主观上的恶意等问题。这些考虑因素和混淆误认可能性的判断标准有些类似。围绕着上述法律考虑的因素，律师代理人需要举证证明上述每一法律因素的事实，以及证明上述事实的证据之间的关联关系。

在中国的法律体系中，法律诉讼的证据要求是闭合的。意思就是说所有法律因素结合起来，只能得出几乎是唯一的结论，而这唯一的结论，就是法官的观点。因此，律师需要尽最大努力来证明上述闭合的法律事实因素。并且，也要尽最大努力围绕这些事实来组织证据。

本案中非常有趣的问题是，在先企业名称权的权利人或者利害关系人是否非常明确。这一点非常重要，因为这是企业名称权的权利基础。尽管有关联子公司的投资或者控股关系，但是，需要有明确的证据来证明。实际上，从再审申请人在再审程序中提交的案件来看，仍然没有直接的证据来证明企业名称权的所有人就是本案的再审申请人。但是，从其他相关证据来看，基本上可以从间接证据里来分析，可以得出再审申请人就是权利人的唯一结论。所以，在商标诉讼法律领域，除了商标法律的熟练运用以外，还需要熟悉行政诉讼法的举证规则。

The main legal issue in this case is how to determine the legal issue of infringement of the right to name a prior enterprise. When examining and judging this legal issue, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the court mainly consider the following factors: the salience and popularity of the prior company name right, the same or similar degree of the disputed trademark and the cited trademark, and whether the registrant of the disputed trademark is And the cited trademarks belong to the same or similar industry, and whether the registrants of the disputed trademarks have subjective malicious issues. These considerations are somewhat similar to the criteria for confusing the possibility of misidentification. Around the factors considered by the above-mentioned laws, the attorney of the lawyer needs to prove the facts of each of the above legal factors and the relationship between the evidences proving the above facts.

In the Chinese legal system, the evidentiary requirements for legal proceedings are closed. The implication is that all legal factors are combined and can only lead to almost the only conclusion, and the only conclusion is the judge's point of view. Therefore, lawyers need to do their utmost to prove the above-mentioned closed legal facts. Also, do your best to organize evidence around these facts.

The very interesting question in this case is whether the right holder or stakeholder of the prior company name right is very clear. This is very important because it is the basis of the rights to the company's name. Although there are investment or holding relationships of affiliated companies, there is clear evidence to prove. In fact, judging from the cases submitted by the retrial applicant in the retrial procedure, there is still no direct evidence to prove that the owner of the enterprise name right is the retrial applicant in this case. However, from other relevant evidence, it can basically be analyzed from indirect evidence, and it can be concluded that the retrial applicant is the right holder. Therefore, in the field of trademark litigation law, in addition to the skilled use of trademark law, it is also necessary to be familiar with the rules of evidence of administrative litigation law.