美国知识产权案例（北京知识产权十大案例中英文版）

十大典型案例 案例一：琼瑶诉于正侵害著作权纠纷案，我来为大家科普一下关于美国知识产权案例?以下内容希望对你有帮助!

美国知识产权案例

十大典型案例

案例一：琼瑶诉于正侵害著作权纠纷案

原告：陈喆（笔名：琼瑶）

被告：余征（笔名：于正）、湖南经视文化传播有限公司（简称湖南经视公司）、东阳欢娱影视文化有限公司（简称东阳欢娱公司）、万达影视传媒有限公司（简称万达公司）、东阳星瑞影视文化传媒有限公司（简称东阳星瑞公司）

【案情】

陈喆，笔名琼瑶，于1992年10月创作完成剧本《梅花烙》，未以纸质方式公开发表；怡人传播有限公司依据剧本《梅花烙》拍摄完成电视剧《梅花烙》，于1993年10月13日起在台湾地区首次电视播出，于1994年4月13日起在中国大陆地区首次电视播出，电视剧内容与剧本高度一致。小说《梅花烙》系根据剧本《梅花烙》改编而来，于1993年6月30日创作完成，1993年9月15日起在台湾地区公开发行，同年起在中国大陆地区公开发表，主要情节与剧本《梅花烙》基本一致。小说《梅花烙》作者署名是陈喆。余征系剧本《宫锁连城》载明的作者，剧本共计20集，剧本创作完成时间为2012年7月17日，首次发表时间为2014年4月8日。电视剧《宫锁连城》根据剧本《宫锁连城》拍摄。电视剧《宫锁连城》署名编剧余征，片尾出品公司依次署名为：湖南经视公司、东阳欢娱公司、万达公司、东阳星瑞公司。电视剧《宫锁连城》完成片共分为两个版本，网络播出的未删减版本共计44集，电视播映版本共计63集，电视播映版本于2014年4月8日起，在湖南卫视首播。剧本《宫锁连城》与剧本《梅花烙》相比，人物关系更复杂，故事线索更多。陈喆主张侵权的内容主要集中在剧本《宫锁连城》的前半部分。

一审法院认为：《宫锁连城》剧本侵害了原告就《梅花烙》剧本和小说享有的改编权，《宫锁连城》电视剧侵害了原告的摄制权。判令被告承担停止侵权；公开赔礼道歉、消除影响；赔偿原告经济损失及诉讼合理支出共计500万元。各被告提出上诉，二审法院判决维持原判。

【点评】

本案是一起受到高度关注的影视作品抄袭案件，其典型意义体现在三方面。第一，明确了文学作品中思想与表达的区分标准。文学作品的表达，不仅表现为文字性的表达，也包括文字所表述的故事内容，但人物设置及其相互的关系，以及由具体事件的发生、发展和先后顺序等构成的情节，只有具体到一定程度，即文学作品的情节选择、结构安排、情节推进设计反映出作者独特的选择、判断、取舍，才能成为著作权法保护的表达。确定文学作品保护的表达是不断抽象过滤的过程。第二，明确实质性相似的判断标准。著作权侵权需满足“接触”加“实质性相似”两个要件。文学作品中，情节的前后衔接、逻辑顺序将全部情节紧密贯穿为完整的个性化表达，这种足够具体的人物设置、情节结构、内在逻辑关系的有机结合体可以成为著作权法保护的表达。如果被诉侵权作品中包含足够具体的表达，且这种紧密贯穿的情节设置在被诉侵权作品中达到一定数量、比例，可以认定为构成实质性相似；或者被诉侵权作品中包含的紧密贯穿的情节设置已经占到了权利作品足够的比例，即使其在被诉侵权作品中所占比例不大，也足以使受众感知到来源于特定作品时，可以认定为构成实质性相似。第三，引入专家辅助人。本案开启了侵害著作权案件中引入专家辅助人的先例，使案件的审理和裁判契合行业特点和创作规律。

Case 1

QIONG Yao versus YU Zheng for Copyright Infringement

Plaintiff: CHEN Zhe (pseudonym: QIONG Yao)

Defendant: YU Zheng(“余征”) (pseudonym: YU Zheng (“于正”)

Hu’nan JING SHI Culture Broadcast Co., Ltd.

Dongyang HUAN YU Media Culture Co., Ltd.

WAN DA Media Co., Ltd

Dongyang XING RUI Media Culture Co., Ltd.

Case brief

CHEN Zhe (pseudonym : QIONG Yao) finished the script Plum Blossom Scar in October, 1992, which was not published in the form of paper; YI REN Broadcast Co., Ltd. finished shooting TV series Plum Blossom Scar pursuant to the script Plum Blossom Scar. The TV series was firstly premiered on October 13, 1993 in Taiwan region and then premiered on April, 13, 1994 in China Mainland. The content of the TV series was highly consistent to that of the script. The novel Plum Blossom Scar was finished on June 30, 1993, which was adapted from the script Plum Blossom Scar. Thereafter, the novel was published in Taiwan region on September 15, 1993 and then in China Mainland in the same year. The main plots were basically consistent to the script Plum Blossom Scar. CHEN Zhe was named author of the novel Plum Blossom Scar.

YU Zheng was the listed author of The Place: The Lost Daughter. The 20-episode script was finished on July, 17, 2012 and it was firstly published on April 8, 2014. The TV series The Place: The Lost Daughter was shot pursuant to the script The Place: The Lost Daughter. YU Zheng signed the TV series The Place: The Lost Daughter as screenwriter. Hu’nan JING SHI Company, Dongyang HUANG YU Company, WAN DA Company and Dongyang XING RUI Company signed as the production companies at the end of the TV series. There were two versions of the completed TV series The Place: The Lost Daughter: the unabridged version broadcast on the website had 44 episodes and the version broadcast on TV had 63 episodes. The TV version was premiered in Hu’nan TV since April 8, 2014. Compared with the script Plum Blossom Scar, the script The Place: The Lost Daughter had more complex relationships among the people, with more threads of story. The content which CHEN Zhe claimed infringement mainly focused on the first half of the script The Place: The Lost Daughter.

The court of first instance held that the script The Place: The Lost Daughter infringed the adaptation right of the script and novel Plum Blossom Scar of the plaintiff; the TV series The Place: The Lost Daughter infringed the right of making cinematographic work of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court made judgment that the defendants shall cease infringing act, make public apology, eliminate ill effects and compensate economic loss as well as reasonable expenses totaling RMB 5,000,000. All the defendants appealed against this judgment, while the court of second instance upheld the original judgment.

Comments

As a high profile case involving plagiarism of television works, there are three typical aspects in this case.

Firstly, this case specifies the distinguishing criterion between thought and expression in literary works. Regarding the expression in literary works, it is manifested in literal expression and also in the story content expressed by the literals. However, regarding the character settings and mutual relationship as well as the plots defined by occurrence, development and sequential order of the specific events, only when these factors are specific to a certain extent, that is, when the option of plot, arrangement of structure and design of plot proceedings reflect the unique choice, determination and option of the author, can the literary expression be protected by the Copyright Law. Determining the expression protected by literary works is a process of constantly abstracting and filtering.

Secondly, this case specifies the criterion of “substantial similarity”. “Contact” and “substantial similarity” are two essentials for copyright infringement. In literary works, the connection and the logic sequence of the plots make all the plots closely connected and thus form a complete “personal expression”. When the character settings, plot structure and internal logic relationship become sufficiently specific, such kind of integral combination is entitled to copyright protection as “expression”. If the accused infringing work contains sufficiently specific expressions, and a certain amount and proportion of plot settings are also found in the accused infringing work, the court can then find “substantial similarity” between the works. Alternatively, when the closely intertwined plot settings in the accused work make enough proportion in the copyrighted works, even if the plot settings do not have a large proportion in the accused infringing work, when it is sufficient to enable the audience to perceive that they come from a certain work, the court can still find “substantial similarity”.

Thirdly, the expert-assessor is introduced in this case. It sets up a precedent where expert assessor is introduced in a copyright infringement case, so that the trial and judgment of the case will be adapted to the industry feature and rules of creating copyright works.

案例二：“中国饮料第一罐”虚假宣传纠纷案

原告：广州医药集团有限公司（简称广药集团）

原告：广州王老吉大健康产业有限公司（简称王老吉大健康公司）

被告：加多宝（中国）饮料有限公司（简称加多宝（中国）公司）

被告：广东加多宝饮料食品有限公司（简称广东加多宝公司）

【案情】

广药集团与王老吉大健康公司是“王老吉”系列注册商标的商标权人和使用权人，1995年“王老吉”商标曾授权给鸿道集团在红色灌装凉茶上使用，2012年经仲裁裁决鸿道集团停止使用该商标。鸿道集团投资设立的加多宝（中国）公司、广东加多宝公司在2012年5月开始在凉茶上使用“加多宝”商标并依据中国行业企业信息发布中心出具的2008年至2014年七份获奖证明“据调查统计，贵企业生产的罐装王老吉饮料荣列2007、2008、2009、2010、2011年度全国罐装饮料市场销售额第一名”、“据调查统计，贵企业生产的罐装饮料荣列2012年度全国罐装饮料市场销量第一名”及“据调查统计，贵企业生产的加多宝牌罐装饮料荣列2013年度全国罐装饮料市场销量第一名”，在各类媒体的广告宣传中使用“加多宝凉茶连续7年荣获‘中国饮料第一罐’”等六句近似广告用语。两原告据此诉至法院，主张两被告涉案广告语构成虚假宣传。

法院认为：涉案广告语的核心内容是加多宝凉茶连续七年获得中国饮料市场第一罐。由于加多宝集团在2012年之前使用的是王老吉商标。涉案广告语将《统计调查信息证明》中的内容进行人为选择编排后形成的表达为“加多宝凉茶连续七年荣获中国饮料第一罐”等。涉案广告语的表达确实存在与事实不符之处，向消费者隐瞒了加多宝集团生产的罐装凉茶在2007年至2011年期间是王老吉红罐凉茶这一事实。涉案广告语由于在表达上不真实、不恰当且遗漏了重要的信息，足以导致相关消费者误解，侵犯了二原告的正当利益，损害了公平平等的竞争秩序，构成反不正当竞争法第九条所规制的虚假宣传。

【点评】

本案是广药集团与加多宝公司系列诉讼案件中第一起生效裁判，法院在判决中对虚假宣传的判断标准、原告提起此类诉讼的主体资格等问题予以了明确，对于类似案件的处理具有一定借鉴意义。首先，作为以鼓励和保护公平竞争为目标的反不正当竞争法，并不排斥经营者利用广告或者其他方式对其商品或服务加以宣传推广，但是，经营者的宣传行为必须符合公认的商业道德，不得以引人误解的宣传方式攫取不正当的竞争优势，损害其他经营者的合法权益，扰乱社会经济秩序。虚假宣传的判断不应局限于广告宣传的具体内容是否真实。即使相关广告宣传的内容有据可查、确有出处，但如果其表述内容、表达方式失之片面，或者是以歧义性语言或者其他引人误解的方式进行宣传，则因其容易造成相关公众误解，仍应将其认定为虚假宣传。其次，反不正当竞争法不仅仅要制止不正当竞争行为，同时也鼓励和保护公平的市场竞争，因此，对于包括虚假宣传在内的不正当竞争纠纷，仍然应当严格按照民事诉讼法的规定审查原告的诉讼主体资格，以具有直接利害关系作为原告提起诉讼的前提条件。

Case 2

False Advertisement Dispute on “No. 1 Canned Beverage in China”

Plaintiff: Guangzhou Pharmaceuticals Group Co., Ltd.

Guangzhou Wang Lao Ji Health Industry Co., Ltd.

Defendant: Jia Duo Bao (China) Beverage Co., Ltd.

Guangdong Jia Duo Bao Beverage and Food Co., Ltd.

Case brief

GPG and WLJ are trademark owner and user of “Wang Lao Ji in Chinese” series trademarks. The trademark was ever authorized to be used on herbal tea in red can by Hong Dao Group in 1995, and the use was arbitrated to stop in 2012. Hong Dao Group is the company that invested and established JDB China and JDB Guangdong. Since May 2012, JDB China and JDB Guangdong used “Jia Duo Bao in Chinese” trademark on their herbal tea product, and used the advertisement like “Jia Duo Bao herbal tea has been awarded ‘No. 1 Canned Beverage in China’ for seven consecutive years” on various media according to the seven certificates of awards issued by China Industry Enterprise Information Center from 2008 to 2014. The awards show: “According to investigation and statistics, the canned Wang Lao Jie beverage you manufactured was awarded No. 1 canned beverage of the highest sales amount nationwide in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.” “According to investigation and statistics, the canned beverage you manufactured was awarded No. 1 canned beverage of the highest sales amount nationwide in 2012.” “According to investigation and statistics, the Jia Duo Bao canned beverage you manufactured was awarded No. 1 canned beverage of the highest sales amount nationwide in 2013.” The two Plaintiffs filed lawsuit with court based on the above, claiming the two Defendants’ advertisement constituted false advertisement.

The court holds that the sued advertisement shows the main content that Jia Duo Bao herbal tea was awarded No. 1 Canned Beverage in China for seven consecutive years. As Jia Duo Bao Group used Wang Lao Ji trademark before 2012, the sued advertisement was an expression using selected information from the “Certificates of Statistics and Investigation Information”. The sued advertisement has difference from the fact indeed, concealing the fact from the consumers that the canned herbal tea manufactured by Jia Duo Bao Group from 2007 to 2011 was Wang Lao Ji herbal tea in red can. The sued advertisement was not true and improper in expression, missed important information, would cause misunderstanding from relative consumers, so it infringed legitimate interests of the two Plaintiffs, damaged competition order of fairness and equality, and constituted false advertisement regulated by Article 9 of Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

Comments

This case obtained the first effective Judgment among the series lawsuits between GPG and JDB. In the Judgment, the court clarified the issues of criteria of false advertisement and qualification of plaintiff of such lawsuits. The Judgment can be used for reference in dealing with similar cases.

1.Issue of criteria of false advertisement

The Anti-Unfair Competition Law, aiming at encouraging and protecting fair competition, does not exclude an operator’s use of advertisement or other means to publicize and promote its product and service. However, the operator’s advertising act should conform to commonly-accepted commercial morality, and should not give misleading information to obtain improper competitive advantage, damage other operators’ legitimate interests, or disturb the social economic order. To recognize false advertisement should not limit to whether the content of the advertisement is true or not. Even if the content of the advertisement has a true source, if the content and the expression means are incomplete, or the advertisement uses discriminatory expression or other misleading means, the advertisement will easily cause misunderstanding of relative public and should be recognized as false advertisement.

2.Issue of qualification of plaintiff of unfair competition lawsuits

The Anti-Unfair Competition Law shall not only crack down unfair competition acts but encourage and protect fair market competition. Therefore, for unfair competition dispute including false advertisement, plaintiff’s qualification shall be strictly examined according to regulation of Civil Procedural Law, i.e. having direct relation of interests shall be the precondition of plaintiff to initiate such a lawsuit regarding unfair competition.

案例三：“一种聊天机器人系统”发明专利权无效行政案

原告:苹果电脑贸易（上海）有限公司（简称苹果公司）

被告:国家知识产权局专利复审委员会（简称专利复审委员会）

第三人:上海智臻网络科技有限公司（简称智臻公司）

【案情】

智臻公司是名称为“一种聊天机器人系统”的发明专利（简称本专利）的专利权人。2012年11月19日，苹果公司针对本专利权向专利复审委员会提出了无效宣告请求。2013年9月3日，专利复审委员会作出第21307号无效宣告请求审查决定，认定本专利符合《专利法》和《专利法实施细则》的相关规定，维持本专利权有效。苹果公司不服，提起行政诉讼。

法院认为：根据本专利说明书的记载，实现游戏功能是本专利实现拟人化的一种表现形式，并非拟人化的附加功能。游戏功能也应当是本专利权利要求1所记载的必要技术特征。然而，本专利说明书仅仅记载了具有一个游戏服务器以及提到实现互动游戏的设想，而对于游戏服务器与聊天机器人的其他部件如何连接完全没有记载。此外，根据说明书的记载和教导，本专利的聊天机器人系统中，如果用户输入的是和游戏相关的语句，即使其能够由过滤器分析处理，其也只是被过滤器判断为自然语句或格式化语句，而送到人工智能服务器或查询服务器中，而根本不可能送到游戏服务器中。由此可见，本专利说明书未充分公开如何实现本专利权利要求1所限定的游戏功能，违反了《专利法》第二十六条第三款的规定，本专利权应当被宣告无效。由于本专利说明书关于如何实现游戏功能未充分公开，而且说明书中仅仅在形式上记载了游戏服务器，未进一步说明游戏服务器的组成部分和工作机理，“游戏服务器”的有关特征没有得到说明书的支持，本专利权利要求1不符合《专利法》第二十六条第四款的规定。由于本专利权利要求1没有清楚限定将何种语句转发至游戏服务器，说明书也难以进行解释，过滤器与三个服务器之间的连接关系不清楚，本专利权利要求1不符合《专利法实施细则》第二十条第一款的规定，应当被宣告无效。专利复审委员会维持专利权有效的决定是错误的，应当予以纠正。法院判决：撤销被诉决定;专利复审委员会重新作出决定。

【点评】

专利制度的核心价值在于以“公开”换“保护”，即专利权人公开其技术方案以获得对其发明创造享有专利的独占权。权利要求书和说明书是申请专利时最重要的两份文件。说明书是申请人公开其发明创造的详细技术文件，为确定权利要求提供依据，并用于解释权利要求，是整个专利的基础。而权利要求书的作用就是专利权人在说明书对发明创造所做公开的基础上，请求给予的保护范围。根据我国专利相关法律规定的授权条件，专利说明书应当对发明创造作出清楚、完整的说明，以所属技术领域的技术人员能够实现为准。权利要求书应当以说明书为依据，说明要求专利保护的范围。一份符合授权条件的专利文件，必须满足上述条件。即便是一项好的技术创新，如果专利申请文件撰写不好，就可能在授权阶段被驳回或者在获得授权后被宣告无效。近年来，计算机软件专利纠纷频发，本案对计算机软件领域的专利保护与专利权有效性的认定具有重要示范作用，特别是对《专利法》第二十六条第三款、第四款之间的关系进行了有益的探索和明确，有利于专利授权确权案件裁判标准的统一。

Case 3

An Administrative Case of Patent Invalidation of an Invention of “A Chatting Robot System”

Plaintiff: The Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Defendant: The Patent Review Board of the State Intellectual Property Office

Third Party: Shanghai Zhizhen Network Science & Technology Limited

Case brief

Zhizhen Company is a patentee of a patent invention titled “A Chatting Robot System” (Patent). The Apple Company filed a request with SIPO to invalidate the Patent on November 19, 2012. SIPO issued its No.21307 decision to affirm that the Patent is in compliance with the Patent Law and the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law and sustain the Patent on September 3, 2013. The Apple Company was dissatisfactory and brought an administrative lawsuit to the court.

The court held that according to the description of the specification of the Patent, fulfillment of game function is an expression form of the anthropomorphism that the Patent persues rather than an additional function to its anthropomorphism. Game function should also be a necessary technical feature in claim 1 of the Patent. However, the specification of the Patent merely describes that there is a game server and addresses an idea for fulfillment of an interactive game without a word to describe how the game server connects to the other components of the chatting robot. In addition, according to the description of the specification and what it teaches, even if the filter of the chatting robot system of the Patent can analyze and process an input statement relevant to the game, the filter will identify the statement as a natural sentence or a formative sentence and transmit it to the artificial intelligence server or query server instead of the game server. Hence, the specification of the Patent does not sufficiently disclose how to fulfill the game function defined in claim 1, which violates Paragraph 3 Article 26 of the Patent Law and the Patent should be invalidated. The specification of the Patent fails to sufficiently disclose how to fulfill the game function but merely mentions a game server without further description about the composition of the game server and its working mechanism, it does not support the relevant feature of “game server”, and claim 1 of the Patent is not incompliance with Paragraph 4 Article 26 of the Patent Law. Claim 1 of the Patent does not clearly define what kind of statement is transmitted to the game server, it’s hardly interpreted with the specification, and the connective relationship of the filter with the three servers is not clear. Therefore, claim 1 of the Patent is not incompliance with Paragraph 1 Article 20 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law and should be invalidated. PRB is wrong to sustain the Patent and its mistake should be corrected. The court ordered that the decision was repealed and PRB was ordered to issue a new decision.

Comments

The core value of the patent system is based on a quid pro quo of “protection” in return for “disclosure”, that’s said, the patentee discloses its technical solution for acquiring the patent monopoly of its invention and creation. The claims and the specification are the two most important documents in a patent application. The specification as the detailed technical document to disclose its invention and creation is the basis of a patent and it provides the ground for determining the claims and is also used for interpretation of the claims. The claims play a role to define the protection scope requested by the patent applicant on the basis of the disclosure of its invention and creation. According to the conditions for granting a patent as set out in the relevant provisions of the Patent Law in our country, the patent specification should clearly and comprehensively describe the invention and creation to such an extent that the skilled person of the art can fulfill it. The claims should state the requested protection scope based on the specification. The documentation of a patent must meet the conditions above for grant of a patent. A poorly drafted patent application may lead to rejection of the patent application during the patent prosecution or result in invalidation of the patent after the grant even if the technology innovation is indeed a good one. Patent disputes frequently occur in the computer software sector in recent years. This case can be used as an important example to show how to protect a patent and how to appreciate the effectiveness of a patent in the computer software field. Particularly, this case provides a beneficial exploration in and clarification about the relationship between Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4 of Article 26 of the Patent Law, which is helpful to unify the judgment standards in patent prosecution and patent invalidation cases.

案例四：“滴滴打车”商标权侵权纠纷案

原告：广州市睿驰计算机科技有限公司（简称睿驰公司）

被告：北京小桔科技有限公司（简称小桔公司）

【案情】

睿驰公司是第35类和第38类“嘀嘀”和“滴滴”文字商标的权利人，前者核定服务项目为商业管理、组织咨询、替他人推销等，后者包括信息传送、计算机辅助信息和图像传送等。睿驰公司认为小桔公司经营的“滴滴打车”（最初为“嘀嘀打车”）在服务软件程序端显著标注“滴滴”字样，服务内容为借助移动互联网及软件客户端，采集信息进行后台处理、选择、调度和对接，使司乘双方可以通过手机中的网络地图确认对方位置，联系并及时完成服务，属于典型的提供通讯类服务，还同时涉及替出租车司机推销、进行商业管理和信息传递等性质的服务，与睿驰公司注册商标核定的两类商标服务内容存在重合，侵犯其注册商标专用权，要求小桔公司停止使用该名称，公开消除影响。

法院认为：在通常情形下，确认是否侵犯商标权，应综合考虑被控侵权行为使用的商标或标识与注册商标的相似度，两者使用商品或服务的相似度，以及两者共存是否容易引起相关公众对来源的混淆误认等因素。本案中，从标识本身看，“滴滴打车”服务使用的图文组合标识具有较强的显著性，与睿驰公司的文字商标区别明显。睿驰公司所称其商标涵盖的商务和电信两类商标的特点，均非“滴滴打车”服务的主要特征，而是其商业性质的体现以及运行方式的必然选择。此外，考虑到睿驰公司商标、“滴滴打车”图文标识使用的实际情形，亦难以导致相关公众混淆误认。综上，“滴滴打车”的服务内容与睿驰公司注册商标核定使用的类别不同，商标本身亦存在明显区别，其使用行为并不构成对睿驰公司的经营行为产生混淆来源的影响，小桔公司对“滴滴打车”图文标识的使用，未侵犯睿驰公司商标权。据此，法院判决：驳回睿驰公司的诉讼请求。

【点评】

随着“互联网 ”商业模式的推广，通过应用软件提供服务已成为普遍经营方式。由于应用软件的名称往往比较简短，可选用的文字、图案相当有限，应用软件名称与注册商标之间的冲突不可避免，因应用软件名称引发的商标侵权纠纷也日渐增多。司法实践中，被告通过应用软件提供的服务与原告注册商标核定使用的服务是否构成相同或类似服务，往往成为争议的焦点。本案中，法院并未仅以“滴滴打车”服务涉及电信、软件、商业等为由抽象认定其与电信、软件、商业等服务类似，而是紧紧抓住不同服务的本质属性和主要特征，综合考虑不同服务的目的、内容、方式、对象、混淆可能性等因素，最终认定“滴滴打车”服务本质仍然是为客户提供运输信息和运输经纪服务。本案判决具有鲜明的时代特点，其中蕴含的抓本质、抓重点的分析方法为“互联网 ”商业模式下正确认定类似服务提供了重要借鉴。

Case 4

“DiDi” Trademark Infringement Dispute

Plaintiff: Guangzhou Riicy Technology Ltd.

Defendant: Beijing Xiaoju Science and Technology Ltd.

Case Brief

Riicy is the holder of the word mark “嘀嘀” in category No. 35 and

“滴滴” in category No. 38. The approved services of “嘀嘀” are commercial management, organization consultation and

sales promotion for others, etc. and the approved services of “滴滴” including information transfer, computer supplementary information and image transfer, etc. Riicy alleges that “滴滴打车” (original name “嘀嘀打车”) ran by Xiaoju is remarkably marked “滴滴” on the program-end of the service software, the content of its service is collecting information for background processing, choosing, dispatching and matching by using mobile internet and client-end application, so that both the driver and client can know the place of each other through the online map, contact each other and fulfill the service on time. It is typically an application that provides communication service, the service of promoting sales for taxi drivers, management business and information transfer services, which fall within the scope of the approved services of the two categories of Riicy’s registered trademark and have infringed Riicy’s exclusive right to use its registered trademark. Riicy requires that Xiaoju stops using the name, and eliminate the effects openly.

This court holds that: under usual conditions to affirm trademark infringement, the court should overall evaluate the similarity between the infringing trademark or logo and the registered trademark, the similarity of the products or services, and the factors that may cause public confusion. In this case, in light of the logo itself, the image-text logo of

“滴滴打车” is of relatively strong distinctiveness. It is distinguished significantly with Riicy’s word mark. The features of the two categories’ trademark, covering business and telecommunication claimed by Riicy, are not the main feature of “滴滴打车” service, but the embody of its business nature and inevitable choice of its mode of business operation. Moreover, given the actual use of the trademark of Riicy and the image-text logo of “滴滴打车”, it is difficult to cause relevant public confusion. In conclusion, the service content of “滴滴打车” is in different category with the approved service of Riicy’s registered trademark, and the trademark itself also is distinctive, so using “滴滴打车” will not cause source confusion for Riicy’s operation. Xiaoju doesn’t infringe Riicy’s trademark right of using the image-text logo of “滴滴打车”.

Comments

As the business mode of “Internet ” is spreading, providing services through

application software becomes a general mode of business operation. Because of the short name of application software and the limited choice of word and image, the conflict between the name of application software and the registered trademark is inevitable and the number of the trademark infringement disputes caused by the name of application software are increase gradually. In juridical practice, whether the service provided by the defendant through application software is the same or similar service with the plaintiff’s approved service of the registered trademark is often the crucial issue of a dispute. In this case, the court doesn’t abstractly hold that “滴滴打车”, because “滴滴打车”involves telecommunication, software and business, is the similar service with telecommunication, software, business, etc., but holds on to the keys of essential attributes of different services and main features, overall evaluates the factors like purpose, content, pattern, the possibility of confusion of different services, ultimately holds that “滴滴打车” is essentially a service providing transportation information and transportation manage service for client. The judgement of this case has distinct characteristics of that time, where the analysis method of seizing essence and emphasis provides an important reference to accurately decide the similar service under “internet ” business mode.

案例五：“清样”商标异议复审行政纠纷案

原告:安国市金泰副食品有限责任公司（简称金泰公司）

被告：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）

第三人：湖北稻花香酒业股份有限公司（简称稻花香公司）

【案情】

被异议商标为第8078350号“清样”商标，由金泰公司申请注册在啤酒等商品上。稻花香公司针对该商标向商标局提出异议申请。商标局作出裁定，对被异议商标予以核准注册。稻花香公司向商标评审委员会申请复审，其主要理由之一为金泰公司申请注册被异议商标构成2001年修正的《商标法》第四十一条第一款所指的“以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得注册”之情形，依法不应核准。商标评审委员会认定：金泰公司的大量商标注册行为具有明显的复制、抄袭他人较高知名度商标的故意，扰乱了正常的商标注册管理秩序，有损于公平竞争的市场秩序，已构成《商标法》第四十一条第一款所指“以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得注册”之情形，应不予核准注册，据此裁定：被异议商标不予核准注册。

一审法院认为：《商标法》第四十一条第一款的规定适用于注册商标撤销程序，不适用于商标异议程序，商标评审委员会适用法律错误，据此判决：撤销商标评审委员会作出的被诉裁定。

二审法院认为：《商标法》第四十一条第一款规定的立法精神在于贯彻公序良俗原则，维护良好的商标注册、管理秩序，营造良好的商标市场环境，该项立法精神应当贯穿于商标授权及撤销程序的始终，故商标异议程序中可以参照前述规定。商标评审委员会应当参照而不是直接适用前述规定，其法律适用方法确有不妥，但是，其裁定结论正确，并无撤销的必要。据此，二审法院判决：撤销原审判决；驳回金泰公司的一审诉讼请求。

【点评】

本案的争议焦点是《商标法》第四十一条第一款关于禁止以欺骗手段或者其他不正当手段取得商标注册的规定是否可适用于商标异议程序。对此，实践中存在不同的认识。一种观点认为前述规定的立法精神应当贯穿于商标申请审查、核准及撤销程序的始终，故该款规定当然可以适用于商标异议程序。另一种观点认为该款规定只能适用于注册商标撤销程序。二审法院对前述两种观点均未采纳，而是从法律解释的角度，认为《商标法》在商标授权程序中未规定与前述条款类似的条款，属于法律漏洞，执法机关在个案中应当填补该漏洞，填补的方法是参照适用（或称类推适用）第四十一条第一款的规定。二审法院在本案中阐明的法律适用方法，对于指导类似案件的处理具有重要意义。

Case 5

Case of Administrative Disputes over Review on “清样” Trademark Oppositions

Plaintiff: Anguo City Jintai Food Co., Ltd.

Defendant: Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for Industry and Commerce

Third Party: Hubei Daohuaxiang Winery Co., Ltd.

Case brief

The Opposed Trademark is the No. 8078350 “清样” Trademark, applied by Jintai Company with designated goods of beer. Daohuaxiang Company filed an opposition application to the Trademark Office against such Trademark. According to the ruling made by the Trademark Office, the registration of the Trademark was approved. Daohuaxiang Company applied to the TRAB for review with one of the major grounds as follows: the application for registration of the Opposed Trademark by Jintai Company falls into the circumstance specified by Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law amended in 2001, namely “the registration of a trademark was acquired by fraud or any other improper means”, and its registration shall not be approved according to law. The TRAB holds that the act of registering a lot of trademarks committed by Jintai Company bears obvious intention of copying and plagiarizing others’ trademarks with relatively higher popularity, disturbs the normal order of trademark registration and administration, impairs the market order of fair competition and constitutes the circumstance specified by Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law, namely “the registration of a trademark was acquired by fraud or any other improper means”, which shall not be approved. Therefore, the TRAB made the decision that the registration of the Opposed Trademark shall not be approved.

The court of the first instance holds that, the provisions in Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law are applicable to the cancellation procedure of registered trademarks instead of trademark opposition procedure. Therefore, the TRAB incorrectly applied laws, and the Sued Judgment made by the TRAB shall be cancelled.

The court of the second instance holds that the legislative spirit of Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law is to implement the public order and good custom, maintaining the sound order of trademark registration and administration and creating a favorable trademark market environment, which shall be insisted from trademark authorization to cancellation. Therefore, the aforesaid provision can be referred in the trademark opposition procedure. What the TRAB shall do is to refer to rather than directly apply the aforesaid provision. Although the method of law application is somehow improper, the TRAB’s decision is correct and it is unnecessary to cancel such decision. Therefore, the court of the second instance gave the ruling that the judgment of first instance shall be cancelled, and the claim of Jintai Company in the first instance shall be refused.

Comments

In this Case, the focus of dispute lies in whether

the provision of Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law, namely “the registration of a trademark acquired by fraud or any other improper means shall be prohibited”, is applicable to the trademark opposition procedure. On this subject, there are different opinions in practice. One opinion holds that the legislative spirit of the aforesaid provision shall be implemented from trademark application examination, approval to cancellation, so such provision is certainly applicable to the trademark opposition procedure. According to another opinion, such provision shall be applicable to the cancellation of registered trademarks only. Without adopting any of the aforesaid two opinions, the court of the second instance holds that, from the perspective of legal interpretation, the Trademark Law has no article similar to the aforesaid provision in the trademark authorization procedure, which belongs to a legal loophole. In individual cases, law enforcement agencies shall compensate such legal loophole, and the method available is to apply by reference (or called as to apply by analogy) the provision in Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law. The method of law application displayed by the court of the second instance in this Case will be of great significance for the handling of similar cases.

案例六：《红色娘子军》著作权侵权纠纷案

原告：梁信。

被告：中央芭蕾舞团。

【案情】

1961年，上海天马电影制片厂根据梁信创作的电影文学剧本《红色娘子军》拍摄成同名电影并公映发行。1964年，中央芭蕾舞团将电影剧本改编为芭蕾舞剧《红色娘子军》并公演。1993年6月26日，梁信和中央芭蕾舞团依据1991年6月实施的《著作权法》订立了一份协议书，协议书中确认了芭蕾舞剧《红色娘子军》系根据梁信的电影文学剧本《红色娘子军》改编而成，并认同了当年改编过程中得到了梁信的应允和帮助。梁信认为，根据当时的法律规定，著作权许可使用合同的有效期不超过十年，故该协议应于2003年6月期满失效。为此，梁信诉请法院要求判令中央芭蕾舞团停止侵权，即在未经另行许可的情况下，不得演出根据其作品改编的芭蕾舞剧《红色娘子军》；公开赔礼道歉；赔偿经济损失50万元及律师费5万元。

一审法院认为：中央芭蕾舞团1964年将梁信的电影文学剧本《红色娘子军》改编为芭蕾舞剧时，得到了梁信的许可，虽然这种许可没有书面形式，但结合现有证据可以认定著作权许可使用合同有效；1993年6月，双方签订的协议书不属作品许可使用合同，而是双方就表演者表演改编作品给付原作者报酬的约定；2003年6月以后，中央芭蕾舞团持续演出芭蕾舞剧《红色娘子军》不构成未经许可使用侵犯梁信著作权，但应依法向梁信支付相应的表演改编作品报酬，对梁信由此而产生的经济损失予以一定的赔偿。关于署名权问题，中央芭蕾舞团在其官方网站介绍涉案剧目《红色娘子军》时，出现未给梁信署名的情况，构成对梁信署名权的侵犯，应当予以赔礼道歉。据此，判决：中央芭蕾舞团赔偿梁信经济损失及诉讼合理支出共十二万元；向梁信书面赔礼道歉。一审判决后，原、被告均提起上诉。二审法院维持原判。

【点评】

本案中，法院结合特定的政治、法律和社会环境，对著作权法颁布实施之前的特定历史时期，作者对于他人改编其作品的应允和帮助是否构成事实上的许可行为，以及对著作权法实施后，双方签订的协议是许可使用合同还是演出报酬约定的性质等问题进行了全面辨析。本案的裁判，既严格遵守著作权法的立法精神，同时又考虑到了特定历史时期的政治、文化因素，对于红色艺术经典作品芭蕾舞剧《红色娘子军》改编权、表演权的许可行为进行了全面分析并作出认定，取得了良好的法律效果与社会效果。对于今后类似红色艺术经典作品著作权纠纷的处理，具有借鉴和参考意义。

Case 6

Case of Infringement Dispute over the Copyright of The Red Detachment of Women

Plaintiff: LIANG Xin

Defendant: The National Ballet of China

Case brief

In 1961, Shanghai Tianma Film Studio shot the film adaption of The Red Detachment of Women created by LIANG Xin, and released to the public. In 1964, The National Ballet of China adapted the film script into a ballet drama named as The Red Detachment of Women and released to the public. On Jun. 26, 1993, LIANG Xin and The National Ballet of China executed an agreement as per the Copyright Law implemented since June 1991. The agreement confirmed that the ballet drama

named as The Red Detachment of Women was adapted as per the film literary script The Red Detachment of Women, and recognized that the then adaption was permitted and assisted by LIANG Xin. LIANG Xin holds that, as per the then laws in force, the valid term of a copyright licensing contract shall not exceed ten (10) years, so the aforesaid agreement shall expire to become invalid in June 2003. Therefore, LIANG Xin filed a litigation to and requested the court to order The National Ballet of China to: cease infringement, that is, The National Ballet of China shall not perform the ballet drama named as The Red Detachment of Women unless it is otherwise permitted by LIANG Xin; make a public apology; and compensate LIANG Xin for its economic losses of RMB 500,000 and attorney fees of RMB 50,000.

The court of the first instance held that, when The National Ballet of China adapted the film literary script The Red Detachment of Women created by LIANG Xin into a ballet drama in 1964, he obtained the license of LIANG Xin. Although such license was not made in the written form, the existing evidence can be combined to identify that the copyright licensing contract is valid. The agreement executed by the parties in June 1993 only specified the remuneration payable to the original author for the performance of the adapted works and shall not serve as a works licensing contract. The continuous performance of the ballet drama named as The Red Detachment of Women by The National Ballet of China after June 2003 shall not constitute the use without license or infringement on LIANG Xin’s copyright. However, according to law, The National Ballet of China shall pay corresponding remuneration to LIANG Xin for the performance of the adapted works, and compensate LIANG Xin the economic losses suffered therefore. With regard to the right of signature, when The National Ballet of China introduced the drama The Red Detachment of Women involved in the case at its official website, he failed to add the name of LIANG Xin, and infringed on the right of signature possessed by LIANG Xin, for which The National Ballet of China shall make an apology. Therefore, the court of the first instance ordered The National Ballet of China to compensate LIANG Xin for its economic losses and reasonable expenses on litigation equal to RMB 120,000, and make written apologies to LIANG Xin. After the judgment of first instance was made, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant instituted an appeal, but the court of the second instance maintained the original judgment.

Comments

In this Case, the court, in combination with the specific political, legal and social environment, made a comprehensive analysis on such matters as whether the permit and assistance offered by the original author to others for the adaption of the works prior to the implementation of the Copyright Law constitute a license behavior de facto, and whether the agreement executed by the parties upon implementation of the Copyright Law serves as a licensing agreement or only specifies the remuneration for performance. By complying with the legislative spirit of the Copyright Law and considers the political and cultural factors at the specific history period, the judge of this Case makes a comprehensive analysis and determination on the license act concerning The Red Detachment of Women’s adaptation and performance right, which achieves sound legal effect and social effect. This judgment will be of reference significance for the handling of dispute over copyright on red classic works in the future.

案例七：“超级MT”著作权侵权及不正当竞争案

原告：北京乐动卓越科技有限公司（简称乐动卓越公司）

被告：北京昆仑乐享网络技术有限公司（简称昆仑乐享公司）

被告：北京昆仑在线网络科技有限公司（简称昆仑在线公司）

被告：北京昆仑万维科技股份有限公司（简称昆仑万维公司）

【案情】

乐动卓越公司是移动终端游戏《我叫MT on line》、《我叫MT 2》（统称《我叫MT》）的著作权人。前述游戏改编自系列3D动漫《我叫MT》。乐动卓越公司对游戏名称、人物名称享有独占被许可使用权，对人物形象享有美术作品的著作权。乐动卓越公司认为三被告未经其许可，在《超级MT》游戏中使用与《我叫MT》游戏名称、人物名称、人物形象相近的名称和人物，侵犯了乐动卓越公司的著作权。而且，三被告在《超级MT》游戏中抄袭了《我叫MT》游戏的名称，且两游戏的人物名称也十分相似。在游戏的宣传过程中，使用与《我叫MT》游戏相关的宣传用语。三被告的行为已构成不正当竞争行为，违反反不正当竞争法第五条第（二）项、第九条第一款的规定。

法院认为：由于涉案游戏名称和游戏人物名称不构成作品，且被诉游戏亦未使用乐动卓越公司在其改编作品中的独创性表达，故三被告的行为未侵犯乐动卓越公司的著作权；乐动卓越公司的游戏名称及人物名称构成手机游戏类服务上的特有名称，三被告在明知的情况下提供被诉游戏的下载及宣传，构成擅自使用原告知名服务特有名称的行为。昆仑乐享公司、昆仑在线公司、昆仑万维公司宣传的内容并非客观事实，构成虚假宣传行为。据此，法院判决：三被告停止不正当竞争行为；三被告连带赔偿经济损失和合理支出53 5000元。

【点评】

作为新兴文化产业的分支，移动终端游戏是文化与科技融合的产物，具有巨大的发展空间和市场前景，受到了广泛关注。本案即是一起涉及移动终端游戏的著作权侵权及不正当竞争纠纷。被控侵权游戏《超级MT》在游戏名称、人物名称、游戏的宣传、APP头像等多方面均存在与《我叫MT》游戏靠近的情形，导致本案的事实细碎且复杂，涉及的法律问题繁多且疑难。本案对移动终端游戏著作权权属证明责任的分配、游戏名称及人物名称等简短词组能否构成文字作品、改编作品的著作权保护、存在瑕疵的公证书效力的认定、移动终端游戏名称是否能够构成知名商品特有名称、虚假宣传行为的认定等诸多法律问题，均作了详尽、细致的分析阐述。在民事责任承担上，充分考虑了权利游戏的市场份额、被控侵权人的主观过错等因素，最大程度上保护了游戏权利人的利益。本案明确了对移动终端游戏知识产权法律保护的思路和方向，对通过司法保护推动移动终端游戏产业的健康有序发展，起到了重要影响和示范作用。

Case 7

“Super MT” copyright infringement and unfair competition

Plaintiff: Beijing LOCOJOY Science Limited Company

Defendant: Beijing Kunlun Yuexiang Network TechnologyLimited Company

Beijing Kunlun Online Network TechnologyLimited Company

Beijing Kunlun Web ScienceCorporation

Case brief

LOCOJOY enjoys the copyright of the mobile terminal game I’m MT on line and I’m MT 2 (hereinafter refers as I’m MT), which adapted from the serial 3D comic I’m MT. LOCOJOY Company enjoys the exclusive licensee right to use the game name and character name as well as the artwork copyright of the character image. LOCOJOY held that the three Defendants infringed its copyright because they used the names and characters in the game Super MT, among which, the names and characters were similar to those in the game I’m MT. In addition, the three Defendants plagiarized the name of the game I’m MT in their game Super MT and the character names in the two games were extremely similar. The terms relevant to the game I’m MT was used in the promotion. The acts of the three Defendants have constituted unfair competition act, which violated Article 5.2 and Article 9.1 of the Anti-unfair Competition Laws.

The Court held that because the involved game name and character name did not constitute artwork and the involved game did not use the original expression in the adapted work of LOCOJOY, the acts of the three Defendants did not infringe the copyright of LOCOJOY; Being aware of that the game name and character name of LOCOJOY constituted unique name of the service under the class of mobile game, the three Defendants provided the download and promotion of the Accused game, which constituted the act of using the unique name of the well-known service of the Plaintiff without authorization. Kunlun Yuexiang, Kunlun Online and Kunlun Web made false promotion because the contents were not fact at all. Accordingly, the Court made judgment that the three Defendants shall cease the acts of unfair competition and compensate economic loss and reasonable expense totaling RMB 535,000.

Comments

As the branch of emerging cultural industry, mobile game is the combination of culture and technology, thus receiving extensive attention because of huge development space and broad market prospect. This case is indeed a dispute over copyright infringement and unfair competition involving mobile game. The Accused infringing game Super MT was similar to the game I’m MT in respects of the game name, character name, promotion of the game and head portrait of App, so this case included trivial and complicated facts with various and difficult legal issues. This case made elaborate and delicate analysis of the following issues: the allocation of responsibility concerning the copyright ownership of the mobile game, whether the short phrases of game names and character names could constitute literary works, the copyright protection of the adapted works, the determination of the efficacy of the notarial certificate containing defects, whether the name of mobile game could constitute the unique name of well-known commodity and the determination of the act of false promotion. Concerning the civil liability, the Court took the market share of the game (which enjoyed the copyright) and the subjective fault of the Accused infringer into consideration, therefore protected the interests of the copyright owner of the game at the highest level. Defining the idea and direction of the intellectual property legal protection of the mobile game, this case had significant influence and exemplary effects by promoting healthy and orderly development of the industry of mobile game.

案例八：旅游卫视台标著作权侵权纠纷案

原告：海南海视旅游卫视传媒有限责任公司（简称旅游卫视）

被告：浙江爱美德旅游用品有限公司（简称爱美德公司）

被告：北京京东叁佰陆拾度电子商务有限公司（简称京东公司）

【案情】

爱美德公司在其生产销售的旅行箱产品上将与旅游卫视台标十分近似的图标作为商标使用，并在京东公司平台上销售。旅游卫视认为二被告的行为侵犯了其对台标享有的著作权，起诉要求二被告停止侵权并要求爱美德公司赔偿经济损失、合理开支200万元。

爱美德公司为证明其使用的商标是其独立设计且使用在先，提交了数十份证据。法院在审理中发现：多份销售合同所载的多个联系电话在合同载明的签订日期尚未启用或尚未由七位升位至八位，明显有悖常理。爱美德公司亦认可部分合同日期存在倒签的情况。在上述问题被发现后，爱美德公司又提交了全国皮革工业标准化技术委员会及国家皮革制品质量监督检验中心出具的证明。该证明称：2003年爱美德公司的箱包产品曾在国家皮革制品质量监督检验中心进行检验，现保存有一只带有涉案图标的箱包样品在该中心仓库。该时间早于旅游卫视启用台标的时间。法院赴两协会进行了调查，全国皮革工业标准化技术委员会秘书长赵某及国家皮革制品质量监督检验中心副主任田某均坚称上述箱包确系2003年检验后存于检验中心仓库。但法院在勘验该箱包时发现，该箱包的隐蔽部位印有的涉案商标标注有“®”，而爱美德公司涉案商标申请注册、获准注册的年份分别为2005年和2008年。在后续调查中，田某向法院坦白，称其所作证言系受赵某教唆，涉案箱包实为赵某2014年才交由其中心放进仓库的，该中心经办人到庭予以证实。

法院认为：爱美德公司提交的为证明其就涉案商标使用在先的数十份证据均不能予以采信，爱美德公司侵犯了旅游卫视台标的著作权。综合考虑涉案台标的独创性程度及知名度、爱美德公司对台标的使用方式、使用持续时间、公司规模等因素，爱美德公司因侵权行为获利巨大，判决其停止侵权并赔偿经济损失200万元。同时，一审法院认定爱美德公司提交的上述多份关键证据系虚假证据，全国皮革工业标准化技术委员会出具虚假证言，上述行为情节较为恶劣，严重妨碍民事诉讼，对上述两单位分别罚款100万元和10万元，并对全国皮革工业标准化技术委员会的直接责任人员赵某予以罚款1万元。

【点评】

依法严惩不诚信诉讼行为是加强知识产权司法保护的应有之义。本案系新民事诉讼法实施后，北京法院对不诚信当事人首起顶格罚款的案件，也是全国单起案件罚款总额最高的案件。本案被告爱美德公司提交多份关键虚假证据，且在其在先证据被发现系伪造后继续变本加厉提交虚假证据及证言，上述证据如未被发现系伪造，极有可能导致原被告利益出现重大反转。上述行为干扰诉讼秩序，浪费司法资源、损害对方当事人权益，无视司法权威，由此法院对其处以最高额100万元的罚款。全国皮革工业标准化技术委员会作为一个全国性的行业组织，在签订诚信诉讼保证书后为与其有业务往来的爱美德公司出具虚假证据及证言，严重干扰司法秩序，故法院对该委员会处以10万元罚款；赵某系代表该委员会伪造上述证据、出具虚假证言的直接责任人员，应当就其违法行为承担相应的责任，故法院对其处以1万元罚款。

Case 8

Dispute over Travel Satellite Channel logo copyright infringement

Plaintiff: Hainan Haishi Travel Satellite Channel Media Limited Liability Company

Defendant: Zhejiang Aimeide Tourism Product Limited Company

Beijing Jingdong 360 E-commerce Limited Company

Case brief

Aimeide Company used the trademark which was very similar to the logo of the Travel Channel on its luggage product and then sold on the platform of JD Company. Travel Channel held the act of the two Defendants infringed the copyright of its logo, therefore filed lawsuit to order the two Defendants to cease infringing act and order Aimeide Company to compensate the economic loss as well as reasonable expense totaling RMB 2,000,000.

In order to prove the trademark was used previously on its independent design, Aimeide Company submitted dozens of evidences. During trial, the Court found that many contact phone numbers stated on the distribution contracts had not been used, or the number had not been raised to eight digit from seven digit, which was obvious against common sense. Aimeide Company also admitted some contracts were signed after the contracts came into effect. After the above problems were found, Aimeide Company submitted the certificates issued by National Leather Industry Standardization Technical Committee and National Leather Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center, which declared that in 2003, the luggage products of Aimeide Company had once been examined in National Leather Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center and one luggage sample bearing the involved trademark was now stored in the warehouse of the center, whose time was earlier than the Travel Channel started to use its logo. The Court conducted investigation at the two committees, and both the secretary general Zhao of the National Leather Industry Standardization Technical Committee and vice director Tian of National Leather Products Quality Supervision and Inspection Center insisted the above luggage was indeed stored in the warehouse after inspection in 2003. However, while inspecting this luggage, the Court found the involved trademark marking with “®” on its hidden part. But Aimeide Company applied to register the involved trademark in 2005 and was granted for its registration in 2008. In the follow-up investigation, Tian confessed that his testimony was instigated by Zhao, and the involved luggage was handed over to the center by Zhao in 2014, which was confirmed at Court by the person in charge of the center.

The Court held that all the dozens of evidences submitted by Aimeide Company could not be adopted, whose purpose was to prove the involved trademark was used earlier, and Aimeide Company infringed the copyright of the logo of Travel Channel. Taking into consideration of the factors of the degree of originality and popularity of the involved logo, the features and continuous use of the logo by Aimeide Company, and the scale of Aimeide Company, Aimeide Company earned huge profit through infringing acts, the Court ruled that Aimeide Company shall cease infringing act and compensate economic loss of RMB 2,000,000. In the meantime, the court of first instance held that many crucial evidences submitted by Aimeide Company were false, among which, the National Leather Industry Standardization Technical Committee issued false testimony, the above acts are so severe, causing serious prejudice to the civil litigation, the Court imposed a fine of RMB 1,000,000 and RMB 100,000 respectively on the two organizations, with a fine of RMB 10,000 on the person in charge Zhao of the National Leather Industry Standardization Technical Committee.

Comments

Imposing severe punishment on dishonest actions is absolutely indispensable for strengthening the legal protection of intellection property. This case is the first case which the Court of Beijing imposing the maximum penalty on dishonest party as well as the highest penalty in a single case in China after the new civil procedure law was effective. In this case, the Defendant Aimeide Company firstly submitted many crucial false evidences, and after the evidence of prior use was found to be falsified, it continued submitting false evidences and testimonies. If the above false evidences were not found to be falsified, the interests of the Plaintiff and Defendant is very likely to be reversed. The above act impeded litigation order, wasted judicial resources, impaired the interests of opposed party and ignored judicial authority, therefore, the Court imposed the maximum fine of RMB 1,000,000 on Aimeide Company accordingly. As a national industrial organization, the National Leather Industry Standardization Technical Committee issued falsified evidences and testimonies after signing legal undertaking, which severely interfered with judicial order, so the Court imposed a fine of RMB 100,000 on the committee; As the person in charge, Mr. Zhao falsified the above evidences and issued false testimonies on behalf of the committee, he shall bear corresponding liabilities, and the Court imposed a fine of RMB 10,000 on him accordingly.

案例九：“雅培米粉罐”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案

原告：雅培贸易（上海）有限公司（简称雅培公司）

被告：湖南英氏营养食品有限公司（简称英氏营养食品公司）

被告：江西枫树生态科技食品有限公司（简称枫树食品公司）

被告：湖南英氏乳业有限公司（简称英氏乳业公司）

被告：北京乐友达康科技有限公司（简称乐友达康公司）

被告：邵阳市兴华塑胶有限公司（简称兴华塑胶公司）

【案情】

雅培公司是专利号为ZL200730158176.0、名称为“容器”的外观设计专利权的被许可人，有权以自己的名义提起诉讼。英氏营养食品公司、枫树食品公司、英氏乳业公司委托兴华塑胶公司设计、生产了被诉侵权的米粉罐，并在九款罐装米粉产品上使用了该米粉罐。乐友达康公司销售了上述米粉产品。雅培公司认为该米粉罐外观设计与雅培公司涉案外观设计相同。在本案起诉前，法院根据雅培公司的申请作出了停止侵害涉案外观设计专利权的民事裁定书，并于2014年6月先后向被告一至被告四送达了该民事裁定书。2014年7月、2014年8月，雅培公司委托他人在天津、北京多处营业场所公证购买了被控侵权产品。公证书显示淘宝网上仍然有众多商户在展示、销售被控侵权产品。雅培公司认为：各被告侵害了其对涉案外观设计享有的专利权，请求赔偿其经济损失100万元及合理费用10万元。

法院认为:雅培公司系涉案外观设计专利权的被许可人，涉案米粉罐侵害了雅培公司对该外观设计享有的实施权，英氏营养食品公司等四被告构成了共同侵权。乐友达康公司销售涉案米粉亦构成侵权。对于赔偿经济损失的具体数额，法院综合考虑如下因素：涉案专利为外观设计专利；涉案侵权的米粉罐在米粉产品整体价格上所占的比例及对涉案米粉产品销售的贡献率；涉案米粉产品销售范围较为广泛，销售量较大；在本院诉前停止侵权的裁定送达后两个多月的时间内，雅培公司仍然可以在市场上购买到涉案米粉，表明各被告存在严重过错。雅培公司主张100万元的经济赔偿，于法有据，应予支持。对于合理费用，根据其实际支出情况予以支持。据此，法院判决：各被告停止侵权；英氏营养食品公司、枫树食品公司、英氏乳业公司、兴华塑胶公司共同赔偿经济损失100万元及合理费用31 395元。

【点评】

本案是法院通过提高赔偿数额，加大知识产权司法保护力度的典型案例，在赔偿数额的确定上具有借鉴意义和示范作用。法院在确定本案具体赔偿数额时，既考虑到了受保护权利的类型、涉案外观设计对被控侵权产品销售的贡献率等因素，也充分考虑到侵害涉案外观设计的侵权产品多达九种，且该九种侵权产品生产销售量较大、销售范围较为广泛、持续时间较长、各被告方的主观过错非常严重，尤其是在法院发出诉前禁令后的两个多月时间内被告方仍然不停止侵权，漠视法院禁令，主观过错极为严重，故法院按照法定赔偿数额的上限确定了本案经济损失的赔偿数额，全部支持了权利人关于经济损失的索赔请求，充分弥补了权利人的经济损失，提高了对恶意侵权行为的制裁力度，彰显了法院加强知识产权司法保护力度的决心和态度，取得了良好的法律效果和社会效果。

Case 9

Case of Infringement on the Design Patent of

“Abbott Rice Flour Pot”

Plaintiff: Abbott Laboratories Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd

Defendant: Hunan Engnice Nutrition Food Co., Ltd

Jiangxi Maple Ecological Science and Technology Food Co., Ltd

Hunan Engnice Dairy Industry Co., Ltd

Beijing Le You Da Kang Science and Technology Co., Ltd

Shaoyang Xing Hua Plastic Co., Ltd

Case brief

Abbott was a licensee of the design patent right ZL200730158176.0 named as “container”, and has the right to file the civil lawsuit in its own name. Engnice Food, Maple Food, and Engnice Dairy entrusted Xing Hua Plastic to design and manufacture the accused infringing rice flour pot, and used such pot in nine kinds of canning rice flour products. Leyou also distributed these products. Abbott claimed the design of these rice flour pot was identical to the design patent claimed by Abbott. Before this suit was filed, according to the application of the Abbott, the court rendered a civil injunction on ceasing the design patent infringement, and served such injunction to the four defendants (Engnice Food, Maple Food, Engnice Dairy and Leyou) in June 2014. In July and August, 2014, Abbott entrusted its agency to separately buy the accused infringing products with notarization from several times in Tianjin and Beijing. According to the notarial certificates, there were still many merchants exhibiting and selling the infringing products in Taobao. Abbott claimed: the defendants infringed the right of the design patent claimed by Abbott and asked for a damage of RMB one million as well as the reasonable costs of RMB 100,000.

The court held that Abbott is the licensee of the claimed design patent, and the accused rice flour pots have infringed the right of implementing such design patent enjoyed by Abbott. Engnice Food and the other four defendants constituted the joint infringement. Leyou also constituted the infringement for its behavior of selling the infringing products. In respect of the damage amount, the court consider the following factors: the claimed patent was the design patent; the proportion of the price of the accused rice flour products contributed by the infringing rice flour pot and the contribution rate of the infringing rice flour pot for the sales of concerning rice flour products; the sales coverage of the accused rice flour products was relatively wide and the sales amount is relative large; in the two months after successfully serving the civil injunction on ceasing the infringement before the suit, Abbott can still buy the infringing rice flour products in the market. All of the above indicate the defendants are in serious faults, and therefore the one million damage claimed by Abbott has the legal basis and shall be upheld. And the reasonable costs can be also upheld according to the actual expenditure of Abbott. Accordingly, court order that all the defendant cease the infringement; Engnice Food, Maple Food, Engnice Dairy, Xing Hua Plastic jointly pay the Plaintiff a damage of RMB 1 million and the reasonable cost of RMB 31,395.

Comments

This case is a typical case where the court strengthens the judicial protection of the intellectual property via increasing the damage amount, and has a certain reference significance and guiding effect on the determination of the damage. In deciding the damage amount of this case, the court not only took into account the type of claimed rights as well as the contribution of the such design for the sales of the accused products, but also comprehensively weighed the numerous facts that up to nine kinds of products are infringing ones, the concerning products and sales volume were relative large, the coverage of the sales is wide, the duration of the infringement is relative long and the subjective fault of defendants is very serious, especially in the more than two months after the court has rendered a pre-trial injunction the defendants still did not stop the infringement and disregard the court injunction. Therefore, the court decided the damage amount according to the upper limit of statutory damage and upheld all the claim of the right owner on the damage, which fully compensated for the economic losses of the plaintiff, intensified the sanction on the malicious infringement, manifested the determination and attitude of the court in strengthening the judicial protection of intellectual property rights, and realized the good legal effect and social effect at the same time.

案例十：销售计算机软件加密锁侵犯著作权罪案

公诉机关：北京市海淀区人民检察院

被告人：霍红伟、刘奕斐、段玉亭、郝丽蒙、申玲、吴素梅

【案情】

被害人广联达公司为软件开发公司，其公司官网向公众免费提供正版软件的下载，使用者下载软件后，需从广联达公司购买软件加密锁方能正常使用。自2013年4月起，被告人霍红伟身为安阳伟杰电子商务有限公司法定代表人及实际负责人，雇佣被告人吴素梅、段玉亭、郝丽蒙、申玲、刘奕斐，未经著作权人许可，利用互联网销售广联达公司享有著作权的软件的加密锁和软件破解驱动程序，以达到销售广联达公司享有著作权的软件的实质目的，非法经营数额为274 944元。被告人刘奕斐于2013年6月起参与上述犯罪，非法经营数额为189 436元。2013年10月28日，被告人霍红伟、吴素梅、段玉亭、郝丽蒙、申玲、刘奕斐被公安机关抓获归案。到案后，被告人霍红伟向被广联公司支付赔偿金50万元，广联达公司对其表示谅解。

法院认为：被告人霍红伟、吴素梅、段玉亭、郝丽蒙、申玲、刘奕斐身为安阳伟杰电子商务有限公司直接负责的主管人员或直接责任人员，以营利为目的，未经著作权人许可，以公司名义发行他人享有著作权的计算机软件，侵犯他人著作权，其中霍红伟、吴素梅、段玉亭、郝丽蒙、申玲的行为情节特别严重，刘奕斐的行为情节严重，其行为均已构成侵犯著作权罪，应予惩处，公诉机关指控罪名成立。对于被告人霍红伟及其辩护人关于应以销售侵权复制品罪追究被告人霍红伟的刑事责任的辩护意见，在案证据显示，被告人通过销售广联达软件加密锁和软件破解驱动程序，达到销售广联达公司享有著作权的计算机软件的目的，实质为发行他人作品之行为，符合侵犯著作权罪的犯罪构成，应认定为侵犯著作权罪，故对以上辩护意见不予采纳。

【点评】

当前计算机软件的侵权模式主要表现为：通过销售加密锁来销售软件，控制软件的供应和使用渠道获取对价收入。盗版加密锁的功能和目的是使他人正常使用正版软件，实际上是利用盗版加密锁绕开著作权人的技术保护措施，实质受侵害的客体是软件的著作权。本案中，被告人销售的盗版加密锁与正版加密锁的内容不同，盗版加密锁是先解锁再写锁，通过重新编码等技术手段替代性地实现了正版加密锁的加密、解密功能。判定涉案行为是否属侵犯著作权行为，要结合计算机软件的侵权模式，从行为实质上对“发行”内涵进行认定。本案被告人通过销售重新编写的加密程序，修改并解除正版软件的加密程序，变相销售他人享有著作权的软件作品，故应认定为刑法上的“发行”行为，构成侵犯著作权罪。本案是典型的新型计算机软件侵权犯罪案件，在犯罪认定过程中突破原有“作品发行”之内涵，锁定犯罪行为本质，在犯罪对象和侵权方式方面均有一定的代表性。

Case 10

Copyright Infringement Case on Selling the Encryption Locks of the Computer Software

Procuratorial Office: The People's Procuratorate of Haidian District, Beijing unicipality

Defendants: HUO Hongwei, LIU Yifei, DUAN Yuting, HAO Limeng, SHEN Ling, WU Sumei

Case Brief

The victim Glodon Company is a software development company, and its company websites supplies the download of the legitimate copy of the software to the public for free. After downloading the software, users need to purchase

the software encryption locks to use the software. Sincee April of 2013, the defendant HUO Hongwei, as the legal representative and the actual responsible person of Anyang Weijie Electronic Commerce Company, employed the defendants WU Sumei, DUAN Yuting, HAO Limeng, SHEN Ling and LIU Yifei to sell the software encryption locks copyrighted by Glodon Companyand the software cracking drivers via the internet without the authorization of the copyright owner, which actually reached a goal of selling the software copyrighted by Glodon Company. Their illegal turnover amounted RMB 274,944.The defendant LIU Yifei participated the aforementioned crime since June of 2013, and the concerning illegal turnover amounts RMB 189,436. On October 28, 2013, the defendants HUO GongWei, WU Sumei, DUAN Yuting, HAO Limeng, SHEN Ling, LIU Yifei were arrested by the Public security Buruau. Afterwards, the defendant HUO Hongwei paid a damage of RMB 500,000 to Glodon Company, who then showed understanding to him.

The Court held that, as the directly responsible managers and persons of Anyang Weijie Electronic Commerce Company Limited, the defendants HUO HongWei, WU Sumei, DUAN Yuting, HAO Limeng, SHEN Ling and LIU Yifei, without the authorization of the copyright owner, issued the computer software copyrighted by other party in the name of their company for the purpose of making profit, which infringed the copyright of the other party. Specifically, the circumstances of HUO HongWei, WU Sumei, DUAN Yuting, HAO Limeng and SHEN Ling are very serious, and the circumstance of LIU Yifei is serious, so their acts have constituted the crime of copyright infringement and should be punished. In respect of the defense of the defendant HUO HongWei and his defending lawyer that it is the crime of selling pirate copies that shall be charged, it shall not be adopted because the evidences of this case their act of selling the software encryption locks copyrighted by Glodon Companyand the software cracking drivers has actually reached the goal of selling the software copyrighted by Glodon Company Co. The essence of such act is to issue the others' work, which satisfies the constitutive elements for the copyright infringement crime and shall be affirmed as such crime.

Comments

The current mode of computer software infringement is characterized by the following: the infringers sell software through selling the software encryption locks and make money by controlling the supply and use channel. The function and purpose of the pirated encryption locks is to allow others to use the locked legitimate software, which actually bypass the technological protection measures of the copyright owner, and the object infringed here is the copyright of the software. In this case, the pirated encryption locks sold by the defendants are different from the legitimate encryption locks. The pirated encryption locks firstly unlock the software and then set up a new lock, and realized the function of encryption and decryption of the legitimate encryption lock through the technical means such as recoding, In determining whether an act constitutes copyright infringement crime or not, it is in need to consider such infringement mode, and identify the connotation of “issue” according to the essence of the acts. In this case, the defendants modify and remove the encryption program of the legitimate software through selling the recoded encryption program, which in essence is selling the software copyrighted by others. So such act should be deemed as the “issuance” defined in the Criminal Law, and constitutes the crime of copyright infringement. This case is a typical case on the new computer software infringement crimes where the court extended the original connotation of "issuance" in affirming the crimes by focusing on the nature of criminal acts, and has certain significance in identifying the criminal object and the way of the infringement.

,