十大知识产权创新案例案例一：搜狗诉奇虎阻碍浏览器安装设置不正当竞争纠纷案，接下来我们就来聊聊关于商标被驳回复审文案?以下内容大家不妨参考一二希望能帮到您!
商标被驳回复审文案
十大知识产权创新案例
案例一：搜狗诉奇虎阻碍浏览器安装设置不正当竞争纠纷案
原告：北京搜狗信息服务有限公司(简称搜狗信息公司)
原告：北京搜狗科技发展有限公司（简称搜狗科技公司）
被告：北京奇虎科技有限公司（简称奇虎科技公司）
被告：奇虎三六零软件（北京）有限公司（简称奇虎软件公司）
【案情】
搜狗科技公司与搜狗信息公司是搜狗浏览器和搜狗拼音输入法软件的相关著作权人。奇虎科技公司和奇虎软件公司同为“360安全卫士”安全软件的开发者、权利人和运营人。奇虎科技公司和奇虎软件公司利用360安全卫士软件，阻碍用户正常安装和使用搜狗浏览器，阻碍用户主动将搜狗浏览器设置为默认浏览器，捏造、散布 “搜狗输入法捆绑浏览器、搜狗浏览器无360安全卫士无法卸载”等事实。搜狗科技公司和搜狗信息公司认为上述行为构成不正当竞争。
法院认为：360安全卫士软件对搜狗浏览器在安装、设置默认浏览器过程中进行弹窗提示和直接干预，使用了“木马防火墙提醒您-风险”、“威胁”、“快速清除残余木马”等用语，构成对于搜狗浏览器软件的虚假描述；360安全卫士不经弹窗提示，直接阻止用户手动将搜狗浏览器设置为默认浏览器，剥夺了用户的知情权和选择权，破坏了搜狗浏览器正常的设置；360安全卫士对待不同企业的浏览器产品未作到一视同仁，对360浏览器和IE浏览器的相关安装与设置不作任何提示；360安全卫士官方微博发表“捆绑”等不实言论，捏造、散布虚伪事实。综上，二被告上述行为违反了公认的商业道德，构成不正当竞争。关于赔偿数额，法院参考了搜狗科技公司损和搜狗信息公司在自行监测统计数据的基础上，提出的以被动用户数量损失来推算实际损失的方法，判决赔偿经济损失及合理支出共计510万元。
【创新性评价】
本案系安全软件不当干预、评价、阻止浏览器软件的典型案例,安全企业同时经营非安全类软件产品或服务时，既是裁判者，又是直接竞争者，应遵循以下原则：一是“最小特权”原则，在对其他软件进行干预时须以“实现其功能所必需”为前提，干预方式和程度应与被监督事项的安全程度相匹配，如实反映客观情况，并充分保证用户的知情权和选择权，不能有意阻碍竞争对手或代替用户做出选择。二是“一视同仁”原则，要对自身产品施以与竞争产品相同的审查标准和监督方式，不得采取歧视政策。本案对网络不正当竞争行为损害赔偿计算问题进行了探索。适用法定赔偿应以不正当竞争行为和损害事实为客观依据。对于实际损失的计算，法官可综合参考行业惯例、第三方统计数据、当事人自行统计数据等在案证据材料，并利用经济学、统计学等科学方法和常识进行审查判断。同时应当考虑到被控行为给原告预期的正常经济利益、市场声誉和市场扩张进度等方面造成的阻力和损失。酌定赔偿数额应当与被控侵权行为的规模、范围、对市场秩序的危害程度相匹配，必要时应当考虑被告的市场地位、影响力及以及制止其重复侵权的可能效果。
Case I: Unfair Competition Dispute in Sogou v. Qihoo on Blocking Browser Installation and Settings
Plaintiff: Beijing Sogou Information Services Co., Ltd. (referred to as Sogou Information)
Plaintiff: Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd. (referred to as Sogou Technology)
Defendant: Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to Qihoo Technology)
Defendant: Qihoo 360 Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (referred to as Qihoo Software)
Details
Sogou Technology and Sogou Information are the copyright owner of Sogou Browser and Sogou Input Method. Qihoo Technology and Qihoo Software are the developers, right holders and operators of “360 Security Guard” software. By using their software, Qihoo Technology and Qihoo Information blocked user from installing and using Sogou browser, blocked user from initiatively making Sogou Browser as the default Browser as well as make up and distribute the ungrounded stories including “Sogou Input Method is bundled with Sogou Browser” and “Sogou Browser cannot be uninstalled without 360 Security Guard”. Sogou Technology and Sogou Information believed that these acts constituted unfair competition.
The court held that: During the installation and default setting process of Sogou Browser, 360 Security Guard used pop-ups and direct interventions with words like “Trojan Firewall Reminder: Hazard”, “Dangerous”, “Trojan Quick Cleaning” and other descriptions, which were false descriptions of Sogou Browser. Without any notifications, 360 Security Guard blocked user from setting Sogou Browser as the default, disrespectful to the right to know of consumers and damaging normal settings of Sogou Browser. 360 Security Guard did not treat browser products with the same criterion, as it did not notify upon the installation and setting-up of 360 Browser and IE. 360 Security Guard’s official microblog published ungrounded stories including “bundling”, and further distributed them. In conclusion, two defendants were acting against commercial moralities and unfairly competing. As for the compensation, the court decided that the figure should be 5.1 million yuan for financial loss and reasonable expenses, based on a court’s reckoning on actual loss by passive user loss, along with surveillance data by Sogou Technology and Sogou Information.
Innovation Evaluation
This is a typical case in which security software intervene, judge and block browser software. When a developer of a security software also operates non-security products or services, it is both the judge and the competitor. In this case, following rule shall be observed: “Minimal Privilege” principle. Intervention other software must be done with the premise that it is “realising its utilities”, and the method and extent of intervention shall match the issues being monitored. Situation shall be reported honestly. Users’ right to know and choose shall be respected, and blocking competitor’s action or making choice for the user are not allowed. The second principle is “Equally Treated”. Same censorship and surveillance shall be implemented for both their own software and competitor’s with no discrimination. The case made explorations in the loss and compensation calculation in internet unfair competition. The statutory compensation shall be calculated based upon the unfair competition acts and infringement facts. The judge can calculate the actual loss by referring to industry conventions, third-party statistics, infringed party’s statistics and other evidence, alongside with economics, statistics and other methods. Obstacles and losses caused by infringements in question upon the plaintiff in legal economic loss, marketplace reputation, market expansion and other aspects shall also be taken into consideration as well. Discretion on compensation shall be proportional to the the scale, scope and seriousness of the harm to the market. If necessary, defendant’s market position and influence shall also be considered, in case of further repeated infringements.
案例二：“极路由”屏蔽视频广告不正当竞争纠纷案
原告：北京爱奇艺科技有限公司（简称爱奇艺公司）
被告：北京极科极客科技有限公司（简称极科极客公司）
【案情】
爱奇艺公司经营的爱奇艺网提供在线视频播放服务，在播放视频前播放广告，收取广告费获取商业利益。极科极客公司是“极路由”路由器的生产者和销售者，在其经营的极路由云平台上向用户提供其开发、上传的“屏蔽视频广告插件”。用户下载安装该插件后，通过“极路由”上网，可屏蔽爱奇艺网站视频的片前广告。爱奇艺公司认为上述行为构成不正当竞争。
法院认为：爱奇艺公司主营业务是视频播放服务，极科极客公司主营业务是硬件设备生产销售，双方貌似没有竞争关系。但是，极科极客公司综合利用“屏蔽视频广告”插件和“极路由”屏蔽爱奇艺网站视频的片前广告，此行为必将吸引爱奇艺网站的用户采用上述方法屏蔽该站视频片前广告，从而增加极科极客公司的商业利益，减少爱奇艺公司的视频广告收入，导致爱奇艺公司和极科极客公司在商业利益上此消彼长，使本不存在竞争关系的爱奇艺公司与极科极客公司因此形成了竞争关系。爱奇艺公司提供在线视频播放服务并以片前广告获取商业利益，这一合法商业模式产生的商业利益依法应予保护。经营者可以通过技术革新和商业创新获取正当竞争优势，但非因公益必要，不得直接干预竞争对手的经营行为。极科极客公司为获取商业利益，利用“屏蔽视频广告”插件直接干预爱奇艺公司的经营行为，构成不正当竞争。
【创新性评价】
本案是首例硬件厂商屏蔽视频广告引发的不正当竞争纠纷，判决书在竞争关系认定和竞争行为正当性的分析上具有创新意义。判断经营者之间是否存在“竞争关系”不应以身份为标准，而应着眼于行为；不应从主营业务或所处行业出发界定其身份，而应从具体行为出发，判断其行为是否具有竞争性。互联网时代的竞争，呈现出超越国界、业界的特点。传统的行业界线变得模糊，跨界经营的难度明显降低，混业经营的现象明显增加。硬件厂商可以从事软件经营和网络服务行为，软件厂商和网络服务提供者也可以从事硬件经营行为。主营业务或所处行业不同的经营者，随时可能因业务拓展而产生竞争关系。技术革新应当鼓励，但对技术的使用不能突破法律限制。非因公益必要，经营者一般不得直接干预他人的经营行为。使用“屏蔽视频广告”插件看似符合消费者眼前利益，但长此以往必将导致视频网站经营者“免费 广告”的商业模式难以为继，从而向收费模式转变，最终也将损害消费者的长远利益。
Case II: “Unfair competition involving
HiWifi blocking Pre-Roll Ads”
Plaintiff: Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as iQiyi company)
Defendant: Beijing Jike Geek Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Jike Geek)
Details
iQiyi company's iQiyi website provides online video service, and make commercial gain by pre-roll ads. Jike Geek company is the producer and seller of “HiWifi” router, and provide their users with “ad-blocker” developed and uploaded by the company on its cloud platform. Users can block iQiyi’s pre-roll ads by downloading and installing of the “ad-blocker”. iQiyi claimed that this conduct constitutes unfair competition.
The court held that: iQiyi company's main business is video playing service, while Jike Geek company's main business is the production and sales of hardware. There is no competition between the two parties seemingly. However, Jike Geek’s using “ad-blocker” and “HiWifi” together would attract users to block pre-roll ads, thus increasing the commercial interest of Jike Geek while damaging iQiyi’s. It further constitutes a zero sum in commercial interest between two companies, therefore a competitive relationship is formed between the two. iQiyi’s main business is online video service and commercial gain is made through pre-roll ads. The business model is legitimate and the interests it generates shall be protected. Operators are allowed to get a legitimate competitive advantage through technological innovation and business innovation, but never directly intervene in business activities of competitors, unless public interest is involved. Jike Geek’s using of “ad-blocker” to directly intervene in iQiyi company's business operation for its own commercial interest did constitute unfair competition.
Innovation Evaluation
This case is the first unfair competition case involving ad-blockers made by hardware vendors. The verdict’s innovation significance is found in the identification and legitimacy of competition. “Competitive relationship” shall be identified by corporate behaviours rather than identities; it shall be identified by specific acts to determine competitiveness but not on its main business or industry it is in. In the internet age competition often transcends national boundaries and industries while conventional industry boundaries are also blurring. Nowadays it is much easier for businesses to operate cross-industry, so hybrid business are more often to be seen. Hardware vendors can operate in software and network service, while software vendors and network service provider can be engaged in the hardware business activities. Operators in different businesses or industries are not unlikely to find themselves in competitive relationship due to business expansions. Technological innovation should be encouraged, but the use of technology cannot break legal restrictions. Operator of a business shall not directly intervene in the business practices of others, unless public interest is involved. The use of “ad-blocker” plug-in appears to meet the immediate interests of consumers. However, in the long run it is going to render the “freemium ads” business model used by video website unsustainable, thereby force them to turn to “pay per play” model and ultimately hurt consumers’ interest.
案例三：积木外观设计专利侵权纠纷案
原告：北京七色花教育科技发展有限公司（简称七色花公司）
被告：北京乐智林教育科技有限公司（简称乐智林公司）
【案情】
2013年4月，七色花公司向国家知识产权局提出外观设计专利申请，该专利于2013年12月18日获得授权公告。该专利的名称为“积木”，专利号为ZL201330147666.6，该专利包括49个组件。2014年4月，七色花公司通过公证购买的方式购买了乐智林公司生产的积木。经比对，上述积木中均包含与涉案外观设计专利49个组件相同的组件。七色花公司还通过公证的方式，证明乐智林公司在其网站上实施了许诺销售上述主题积木的行为。
法院认为：涉案外观设计虽然包括49个组件，但其中的49个组件并非各自独立的产品，而是需组合在一起才能发挥积木产品所具有的使用价值，因此，涉案外观设计并非成套产品的外观设计，而是由49个组件构成的组件产品的外观设计。对于此类外观设计专利权，应当按照《专利法》第五十九条第二款的规定，以表示在图片或者照片中的该产品的外观设计为准确定保护范围。乐智林公司生产、销售及许诺销售的三种被诉侵权产品均全部包含与涉案外观设计专利49个组件相同的组件，已落入涉案外观设计专利的保护范围，构成对七色花公司涉案专利权的侵害，依法应当承担相应的民事责任。据此，法院判决：乐智林公司停止生产、销售及许诺销售侵害涉案外观设计专利权的产品并赔偿七色花公司经济损失及诉讼合理支出15万元。
【创新性评价】
本案是北京法院审理的第一起涉及组件产品外观设计专利的侵权案件。在该案中，法院明确了成套产品与组件产品的区分标准，并根据组装关系是否唯一，确定了此类外观设计专利权的侵权认定方法：1、对于组装关系唯一的组件产品的外观设计专利，被诉侵权设计与该组件产品在组合状态下的整体外观设计相同或者近似的，应当认定被诉侵权设计落入专利权的保护范围；2、对于各构件之间无组装关系或者组装关系不唯一的组件产品的外观设计专利，被诉侵权设计与其全部单个构件的外观设计均相同或者近似的，应当认定被诉侵权设计落入专利权的保护范围；被诉侵权设计缺少部分单个构件的外观设计或者与其不相同也不近似的，应当认定被诉侵权外观设计未落入专利权的保护范围。
Case III: “Design Patent Infringement
Involving Building Blocks”
Plaintiff: Beijing Qisehua Education Technology Development Co., Ltd. (referred to as Qisehua)
Defendant: Beijing Lezhilin Education Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Lezhilin)
Details
In April 2013, Qisehua filed an application of a design patent to the State Intellectual Property Office, and got the patent grand statement on December 18th, 2013. The patent's name was "Building Blocks", and patent number was ZL201330147666.6, with containing 49 components. On April 2014, Qisehua bought the building blocks produced by Lezhilin through notarial purchase. By comparison, the above-mentioned building blocks all contained the same 49 components as that of the design patent at issue. Also, through the notarial purchase, Qisehua proved that Lezhilin implemented the activity of offering to sell the above-mentioned themed building blocks at its website.
The court held that: although the design patent at issue contained 49 components, they were not independent but need rely on each other as a whole to exert the building blocks' use value. Therefore, the design patent at issue did not refer to a product in set but a product comprising 49 components. As to this design patent right, it should be based on the requirement of Article 59 paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, in order to determine protection scope according to the product's design patent in the picture or photo. Lezhilin produced, sold and offered to sell three alleged infringing products that all contained the same 49 components as that of the design patent at issue, having fallen into the protection scope of the design patent at issue, infringing the right of Qisehua’s patent at issue, and shall undertake civil liabilities in accordance with law. On these grounds, the court ruled that: Lezhilin must stop producing, selling and offering selling the products infringing the right of the design patent at issue, and compensate Qisehua 150,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable litigation expenses.
Innovation Evaluation
This is the first right infringement case involving design patent of component products. In this case, the court clearly defined distinguishing standard of products in set and products of components, and also defined the identification methods of infringing such design patent according to whether the relationship of assembling products was unique: first, as to the design patent of component products whose relationship of assembling is unique, when the design of alleged infringing products are identical or similar to that of the component products in state of assembly, it should be judged that the design of alleged infringing products falls into protection scope of patent rights. Second, as to the design patent of component products whose each component's relationship of assembling does not exist or is not unique, when the design of alleged infringing products are identical or similar to that of all single component, it should be judged that the design of alleged infringing products falls into protection scope of patent rights. When the design of alleged infringing products lacks that of some single component, or not identical or similar, it should be judged that the design of alleged infringing products does not fall into protection scope of patent rights.
案例四：“莫言”商标驳回复审行政案
原告：王东海
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）
【案情】
王东海向国家工商行政管理总局商标局（简称商标局）提出注册第11733424号“莫言”商标（简称申请商标）的申请，指定使用于国际分类第34类的烟斗等商品上。商标局和商标评审委员会均作出驳回申请商标注册的决定。王东海不服上述决定，提起行政诉讼。
法院认为：申请商标与我国首位获得诺贝尔文学奖的作家“莫言”笔名相同。莫言获得诺贝尔文学奖后，其“莫言”两字就与诺贝尔文学奖建立直接联系。诺贝尔文学奖是举世公认的世界文坛最重要、最权威、最受人瞩目的一个奖项，莫言获得诺贝尔文学奖意味着莫言的艺术成就得到国际文学界的普遍认可，当然也对我国文化领域产生重大影响。在未经莫言本人同意或经其许可的情况下，他人以“莫言”作为商标注册，必然会对我国文化领域的社会公共利益和公共秩序产生消极、负面影响。抢注知名人士姓名、笔名、艺名，借助知名人士效应获得利益的行为不但有违诚实信用原则，损害了该知名人士的特定利益，而且也在一定程度上损害了社会公共秩序和善良风俗。如果允许这种商标抢注行为发生，不但会出现大量人名商标的注册申请，严重地冲击我国正常的商标注册秩序，而且会助长不劳而获、坐享他人之利的不良风气，有违社会主义善良风俗。因此，这种行为不应得到支持。申请商标的注册申请不符合商标法第十条第一款第（八）项的规定。
【创新性评价】
根据商标法第十条第一款第（八）项的规定，商标标志有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响的，不得作为商标使用。商标审查实践中，商标标志是否构成具有其他不良影响的情形，一般是指该标志或者其构成要素是否可能对我国政治、经济、文化、宗教、民族等社会公共利益和公共秩序产生消极、负面影响。如果有关标志的注册仅损害特定民事权益，例如他人的姓名权，属于特定的民事权益，并不涉及社会公共利益或公共秩序，故不应适用该条的规定。商标注册实践中，大量商标掮客在各种类别上申请注册了海量的知名人物姓名的商标，以获取不正当利益。如果一概予以核准注册，将导致姓名商标泛滥成灾，极大地损害我国正常的商标秩序和国际形象，但通过授权程序予以驳回却依据不足。法院通过本案的裁判，针对我国商标审查实践对涉及姓名权的商标审查的标准进行了适当的发展，确定了社会公众广为知晓的知名人物姓名权的商标审查标准：他人将知名人物姓名或笔名、艺名等相关权利申请为商标时，如果该知名人物在我国政治、经济、文化等领域具有重大影响，国内社会公众均普遍知晓，则应当认为该商标的注册具有商标法第十条第一款第（八）项的其他不良影响，应当予以驳回。
Case IV: The Rejection of “Mo Yan” Trademark
Plaintiff: Wang Donghai
Defendant: State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB)
Details
Wang Donghai applied for the registration of No. 11,733,424 "Mo Yan" trademark (referred to as the trademark for short) to the State Administration for Industry and Trademark Office (referred to as the Trademark Office), designated for use in pipes, 34th class in the international classification of commodities. Trademark Office and the TRAB have both made the decision to reject the application for trademark registration. Wang Donghai appealed against the decision and launched a administrative lawsuit.
The court held that: The trademark is same as the pseudonym of Nobel Prize for Literature writer "Mo Yan". After Mo Yan won the prize, the word "Mo Yan" has direct link with the Nobel Prize for Literature, which is widely recognised as the world's most important, authoritative and concerned prize in literature circle. Mo Yan’s winning the Nobel Prize for literature implies that his artistic achievements have been recognised by the international literature circle, and this, without question, also has an impact in the field of culture. The registration of “Mo Yan” trademark without the consent or permission of himself is bound to cast negative effect on the public interest and order. It is not only against the principle of honesty and trust to register celebrities’ real name, pseudonym or stage name and gain interest, but also damaging to the rights of celebrities, as well as the public order and goodwill. If registration of this kind is allowed, a large number of similar cases would certainly follow and cause chaos in the trademark registration order of China. It would also encourage the practice of reaping other’s interest, which is to be condemned by socialism morals. Therefore, this application shall not be supported, as the application does not comply with the provisions of the Trademark Law Article 10, paragraph (8).
Innovation Evaluation
According to Trademark Law Article 10, paragraph (8), trademark logo detrimental to socialist morality or customs, or having other ill effects shall not be used as trademarks. In trademark examination practice, ill effects generally refer to that the sign or its components could have a negative impact on China's political, economic, cultural, religious, ethnic domains and other public interests and order. If the registration of the mark damage only specific civil rights, such as the right of name of others, it would not damage public interest or order and thus is not against the provision of paragraph (8). In registration practice, many trademark brokers have tried to gained improper benefits by registering a massive number of celebrities’ name in all categories. If such applications are approved, a lot of name trademark would come into existence and it would greatly damage the trademark order and international image of China. However, there is still insufficient basis to reject such applications in authorisation process. The verdict on this case carries out a proper development on the trademark review criterion involving the name right based on domestic practice, and sets an example in trademark reviews involving the name of well-known people: The application of trademark registration shall be rejected according to “ill effect” description in Trademark Law Article 10, paragraph (8), when the name of a celebrity, who bears tremendous significance and awareness in country’s political, economic or culture domains, is applied for registration.
案例五：“优衣库”侵害商标权纠纷案
原告：广州市指南针会展服务有限公司（简称指南针公司）
原告：广州中唯企业管理咨询服务有限公司（简称中唯公司）
被告：迅销（中国）商贸有限公司（简称迅销公司）
被告：北京易喜新世界百货有限公司（简称新世界百货）
【案情】
指南针公司、中唯公司于2012年3月14日申请注册“
”商标（以下简称涉案商标），2013年6月21日被核准注册，核定使用商品为第25类服装、鞋、帽等。2013年，指南针公司、中唯公司发现新世界百货的优衣库店在其销售的高级轻型羽绒服装（以下简称涉案商品）上多处使用了与涉案商标相同的“
”标识，认为足以使公众产生混淆，侵犯了其享有的注册商标专用权。
法院认为：鉴于本案受理时间、被控侵权行为发生的时间均在商标法修改决定施行前，且无证据证明涉案行为持续到商标法修改决定实施后，故本案应适用修改前的商标法。指南针公司、中唯公司无证据证明其实际使用了涉案商标，且二者持有注册商标多达2600余件，明显超出了正常的生产经营需要，其多次将注册商标转让给他人使用，并试图高价转卖涉案商标牟利，故其不具有将涉案商标作为商业标识实际使用的意图。迅销公司经过长期有效经营，其所生产销售的“UNIQLO”、“
”及“优衣库”品牌的服装产品，已经具有较高的知名度和市场影响力，其主观上不具有攀附涉案商标商誉的意图。迅销公司采用自有品牌服饰专业零售商的经营模式，在专营店长期大规模地突出使用“
”等商标进行宣传，已形成识别商品来源的显著含义，且涉案商品上亦印有“
”商标，使得消费者在选购该商品时施以一般注意力即可知晓其来源于迅销公司，不会误认为来源于第三方或与涉案商标存在特定联系。综上，被控侵权标识与涉案商标不构成商标法意义上的相同或近似，涉案商品并未构成侵权。
【创新性评价】
本案是一起典型的商标侵权纠纷案。法院虽适用旧商标法进行审理，但秉承了新商标法精神，从标识本身的外观形态、涉案商标的实际使用情况、被告是否具有攀附意图以及公众认知等角度全方位综合考量，最终认定被控侵权标识与涉案商标不构成商标法意义上的近似，不易导致混淆，被告不构成侵权。本案在一定程度上反映出当前恶意囤积商标、诚信缺失等现象，通过本案的审理，兼顾了法律效果与社会效果的统一，有利于当事人规范自身行为，也对整个商业市场的规范经营提出了指引。
Case V: The dispute of “UNIQLO” Trademark Infringement
Plaintiff: Guangzhou Compass Exhibition Service Co., Ltd. (referred to as Compass)
Plaintiff: Guangzhou Zhongwei Enterprise Management Consulting Service Co., Ltd. (referred to as Zhongwei)
Defendant: Fast Retailing (China) Trading Co., Ltd. (referred to as Fast Retailing)
Defendant: Beijing Yixi New World Department Store Co., Ltd. (referred to as New World Department Store)
Details
Compass and Zhongwei were registered on March 14, 2012.
The trademark (referred to as the trademark involved), approved for registration on June 21, 2013, was designated for use in clothing & shoes of Class 25. In 2013, Compass and Zhongwei found that the UNIQLO store in the New World Department Store was using the same “
” logo as the trademark involved in many places on its advanced ultra light down coat on sale, which was supposed enough to confuse the public and infringe their exclusive right to use the registered trademark.
The court held that: given that the time of acceptance and occurrence of infringement behaviour of this case are both before the enforcement of Amendment of Trademark Law, this case should apply the Trademark Law before amendment. Compass and Zhongwei have no evidence to prove that they have virtually used the trademark involved, and they hold up to 2600 registered trademarks, which is obviously beyond the demand of normal production and operation. Moreover, they have transferred these registered trademarks to others for many times and tried to sell the trademark involved at a high price to make profit, so they do not have the intention to actually use the trademark involved as a business logo. Fast Retailing has made its clothing products with “UNIQLO”、“
” and “优衣库” a relatively high level of brand awareness and market influence through a long period of effective operation without intentionally attach the goodwill of the trademark involved. Fast Retailing adopts its own brand to operate its professional clothing retailers and uses the “
” logo to do promotion chronically, massively and predominately in their boutiques, which has formed a significant meaning of recognising the origin of products. What’s more, the products involved are all stamped with the “
” logo to enable customers to know that the they originated from Fast Retailing instead of others or has any relation with the trademark involved if a general attention is paid when they shop. Overall, the logo accused of infringement is not supposed to be the same as, or similar to the trademark involved in the sense of Trademark Law. The products in case does not constitute infringement.
Innovation Evaluation
This case is a typical trademark infringement dispute. Although the court applied the old Trademark Law in the trial, it followed the spirit of the new Trademark Law. From appearance of the logo, actual usage of trademark involved, attachment intention of defendants and perception of the public, the court finally judged that the logo accused of infringement is not supposed to be the same as, or similar to the trademark involved in the sense of Trademark Law, and the products in case does not constitute infringement. This case reflects the phenomenon of hoarding trademarks maliciously and lack of credibility to a certain degree. The integration of law effect and social effect are considered through the trail of this case, which is good for parties to regulate their behaviour as well as guides for the standardised operation of the whole business market.
案例六：“启航”商标先用权纠纷案
原告：北京中创东方教育科技有限公司（简称中创公司）
被告：北京市海淀区启航考试培训学校（简称启航考试学校）
被告：北京市启航世纪科技发展有限公司（简称启航公司）
【案情】
贵阳启航学校于2001年申请注册 “启航学校Qihang School”商标，核定服务为第41类学校（教育）、教学、培训等（以下简称涉案商标）。该商标自2003年4月7日经核准注册。贵阳启航学校自1998年2月起，在当地《贵州都市报》等报刊杂志上以“启航英语招生”等作广告宣传。中创公司经许可独占在考研培训等领域使用涉案商标。启航考试学校成立于1998年1月，启航公司成立于2003年8月，启航考试学校主要从事考研辅导，启航公司主要经营互联网信息服务等。1998年9月至今，启航考试学校编写了各类考研书籍，多本图书冠以“启航考研”为标题。2000年3月起，启航考试学校在《中国青年报》等报刊中登载各类考研辅导宣传广告，并列举各类启航考研辅导资料。启航考试学校在办公场所、宣传资料、工作人员名片上都标注有“启航教育”、“启航考研”等标识。启航公司官网中多处出现“启航”、“启航考研”、“启航教育”等字样。中创公司认为启航考试学校和启航公司的上述行为侵害其涉案商标专用权。
法院认为：在涉案商标申请日之前启航考试学校和启航公司已使用“启航考研”为题出版辅导书，并在《中国青年报》等媒体上进行广泛宣传，使“启航考研”商标在考研服务上产生识别作用，具有“一定影响”。现有证据无法证明涉案商标注册人先于启航考试学校使用涉案商标，也无法证明启航考试学校使用“启航考研”商标存在过错。启航考试学校和启航公司涉案使用行为中，“考研”等文字属于对所从事服务的描述，体现商标使用的仅为“启航”，故启航考试学校和启航公司对含有“启航”文字的商标使用行为都符合商标法第五十九条第三款的规定，不构成侵权。
【创新性评价】
本案是适用新商标法第五十九条第三款商标先用抗辩权的典型案件。该条款适用条件主要有四项：一是他人在注册商标申请日前存在在先使用商标的行为。之所以将在先使用时间点确定为“申请日”，而非“注册日”，意在引导社会公众将其商标进行注册，而非仅仅进行使用。二是该在先使用行为原则上应早于商标注册人对商标的使用行为。对该要件的把握应把在先使用是否出于善意作为重要的考量因素，并非只要商标注册人早于在先使用人对商标进行了使用便当然认定先用抗辩不成立。如商标注册人虽存在在先使用行为，但在先使用人对此不知晓，也不存在其他恶意情形的，即不能因商标注册人具有在先使用行为而否认先用抗辩权成立。三是该在先使用的商标应具有一定影响。四是被诉侵权行为系他人在原有范围内的使用行为。对“原有范围”的理解应从所涉“商标”、“商品或服务”、“使用行为”及“使用主体”等要素着手考虑。在后使用的“商标”及“商品或服务”应与在先使用的商标及商品或服务“相同”或“基本相同”，但商标在后使用行为的规模不受在先使用规模的限制。
Case VI: The dispute of prior use right of “Qihang” Trademark
Plaintiff: Beijing Zhongchuang East Education Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Zhongchuang)
Defendant: Beijing Haidian Qihang Test Training School (referred to as Qihang Test School)
Defendant: Beijing Qihang Century Technology Development Co., Ltd. (referred to as Qihang)
Details
Guiyang Qihang School has registered “启航学校Qihang School” trademark (referred to as the trademark involved) in 2001, which was designated for use in school (education), teaching, training of class 41. This trademark has been approved since April 7, 2003. From February 1998, Guiyang Qihang School started to advertise on local Guiyang City Newspaper with “Qihang English Enrolment”. Zhongchuang was approved to exclusively use the trademark involved in graduate entrance exam training area. Qihang Test School was started in January 1998 and Qihang was founded in August 2003. The former mainly engaged in graduate entrance exam training and the latter principally provided internet information service. From September 1998 until now, Qihang Test School has complied various categories of graduate entrance exam books, most of which were titled as “Qihang Graduate Entrance Exam”. Qihang Test School started to publish all kinds of graduate entrance exam training advertisement on China Youth Daily, and listed all sorts of Qihang graduate entrance exam training materials. Qihang Test School has marked logos as “Qihang Education”, “Qihang Graduate Entrance Exam” in its office, promotional materials, and employees’ business cards. There are also words like “Qihang”, “Qihang Graduate Entrance Exam”, and “Qihang Education” being used in many places of its website. Zhongchuang believed that the behaviours of Qihang Test School and Qihang mentioned above has infringed their exclusive right of the trademark involved.
The court held that: Qihang Test School and Qihang had used “Qihang Graduate Entrance Exam” to publish training books before the application date of the trademark involved, and had advertised on media like China Youth Daily, which gave the “Qihang Graduate Entrance Exam” trademark a recognition function in graduate entrance exam service and had “certain impact”. The current evidence fails to prove the register of the trademark involved used the trademark involved before Qihang Test School and that the existence of fault of Qihang Test School using the trademark involved. Words like “Graduate Entrance Exam” are descriptions of service provided, and only “Qihang” reflects the using of trademark. Thus Qihang Test School and Qihang’s usage behaviours of trademarks including words like “Qihang” conform to the Trademark Law Article 59, Clause 3, which does not form infringement.
Innovation Evaluation
This is a typical case of prior use of counterargument right of trademark applying the new Trademark Law Article 59, Clause 3. There are four applicable conditions of this clause: 1. There exist prior use of trademark before the application date of others who register the trademark. The purpose of setting the time of prior use as “application date” instead of “registration date” is to guide the public to register their trademarks not just use them; 2. In principle, the prior use behaviour should be early than the trademark register’s usage of this trademark. Whether the prior use is in good faith should be taken as an important consideration when determine this condition. Not as long as the trademark register use the trademark earlier than the prior user, the prior use defence is certainly acquitted. If although trademark register has prior use behaviour, prior user has no idea about that and there is no other malicious situation, then the prior use defence cannot be denied to stick because trademark register has prior use behaviour; 3. The prior used trademark should have certain impact. 4. The accused infringement behaviour is others’ usage behaviour in former scope. The “former scope” should be understood from the involved “trademark”, “goods or service”, “use behaviour” and “use subject”. The after used “trademark” and “goods or service” should be “the same” or “basically the same” as that of the prior use. But the size of the after use behaviour is not restricted by that of prior use.
案例七：恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷案
原告：北京远东水泥制品有限公司（简称远东水泥公司）
被告：北京四方如钢混凝土制品有限公司（简称四方如钢公司）
【案情】
四方如钢公司拥有一项名为“井壁墙体模块以及采用该模块构筑井壁墙体的方法”的发明专利，该专利授权公告时包括产品权利要求1-10以及方法权利要求11-19。后在案外人提出的无效宣告程序中，四方如钢公司主动放弃了涉案专利中的方法权利要求11-19，并将原产品权利要求1-10修改为权利要求1-8。后，四方如钢公司以远东水泥公司侵犯其涉案专利权为由提起诉讼，后因故撤回了该案起诉。远东水泥公司认为四方如钢公司在已将全部方法权利要求删除的情况下，仍然以方法权利要求主张侵权，在修改产品权利要求后，仍然以原产品权利要求主张侵权，属恶意提起知识产权诉讼，故起诉要求被告赔偿律师费等损失。
法院认为：认定某种具体的诉讼行为属于恶意提起知识产权诉讼，至少应当满足以下构成要件：1、一方当事人以提起知识产权诉讼的方式提出了某项请求，或以提出某项请求相威胁。2、提出请求的一方当事人具有主观上的恶意。3、具有实际的损害后果。4、提出请求的一方当事人提起知识产权诉讼的行为与损害后果之间具有因果关系。本案，首先，四方如钢公司提出专利侵权诉讼，后又以撤诉方式放弃全部诉讼请求，可以视为其已完成提出具体诉讼请求相威胁的行为。其次，四方如钢公司在主动放弃和修改涉案专利权利要求后，又基于此部分权利要求向远东水泥公司提起专利侵权诉讼，缺乏基本的事实依据和权利基础，主观上明显具有恶意。第三，远东水泥公司为应对诉讼所支付的律师费，造成了其经济损失的损害后果。第四，考虑到专利案件的复杂性，远东水泥公司为维护自身合法权益聘请律师应对诉讼，符合常理，其所支付的律师费与四方如钢公司恶意提起的专利侵权诉讼具有当然的因果关系。四方如钢公司赔偿远东水泥公司经济损失5万元。
【创新性评价】
本案涉及恶意提起知识产权诉讼的认定标准。因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害赔偿责任纠纷，作为一个正式的案由始自2011年最高人民法院对民事案件案由规定的修改决定。在2008年第三次修改专利法时，有关部门曾经试图把恶意诉讼的构成要件单独写一条，但因为难以从文字上准确界定，故留待司法实践根据个案来判断，不断积累经验。本案判决明确了恶意提起专利侵权诉讼的判定要件，确定了权利人行使诉讼权利的行为边界，尤其在立案登记制背景下，有助于规范权利人的诉讼行为，指导权利人依法维权。此案对于因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷案件的审理具有一定的参考意义。
Case VII: “Disputes Over Filing a Malicious Intellectual Property Suit of Damage Liability”
Plaintiff: Beijing Far East Cement Products Co., Ltd. (referred to as Far East Cement )
Defendant: Beijing Sifangrugang Cement Products Co., Ltd. (referred to as Sifangrugang)
Details
Sifangrugang has an invention patent named "borehole wall module and the method of using this module to construct borehole wall". At first, the patent grand statement contained product claims 1-10 and method claims 11-19. Then, in the process of announcement of invalidation provided by person not involved in the case, Sifangrugang voluntarily gave up method claims 11-19 of patent at issue, and changed original product claims 1-10 to claims 1-8. After that, Sifangrugang filed a suit on the ground that Far East Cement infringed the patent right at issue, but then withdrew its claim for some reasons. Far East Cement held that, though Sifangrugang had deleted all method claims and changed the product claims, it still claimed infringement using original method and product claims other than the changed ones, which belonged to a malicious intellectual property suit. Thus, Far East Cement filed a suit to require the defendant to compensate for the losses such as attorney fee and so on.
The court held that: in order to identify some certain specific litigation as malicious intellectual property one, it should at least satisfy the following requirements: first, one party makes a certain request by filing an intellectual property suit, or makes a certain request to threaten. Second, the party making a request has subjective malice. Third, it has a practical damage result. Fourth, the activity of filing a suit by the party making a request has a causal relationship with the damage result. In the case, first, Sifangrugang filed a patent infringement suit, and then gave up all the claims by withdrawing the case, which can be regarded that it had finished the activity of filing a specific suit to threaten. Second, after voluntarily giving up and changing the claims of patent at issue, Sifangrugang still filed a patent infringement suit based on the original claims, which lacked basis in fact and claims basis and had an obvious subjective malice. Third, Far East Cement paid the attorney fee for responding to the lawsuit, leading to a damage result of economic loss. Fourth, considering the complexity of patent cases, it was reasonable that Far East Cement engaged a lawyer to respond the lawsuit for safeguarding its own legitimate rights. The attorney fee paid by Far East Cement had a causal relationship with the malicious patent infringement suit filed by Sifangrugang. Sifangrugang compensated 50,000 ¥ for Far East Cement’s economic loss.
Innovation Evaluation
This case involves the identification criteria of a malicious intellectual property litigation.
The dispute over filing a malicious intellectual property suit of damage compensation liability, is as a formal cause of action coming from the amendment decision made by Supreme People’s court for the rules of civil cases' causes of action in 2001. In 2008, when Patent Law was amended for the third time, some department had ever tried to write a single article for the constitutive requirements of a malicious suit, but because it was hard to clearly define from the words, it remained to be judged by judicial practice based on individual case to accumulate experience continuously. This case verdict made clear the constitutional requirements of filing a malicious patent infringement suit, and defined action borders of right holders exercising suit rights, especially in the background of case registration system，helping regularize right holders’ lawsuit action and directing them to safeguard rights by law. This case has certain reference significance to hear a malicious intellectual property case of damage liability.
案例八：小米公司诉奇虎公司管辖异议案
原告：北京奇虎科技有限公司（简称奇虎公司）
被告：小米科技有限责任公司（简称小米公司）
【案情】
奇虎公司认为小米公司生产的小米手机对其经营的360安全卫士进了阻碍安装、强制卸载等不正当竞争行为，故以不正当竞争为由将小米公司诉至法院。奇虎公司认为根据民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条规定，侵权结果发生地包括被侵权人住所地，故向其住所地法院提起了本案诉讼。小米公司认为本案不应由原告住所地法院管辖，故提起管辖异议。
法院认为：民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条所称信息网络侵权行为，是指侵权人利用互联网发布直接侵害他人合法权益的信息的行为，比如侵权人在互联网上发布的信息直接侵害权利人对作品享有的信息网络传播权等，而非凡是案件事实与网络有关的侵权行为或不正当竞争行为均属于信息网络侵权行为。本案系不正当竞争纠纷，是以被控不正当竞争的计算机软件或网站是否设置了妨碍他人正当竞争的功能设置为判定基础，并非信息网络侵权行为，本案不属于民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条规制的范畴。管辖权的确定对当事人而言至少应当具有确定性和可预期性。确定管辖权，主要依据“两便原则”以及为防止原告滥用诉权而规定的“原告就被告”原则。对不正当竞争纠纷而言，无论是由被控侵权人进行相关设置的服务器所在地、进行相关设置所使用的计算机终端所在地、被告住所地确定管辖，都相较于起诉人住所地更有利于法院对被控不正当竞争行为进行审查以及相应判决的执行。倘若以相关计算机软件可以在互联网下载运行就准许原告住所地法院对本案管辖，不仅不利于法院对被控不正当竞争行为的审查以及相应判决的执行，不符合管辖权确定的基本原则，也可能使以“被告住所地”确定管辖的制度设计落空。法院裁定将本案已送至被告住所地法院审理。
【创新性评价】
该案是针对民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条理解和适用的案件。由于民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条提出了信息网络侵权行为这一概念，并且明确信息网络侵权行为的侵权结果发生地包括被侵权人住所地，所以在民事诉讼法司法解释实施后，实践中出现了大量主张以此条款为管辖依据的案件，由此产生的管辖异议也大量出现。本案综合考虑了民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条的立法目的，明确了信息网络侵权的内容和范围，在综合考虑了管辖权的确定性和可预期性、“两便原则”、“原告就被告原则”的前提下，以是否便于解决本案纠纷为标准，最终认定了本案不适用民事诉讼法司法解释第二十五条确定管辖。
Case VIII: Xiaomi and Qihoo Jurisdiction Dispute
Plaintiff: Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Qihoo)
Defendant: Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Xiaomi)
Details
Qihoo claimed that Mi Phones by Xiaomi blocked their 360 Security Guard from installation and forced its uninstallation with other unfair competition conducts, and sued Xiaomi in court. Qihoo sued Xiaomi in the court in the jurisdiction Qihoo is in, as per Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law which provides that the location of infringement includes the resident of the infringed. However, Xiaomi believed that this case was not under the jurisdiction of the court in plaintiff’s location and appeal for a jurisdiction objection.
The court held that: The information network infringement provided by Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law refers to acts that the infringing party publishes information on the internet and damages other’s lawful rights. For instance, the infringing party publishes information on the internet that damages the distribution right of the infringed. Not all infringements or unfair competition related to internet are information network infringement. This case is an unfair competition case in which the decision is upon whether the alleged computer software or website includes settings or functions that obstacle fair competition of competitors, not an information network infringement. Thus, this case is not under the provision of Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law. To involved parties, the confirmation of jurisdiction shall be definite and expectable. The jurisdiction is confirmed by “two conveniences principle” and “defendant’s place principle”. For unfair competition cases, the jurisdiction where the infringing party’s server have relevant settings, the jurisdiction where the infringing party use computers to make relevant settings or the jurisdiction where the defendant is in are all more suitable than the plaintiff’s jurisdiction for the court to inspect unfair competition conducts and implement court decisions. If plaintiff’s location’s court is allowed to take the case for the reason that computer software can be accessed from internet, it would add difficulties to the inspections of unfair competition conducts and the implement of court decision, against basic jurisdictions principles including the “defendant’s place principle”. The court has transferred the case to the court where the defendant is in.
Innovation Evaluation
This case is about the understanding and application of Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law. Since information network infringement is coined in that article, with clarification that the location of infringement includes the resident of the infringed, a lot cases have come with jurisdictions claims according to the article after the judicial interpretation was implemented. There were also a high number of jurisdiction disputes. This case has taken the objective of Article 25 into consideration and clarified the applicability of information network infringement. With the definitiveness and expectability of jurisdiction, “two conveniences principle“ and “defendant’s place” principle taken into account and for a proper solution of the case, the court found that this case was not under the provision of Article 25 of Judicial Interpretation for Civil Procedure Law.
案例九：“歼十”战机模型著作权纠纷案
原告：北京中航智成科技有限公司（简称中航智成公司）
被告：深圳市飞鹏达精品制造有限公司（简称飞鹏达公司）
【案情】
“歼十飞机（单座）”（简称“歼十”）是一款新型战机。2007年11月中航智成公司被授权制作”歼十”模型，并能够以自己的名义主张“歼十”所涉及的知识产权。在获得许可后，中航智成公司根据 “歼十”原始设计图纸及“歼十”设计了相应的等比例缩小飞机模型。自2011年6月起，飞鹏达公司生产、销售了“歼十”模型。中航智成公司认为被控侵权产品侵犯了其对“歼十”设计图纸、模型及飞机造型分别享有图形作品、美术作品或模型作品的复制权及发行权。
法院认为：第一，中航智成公司主张“歼十”造型构成美术作品，但未举证证明或者合理说明“歼十”造型中除飞机实用功能决定的造型成分之外，还有哪些造型成分属于可独立于飞机性能的纯粹艺术表达，故无法认定“歼十”造型中哪些成分是可独立于飞机性能的纯粹艺术表达，进而无法认定“歼十”造型构成美术作品。第二， “歼十”模型虽然系对该飞机的等比例缩小，但根据著作权法实施条例的相关规定，具有独创性，构成模型作品。因此，飞鹏达公司的行为构成对中航智成公司著作权的侵害。
【创新性评价】
本案是涉及军用飞机造型及其模型是否分别构成我国著作权法意义上的美术作品和模型作品的典型案例。第一，关于飞机造型是否构成美术作品。法院并没有完全排除“歼十”的造型可以美术作品受到著作权法保护的可能性，而是认为如果排除实用功能决定的造型成分之外，其造型确属具有独创性的艺术表达，可以作为美术作品受到保护。中航智成公司主张“歼十”造型为美术作品，但是并没有尽到举证证明或合理说明的义务，故无法认定“歼十”造型构成美术作品。法院从举证的角度否认了“歼十”造型构成美术作品。第二，关于“歼十”模型是否构成模型作品。本案从我国著作权法关于模型作品的定义出发，认为模型与原物的近似程度越高或者越满足实际需要，其独创性越高。“歼十”模型虽是“歼十”造型的等比例缩小，但是，根据著作权法实施条例的相关规定，该模型的独创性恰恰体现于此，其已构成模型作品，应当受到保护。
Case IX: "J-10" fighter model copyright dispute
Plaintiff: Beijing AVIC Zhicheng Co., Ltd (referred to as AVIC Zhicheng)
Defendant: Shenzhen Feippengda Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (referred to as Feipengda)
Details
“J-10 Aircraft (single-seat)" (referred to as “J-10”) is a new type of aircraft. In November 2007, AVIC Zhicheng was authorised to manufacture “J-10” model and advocate the intellectual property rights on their own behalf. With authorisation obtained, AVIC Zhicheng started to manufacture scaled-down “J-10” models, based on “J-10” original blueprint and current design. Feipengda started to manufacture and sell “J-10” models since June, 2011. AVIC Zhicheng believed that the alleged infringing product caused infringements on AVIC Zhicheng’s right to reproduce and distribute of the graphic work, artwork or model works of “J-10” design blueprint and model.
The court held that: Firstly, AVIC Zhicheng claimed that “J-10’s” design constituted an artwork, but failed to demonstrate what components were pure artistic expression which were independent to the aircraft performance, besides the components determined by aircraft’s utility. Therefore, the court couldn’t rule “J-10’s” design as an artwork. Secondly, albeit the model is scaled down from the aircraft, but it is still ingenious and a model work according to Copyright Law and relevant regulations. Thus, Feipengda infringed the copyright law of AVIC Zhicheng.
Innovation Evaluation
This case is a typical one involving the question of whether a military aircraft’s designs and its model constitute an artwork and model work in the sense of China’s Copyright Law. First, the court did not rule out the eligibility of “J-10’s” design to be protected by Copyright Law as an artwork. However, the court held that it can be regarded as an artwork and protected if it did bear ingenious artistic expression besides designs determined by its utility. Although AVIC Zhicheng claimed that the design was an artwork, they did not manage to come up with evidence or reasonable explanation. Therefore, the design of “J-10” couldn’t be ruled as an artwork. The second point is about whether “J-10” model constitutes an art work. The verdict started from Copyright Law’s definition on model work, and found that a model has better ingenuity as it has higher resemblance to the original article or can better satisfy the practical need. The “J-10” model is a scaled down from the “J-10” aircraft, but that’s where its ingenuity is according to the implement regulations of Copyright Law. It is a model work and shall be protected.
案例十：《贾志刚说春秋》著作权权属、侵权纠纷案
原告：贾志刚
被告：中国科学文化音像出版社有限公司（简称科学文化音像出版社）
被告：佛山人民广播电台（简称佛山电台）
被告：谢峥嵘
【案情】
贾志刚系《贾志刚说春秋》历史小说的作者。科学文化音像出版社将《贾志刚说春秋》录制成名为《听世界春秋》的有声读物，以谢峥嵘原创作品的形式在被告佛山电台的“FM94.6”、“FM92.4”频道《听世界》节目中进行商业播放。该节目约有74%的内容与《贾志刚说春秋》小说表达相同。《听世界春秋》节目在使用原作《贾志刚说春秋》的主要内容时，在保留原作基本表达的情况下，对原作的表现形式进行了改变，将原作的书面语言转换成适于演播的口头语言表达形式。播出期间佛山电台一直未在节目中提及贾志刚，仅有最后一期节目曾表明过贾志刚的原作作者身份。贾志刚认为上述行为侵犯其所享有的著作权。
法院认为：广播电台广播他人已发表的作品时需指明作者姓名和作品名称，且使用时不应对他人的作品加以改动，或是仅能容许以播讲为需要的适当改动，而本案中佛山电台在使用图书的过程中未给贾志刚署名，且对图书的改动使用明显已超过适度的范围。在《听世界春秋》两年多的播出时间里，一直未在节目中提及贾志刚，仅有最后一期节目曾表明过贾志刚的原作作者身份，故佛山电台的行为不适用《中华人民共和国著作权法》第四十三条第二款的规定，构成对贾志刚著作权的侵犯。谢峥嵘系佛山电台的员工，其演播《听世界春秋》节目系为完成佛山电台交办工作的职务行为，且双方约定因履行职务所产生作品的著作权归佛山电台所有，故因其演播行为所引起的侵权责任应由佛山电台承担。科学文化音像出版社出版发行光盘的行为亦构成侵权。
【创新性评价】
本案首次对广播电台法定许可的相关法律适用问题进行了详细阐述，明确了判定广播电台、电视台播放他人已发表的作品是否符合法定许可规定时应考虑的因素，具体包括：（1）法定许可允许对原作进行改动，但改动应当是为了满足广播电台播放要求、适应播放特点的适当改动，而且改动不应增加已有作品中没有的内容而产生新的作品；（2）署名是法定许可的应有之意，是法定许可的构成要件之一。该案的审理进一步明确了著作权法中对于法定许可构成要件的规定，也有利于协调和实现维护著作权人合法权益和促进文化艺术作品合法传播两者之间的利益平衡。
Case X:Jia Zhigang’s Spring and Autumn Period StoriesCopyright Disputes and Infringement
Plaintiff: Jia Zhigang
Defendant: China Science and Culture Video Publishing House Ltd. (referred to as Science and Culture Video Publishing House)
Defendant: Foshan People's Broadcasting Station (referred to as Foshan Radio)
Defendant: Xie Zhengrong
Details
Jia Zhigang is the author of Jia Zhigang’s Spring and Autumn Period Stories series novel. Science and Culture Video Publishing House made the novel into an audio book named World Stories: Spring and Autumn Stories and played it commercially in programme World Stories on FM 94.6 and FM 92.4 by the name of the author Xie Zhengrong. The content of the programme is about 74% same as the words in novel Jia Zhigang’s Spring and Autumn Period Stories. The programme World Stories: Spring and Autumn Period Stories altered the expression to a form more suitable to colloquial language based on original text. During the programme, Jia Zhigang’s name was not mentioned until disclosing that he was the author in the ending episode. Jia Zhigang Claimed that his copyright was infringed.
The court held that: When a radio station broadcasts a published work by others, the authorship and name of the work shall be specified, and no adaption shall be made, except ones for the work to be listened to rather than be read. Foshan Radio did not specify Jia Zhigang’s name during their use of the book and have made excessive adoption to the work. In two years World Stories: Spring and Autumn Period Stories being broadcast, Jia Zhigang’s authorship was not mentioned until the ending episode. Therefore, the act by Foshan Radio does not comply with paragraph 2 of Article 43 in Copyright Law of China, and is an infringement to the copyright of Jia Zhigang. Xin Zhengrong, as an employee of Foshan Radio, made World Stories: Spring and Autumn Period Stories as a job duty for Foshan Radio. As per mutual consent, the copyright generated by performing job duty is owned by Foshan Radio, so the infringement liability shall also be taken by Foshan Radio. It is also an infringement for Science and Culture Video Publishing House to publish the programme in discs.
Innovation Evaluation
This case provided a thorough explanation on law application of radio station’s statutory authorisation. Factors that are to be considered upon judging whether radio or TV station has infringed copyrights when broadcasting or playing other’s published work are also clarified, which are: (1): the statutory authorisation allows adaptions but these adaptions shall be limited to ones made for broadcasting requirements and suitability, and a new work cannot be derived by addition of new content; (2): a signature is the token of statutory authorisation and the constituent elements of it. The verdict of this case further clarified the legal provisions in Copyright Law about statutory authorisation. It also helps strike a balance between protecting the rights of copyright owner and lawful distribution of culture and art works.
,
