2021-2022 HFL Top cases for IP Protection from QBPC and National Authorities and Courts / 鸿方代理案件入选公安部、各地法院、市场监督管理部门十大知产案例盘点

鸿方代理案件入选公安部、各地法院、市场监督管理部门十大知产案例盘点

HFL Top cases for IP Protection from QBPC and National Authorities and Courts

4月26日为世界知识产权日，今年世界知识产权日的主题是“知识产权与青年：锐意创新，建设未来”，旨在庆祝由青年主导的创新和创造。值此第22个世界知识产权日，各地主管知识产权案件的司法机关、执法部门均发布了十大典型案例，展现了中国全面加强知识产权保护、激发创新活力、推动构建新发展所做的努力。

World Intellectual Property Day, celebrated on April 26, with the theme Intellectual Property and Youth: Innovating to Build the Future, aims to celebrate youth-led innovation and creativity. On the occasion of the 22nd World IP Day, various judicial authorities and law enforcement in charge of IP cases have announced typical cases within their jurisdictions., demonstrating efforts to comprehensively strengthen IP protection, stimulate innovation and promote the building of new development in China.

其中，鸿方代理的多个案件荣幸入选了国家公安部、江苏省高级人民法院、上海市高级人民法院、广东省市场监督管理局、湖北省知识产权局等各地司法机关、执法部门公布的十大典型案例。

Representing our clients, several of our cases have been awarded influential recognition by peers and authorities, such as the Ministry of Public Security, the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, the High People’s Court of Shanghai, Market Supervision Administration of Guangdong Province, the Intellectual Property Administration of Hubei Province and other judicial authorities and law enforcement.

1. 代理“美孚”、“嘉实多”品牌的知识产权犯罪刑事打击案件入选“公安部打击侵犯知识产权犯罪十起典型案例”
“Mobil” and “Castrol” brands in a criminal case represented by our team to seek successfully IP protection

Top Ten Typical Cases in Intellectual Property Infringement Crimes Cracked Down by Ministry of Public Security

• 案情摘要：
  Brief facts

鸿方代理“美孚”、“嘉实多”品牌，针对某汽车养护中心销售假冒注册商标的润滑油的情况向池州市当地的市场监督管理部门进行投诉。行政执法过程中发现，犯罪嫌疑人在未经品牌权利人授权的情况下利用购买的桶装润滑油和简易灌装设备以及假冒的品牌标识等材料雇请人员在租用的厂房内灌装假冒多个知名品牌润滑油，并通过客户下单、物流寄递的方式销售获利。随后，市场监督管理部门将该线索移交至池州市公安机关。2022年2月，安徽省池州市公安机关根据移送的线索破获“9·14”系列制售假冒品牌机油案，抓获犯罪嫌疑人10名，打掉制假售假窝点6处，查扣假冒品牌成品机油1000余箱、原料油4.1吨。

Hongfanglaw represented the “Mobil” and “Castrol” brands and submitted complaints to the local MSA in Chizhou City about the sale of counterfeit lubricants in a car maintenance center. During the process of administrative enforcement, it was found that the criminal suspect used the purchased barrels of lubricating oil, simple filling equipment, and counterfeit brand logos and other materials, hired personnel to fill and counterfeit multiple well-known brand lubricants, and profited from sales through customer orders and logistics delivery. Subsequently, the MAS handed over the clue to the PSB of Chizhou City. In February 2022, the PSB of Chizhou City, Anhui Province cracked the “9.14” series of cases of manufacturing and selling counterfeit branded oil based on the clue, arrested 10 criminal suspects, destroyed 6 counterfeit production and sales dens, and seized more than 1,000 boxes of counterfeit branded finished motor oil, 4.1 tons of raw oil.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

本案当中打掉了流向多地不法汽车修理店的销售网络，及时阻断涉案假冒品牌机油流向市场，切实保障消费者驾乘安全，系打击危害民生安全侵权假冒犯罪的典型案例。

In this case, the sales network flowing to illegal auto repair shops in many places was destroyed, and the flow of the counterfeit branded oil involved in the case to the market was blocked in time, so as to effectively protect the driving safety of consumers. It is a typical case of cracking down on infringement and counterfeiting crimes that endanger people’s safety.

• 链接
  Link

公安机关依法严打侵犯知识产权犯罪成效显著（公安部公布十起典型案例)

 

2. 代理苏州中德宏泰电子科技股份有限公司诉杭州海康威视数字技术股份有限公司侵害商标权纠纷入选“2021年江苏法院知识产权司法保护十大典型案例”
Suzhou ZhongDe HongTai Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd. for Dispute over Trademark Infringement

Top 10 Cases in IP Judicial Protection for 2021 by the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

中德宏泰公司在“电子监控装置、摄像机”等商品上注册的“ ”及“ ”商标，并经过使用具有一定知名度。海康威视公司将其智能摄像机商品划分为“深眸”“明眸”等系列，并通过网络、杂志发布广告、文章，以及展会等方式宣传。中德宏泰公司认为海康威视公司的行为构成对其“深眸”商标权的侵害，故请求判令该公司停止侵害行为并赔偿损失。鸿方代理中德宏泰公司对海康威视公司提起侵权商标权的民事诉讼。经审理，法院判决海康威视公司停止侵权行为，刊登声明消除影响，赔偿损失210万元。

The ” ” and ” ” trademarks registered by ZhongdDeHongTai Company on “electronic monitoring devices, cameras” and other products have gained a certain reputation after being used. Hikvision divides its smart camera products into series such as “深眸”（Shen Mou）and “明眸” (Ming Mou), and publishes advertisements, articles, and exhibitions through the Internet, magazines, and other means. ZhongDeHongTai Company believes that Hikvision’s behavior constitutes an infringement of its “深眸” (Shen Mou) trademark, so it requests that the Hikvision shall be ordered to stop the infringement and compensate for the losses. HongFangLaw (HFL), on behalf of ZhongDeHongTai Company, filed a civil lawsuit against Hikvision for trademark infringement. After the trial, the court ordered Hikvision to stop the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the impact and compensate for the loss of RMB 2.1 million.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

本案中，鸿方在代理过程中综合评估了被告海康威视公司的侵权行为，在审理过程中主张海康威视公司的侵权行为同时构成了正向混淆和反向混淆，最终该观点也得到了法院的认可。本案亦是首例在同一商标侵权案件中同时存在正向混淆和反向混淆的典型案例。判决对将他人注册商标作为系列商品名称，并与自身享有较高知名度的主商标捆绑使用构成商标侵权作了详细分析，对具有较高知名度的商业主体，无视商标注册制度和在先注册商标，擅自使用他人商标的行为予以严厉惩治。同时，本案全面、客观反映了消费者对市场认知的状态，法院对同一商标侵权案件可能同时存在正向混淆和反向混淆情形作了有益探索，进一步丰富了商标侵权混淆理论与实践，为商标侵权案件审理及混淆理论发展提供了很好的实践样本。

In this case, HongFangLaw (HFL) comprehensively evaluated the infringement behavior of the defendant Hikvision during the agency process and claimed that the infringement behavior of Hikvision constituted both positive obfuscation and reverse obfuscation, which was finally approved by the court. This case is also the first typical case in which both positive and reverse obfuscation exist in the same trademark infringement case. The judgment made a detailed analysis of trademark infringement by using other people’s registered trademarks as a series of trade names and using it in a bundle with its own well-known main trademark. The high-profile commercial entities that ignored the trademark registration system and prior registered trademarks and used others’ trademarks without authorization shall be severely punished. At the same time, this case comprehensively and objectively reflects the state of consumers’ perception of the market. The court has made useful explorations on the possibility of both positive obfuscations and reverses obfuscation in the same trademark infringement case, which further enriches the theory and practice of trademark infringement obfuscation. The trial of trademark infringement cases and the development of confusion theory provide a good sample of practice.

• 链接
  Link

省法院发布 | 2021年江苏法院知识产权司法保护十大典型案例

 

3. 代理南社布兰兹有限公司与上海杏花楼（集团）股份有限公司等侵害商标权纠纷案入选“2021年上海法院加强知识产权保护力度典型案件”
Southcorp Brands Pty Limited. v. Shanghai Xinghualou (Holding) Co., Ltd. for Dispute over Trademark Infringement

Typical Cases of Shanghai Court Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection in 2021

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

原告南社布兰兹有限公司系“ ”注册商标（英文为Penfolds，中文音译名为“奔富”）的商标注册人，核定使用在第33类葡萄酒商品上。“Penfolds/奔富”葡萄酒自上世纪九十年代进入中国市场以来，一直广受国内消费者青睐，经过二十余年的宣传推广，已在中国消费者中享有盛誉。2018年初，原告发现市场上出现大量名为“Benfords Hyland/奔富海兰酒庄”葡萄酒的涉案侵权产品。其中，被告上海杏花楼（集团）股份有限公司（以下简称杏花楼公司）系涉案侵权产品销售商，被告深圳市八开酒业有限公司（以下简称八开酒业公司）系运营商，被告泉州旗牌红进出口贸易有限公司（以下简称旗牌红公司）系涉案侵权标识的商标权人。为此，原告请求判令相关被告立即停止侵犯原告注册商标的行为，赔偿经济损失及合理费用310万元并在相关报刊上刊登声明以消除影响等。经审理，法院判决三被告立即停止商标侵权行为，被告旗牌红公司赔偿原告经济损失250万元，八开酒业公司对其中的50万元承担连带责任，以及三被告共同赔偿原告合理开支10万元。

Plaintiff, Southcorp Brands Pty Limited., is the trademark registrant of the registered trademark “ ” (“Penfolds” in English, “奔富” in Chinese) which is designated on wines in Class 33. “Penfolds/奔富” wines have been widely favored by consumers since they entered the Chinese market in the 1990s. After more than 20 years of publicity and promotion, it won a great reputation among Chinese consumers. At the beginning of 2018, the Plaintiff discovered that a large number of infringing wines branded “Benfords Hyland/奔富海兰酒庄” appeared on the market. Among them, the Defendant Shanghai Xinghualou (Holding) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xinghualou Company”) is the seller of the infringing products involved in the case, and the Defendant Shenzhen Bakai Wine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bakai Wine Company”) is the operator. Defendant, Quanzhou Qipaihong Import and Export Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qipaihong Company”), is the owner of the infringing mark involved in the case. Therefore, Plaintiff petitioned that the relevant Defendants be ordered to stop infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark immediately, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 3.1 million, and publish a statement in relevant newspapers to eliminate the impact. After the trial, the court ruled that the three Defendants shall immediately stop the trademark infringement, the Defendant Qipaihong Company shall compensate the Plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 2.5 million, Bakai Wine Company shall be liable for RMB 500,000, and the three Defendants jointly compensate the Plaintiff for reasonable expenses of RMB 100,000.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

本案原告、“ ”商标以及奔富葡萄酒品牌在市场上具有较高的知名度，案件的审理受到业界的关注。虽然“奔富”不是原告注册商标中“Penfolds”的意译，但基于其经过长期的使用和宣传，在中国已经与原告形成稳定的对应联系，二者共同享有较高知名度，被告的行为足以使相关公众对葡萄酒商品的来源造成混淆误认。法院在判决停止侵害的同时予以高额判赔，体现了知识产权司法保护力度和效果，得到了市场的认可。

Plaintiff, in this case, the trademark “ ” and the Penfolds wine brand are well-known in the market, thus the case has attracted considerable attention from the industry. Although “奔富” is not a free translation of the plaintiff’s registered trademark “Penfolds”, based on its long-term use and publicity, it has formed a stable correspondence with the Plaintiff in China and both have the great popularity. The act of the Defendants suffices to cause the relevant public to confuse and misidentify the origin of wines. The order to stop the infringement and the high amount of compensation at the same time reflects the intensity and effects of judicial protection of intellectual property rights and has gained recognition from the market.

• 链接
  Link

2021年上海法院加强知识产权保护力度典型案件

 

4. 代理南社布兰兹有限公司（SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED）与烟台圣彼堡酒业有限公司、烟台瑞辰进出口有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案入选“2021年度烟台知识产权司法保护十大案例”
SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED. v. Yantai Sheng Bi Bao Wine Co., Ltd. and Yantai Ruichen Import and Export Co., Ltd. for Dispute over Trademark Infringement

Top Ten Cases in Intellectual Property Judicial Protection in 2021 in Yantai

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

南社布兰兹公司为“Penfolds”、“奔富”系列商标的权利人，上述商标经过在葡萄酒产品上的持续使用和广告宣传，具有较高的知名度。南社布兰兹公司发现，圣彼堡酒业公司未经许可携带印有“奔富华菲”标识的葡萄酒参加在成都举办的糖酒会，同时在酒仙网上销售印有“奔富华菲”标识的葡萄酒，涉案葡萄酒背标显示的进口商为瑞辰进出口公司。南社布兰兹公司认为，圣彼堡酒业公司作为专业的酒类经营者在葡萄酒商品上使用“奔富华菲”标识的行为，攀附涉案商标知名度的主观恶意明显，其行为构成商标侵权，瑞辰进出口公司作为专业的酒类进口商，对于进口商品是否侵害他人商标未尽到审核注意义务，并帮助圣彼堡公司进口涉案葡萄酒并加贴标识，构成共同侵权。故诉至法院请求判令两被告停止侵权、赔偿损失并消除影响。烟台中院经审理认定构成商标侵权并判决两被告停止侵权，圣彼堡酒业公司赔偿经济损失及维权合理支出共计15万元，瑞辰进出口公司承担连带赔偿责任。

SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED. is the owner of the “Penfolds” and “奔富” trademark series. The above-mentioned trademarks have gained high popularity through continuous use and advertising on wine products. SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED. found that the Sheng Bi Bao Wine Company brought the wine bearing the mark of “奔富华菲” to participate in the sugar and wine fair held in Chengdu without authorization, and meanwhile sold the wine marked with “奔富华菲” on Jiuxian.com. The importer revealed on the back of the wine involved is Ruichen Import and Export Company. SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED. believes that Sheng Bi Bao Wine Company, as a professional wine operator, using the “奔富华菲” mark on wine products, has obvious subjective malicious intent to take advantage of the popularity of the trademark involved, and such behavior constitutes trademark infringement. Ruichen Import and Export Co., Ltd., as a professional wine importer, failed to perform its duty of carefully reviewing whether the imported goods infringe on the trademark of others, and helped the Sheng Bi Bao company to import the wine involved and affix the mark, which constitutes joint infringement. Therefore, SOUTHCORP BRANDS PTY LIMITED. petitioned the court to order the two Defendants to stop the infringement, compensate for the losses and eliminate the impact. Yantai Intermediate People’s Court maintained that it constitutes trademark infringement and ruled that the two Defendants shall stop the infringement. Sheng Bi Bao Wine Company shall compensate for the economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection of RMB 150,000, and Ruichen Import and Export Company shall take the joint liability for compensation.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

葡萄酒的进口方式分为原液区内加工、原液区外加工、原瓶有品牌、国内贴品牌等。本案中涉及原瓶进口的葡萄酒进口后在保税区内进行国内贴品牌，进而流入国内市场进行销售。对于所贴国内品牌商标，委托人需取得相关商标权利，受托办理进口手续的进口商应对所贴商标的权利状态尽到合理的审查义务，否则将面临承担商标侵权的赔偿责任。本案对原瓶进口葡萄酒贴标行为是否构成商标侵权进行了正确认定，合理确定了损害赔偿数额，该案一审判决后双方均服判息诉，实现了良好的社会效果。

The ways of importing wine are divided into processing in the original region, processing outside the original region, importing wine with the brand on the original bottle, and labeling the brand at home. In this case, the imported wine is branded in the bonded area after being imported and then flows into the domestic market for sale. Regarding the attached domestic brand trademark, the consignor needs to obtain relevant trademark rights, and the importer entrusted with import procedures shall perform the proper duty to review the rights status of the attached trademark, otherwise shall be liable for trademark infringement. In this case, whether labeling the original bottle of imported wine constitutes trademark infringement was correctly determined, and the amount of damage compensation was reasonably determined. The first-instance judgment of the case was accepted by both parties and achieved good social effects.

• 链接
  Link

知识产权宣传周 | 2021年度烟台知识产权司法保护十大案例（附问答）

 

5. 代理“美孚Mobil”品牌的行政执法案件入选“湖北省2021年度知识产权（商标）行政保护十大典型案例”
“美孚Mobil” Brand in an administrative case represented by our team to seek successfully IP protection

Top Ten Typical Cases of Intellectual Property (Trademark) Administrative Protection for 2021 in Hubei Province

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

鸿方代理“美孚”品牌，针对某工厂生产车间生产、销售假冒“美孚”润滑油的情况向随州市当地的市场监督管理部门进行投诉。随州市局根据投诉对该生产车间进行执法检查，发现贴有“美孚Mobil”注册商标的成品液压油，经鉴定，上述商品属未经许可使用“美孚Mobil”注册商标商品。执法人员当场对涉案物品实施查封扣押强制措施。经查，河南某润滑油公司于2020年11月从山东某公司购进非成品油石油制品白油32.06吨，并擅自灌装入贴有“美孚Mobil”注册商标的油桶，分七次销售给湖北某公司（另案处理），销售数量为42桶，销售价格为2370元/桶，当事人实际开票金额为95500元，违法经营额为95500元。

HongFangLaw (HFL), acting as an agent of the “美孚” (Mobil) brand, complained to the local market supervision and administration department of Suizhou City against the production and sale of counterfeit “Mobil” lubricating oil in the workshop of a factory. According to the complaint, Suizhou City Public Security Bureau carried out a law enforcement inspection of the production workshop and found finished hydraulic oil with the registered trademark of “美孚 Mobil” on site. After verification, the above commodities are using the registered trademark of “美孚 Mobil” without authorization. The officers implemented compulsory measures to seal up and detained the items involved on the spot. According to the investigation, a lubricating oil company in Henan Province purchased 32.06 tons of non-refined oil and petroleum product white oil from a company in Shandong Province in November 2020, and filled it into oil drums with the registered trademark of “美孚 Mobil” without authorization, and sold them to a company in Hubei Province in seven times (the case is handled separately). The sales quantity was 42 barrels, and the sales price was RMB2,370 per barrel. The actual invoice amount of the party concerned is RMB 95,500, and the illegal business volume is RMB 95,500.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

近年来，我国汽车消费市场热度居高不下，汽车零配件、车用油商品侵权现象多发，当事人利用消费者辨识能力的不足，假冒国际知名品牌，赚取暴利，既非法侵占知名品牌市场份额、有损其品牌声誉，也严重侵害消费者利益，一旦被曝光、查处，又必然损害其自身市场形象，最终害人害己。本案的查处有利于规范汽车领域消费市场，充分彰显执法机关加强知识产权保护的坚定决心。

In recent years, the automobile consumption market in our country has remained hot, and there have been frequent infringements on auto parts and vehicle oil products. The perpetrators took advantage of the lack of consumer identification ability to counterfeit internationally famous brands and made huge profits from it, which not only illegally occupied the market share of famous brands but also damage the reputation of other brands and seriously infringe on the interests of consumers. Once they are exposed and investigated, it will inevitably damage their own market image and ultimately do harm to themselves and others. The investigation of this case is conducive to regulating the consumer market in the automotive field, and fully demonstrates the firm determination of law enforcement agencies to strengthen intellectual property protection.

• 链接
  Link

湖北省2021年度知识产权（商标）行政保护十大典型案例 – 湖北省人民政府门户网站 

 

6. 代理“Penfolds/奔富”品牌的行政执法案件入选“广东省市场监督管理局发布2021年度知识产权行政执法典型案例”
“Penfolds/奔富” Brand in an administrative case represented by our team to seek successfully IP protection

Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Administrative Enforcement in 2021 Issued by Guangdong Province Market Supervision Administration

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

鸿方代理“Penfolds/奔富”品牌，针对某店铺生产、销售假冒“Penfolds/奔富”葡萄酒的情况向韶关市当地的市场监督管理部门进行投诉。根据投诉线索，韶关市武江区市场监督管理局会同韶关市公安局及新区公安分局进行联合执法，现场查获假冒“Penfolds/奔富”葡萄酒及生产包材等材料，涉案货值金额约74.82万元。

HongFangLaw (HFL), acting as an agent of the “Penfolds/奔富” brand, complained to the local market supervision and administration department of Shaoguan City against the production and sale of counterfeit “Penfolds/奔富” wine in a shop. According to the complaint, Shaoguan City Wujiang District Market Supervision Administration, Shaoguan City Public Security Bureau, and New District Public Security Bureau jointly conducted law enforcement and seized counterfeit “Penfolds/ 奔富” wine and packaging materials with a value of about RMB 748,200.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

这是广东省市场监督管理局（知识产权局）首次评选和公布知识产权行政执法典型案例，能有效震慑侵权行为，增强市场主体和社会公众的知识产权保护意识，营造尊重和保护知识产权的良好营商环境。

This is the first typical case of intellectual property administrative enforcement selected and announced by Guangdong Province Market Supervision Administration (CNIPA), which can effectively deter infringement, enhance the awareness of intellectual property protection of market subjects and the public, and create a sound business environment that respects and protects intellectual property.

• 链接
  Link

广东省市场监督管理局发布2021年度知识产权行政执法典型案例 

 

7. 代理“轩尼诗”品牌的知识产权犯罪刑事案件入选“广州2021年知识产权保护十大典型案例”
Hennessy brand in a criminal case represented by our team to seek successfully IP protection

Top 10 Cases in Intellectual Property Protection for 2021 in Guangzhou

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

2018年4月至2019年期间，两名被告人周某、曾某某合谋，先后雇请被告人倪某某、伍某为工人，未经轩尼诗、马爹利等注册商标权利人许可，利用被告人周某甲提供的带有“轩尼诗”、“马爹利”商标的标识和旧酒瓶等，在白云区人和镇等地，以杰坊、豪马等低端酒为原料酒灌装到旧酒瓶中，生产假冒伪劣的“轩尼诗百乐廷”、“马爹利蓝带”等洋酒，再通过微信等渠道销售给江苏无锡某酒吧老板谢某某、广东某酒业公司老板林某某等人。经查明，被告人销售上述灌装生产的假酒，销售金额达460余万元，现场查获的假酒价值20余万元。被告人行为触犯了《刑法》第二百一十三条的规定，应当以假冒注册商标罪追究刑事责任。广州市黄埔区人民检察院通过自行补充侦查，在公安机关侦查认定的20余万元犯罪数额基础上，核实追加认定已销售金额460余万元，并依法对5名被告人提起公诉。黄埔区人民法院判决被告人曾某某、周某某等5人犯假冒注册商标罪，分别判处有期徒刑四年九个月至一年不等，并处罚金30万元至2万元不等。

Between April 2018 and 2019, the two defendants ZHOU A and ZENG A conspired to hire the defendant’s NI A and WU A as workers, without the permission of the owners of registered trademarks, using the trademarks and bottles marked with trademarks Hennessy and Martell that provided by defendant ZHOU A to fill the bottles with low-end wines such as Jiefang and Haoma as raw wine and produced counterfeit and substandard Hennessy Paradis and Martell Cordon Bleu in Renhe Town, Baiyun District, Guangzhou City. And then they sold the produced counterfeit spirits to XIE A, the owner of a bar in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, and LIN A, the owner of a wine company in Guangdong Province, via WeChat. Upon ascertainment, the above-said defendants sold the filled and produced counterfeit spirits, with sales amounting to more than RMB 4.6 million, and the value of the counterfeit spirits seized at the scene was more than RMB 200,000, which had violated the provisions of Article 213 of the Criminal Law and should be held criminally liable for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks. The People’s Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Guangzhou City, through supplementary investigation, verified and additionally determined that the sales amount was more than RMB 4.6 million on top of the criminal amount of more than RMB 200,000 identified by the authority in their investigation, and prosecuted the five defendants in accordance with the law. The People’s Court of Huangpu District convicted the defendants ZENG A, ZHOU A, and three other defendants for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from four years and nine months to one year, and a fine ranging from RMB 300,000 to RMB 20,000.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

本案中，广州市黄埔区人民检察院通过自行补充侦查，掌握了之前未能获取的犯罪事实，有效的打击了针对知名洋酒品牌的知识产权犯罪行为，展现了检察院、法院对知识产权刑事犯罪案件积极、审慎、严谨的态度，以及对知识产权犯罪案件加大打击力度的决心和能力。

In this case, the People’s Procuratorate of Huangpu District, Guangzhou City, through supplementary investigation, grasped the facts of the crime and effectively cracked down on intellectual property crimes against well-known foreign wine brands, demonstrating the positive, prudent and rigorous attitude of the Procuratorate and the Court towards criminal intellectual property cases, as well as their determination and ability to intensify their fight against intellectual property crime cases.

• 链接
  Link

广州2021年知识产权保护十大典型案例（一）

 

8. 法国轩尼诗公司诉林某慈等人侵害注册商标专用权纠纷案件入选“品保委2021-2022年度民事及民事程序类知识产权保护十佳案”
SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. v. LIN A for Dispute over Trademark Infringement

Top 10 Cases in the Civil and Civil Procedure IP Protection for 2021-2022 by QBPC

• 案情摘要
  Brief facts

自2014年前后开始，林某慈组织犯罪集团，专门进行以低档洋酒灌装、包装为高档洋酒并销售的犯罪活动。江门市新会区人民法院审理查明，2018年2月23日至8月12日期间，林某慈犯罪集团组织生产并销售的假冒“轩尼诗”等品牌的酒类商品，合计总金额超人民币3亿元。江门市新会区人民法院于2020年8月4日做出刑事附带民事判决书[(2019)粤0705刑初330号]，主犯林某慈因犯假冒注册商标罪，被判处有期徒刑六年二个月，并处罚金人民币1.66亿元。该判决书已生效并在执行中。2020年8月24日，法国轩尼诗公司就林某慈犯罪集团的侵权事实向江门市中级人民法院提起侵害商标权民事诉讼。经审理，2021年4月29日，江门市中级人民法院做出(2020)粤07民初108号民事判决书，认定林某慈等被告假冒法国轩尼诗公司注册商标的行为构成侵害商标权，按照法定赔偿的最高额，判决被告赔偿法国轩尼诗公司经济损失人民币300万元(含合理维权开支)。原被告双方对该判决均未提起上诉，该判决于2021年6月10日生效。同年6月18日，法国轩尼诗公司向江门市中级人民法院申请执行。根据江门市中级人民法院(2020)粤07民初108号民事判决书，林某慈等被告假冒法国轩尼诗公司注册商标的行为，构成针对法国轩尼诗公司的商标侵权，应赔偿法国轩尼诗公司经济损失人民币300万元(含合理维权开支)。在执行过程中，江门市中级人民法院查询到被告名下有现金价值人民币160余万元的保险保单，随即依法进行划扣，扣除执行费及诉讼费后，已将人民币150多万元支付给法国轩尼诗公司。其余赔偿款仍在执行中。

Since around 2014, LIN A organized a criminal syndicate that specialized in filling, packaging, and selling low-grade foreign wine as high-grade foreign wine. The People’s Court of Xinhui District, Jiangmen Province found that between February 23, 2018, and August 12, 2018, the criminal group had produced and sold counterfeit spirits of brands such as “Hennessy” for a total amount of over RMB 300 million. On August 4, 2020, the People’s Court of Xinhui District, Jiangmen Province handed down a criminal incidental civil judgment, in which the principal defendant, LIN A, was sentenced to six years and two months imprisonment and a fine of RMB 166 million for the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark. The verdict is in force and under execution. On August 24, 2020, SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. filed a civil action for trademark infringement with the Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangmen City in relation to the infringement facts of LIN A’s criminal group. Upon trial, on April 29, 2021, the Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangmen City rendered civil judgment, finding that the acts of counterfeiting registered trademarks owned by SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. by LIN A and other defendants constituted a trademark infringement, and awarded the defendants RMB 3 million (including reasonable expenses for the maintenance of rights) for economic losses to SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. in accordance with the maximum amount of statutory damages. Neither SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. nor the defendants appealed against the judgment, which came into effect on June 10, 2021. On June 18, 2021, SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. applied to the Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangmen City for enforcement. According to the Civil Judgment rendered by the Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangmen City, LIN A and the other defendants’ acts of counterfeiting registered trademarks owned by SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. constituted trademark infringement and should compensate SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. for economic losses of RMB 3 million (including reasonable expenses for the maintenance of rights). In the course of enforcement, the Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangmen City inquired about an insurance policy in the defendant’s name with a cash value of over RMB 1.6 million, which was then deducted in accordance with the law, and after deducting the enforcement fees and court costs, over RMB 1.5 million was paid to SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. The compensation is still being enforced.

• 典型意义：
  Significance

本案中，法国轩尼诗公司作为被害单位参加了对全部涉案人员的刑事程序，履行了被害单位义务并发表了被害单位意见。在刑事诉讼阶段，法国轩尼诗公司作为被害单位未与犯罪嫌疑人达成任何谅解，犯罪嫌疑人依法被判处刑罚，刑事处罚的威慑功能得以完整实现。在刑事程序后，法国轩尼诗公司通过单独提起民事诉讼的方式维护自身的合法权益，亦为警示造假者，法国轩尼诗公司不会在刑事阶段谅解任何制假售假行为。在民事程序中，法国轩尼诗公司通过充分举证获得法定赔偿的最高额，通过适时的财产保全有力保障了后续的判决执行，通过及时执行使判决结果得以最快实现，最终推动权利获得了最大限度保护。

In this case, SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. participated in the criminal proceedings against all the persons involved as a victim entity, fulfilling its obligations as a victim entity and expressing its opinion as a victim entity. Upon the criminal proceedings, SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. did not reach understanding with the defendants as a victim entity, and the defendants were sentenced to penalties in accordance with the law, in a way that the deterrent function of criminal punishment was fully realized. SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. protected its legitimate rights and interests by filing a separate civil lawsuit, which also served as a warning to counterfeiters that SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. would not understand any counterfeit production or sale during the criminal phase. In the civil proceedings, SOCIETE JAS HENNESSY & CO. obtained the maximum amount of statutory compensation through full proof, and the subsequent enforcement of the judgment was strongly guaranteed through timely preservation of property, and the judgment was implemented in a timely manner, ultimately promoting the maximum protection of rights.

[End]

[Author]