Language

Abuse of Rights and Legal Consequences

Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRM

Email: zhu.yingying@mdlaw.cn

Date: June 15, 2022

 

Introduction

 

Intellectual Property Rights (“IPRs”) empower their owners with a privilege to exclude unauthorized parties from use of the relevant subject matter under protection (for example, trademarks, patents, copyrights). However, exercising IPRs might sometimes generate tensions with other sectors of law, such as the civil code, the anti-unfair competition law, the antitrust law, etc. According to the China Supreme People’s Court’s interpretation of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, where a person exercises any civil right (including IPRs) mainly for the purpose of injuring the national interest, the public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of another person, the people’s court shall determine that there is an abuse of civil rights.[1] In such a situation, IPRs no longer render the owners exclusionary rights against the other users in the market and the owners should also face the legal consequences of their actions.

 

Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (“Beijing IP Court”) concluded the case of trademark infringement dispute between the appellant Ma and the appellee Shenzhen CHOW TAI FOOK Online Media Co., LTD. (“CHOW TAI FOOK”) and the defendant of first instance Beijing Jingdong E-commerce Co., LTD (“Jingdong”). It was concluded by the Beijing IP Court that the appellant Ma filed a lawsuit of infringement against the legitimate use of CHOW TAI FOOK company based on trademark rights not fairly obtained, which constituted an abuse of rights. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.[2]

 

As one of the typical cases where a trademark squatter was left empty-handed on account of an abuse of rights, the above case is sending a clear and strong message to trademark holders that do not use a mark in conjunction with the actual sale of goods or services, but generate or attempt to generate the majority of their earnings by enforcing their trademarks through malicious litigation — “For a truly enforceable trademark, you should earn it fair and square”.

 

Basic Facts

 

When the plaintiff Ma filed a lawsuit with the first-instance court, he claimed that he applied for the registration of the trademark 'Jiao Ren (meaning: Proud Person)' on the Class 14 goods related to 'jewelry' on May 6, 2008, and the registration was approved on March 28, 2010. Ma alleged that he had already used the trademark to produce and sell diamonds of the “Jiao Ren” branded series. It was found that CHOW TAI FOOK store was selling at Jingdong’s online platform “Jiao Ren” series of rings and necklaces. Ma thought that CHOW TAI FOOK and Jingdong’s behavior violated its trademark rights, and he requested the court to order CHOW TAI FOOK and Jingdong to cease the infringing acts immediately and to pay him the reasonable expenses and compensation for the economic losses in a total amount of CNY50,000.  

The first-instance court held that CHOW TAI FOOK's use of the “Jiao Ren” logo on the products involved in the case was legitimate and did not infringe Ma's trademark rights of “Jiao Ren” trademark. Therefore, the first-instance court dismissed all the claims of Ma. Ma refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Beijing IP Court, requesting the revocation of the first-instance court’s decision and the reissuance of a judgment to support all the litigation claims raised.[3]

Beijing IP Court’s Decision

The Beijing IP Court made a judgement in the second instance to uphold the decision of the first-instance court. The judgement in the second instance was based on the following findings[4]:

·         Ma's application for registration of the trademark “Jiao Ren” violates the principle of honesty and credibility; and

·         Ma's infringement lawsuit against CHOW TAI FOOK constitutes an abuse of rights.

Why is an “abuse of rights” found in Ma vs. CHOW TAI FOOK?

 

To explain why Ma’s conduct was characterized as an “abuse of rights”, the Beijing IP Court highlighted the following key elements[5] of “culpability” on the part of the plaintiff Ma:

1.    Trademarks Comparison

The “Jiao Ren” trademark that Ma applied for registration on a later date is similar to the “Jiao Ren” logo previously used by CHOW TAI FOOK in terms of text combination, design and visual effect.

2.    Subjective Intent

CHOW TAI FOOK launched the “Jiao Ren” series of diamond products in 2006. After extensive use and publicity, the “Jiao Ren” series of diamond products and the “Jiao Ren” logo of CHOW TAI FOOK have gained high popularity. Under such circumstances, Ma applied for the registration of “Jiao Ren” trademark in 2008, which is similar to CHOW TAI FOOK’s “Jiao Ren” logo. Judging from the above conduct, it is difficult to say that Ma came up with such idea in good faith.

3.    Trademark Use

The documented evidence submitted by Ma can only prove that he has licensed the trademark after registering the trademark “Jiao Ren” but cannot prove that “Jiao Ren” has been used in the manner recognized by the Trademark Law on the approved goods.

4.    Other Trademarks applied for Registration by Ma

Ma also applied for the registration of more than 30 trademarks including 'Taylor', 'Jinbury', 'Jinshifu', 'Suihao mattress', 'Taylor Burton', 'Gerio Pili', etc. The aforementioned trademarks are including a large span of classes and belong to different industries, including trademarks similar in appearance, the same or similar in category with well-known trademarks such as 'Kimberly' and 'Suibao Mattress' of other brand owners. Neither could Ma prove that he registered the above trademarks with real intention to use nor could he give a reasonable explanation for his need for trademark registration, so the court considered that he had demonstrated an obvious pattern of trademark hoarding behavior.

Accordingly, Beijing IP Court determined that Ma's application for registration of the trademark “Jiao Ren” violated the principle of honesty and credibility, and his claim of trademark rights in this case was considered not justified.[6]

 

Based on the above, it was concluded that,  

 

The plaintiff filed an infringement lawsuit against the defendant for the latter’s proper use of the “Jiao Ren” logo and demanded compensation, which clearly constitutes an abuse of rights.

 

 

What are the Legal Consequences of Plaintiff’s “Abuse of Rights”?

 

Abuse of rights basically is a defense of the defendant for a lawsuit of IPRs infringement. When such defense proves to be justified in a case, the plaintiff would have to bear the legal consequences resulted from the action.

 

1.    Defendant is spared from Liability to Plaintiff

 

Taking a normal trademark infringement case as an example, when the plaintiff’s filing of the litigation constitutes an abuse of rights, the defendant is spared from the following liability to the plaintiff:

 

·         interlocutory and final injunctions;

·         damages, calculated based on the actual losses of the plaintiff, the profits made by the defendant or a simulated royalty;

·         reasonable costs incurred to the plaintiff; and

·         public apologies or declarations for the purpose of offsetting the negative effect of the infringing activities.

 

2.    Plaintiff is liable to pay Damages to Defendant

 

According to the recent official reply[7] made by the China Supreme People's Court to Shanghai High People's Court on June 3, 2021, the plaintiff should be liable to pay damages to the defendant if the following conditions are met:

 

·         plaintiff’s filing the IPRs infringement lawsuit constitutes an abuse of rights and damages the defendant’s lawful rights and interests as prescribed by law;

·         there are attorney's fees, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses or other reasonable expenses incurred to the defendant in the lawsuit; and

·         defendant bears the burden of proof for the above elements.

 

The defendant may request for damages through filing a counterclaim in the same lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff or may bring a separate suit to recover the aforesaid reasonable expenses from the plaintiff.

 

 

Key Takeaways

 

·         To successfully invoke the defense of “abuse of rights”, the defendant should prove that there is no legitimate interest exists for judicial protection on the part of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff’s right is exercised for a purpose other than its intended legal purpose.

·         The defendant may request the payment of attorney's fees, transportation expenses, accommodation expenses and other reasonable expenses incurred in the lawsuit where the plaintiff is considered an abuser of rights.

·         The defendant may request for damages through filing a counterclaim in the same lawsuit initiated by the plaintiff.

·         Every player of the market must, in the exercise of their intellectual property rights and in the performance of their duties related to such rights, act with justice, give other players their due respect and observe honesty and good faith.

·         If your business is falling prey to a trademark squatter, don’t back off easily as squatters are losing enforceability of their marks, day by day.

 

Conclusion

 

Through promoting creations and rewarding creativities, Intellectual Property Rights have so far proved to be beneficial to all walks of life in our society. However, abuse of such rights goes against the purpose of granting them, undermines the very foundation of the intellectual property system, and causes a counterproductive effect to the society. The abusers of such rights must face the legal consequences of their action.

 



[1] See Article 3, Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Book One General Provisions of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China.

[2] See Liu Yijun & Tian Fen, Case Closure Information: To sue for trademark infringement based on trademark not obtained with good faith, constitutes rights abuse, Public WeChat Account “bjipct” (May 30, 2022).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] See the Reply of the Supreme People's Court concerning the defendant's claim for compensation for reasonable expenses on the grounds of the plaintiff's abuse of rights in an intellectual property infringement lawsuit, issued on June 3, 2021.


  • 相关资讯 More
  • 点击次数: 1000006
    2024 - 04 - 14
    作者:张琳 在企业用工过程中,职工可能因工作遭受事故伤害或者患职业病。为保障职工获得医疗救治和经济补偿,促进工伤预防和职业康复,分散用人单位的工伤风险,我国制定了《工伤保险条例》,强制要求用人单位为职工缴纳工伤保险,在职工出现工伤时,由用人单位和工伤保险基金分担职工的工伤保险待遇相关费用。职工因工作遭受事故伤害的原因有多种情况,可能是由于职工自身原因、用人单位原因、用人单位其他职工的工作原因或非工作原因、与用人单位有合同关系(如买卖、运输、承包、服务关系等)的单位或其雇用人员与履行合同相关或无关的原因、与用人单位有合同关系(如劳务、分包、挂靠、服务、运输关系等)的个人与履行合同相关或无关的原因、前述单位、个人之外的第三人原因或意外事件等。当工伤事故是由于用人单位其他职工的职务行为时,用人单位既是承担工伤保险待遇的主体,同时又是承担民事侵权责任的主体,这时就发生了用人单位的工伤保险待遇责任和民事侵权责任的竞合。在此情况下,职工是只能选择某一种维权方式、可以在两种维权方式中自主决定选择其中一种、还是两种维权方式可以同时主张,对于这种情况的不同处理结果将极大影响职工和用人单位的相关权益。根据相关司法解释,如职工发生工伤事故,不能向用人单位主张民事侵权责任,只能按工伤保险相关程序要求享受工伤保险待遇;如果是用人单位以外的第三人侵权,可以向第三人主张民事侵权责任。该司法解释虽然是为了解决用人单位工伤保险待遇责任和民事侵权责任竞合问题,但本身具有比较强的原则性,在司法实践中经常产生不同的理解和适用,进而导致不同的裁判结果。笔者拟通过二个案例对此问题进行分析和梳理,以期让读者对此问题有一个更加清晰的认识和理解,并对统一和完善相关问题的解决提出自己的意见和建议。 一、案例简介  案例一:周某与黄某、北京某加工厂、王某提供劳务者致害责任纠纷(参见北京市...
  • 点击次数: 1000006
    2024 - 04 - 07
    作者:金涟伊什么是AI?根据百度百科的介绍,AI即人工智能(Artificial Intelligence),是一个以计算机科学(Computer Science)为基础,由计算机、心理学、哲学等多学科交叉融合的交叉学科、新兴学科,研究、开发用于模拟、延伸和扩展人的智能的理论、方法、技术及应用系统的一门新的技术科学,企图了解智能的实质,并生产出一种新的能以人类智能相似的方式做出反应的智能机器,该领域的研究包括机器人、语言识别、图像识别、自然语言处理和专家系统等。目前大家接触了解较多的人工智能包括百度的文心一言、openai的chatgpt等等。 “文心一言”“chatgpt” 目前网上存在大量关于如何利用人工智能提高效率的信息内容,例如利用AI进行内容整理,文稿撰写,数据分析,可高效助力新媒体创作、图片绘制、视频创作。曾经需要一个经验丰富的数码画师花费数个小时创作完成的插画,如今只需要输入一组关键词,几分钟之内就能输出一张成品图。但在享受人工智能便捷快速的“创作”成果时,我们仍要思考一个问题:利用AI创作的作品是否受著作权法保护? 对于人工智能创作作品是否受中国著作权法保护的问题,北京互联网法院通过一则判例给出了一种答案。2023年11月27日,北京互联网法院作出AI著作权首案宣判,判决认定原告享有其通过AI生成作品的著作权,并判定被告侵权。主要案情如下: 2023年2月24日,该案原告使用开源软件Stable Diffusion通过输入提示词的方式生成了图片,后将该图片以“春风送来了温柔”为名发布在小红书平台。 后原告发现,有百家号账号发布文章时配图使用了涉案图片,没有获得其许可,且截去了其在小红书平台的署名水印,为此,原告将被告告上了法庭。 原告认为,被告严重侵犯了其享有的署名权和信息网络传播权,要求其赔偿经济...
  • 点击次数: 1000004
    2024 - 03 - 29
    作者:张嘉畅《中华人民共和国广告法》对“绝对化用语”的使用有明确规定,旨在规范广告行业,保护消费者权益。商家在广告中应谨慎使用绝对化用语,避免误导消费者。然而,随着电子商务、直播平台的迅猛发展,许多商家和广告人,还是没有办法明确“绝对化用语”的标准是什么?是否任何含有“最”、“顶级”的词语都不能在营销中使用?什么样的绝对化用语有可能被使用在宣传当中,又不会被处罚?关于以上问题,希望本文能够为广告从业者带来一些解答。 “绝对化用语”是指在广告中使用的具有绝对意义或排他性的表述,如“最佳”、“最高级”、“国家级”等。这些用语往往给消费者一种产品具有绝对优势或绝对效果的印象,但实际上往往存在夸大或误导的成分,容易误导消费者,进而损害公平竞争。 《中华人民共和国广告法》第九条第三款规定,广告不得使用“国家级”、“最高级”、“最佳”等绝对化用语。这一规定旨在规范广告用语,防止商家通过夸大其词的宣传误导消费者。 例如,某公司在京东网上经营某品牌户外速干裤,在该商品的宣传页面使用 “大胆融入当下流行的撞色服饰设计元素,告别以往欧洲户外服饰设计呆板,单一,色彩单一,引领户外时尚第一品牌”宣传语。某市市监局据此对该公司作出行政处罚决定。法院认为,“第一品牌”属于与“国家级”、“最高级”、“最佳”含义类似的绝对化用语,在该公司无法提供相关证明文件的情况下,市监局的处罚决定合理合法。 由此可见,该条款极大程度上规范了广告用语。然而,因为条文表述较为模糊,在监管和执法实践中依然存在一些“一刀切”“简单化”等问题。例如,某贸易有限公司在天猫商城经营网店,其宣传女靴商品的页面上写有“特别设计的鞋跟是体现你性感的最佳利器”的广告语。某地工商行政管理局据此对该公司作出行政处罚决定。法院观点认为,上述广告词汇所针对的鞋子在大众中具有较高的认知度,因此其对市场...
  • 点击次数: 1000006
    2024 - 03 - 15
    作者:常春引言:外观设计侵权判定中的判断主体“一般消费者”的界定在理论和实践中一直有争论。例如,一些观点认为一般消费者应当局限于普通消费者群体,不应该具备专业知识。另一些观点认为一般消费者的界定应当根据产品的销售对象确定,也可能具有专业知识。近日,最高人民法院的判例在这个问题上给出了相关指引,明确了“如果产品的功能和用途决定了其只能被作为组装产品的部件使用,该组装产品的最终用户在正常使用组装产品的过程中无法观察到部件的外观设计,则一般消费者主要包括该部件的直接购买者、安装者。” 正文:外观设计,是指对产品的整体或者局部的形状、图案或者其结合以及色彩与形状、图案的结合所作出的富有美感并适于工业应用的新设计。根据司法解释的规定,判断某产品是否侵犯一项外观设计专利权时,需要引入一般消费者这样的一个判断主体,根据一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力对是否构成侵权进行判断。当然,其他司法解释还规定了在考虑一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力时,还应当考虑设计空间,但本文暂不涉及设计空间对一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力的影响。不同类别的产品的一般消费者的界定一般是不同的。相同的类别的产品的一般消费者的界定是否应该相同则存在着多种细分的情形。一般而言,只要体现外观设计的是终产品,或者虽然是终产品的部件,但在终产品中完全可见,或者虽然是终产品的部件,但该部件可以单独使用,在这些情形下,专利权人和被诉侵权人在一般消费者的界定往往不会出现较大分歧,因此一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力也可基本是可以确定的。而在此外的其他的情形中,例如外观设计专利的客体是某一终产品的一个部件,且该部件在终产品上仅部分可见,或者完全不可见时,则专利权人和被诉侵权人在一般消费者的定义上则可能存在较大分歧。原因在于,如果一般消费者针对该产品类别具有较高的知识水平和认知能力,则其可能会注意到一些细微的设计差别,而当其知识水平...
× 扫一扫,关注微信公众号
北京市铭盾律师事务所 www.mdlaw.cn
Copyright© 2008 - 2020北京市铭盾律师事务所京ICP备09063742号-1犀牛云提供企业云服务
X
1

QQ设置

3

SKYPE 设置

4

阿里旺旺设置

5

电话号码管理

6

二维码管理

展开