Abuse of Rights and Legal Consequences

Author: Yingying Zhu, Partner at BEIJING MINGDUN LAW FIRM


Date: June 15, 2022




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.




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: 1000004
    2023 - 09 - 15
    作者:赵丹青在商标实务中,对于将与他人在先登记、使用并具有一定知名度的字号相同或者基本相同的文字申请注册为商标,容易导致相关公众混淆的,可以依据《商标法》第三十二条主张系争商标对他人在先字号权的损害,要求将系争商标不予核准注册或者予以无效宣告。 若是反过来,将他人在先注册商标作为企业名称中的字号使用,应当如何进行维权呢?下面,我们通过案例进行说明。 案例一 案情简介 台联良子公司于2004年注册“良子”商标,核定使用在第44类服务上,即蒸汽浴室;按摩;公共卫生浴室;美容院;修指甲;高级理发店。台联良子公司及关联公司于2005年、2006年均被授予全国“百佳诚信单位”“2005年中国十大行业隐形冠军”。2015年,良子获得创新医疗大赛180+项目,2016年获得中美健康峰会100+项目。《北京晚报》等多家媒体报道了台联良子公司的发展历程。 2020年,足间道良子公司成立,曾用名北京阿丽良子健康管理有限公司,于2020年4月变更为现名称。经营范围包括健康咨询服务、体育健康服务、生活美容服务、足浴服务等。足间道良子公司在其店铺招牌、靠垫、毛巾、前台等处均突出使用“足间道良子”标识。台联良子公司发现上述行为后,向法院提起诉讼。 案例分析 《商标法》第五十七条规定,未经商标注册人的许可,在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标近似的商标,或者在类似商品上使用与其注册商标相同或者近似的商标,容易导致混淆的,属于侵犯注册商标专用权的行为。 本案中,台联良子公司涉案商标核准注册服务包括第44类的按摩、洗浴、美容理发,结合足间道良子公司经营范围、店招、店内装潢及宣传材料,足间道良子公司提供的是与涉案商标核定服务项目类似的按摩及足浴服务,两者服务类别相同。足间道良子公司未经台联良子公司许可,在经营场所的店招突出使用了与上述注...
  • 点击次数: 1000006
    2023 - 09 - 08
    作者:刘文娟近日,国家市场监督管理总局颁布了《企业名称登记管理规定实施办法》(“以下简称“新《办法》”),于2023年10月1日起施行。同时,原《企业名称登记管理实施办法》及《个体工商户名称登记管理办法》同时废止。 除进一步规范企业名称登记规则外,新《办法》最大的亮点就是大幅度提高了对在先权益的保护以及优化了企业名称争议解决机制。笔者具体总结如下: 第一, 扩大了企业名称登记审核范围,有利于快速、高效解决争议; 新《办法》之前,各县级以上企业名称登记机关在对拟登记企业名称进行审核时,一般仅针对本辖区内登记的在先企业名称进行审查。在其他辖区内的企业名称一般不在其审查范围内,这就导致了不同辖区企业字号的冲突问题。 新《办法》的实施扩大了行政机关的审查范围,可以更有效地解决不同辖区企业名称的冲突。同时,新《办法》明确规定各地方企业名称登记机关可以受理处理企业名称争议纠纷,权利人可选择通过行政程序解决企业名称争议问题。对于经判定侵权的企业名称需要变更名称的,不需要权利人另行申请,可以得到更高效地执行。 第二, 协调了企业名称与其他类型知识产权保护的对接 新《办法》之前,对于企业名称侵犯他人在先权益的,一般通过《反不正当竞争法》在法院提起民事诉讼予以解决。然而《反不正当竞争法》相关规定一般要求涉嫌侵权的企业名称已实际从事了商业活动。对于仅登记但未投入使用的企业名称,权利人往往束手无策。 新《办法》是直接针对企业名称的规定,不要求涉嫌侵权的企业名称已投入使用并造成实际的混淆后果。权利人认为他人企业名称侵犯了其企业名称合法权益的,可提起诉讼或请求有管辖权的行政机关处理。 新《办法》弥补了之前企业名称争议解决上的不足,很好地将企业登记管理与《反不正当竞争法》的规定相结合,有利于各部门法之前的...
  • 点击次数: 23
    2023 - 08 - 25
    作者:曲淼引言:随着我国市场经济体制的逐渐完善,经济发展呈现出多元化态势,我国企业所处的内外环境都发生了较大的变化。为应对市场需求,不少企业选择了采用劳务派遣这一灵活的用工方式。但2012年《劳动合同法》的修订及2013年《劳务派遣暂行规定》的颁布,使劳务派遣用工的限制变得更为严格。因此在实践中,劳务外包成为了劳务派遣改头换面的屏障,众多企业纷纷选择转向劳务外包,以减轻单位用工责任、节省单位用工成本,这就导致了“假外包、真派遣”的现象时常发生。本文笔者通过对比分析劳务外包与劳务派遣的不同之处,来讨论实践中“假外包、真派遣”存在的各种法律风险及规避措施。 一、 对劳务外包的基本理解 1. 劳务外包的概念与特征目前,劳务外包在法律、行政法规层面无明确定义。根据各地条例、各级法院判决等可将劳务外包理解为:“劳务外包是指企业将其部分业务或职能工作发包给相关机构,由该机构自行安排人员按照发包企业的要求完成相应的业务或工作”。劳务外包具有以下特点:发包单位与承包单位的关系参照适用《合同法》承揽合同一章的相关规定;合同标的为发包单位的部分业务或职能工作;由承包单位自行完成该项业务。 2. 劳务外包与劳务派遣的区别 (1)标的不同・劳务外包的标的为“工作成果”:承包人以自己的设备、技术和劳动力完成来自发包方的业务委托,向发包人交付工作成果,并提交必要的技术资料和有关质量证明。・劳务派遣的标的为“劳动者”,用工单位购买的是劳动力。 (2)内在关系不同・劳务外包中,发包方和承包方之间是业务委托关系,发包方与劳动者不存在直接法律关系,承包方独立指挥命令劳动者完成业务委托,并对劳动者进行必要的技术指导。・劳务派遣中,用工单位向被派遣劳动者直接行使指挥命令权。 (3)主体要求不同・劳务外包要求承包方具备相应的经...
  • 点击次数: 15
    2023 - 08 - 18
    作者:刘艳玲《民法典》合同编中的技术合同包括技术开发合同、技术转让合同和技术许可合同、技术咨询合同和技术服务合同。根据技术的成熟度、交易双方的实力和市场交易环境的不同,技术商业化实现会使用到不同的合同。根据科学技术部发布的2022年全国技术合同登记情况表,全国登记的技术合同共有772507项,技术合同成交额为44791.02亿元。其中,北京、广东、上海、江苏、山东的技术合同成交额在全国各省市中位于前五名。北京、江苏、陕西、广东和山东的技术合同项数在全国各省市中位于前五名。根据科学技术部发布的2022年全国技术流向情况表,前面列举的这些省和直辖市中,输出技术的合同成交额大于吸纳技术的合同成交额的有北京、上海和陕西;吸纳技术的合同成交额大于输出技术的合同成交额的有江苏、广东和山东。其中,广东省广州市输出技术的合同成交额大于吸纳技术的合同成交额。技术成交额是包括技术交易额、委托方或受让方购置设备、仪器、零部件、原材料等非技术性费用在内的总金额。根据合同登记管理的相关规定,技术合同认定登记统一由卖方(进口合同由买方)按自愿原则在所属地域内选择登记机构进行一次性登记。为完成技术合同登记,需符合合同登记管理要求,且申请认定登记的技术合同应使用规范名称、完整准确地表达合同内容。为此,科学技术部印发有技术合同示范文本供交易双方参考。国家知识产权局也发布有专利实施许可合同范本和专利开放许可合同范本供交易双方参考。但实际交易中,根据交易背景和交易双方的情况最后签署的技术合同会各有不同。现介绍美国证劵交易委员会(SEC)公布的一份技术转移和技术许可协议[1]给读者提供信息参考之用,这是一份InterDigital Communication, LLC和Beceem Communications Inc.之间于2010年签署的技术转移和许可协议。  首先是合同背景和目的。合同背景和目的能...
× 扫一扫,关注微信公众号
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