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: 999999
    2025 - 05 - 16
    作者:张嘉畅2025年4月21日,在世界知识产权日来临之际,最高人民法院举行了知识产权宣传周新闻发布会,并在会上发布2024年人民法院知识产权典型案例。其中第八案,浙江省东阳市人民法院(2024)浙0783刑初585号案为著作权侵权案件。侵权人最终被认定触犯侵犯著作权罪,刑期最高长达4年,最低有期徒刑10个月(缓刑1年零4个月)。此外,3名侵权人还被处以最高150万元的民事罚金。在本案当中,被告陆某某自2020年起,开设了多个违规盗版视频网站,未经权利人授权许可,非法向公众提供各类影视作品。另外两被告季某某、方某明在明知陆某某开设的网站为违规网站的情况下,依然向其出售影视网站模板,并持续为其提供技术服务,共计收取6990余元。在此期间,陆某某与非法广告商合作,在其开设的盗版网站上投放涉黄、涉赌广告,广告费收入超过148万元人民币。2024年初,3名被告人被公安机关抓获归案,公诉机关指控三被告人触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百一十七条侵犯著作权罪。又因上述盗版网站大量传播当时影院热映的《飞驰人生2》、《第二十条》、《热辣滚烫》等贺岁档电影,各电影出品方提起了附带民事诉讼,要求被告人赔偿经济损失。浙江省东阳市人民法院一审认定,被告人陆某某以盈利为目的,未经著作权人许可,通过信息网络向公众传播他人视听作品,违法所得数额巨大;被告人方某、季某某明知他人侵犯著作权仍提供帮助,以上被告人均构成侵犯著作权罪。综合在案事实,法院最终判处被告人陆某某有期徒刑四年,并处罚金150万元;被告人方某有期徒刑一年,缓刑一年六个月,并处罚金1.6万元;被告人季某某有期徒刑十个月,缓刑一年四个月,并处罚金1万元;被告人陆某某赔偿附带民事诉讼各原告人经济损失共计88万元。本案判决充分彰显了知识产权民事、刑事、行政“三合一”审判模式的效能。它不仅妥善解决了各被告人的定罪及量刑问题,还有效处理了被害人的民事赔...
  • 点击次数: 1000002
    2025 - 05 - 09
    作者:陈巴特将银行账户借给父亲临时周转,儿子凭什么要承担还款责任?这或许是很多人的第一反应。正是因为持有这种想法的人很多,现实生活中,亲友、同事甚至企业和员工之间,借用银行账户的情形大量存在。殊不知,出借银行账户,出借人存在很大法律风险,很可能和借款人或债务人承担连带责任或补充责任。一定条件下,出借人甚至可能构成犯罪。一、基本案情陈某与张某系多年好友关系。2021年初,陈某因资金周转需要,向张某提出借款30万元,月利率为1%,按月还息,先息后本,两年还清。张某考虑双方好友关系以及有利可图,便同意借款。因张某在农业银行账户有足够的活期存款可使用,遂要求陈某使用农业银行账户接收借款。又因陈某此前未开设农业银行账户,故在未向儿子陈小某告知用途的情况下,借用儿子的农业银行账户,并指示张某将借款转入该账户。于是,张某将30万元借款转入陈小某的农业银行账户。陈小某对父亲陈某使用其银行账户借款并不知情,亦未实际使用该借款。 借款期限届满后,陈某只偿还了一年的利息。张某多次催讨,陈某虽向张某承诺一定会偿还剩余借款本息,但其迟迟未予偿还。张某忍无可忍,将陈某和陈小某一同诉至人民法院,要求陈某偿还本息,陈小某承担连带清偿责任。二、争议焦点庭审中,原告张某提交的证据《借条》和《银行交易明细清单》,能充分证明陈某向其借款及偿还了一年利息的事实,被告陈某亦完全认可尚未偿还的借款本息金额且愿意偿还。但是,双方在陈小某是否应当承担连带还款责任的问题上,产生重大分歧。法庭围绕该争议焦点展开辩论。原告张某主张:首先,原告虽要求陈某提供农业银行账户接收借款,但陈某完全可以亲自到农业银行新开设自己的农业银行账户,不必借用其儿子陈小某的农业银行账户接收借款。 其次,被告陈某和陈小某系父子关系,原告完全有理由相信陈某借用陈小某的农业银行账户时向陈小某告知了用途,陈小某对自己的农业银行账户接收张某...
  • 点击次数: 1000007
    2025 - 04 - 25
    作者:常春摘要:在当今激烈的商业竞争中,知识产权已成为企业核心竞争力的重要组成部分。然而,随着知识产权保护意识的增强和权利类型的多样化,不同知识产权之间的冲突也日益凸显。特别是外观设计专利权与商标权之间的冲突,近年来在汽车、鞋服、电子产品等领域频繁发生。本文将通过国家知识产权局公布的"汽车"外观设计专利无效案(第57220号决定)和"运动鞋"外观设计专利维持有效案(第563861号决定)两起典型案例,深入剖析外观设计专利权与在先商标权冲突的法律适用标准、判断方法及实务应对策略,并给出乐法律适用标准的系统梳理与前瞻思考。 一、外观设计与商标权冲突的法律框架与理论基础知识产权体系中的外观设计专利权与商标权在保护客体和功能上存在本质差异,却又在实践中常常产生交叉与冲突。我国《专利法》第二条第四款明确规定:"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。"而《商标法》第八条则规定,任何能够将自然人、法人或者其他组织的商品与他人的商品区别开的标志,包括文字、图形、字母、数字、三维标志、颜色组合和声音等,以及上述要素的组合,均可以作为商标申请注册。这两种权利在保护目的上各有侧重——外观设计专利保护的是产品具有美感的创新设计,防止他人未经许可实施该设计;商标权保护的则是识别商品或服务来源的标志,防止他人使用相同或近似标志造成市场混淆。 正是由于外观设计中可能包含具有识别功能的图案、色彩等元素,而商标也可能具有装饰性美感,二者在特定情况下会产生保护客体的重合。《专利法》第二十三条第三款专门针对这一问题作出规定:"授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在申请日以前已经取得的合法权利相冲突。"这一条款确立了商标权等在先权利对外观...
  • 点击次数: 100010
    2025 - 04 - 18
    作者:王辉对于待岗没有合同约定,亦没有制度规定,就待岗事宜也未与员工协商一致,用人单位仅凭一纸通知强行安排员工待岗,在该种情况下,员工如何通过法律手段维权?且看下文案例及本文律师浅见。一、实务案例◆案例1:(2023)京01民终3298号某股份公司与李某签订了自2013年8月26日起的无固定期限劳动合同。2021年1月18日某股份公司向李某发送内容为《待岗通知书》的电子邮件,载明“……一、待岗原因。因公司业务调整,您所在部门整体撤销,而您未服从调岗也未竞聘新的岗位,造成目前无部门和岗位接收,已待岗数月,经数次协商,截至目前未就变更劳动合同达成一致意见,考虑到稳定员工就业关系及基本生活保障,以及企业现实困难等因素,公司不行使劳动合同单方解除权,即日起通知待岗。二、待岗起始时间:2021年1月18日。三、待岗终止时间:竞聘公司新岗位成功。四、待岗期间待遇:……按照工作所在地最低工资标准发放,……待岗期间,公司不安排工作任务,无特殊情况不需到岗。……待岗期间相关补助不再发放……”2021年1月20日李某回复邮件称“对于公司2021年1月18日出具的待岗通知书,我完全不认可并且不接受。后李某以要求某股份公司支付工资为由,向北京市海淀区劳动人事争议仲裁委员会提出申请,该委作出京海劳人仲字[2021]第9220号裁决书。李某对裁决不服提起诉讼,主张某股份公司应向其支付自2020年9月26日至2021年7月25日期间的工资差额共计306590.53元。一审法院认为,某股份公司通知李某自2021年1月18日起待岗,李某明确表示不同意待岗,并经常询问工作任务,某股份公司并未安排工作。某股份公司未举证证明存在企业停产停业等合法合理安排待岗的情形,亦未就待岗安排及待岗期间的待遇与李某达成协商一致,应自行承担相应法律后果。因此,被安排待岗期间李某之所以未能正常提供劳动,系因某股份公司未依据劳动合同...
× 扫一扫,关注微信公众号
铭盾MiNGDUN www.mdlaw.cn
Copyright© 2008 - 2025 铭盾京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