Case: (Japan) Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes.
[Source of the case] The civil judgment of Beijing No.2 Intermediate People's Court ((2003) No.06286).
[Parties to the case]
Plaintiff: Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan).
Defendant: Zhejiang Geely automobile co., ltd
Defendant: Beijing Yachen Ye Wei Automobile Sales Center.
[Case Summary]
The plaintiff (Japan) Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Toyota Company), the defendant Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Geely Company) and Beijing Yachen Ye Wei Automobile Sales Center (hereinafter referred to as Yachen Ye Wei Center) filed a lawsuit in Beijing No.2 Intermediate Court. After the jurisdiction objection procedure, the court made a judgment after hearing.
The plaintiff, TOYOTA Co., Ltd., sued that the plaintiff enjoyed the exclusive right to use the graphic trademark (hereinafter referred to as Toyota graphic trademark), "Toyota" trademark and "Toyota" trademark in automobile-related fields, and enjoyed high popularity in China, which was an undisputed well-known trademark. However, the plaintiff found that the defendant Aachen Ye Wei Center sold automobile products with "TOYOTA" and "Toyota" graphic logos and trademarks manufactured by the defendant Geely Company in the Beijing Asian Games Village automobile trading market. The defendant Geely Company's use of American and Japanese graphic trademarks in the front face, tires, steering wheel, trunk and other prominent positions of its cars has constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark right and belongs to unfair competition. Defendants Geely Company and Yachen Ye Wei Center used propaganda words such as "Toyota Power of US-Japan Automobile", "Toyota 8A Engine" and "Technical Parameter: Toyota 8A" to mislead consumers when selling the involved US-Japan automobile, which violated the principle of good faith and constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the court to: determine that the use of American and Japanese graphic trademarks, "TOYOTA" and "Toyota" trademarks by the defendant Geely Company constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights; It is determined that the defendant Yachen Ye Wei Center's sales of products with the above-mentioned infringement marks and the use of "TOYOTA" and "Toyota" trademarks in advertisements constitute infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights; It is judged that the above-mentioned behavior of the second defendant also constitutes unfair competition; Identify the plaintiff's TOYOTA graphic trademark, "Toyota" and "Toyota" registered trademarks as well-known trademarks; Order the two defendants to stop the infringement; The second defendant was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of13,920,000 yuan and pay the plaintiff a reasonable fee of150,000 yuan to stop the infringement of the second defendant, and the two defendants were jointly and severally liable for this.
Defendant Geely Company replied that the US-Japan graphic trademark and Toyota graphic registered trademark are not objectively similar, and the two graphic trademarks are completely different not only in design concept and graphic meaning, but also in graphic basic structure and visual effect. The market positioning of American, Japanese and Toyota cars is different. Based on the cautious attitude of the relevant public to buy this high-end consumer goods and the main factors such as price, quality, appearance and brand, it will not cause confusion and misunderstanding. In fact, there has never been any confusion between American and Japanese cars and Toyota cars, and the defendant's use of American and Japanese graphic trademarks does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark rights. There was no unfair competition, and the defendant had his own brand strategy and did not make any false propaganda. The propaganda of 8A engines used in American and Japanese automobiles is true and accurate, which conforms to commercial practice. The plaintiff accused the defendant of improper use of its trademark or enterprise name without any factual basis. The plaintiff's written and graphic trademarks should not be recognized as well-known trademarks.
The defendant Achen Ye Wei Center replied that the defendant did not infringe the plaintiff's trademark rights and did not constitute unfair competition with the plaintiff. 1. The trademark of American and Japanese graphics used by the defendant when selling American and Japanese cars is not similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff Toyota Graphics; The defendant did not make misleading false propaganda when selling American and Japanese cars, but truthfully explained the engines of American and Japanese cars to the buyers, and the expression of "Toyota" 8A engine did not constitute infringement; The 8A engine was manufactured by the plaintiff Tianjin Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tianjin Toyota Company), and the Toyota 8A engine was awarded the bid by Tianjin Toyota Company for external use. Tianjin Toyota 8A engine will not be mistaken for Japanese original engine. Second, the defendant's sale of American and Japanese cars is a legal act in full compliance with the law. The defendant is a legally registered enterprise and has the qualification to sell cars, and the defendant should not be liable for tort compensation. Therefore, the plaintiff has no factual and legal basis for the defendant's claim and requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
To prove its claim, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. submitted three types of evidence. The first category is the evidence that the plaintiff enjoys the ownership of the registered trademark; The second is the evidence that the registered trademark involved by the plaintiff is a well-known trademark; The third category is the evidence that the defendants Geely Company and Aachen Ye Wei Center infringed the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark and engaged in unfair competition.
Defendant Geely Company and Defendant Yachen Ye Wei Center also submitted corresponding evidential materials to prove their defense claims.
[Facts of the case ascertained by the court]:
The plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. was incorporated in Japan on August 27th, 1937, mainly engaged in automobile manufacturing. 1March 990 10 was approved by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China to register the Toyota graphic trademark. The approved commodity is International Classification of CommoditiesNo. 12: automobiles and their parts and tires, and the trademark registration number is 51414. After the registration is renewed, it will be valid until. On1989,65438+2 and 10, it was registered as a trademark of "Toyota" in China, and the approved commodity was International Commodity ClassificationNo. 12: automobiles and their parts and tires, with the trademark registration number of 506683. The renewal of registration will be valid until 2009 12. 1980 65438+1On October 20th, word mark with two different fonts of "TOYOTA" was approved to be registered in China. The approved commodity was International Commodity ClassificationNo.19: Automobile and 12: Automobile, its parts and tires, and the trademark registration number was/kloc-0. Toyota graphic logo is embedded in the front and back of all the models manufactured by Toyota Co., Ltd.
Defendant Geely Company was established on February 7, 2002/KLOC-0. It was formed by the merger of former Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Hao Qing Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and Geely Group Linhai Locomotive Industry Co., Ltd., and the creditor's rights and debts of the original three companies were inherited by the newly established Geely Company. Geely Company is a holding subsidiary of Geely Group Co., Ltd., and its business scope is mainly the manufacture and operation of automobiles (including Geely Meiri cars and Geely Meiri series buses) and their engines and parts.
1On May 7, 1996, American and Japanese characters and graphic trademarks were approved and registered by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China, and the approved goods were classified as International Commodity Classification (ISIC)No. 12: automobiles and motorcycles. The trademark registration number is 836 1 1, and it will be valid until May 6, 2006. The registered trademark is Huangyan Huatian Motorcycle General Factory. 1On June 28th, 998, the trademark was approved for transfer and registration, and the trademark registrant was changed to Geely Group Co., Ltd. On April 29th, 2000 and October 29th, 2006, Geely Group Co., Ltd. applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China for registration of two kinds of graphic trademarks, namely162/kloc. The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China issued preliminary approval announcements on May 2, 20061day and 20021October 28, respectively. Geely Group Co., Ltd. authorized the defendant Geely Company to use the above registered and registered trademarks.
MR6370A American-Japanese automobile produced by Ningbo American-Japanese Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., one of the predecessors of the defendant Geely Company, has American-Japanese graphic trademarks embedded in its front, rear, steering wheel and axle. The foreword of the instruction manual of this model (May 2000 edition) indicates that it is equipped with "MR6370 and MR6370A light buses" and "MQ479Q produced by our company and 8A-FE four-cylinder electronically controlled gasoline injection engine produced by Toyota Motor Corporation" respectively. The foreword of the instruction manual of this vehicle (version 200 1 10) indicates: "MR6370A 1, MR6370A 1 luxury bus", "MQ479Q is produced by our company, and 8A four-cylinder closed-loop electronically controlled gasoline injection engine is produced by Toyota Motor Corporation of Tianjin". In the brochure of this model, it is indicated that the engine of this car is "Toyota 8A (8A-Fe)", and the advertisement published by Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd. in Beijing Evening News in March 1 day contains the words "Toyota Power Price" and "Toyota 8A(8A-FE Four-Cylinder EFI Engine) of Japan".
Tianjin Toyota Company is a joint venture company registered in China by Toyota Corporation and China Tianjin Automobile Industry Corporation. In China, Toyota Company Limited exclusively transferred 8A-FE engine technology to Tianjin Toyota Company. On June 5th, 2000, Geely Company signed a supply contract with Tianjin Toyota Company, which stipulated that Tianjin Toyota Company would supply 8A-FE gasoline engines to Geely Company. On April 12, 2000, the two parties signed the Supply Status Agreement, stipulating that Toyota Tianjin Company would provide the 8A gasoline engine to Geely Company as the power for the light passenger car produced by Geely Company according to the overall conditions, accessories and packaging agreed in the agreement. The distributor, generator and belt for adjusting engine speed used in American and Japanese cars involved in the case manufactured by Geely Company are all marked with the trademark "TOYOTA", and the engine side is marked with the double-ring graphic trademarks of 8A gasoline engine, Tianjin Toyota Company, TTME and Tianjin Toyota Company.
Defendant Yachen Ye Wei Center was established on July 20th, 2000, and its business scope mainly covers the sales of automobiles (including cars), auto parts and lubricants. On 200 1, 1 1, Achen Yewei Center signed an automobile sales contract with Ningbo Meiri Automobile Manufacturing Co., Ltd., the predecessor of Geely Company. Achen Ye Wei Center, as the exclusive distributor of American and Japanese MR6370A cars in Beijing, is valid until 200 1,12,365438+. Achen Yewei Center sells American and Japanese cars involved, and uses the words "Toyota 8A-Fe EFI engine" and "American and Japanese cars are equipped with Toyota 8A engine" in the publicity.
The exterior of the TOYOTA graphic trademark involved is oval, and the interior is a combination of a horizontal ellipse and a vertical ellipse, which is in the shape of the initial "T" of "Toyota", and the internal lines are heavier than the external lines. The graphic trademark used by the plaintiff on Toyota is that the inner and outer lines are of the same thickness and the color is a single metallic color; The shape of the US-Japan graphic trademark involved is oval with a horizontal arc and four vertical arcs in the middle. The inner and outer lines have the same thickness and the color is a single metallic color.
In addition, China became a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property on March 1985 1985. Japan became a member of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property on July 5, 1999.
[Controversy Focus] Whether the defendant Geely Company's use of the US-Japan graphic trademark involved in the case constitutes an infringement on the exclusive right of the plaintiff Toyota's graphic registered trademark; Whether the defendant Geely Company's use of the words "TOYOTA" and "Toyota" involved in the case constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademarks of "Toyota" and "Toyota", and whether Geely Company's use of the graphic trademarks of the United States and Japan involved in the case constitutes unfair competition against the plaintiff; Whether the defendant Yachen Ye Wei Center sells the American and Japanese cars involved in the case and the propaganda activities involved in the sales process constitute the infringement and unfair competition of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark; Whether the plaintiff's TOYOTA graphic trademarks "Toyota" and "Toyota" word mark are well-known trademarks.
[Court decision] The claim of Toyota Motor Corporation (Japan) was rejected.
[Legal Analysis]
The trademark rights obtained by the plaintiff in China should be protected. China and Japan are both members of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. According to the provisions of the Convention, the objects of protection of industrial property rights are patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service trademarks, trade names, marks or names of origin, and the prevention of unfair competition. Therefore, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. in this case, as a company incorporated in Japan, can request to protect its legally obtained trademark rights and prevent unfair competition in China. The TOYOTA graphic trademark, "Toyota" and "Toyota word mark" involved in the case have been registered in China, and the plaintiff Toyota Limited, as the owner of the above-mentioned registered trademarks, enjoys the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks and is protected by the laws of China.
The amended Trademark Law (200 1) shall apply. China's trademark law was revised on 27 October 20001year1year and came into force on 27 February. In view of the fact that the defendants Geely Company and Yachen Ye Wei Center were accused of infringement before and after the amendment of the Trademark Law came into effect, the amended Trademark Law of China should be applied.
Whether the US-Japan graphic trademark of the defendant Geely Company is not similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff Toyota Graphics will not mislead the relevant public, so it does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark. Without the permission of the trademark registrant, the use of a trademark identical with or similar to its registered trademark on the same or similar goods constitutes infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. The Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes stipulates that trademark approximation refers to that the font, pronunciation, meaning, graphic composition and color of the accused infringing trademark are similar to those of the plaintiff's registered trademark, or the overall structure of its element combination is similar, or its three-dimensional shape and color combination are similar, which may easily make the relevant public misunderstand the source of the goods or think that its source is specifically related to the goods registered by the plaintiff. Trademark recognition is roughly based on the following principles: (1) take the general attention of the relevant public as the standard; If it is necessary to compare the whole trademark with the main part of the trademark, it shall be compared separately in the state that the comparison object is isolated; The distinctiveness and popularity of the registered trademark requested for protection shall be considered. The basic function of a trademark is to enable consumers to identify goods and their sources. In this case, the automobile products used by the defendant Geely Company's US-Japan graphic trademark and the goods approved by the plaintiff's Toyota graphic registered trademark belong to the same kind of goods. According to the above-mentioned laws and regulations of our country, judging trademark approximation should be based on the general concern of the relevant public. The so-called related public refers to consumers related to a certain kind of goods or services identified by trademarks, as well as other operators closely related to the marketing of the above-mentioned goods or services. The products involved in this case are automobiles, the consumers concerned should refer to the buyers or users of automobiles, and the operators concerned should refer to the operators who distribute and provide automobile maintenance services. Therefore, in this case, the relevant public should refer to the buyers or users of automobiles and the operators who distribute or provide services such as automobile maintenance. The above-mentioned consumers include potential consumers who have purchase plans, consumers who are implementing purchase behaviors, consumers and users after purchase. Relatively speaking, cars should be high-priced goods. They generally need to know more about the brand, performance, price and manufacturer of the car they buy or use. Before buying, they will make a full comparison and repeated choice between the same or different grades of car brands before buying. After the purchase, through the use, maintenance and repair of the car, we can further deepen our understanding and understanding of the car brands and manufacturers, and we can continue to pay attention to the products of the subsequent series of brand cars; The above-mentioned operators often have a certain degree of familiarity and high understanding of the automobile brands they operate, and can distinguish between different brands of automobile products and manufacturers, with strong identification ability.
Comparing the registered trademark of the plaintiff Toyota Graphics with the trademarks of American and Japanese graphics used by Geely Company, it is found that although the external contours of both trademarks are oval, the oval of the former is composed of three arcs, with heavier internal lines, lighter external lines, prominent horizontal and vertical ovals and simple overall structure. The ellipse of the latter consists of five arcs, and the thickness of the inner and outer lines is the same. The combination of the inner and outer lines is an artistic deformation of the initial letter "M" of the Chinese phonetic alphabet "Mei" and the Chinese character "Ri", and the overall structure is more complicated. Through isolated observation and comparison, under the general concern of the above-mentioned relevant public, it can be judged that there are great differences in the overall vision, and there are also obvious differences in the line structure of the main parts of the two graphic trademarks, so the relevant public will not be confused or mistaken.
In practice, because of Toyota's long-term use of the Toyota graphic trademark and its effective market operation behavior of the automobile products identified by the trademark, the Toyota graphic trademark has high distinctiveness and popularity as a symbol of Toyota automobile. However, for the relevant public of automobile products, because they have a certain degree of familiarity and understanding of the appearance, configuration, performance and whether the automobile products involved originated from China, foreign countries or joint ventures, and because the market positioning, connotation and price of the automobile products identified by the two graphic trademarks are obviously different, they will not misunderstand the source of the American-Japanese automobile identified by the American-Japanese graphic trademark, or think that there is a specific connection between them and the Toyota automobile identified by the Toyota graphic trademark.
To sum up, combined with the characteristics of automobile products, the perception and attention of relevant public on the market, the distinctiveness and popularity of Toyota graphic trademarks involved, the differences between Toyota graphic trademarks and American graphic trademarks, and the differences of automobile products identified by the above graphic trademarks, it is concluded that the American and Japanese graphic trademarks of the defendant Geely Company are not similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff Toyota graphic, and the relevant public will not be confused or mistaken about their sources, nor will they have bad associations with the plaintiff's exclusive right to register trademarks. Geely's use of American and Japanese graphic trademarks on its American and Japanese cars does not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use registered trademarks. Therefore, the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd. accused the defendant Geely Company of infringing its exclusive right to use a registered trademark, which was not supported by the court.
Does the use of the words "TOYOTA" and "Toyota" by the defendant Geely Company in promoting the American and Japanese cars involved constitute an infringement of the exclusive right to use the above-mentioned registered trademarks? Does Geely's use of graphic trademarks in the United States and Japan and the publicity involved constitute unfair competition? The existing evidence in this case shows that the defendant Geely Company used the words "Toyota" and "Toyota" to explain the performance and source of the American and Japanese automobile engines involved, and introduced the technology and manufacturing sources of the main parts of automobile products to consumers, so that consumers could understand the basic situation of automobile products. This way of introducing or explaining automobile products conforms to commercial practice; Geely did not use the words "Toyota" and "Toyota" as product logos of American and Japanese cars involved. The words "TOYOTA" and "Toyota" do not have the meaning of identifying American and Japanese automobile products and Geely Company, nor do they cause any damage to the registered trademark rights of "Toyota" and "Toyota". Therefore, the above-mentioned behavior of Geely Company does not belong to the infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as stipulated by Chinese laws. In addition, China's "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" stipulates that unfair competition refers to the behavior of operators who violate the provisions of this law, damage the legitimate rights and interests of other operators, and disrupt social and economic order; Business operators shall not use advertisements or other methods to make misleading false propaganda about the quality, composition, performance, use, producer, expiration date and place of origin of commodities. False propaganda prescribed by law refers to the deliberate dissemination of information that is inconsistent with reality. According to the ascertained facts, the engine used in the American-Japanese car involved in the case produced by Geely Company is 8A gasoline engine produced by Tianjin Toyota Company. As a joint venture registered by Toyota in China, the technology of manufacturing 8A gasoline engine by Tianjin Toyota is exclusively authorized by Toyota. Therefore, the 8A gasoline engine involved in the case was actually provided by Toyota Company and manufactured by Tianjin Toyota Company. It can be seen that Geely used the words "Toyota" and "Toyota" and the words "Toyota Power Price" and "Toyota 8A-FE Four-cylinder EFI Engine" when promoting the American and Japanese cars involved, and used the words "Made by Toyota Motor Company" in the product instruction manual, which contained some exaggerated elements, and this behavior was obviously inappropriate. However, the nature of this behavior has not yet reached the level of misleading and false propaganda on the performance and use of products as stipulated by Chinese laws. The relevant public of the automobile products involved will not mistakenly think that the engines of the American and Japanese cars involved are made in Japan, and because the technology of the engines involved actually comes from the plaintiff Toyota Co., Ltd., this behavior will not adversely affect the brand reputation of Toyota Company, and will not cause objective consequences of damaging the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests and disrupting the social and economic order. Geely's use of the US-Japan graphic trademark on the US-Japan automobile and its above-mentioned propaganda behavior will not lead the public to misunderstand the connection between the US-Japan automobile or Geely and Toyota or Toyota Co., Ltd., nor will it damage the plaintiff's corresponding legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, the above behavior of Geely Company does not constitute unfair competition.
Does the defendant Yachen Ye Wei Center's sales of American and Japanese cars involved in the case and the publicity activities involved in the case constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark and unfair competition? As the seller of American and Japanese cars involved, Yachen Ye Wei Center sells automobile products in compliance with relevant laws and regulations, and has a legal business relationship with the defendant Geely Company. The American and Japanese cars involved were manufactured and provided by Geely Company, and its publicity content for the American and Japanese cars involved originated from Geely Company. Therefore, based on the conclusion that Geely's involvement in the case does not constitute infringement and unfair competition on the plaintiff's exclusive right to use a registered trademark, neither does Achen Ye Wei Center.
Should the TOYOTA graphic trademark, "Toyota" and "Toyota" registered trademarks of the plaintiff Toyota Limited be recognized as well-known trademarks? China's Trademark Law clearly stipulates the protection of well-known trademarks. The law gives more special protection to well-known trademarks than general registered trademarks, including prohibiting the use of trademarks identical or similar to registered trademarks on goods different or similar to registered trademarks, misleading the relevant public, and prohibiting the use of trademarks identical or similar to unregistered trademarks on goods identical or similar to unregistered trademarks, which is easy to cause confusion. When trying a trademark dispute case, the people's court may, according to the request of the parties and the specific circumstances of the case, determine whether the registered trademark involved is well-known. As far as this case is concerned, the plaintiff's registered trademark involved in the case does not need the special protection of well-known trademarks, because the automobile products involved in the case that the defendant is suspected of infringing belong to the same kind of goods as the goods approved for use by the plaintiff's registered trademark involved in the case, and it is not based on whether the registered trademark is well-known to judge whether the trademark used on the same or similar goods as the registered trademark misleads the relevant public and whether the trademark is similar to the registered trademark. Therefore, in this case, there is no need to judge and determine whether the registered trademark involved by the plaintiff is well-known. The plaintiff claimed that the registered trademark involved was a well-known trademark, which was not supported by the court.
2006.4. 16
15:37