生活的艺术国际基金会（简称生活艺术基金会）与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会（简称商标评审委员会），泉州美俪阿萨娜健身有限公司（简称泉州阿萨娜公司）、厦门美俪阿萨娜运营有限公司（简称厦门阿萨娜公司）商标异议复审行政纠纷一案
中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 （2017）最高法行再44号
Art of Living International Foundation (referred to as Art of Living Foundation) and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce's Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board), Quanzhou Meili Asana Fitness Co., Ltd. (referred to as Quanzhou Asana Company), Xiamen Meili Asana business Co., Ltd. (referred to as Xiamen Asana Company) trademark opposition reexamination administrative dispute case.
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China Administrative Judgment (2017) Supreme Court No. 44
案情介绍:
再审申请人（一审原告、二审上诉人）：生活的艺术国际基金会。
被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人）：国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会。
原审第三人：泉州美俪阿萨娜健身有限公司。
原审第三人：厦门美俪阿萨娜运营有限公司。
Case introduction:
The petitioner (plaintiff in first-instance, appellant in second-instance): Art of Life International Foundation
Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.
The third person in the original trial: Quanzhou Meili Asana Fitness Co., Ltd.
The third person in the original trial: Xiamen Meili Asana Business Co., Ltd.
被异议商标系泉州阿萨娜公司于2008年6月23日申请注册的第6797428号“生活的艺术THEARTOFLIVING”商标，指定使用服务为：医院、保健、理疗、理发店、疗养院、美容院、宠物饲养、庭园设计、眼镜行、卫生设备出租。在被异议商标初步审定公告期间，生活艺术基金会在法定期限内向中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理总局商标局（简称商标局）提出异议。商标局经审查作出（2012）商标异字第06019号“生活的艺术THEARTOFLIVING”商标异议裁定（简称第06019号异议裁定），裁定被异议商标予以核准注册。
The disputed trademark is the No. 6797428 “THE ART OF LIVING” trademark of Quanzhou Asana Company, which was applied for registration on June 23, 2008. The designated service is: hospital, health care, physical therapy, hairdresser, nursing home, beauty salon, pet Feeding, garden design, glasses, and sanitary equipment rental. After the preliminary examination of the disputed trademark, the Art of Living Foundation filed an objection to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (the Trademark Office) within the objection period. The Trademark Office has made the No. 06019 decision on “生活的艺术THE ART OF LIVING" trademark objection that the disputed trademark was approved for registration.
生活艺术基金会不服商标局的上述裁定，于2012年4月10日向商标评审委员会提出异议复审申请，其主要理由是：一、被异议商标损害了其商号权及著作权；二、“THEARTOFLIVING生活的艺术”商标是生活艺术基金会在先使用并有较高知名度的商标，被异议商标构成恶意抢注；泉州阿萨娜公司未经生活艺术基金会同意擅自注册被异议商标违反了商标法第十五条的规定；三、被异议商标易产生不良影响；四、泉州阿萨娜公司具有恶意，其行为违反了诚实信用原则。2013年10月9日，商标评审委员会经审查作出商评字（2013）第90185号《关于第6797428号“生活的艺术THEARTOFLIVING”商标异议复审裁定书》（简称第90185号裁定）。该裁定认定：一、生活艺术基金会提交的证据不足以证明泉州阿萨娜公司与其存在商标法意义上的代理关系，被异议商标的申请注册未构成商标法第十五条所指情形。二、被异议商标的注册未违反商标法第三十一条所指“申请注册的商标不得损害他人现有在先权利”之规定。三、生活艺术基金会提交的证据不足以证明在被异议商标申请注册之前，其“THEARTOFLIVING生活的艺术”商标已在与被异议商标指定商品相同或类似商品上进行使用并具有一定影响，故被异议商标的申请注册未违反商标法第三十一条后半句规定。四、被异议商标也未构成商标法第四十一条第一款所指以欺骗手段或其他不正当手段取得注册的情形。五、被异议商标不属于商标法第十条第一款第（八）项所指情形。综上，商标评审委员会依据商标法第三十三条、第三十四条的规定，裁定：被异议商标予以核准注册。
The Art of Living Foundation dissatisfied with the above-mentioned decision of the Trademark Office and filed an objection review application with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board on April 10, 2012. The main reasoning was as follows: 1. The disputed trademark was infringed by its trademark name and copyright. 2. THE ART OF LIVING is a trademark used by the Art of Living Foundation and has a high reputation. It is a malicious hijacking by a disputed trademark; Quanzhou Asana Company has not authorized the registration of the disputed trademark without the consent of the Art of Living Foundation. 3. The registration of the disputed trademark is easy to have negative influence. 4. Quanzhou Asana Company has malicious intention. Its behavior violates the principle of good faith. On October 9, 2013, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board reviewed the case and made the trademark review decision (2013) No. 90185 on the No. 6797428 trademark of “The Art of Living” trademark opposition review ruling” (referred to as Decision No. 90185). The ruling determined that: 1. The evidence submitted by the Art of Living Foundation is insufficient to prove that the Quanzhou Asana Company has an agent relationship under trademark law. The application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate Article 15 of the Trademark Law. 2. The registration of the disputed trademark does not violate Article 31 of the Trademark Law that “the trademark applied for registration shall not infringe the existing prior rights such as trade name of others”. 3. The evidence submitted by the Art of Living Foundation is not sufficient to prove that the “THE ART OF LIVING” trademark has been used on the identical or proximity goods as the designated goods of the disputed trademark before it is applied for registration. The application for registration of disputed trademark does not violate the second sentence of Article 31 of the Trademark Law. 4. The disputed trademark does not constitute the registration by deception or other improper means as referred to in the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law. 5. The disputed trademark doesn’t violate Article 10 of the Trademark Law. In summary, under Articles 33 and 34 of the Trademark Law, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the disputed trademark was approved for registration.
生活艺术基金会不服商标评审委员会作出的第90185号裁定并向北京市第一中级人民法院提起诉讼，请求撤销该裁定。一审法院认为：现有证据不足以认定泉州阿萨娜公司的行为属于商标法第十五条所指情形，也不能证明被异议商标的注册违反商标法第三十一条规定。被异议商标的申请注册未构成商标法第十条第一款第（八）项所指情形，亦未构成商标法第四十一条第一款所指情形。综上所述，商标评审委员会作出第90185号裁定认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，依法应予维持。北京市第一中级人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》（1990年）第五十四条第（一）项规定，判决：维持第90185号裁定。
The Art of Living Foundation filed a lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court. The court held that the existing evidence is insufficient to determine that the behavior of Quanzhou Asana Company violates Article 15 of the Trademark Law, nor can it prove that the registration of the disputed trademark violates Article 31 of the Trademark Law. The application for registration of the disputed trademark does not constitute Article 10 item 1 (8) of the Trademark Law, nor does it constitute the violation of the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law. In summary, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the No. 90185 decision is correct and should be maintained. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court ruled that the No. 90185 decision should be maintained.
生活艺术基金会不服一审判决，向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉，请求撤销一审判决和第90185号裁定。二审法院认为，本案商标评审委员会在2014年5月1日前依据2001年10月修订的商标法作出第90185号裁定，而2013年8月修订的商标法自2014年5月1日起施行，因此本案应适用2001年10月修订的商标法进行审理。本案中，被异议商标标志本身并不具有“有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响”的因素，也未构成对公共利益的损害与侵占。因此，商标评审委员会认定被异议商标不属于“有害于社会主义道德风尚或者有其他不良影响的标志”并无不当，生活艺术基金会有关被异议商标应依据商标法第十条第一款第（八）项规定不予注册的上诉理由依据不足，二审法院不予支持。一审法院认定现有证据不足以认定泉州阿萨娜公司的行为构成商标法第十五条所指抢注商标的情形并无不当，生活艺术基金会有关被异议商标应依据商标法第十五条规定不予注册的上诉理由依据不足，二审法院不予支持。生活艺术基金会有关被异议商标应依据商标法第三十一条规定不予注册的上诉理由依据不足，二审法院不予支持。一审法院认定被异议商标的申请注册未构成商标法第四十一条第一款规定并无不当，生活艺术基金会有关被异议商标应依据商标法第四十一条规定不予注册的上诉理由依据不足，二审法院不予支持。依据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第八十九条第一款第（一）项之规定，判决：驳回生活艺术基金会上诉，维持原判。
The Art of Living Foundation appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The court hold that the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made the No. 90185 decision. In this case, the object for registration of the disputed trademark does not have the facts that are “harmful to socialism morality or other negative effects”, nor does it constitute damage to the public. The Art of Living Foundation’s trademark should be based on Article 10, paragraph 1 Item 8 of the Trademark law. The court of first instance found that the existing evidence was insufficient to determine that the behavior of Quanzhou Asana Company violated Article 15 of the Trademark Law. Dismissed the Appeal.
生活艺术基金会不服二审判决，向本院申请再审。其申请再审的主要理由是：1、被异议商标的注册申请违反了2001年商标法第十五条的规定，应该不予核准。2、被异议商标的注册申请损害了再审申请人的在先商号权，违反了2001年商标法第三十一条的规定，应该不予核准。3、被异议商标的注册申请构成了对再审申请人在先使用并具有一定影响的商标的恶意抢注，违反了2001年商标法第三十一条的规定，应该不予核准。4、被异议商标的注册申请违反了2001年商标法第十条第一款第（八）项的规定，应该不予核准。5、被异议商标的注册申请以及原审第三人的其他显著恶意行为损害了相关领域的公共利益，并且破坏了商标注册管理秩序和公平竞争的市场秩序，浪费了行政和司法资源，构成了以其他不正当手段获得商标注册的情形，依据2001年商标法第四十一条第一款的规定，被异议商标应该不予核准注册。
The Art of Living Foundation applied to the Supreme Court for retrial. The main reasoning are as follows. 1. The application for registration of the disputed trademark violates the Article 15 of the Trademark Law and should not be approved. 2. The application for registration of the disputed trademark has infringed the prior trade name of the petitioner and violated Article 31 of Trademark Law and should not be approved. 3. The application for registration of the disputed trademark constitutes a malicious hijacking of the trademark used by the petitioner which has certain popularity. It violates Article 31 of Trademark Law and should not be approved. 4. The application for registration of the disputed trademark violates the Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark law and should not be approved. 5. The application for registration of the disputed trademark and obvious malicious intention of the third party damaged the relevant public which constituted In the case of improper means of trademark registration. The disputed trademark shall not be approved for registration under Article 41, paragraph 1 of Trademark Law.
终审判决认定：
本院认为，根据当事人再审申请事由及答辩意见并结合一、二审法院查明的事实，本案的争议焦点为：诉争被异议商标的注册是否违反了商标法第十条第一款第（八）项、第十五条、第三十一条、第四十一条之规定。
The final judgment is:
The court held that, according to the parties' opinions based on the facts ascertained by the first and second courts, the issue of the dispute in this case is whether the registration of the objection trademark violates the first paragraph of Article 10 (8), Article 15, Article 31, and Article 41 of the Trademark Law.
1.诉争被异议商标的注册是否违反了商标法第十条第一款第（八）项的问题。
构成“不良影响”要受到“社会公共利益”和“公共秩序”的限制。申请人提交的证据并未证明在中国境内“生活的艺术”和/或“THEARTOFLIVING”与其形成很强的对应关系，代表着公共利益，被异议商标的申请注册并未有害于社会主义道德风尚、社会公共利益或公共秩序，未违反商标法第十条第一款第（八）项的规定。
1. Whether the registration of the disputed trademark is in violation of the first paragraph (8) of Article 10 of the Trademark Law.
The "negative effects" constitute a limitation of "public interest" and "public management." The evidence submitted by the petitioner does not prove that the “art of living” and/or “THE ART OF LIVING” in China has a strong correspondence with the public interest. The registration of the trademark is not harmful to the socialist morality or public interest. It does not violate the Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark Law
2.诉争被异议商标的注册是否违反了商标法第十五条的问题。
在本案中，被申请人将再审申请人“THEARTOFLIVING”文字及“太阳天鹅”图案组合标识中的文字部分加上中文，拟将其注册为商标。根据对该标识的呼叫习惯，“生活的艺术THEARTOFLIVING”是再审申请人的“生活的艺术及图”标识的主要部分，参照《最高人民法院关于审理商标民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第九条的规定，诉争商标与再审申请人的“生活的艺术及图”标识两者构成近似商标，被申请人在与再审申请人建立代理关系磋商期间，将与再审申请人商标相近似的标识申请注册为商标，违反了商标法第十五条的规定，原审法院及商标评审委员会认定不违反商标法第十五条的规定，认定事实和适用法律均有错误，本院予以纠正。
2. Whether the registration of the disputed trademark violates Article 15 of the Trademark Law.
In this case, the respondent filed petitioner's "THE ART OF LIVING" and the "Sun Swan" pattern combination logo in Chinese for registration as a trademark. According to the habits of speak, “THE ART OF LIVING” is the main part of the “Art and Figure of Life” logo of the petitioner. Refer to the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Trademark Civil Disputes. Under Article 9, the disputed trademarks and the “art and picture of life” of the petitioner constitute an similar trademarks. The respondent registered the similar trademark of the petitioner during the negotiation. The application for registration as a trademark violates Article 15 of the Trademark Law.
3．诉争被异议商标的注册是否违反了商标法第三十一条的问题。
根据生活艺术基金会提交的证据，生活的艺术基金会在被异议商标申请日前开设“生活的艺术”相关课程网络媒体信息未显示生活艺术基金会主张的“THEARTOFLIVING生活的艺术”标志，难以证明生活艺术基金会主张的“THEARTOFLIVING生活的艺术”商号在与被异议商标指定服务相类似的医院、保健等服务上经宣传使用已具有一定知名度，也难以证明被异议商标的注册可能致使其利益受到损害。同样，由于生活艺术基金会提交的在诉争商标申请日前有关开设“生活的艺术”课程的相关信息中未显示其主张的“THEARTOFLIVING生活的艺术”标志，难以证明被异议商标的注册属于抢注生活艺术基金会在先使用并有一定影响商标的行为，故一、二审法院认定被异议商标的注册未构成商标法第三十一条所指情形并无不当。
3. Whether the registration of the disputed trademark is in violation of Article 31 of the Trademark Law.
According to the evidence submitted by the Art of Living Foundation, although the Art of Living Foundation opened the “Art of Living” related courses before the filling date of the disputed trademark. But the online media information does not show the “THE ART OF LIVING” logo advocated by the Art of Living Foundation, which is difficult to prove. “THE ART OF LIVING” advocated by the Art of Living Foundation has been well-known for hospitals, health care and other services which is proximity to the services designated by the disputed trademark. It is also difficult to prove that the registration of the trademark may cause damage to the public. Similarly, it is difficult to prove that the registration of the disputed trademark is a hijacking because the relevant art of the “Art of Life” sign in the “Art of Life” course submitted by the Life Art Foundation before the application for the trademark application is not shown. The Art of Living Foundation used and had certain degree of popularity on trademarks. Therefore, the courts of the first and second courts found that the registration of the disputed trademark did not constitute the situation of Article 31 of the Trademark Law.
4．诉争被异议商标的注册是否违反了商标法第四十一条第一款的问题。
本案中，现有证据不能证明被异议商标的注册采取了欺骗手段及其他扰乱商标注册秩序、对公共利益造成损害、不正当占用公共资源、谋取不正当利益等手段。因此，一、二审法院认定被异议商标的申请注册未构成商标法第四十一条第一款规定并无不当。
因此，判决：撤销一、二审法院判决，商标评审委员重新作出异议复审决定。
4. Whether the registration of the disputed trademark is in violation of the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law.
In this case, the existing evidence cannot prove that the registration of the disputed trademark has taken deceptive measures and other improper means of disrupting the registration order of the trademark, or causing damage to the public, or improperly occupying public resources for improper benefits. Therefore, it is correct for the courts of the first and second instance found that the application for registration of the disputed trademark did not violate the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law.
Therefore, the judgment is revoke the judgment of the first and second instance, and the trademark review and adjust board should review and reverse the decision.
商标法第15条关于商标的代理人、代表人抢注的问题是商标侵权案件中比较突出的法律问题。在2001年商标法的规定中，代理人代表人的范围仅限于存在合同关系的公司管理人员或者雇员，存在合同关系的合同当事人等比较明确的、直接的法律关系。由此带来的问题是，在合同谈判协商沟通阶段的关系，如果没有充分的证据予以证明，那么就难以获得保护，本案就是一例。
在2014年新的商标法规定中，除了上述合同关系以外，扩大到了普通的销售合同关系，以及扩大对代理人代表人合同关系的推定范围。抢注的商标也可以扩大到相类似的商品上的近似商标的范围。代理人代表人的关系也可以形成在合同磋商阶段或者相关的形式可以知晓的阶段。还有两商标的近似程度，也会成为考虑因素之一。
本案中，根据查明的事实，双方邮件中涉及到的相关网站名称、公司英文名称、联络人的名称、原审第三人公司网址的注册人以及原审第三人的注册地址，以及再审申请人的志愿者胡某女士实地走访原审第三人经营场所等信息和事实，已经形成完整的证据链条证明原审第三人即为本案代理关系中的代理人方，也可以证明再审申请人和被申请人在为建立代理关系进行磋商。
此外，再审申请人的标识由“THEARTOFLIVING”文字及“太阳天鹅”图案组合构成。关于其中的“太阳天鹅”图案标识，被申请人曾将其申请注册为商标，再审申请人提出异议，2013年，商标评审委员会作出商评字[2013]第139141号《关于第6797427号图形商标异议复审裁定书》认定“生活艺术基金会的证据可以证明其对图形作品享有在先著作权，被异议商标与生活艺术基金会享有的图形作品在设计手法和整体视觉上几无差异，构成实质性近似。被申请人对于再审申请人的商标予以知晓。
综上，最高法院确认，通过以上证据表明，在合同磋商阶段，以及在先的商标异议裁定，证明了被申请人对申请人商标的在先知晓，构成抢注。
Article 15 of the Trademark Law on the issue of cybersquatting by agents and representatives of trademarks is a relatively prominent legal issue in trademark infringement cases. In the provisions of the Trademark Law of 2001, the scope of the agent's representative is limited to the company's management personnel or employees who have a contractual relationship, and the contractual parties with contractual relationships have relatively clear and direct legal relationships. The problem that arises is that the relationship between the contract negotiation and communication phase is difficult to obtain protection if there is insufficient evidence to prove it. This case is an example.
In the new trademark law provisions of 2014, in addition to the above contractual relationship, the general sales contract relationship was expanded, and the presumption of contractual relationship with the representative of the agent was expanded. The squatting trademark can also be extended to a range of similar trademarks on similar goods. The relationship of the agent's representative can also be formed at the stage of contract negotiation or the relevant form can be known. There are also two approximations of the trademark, which will also become one of the considerations.
In this case, based on the facts ascertained, the name of the relevant website, the English name of the company, the name of the contact person, the registrant of the third party company website and the registered address of the third party of the original trial, and the retrial applicant Ms. Hu Mou, a volunteer, visited the third-person business premises of the original trial and other information and facts. A complete evidence chain has been formed to prove that the third party in the original trial is the agent in the agency relationship of the case, and can also prove the re-applicant and apply. People are negotiating to establish an agency relationship.
In addition, the applicant's logo is composed of a combination of the words "THEARTOFLIVING" and the "Sun Swan" pattern. Regarding the "Sun Swan" pattern logo, the respondent had registered its application as a trademark, and the retrial applicant filed an objection. In 2013, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made a commercial evaluation [2013] No. 139141 "On the graphic trademark No. 6797427 The objection review ruling recognizes that the evidence of the Life Art Foundation can prove that it has prior copyright to the graphic works, and that the graphic works enjoyed by the opposition trademark and the Life Art Foundation are indistinguishable from the design and overall vision. Approximation. The respondent is aware of the trademark of the applicant for retrial.
In summary, the Supreme Court confirmed that the above evidence indicates that the contractual negotiation stage and the prior trademark opposition ruling proved that the respondent had prior knowledge of the applicant's trademark and constituted a cybersquatting.
