谷歌公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会(以下简称商标评审委员会)商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷一案

中华人民共和国最高人民法院 行政判决书 (2016)最高法行再102号

Google Inc. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce

The case of the trademark application of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board)

The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China Administrative Judgment (2016) Supreme Court No. 102

案情介绍：

再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):谷歌公司。

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。

Case introduction:

The petitioner (plaintiff in the first-instance, appellant in the second-instance): Google Inc.

Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

本案申请商标为第11709161号“nexus”商标,由谷歌公司于2012年11月7日提出注册,指定使用商品为第9类“手持式计算机、便携式计算机”。本案引证商标为第1465863号“NEXUS”商标,由案外人株式会社岛野于1999年5月13日提出注册申请,核定使用商品为第9类自行车用计算机,专用期限至2020年10月27日。

The application trademark of this case is the N
o. 11709161 trademark “nexus”, which was filed for registration by Google Inc. on November 7, 2012, and the designated goods is in class 9 of handheld computer, portable computer. The reference trademark in this case is the No. 1465863 trademark “NEXUS” which is registered  by the third party, Shiono, and was filed on May 13, 1999. The designated good is bicycle computer in Class 9. The valid period is to October 27, 2020. .

2013年9月9日,国家工商行政管理总局商标局(以下简称商标局)作出商标驳回通知书,认为申请商标与在先申请的引证商标构成近似,不符合2001年修正的《中华人民共和国商标法》(以下简称商标法)第二十八条的规定,对申请商标予以驳回。

On September 9, 2013, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office) made a notice of trademark rejection, ruled that the trademark for application was similar to the prior reference trademark and did not comply with Article 28 of the Law (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Law).

谷歌公司不服该决定,向商标评审委员会申请复审。商标评审委员会于2014年3月25日作出商评字[2014]第36492号关于第11709161号“nexus”商标驳回复审决定(以下简称被诉决定)。该决定认定:申请商标与引证商标字母构成及呼叫完全相同。申请商标指定使用的便携式计算机等商品与引证商标核定使用的自行车用计算机商品构成类似商品,申请商标与引证商标构成使用在类似商品上的近似商标。综上,商标评审委员会根据商标法第二十八条的规定,决定申请商标予以驳回。

Google applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for review. On March 25, 2014, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made [2014] No. 36492 decision on No. 11709161 “nexus” trademark refusal decision (hereinafter referred to as the responded decision). The decision hold that the trademark for application is identical with the reference trademark. The portable computer designated for registration of the disputed trademark is proximity to the bicycle computer product approved for use in the reference trademark. In summary, under Article 28 of the Trademark Law, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejected the application for registration.

谷歌公司不服被诉决定,向北京市第一中级人民法院(以下简称一审法院)提起行政诉讼。一审法院认为,申请商标与引证商标除字体及颜色外,二商标的字母构成、呼叫完全一致,构成近似商标。申请商标指定使用的手持式计算机、便携式计算机与引证商标核定使用的第9类自行车用计算机均为计算机类产品,相关公众容易认为其存在特定联系并造成混淆,故申请商标指定使用的商品与引证商标核定使用的商品构成类似商品。商标审查具有个案性,其他商标获得初步审定或核准注册的情形并不能作为申请商标获准注册的必然依据。谷歌公司还主张其与引证商标权利人签署了商标共存协议,因此申请商标应予核准注册。但商标法的立法目的一方面在于保护商标权人的利益,维护其商标信誉,保护生产、经营者的利益；另一方面在于保障消费者利益,防止市场混淆,促进社会主义市场经济的发展。因此,若诉争商标与在先商标指定使用的商品相同或类似,且诉争商标标识与在先商标标识相同或极为近似,出于维护正常市场秩序、防止混淆的目的,通常不应考虑相关的共存协议。鉴于本案中申请商标与引证商标相同,该主张缺乏事实及法律依据,故对其相关主张不予支持。一审法院据此判决:维持被诉决定。

Google Inc. filed an administrative lawsuit to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance). The court held that in addition to the font and color of the two trademarks, the letter composition and the sound of the two trademarks are identical and constitute similar trademarks. The class 9 goods of bicycle computers approved for use in the hand-held computers, portable computers and reference trademarks designated for trademark application are all computer products which is to cause confusion or specific connection by the relevant public. Therefore, the goods used for the approval of the disputed trademark constitute proximity goods with the reference trademark. Google also claims that it has signed a trademark coexistence agreement with the reference trademark owner, so the application for the trademark should be approved for registration. However, the legislative purpose of the Trademark Law is to protect the benefits of trademark owners, to protect the reputation of their trademarks, and to protect the interests of the producers and operators. Another legislative purpose is to protect consumer interests, prevent market confusion, and promote the development of economy. Therefore, under the circumstance of the identical or proximity of the goods the same or similar in the trademarks, for the purpose of maintaining market and preventing confusion, the relevant Coexistence agreement cannot be proved for registration. The court maintained the decision.  

谷歌公司不服一审判决,向北京高级人民法院提起上诉,请求撤销一审判决及被诉决定。二审法院认为，申请商标指定使用的手持式计算机、便携式计算机与引证商标核定使用的自行车用计算机均为第9类计算机类商品,且二商标指定使用的商品在功能、用途、生产部门、销售渠道及消费群体等方面基本相同或存在较大关联,故构成类似商品。申请商标与引证商标为相同类别上的近似商标,如共存则易使相关公众认为两者来源于同一主体或其提供者间具有特定联系,从而对商品来源产生混淆、误认。商标法的立法目的一方面在于保护商标权人利益,另一方面还应保障消费者利益,防止市场发生混淆,故对该共存协议不予考虑。商标授权确权案件应当根据案件的具体情况加以个案审查,其他商标的注册情况亦不是本案申请商标具有可注册性的当然理由。据此判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。

Google Inc. appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The court agreed with Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, and rejected the appeal.

谷歌公司不服二审判决,向本院申请再审称:
(一)谷歌公司与引证商标所有人株式会社岛野在全球范围内达成了“NEXUS”商标共存协议。
(二)引证商标与申请商标存在区别,不构成类似商品上的近似商标。
(三)二审判决对共存协议不予采信,认定事实不清,适用法律错误。
(四)申请商标经过大规模的使用和宣传,已经获得了较高的知名度和显著性,与申请人建立起了稳定且唯一的对应关系,与引证商标之间形成了市场区分。

Google Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court for retrial:
(1) Google Inc. reached a “NEXUS” trademark coexistence agreement on a global scale with the trademark owner, Shimano.
(2) There is a difference between the reference trademark and the applied trademark, and does not constitute similar trademark on proximity goods.
(3) The second-instance judgment refuse to recognize the coexistence agreement is incorrect and the applicable law is wrong.
(4) After applying for large-scale use and advertisement, the trademark has got high reputation and distinctiveness, the  stable and unique correspondence with the applicant established, and the market distinction between the trademarks is formed.

终审判决认定：

本院认为,本案争议焦点在于申请商标是否违反商标法第二十八条的规定。

本案中,首先,从商标标识本身来看。申请商标虽然与引证商标字母相同,但是申请商标的字母均为小写,其中字母“n”,“e”,“u”,“s”为灰紫色,色彩自上而下由浅变深。字母“X”的中间连接处断开,四段分别采用蓝、红、黄、绿四色,其视觉效果与引证商标具有一定差异,相关公众能够予以区分。

The opinion of the Supreme Court.

The Court believes that the argument of the dispute in this case is whether the application for trademark registration violates the Article 28 of the Trademark Law.

In this case, first of all, from the trademark identification itself. Although the trademark applied for has the same letter as the reference trademark, but the relevant public can distinguish it, because the letters of the applied trademark are all lowercase, in which the letters “n”, “e”, “u”, “s” are gray-purple, and the color is changed from the top to the bottom from shallow to deep. The middle joint of the letter “X” is broken, and the four sections are respectively blue, red, yellow and green. The visual effect is different.

其次,从商品类别来看。引证商标指定使用的商品为“自行车用计算机”,与自行车体育运动密切相关；而申请商标为“手持式计算机、便携式计算机”,属于消费电子领域。因此,虽然二者形式上都与“计算机”有关,但功能、用途、销售渠道、使用方式、消费对象等均存在一定差异。

Second, from the perspective of goods categories. The goods designated for the reference trademark are “bicycle computers”, which are closely related to bicycle sports. The application trademark is “handheld computers, portable computers”, which belongs to the field of consumer electronics. Therefore, although both forms are related to “the computer”, but there are certain differences in the functions, the uses, the market channels, the way to use, and consumers.

最后,引证商标权利人出具的同意书是本院认定申请商标的注册是否违反商标法第二十八条规定的重要考虑因素,具体理由如下:其一, 引证商标权利人通过出具同意书,明确对申请商标的注册、使用予以认可,实质上也是引证商标权利人处分其合法权利的方式之一。在该同意书没有损害国家利益、社会公共利益或者第三人合法权益的情况下,应当予以必要的尊重。其二,根据商标法第一条的规定,保障消费者的利益和生产、经营者的利益均是商标法的立法目的,二者不可偏废。本案中,相较于尚不确实是否受到损害的一般消费者的利益,申请商标的注册和使用对于引证商标权利人株式会社岛野的利益的影响更为直接和现实。株式会社岛野出具同意书,明确同意谷歌公司在我国申请和使用包括申请商标在内的有关商标权,表明株式会社岛野对申请商标的注册是否容易导致相关公众的混淆、误认持否定或者容忍态度。尤其是考虑到谷歌公司、株式会社岛野分别为相关领域的知名企业,本案中没有证据证明谷歌公司申请或使用申请商标时存在攀附株式会社岛野及引证商标知名度的恶意,也没有证据证明申请商标的注册会损害国家利益或者社会公共利益。在没有客观证据证明的情况下,不宜简单以尚不确定的“损害消费者利益”为由,否定引证商标权利人作为生产、经营者对其合法权益的判断和处分,对引证商标权利人出具的同意书不予考虑。其三,虽然商标的主要作用在于区分商品或者服务的来源,但除申请商标和引证商标外,包括谷歌公司的企业名称及字号、相关商品特有的包装装潢等其他商业标志也可以一并起到区分来源的作用。因此,即使准予申请商标注册,如在实际使用过程中结合其他商业标志,亦可以有效避免相关公众混淆、误认。商标评审委员会及一、二审法院认定错误，本院予以纠正。

Finally, the consent for registration form the reference trademark owner is an important consideration issue for the registration of the application for trademark in violation of Article 28 of the Trademark Law. The specific reasons are as follows. First, the trademark owner has issued a consent paper to clarify the recognition of the registration and use of the applied trademark is in fact one of the ways in which the trademark owner has taken the legal right to dispose of it. Where the consent form does not harm the national interest, the public interest of the society or the legitimate rights and interests of the third party, the necessary respect shall be given. Second, according to Article 1 of the Trademark Law, the protection of the interests of consumers and the producers are all the legislative purposes of the Trademark Law, and each one of the two cannot be neglected. In this case, the influence of the registration and use of the applied trademark on the interests of the cited trademark owner, Shimano, is more direct and realistic than the interests of the general consumers who are not sure whether they have been harmed. Shimano Co., Ltd. issued a consent paper, which clearly agreed that Google’s application and use of trademarks in China, including the application for trademarks, indicates whether Shimano’s registration of the trademark is likely to cause confusion or misrepresentation of the relevant public or Tolerance. In particular, considering that Google Inc. and Shimano Co., Ltd. are well-known companies in related fields, there is no evidence in this case can prove that Google’s application for registration or use of the trademark is malicious in the possession of the company’s Shimano and the trademarks. There is no evidence to prove the application of the registration of a trademark may damage the national interest or the public. In the absence of evidence, it is not advisable to simply determine and dispose of the legitimate rights and interests of the cited trademark owner as a producer or business manager on the grounds of “damaging consumer’s interests”. Third, although the main role of the trademark is to distinguish the source of goods or services, beside the applied trademarks and reference marks, other business logos including Google’s corporate name and font size, and the unique packaging and decoration of related products can also be used together. To differentiate the role of the source could be found. Therefore, even if the application for trademark registration is granted, it still can effectively avoid the confusion and misunderstanding of the relevant public when used with the other commercial signs which are combined in the actual use.  The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the first and second instance courts found the error and the court corrected it.

Comments

本案主要的法律问题是商标并存同意书的证明效力问题。在近几年开始，商标注册同意书或者叫商标共存协议书才开始在行政和司法领域进行适用。这也是审理商标案件的法院撤销商标评审委员会裁定的主要理由之一。但是随着同意书在商标行政审查程序中的更多运用，这种冲突就会越来越少。

商标保护的同意书实际上是一种对在后注册申请商标的许可，如果权利人同意在后申请人的注册，并且不会损害到第三方的利益，那么可以成为商标获得注册保护的依据。

同意书的证据实际上在商标注册的审查中还会受到一定程度的限制，例如是否可能对社会公共利益、风俗习惯等商标保护的理由，以及是否还可能对相关公众造成混淆误认等进行审查。

因此，在商标资源有限的情况下，商标之间的冲突非常繁多，通过商标注册同意书的形式，可以很大程度上解决和在先权利冲突的问题。

The main legal issue in this case is the validity of the proof of the trademark coexistence consent. In recent years, trademark registration consent or trademark coexistence agreements have only begun to apply in the administrative and judicial fields. This is also one of the main reasons for the court to hear a trademark case to revoke the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. But with the increased use of consent in the trademark administrative review process, such conflicts will become less and less.

The consent form for trademark protection is actually a license for the subsequent registration of a trademark. If the right holder agrees to the registration of the latter applicant and does not harm the interests of the third party, then it can be the basis for the trademark protection.

The evidence of the consent form is actually subject to a certain degree of restriction in the examination of the trademark registration, such as whether it is possible to examine the reasons for trademark protection such as social public interest, customs, and whether it may also cause confusion and misunderstanding of the relevant public. .

Therefore, in the case of limited trademark resources, the conflicts between trademarks are very numerous. In the form of trademark registration consent, the problem of conflict with prior rights can be solved to a large extent.