（美国）星巴克公司(STARBUCKSC0RP0RATI0N)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)、王铁柱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 (2016)最高法行再33号

The famous mark protection in china                        
STARBUCKSC0RP0RATI0N US. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China, Tiezhu Wang                                                                    
This case of Administrative Dispute is on Trademark Opposition Review of STARBUCKSC0RP0RATI0N US. against the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) and Tiezhu Wang

案情介绍:

再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人):星巴克公司(STARBUCKSC0RP0RATI0N)。
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。
一审第三人:王铁柱。

Case Number

Administrative Judgment XZ No.33(2016) of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China
Case Introduction
Retrial Applicant (plaintiff in first instance, appellant in second instance): STARBUCKS C0RP0RATI0N
Respondent (defendant in first instance, appellee in second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China.
Respondent (third person in first instance): Tiezhu Wang
On July 19, 1999,

第839975号“STARBUCKS”商标(简称引证商标一)由星巴克公司于1994年7月19日向国家工商行政管理总局商标局(以下简称商标局)提出注册申请,并于1996年5月14日获准注册,核定使用在第42类咖啡馆、餐馆服务上,经续展,有效期至2016年5月13日。第926045号“STARBUCKS”商标(简称引证商标二)由星巴克公司于1995年3月23日向商标局提出注册申请,并于1997年1月7日获准注册,核定使用在第30类咖啡、咖啡饮料等商品上,经续展,有效期至2017年1月6日。被异议商标由王铁柱于2003年11月5日向商标局提出注册申请,于2006年3月7日经初步审定并公告在第1002期商标公告上,初步审定号为3785332,指定使用在第3类化妆品、眉笔、成套化妆用具等商品上。

On July 19, 1994, Starbucks C0RP0RATI0N filed No. 839975 “STARBUCKS” trademark (referred to as the reference trademark 1) application with the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Trademark Office), and was approved for registration on May 14, 1996. It was approved for use in Class 42 cafes and restaurant services and renewed until May 13, 2016. The No. 926045 "STARBUCKS" trademark (referred to as the reference trademark 2) was filed to the Trademark Office by Starbucks on March 23, 1995, and was approved for registration on January 7, 1997, and designated use in the 30th category of coffee and coffee drinks. It was renewed and would be valid until January 6, 2017. The disputed trademark was filed to the Trademark Office by Wang Tiezhu on November 5, 2003. It was preliminarily approved on March 7, 2006 and published on the 1002 trademark official gazette. The preliminary approval number is 3785332, and the designated use is in the third category, cosmetics, eyebrow pencils, sets of toiletries, and other products.

在法定期限内,星巴克公司向商标局提出异议申请。针对该异议申请,商标局作出第25007号裁定,认为被异议商标与引证商标指定商品或服务未构成类似,星巴克公司称王铁柱抄袭、抢注其驰名商标及被异议商标的使用会导致不良影响证据不足。故裁定被异议商标予以核准注册。

During the objection period, Starbucks filed an opposition to the Trademark Office. The Trademark Office ruled(Decision No. 25007) that the goods or services designated of the disputed trademark did not constitute proximity with the reference trademark. There is inefficient evidence to prove that Wang Tiezhu’s plagiarize Starbucks’s well-known trademark by the use of the disputed trademark. Therefore, the disputed trademark was approved for registration.

星巴克公司不服第25007号裁定,于2010年12月20日向商标评审委员会提出商标异议复审申请, 其主张引证商标一、二为“咖啡馆、咖啡店”服务以及“咖啡、咖啡饮料”商品上的驰名商标。2012年9月3日,商标评审委员会作出第36268号裁定：星巴克公司请求认定其引证商标一、二为驰名商标，并依据《商标法》第十三条第二款的规定不予核准被异议商标注册的主张不能成立；被异议商标的申请注册未违反《商标法》第三十一条有关“不得损害他人现有的在先权利”的规定；被异议商标本身不属于《商标法》第十条第一款第(八)项所指的其他具有不良影响的标志。因此商标评审委员会裁定：被异议商标在复审商品上予以核准注册。

Starbucks disagreed with the No. 25007 decision and filed a trademark opposition review application with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board on December 20, 2010. Starbucks claimed that the reference trademarks 1 and 2 are Well-known trademarks on “cafe, coffee shop” service and “coffee, coffee beverage” products. On September 3, 2012, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled the decision No. 36268and said: Under Article 13 (2) of the Trademark Law, the claims of  Starbucks Corporation request the trademarks 1 and 2 to be well-known trademarks, and the disputed trademark cannot be approved for registration and violated trademark law, cannot be established; the application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate Article 31 of the Trademark Law with respect to the rule of “no infringement to the existing prior rights of others”; the registration of the disputed trademark does not violated Article 10, paragraph (8) of Trademark Law which has negative influence to the public. Therefore, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that the disputed trademark was approved for registration.

星巴克公司不服第36268号裁定，向北京知识产权法院提起诉讼。北京知识产权法院认为：商标评审委员会作出第36268号裁定在程序上存在不当之处,予以纠正,但最终认定结论正确,予以支持。依据《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第五十六条第(四)项之规定,一审法院判决:驳回星巴克公司的诉讼请求。

Starbucks dissatisfied with the No. 36268 decision and filed lawsuit to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The Court held that the the ruling of No. 36268 can be corrected, but final conclusion was correct and approved. According to the provisions of Article 56(4) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled that the claims was rejected.

星巴克公司不服一审判决,向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉,请求撤销一审判决以及第36268号裁定。北京市高级人民法院认为：一审判决认定事实清楚,适用法律正确,程序合法,应予维持。星巴克公司的上诉理由不能成立,对其上诉请求不予支持。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十条第一款第(一)项之规定,二审法院判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。

Starbucks appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The Court held that the facts of the first-instance were clear, the applicable law was correct, and the procedure was legal and should be maintained. Starbucks’ grounds for appeal cannot be established.

星巴克公司向最高法院申请再审，认为引证商标一引证商标二在被异议商标申请日(2003年11月5日)前已经构成驰名商标；本案被异议商标“STARBUCKS”是对星巴克公司驰名商标“STARBUCKS”的复制和摹仿,其注册与使用势必误导公众,淡化星巴克公司驰名商标的显著性,损害商标权人的利益；星巴克公司的引证商标无特定含义,具有很强的独创性和显著性,被异议商标与引证商标完全相同,两者指定使用的商品具有一定关联度,可以推定足以造成相关公众的混淆。因此，被异议商标不应被核准注册。

Starbucks applied to the Supreme Court for retrial. The argument are the reference trademarks became well-known trademarks before the filling date of the disputed trademark (November 5, 2003); the disputed trademark “STARBUCKS” copied and imitated the well-known trademarks of Starbucks and inevitably mislead the relevant public, dilute the distinctiveness of Starbucks' well-known trademarks, and cause the damage to the trademark owners. The reference trademarks are creative and have no specific meaning. Their inherent distinctiveness is strong. The disputed trademark is identical to the reference trademarks, and the goods are proximity, which can be presumed to cause the likelihood of confusion to the relevant public. Therefore, the dsiputed trademark should not be approved for registration.

终审判决认定：
本院再审认为，本案的争议焦点问题是:被异议商标的注册申请是否违反了商标法第十三条第二款、第三十一条、第十条第一款第(八)项的规定。

一、被异议商标的注册申请是否违反了商标法第十三条第二款之规定
(一)引证商标一、二在被异议商标申请注册日(2003年11月5日)之前是否构成驰名商标
星巴克公司为证明其引证商标构成驰名商标,在商标评审阶段及诉讼程序中提交了大量的证据。根据前述证据,考虑到相关公众对星巴克公司引证商标的知晓程度、星巴克公司及其相关关联公司对该商标的持续使用情况及宣传情况、相关媒体对星巴克公司及其引证商标的宣传报道情况及引证商标的相关保护记录,本院认定该引证商标已经达到驰名的程度。

The opinion of the Supreme Court.
The issues of the disputes in this case are, whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark violates Article 13, paragraph 2, or Article 31, or Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark Law.
1. Whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark violates the paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Trademark Law.
(1) Whether the reference trademark 1 and 2 became famous trademarks before the filling date of the disputed trademark (November 5, 2003).
To prove the trademarks became famous, Starbucks has submitted a large amount of evidence in the trademark administrative and litigation procedures. Based on the above evidence, the court concluded that the reference trademarks reached the line of famous after taking into account of the factors of the recognition of the relevant public, the continued use of the trademarks by Starbucks and its affiliates, and the media report of Starbucks and its famous trademarks and the protection record of the trademarks.

(二)关于王铁柱申请被异议商标是否具有恶意 引证商标一、二“STARBUCKS”具有较强的显著性,该引证商标在1996年、1997年已获得注册,具有较高的知名度。根据本案已经查明的事实,王铁柱除申请本案被异议商标外,其还申请了“星巴克”、“辛巴克”等标识,具有明显攀附星巴克公司商誉的意图,由此可以推定,王铁柱申请注册被异议商标时具有明显恶意。

(三)被异议商标指定使用在第3类化妆品、眉笔、成套化妆用具等商品上,与咖啡馆服务等虽然在物理属性上差距较远,但同属日常消费领域,消费对象存在一定程度的重合,在“STARBUCKS”显著性和知名度较高的情况下,相关公众在上述商品上看到被异议商标时容易联想到引证商标,并误认为相关商品可以由星巴克公司提供或与其存在特定关联,损害星巴克公司的合法利益。

(2) Whether Wang Tiezhu files the application for registration of the disputed trademark with malicious intention
The reference trademarks I and II “STARBUCKS” have strong distinctiveness. The reference trademarks have been registered in 1996 and 1997 and had a high reputation. According to the facts already identified in this case, in addition to applying for the objectioned trademark in this case, Wang Tiezhu also applied for the “Starbucks” and “Xinbake” logos for registration, which have the intention of clearly attach the goodwill of Starbucks. It is therefore presumed that Wang Tiezhu applied for registration. It is obviously malicious.

(3) The disputed trademark is designated for use in class 3 of cosmetics, eyebrow pencils, sets of cosmetic products, etc. Although there is a far difference in physical between the cafe service and the above goods, but they belonged to the daily consumption sector, and the consumer group of the two have a certain degree overlap. Considering the word “STARBUCKS” has strong distinctiveness and high reputation, the relevant public would automatically believe that the goods provided by the respondent have a specific relationship with Starbucks and misunderstand the specific association between them. The registration of the disputed trademarks infringed legitimate rights of Starbucks.

二、被异议商标的注册申请是否违反了商标法第三十一条规定
本院认为,星巴克公司经营的咖啡、咖啡馆服务,与化妆品行业分属不同的行业领域,在没有其他证据证明的情况下,星巴克公司请求将其在先商号权作为本案在先权利予以保护,事实依据和法律依据不足,对星巴克公司就此提出的再审理由不予支持。

三、被异议商标的注册申请是否违反了商标法第十条第一款第(八)项之规定

2. Whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark violates Article 31 of the Trademark Law
The Court believes that Starbucks was famous in coffee and cafe services, which is different with the cosmetics in the industry sectors. Without efficient evidence, Starbucks cannot claim its prior trade name rights in this case.

3. Whether the application for registration of the disputed trademark violates Article 10, 1(8) of the Trademark Law.

本院认为,该条款所禁止作为商标使用的标志是指该标志或其构成要素可能对我国社会公共利益和公共秩序产生消极、负面影响,仅损害特定民事权益的标志不属于该条款规范的范围,而应适用商标法其他条款予以救济。本案中,被异议商标本身并未有害于社会主义道德风尚或者产生其他不良影响,未违反商标法第十条第一款第(八)项的规定,星巴克公司就此提出的再审请求不能成立。

综上,本院认为,被异议商标系对引证商标一、二的复制,容易误导公众,致使星巴克公司的利益可能受到损害,违反了商标法第十三条第二款的规定,星巴克公司部分再审理由成立,本院予以支持。商标评审委员会第36268号裁定及一、二审判决认定事实错误,适用法律不当,本院予以纠正。

The Court hold that the mark prohibited to use as a trademark in Article 10, 1(8) of the Trademark Law, which means that the mark or its elements may have a negative impact to the public in China. The disputed mark which only damages to the specific person’s rights is falling out of the scope of protection. In this case, the disputed trademark itself was not harmful to the social morality or other negative effects, and did not violate the Article 10, paragraph 1 (8) of the Trademark Law. The claim for retrial by Starbucks Company could not be granted.

In summary, the Court hold that the disputed trademark copied the reference trademarks which is easy to cause the likelihood of confusion to mislead the public. The interests of Starbucks may be harmed by the respondent which violated Article 13 (2) of the Trademark Law. The reasons for retrial were established. The No. 36268 decision of Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and judgments of the first and second instance were found wrong and should be corrected.

Comments

本案主要是涉及驰名商标的保护的证据问题。首先，在这个该问题上，中国的商标审查机构和商标诉讼审理法院非常注意驰名商标证据的提交问题。甚至会出现这样的情况，这件商标的知名度很高，几乎所有人都知道，但是在法律程序中就没有提供非常充分的证据予以证明驰名商标认定事实的各种因素。所以商标审理的机构就没有认定为驰名商标保护。其次，也是因为中国的驰名商标获得保护的证据要求比较多，需要准备非常充分的证据来证明待证事实，这往往也是驰名商标难以获得保护的一个原因。再次，驰名商标的证据的时间标准，必须在争议商标申请日之前已经达到了驰名商标的标准，而非在申请日之后，因此，在组织和提交证据时要特别注意时间要求。最后，驰名商标的认定和保护的证据，在证据的形成单位和证据形式上，最好是由权威性较高的媒体或者机构所出具的证据予以证明，无法核对原件的复印件证据几乎不能单独证明一件事实。

从本案中，我们可以发现以上的证据问题就反映在了商标异议程序、异议复审程序、一审法院诉讼、二审法院诉讼的过程中，因此，在上述四个行政程序中均没有支持STARBUCKS商标为驰名商标和获得保护。但是，随着申请人不断地追加新证据，最高法院改变了态度，认为上述驰名商标保护的证据问题基本上得到了解决，可以获得驰名商标的认定和保护。因此，在驰名商标保护的问题上，举证的问题非常关键和重要。

This case is mainly related to the evidence of the protection of well-known trademarks. First of all, on this issue, China's trademark review authorities and trademark litigation trial courts pay great attention to the submission of well-known trademark evidence. There may even be cases where the trademark is well known and almost everyone knows, but there are no sufficient evidence in the legal process to justify the facts of the well-known trademark. Therefore, the institution that the trademark is tried is not recognized as a well-known trademark protection. Secondly, because there are more evidences for the protection of China's well-known trademarks, it is necessary to prepare very sufficient evidence to prove the facts to be proved. This is often one reason why well-known trademarks are difficult to obtain protection. Again, the time standard for evidence of well-known trademarks must have reached the standard for well-known trademarks before the date of filing of the disputed trademark, not after the filing date. Therefore, special attention should be paid to the time requirements when organizing and submitting evidence. Finally, the evidence for the identification and protection of well-known trademarks is best evidenced by the evidence produced by the authoritative media or institutions in the form of evidence formation and evidence. It is impossible to verify that the original copy of the evidence is almost impossible. Prove a fact.

From the present case, we can find that the above evidence problems are reflected in the process of trademark opposition procedure, opposition review procedure, first-instance court litigation, and second-instance court litigation. Therefore, STARBUCKS trademarks are not well-known in the above four administrative procedures. Trademarks and protection. However, as the applicant continually added new evidence, the Supreme Court changed its attitude and believed that the evidence of the above-mentioned well-known trademark protection was basically solved, and the recognition and protection of well-known trademarks could be obtained. Therefore, the issue of proof is very important and important on the issue of well-known trademark protection.