知识产权
商法专栏
For the English version, please scroll down. You can also click on "Read more", or "阅读原文" , at the bottom of the post to view more articles on our website.
由于驰名商标对知名度星乐音乐软件下载的要求较已经使用并有一定影响的商标更高，在混淆认定过程中对商品的类似程度要求相应会放宽。在“酷狗”商标案中，北京高院改判星乐音乐软件下载了一审法院关于不必认定驰名商标的意见，并且在认定互联网驰名商标的标准上做出了有益的尝试。
2009年7月，利丰公司在“培训、安排和组织音乐会、节目制作、娱乐”等服务上申请注册了带有“Ku Gou”及“酷狗”字样的争议商标，商标专用期限自2011年12月7日至2021年12月6日。2014年11月，酷狗公司向商评委提出无效宣告申请。
商评委认为争议商标构成对酷狗公司在先未注册驰名商标“酷狗”的复制与摹仿，是对其在先商号及在先使用并具有一定影响力 的“酷狗”商标的侵犯。因此，裁定撤销争议商标全部核定服务，并认定“酷狗”商标 在“提供在线音乐（非下载）”服务上为未注册驰名商标。
不同保护范围
利丰公司向北京知识产权法院提起诉讼，法院认定争议商标注册在“安排和组织音乐会”等服务上损害了酷狗公司在先商号权，并认定利丰公司构成以不正当手段抢注他人已经使用并有一定影响的商标，但却认为本案已经通过《商标法》（2001版）第31条对“酷狗”商标予以保护，已无认定“酷狗”商标是否驰名的必要性，最终部分撤销被诉裁定，维持争议商标在“培训”等服务上的注册。酷狗公司不服提出上诉。
二审中，酷狗公司主张，未注册驰名商标与第31条所适用的保护范围有所不同，未注册驰名商标认定的知名度要求更高，其保护的范围在商标近似程度和商品类似程度上须有更大的延展，才能避免混淆。特别是本案请求保护的部分服务并未被第31条全部覆盖，此时考量引证商标是否达到驰名程度是必要的。
最终，二审法院2017年3月13日判决认定“酷狗”未注册商标已经达到为公众知晓的驰名程度，对争议商标的全部服务项目均予以撤销。
2001年《商标法》第31条禁止以不正当手段抢先注册他人已经使用并有一定影响的商标星乐音乐软件下载；第13条禁止使用复制、摹仿或翻译他人的驰名商标。两条规定均是对他人在先使用未注册商标的保护，区别在于在先使用的未注册商标知名度不同，且所要保护的在先权益内容不同。第31条更侧重于保护在先商标使用人基于商标使用而获得的利益，而第13条更侧重于防止市场混淆。因此，在适用第31条无法覆盖诉争商标指定或核定的全部商品或服务时，仍需适用第13条。
本案中，根据酷狗公司提交的行业协会出具证明、纳税金额、广告宣传、“酷狗”商标使用合同发票、期刊网络等媒体的报道数量和范围等证据，可以认定在争议商标申请前“酷狗”商标在“提供在线音乐（非下载）”服务上已经达到广为公众知晓的驰名程度。
司法解释
本案3月13日宣判时，最高人民法院2017年1月11日发布的《最高人民法院关于审理商标授权确权行政案件若干问题的规定》已于3月1日生效，虽然判决没有直接引用该司法解释，但其裁判思路显然是与之吻合的。
该司法解释第12条全面重构了商标侵权判断过程中对“容易导致混淆”及混淆可能性的认定标准。该标准中不再简单要求商品类似，而是使用了“商品类似程度”的表述，即商标知名度越高，对要对抗的商品服务的类似程度要求就越低。
互联网特殊性
因此，二审法院特别指出，在先使用有一定影响商标更侧重于保护在先商标使用人基于商标使用而获得的利益，而未注册驰名条款因其高知名度，广地域范围及相关公众的知晓程度，则更侧重于防止市场混淆的发生。
其次，《商标法》第14条所列举的驰名要素原则上需要综合考量。但在本案所涉的互联网这一特殊领域，相关指标基于行业特性并不能一一对应全部要素，但相关公众对其认知程度又远远高于其他商品或服务品牌，此时如果再对驰名指标全面适用就显得不 合时宜。
因此，当商标满足其中一项因素且较为突出时，也可通过此方面去认定为驰名商标。互联网的特点是，信息在短时间内可达到相当的规模，但服务主推“免费下载、收听”，其营利点与传统行业有明显区别，因此并不能用同一把尺子进行衡量，即驰名商标认定的核心要件在于相关公众的认知程度，而不一定要逐一举证营业额、广告费或商标使用时间等“硬指标”。
IP
Column
Case shows traps involved in protecting unregistered marks
If you wish to cite a prior but unregistered trademark to oppose or invalidate a junior trademark in China, you must resort to articles 13.1 and 31 of the 2001 Trademark Law (renumbered as articles 13.2 and 32 by the latest version of the law, but since the 2001 Trademark Law applies to substantial matters of the case this article will explore, all the citations are from the 2001 Trademark Law). Under article 31, it is not necessary to recognize the well-known status of the unregistered trademark, but under article 13.1, such recognition is necessary.
In practice, the China Trademark Office (CTMO), the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) and the courts tend to rely on article 31 to solve the problem, for convenience and for the lower threshold to invoke protection. In a recent trademark administrative case, Beijing High Court applied both articles to grant full protection over an unregistered trademark.
Guangzhou KuGou Networks is a leading supplier of digital music interactive services in China. KuGou Networks has been offering free music-streaming services to the public since 2004. In July 2009, Shantou Lifeng Electric Appliances applied for the trademarks “酷狗” and “KuGou” (KuGou in Chinese characters & pinyin) for “arrangement and organization of concerts, training; providing karaoke services; entertainment, etc.” in Class 41, which was approved by the CTMO in December 2011. In November 2014, KuGou Networks filed an invalidation application with the TRAB.
On 18 February 2016, the TRAB ruled in favour of KuGou Networks, revoking the disputed mark on all designated services. The board based its ruling on the finding that: (1) the “酷狗” (Chinese characters of KuGou) mark of KuGou Networks constituted an unregistered well-known trademark in “providing online music service (not for downloading)”; (2) the registration of the disputed mark in “entertainment, providing karaoke services, etc.” is in violation of article 13.1 of the law; and (3) the registration and use of disputed mark in “arrangement and organization of concerts, etc.” violates article 31 of the Law.
PROTECTION DIFFERENCE
Lifeng filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The trial court found that the “酷狗” mark had already been used and had acquired certain influence in respect of the above-mentioned services before the application date of the disputed mark. The court cited article 31 to revoke the registration of the disputed mark in “arrangement and organization of concerts, programme production, providing karaoke services; night clubs and entertainment” based on the prior rights (the trademark and trade name) of KuGou Networks, but maintained the registration in dissimilar services: “fitness club, mobile library, training; book publishing; modelling for artists.” The court held that invoking article 31 to protect the “酷狗” mark exempts the necessity to determine its well-known status. Both KuGou Networks and Lifeng appealed.
KuGou Networks argued in the appeal that article 31 does not cover all the services for which the company seeks protection, so the recognition of its trademark’s well-known status was necessary. To avoid confusion, the scope of protection for unregistered well-known trademarks is more extensive when it comes to the similarity between the marks and the goods/services, because as required such trademarks always have higher levels of reputation. Article 13.1 intends to provide stronger and wider protection over unregistered well-known trademarks.
The Beijing High Court made a ruling on 13 March 2017, upholding the TRAB’s decision. The Court of Appeal opined that the difference between article 13.1 and article 31 lies in the extent of the reputation of the unregistered mark and the substance of the prior rights seeking protection. Article 31 intends to protect the prior trademark owner’s interests generated by its trademark use. Article 13.1, by contrast, focuses on preventing confusion in the market. The court echoed KuGou’s argument that article 13.1 should apply in assessing the registrability of a disputed mark in respect of services not covered by article 31.
The court found that evidence submitted by KuGou Networks ? including certificates issued by industrial associations, the amount of tax paid, advertising and promotion materials, contracts and invoices, and media coverage ? was sufficient to prove that the “酷狗” mark had reached well-known status before the application date of the disputed mark.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
The Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Hearing of Administrative Cases Involving the Granting and Affirmation of Trademark Rights entered into force on 1 March 2017. The judgment, which does not directly cite the provisions, clearly adopts the same reasoning.
Article 12 of the provisions enumerates the factors to be considered by the courts for determining the likelihood of confusion. The provisions use the voluntary expression “the extent of similarity of the trademarks” instead of “trademark similarity”, which is in line with the principle that the higher the level of reputation of the prior mark, the lower extent of similarity between the goods/services is required to determine the likelihood of confusion.
SPECIAL FEATURES OF INTERNET
Article 14 of the law enumerates the factors to be considered, in principle, for determining well-known status. However, given the peculiarity of the internet, not all these criteria fit this case. Considering the preponderant public awareness of the “酷狗” mark, it would be inappropriate to indiscriminately apply all the factors. The internet grows public awareness quickly via its unique operation of promoting “free downloading and streaming services”. It differentiates from traditional industry in respect of its earning mode. Therefore, it would be advisable to assess the awareness of the relevant public for the determination of well-known status instead of following the same standards and requesting the proof of revenue, advertising costs and duration of trademark use.
作者星乐音乐软件下载：万慧达北翔集团资深律师明星楠、律师鲁雪
Ming Xingnan is a senior associate and Lu Xue is an associate at Wan Hui Da
