| No. 3 of Four Model Cases of Comprehensive Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights by Procuratorial Organs Published by the Supreme People's Procuratorate: Case of Application for Administrative Litigation Supervision Filed by Shaanxi Baishui [REDACTED]kang Liquor Co., Ltd. | | 最高人民檢察院發(fā)布四起檢察機關(guān)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)綜合性司法保護典型案例之三：陜西白水某康酒業(yè)有限責任公司申請行政訴訟監(jiān)督案 |
| [Keywords] | | 【關(guān)鍵詞】 |
| trademark dispute; substantive resolution; dispute source governance; settlement agreement | | 商標爭議 實質(zhì)性化解 訴源治理 和解協(xié)議 |
| [Key Points] | | 【要 旨】 |
| For trademark dispute formed due to historical reasons, in the case handling, the procuratorial organ should make a thorough investigation into the historical development of the relevant trademarks, attach importance to dispute source governance behind the individual case, strengthen explanation of law and reasoning, guide the parties in reaching a settlement agreement, resolve the relevant trademark dispute in a package, and promote the substantive resolution of administrative trademark dispute. | | 對于歷史原因形成的商標糾紛，檢察機關(guān)在辦案中要查清相關(guān)商標的歷史沿革，注重個案背后的訴源治理，加強釋法說理，引導(dǎo)當事人達成和解協(xié)議，一攬子解決相關(guān)商標糾紛，促進商標行政爭議實質(zhì)性化解。 |
| I. Case Facts | | 一、案件事實 |
| Shaanxi Baishui [REDACTED]kang Liquor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company") is the trademark holder of "Baishui [REDACTED]kang."Yichuan [REDACTED]kang Jiuzu Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jiuzu Company") is the owner of the trademark "[REDACTED]kang" and the Company licensed Luoyang [REDACTED]kang Holding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter hereinafter referred to as "Luoyang [REDACTED]kang Company") to use the trademark "[REDACTED]kang."On August 9, 2016, according to the tip-off of Luoyang [REDACTED]kang Company, the Chaoyang Branch of the Industrial and Commercial Administration Bureau of Beijing issued a written Notice of Ordering Corrections to Chaoyang Beiyuan Branch of Beijing Yonghui Superstores Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Chaoyang Beiyuan Branch of Yonghui Superstores"), recognized the white wine whose manufacturer was Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company sold by the Chaoyang Beiyuan Branch of Yonghui Superstores highlighted the use of characters of "[REDACTED]kang" and such characters were similar to the trademark "[REDACTED]kang" whose rights were enjoyed by Luoyang [REDACTED]kang Company, and ordered the Chaoyang Beiyuan Branch of Yonghui Superstores to stop sale of the aforesaid products that infringe on the exclusive right to use a registered trademark. | | 陜西白水某康酒業(yè)有限責任公司（以下簡稱白水某康公司）系“白水某康”商標的商標權(quán)人。伊川某康酒祖資產(chǎn)管理有限公司（以下簡稱酒祖公司）系“某康”商標的商標權(quán)人，該公司許可洛陽某康控股有限公司（以下簡稱洛陽某康公司）使用“某康”商標。2016年8月9日，北京市工商行政管理局朝陽分局根據(jù)洛陽某康公司的舉報，對北京永輝超市有限公司朝陽北苑分公司（以下簡稱永輝超市北苑分公司）作出《責令改正通知書》，認定該超市銷售的生產(chǎn)廠家為白水某康公司的白酒上突出使用了“某康”文字，與洛陽某康公司享有權(quán)利的“某康”商標構(gòu)成近似，責令永輝超市北苑分公司停止銷售上述侵犯注冊商標專用權(quán)的商品。 |
| Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company filed an administrative lawsuit with the Primary People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the "Chaoyang Primary People's Court"). After examination, the Chaoyang Primary People's Court held that the written Notice of Ordering Corrections produced no actual impact on the lawful rights and interests of Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company, and Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company was not an interested person of the sued administrative action and did not meet the statutory litigation conditions. It ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company. Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and filed an application with the Beijing High People's Court for retrial, but neither the appeal nor the application for retrial was supported. Afterwards, Baishui [REDACTED]kang Company filed an application with the Fourth Branch of the People's Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the "Beijing People's Procuratorate") for supervision. | | 白水某康公司向北京市朝陽區(qū)人民法院提起行政訴訟。該院經(jīng)審查認為，《責令改正通知書》未對白水某康公司的合法權(quán)益產(chǎn)生實際影響，其不是涉案被訴行政行為的利害關(guān)系人，不符合法定起訴條件，裁定駁回白水某康公司的起訴。白水某康公司分別向北京知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院、北京市高級人民法院提出上訴和申請再審，均未獲得支持。之后，白水某康公司向北京市人民檢察院第四分院申請監(jiān)督。 |
| II. Performance of Duties by the Procuratorial Organ | | 二、檢察機關(guān)履職情況 |
| ．．．．．． | | 北京市人民檢察院第四分院受理該案后，重點開展了以下工作： |
| | |
| | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您現(xiàn)在要進入的是北大法律英文網(wǎng)會員專區(qū)，如您是我們英文用戶可直接 登錄，進入會員專區(qū)查詢您所需要的信息；如您還不是我們 的英文用戶，請注冊并交納相應(yīng)費用成為我們的英文會員 。如有問題請來電咨詢；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |