2009年4月24日，長沙市中級人民法院對“MICHELIN”等注冊商標(biāo)的所有者法國米其林集團(tuán)訴銷售“MICHELIN”輪胎的個體工商戶談國強(qiáng)和歐燦商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案做出一審判決，認(rèn)定被告銷售由原告在日本的子公司生產(chǎn)的面對巴西市場的，且沒有進(jìn)行3C認(rèn)證(1)的“MICHELIN”輪胎的行為侵犯了原告的注冊商標(biāo)專用權(quán)。
法院的判決看上去似乎讓人難以理解，因?yàn)楸桓驿N售的是原告自己的工廠生產(chǎn)的產(chǎn)品，并非未經(jīng)其授權(quán)生產(chǎn)的假冒產(chǎn)品此案涉及了一個國際貿(mào)易中常見的問題，即商標(biāo)商品平行進(jìn)口。關(guān)于商標(biāo)商品的平行進(jìn)口，指的是未經(jīng)商標(biāo)權(quán)利人或者獨(dú)占許可使用人的授權(quán)或許可，向商標(biāo)權(quán)人或獨(dú)占被許可人擁有商標(biāo)權(quán)益的國家或地區(qū)出口由商標(biāo)權(quán)人自己所在國家或地區(qū)生產(chǎn)的商標(biāo)商品或經(jīng)其同意在其他國家或地區(qū)生產(chǎn)的商標(biāo)商品。平行進(jìn)口產(chǎn)生的根本原因在于對利益的追求。由于商標(biāo)權(quán)人其商品在不同國家和地區(qū)的生產(chǎn)成本不同，或根據(jù)當(dāng)?shù)氐南M(fèi)水平，會導(dǎo)致在不同的國家和地區(qū)市場售價不同。平行進(jìn)口商在除去相關(guān)成本，將在某一國生產(chǎn)和銷售的商品進(jìn)口到另一國后，其售價往往比進(jìn)口國商標(biāo)商品的市場售價要低而使得消費(fèi)者更愿意購買平行進(jìn)口商品。
在我國相關(guān)商標(biāo)法律法規(guī)中沒有關(guān)于銷售平行進(jìn)口的商品是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的規(guī)定。在法律界，關(guān)于平行進(jìn)口是否侵犯他人注冊商標(biāo)專用權(quán)存在兩種不同的意見。多數(shù)學(xué)者依據(jù)權(quán)利用盡的原則，對平行進(jìn)口中是否存在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)持否定意見。但也有依據(jù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的地域性特點(diǎn)而認(rèn)為銷售平行進(jìn)口商品侵犯了商標(biāo)權(quán)人的權(quán)利。
在本案中，法院認(rèn)為，認(rèn)定商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成取決于被告銷售前述“MICHELIN”輪胎的行為是否對原告的注冊商標(biāo)專用權(quán)權(quán)益造成損害。輪胎產(chǎn)品的生產(chǎn)和銷售應(yīng)當(dāng)符合銷售地關(guān)于速度的要求，銷售地的地理?xiàng)l件和氣候特征以及相關(guān)強(qiáng)制認(rèn)證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，而未經(jīng)3C認(rèn)證的并非面對中國市場的“MICHELIN”輪胎在中國使用可能存在安全隱患。如果由于使用這種未經(jīng)安全認(rèn)證的導(dǎo)致交通事故或其他民事糾紛，由此所產(chǎn)生的法律后果以及使用者對產(chǎn)品的負(fù)面評價會通過輪胎上的商標(biāo)直接指向商標(biāo)權(quán)人的原告。因此，被告的行為破壞了原告商標(biāo)保證商品質(zhì)量和商品提供者信譽(yù)的作用，對原告的注冊商標(biāo)專用權(quán)造成了實(shí)質(zhì)性損害。
法院對本案的判決表明，無論是權(quán)利用盡原則還是地域性原則，均不能直接認(rèn)定平行進(jìn)口商標(biāo)商品是否存在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的問題。確認(rèn)是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為，應(yīng)考慮商標(biāo)權(quán)人的商標(biāo)權(quán)益是否收到損害。在本案中，法院認(rèn)定原告商標(biāo)權(quán)益受到損害的前提是被告銷售了原告的并非面向中國市場的，且未經(jīng)過3C認(rèn)證的產(chǎn)品。其依據(jù)是輪胎產(chǎn)品必須經(jīng)過3C認(rèn)證后才能銷售，未經(jīng)3C認(rèn)證則意味著使用安全不能得到保證。因此，原告通過商標(biāo)體現(xiàn)出的信譽(yù)可能會受到損害。換句話說，本案的關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)之一是可以說明或者證明是否存在商品安全性問題的“3C認(rèn)證”。
那么，平行進(jìn)口不需要進(jìn)行3C認(rèn)證的商標(biāo)商品，是否也會構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為？根據(jù)法院確認(rèn)是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為，應(yīng)考慮商標(biāo)權(quán)人的商標(biāo)權(quán)益是否收到損害的觀點(diǎn)，3C認(rèn)證應(yīng)只是用于證明使用平行進(jìn)口商品可能存在安全隱患的比較有力的證據(jù)之一。因此，在平行進(jìn)口商品，無論是否需要進(jìn)行3C認(rèn)證，只要在因其非面向中國市場而可能產(chǎn)生安全隱患從而會損害商標(biāo)權(quán)人的信譽(yù)的情況下，進(jìn)口和銷售這些商品應(yīng)認(rèn)定構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為。也就是說，即便是不需要3C認(rèn)證的平行進(jìn)口商品，如果有證據(jù)證明在中國使用可能存在安全隱患，進(jìn)口和銷售這種平行進(jìn)口商品存在構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的可能性。例如不需要進(jìn)行3C認(rèn)證的，但可能不符合相關(guān)國家標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的商品，或者有證據(jù)證明可能在使用中存在安全問題的商品。
另一種情況是，如果被告在銷售前進(jìn)行了3C認(rèn)證，其銷售該平行進(jìn)口輪胎產(chǎn)品是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)呢？根據(jù)法院的觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行推導(dǎo)，答案顯然是否定的 – 進(jìn)行了3C認(rèn)證的輪胎產(chǎn)品證明其在中國使用不存在安全問題，因此原告通過商標(biāo)體現(xiàn)出的信譽(yù)應(yīng)不會受到損害。當(dāng)然，商標(biāo)權(quán)人可能會因平行進(jìn)口商品擠占了商標(biāo)權(quán)人在進(jìn)口國的市場份額而遭受利潤損失。例如，商標(biāo)權(quán)人的商標(biāo)商品在A國的售價為100元，在B國則為80元，利潤均為30元。平行進(jìn)口商將在B國銷售的商品進(jìn)口到A國后，售價90元。如此，商標(biāo)權(quán)人的商標(biāo)商品的利潤少了10元。但實(shí)踐中，出于保護(hù)消費(fèi)者利益的考慮，一般不會因商標(biāo)權(quán)人因平行進(jìn)口商標(biāo)商品遭受利潤損失而認(rèn)定構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)。
法院在審理本案中在對平行進(jìn)口商標(biāo)商品是否構(gòu)成商標(biāo)侵權(quán)的問題上做出了有益的嘗試，其關(guān)于確認(rèn)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為應(yīng)考慮商標(biāo)權(quán)人的商標(biāo)權(quán)益是否收到損害的觀點(diǎn)對涉及平行進(jìn)口商標(biāo)商品的案件，甚至是通常意義的商標(biāo)侵權(quán)案件，在商標(biāo)侵權(quán)構(gòu)成的認(rèn)定上具有積極的借鑒意義。對于受平行進(jìn)口問題困擾的商標(biāo)權(quán)人，或有可能采取措施制止平行進(jìn)口其商標(biāo)商品的行為，在能夠證明使用平行進(jìn)口商品可能存在安全問題的情況下。而對于平行進(jìn)口商而言，更應(yīng)在獲得利益的同時，確保不會使消費(fèi)者的利益受到損害。
注釋：
(1) 3C認(rèn)證，中國強(qiáng)制性產(chǎn)品認(rèn)證制度。輪胎產(chǎn)品列于《第一批實(shí)施強(qiáng)制性產(chǎn)品認(rèn)證的產(chǎn)品目錄》中。
Trademark Infringement in Parallel Importation
On April 24, 2009, Changsha Intermediate People's Court (the "Court") made the first instance judgment in Michelin Group vs. Tan Guoqiang and Ou Can. The Court ruled that the Defendants, tire dealers Tan Guoqiang and Ou Can, infringed upon the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark, "MICHELIN & Device," by selling imported Japanese-made tires (targeting the Brazilian market) without consent from the trademark owner and without obtaining a Chinese Compulsory Product Certification ("3C Certification").(1)
Some questioned the Court's decision as the tires sold by the Defendants were in fact manufactured by the Michelin's own factory and were not counterfeits. The case concerns about parallel importation of trademarked products, a common occurrence in international trade. Parallel importation of trademarked products refers to branded goods, manufactured and sold in the country or area where the trademark owner is located or where the trademark products are authorized to be manufactured and sold. The trademarked products are imported into the countries or areas, where the trademark owner or the exclusive licensee enjoys the trademark and related rights without the authorization of the trademark owner and/or the exclusive licensee. Parallel importation is often motivated by extra benefits. Since manufacturing cost and consumer capability vary in different countries and areas, the trademark owner always sets different prices for their products in different markets. Parallel importers purchase products in one country at a price (P1) which is lower than the price at which they are sold in a second country (P2), and import the products into the second country. Consumers are inclined to buy the imported product in the second country at a price which is lower than P2.
Whether parallel importing of trademarked products constitutes trademark infringement is not specifically addressed in the PRC laws and regulations. There are two prevailing opinions regarding parallel importing in the academic field. Most scholars disagree that parallel imports constitute trademark infringement based on the "Exhaustion of Rights Doctrine," while some believe that trademark infringement shall be established in parallel import based on the locality nature of intellectual property rights ("IPR").
In this case, the Court focused on whether the Defendants' sale of imported MICHELIN tires shall constitute trademark infringement upon the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark "MICHELIN & Device." As the manufacture and sale of tire products shall be in compliance with the relevant speed requirements, geographical and climatic features, the Court held that the Defendants' failure to obtain the 3C Certification for MICHELIN tires which were originally targeting the Brazilian market may raise quality and safety issues. It was foreseeable that consumers would attribute traffic accidents or any other civil disputes to the Michelin Group as the manufacturer. Consequently, the standard of quality denoted by the Michelin trademark and plaintiff's reputation as a leading tire manufacturer would be damaged. Therefore, the Court concluded the Defendants' acts had caused substantial damages to the Plaintiff's exclusive rights to use the trademark "MICHELIN & Device".
The Court's judgment shows that the Exhaustion of Rights Doctrine or the Territoriality Principle alone is insufficient to justify the act of parallel imports. When affirming the trademark infringement, the Court should also consider whether the interests and rights of the trademark owner have been damaged. In this case, the grounds on which the Court established trademark infringement were that the tires had not obtained 3C Certification, and the tires were not manufactured for the Chinese market. According to the Court, tire products should be certified under the 3C system before they are sold in China. Otherwise the quality and safety of the products could not be ensured. Therefore, the Plaintiff's reputation as a leading tire manufacturer trademarked as "MICHELIN & Device" would be damaged. In short, the key issue of this case is the "3C Certification," which represents or proves the quality and safety of the tire products sold in China.
One subsequent issue is whether importation and selling of trademarked products not subject to 3C Certification may cause trademark infringement. According to the Court's ruling, when affirming trademark infringement in parallel importation, the key issue is whether the import and sales activities have damaged the interests and rights of trademark owners. If an imported product is without 3C Certification, it merely indicates that the parallel imported products might have potential quality and safety problems. However, the absence of 3C Certification does not necessarily establish the problems. Therefore, a trademark infringement should be established if the imports and sales of the products that are not targeting the Chinese market would damage the reputation of the trademark owner, even if the parallel imported products are not subject to the 3C Certification. In other words, although the imported products are not subject to 3C Certification, the imports and sales of the products may also constitute trademark infringement conditioned that potential quality problems and safety risks exist within the imported products to be used in China. For example, the said products may not require a 3C Certification, but they are incompliance with other national standards or have potential safety risks in use.
On the contrary, would the import and sales activities constitute trademark infringement if the Defendants had applied for 3C Certification before selling the MICHELIN tires? The answer is no according to the Court's ruling. The MICHELIN tires with 3C Certification means that they are free of quality and safety problems and, therefore, the reputation of the Plaintiff would not be damaged. The trademark owner may inevitably make less profit because of the competition of the parallel imported products in the local market. For example, the price of the trademarked products is RMB 100 in country A and RMB 80 in country B, and the profit is RMB 30 in both country A and B. Parallel importer imports the products that are sold in country B to country A and offer the price at RMB 90. As such, the trademark owner may suffer a profit loss of RMB 10 in country A. In practice, the parallel importing of the trademarked products does not necessarily constitute trademark infringement simply because the trademark owner suffers profit loss.
In Michelin, the Court demonstrated the progress of trademark infringement trials of parallel imported products into China. The ruling of the case set guidance over the issue of whether the imports and sales of parallel trademarked products constitute trademark infringement. The key focus of the issue is whether the alleged acts are detrimental to the interests and rights of the trademark owner. To trademark owners that are harassed by parallel imports, it is possible to take measures to stop others from parallel importing of their trademarked products, if they can prove the products have quality and safety problems in use. For parallel importers, they should ensure that consumers' interests would not be damaged while deriving profits.
Notes:
(1) "3C" is regulated under the Mandatory Certificating system in China. Tire products are included in the "Catalog for First Batch of Products subject to Mandatory Product Certification".
