其他
CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD Won this Unfair Competition Case
Tap "LegalTips"
to follow us
Five Ways to Protect Your IPR in China
How could I register my trademark in China
Shenzhen Jinhongde Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “defendant”) was found having used "LAFITE FAMILY", the imitation logo and "拉菲世族" （Chinese translation of “LAFITE FAMILY”）on various occasions without any authorization at all. In September 2010, CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit with the Changsha Intermediate Court (the court of first instance) on the grounds that the defendant violated the plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights and engaged in unfair competition.深圳市金鸿德贸易有限公司（下称『被告』）未经许可擅自在各种场合大量使用“LAFITE FAMILY”，“”商标及中文标识“拉菲世族”。2010年9月，尚杜• 拉菲特罗兹施德民用公司（本案原告）以被告侵犯了原告的商标专用权及有不正当竞争行为为由，向长沙市中级人民法院（一审法院，以下简称长沙中院）提起了诉讼。
Eventually, the final judgement was made by the Hunan High Court (appellate court) on 17 October 2011, finding that the defendant's use of "LAFITE FAMILY", imitation logo and the use of the domain name "LAFITEfamily.com" which contained the text of the trademark "LAFITE" on its website constituted trademark infringement. Furthermore, the defendant’s misleading promotion of its brand name “拉菲世族” on the website and other marketing material constituted unfair competition. 此案最后由湖南高院（二审法院）于2011年10月17日作出了终审判决，认定被告使用“LAFITE FAMILY”及相关标识、在其经营的网站上使用含拉菲公司注册商标“LAFITE”文字的“LAFITEfamily.com”域名之行为构成商标侵权；被告在其公司网站、宣传资料上对其“拉菲世族”品牌进行混淆视听的虚假宣传行为构成不正当竞争。
This lawsuit is the first intellectual property case filed by the plaintiff in China. The trial and the final outcome of this case had attracted a lot of attention given the fact that it involved a series of legal issues, such as whether the brand name "拉菲" is protectable and how it could be protected. The opinion from both courts at two levels confirming that after long-term use and extensive publicity, the unregistered brand name "拉菲" of the plaintiff has constituted the specific name of a well-known product as the highlight of the case.此案属于拉菲公司在华第一例知识产权诉讼案件，且由于此案涉及“拉菲”中文标识是否给予保护，以及依据什么样的途径给予保护等系列法律问题，因而此案的审理及最后结果备受各方关注。而本案二级法院均依法认定拉菲公司未注册的“拉菲”中文标识经过长期使用和广泛宣传已构成了知名商品特有名称系本案的亮点。
From this perspective, we are sharing here our analyzes of this case:本文主要从这个角度做出分析并与大家分享：
The use of “拉菲” in the media and its widespread dissemination have led consumers to associate “拉菲” with the plaintiff's wine. However, whether this "association" can be converted into an actionable right depends on whether the right owner confirms this kind of "association" or not. As a matter of fact, some foreign brands are opposed to using certain Chinese names to refer to their brands or products in the media, and therefore have never actually used them. In that case, the "association" arising from the media coverage would not constitute a legitimate right.一、 “拉菲”已经约定俗称地指代了拉菲公司的葡萄酒商品。媒体报道中对于中文拉菲的使用以及广泛的传播而导致消费者将“拉菲”二字与原告的葡萄酒商品已经关联在了一起，但这种“关联”是否能够转换成一项民事权益则取决于权利人是否对此『关联』予以确认。实践中一些外国品牌对于中国境内媒体报道使用某中文名称称呼、指代其品牌则持反对的态度，因此也从未实际使用过。那在这种情况下媒体报道所引起的『关联』就不能够形成一项法律上的权利。
For example, Pfizer from the U.S. uses the trademark "万艾可" （Chinese trademark of VIAGRA）on a medicine they made specifically for men with erectile dysfunction, however nearly Chinese media has been using "伟哥" referring to " VIAGRA " since 1998. In response, Pfizer issued a "lawyer's statement", specifically affirmed that the corresponding Chinese name of "Viagra" is "万艾可" instead of "伟哥". In practice, Pfizer has never used "伟哥" on VIAGRA in China. Therefore, 伟哥 cannot be recognized as the specific name of a well-known product under Article 5 (2) of the <Anti-Unfair Competition Law>.例如，美国辉瑞公司生产的一款专用于男性勃起障碍疾病的“枸橼酸西地那非”药品上使用了“VIAGRA” 商标，中国境内的新闻媒体早自1998年起就采用“伟哥”指代“VIAGRA”，对此辉瑞公司对外发布了《律师声明》，特别申明对应“Viagra”使用的中文名称是“万艾可”，而非“伟哥”，同样辉瑞公司也从未在其药品上使用“伟哥”中文名称（使用的是“万艾可”）。因此 “伟哥”不能依据《反不正当竞争法》第五条第（二）项成为知名商品特有名称。
II. Criteria for the protection of specific name of a well-known product二、关于知名商品特有名称的保护应当满足的条件
However, it should be noted that after all, the plaintiff didn’t register “拉菲”as a trademark of its wine in China. So, the legal base for the plaintiff to demand protection is the provision regarding the specific name of a well-known product under the <Anti-Unfair Competition Law> and the relevant judicial interpretation, rather than the <Trademark Law>. The key point to judge is if there exists any infringement of the “specific name of a well-known product” and to consider whether the alleged infringer did it on purpose, or with maliciousness, while the intention of the alleged infringer is something does not need to be considered in any trademark infringement case. Obviously, compared to the exclusive rights provided in the <Trademark Law>, there are more restrictions to demand protection over the specific name of a well-known product, and once again, that’s why we repeatedly tell all overseas companies to apply for their trademarks in Chinese once they are intended to offer goods or services in China.但仍要指出的是，毕竟拉菲公司没有在中国注册“拉菲”作为其葡萄酒商标，因此只能使用《反不正当竞争法》知名商品特有名称的相关规定，而非《商标法》做为保护。知名商品特有名称的侵权判断中是要充分考虑被控侵权人是否具有主观恶意（也就是判断是否违背诚实信用原则），而商标侵权中则无须考虑主观过错的问题。(由此可见知名商品特有名称这项权利在实际的维权中还是受到了一定了限制, 因此我们再一次提醒海外公司尽早在中国申请你们商标的中文名称）。
Now let’s get back to this case. It’s obvious that none of the behaviors of the defendant do not amount to an imitation of the plaintiff’s product. For example, the use of the text "LAFITE FAMILY", the use of the five-arrow graphics in its imitation logo, the use of “拉菲世族” and the make-up story of the "拉菲世族" based on the plaintiff’s background information. The above-mentioned behaviors may be attributed respectively to the infringement of the right to exclusive use of registered trademarks, infringement of a specific name of a well-known product, false publicity, but all these behaviors are not isolated from each other, on the contrary, they constitute a systematical infringement. Thus, taking into account the fact that the defendant violated the principle of good faith with obvious maliciousness, it’s absolutely correct to assume that the defendant’s behaviors constitute unfair competition and should be dealt with accordingly.回到本案，被告的种种行为无一不是表现为对于拉菲公司的全面地摹仿。例如对于“LAFITE FAMILY”的使用，对于“五箭头图形”商标的使用，对于“拉菲世族”的使用，对于“拉菲世族”背景资料的杜撰均如此。以上侵权形态中可能分别归属于侵犯注册商标专用权、侵犯知名商品特有名称、虚假宣传，但以上的侵权形态却都并非孤立的，而是已成体系。因而在充分考虑到金鸿德公司违背诚实信用原则，主观恶意明显的前提下，认定其构成不正当竞争完全正确。
Tap "Read More" to visit our website