知识产权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例

一、北京庆丰包子铺与山东庆丰餐饮管理有限公司侵害商标权与不正当竞争纠纷案

【裁判要旨】

我国商标法鼓励生产、经营者通过诚实经营保证商品和服务质量，建立与其自身商业信誉相符的知名度，不断提升商标的品牌价值，同时保障消费者和生产、经营者的利益。公民享有合法的姓名权，当然可以合理使用自己的姓名。但是，公民在将其姓名作为商标或企业字号进行商标使用时，不得违反诚实信用原则，不得侵害他人的在先权利。明知他人注册商标或字号具有较高的知名度和影响力，仍注册与他人字号相同的企业字号，在同类商品或服务上突出使用与他人注册商标相同或相近似的商标或字号，明显具有攀附他人注册商标或字号知名度的恶意，容易使相关公众产生误会，其行为不属于对姓名的合理使用，构成侵害他人注册商标专用权和不正当竞争。

[Judgment Abstract] 

China's Trademark Law encourages producers or distributors to ensure the quality of goods or services through honest business operation, gain the popularity consistent with their own goodwill, constantly enhance the brand value of trademarks, and protects the interests of consumers, producers and distributors. A citizen enjoys the legal name right and has the right to use his or her name in a reasonable manner. However, when a citizen uses his or her name as a trademark or a corporate name for trademark purposes, he or she may not violate the principle of good faith or infringe upon other person's prior right. Knowing that the registered trademark or trade name of other person has high popularity and influence, a person still registers an enterprise name identical with other person's trade name. The prominent use of the trademark or trade name identical with or similar to the trademark registered by other person on the same category of goods or services is a malicious play up to the popularity of the trademark or trade name registered by other person, and may easily make the relevant public have misidentification. The said act is not the rational use of a name, and constitutes the infringement upon other person's exclusive right to use a registered trademark and the unfair competition.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2018年第12期（总第266期）第7-15页

Source Note: SPC Gazette, Issue 12, 2018

【法宝引证码】CLI.C. 8643332

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 8643332 (EN)

二、张晓燕诉雷献和、赵琪、山东爱书人音像图书有限公司著作权侵权纠纷案

Zhang Xiaoyan v. Lei Xianhe, Zhao Qi, and Shandong Aishuren DVDs & Books Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over infringement upon copyright)

【裁判摘要】

1.根据同一历史题材创作的作品中的题材主线、整体线索脉络，是社会共同财富，属于思想范畴，不能为个别人垄断，任何人都有权对此类题材加以利用并创作作品。

2.判断作品是否构成侵权，应当从被诉侵权作品作者是否接触过权利人作品、被诉侵权作品与权利人作品之间是否构成实质相似等方面进行。在判断是否构成实质相似时，应比较作者在作品表达中的取舍、选择、安排、设计等是否相同或相似，不应从思想、情感、创意、对象等方面进行比较。

3.按照著作权法保护作品的规定，人民法院应保护作者具有独创性的表达，即思想或情感的表现形式。对创意、素材、公有领域信息、创作形式、必要场景，以及具有唯一性或有限性的表达形式，则不予保护。

[Judgment Abstract]

1. The theme mainline and the overall sequence of clues in a work created on the basis of the same historical theme is the common treasure of the society, which is within the scope of ideas and cannot be monopolized by any individual. Any person has the right to create a work by using such theme.

2. Whether a work constitutes infringement shall be judged from such aspects as whether the author of the alleged infringing work has come into contact with the work of the copyright holder and whether the alleged infringing work and the work of the copyright holder constitute substantial similarity. To judge whether substantial similarity is constituted, comparisons shall be made on whether acceptance or rejection, choices, arrangements, and designs in the works are identical or similar other than comparisons in aspects of ideas, emotions, originality, and objects.

3. In accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Law on the protection of works, a people's court shall protect the author's expressions with originality, namely, expression forms of ideas or emotions. Creative ideas, materials, information in public domains, creation forms, necessary scenes as well as unique or limited expression forms shall not be protected.

案例发文：最高人民法院关于发布第16批指导性案例的通知

Source Note: Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Sixteenth Group of Guiding Cases

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.8917467

三、上海晨光文具股份有限公司诉得力集团有限公司等侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案

Shanghai M&G Chenguang Stationery Inc. v. Deli Group Co., Ltd. et al. (case of dispute over infringement upon a design patent)

【裁判摘要】

关于外观设计近似的判断，应遵循“整体观察，综合判断”的原则。在具体案件中，既应考察被诉侵权设计与授权外观设计的相似性，也考察其差异性；应分别从被诉侵权产品与授权外观设计的相同设计特征和区别设计特征出发，就其对整体视觉效果的影响分别进行客观分析，避免主观因素的影响。未付出创造性劳动，通过在授权外观设计的基础上，改变或添加不具有实质性区别的设计元素以及图案和色彩，实施外观设计专利的，构成对外观设计专利权的侵犯。

[Judgment Abstract]

The principle of "overall observation and comprehensive judgment" should be followed for the judgment of design approximation. In a specific case, both the similarity and the difference between an alleged infringing design and a patented design should be examined. The objective analysis of the overall visual effects should be conducted respectively from the perspectives of identical and different design features between the alleged infringing design and the patented design to avoid the influence of subjective factors. Where any person implements the design patent without any creative effort made in it, simply by changing or adding design elements as well as patterns and colors without substantial differences on the basis of the patented design, such act constitutes an infringement on the design patent right.

来源：《最高人民法院公报》2019年第1期（总第267期）第44-48页

Source Note: SPC Gazette,Issue 1,2019

【法宝引证码】CLI.C. 67961293

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 67961293 (EN)

四、山东登海先锋种业有限公司诉陕西农丰种业有限责任公司、山西大丰种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案

Shandong Denghai Pioneer Seeds Co., Ltd. v. Shaanxi Nongfeng Seeds Co., Ltd. and Shanxi Dafeng Seeds Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of a new plant variety right)

【裁判摘要】

判断被诉侵权繁殖材料的特征特性与授权品种的特征特性相同是认定构成侵害植物新品种权的前提。当DNA指纹鉴定意见为两者相同或相近似时，被诉侵权方提交DUS测试报告证明通过田间种植，被控侵权品种与授权品种对比具有特异性，应当认定不构成侵害植物新品种权。

[Judgment Abstract]

Judging whether the characteristics of the alleged infringing reproductive material are the same as those of a protected variety is the prerequisite for determining whether the infringement of a new plant variety right is committed. When a DNA fingerprinting opinion indicates that the two are identical or similar, if the sued infringing party submits a DUS test report evidencing that through a growing trial, the alleged infringing variety is compared with the protected variety and found to be distinct, the infringement of a new plant variety right shall be determined not to have been committed.

案例发文：最高人民法院关于发布第19批指导性案例的通知

Source Note: Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Nineteenth Group of Guiding Cases

【法宝引证码】CLI.C. 67337477

[CLI Code] CLI.C. 67337477 (EN)