本期雙語案例推送鱷魚恤有限公司訴國家工商行政管理總局商標評審委員會公司商標異議覆審行政糾紛案等涉港澳臺案例。
目錄
Contents
1.鱷魚恤有限公司訴國家工商行政管理總局商標評審委員會公司商標異議覆審行政糾紛案
Crocodile Shirt Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (case regarding administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition)
2. 王老吉有限公司與國家工商行政管理總局商標評審委員會商標申請駁回覆審行政糾紛上訴案
Wanglaoji Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (appeal of case regarding administrative dispute over trademark rejection review)
3.吉林環城農村商業銀行股份有限公司等與恆豐銀行股份有限公司合同糾紛上訴案
Jilin Huancheng Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hengfeng Bank Co., Ltd. (appeal of case regarding contract dispute)
一、鱷魚恤有限公司訴國家工商行政管理總局商標評審委員會公司商標異議覆審行政糾紛案
Crocodile Shirt Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (case regarding administrative dispute over review of trademark opposition)
【裁判要旨】
在商標註冊時，申請人申請註冊的商標與他人在同種或類似商品上已經註冊或初步審定的商標相同或近似時，為保護商標所有人的合法權益，應當駁回該商標註冊申請。商標近似，是指商標的外形特徵或整體結構相同或相似，會使消費者產生誤認。在判定商標是否構成近似時，應當綜合判斷商標的相似程度和相關商標的知名度、商品的關聯程度等。
[Judgment Abstract]
At the time of trademark registration, if a trademark being applied for by an applicant is the same as or similar to a trademark of others that has been registered or preliminarily reviewed for the same or similar goods, the trademark registration application shall be rejected in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the trademark owner. Approximation of trademarks means that the appearance features or overall structures of trademarks are the same or similar, which may confuse consumers. Therefore,the similarity of trademarks, the popularity of the relevant trademark and the relevance of the goods shall all be taken into comprehensive consideration in order to determine whether or not the trademark constitutes an approximation.
二、王老吉有限公司與國家工商行政管理總局商標評審委員會商標申請駁回覆審行政糾紛上訴案
Wanglaoji Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (appeal of case regarding administrative dispute over trademark rejection review)
【裁判摘要】
直接表示商品的質量、主要原料、功能、用途、重量、數量及其他特點的標誌不得作為商標註冊，除非有證據證明該標誌經過使用取得了顯著性並起到了識別商品來源的作用。由文字「怕上火喝」構成的標誌，指定使用在「飲料製劑」等商品上，其含義簡單、明確，直接表示了產品具有降火的功能和用途，缺乏註冊商標對顯著性的要求。另外，當事人提交的證據亦不能證明該標誌經過使用取得了顯著性。所以，「怕上火喝」因不具有顯著性而不得作為商標註冊。
[Judgment Abstract]
Labelling with direct indications of the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity, and other features of goods should not be registered as trademarks, unless there is evidence that such labels are distinctive and have played a role in the identification of goods. A label bearing the words 「Pa Shang Huo He」 is designated to be used on goods such as beverages. With simple and definite meaning, this label directly reflects that the product is intended to have a cooling effect, falling short of the requirements for distinctiveness of a trademark to be registered. In addition, the applicant is unable to provide evidence to prove that this label has been distinctive. Therefore,the words 「Pa Shang Huo He」 should not be registered as a trademark, due to lack of distinctiveness.
【法寶引證碼】CLI.C.9657590
[CLI Code] CLI.C.9657590(EN)
三、吉林環城農村商業銀行股份有限公司等與恆豐銀行股份有限公司合同糾紛上訴案
Jilin Huancheng Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hengfeng Bank Co., Ltd. (appeal of case regarding contract dispute)
【裁判要旨】
銀行分支機構具備訴訟主體資格，能夠以自己的名義起訴或應訴，獨立行使訴訟權利、履行訴訟義務。銀行分支機構的民事責任依法應由銀行法人承擔，並不存在承擔連帶責任的法律依據。具體而言，如銀行分支機構管理的財產較為充足的，可以由其單獨承擔責任，如財產不足的，可以在銀行法人分支機構承擔責任的同時，由法人對其分支機構的責任承擔補充責任。因此，銀行分支機構籤訂合同，相對人將銀行及分支機構同時起訴的，如並無證據證明銀行分支機構管理的財產不足以承擔其民事責任的，則應當駁回對銀行法人的訴訟請求。在執行中銀行分支機構不能履行法律文書確定的義務的，可裁定執行銀行的財產。
[Judgment Abstract]
A bank branch has the standing of litigation subject, which allows it to answer or file suits in its own name, and independently exercise litigation rights and perform litigation obligations. The banking corporation should assume the civil liability of its branches according to law, and there has been no legal basis for joint and several liability. To be specific, if a branch has sufficient property under its management, it may independently assume the liability. Otherwise, the banking corporation should bear supplementary liability for its branches. Therefore,where a branch of a bank has signed a contract and a counterparty simultaneously brings a lawsuit against the bank and the branch, and there is no evidence that the property managed by the branch is insufficient to bear its civil liability, the claim against the banking corporation should be dismissed. If a branch of a bank fails to perform its obligations as defined in legal instruments during the execution, a court may rule on executing the bank's property.
更多詳情請關注我們的海外社交平臺，有更多的雙語資訊內容等著您！（PS：Facebook和Twitter需要外網訪問權限）
北京北大英華
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
責任編輯 | 吳曉婧
稿件來源 | 北大法寶英文編輯組（Mani）
審核人員 | 張文碩
▼