外文-翻译原文和译文

中国计量学院

毕业设计（论文）外文翻译

学生姓名： 张玉星 学 号： 0901002102 专 业： 知 识 产 权 班 级： 09知识产权3班 外文文献题目1：

Trademark Law and Litigation in China(1)

外文文献题目2：

外文指导教师：

二 级 学 院： 法 学 院

2013年5月20日

外文文献翻译译稿1：

涉外商标在中国的诉讼(1)

来源：International Marketing Review, 2000, Vol.17 (3), pp.272-286

作者：Zhihong Gao

本节报告了在上海试验的涉外商标案件的定性内容分析来推断法院如何解释和执行中国的商标法律。定性内容分析（霍尔斯蒂，1969）是这个项目的一个合适的工具，因为案情细节比抽象数字能表达更多信息。

内容分析的数据来自中国知识产权的判决和决定（2009年），这是中国政府推出的符合“TRIPS协定”的透明度要求，并且基于网络的知识产权民事案件的数据库。尽管这个数据库的覆盖面并不全面，但它正在不断地更新壮大，截止2008年已涵盖3000余例案件。

原告决定提交一份商标在中国的诉讼时有三种选择：发生侵权行为的地点，侵权货物的存放地点，或者被告住所地（最高人民法院，2002年，第6）。上海位于中国长江三角洲产业基地的心脏，是中国最繁华的城市，是全国领先的商业中心，并且是一个重要的港口。这个城市据说有比较多的权力勾结和侵权（“外国商标”，2004年）。出于所有这些原因，上海的法院处理涉外商标案件的数量相对较高。出于同样的原因，在这里报道的内容分析的重点在上海审理的案件。与此同时，在其他一些地方审理的一些广为人知的案件也被详细分析，以便我们有一个全景透视。

中国知识产权的判断和决策网站记录截止2008年6月在上海结案的涉外商标案件46件（表2）。在这些案件中的原告大多是来自发达国家的商标持有人，涉及到从消费品到工业产品服务的各种产品。被告分为三类：本地制造商/服务提供商，批发商/零售商，及自雇人士。数据库中只有一个案件，是一家本土公司对跨国公司发起诉讼（上海肖亚庆诉可口可乐（Coca-Cola），2006年）。

在45件由外国商标持有人发起的诉讼中，19件即42％，涉及假冒产品的生产销售。剩余的案件中，涉及的侵权包括双方中文商标的相似（7实例），双方英文商标的相似（9实例），双方英文和中文商标的相似（2实例），双方标志的相似（5实例），商品外观的相似（1实例），和/或被告在其企业名称中使用了原告的商标（5实例）。

禁令，公开赔礼道歉，销毁侵权商品和材料，损害及法律费用的赔偿，这些是外国原告最常寻求的补救措施。在少数情况下，原告要求驰名商标的认可。许多原告要求不超过50万元的赔偿，50万是实际损失难以计算，而原告要求更高金额赔偿时，法律允许的最大赔偿数额，例如本田要求17万元的赔偿（本田诉重庆力帆，2004年）。

案件决定表明，中国法院允许双方提供证据来支持他们的要求，而不是仅由

原告进行举证，但一方的真实性存在争议可由另一方拒绝接受。由政府部门发布的侵权货物的实物证明被视为原告可以提供的最有力的证据，而侵权货物的照片、销售收入、库存数据被认为是侵权行为造成的实际损害的不充足证据。在彪马运动诉上海子庄快乐购物（2008）的案件中，原告提供了经过公证的在主要购物中心的简单抽样调查结果，结果显示，19份问卷中，2份认为原告和被告的标志是相同的，9份认为它们是相似的，8份认为它们是不同的。这些有争议的数字或多或少让法院得出结论，消费者已经被混淆。在另外一个案件中，法院在被告拒绝法院工作人员进入他的产业取证后，提出仅让被告进行举证（本田诉重庆力帆，2004年）。

法院在审理商标案件时主要依靠产生混淆的可能性，两个商标之间的相似性是法院必须经受的测试，以决定混淆存在的可能性。这样的标准含有强烈的主观维度。例如，本田诉重庆力帆（2004年）的案件，法院认为，被告的“SOR”商标与原告的“SCR”商标相似，并因此有可能混淆消费者，即使被告将它与自己的商标“力帆”使用在一起，用在摩托车上。“力帆”本身是一个广泛认知的标志，摩托车买家应该被重点提醒。在另一个案件中，由于两个商标的意义和发音都相似，法院倾向于外国被告，可口可乐，因为它同其他标志一起使用原先的商标，以使它不太可能混淆相关的目标客户（上海肖亚庆诉可口可乐，2006年）。意向性的因素或许可以解释这些明显不符的裁决：中国法院随意裁决国内被告，认为国外著名商标持有人不太可能故意利用本土品牌的声誉。

虽然经常法院承认有关的外国商标的声誉，似乎不愿意承认驰名商标。例如，在依视路国际诉上海依视路光学有限公司（2006年）的案件中，法院认为，没有需要认识到原告的商标为驰名因为被告已经被发现犯有侵犯。同样，法院认为没有必要认识“卡西欧”为驰名商标，因为商标持有者在45个国家注册了此商标，得到了作为驰名商标相同的水平的法律保护（卡西欧公司诉上海环渤海汽车供应，2007年）。法院拒绝承认的中国商标“彭博”由于：（一）原告的全球领导地位并不一定意味着它还是在中国市场的领导者;（二）“彭博社”虽然是一个国外的驰名商标但并不意味着它同样在中国广为人知，也并不意味着，其中文商标是众所周知的;（三）原告提供的各种证据未能证明中文“彭博”，是其著名的英文标志，“彭博社”的直接翻译;（d）原告未能提供证据证明其中国商标在中国的推进（彭博社诉上海澎博财经资讯，2006年）。星巴克，在证明了它已投入巨资推广品牌后，其特许经营基地已在中国迅速扩大后收到由法院驰名商标证明（星巴克诉上海Xingbake咖啡厅，2006年）。

外文文献翻译原文1：

Trademark Law and Litigation in China(1)

Sources:International Marketing Review, 2000, Vol.17 (3), pp.272-286

Author:Zhihong Gao

This section reports a qualitative content analysis of foreign trademark cases tried in Shanghai to extrapolate how the court interprets and enforces the Chinese trademark law. Qualitative content analysis (Holsti, 1969) is a suit-able tool for this project because case details are more informative than tabulated abstract numbers.

The data of the content analysis come fromChina IPR Judgments and Decisions(2009), a web-based database of IP civil cases launched by the Chinese government in compliance with the transparency requirement of the TRIPS. Although not exhaustive in its coverage, the database is constantly updated and substantial in size, recording more than 3,000 cases by 2008.

The plaintiff has three choices when deciding where to file a trademark lawsuit in China: where the infringing act takes place, where the infring-ing goods are warehoused, or where the defendant resides (The Supreme People’s Court, 2002, art.

6). Located in the heart of China’s Yangtze Delta industrial base, Shanghai is the most prosperous city in the country, a lead-ing commercial center, and a major port. The city is reputed to be relatively free of collusion between the authority and infringers (“Foreign Trademark,”2004). For all these reasons, its courts handle a comparatively higher num-ber of foreign trademark cases. For the same reasons, the content analysis reported here focuses on cases adjudicated in Shanghai. Meanwhile, some well publicized cases tried at other places were also perused to acquire a panoramic perspective.

TheChina IPR Judgments and DecisionsWebsite records 46 foreign trademark cases concluded in Shanghai by June 2008 (Table 2). Most plain-tiffs in these cases were mark holders from developed countries, and a variety of products—ranging from consumer goods and services to indus-trial goods—were involved. The defendants fell into three categories: local manufacturers/service providers, wholesalers/retailers, and self-employed individuals. Only one case in the data was initiated by a local com-pany against Coca-Cola, a multinational corporation (Shanghai Yaqing v. Coca-cola, 2006).

Of the 45 lawsuits initiated by foreign mark holders, 19, or 42%,involved production and/or sales of counterfeits. Of the remaining cases,alleged violations were traced to similarity between the two parties’ Chinese marks (seven instances), similarity between their English marks (nine instances), similarity between their

English and Chinese marks (two instances), similarity between their logos (five instances), similarity in their trade dress (one instance), and/or the defendant using the plaintiff’s trademark in its enterprise name (five instances).

Injunction, public apology, destruction of infringing goods and mate-rials, and compensation for damages and legal fees were remedies most frequently sought by the foreign plaintiffs. In a few cases, the plaintiff demanded for well-known mark recognition. Many of the plaintiffs sought a compensation of no more than 500,000 yuan, the maximum allowed by law when the actual injury is hard to calculate, whereas some claimed for a much higher amount—Honda demanded for a compensation of more than 17 million yuan (Honda v. Chongqing Lifan, 2004).

The case decisions indicate that, rather than putting the burden of proof solely on the plaintiff, the Chinese court allowed both parties to present evidence in support of their claims, though it generally refused to accept evi-dence whose authenticity was disputed by either party. Physical evidence of infringing goods in its entirety and administrative penalty decisions issued by government agencies were deemed the strongest evidence a plaintiff could provide, whereas photos of infringing goods, sales revenues, and inven-tory data considered were inadequate proofs of the actual injury caused by the infringing act (Levi Strauss & Co. v. Shanghai Beizi, 2007). In the case ofPuma Sport v. Shanghai Zizhuang Happy Shopping(2008), the plaintiff provided the notarized results of a convenience sample survey conducted at a major shopping center, which showed that, out of 19 valid responses, two people thought the logos of the plaintiff and defendant were identical, nine thought they were similar, and eight thought they were different. These disputable numbers nevertheless led the court to conclude that consumer confusion had actually occurred. In another case, the court put the burden of proof solely on the defendant after it refused to let court personnel enter its property to collect evidence (Honda v. Chongqing Lifan, 2004)

It appears that the court relied predominantly on the likelihood of con-fusion doctrine in adjudicating trademark cases, and similarity between the junior and senior mark perceived by the court served as the essential test to determine whether likelihood of confusion existed. Such a standard con-tained a strong subjective dimension. For instance, in the case of Honda v. Chongqing Lifan(2004), the court concluded that the defendant’s “SOR”

mark was similar to the plaintiff’s “SCR” mark and thus likely to confuse the consumer, even though the defendant used it together with its trademark“LIFAN” on its motorcycles, “LIFAN” itself was a widely recognized mark,and buyers of

motorcycles should be highly involved. However, in another case, though the junior and senior marks were similar in meaning and pro-nunciation, the court ruled for the foreign defendant, Coca-Cola, on the ground that the defendant used the junior mark together with other identi-fiers so that it was unlikely to confuse the relevant target, which happened to be children in this case (Shanghai Yaqing v. Coca-cola, 2006). The factor of intent may explain these apparently discrepant rulings: the Chinese court readily assigned bad faith to domestic defendants but considered holders of famous foreign marks unlikely to intentionally take a free ride on the reputation of local brands.

Although frequently acknowledging the reputation of the foreign marks concerned, the court seemed reluctant to recognize well-known marks. For instance, in the case of Essilor International v. Shanghai Yishilu Optics Co.(2006), it declared that there was no need to recognize the plaintiff’s mark as well-known because the defendant had already been found guilty of infringement. Similarly, the court saw no need to recognize “Casio” as well known because the owner had already registered the mark across 45 classes, which afforded it the same level of legal protection as a well-known mark

would receive (Casio Co. v. Shanghai Bohai Auto Supply, 2007). The court refused to recognize the Chinese mark of Bloomberg L. P. as well known on the ground that: (a) the plaintiff’s global leadership did not necessarily mean it was also the leader in the Chinese market; (b) the fact that “Bloomberg”was a well-known mark abroad did not mean it was equally well known in China, nor did it mean that its Chinese mark was well known; (c) the various

evidence provided by the plaintiff failed to prove that its Chinese mark,“彭博”, was a direct translation of its famous English mark, “Bloomberg”; and(d) the plaintiff failed to provide evidence on its promotion of the Chinese mark in China (Bloomberg L. P. v. Shanghai Pengbo Financial Information,2006). Starbucks received the well-known mark recognition by the court after proving that it had invested heavily in promoting the brand, and its franchise base had been rapidly expanding in China (Starbucks v. Shanghai Xingbake Café,2006).

涉外商标在中国的诉讼(2)

来源：International Marketing Review, 2000, Vol.17 (3), pp.272-286

作者：Zhihong Gao

在46宗个案中，除了利勃海尔国际诉上海国美电子案（2008年）, 中国法院都裁定赞成外方。最常用的补救措施包括禁令，公开赔礼道歉，经济赔偿。法院很少下令销毁侵权商品，但在少数情况下，下令销毁带有侵权商标的侵权标识，用于打印标记的材料，宣传材料。法院对原告的公开道歉索赔有不同的回应态度。尽管有些法院会支持原告的这种索赔，但仍有些法院会拒绝，认为道歉的补救措施仅适用于个人权利的侵犯，而不适用于作为财产权利的商标权利（例如，彭博诉上海澎博金融信息，2006年）。

中国法院责令的补偿很少超过50万元，在许多案件中，补偿远远低于50万。最常用到的低补偿的理由是证据不足和难以计算侵权行为所造成的实际损害，所以，根据法律规定，法院必须测量出补偿不超过50万元。NEC诉上海汉恒科技（2007）的案件中，被告人共制造了500部侵权电话机并销售300部，基于这样的事实，法院决定了30000元的补偿。霍尼韦尔诉温州无忌（2008年）的案件中，考虑到已经由中国海关没收侵权货物，这样的侵权行为尚未完成，并没有对原告造成实际伤害，法院决定了80000元的补偿。

在上海以外的城市，中国的法院偶尔会通过相对较高的赔偿。在镇江市的一个案件中，雅马哈摩托车有限公司获得8,300,440.43元的赔偿金，基于被告销售摩托车2113辆获得了销售收入，被告提出上诉时，最高人民法院维持原判（雅马哈发动机诉浙江华天，2007年）。在国内的一个案件中，被告以每件11元的利润销售侵权产品1411589瓶，计算时未售出的库存的利润被排除在外，法院判给原告15527479元的赔偿（北京嘉裕东方酒业有限公司诉中国粮油国际，2005）。这些例子表明，中国法院在计算赔偿时会侧重于实际损害。

46个案件中的许多被告在接到诉讼之前已受到了行政处罚。在JUKI诉上海宝石缝纫机有限公司（2005年）的案件中，在2004年，被告已被地方行政罚款450,000元，没收侵权的285台缝纫机，并责令停止侵权行为。事实上，一些外国原告是从负责执行商标法中国政府机构那里了解到侵权行为的发生，并且他们经常使用行政处罚决定作为在法庭上支持他们要求的证据。在一个案例中，被告已经被提起刑事诉讼（利维斯特劳斯公司诉钟晓英，2007年）。

Trademark Law and Litigation in China(2)

Sources:International Marketing Review, 2000, Vol.17 (3), pp.272-286

Author:Zhihong Gao

Of the 46 cases, the Chinese court ruled in favor of the foreign party in all except the Liebherr-International v. Shanghai Guomei Electronicscase(2008). The most commonly prescribed remedies included injunction, public apology, and compensation. The court rarely ordered the destruction of the infringing goods, though in a few cases it ordered the destruction of the infringing marks, materials used to print the marks, and promotional materials bearing the infringing marks. Courts sometimes responded to the plaintiff’s public apology claim differently. Although most courts supported such a claim when ruling for the plaintiff, some rejected it, arguing that apology was a remedy applicable only to violations of personal rights and not to trademark rights, which were property rights (e.g.,Bloomberg L. P. v.Shanghai Pengbo Financial Information, 2006).

Compensations ordered by the Chinese court rarely exceeded 500,000 yuan—in many cases they were far below it. The most commonly cited ratio-nales for the low compensations were inadequate evidence and difficulties to calculate the actual damages caused by the infringing act, so that, accord-ing to law, the court had to measure out a compensation no more than 500,000 yuan. In the case ofNEC v. Shanghai Hanheng Tech(2007), the court decided upon a compensation of 30,000 yuan based on the fact that the defendant manufactured a total of 500 infringing telephones and sold

300 of them. In the case ofHoneywell v. Wenzhou Wuji(2008), the court awarded the plaintiff 80,000 yuan after considering that the infringing goods were already confiscated by the Chinese customs, so that the infringing act had not been completed and caused no actual injury to the plaintiff.

Outside Shanghai, the Chinese court occasionally awarded relatively high compensations. In a case first tried at Zhenjiang Province, Yamaha Motor Co. was awarded 8,300,440.43 yuan in damages based on the defen-dant’s sales income from selling 2113 motorcycles, and the Supreme People’s

Court upheld the judgment when it was appealed by the defendant (Yamaha Motor v. Zhejiang Huatian, 2007). In a domestic case, the court awarded the plaintiff 15,527,479 yuan after determining that the defendant sold 1,411,589 bottles of the infringing products at a profit of 11 yuan each—the unsold inventory was excluded from the calculation (Beijing Jiayu Oriental Wine Co. v. COFCO International, 2005).

These examples reveal that the Chinese court focuses on actual injuries when calculating damages.

Many defendants of the 46 cases had already been subjected to admin-istrative penalties before appearing in court. In the case of Juki v. Shanghai Baoshi Sewing Machine Co.(2005), the local administration of industry and commerce fined the defendant 450,000 yuan, confiscated the 285 infringing sewing machines, and ordered it to stop the infringing act in 2004. In fact, some of the foreign plaintiffs became aware of the infringing acts because of notices from Chinese government agencies in charge of enforcing trademark laws, and they often used the administrative penalty decisions as evidence to support their claims in court. In one case, the defendant had already been criminally charged (Levi Strauss & Co. v. Zhong Xaoying, 2007).

学位论文数据集

中国计量学院

本科毕业设计（论文）附件清单

论文题目：商标法“在先权利”法律分析

学生姓名 张玉星 学生学号 0901002102 班级 3 学生专业 知识产权 所属分院 法学院 指导教师 王璟

1. 毕业设计任务书

2. 毕业设计开题报告

3. 毕业设计开题意见表

4. 毕业设计指导教师意见表

5. 毕业设计评阅表

6. 毕业设计验收登记表

7. 毕业设计答辩记录表

8. 毕业设计评语表（评分表）

9. 毕业设计文献综述

10. 外文文献翻译译稿1

11. 外文文献翻译原文1

12. 外文文献翻译译稿2

13. 外文文献翻译原文2

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/8g01.html