近日，山东省临沂市中级人民法院作出一审判决，集佳律所代理的施耐德电气（中国）有限公司诉山东施耐德变压器有限公司（现已更名为山东宝祥变压器有限公司）、王某某侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案获得一审胜诉。

　　基本案情

　　施耐德电气（中国）有限公司（以下简称“施耐德中国”）系世界500强企业法国施耐德电气公司在华设立的子公司，其在中国投资了多家电气企业，其在中国在第9类“高低压开关板，电开关，配电箱（电），变压器（电）”等商品上所核准注册的“施耐德”、“施耐德电气”等商标经广泛宣传、使用和推广，已在中国累积了很高的知名度和影响力。

　　被告山东施耐德变压器有限公司成立于2013年7月22日，法定代表人王某某，经营范围与施耐德中国有交叉和重合。被告公司在2015年12月18日向临沂第三中学提交的相关招投标报价文件中，在关于品牌及市场知名度部分使用了法国施耐德公司的相关信息和数据。同时，在该报价文件中所附的关于“行业资质”和“荣誉认证”材料中，使用了施耐德中国的前述注册商标，以及相关国家机关及公司的公文和印章。

　　案件审理过程中，被告公司于2018年4月2日将其公司名称申请变更为“山东宝祥变压器有限公司”并经工商行政管理部门核准。

　　王某某系被告公司的法定代表人，其还先后与其他人出资注册了苏州施耐德投资管理有限公司、施耐德企业管理（苏州）有限公司、施耐德自动化科技（滁州）有限公司等公司。

　　在案件推进过程中，针对上述报价文件中所发现的相关线索，原告方积极配合公安机关取证。被告王某某于2017年1月9日被公安机关以涉嫌伪造、变造、买卖国家机关公文、证件、印章罪进行刑事拘留，因涉嫌伪造国家机关公文、印章罪于2017年2月16日被逮捕。临沂市兰山区人民法院于2018年5月3日作出刑事判决，判决被告人王某某犯伪造国家机关公文、印章罪及伪造公司印章罪，判处其合并执行有期徒刑一年四个月，并处罚金人民币二万元。

　　法院判决

　　案件经多次开庭审理后，临沂中院于近日作出一审判决，认定被告公司在广告宣传、产品销售及经营活动中侵犯了施耐德中国的“施耐德”系列注册商标专用权，同时构成虚假宣传及擅自使用他人有一定影响的企业名称的不正当竞争行为，判决其停止上述商标侵权及不正当竞争行为，并赔偿施耐德中国30万元经济损失及合理开支。

　　目前，本案原被告双方均已上诉，我们后续会持续关注相关进展。

　　典型意义

　　该案件涉及商标法、不正当竞争法、侵权责任法、公司法等多部部门法及司法解释的交织，本案的亮点主要有：一是通过在民事案件推进过程中所发现的相关线索，配合公安机关将被告公司的法定代表人自然人王某某进行刑事追究并最终判刑；二是在诉讼阶段即迫使被告主动对其企业字号进行了变更，从而避免在判决执行阶段所可能耗费的大量时间和机会成本；三是在财产保全过程中，对自2016年12月1日起施行的《最高人民法院关于人民法院办理财产保全案件若干问题的规定》第八条所规定的“通过保险公司出具保函的形式进行担保”这一形式率先进行了具体实践，从而为团队后续办理类似事项累积了宝贵的实操经验；四是对如何揭开公司面纱，如何确定法定代表人与公司承担连带责任进行了有益尝试。

 

 

Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Linyi City of Shandong Province made the first-instance judgment over the case of Schneider Electric (China) Co. Ltd., represented by Unitalen, v. Shandong Schneider Transformer Co., Ltd. (now renamed as “Shandong Baoxiang Transformer Co., Ltd.”) and a related individual over the disputes of trademark right infringement and unfair competition. Unitalen helped Schneider Electric (China) won the first trial.

 

Case Summary

 

Schneider Electric (China) is a subsidiary of Schneider Electric, a Fortune 500 company. The defendant company Shandong Schneider was established on July 22, 2013, which do a similar business to Schneider Electric (China). In the bidding quotation submitted by the defendant to Linyi No. 3 Middle School on December 18, 2015, the information of Schneider Electric of France was used in brand introduction; And the registered trademarks of Schneider China, the relevant official documents and seals were submitted among the supplementary materials of the quotation to prove "industry qualifications" and "honor certification".

 

During the trial of the case, the defendant company submitted an application for change of its company name to “Shandong Baoxiang Transformer Co., Ltd.” on April 2, 2018 and was approved by the Administration of Industry and Commerce Department.

 

 

The Court’s Ruling:

 

The Linyi Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant company has violated the exclusive rights of Schneider China's registered "Schneider" series trademarks in advertising, product sales and other business activities, and at the same time constituted false propaganda and unauthorized use of other company’s name that is with certain influence. It’s ordered to stop the aforementioned trademark infringement and unfair competition behaviors and compensate Schneider China for 300,000 yuan in economic losses and reasonable expenses.

 

Typical Significance

 

The following highlights of the case are worth noting:

 

First, with the clues found during the advancement of the civil case, the legal representative of the defendant company was investigated by the police department and eventually sentenced with criminal charges.

 

Second, the defendant was forced to change its business name at the litigation stage, so as to avoid the large amount of time and cost that might incur during the execution of the judgment;

 

Third, in property preservation, we had exercised for the very first time the means of having “an insurance company to provide security for property preservation in the form of a letter of guarantee” in accordance with the “            Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Handling of Property Preservation Cases by the People's Courts”, which came into force on December 1, 2016, thus accumulating valuable practical experience for the firm to handle similar matters in the future.

 

The fourth is a successful attempt to uncover the veil of the defendant company and to determine the specific liabilities of the legal representative and the company.

免责声明：凡本网注明"来源：XXX（非中国知识产权杂志出品）"的作品，均转载自其它媒体，转载目的在于传递更多信息，并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。本网转载其他媒体之稿件，意在为公众提供免费服务。如稿件版权单位或个人不想在本网发布，可与本网联系，本网视情况可立即将其撤除。新闻纠错：13621279650 13621252760，邮箱：chinaip@chinaipmagazine.com