2024年第9-11期最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
原创 Mani 北大法宝 2025年07月09日 18:22 北京
北大法宝推出“法宝双语案例”栏目。本栏目选取近期热门司法案例进行双语发布，每两周一期，欢迎关注！感谢新老朋友对北大法宝的大力支持，我们会持续为大家提供更好的法律信息服务。本周推送第一百五十一期，主要关注2024年第9-11期最高院公报案例！
本期双语案例推送西门子股份公司、西门子（中国）有限公司与宁波奇帅电器有限公司、龚银其等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案等2024年第9-11期最高院公报案例。
目录
Contents
1. 西门子股份公司、西门子（中国）有限公司与宁波奇帅电器有限公司、龚银其等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案Siemens AG, Siemens (China) Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Qishuai Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., Gong Yinqi et al. (case regarding dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition)
2.中外制药株式会社与温州海鹤药业有限公司确认是否落入专利权保护范围纠纷案Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over confirmation of patent protection scope)
3. 广东好太太科技集团股份有限公司与国家知识产权局、佛山市凯达能企业管理咨询有限公司商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案Guangdong HOTATA Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Foshan Kaidaneng Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (case of administrative dispute over a request for trademark invalidation)
一、西门子股份公司、西门子（中国）有限公司与宁波奇帅电器有限公司、龚银其等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案
Siemens AG, Siemens (China) Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Qishuai Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd., Gong Yinqi et al. (case regarding dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition)
【裁判摘要】
将与他人有一定影响的企业名称中的字号及他人的注册商标作为自身商标及字号使用，构成商标侵权及不正当竞争行为。
在被诉侵权人拒不提交相关财务证据的情况下，可以参考权利人的主张和提供的证据判定赔偿数额；在案证据足以认定侵权人因侵权获得的利益明显超过反不正当竞争法规定的法定赔偿最高限额时，人民法院应当综合考虑被侵权人的知名度、侵权人的主观恶意程度、侵权行为的具体情节以及被侵权人为维权支出的合理费用等因素，在法定赔偿额以上确定赔偿数额。
[Judgment Abstract]
Trademark infringement and unfair competition are constituted when a business uses the trade name in another enterprise’s name with certain popularity and the registered trademark of another business as its own trademark and trade name.
Where the alleged infringer refuses to submit relevant financial evidence, the court may determine the amount of compensation based on the claims and evidence provided by the rights holder. Where the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the infringer’s gains from the infringement exceed the statutory maximum compensation under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the people’s court should determine an amount of compensation higher than the statutory amount by taking into full account factors such as the reputation of the infringed, the degree of subjective malice of the infringer, the specific circumstances of the infringement, and the reasonable costs incurred by the infringed in defending its rights.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2024年第9期（总第337期）第29-48页
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 9, 2024 (Total No. 337) Page 29-48
二、中外制药株式会社与温州海鹤药业有限公司确认是否落入专利权保护范围纠纷案
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over confirmation of patent protection scope)
【裁判摘要】
一、仿制药申请人依据《药品专利纠纷早期解决机制实施办法（试行）》第六条的规定，作出其申请的仿制药技术方案不落入被仿制药品专利权保护范围的声明，原则上应当针对被仿制药品所对应的保护范围最大的权利要求，以保证声明的真实性和准确性。中国上市药品专利信息登记平台公开了被仿制药品所对应的两个或者两个以上的独立权利要求时，仿制药申请人应当针对该两个或者两个以上独立权利要求作出声明。
二、在药品专利链接诉讼中，判断仿制药的技术方案是否落入专利权保护范围时，原则上应当以仿制药申请人的申报资料为依据进行比对评判；仿制药申请人实际实施的技术方案与申报资料是否相同，一般不属于药品专利链接诉讼的审查范围。
[Judgment Abstract]
1.When a generic drug applicant, in accordance with Article 6 of the Measures for the Implementation of the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes (Trial), makes a declaration that its applied-for generic drug technical solution does not fall within the scope of patent protection for the referenced drug, it shall, in principle, ensure that such declaration is made against the claim with the broadest scope of protection corresponding to the referenced drug, so as to ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of the declaration. If two or more independent claims corresponding to the referenced drug are disclosed on the China Marketed Drug Patent Information Registration Platform, the generic drug applicant shall make the declaration against those two or more independent claims.
2.In a patent linkage litigation, when determining whether the technical solution of a generic drug falls within the scope of patent protection, the court should, in principle, make a comparative assessment based on the generic drug applicant’s application materials; whether the technical solution actually implemented by the generic drug applicant is identical to that described in the application materials generally falls beyond the scope of review in drug patent linkage litigation.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2024年第10期（总第338期）第34-48页
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 10, 2024 (Total No. 338) Page 34-48
三、广东好太太科技集团股份有限公司与国家知识产权局、佛山市凯达能企业管理咨询有限公司商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案
Guangdong HOTATA Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Foshan Kaidaneng Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (case of administrative dispute over a request for trademark invalidation)
【裁判摘要】
商标能否注册应当依据商标法的相关规定进行判断；商标注册申请人拥有的在先驰名商标，并不构成其申请注册的在后商标应予核准注册的当然理由；所谓在先商标权利的合理延伸，并无法律依据。
[Judgment Abstract]
The determination as to whether a trademark can be registered shall be made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law. The fact that a trademark applicant owns a prior well-known trademark does not automatically constitute sufficient grounds for approving the registration of a subsequent trademark applied for by the same applicant. There is no legal basis for the so-called reasonable extension of prior trademark rights.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2024年第11期（总第339期）第42-48页
|
