Court sides with LV for claiming infringement losses

上海一零售商因销售假“LV”箱包被判侵权

2019年6月5日  中国知识产权报  第16版：双语

　　Louis Vuitton Malletier (LV), a world-renowned enterprise in leather goods, suitcases and shoes, filed the No.241012 trademark 'LV and figure' in 1986, certified on the products of Class 18 including leather and strap bags. The trademark was renewed to January 14, 2026. The No.241012 trademark was recognized as a well-known mark by Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court and Beijing IP court in January and April, 2015 in succession.

　　In July, 2017, LV authorized an agent to purchase one suitcase and two bags in a shop of a garment mart in Shanghai. LV held that the suitcases and bags for sale in the shop had infringed its trademark right and decoration with some impact and brought the shop owner surnamed Huang to Yangpu District People's Court based on trademark infringement and unfair competition, requesting an injunction and 660,000 yuan in damages and reasonable expenses.

　　Huang argued that the products on sale are neither the same nor similar with the registered trademark of LV, and leather not the same as figure of the registered trademark, nor it did not constitute infringement. Huang refused to bear the responsibility of compensation on the ground that the accused products were purchased from Gangyi Leather shop and the products' manufacturer Guangzhou Kewang Leather had shown the trademark authorization certificate. 

　　After hearing, Yangpu Court held that the outer surface of the charged products had adopted similar figure with the trademark in a way of unlimited expanded copy. As the trademark enjoyed high popularity, marking the brand and origin of the products, Huang's selling had constituted trademark infringement. Huang attached himself to the reputation of LV subjectively, constituting unfair competition. Therefore, Yangpu Court ordered Huang to compensate LV 30,000 yuan for economic losses.

　　The disgruntled Huang appealed to Shanghai IP Court, arguing that the wholesaler Gangyi and Kewang were not listed in the parties. Besides, he thought he should not take any compensation responsibility for the fault fact recognition at first instance ruling. Shanghai IP  Court held that plaintff was entitled to dispose civil and litigation right within the range of law. It did not generate any impact on judging Huang's selling behavior whether Huang's sellers at higher level were added to be defendants in this case. Hence no impropriety was found.

　　Shanghai IP Court held further that on the occasion of failing to determine the losses and profits, it was not improper for the first instance ruling Court to impose 30,000 yuan, taking comprehensive consideration of the popularity of LV's trademark and decoration as well as infringement property, range, seriousness and lasting period. In this connection, the Court rejected Huang's appeal and upheld the judgment of the first instance.

　　(by Feng Fei)

　　路易威登马利蒂公司是主营皮具、服装、鞋子等产品的全球知名企业。1986年，该公司申请注册了第241012号“LV图形”商标，核定使用在第18类皮革、背包等商品上。经续展，该商标有效期至2026年1月14日。2015年1月、2015年4月，上海市第二中级人民法院、北京知识产权法院先后判决认定第241012号商标为驰名商标。

　　2017年7月，路易威登马利蒂公司委托代理人在上海一家服饰城的店铺内购买了1个箱子与2个包。路易威登马利蒂公司认为，该店商品侵犯其商标权和有一定影响力的包装装潢，遂以商标侵权及不正当竞争为由将店主黄某起诉至上海市杨浦区人民法院（下称杨浦法院），请求法院判令黄某立即停止侵权行为，赔偿经济损失及合理开支66万元等。

　　黄某辩称，其所售商品商标与路易威登马利蒂公司注册商标既不相同也不相似，所售商品的皮料图案与涉案注册商标图案也不相同，不构成侵权；被控侵权商品系从港亿皮具店购入，生产厂家广州市科王皮具有限公司（下称科王公司）出具了商标授权销售证书，其不存在任何过错，不应承担侵权赔偿责任。

　　杨浦法院经审理认为，被控侵权商品外表面以无限复制延展的方式使用了与涉案商标近似的图案，由于涉案商标知名度较高，能起到标明商品品牌和识别商品来源的作用，故黄某的销售行为已构成商标侵权。黄某主观上攀附该公司的商誉，构成不正当竞争。综上，应赔偿路易威登马利蒂公司经济损失3万元。

　　黄某向上海知识产权法院上诉称，该案未将商品批发商港亿皮具店及生产商科王公司列为诉讼当事人；一审认定事实错误，其不应承担任何侵权赔偿责任。上海知识产权法院经审理后认为，当事人有权在法律规定的范围内处分自己的民事权利和诉讼权利，且是否追加黄某的上一级销售商作为该案被告，不影响对于黄某销售行为的认定，固并无不当。法院认为，在侵权损失与侵权获利无法确定的情况下，一审法院综合考虑路易威登马利蒂公司商标及装潢的知名度，黄某侵权行为的性质、影响范围、情节、持续时间等因素，酌情确定3万元赔偿额并无不当。据此，法院驳回上诉，维持原判。（冯 飞）