Several Questions on the Application of Law in Trial of Trademark Civil Dispute Cases Interpretation
（Promulgated by the Supreme People's Court on 12 October 2002 and effective as of 16 October 2002.）
In order to correctly try trademark dispute cases， and in accordance with the provisions of laws such as the PRC， Civil Law General Principles， the PRC， Contract Law， the PRC， Trademark Law， the PRC， Civil Procedure Law， etc.， the following interpretations are made regarding several issues relating to the application of the law：
Article 1 The following acts constitute acts causing other harm to another's exclusive right to use a registered trademark as set out in Item （5） of Article 52 of the Trademark Law：
1. using wording that is identical or similar to another's registered trademark as a business name and displaying it prominently on identical or similar goods， thereby easily causing mistaken recognition on the part of the relevant public；
2. reproducing， imitating or translating another's registered well-known trademark or its main part and using it as a trademark on non-identical or dissimilar goods thereby misleading the public and potentially prejudicing the interests of the registrant of the well-known trademark；
3. registering words that are identical or similar to another's registered trademark as a domain name and using it to carry out electronic commerce business in related goods， thereby easily causing mistaken recognition on the part of the relevant public.
Article 2 In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law， where another's non PRC-registered well-known trademark or its main part is reproduced， imitated or translated and used as a trademark on identical or similar goods， thereby easily resulting in confusion， civil liability to stop the infringement should be undertaken.
Article 3 Trademark licences as set out under Article 40 of the Trademark Law include the following three types：
1. “exclusive licences”， which means that the trademark registrant licenses a single licensee to use its registered trademark for an agreed period， within a specified territory and in an agreed manner and where the trademark registrant， in accordance with the agreement， may not use the registered trademark；
2. “sole licences”， which means that the trademark registrant licenses a single licensee to use its registered trademark for an agreed period， within a specified territory and in an agreed manner and where the trademark registrant， in accordance with the agreement， may use the registered trademark but may not license other parties to use the registered trademark；
3. “non-exclusive licences”， which means that the trademark registrant licenses a third party to use its registered trademark for an agreed period， within a specified territory and in an agreed manner and where the trademark registrant can itself make use of the registered trademark and license others to use its registered trademark.
Article 4 “Materially interested parties” under Article 53 of the Trademark Law includes licensees under trademark licensing contracts for registered trademarks， lawful successors to registered trademark property rights， etc.
When exclusive rights to use a registered trademark are infringed， licensees under exclusive licensing contracts can bring a suit in the people's courts. Licensees under sole licensing contracts can bring a joint suit together with the trademark registrant and can also bring a suit by themselves if the trademark registrant does not bring a suit. Licensees under non-exclusive licensing contracts can bring a suit provided that they have been given clear authorization to do so by the trademark registrant.
Article 5 Where a trademark registrant or materially interested party brings a suit because a third party is infringing the exclusive rights to us
e the registered trademark after the trademark registrant or materially interested party has filed an extension application during the grace period for extending the term of a registered trademark but before such extension has been approved， the people's court should accept the suit.
Article 6 Civil suits that have been brought because of an act of infringement of the exclusive rights to use a registered trademark， shall fall under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where an act of infringement under Article 13 or 52 of the Trademark Law has been carried out， of the place where the infringing products are stored， sealed or detained， or of the place where the infringer is domiciled.
The “place where the infringing products are stored” referred to in the preceding paragraph， means the place where large quantities of the infringing products are stored or hidden， or the place where the infringing products are regularly stored or hidden. The place where they are “sealed or detained” means the place where an administrative body such as Customs， administration for industry and commerce， etc.， has sealed up or detained the infringing products.
Article 7 Where a single suit is brought over acts of infringement committed in different locations by multiple defendants， the plaintiff can select the people's court of the place where one of the defendants has carried out the infringing act as the people's court with jurisdiction. Where a suit is brought against one of the defendants only， the people's court of the place where that defendant carried out the infringing act shall have jurisdiction.
Article 8 The “relevant public” referred to in the Trademark Law means consumers related to the type of product or service branded with the trademark or business operators that have a close connection to the marketing of the afore-mentioned product or service.
Article 9 The phrase “trademark that is identical” in Item （1） of Article 52 of the Trademark Law means where the suspected infringing trademark is compared with the plaintiff's registered trademark and the two trademarks are essentially without difference visually.
The phrase “trademark that is similar” under Item （1） of Article 52 of the Trademark Law means where the suspected infringing trademark is compared with the plaintiff's registered trademark and the font， pronunciation or meaning of the words or the composition or colouring of the device are similar， or the overall structure of its combined main elements is similar， or where its three-dimensional shape and combination of colours are similar thereby easily leading the relevant public to mistake the source of the products or to believe that their source has a certain connection to products using the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Article 10 Where a people's court makes a determination of whether trademarks are identical or similar in accordance with Item （1） of Article 52 of the Trademark Law， it shall apply the following principles：
1. Using the ordinary powers of observation of the relevant public as the standard；
2. The trademarks should be compared in their entirety and their important elements should also be compared； the comparison should be carried out with the two objects of comparison being kept apart；
3. When considering whether the trademarks are similar， the distinctiveness and notoriety of the registered trademark for which protection is being sought should be considered.
Article 11 “Similar goods” under Item （1） of Article 52 of the Trademark Law means goods that have identical functions， uses， production entities， sales channels， target consumers， etc.， or goods that the relevant public would normally consider to have a certain connection and thus easily cause confusion.
“Similar services” means services whose purpose， content， method of provision， target users， etc.， are identical o
r services that the relevant public would normally consider to have a certain connection and thus easily cause confusion.
“Similar goods and services” means that a certain connection exists between the goods and services that could easily cause the relevant public to be confused.
Article 12 Where a people's court determines whether goods or services are similar in accordance with Item （1） of Article 52 of the Trademark Law， it should make an overall determination based on the normal knowledge of the relevant public with regard to the goods or services. The International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks and the Classification of Similar Goods and Services may be used as a reference for determining the similarity of goods or services.
Article 13 When a people's court determines an infringer's liability for compensation in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Trademark Law， it can calculate the measure of damages in accordance with the method of calculation chosen by the rights holder.
Article 14 The benefits gained from the infringement referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Trademark Law can be calculated by multiplying the unit profit by the sales quantity of the infringing product. Where it is impossible to ascertain the unit profit， the unit profit of the products using the registered trademark shall be used for the calculation.
Article 15 The losses suffered from the infringement referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Trademark Law can be calculated according to the reduction in the sales amount of the product suffered by the rights holder because of the infringement or can be calculated by multiplying the sales amount of the infringing product by the unit profit of th e products using the registered trademark.
Article 16 Where it is difficult to calculate both the benefit gained by the infringer because of the infringement or the loss suffered by the rights holder because of the infringement， the people's court can， in accordance with the parties' request or on an ex officio basis， apply the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 56 of the Trademark Law in order to determine the measure of damages.
When a people's court is determining the measure of damages， it should make an overall determination having considered factors such as the nature， the period and the consequences of the infringement， the reputation of the trademark， the amount of trademark licensing royalties， the types， periods and scope of trademark licences for the mark， the reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement， etc.
Where the parties reach an agreement on the measure of damages in accordance with the first paragraph of this Article， this should be permitted.
Article 17 The “reasonable expenses incurred in stopping the infringement” referred to in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Trademark Law include reasonable expenses of the rights holder or an appointed agent in investigating and collecting evidence regarding the infringing act.
In accordance with a party's statement of claim or the specific facts of the case， a people's court can include lawyers' fees that comply with the stipulations of the relevant State departments within the calculation of the scope of compensation.
Article 18 The statute of limitation for bringing a suit for the infringement of a registered trademark is two years， starting from the date that the trademark registrant or a materially interested party knew or should have known about the act of infringement. Where a trademark registrant or a materially interested party brings a suit after more than two years， if the infringing act is still continuing at the time the suit is brought and the exclusive rights to use the registered trademark are still in the period of validity， then the people's
court should issue a judgment ordering the defendant to stop the infringing act. The measure of damages for the infringement should be calculated by reckoning back two years from the date when the rights holder brought the suit before the people's court.
Article 19 Where a trademark licensing contract has not been recorded， this will not affect its effectiveness， unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
A trademark licensing contract that has not been recorded with the Trademark Office may not be used to oppose third parties acting in good faith.
Article 20 The assignment of registered trademarks shall not affect the effectiveness of trademark licensing contracts that had already entered into effect before the assignment， unless the trademark licensing contracts contain provisions to the contrary.
Article 21 Where a people's court is trying a dispute involving the infringement of exclusive rights to use a registered trademark， in accordance with the provisions of Article 134 of the Civil Law General Principles and Article 53 of the Trademark Law and the specific circumstances of the case， the court can issue a judgment ordering the infringer to bear such civil liability as stopping the infringement， removing obstructions， eliminating dangers， compensating loss， eliminating the effect of the infringement， etc. It can also issue a decision for such civil sanctions as imposing fines and/or confiscating the infringing goods， the forged trademark representations and property such as materials， tools and equipment， etc.， specially used to manufacture
the infringing products. The amount of the fines can be determined by reference to the relevant provisions under the PRC Trademark Law Implementing Regulations.
Where an administrative department for industry and commerce has already imposed an administrative penalty in respect of the same act of infringing the exclusive rights to use a registered trademark， the people's court shall not impose any additional civil sanction.
Article 22 Where a people's court is trying a trademark dispute case， it may， at the request of a party and in accordance with the actual circumstances of the case， make a determination in accordance with law as to whether the registered trademark in question is well-known.
Determination of a trademark as well-known should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Trademark Law.
Where a party requests protection in respect of a trademark that has been previously determined as a well-known trademark by administrative authorities or a people's court and the other party does not dispute the mark in question being well-known， the court will not carry out any further examination. If the other party does dispute the trademark being well-known， the people's court shall carry out an examination in accordance with Article 14 of the Trademark Law.
Article 23 The provisions under the Interpretation applying to product trademarks also apply to service trademarks.
Article 24 Where previous relevant provisions are inconsistent with the Interpretation， the Interpretation shall apply
最高人民法院关于审理商标民 事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释 （2002年10月12日最高人民法院公布 自2002年10月16日起施行） 法释〔2002〕32号 为了正确审理商标纠纷案件，根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》、《中华人民共和国合同法》、《中华人民共和国商标法》、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》等 法律的规定，就适用法律若干问题解释如下： 第一条 下列行为属于商标法第五十二条第（五）项规定的给他人注册商标专用权造成其他损害的行为： （一）将与他人注册商标相同或者相近似的文字作为企业的字号在相同或者类似商品上突出使用，容易使相关公众产生误认的； （二）复制、摹仿、翻译他人注册的驰名商标或其主要部分在不相同或者不相类似商品上作为商标使用，误导公众，致使该驰名商标注册人的利益可能受到损害 的； （三）将与他人注册商标相同或者相近似的文字注册为域名，并且通过该域名进行相关商品交易的电子商务，容易使相关公众产生误认的。 第二条 依据商标法第十三条第一款的规定，复制、摹仿、翻译他人未在中国注册的驰名商标或其主要部分，在相同或者类似商品上作为商标使用，容易导致混 淆的，应当承担停止侵害的民事法律责任。 第三条 商标法第四十条规定的商标使用许可包括以下三类： （一）独占使用许可，是指商标注册人在约定的期间、地域和以约定的方式，将该注册商标仅许可一个被许可人使用，商标注册人依约定不得使用该注册商 标； （二）排他使用许可，是指商标注册人在约定的期间、地域和以约定的方式，将该注册商标仅许可一个被许可人使用，商标注册人依约定可以使用该注册商标但 不得另行许可他人使用该注册商标； （三）普通使用许可，是指商标注册人在约定的期间、地域和以约定的方式，许可他人使用其注册商标，并可自行使用该注册商标和许可他人使用其注册商标。 第四条 商标法第五十三条规定的利害关系人，包括注册商标使用许可合同的被许可人、注册商标财产权利的合法继承人等。 在发生注册商标专用权被侵害时，独占使用许可合同的被许可人可以向人民法院提起诉讼；排他使用许可合同的被许可人可以和商标注册人共同起诉，也可以在 商标注册人不起诉的情况下，自行提起诉讼；普通使用许可合同的被许可人经商标注册人明确授权，可以提起诉讼。 第五条 商标注册人或者利害关系人在注册商标续展宽展期内提出续展申请，未获核准前，以他人侵犯其注册商标专用权提起诉讼的，人民法院应当受理。 第六条 因侵犯注册商标专用权行为提起的民事诉讼，由商标法第十三条、第五十二条所规定侵权行为的实施地、侵权商品的储藏地或者查封扣押地、被告住所 地人民法院管辖。 前款规定的侵权商品的储藏地，是指大量或者经常性储存、隐匿侵权商品所在地；查封扣押地，是指海关、工商等行政机关依法查封、扣押侵权商品所在地。 第七条 对涉及不同侵权行为实施地的多个被告提起的共同诉讼，原告可以选择其中一个被告的侵权行为实施地人民法院管辖；仅对其中某一被告提起的诉讼， 该被告侵权行为实施地的人民法院有管辖权。 第八条 商标法所称相关公众，是指与商标所标识的某类商品或者服务有关的消费者和与前述商品或者服务的营销有密切关系的其他经营者。 第九条 商标法第五十二条第（一）项规定的商标相同，是指被控侵权的商标与原告的注册商标相比较，二者在视觉上基本无差别。 商标法第五十二条第（一）项规定的商标近似，是指被控侵权的商标与原告的注册商标相比较，其文字的字形、读音、含义或者图形的构图及颜色，或者其各要 素组合后的整体结构相似，或者其立体形状、颜色组合近似，易使相关公众对商品的来源产生误认或者认为其来源与原告注册商标的商品有特定的联系。 第十条 人民法院依据商标法第五十二条第（一）项的规定，认定商标相同或者近似按照以下原则进行： （一）以相关公众的一般注意力危輈准； （二）既要进行对商标的整体比对，又要进行对商标主要部分的比对，比对应当在比对对象隔离的状态下分别进行； （三）判断商标是否近似，应当考虑请求保护注册商标的显著性和知名度。 第十一条 商标法第五十二条第（一）项规定的类似商品，是指在功能、用途、生产部门、销售渠道、消费对象等方面相同，或者相关公众一般认为其存在特定 联系、容易造成混淆的商品。 类似服务，是指在服务的目的、内容、方式、对象等方面相同，或者相关公众一般认为存在特定联系、容易造成混淆的服务。 商品与服务类似，是指商品和服务之间存在特定联系，容易使相关公众混淆。 第十二条 人民法院依据商标法第五十二条第（一）项的规定，认定商品或者服务是否类似，应当以相关公众对商品或者服务的一般认识综合判断；《商标注册 用商品和服务国际分类表》、《类似商品和服务区分表》可以作为判断类似商品或者服务的参考。 第十三条 人民法院依据商标法第五十六条第一款的规定确定侵权人的赔偿责任时，可以根据权利人选择的计算方法计算赔偿数额。 第十四条 商标法第五十六条第一款规定的侵权所获得的利益，可以根据侵权商品销售量与该商品单位利润乘积计算；该商品单位利润无法查明的，按照注册商 标商品的单位利润计算。 第十五条 商标法第五十六条第一款规定的因被侵权所受到的损失，可以根据权利人因侵权所造成商品销售减少量或者侵权商品销售量与该注册商标商品的单位 利润乘积计算。 第十六条 侵权人因侵权所获得的利益或者被侵权人因被侵权所受到的损失均难以确定的，人民法院可以根据当事人的请求或者依职权适用商标法第五十六条第 二款的规定确定赔偿数额。 人民法院在确定赔偿数额时，应当考虑侵权行为的性质、期间、后果，商标的声誉，商标使用许可费的数额，商标使用许可的种类、时间、范围及制止侵权行为 的合理开支等因素综合确定。 当事人按照本条第一款的规定就赔偿数额达成协议的，应当准许。 第十七条 商标法第五十六条第一款规定的制止侵权行为所支付的合理开支，包括权利人或者委托代理人对侵权行为进行调查、取证的合理费用。 人民法院根据当事人的诉讼请求和案件具体情况，可以将符合国家有关部门规定的律师费用计算在赔偿范围内。 第十八条 侵犯注册商标专用权的诉讼时效为二年，自商标注册人或者利害权利人知道或者应当知道侵权行为之日起计算。商标注册人或者利害关系人超过二年 起诉的，如果侵权行为在起诉时仍在持续，在该注册商标专用权有效期限内，人民法院应当判决被告停止侵权行为，侵权损害赔偿数额应当自权利人向人民法院起诉 之日起向前推算二年计算。 第十九条 商标使用许可合同未经备案的，不影响该许可合同的效力，但当事人另有约定的除外。 商标使用许可合同未在商标局备案的，不得对抗善意第三人。 第二十条 注册商标的转让不影响转让前已经生效的商标使用许可合同的效力，但商标使用许可合同另有约定的除外。 第二十一条 人民法院在审理侵犯注册商标专用权纠纷案件中，依据民法通则第一百三十四条、商标法第五十三条的规定和案件具体情况，可以判决侵权人承担 停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险、赔偿损失、消除影响等民事责任，还可以作出罚款，收缴侵权商品、伪造的商标标识和专门用于生产侵权商品的材料、工具、设备 等财物的民事制裁决定。罚款数额可以参照《中华人民共和国商标法实施条例》的有关规定确定。 工商行政管理部门对同一侵犯注册商标专用权行为已经给予行政处罚的，人民法院不再予以民事制裁。 第二十二条 人民法院在审理商标纠纷案件中，根据当事人的请求和案件的具体情况，可以对涉及的注册商标是否驰名依法作出认定。 认定驰名商标，应当依照商标法第十四条的规定进行。 当事人对曾经被行政主管机关或者人民法院认定的驰名商标请求保护的，对方当事人对涉及的商标驰名不持异议，人民法院不再审查。提出异议的，人民法院依 照商标法第十四条的规定审查。 第二十三条 本解释有关商品商标的规定，适用于服务商标。 第二十四条 以前的有关规定与本解释不一致的，以本解释为准。