汇业律师事务所 2013 年 04 月刊

HUI YE LAW FIRM No. 130, Apr, 2013

汇业观察

上海 北京 南京 成都 兰州 太原 亚特兰大

Shanghai Beijing Nanjing Chengdu Lanzhou Taiyuan Atlanta

OBSERVATION 总第 130 期

卓越不是一种行为，而是一种习惯 Our pursuit of excellence is not just an act, but a habit.

汇业动态

•汇业为某酒类企业提供反垄断服务 ......4

• 众鑫上海分所并入汇业 ................4

• 蒋达芬律师代理诺基亚“猎鲨 1号”案荣获

QBPC 年度十佳案例称号 ...............4

法治热点

•《消费者权益保护法（修正案草案）》征集

意见 .................................5

• 两高办理敲诈勒索案件司法解释发布 ....5

•《劳务派遣行政许可管理办法》征求意见..5

•《中华人民共和国旅游法》颁布实施......5

汇业专题

•浅论字号权在商标领域的保护 ..........6

作者 /林晓静、李俊 律师

•诉中禁令的适用条件 .................11

——以广药加多宝之争为视角

作者 /林晓静、彭春晓 律师

汇业律师事务所知识产权团队

汇业观察编辑部

编辑中心 Edit Center：

主 编 : 吴 冬

副主编 :黄金鹏 黄春林

设计制作：丁 吟

发行制作：汇业信息中心

顾 问 Consultant：

杨国胜 赵曙东 吴 冬

汪兆军 廖明涛 王树军

孙 健 魏青松 杨艳辉

张培鸿 黄金鹏 余承志

周开畅 邱加化 张正松

潘志成 林晓静 蔡蕴华

杨 杰 刘振颖 周叶君

刘海航 丁龙兵

内部非公开发行资料

目 录

Huiye Observation02 Huiye Observation 03

《汇业观察》向汇业客户及合作伙伴提供最

新法治时评、理论探讨、热点案例以及汇业

发展动态。我们欢迎您给本刊提供宝贵意见。

如您对我们关心的问题有新的见解或意见，

请与本刊编委联系。

邮箱：Obse@huiyelaw.com

本资料所列信息仅供参考，不应被视为读者

/ 受众与汇业建立了律师客户关系或汇业就

特定事项提供了法律意见。读者 / 受众应向

律师咨询以获得专业法律意见。

« Huiye Observations » aim at providing the latest legal commentaries, theoretical investigations, noteworthy cases and developments of Huiye Law Firm to our clients and partners. We welcome your valuable suggestions about this publication. In the event you would have any new view or opinion as for the questions we raise, we invite to take contact with the editorial members of this publication.

Here is their e-mail adress : Obse@huiyelaw.com

The informations contained in this material are for reference only and should not be regarded as legal opinions provided to the readers/audience who established a client relationship or any other of any kind with our law firm. Readers/audience should seek advice from our lawyers by obtaining an official legal opinion.

Huiye News• HUI YE Provided Anti-monopoly Special Services for A Renowned Liquor Group Company...................................4

• ZHONG XIN (Shanghai) was Merged into HUI YE.......4

• "SHARK HUNTING No.1"Acted by Attorney Cai Dafen, Ranked Annual Top 10 Best Cases of QBPC.........4

Huiye Focus• Soliciting Opinions on "Draft of Amendment to Law on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests"...........5

• Judicial Interpretation on Handling Racketeering Cases was Released......................................................................5

• Soliciting Opinions on Administrative License Management Measures on Labor Dispatch .......................5

• "Tourism Law of the People’s Republic of China"was Promulgated and will be Implemented ..............................5

Huiye Research• Discussion on the Name Right in the Field of Trademark

Protection...........................................................................6

• Conditions for the Application of the Injunction............11

Huiye IP team

CONTENTS

Huiye Observation04

总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊 总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊

05Huiye Observation

汇业动态 Huiye News

汇业为某著名酒类企业提供反垄断

专项服务HUI YE Provided Anti-monopoly Special Services for

A Renowned Liquor Group Company

近日，受我国某著名酒类集团的委托，上海

汇业律师事务所反垄断法服务中心为该客户

的产品经销协议及定价行为提供了反垄断法

合规性专项法律服务。

汇业所以潘志成合伙人律师为核心的反垄断

法律服务中心团队，为客户全面修订了产品

经销协议、制定了反垄断法合规手册，服务

赢得了客户的认可和好评。

众鑫上海分所并入汇业ZHONG XIN (Shanghai) was Merged into HUI YE

近日，杨见钧律师领衔的众鑫上海分所并入

汇业律师事务所，杨见钧律师加盟汇业担任

合伙人。

“众鑫上海分所在企业改制、重组并购、国

有资产管理等领域经验丰富，合并后，汇业

在该领域的领先优势更加突出。”汇业律师

事务所管理合伙人杨国胜律师表示，“杨见

钧律师具有优秀的法律洞察力，在项目管理

与团队协调方面经验丰富，其主导的多个项

目受到业界广泛关注，杨见钧律师团队加盟

汇业，我们倍感荣幸。”

杨见钧律师曾担任众鑫上海分所主任，“汇

业是一家充满活力、团队氛围融洽的优秀律

师事务所，特别是在跨团队合作及综合法律

服务能力方面具有极高的吸引力。”杨见钧

律师表示。

蒋达芬律师代理诺基亚“猎鲨 1号”

案荣获 QBPC 年度十佳案例称号“SHARK HUNTING No.1” Acted by Attorney Cai Dafen,

Ranked Annual Top 10 Best Cases of QBPC

2013 年 4 月，汇业（南京）律师事务所蒋达

芬律师代理的江苏常州“猎鲨 1 号”特大跨

省制售假冒诺基亚手机案（“‘猎鲨1号’案”），

荣获 QBPC——中国优质品牌保护委员会——

年度十佳案例称号。

中国优质品牌保护委员会（QBPC）注册于中

国外商投资企业协会（CAFFI）旗下，由 190

余家知名的跨国公司组成。自 2000 年 3 月成

立以来，一直致力于提高中国知识产权保护

体系，提高公众知识产权保护意识。每年，

QBPC 都会开展年度审查投票会议，对国内大

型知识产权案件进行审查投票，并最终评出

十个最佳案例，以鼓励对知识产权的保护行

为。

“猎鲨 1 号”案共打掉制售假冒诺基亚手机

的地下工厂 4 个、批发商 3 个、下游供货商

1个及街头兜售团伙 1个，14 人被定罪判刑，

彻底摧毁了整个相关供应链和利益链。而且，

该案件也因其执法机关的高效性、权利人的

高度品牌保护意识以及侦破与判决所达到的

深远社会影响力等荣获 QBPC 年度十佳案例称

号。蒋达芬律师，作为该案件中被害人诺基

亚公司（NOKIA COPPORATION）的代理人，在

2012 年常州中院就“猎鲨 1 号”案的数次开

庭审理中，代表诺基亚公司出庭，并凭借其

在知识产权诉讼及审判中的丰富代理经验发

表相关意见，为客户诺基亚公司商标权权益

的有效保护和正常社会市场秩序的全力维护

作出了自己的努力。

《消费者权益保护法（修正案草案）》

征集意见Soliciting Opinions on “Draft of Amendment to Law on

the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests”

全国人大常委会办公厅 4月 28 日通过中国人

大网全文公布了《中华人民共和国消费者权

益保护法修正案（草案）》，向社会公开征

集意见。

修正案草案从明确个人信息保护、完善“三

包”规定、加大对欺诈行为的惩罚力度等方

面，充实细化了消费者权益的规定；从明确

召回缺陷商品的义务、明确经营者的举证责

任、强化广告经营者发布者的责任等方面，

强化了经营者的义务与责任；从保护消费者

的知情权、选择权、损害赔偿请求权等方面，

规范了网络购物等新的消费方式。

两高办理敲诈勒索案件司法解释发布Judicial Interpretation on Handling Racketeering Cases

was Released

最高人民法院、最高人民检察院于 4月 26 日

联合发布《关于办理敲诈勒索刑事案件适用

法律若干问题的解释》，自 2013 年 4 月 27

日起施行。

《解释》共计九个条文，主要规定了敲诈勒

索“数额较大”、“数额巨大”、“数额特

别巨大”的认定标准，敲诈勒索“数额较大”

的特殊认定标准，“多次敲诈勒索”的认定，

敲诈勒索“其他严重情节”、“其他特别严

重情节”的认定，敲诈勒索罪判处罚金的标

准等内容。

《劳务派遣行政许可管理办法》

征求意见Soliciting Opinions on Administrative License

Management Measures on Labor Dispatch

国家人力资源和社会保障部近日就《劳务派

遣行政许可管理办法 ( 征求意见稿 )》向社

会公开征求意见，意见稿强化了对劳务派遣

的监督检查，要求劳务派遣单位与被派遣劳

动者建立劳动关系、签订劳动合同，依法承

担用人单位责任。

《中华人民共和国旅游法》颁布实施“Tourism Law of the People’s Republic of China” was

Promulgated and will be Implemented

中华人民共和国第十二届全国人民代表大会

常务委员会第二次会议于 2013 年 4 月 25 日

通过我国首部《旅游法》，自 2013 年 10 月

1 日起施行。

《旅游法》主要包括三块内容，一个是保护

旅游者合法权利，一个是规范旅游市场，一

个是国家促进发展，都是围绕着保护旅游者

合法权益设计的。这部法律的聚焦点是权益

保护，最大的亮点是规范“零负团费”和景

区门票。例如，第 35 条规定，“不得以低于

成本价招徕，通过诱骗消费者购物的方式经

营，不得指定具体的消费场所，不得强迫购

物”。此外，规定利用公共资源建设景区门

票及景区内的收费，拟提高价格，应当举行

听证会，征求旅游者、经营者和有关方面的

意见，论证其必要性和可行性。

Huiye Focus 法制热点

Huiye Observation06

总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊 总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊

07Huiye Observation

汇业专题 Huiye Research Huiye Research 汇业专题

浅论字号权在商标领域的保护Discussion on the Name Right in the Field of Trademark Protection

作者 /林晓静、李俊

汇业律师事务所知识产权团队

摘要：字号权为企业重要权益，本文通过案

例形式，简要阐述字号权与商标权冲突及保

护。

一、案件背景：

商标：

（下称系争商标）

申请号：3839965

申请日：2003 年 12 月 11 日

指定使用服务项目：法律服务；知识产权许

可；知识产权咨询；仲裁；法律研究；知识

产权监督；版权管理；质量体系认证；质量

评估；无形资产评估。

系争商标于 2003 年 12 月 11 日，由李妍向国

家工商总局商标局提出商标注册申请，2006

年 02 月 14 日经初审公告，北京市惠诚律师

事务所（以下称“惠诚”）在公告期内提出

异议，商标局裁定异议不成立，惠诚在法定

期限内提出异议复审，并主张“惠诚”为其

在先登记并使用的字号权，惠诚提交下述证

据证明在先字号权：

Abstract: The name right is the key right and interest of the enterprise. This article aims to give a brief discussion on the conflict between name right and trademark right and their protection through the form of case.

A. The Background:

Trademark:

(Hereinafter referred to as the disputed trademark)

Application number: 3839965Application date: Dec. 11th , 2003Designated use of the service project: legal service; IP license; IP counseling; Arbitration; legal research; IP supervision; copyright managing; quality system certification; quality assessment,; intangible assets assessment.

The disputed trademark was applied for registration by Yan Li to The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on Dec. 11th , 2003. The preliminary announcement was made on Feb. 14th , 2006. Beijing Huicheng Law Firm(Hereinafter referred to as “Huicheng”) filed objection in the notice period, however, The Trademark Office ruled that the objection was inadmissible. Then Huicheng proposed objection review within the statutory time limit, claiming that Huicheng was the name right it had registered and used. The evidence Huicheng presented included:

1. 北京市惠诚律师事务所执业许可证（形成

时间晚于系争商标申请日 )；

2. 惠诚对外使用的名片；

3. 惠诚宣传材料；

4. 部分网页打印件及刊物复印件（形成时间

晚于系争商标申请日）；

5. 部分荣誉证书（取得时间晚于系争商标申

请日）。

商评委异议复审裁定认为尽管证据 1 可以证

明“惠诚”字号登记时间早于系争商标申请

时间，但证据 2-4 均不能证明“惠诚”字号

在被异议商标申请日前即已实际使用。因此，

惠诚主张在先字号权不能成立。

惠诚在法定期限内提起行政诉讼，并在诉讼

阶段提交下述证据：

a. License for practicing of Beijing Huicheng Law Firm(The forming time was later than the application date of the disputed trademark);

b. Business card of Huicheng for external use;

c. Publicity Material of Huicheng;

d. Some webpage prints and copies of publications(The forming time was later than the application date of the disputed trademark);

e. Some certificates of honor(The accessing time was later than the application date of the disputed trademark).

The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled in the review period that although evidence No.1 could prove that “Huicheng” was registered prior to the application date of the disputed trademark, none of the evidence from No.2 to No.4 could prove the name “Huicheng” had been actually used before the application date of the disputed trademark. Therefore, Huicheng advocated that the existing prior name right. cannot be admissible.

Huicheng raised an administrative litigation within the statutory time limit, and presented the following evidence at the stage of proceedings:

Huiye Observation08

总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊 总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊

09Huiye Observation

汇业专题 Huiye Research Huiye Research 汇业专题

6. 《司法部关于准予惠诚律师事务所登记的

通知》（形成时间早于系争商标申请日）；

7. 北京市司法局《关于惠诚律师事务所在北

京市继续执业的通知》（形成时间早于系争

商标申请日）；

8. 北京市惠诚律师事务所 2003 年的营业税

发票 11 张，用以证明其从事法律服务；

9. 《交锋—东芝索赔案始末》一书的相关内

容（该书记载案件发生时间早于系争商标申

请日）；

10. 12 份法律文书（其中大部分形成时间早

于系争商标申请日）。

法院认为，结合考虑证据 9、10 可以证明北

京市惠诚律师事务所在成立后已开展相应法

律业务并有一定知名度。系争商标与惠诚律

师事务所字号完全相同，且申请注册在相同

或类似服务上，系争商标的申请注册已构成

对惠诚在先字号权益的损害。

f. “Notice on Granting the Registration of Huicheng Law Firm of Department of Justice”(The forming time was prior to the application date of the disputed trademark);

g. Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau “Notice on Huicheng Law Firm continuing practice in the city of Beijing”(The forming time was prior to the application date of the disputed trademark);

h. 11 business tax invoices of Beijing Huicheng Law Firm in 2003, in order to prove its qualification in legal service;

i. Relevant contents in the book of “Confrontation - Toshiba claims.”(The occurrence time of the case this book recorded was prior to the application date of the disputed trademark);

j. 12 legal documents(Most of the documents were formed prior to the application date of the disputed trademark).

The court thought, it proved that Beijing Huicheng Law Firm, combined with evidence No.9 and No.10, had developed its legal business after its establishment and obtained certain reputation then. The disputed trademark was absolutely same to the name of Huicheng Law Firm, also was applied for registration on the same or similar service. In all, the application for registration of the disputed trademark has constituted the damage to the existing prior name right and interest of Huicheng Law Firm.

二、法律规定

字号与商标为企业标识商品 / 服务产源的两

种不同方式，在我国，字号与商标分属于不

同法律规范调整。依照工商总局 2003 年颁布

的《驰名商标认定与保护规定》第十三条规

定，当事人认为他人将其驰名商标作为企业

名称登记，可能欺骗公众或者对公众造成误

解的，可以向企业名称登记主管机关申请撤

销该企业名称登记，企业名称登记主管机关

应当依照《企业名称登记管理规定》处理。

同时，依照《商标法》第三十一条规定：申

请注册商标不得侵犯他人在先权利，其中包

括在先字号权。依照商标评审委员会颁发的

《商标审理标准》三——损害他人在先权利

审理标准中 2.1 规定，将与他人在先登记、

使用并具有一定知名度的商号相同或者基本

相同的文字申请注册为商标，容易导致中国

相关公众混淆，致使在先商号权人的利益可

能受到损害的，应当认定为对他人在先商号

权的侵犯，系争商标应当不予核准注册或者

予以撤销。

基于上述规定，笔者认为，如驰名商标被他

人抢注为企业字号，则商标权人可以要求企

业名称主管机关撤销该企业字号登记，同样，

如知名企业字号被他人抢注为商标，则字号

权人亦可要求商标局撤销该商标注册申请。

但需明确，可以跨不同法律规范保护的必须

是驰名商标或者知名字号，而非普通商标或

一般登记注册的字号。

B. Legal Regulations

The name and trademark, as two different means identifying the origin of the enterprise’s products or service, in our country, were adjusted by different laws. According to Article 13 of “Provisions for Identification and Protection of Well-known Trademarks”promulgated by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce in 2003, if a party concerned holds that its famous trademark which has been registered as an enterprise name by others may cheat or mislead the public, it may apply to the administrative organ of enterprise name registration for canceling the registration of this enterprise name. The administrative organ of enterprise name registration shall deal with such a case in accordance with Administrative Provisions of Enterprise Name Registration. Meantime, according to Article 31 of “Trademark Law of PRC”, no trademark application shall infringe upon another party's existing prior rights which certainly include existing prior name right. In terms of “The Trademark Trial Standard Three - Trial Standard 2.1 for behavior infringing on others’ prior rights” issued by The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, if the words same or generally same to the name which has been registered and used ahead with certain reputation are registered for application as trademark, which is easy to confuse the Chinese relevant public and damage the interest of the prior name right owner, the board can assume that this behavior violates the existing prior name right so the registration of the disputed trademark should not be approved or revoked if approved before.

Based on the provisions above, the writer thinks, if the well-known trademark is rush registered as the enterprise’s name, the owner of the right can demand that the authority in charge of companies’ names revoke the registration of the name, and vice versa. To be clear, only the well-known trademarks and names can be protected across different laws and regulations, not including the normal trademarks or the names with general registration.

Huiye Observation10

总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊 总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊

11Huiye Observation

Huiye Research汇业专题 Huiye Research 汇业专题

三、分析：

就本案而言，商评委审理案件时，认为惠诚

提供的证据并不能证明其字号为知名字号，

法院在诉讼阶段采信惠诚在诉讼阶段提交的

《交锋—东芝索赔案始末》一书（证据 9）

及 12 份法律文书（证据 10）认为惠诚字号

已经过使用并有一定知名度。笔者对于惠诚

在诉讼阶段新提交的证据是否可以采信，暂

不予评论。即使采信，笔者认为一本书及几

份法律文书尚不足以证明“惠诚”字号为知

名字号。

在我国，商标从核准注册到使用及被认定为

中国驰名商标，需要经历多年，目前，商

标行政部门在认定中国驰名商标时，需参考

商标权人提交的商标申请注册情况、宣传资

料、财务信息、荣誉证书、市场占有率证明、

所属行业协会出具证明文件等多方面的数据

材料信息才予以认定，认定为中国驰名商标

才能获得禁止他人将驰名商标用于企业字号

登记的特权。同时，如果企业想以在先字号

权要求撤销他人商标权，亦需要提供同样证

明效力的文件来证明其字号为同行业知名字

号，从而获得撤销他人商标的特权，这样才

能达到法律保护的平衡。本案中，法院仅凭

一本书及几份法律文书就认可惠诚为在先使

用的知名字号，笔者认为实为不妥。

综上所述，笔者认为，司法机关作为行政诉

讼案件终审裁判机关，对于在先知名字号的

认定应当尽量严格，应通过案件引导字号权

人提供其字号为知名字号的相关数据及权威

机构出具的证明文件等，而非仅凭借一本书

及几份判决就认可其字号为知名字号。

C. Analysis

As far as this case is concerned, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board assumed that the evidence Huicheng provided cannot prove the fact that its name was recognized famous. While the court adopted the book of“Confrontation - Toshiba claims”(Evidence 9) and 12 legal documents in the litigation proceedings, considering the name of Huicheng had been used with certain reputation. The writer will not comment if the new evidence Huicheng offered in the proceedings is admissible for the time being. Even if it is adopted, the writer thinks it cannot prove the popularity of “Huicheng”just through one book and several legal documents.

In China, it takes long years for one trademark from registration, putting into use to being recognized as the well-know trademark. Currently, while judging the well-known trademarks in China, trademark administrative departments need to refer to the situation of application for registration of the trademark, publicity material, financial information, certificates of honor, the market share prove, documentary evidence issued by the relative Industry Association and other data and material of different aspects which are provided by the owner of the trademark right. Only all of these conditions above are met, the well-known trademark in China can be recognized and then gets the privilege to ban others using the trademark as the name of an enterprise. Meantime, if an enterprise wants to revoke the trademark right owned by others on the ground of existing prior name right, it also needs to offer the documents with the same probative effect to prove its name is viewed as famous name in the same industry so as to obtain the privilege to revoke others’ trademarks. Only in this way could we achieve the balance of legal protection. In this case, the court affirmed Huicheng as famous name being used before simply relying on one book and several legal documents. The writer thinks it open to question.

To sum up, the writer holds that judicial authorities, as final adjudication organs dealing with administrative cases, should be strict in judging the existing prior name. They should lead the name owners to provide relevant data and documentary evidence issued by the authorities which prove its name as renowned name through the case itself, not recognizing it just with one book or several verdicts.

近日，广州医药集团有限公司（下称“广药”）

诉加多宝 ( 中国 ) 饮料有限公司（下称“加

多宝”）虚假宣传案喧嚣尘上，成为坊间热

门议题。本文拟对该案所涉诉中禁令做一解

读，并不对该案实体法律进行评判。

一、背景

2012 年 11 月 30 日，广药以加多宝涉嫌虚

假宣传行为，构成不正当竞争为由向广州市

中级人民法院提起索赔 1000 万元的诉讼，

并同时向法院申请诉中禁令。

广药向法院提出启动“诉中禁止令”的内容

主要有两项：一是，申请立即禁止加多宝

及其相关经销商在其广告及产品包装上使用

“王老吉改名为加多宝”或“全国销量领先

的红罐凉茶改名为加多宝”或与之意思相同、

相近的广告语的不正当竞争行为，以及侵犯

王老吉注册商标的行为；二是，立即禁止上

述两者在其广告宣传及生产、销售的凉茶产

品上使用“国家级非物质文化遗产代表作”

或与之意思相同、相近的词句的不正当竞争

行为。

Recently, the False Propaganda Case of Guangzhou Medical Group Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Guangyao") v. Gadobo Beverage Co., Ltd. (China)(hereinafter referred to as "Gadobo”) has aroused heated discussion in the public. This article intends to make interpretations to the injunction involved in the case, not to judge the substantial legal issues in the case

A. The Background

Guangyao sued for damages of 10 million$ to the Guangzhou Intermediate People's court on Nov. 30th, 2012, claiming that Gadobo’s alleged false propaganda constituted unfair competition acts, and meantime applied for the injunction to the court.

The content of the injunction raised from Guangyao to the court mainly included two parts. The first part was about the immediate prohibition of using the advertising slogan such as “Wanglaoji has been changed to Gadobo” “The red can tea with leading sale in the country has changed itself to Gadobo” or other slogans with the same or similar meaning on the wrap of the products and their advertisements for Gadobo and its relevant distributors, and the acts infringing the trademark right of “Wanglaoji”. The second part was to immediately ban the ones mentioned above using the words or sentences such as “The national intangible cultural heritage” or those with the same or similar meaning in the advertising propaganda period and on the tea products they produce or sell. All the banned acts above were regarded as unfair competition.

诉中禁令的适用条件——以广药加多宝之争为视角Conditions for the Application of the Injunction

作者 /林晓静、彭春晓

汇业律师事务所知识产权团队

Huiye Observation12

总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊 总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊

13Huiye Observation

汇业专题 Huiye Research Huiye Research 汇业专题

2013 年 1 月 31 日，广州市中级人民法院下

达诉中禁令裁定，要求加多宝等被申请人立

即停止使用“王老吉改名为加多宝”、“全

国销量领先的红罐凉茶改名为加多宝”或与

之意思相同、相近似的广告语进行广告宣传

的行为，禁令一出立即生效。

二、诉中禁令的适用条件

本案之所以引起法律争议，原因在于诉中禁

令是知识产权的范畴，而广药诉加多宝涉嫌

虚假宣传的行为属于《反不正当竞争法》的

内容，那么人民法院适用诉中禁令是否适当

呢？笔者意图从中国法律对诉中禁令的规定

入手，浅谈法院签署禁令的合法性和合理性。

诉中禁令，是指法院发出的禁止当事人实施

某种特定行为或要求当事人做出特定行为的

一项强制性命令。在我国相关的法律及司法

解释中，并没有“禁令”这一表述，而只有“财

产保全”“海事限制令”等表述，事实上这

只是同一种制度的不同称谓。

1、民事法律和诉讼法律中的规定

1988 年的最高人民法院《关于贯彻执行（中

华人民共和国民法通则）若干问题的意见（试

行 )》第 162 条规定，“在诉讼中遇有需要

停止侵害、排除妨碍、消除危险的情况时，

人民法院可以根据当事人的申请或者依职权

先行做出裁定。”这个规定是诉中停止侵害

行为的规定，其实质是在诉讼过程中出现紧

急的情况下法院可以发布禁令，即在诉讼中

法院依职权主动作出或应权利人的申请而责

令被控侵权人停止侵权行为的先行裁定。

Guangzhou Intermediate People's court issued the injunction on Jan. 31th 2013, asking Gadobo and other respondents to stop using the advertising slogan such as “Wanglaoji has been changed to Gadobo” “The red can tea with leading sale in the country has changed itself to Gadobo” or other slogans with the same or similar meaning for advertising propaganda. The injunction came into force upon coming out.

B. Conditions for the Application of the Injunction

The reason why this case caused lawful disputes was because the application of the injunction belongs to the IP scope, while the alleged false propaganda acts which Guangyao sued Gadobo were regulated in the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China”. Then is it appropriate for the people\s court to apply the injunction? The writer intends to discuss the legality and validity of issuing the injunction briefly from the regulations of Chinese law.

The injunction refers to a mandatory instruction the court issues to ban one litigant implementing certain behaviors or to require one litigant to make specific behaviors. In China's relevant laws and judicial interpretations, there is no expression of “instruction” but "property preservation" "maritime restrictions" and so on. In fact, this is just the different names of the same system.

a. Provisions of civil laws and procedure laws

Article162 of “About carrying out the several problems (general principles of the civil law of the People's Republic of China) the opinions of the (trial)” by the supreme court regulates”In litigation, in case of the need to stop the infringement, eliminate the obstruction and eliminate danger, the people's court may decide according to the application of the parties or in accordance with the authority in advance.” This provision is about the halt of the infringement, and the substance is that the court may issue the injunction in case of emergency in the legal proceedings, that is to say the court may order the infringer to stop the infringing act in advance according to the application of the parties or in accordance with the authority.

新《民事诉讼法》第 100 条规定，“人民法

院对于可能因当事人一方的行为或者其他原

因，使判决难以执行或者造成当事人其他损

害的案件，根据对方当事人的申请，可以裁

定对其财产进行保全、责令其作出一定行为

或者禁止其作出一定行为；当事人没有提出

申请的，人民法院在必要时也可以裁定采取

保全措施。”这一规定在现有法律及司法实

践的基础上，从程序法的高度规定了这一制

度，从而解决所有案件类型中的当事人请求

停止某行为的禁令问题，突破了诉中禁令只

在知识产权领域适用的限制。

2、知识产权法律领域的规定

本案中加多宝涉嫌虚假宣传，同时涉嫌侵犯

广药对“王老吉”这一商标的商标权。从法

理上来说，尽管加多宝违反的是《反不正当

竞争法》，但是其广告语偷换概念和忽略基

本事实，拆分了商标、品牌和产品之间的对

应关系。加多宝说红罐凉茶已经改名加多宝，

这是忽略基本事实，而且会误导消费者认为

王老吉已经改名，从此种意义上来说，加多

宝也侵犯了广药的商标权，因此知识产权的

诉中禁令规定也可适用本案。

目前，我国《商标法》《专利法》《著作权法》

以及《关于对诉前停止侵犯专利权行为适用

法律问题的若干规定》、《关于诉前停止侵

犯商标专用权行为和保全证据适用法律问题

的解释》两项司法解释对诉前临时禁令的适

用作了专门规定，诉中禁令适用可以参照适

用。

Article 100 of Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China regulates”If the execution of a judgment becomes difficult or damage has been caused to the parties because of the acts of one party or for other reasons, the people’s court may, at the application of the other party, rule the adoption of measures for preservation of its property, order it to conduct or not to conduct certain acts. In the absence of such application, the people’s court may of itself, when necessary, order the adoption of measures for preservation. ” This provision provides for the system from the height of the procedure law on the basis of the existing legislation and judicial practice, so as to resolve the injunction problem of one party of all kinds of cases asking for the cease of certain acts, breaking through the restriction that the injunction only applies to the IP area.

b. Provisions of IP laws

In this case, Gadobo is under suspicion of false propaganda and violation of trademark right of Wanglaoji. In the theory of law, although Gadobo violated “Law Against Unfair Competition of the People’s Republic of China”, its advertisement covertly exchanged concepts and ignored basic facts, breaking up the corresponding relationship between trademark, brand and product. Gadobo claimed that the red can tea had changed itself to Gadobo, which ignored the basic facts evidently and misled the consumers that Wanglaoji had changed its initial name. In this sense, Gadobo also infringed trademark right of Guangyao, therefore the injunction regulated in the IP area can apply to this case as well.

At present, “Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China””Patent Law of the People's Republic of China””Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China” and two judicial interpretations - ”Several Regulations about the Applicable Law for the Halt of Infringing Patent Right before Litigation””Interpretations about the Applicable Law for the Halt of Infringing Trademark Right and Reserving Evidence before Litigation” all make specific regulations for the application of the pre-litigation injunction. The litigation injunction can surely apply to these laws with reference.

亚特兰大办公室 /Atlanta Office:

地址：1210 Warsaw Road, Suite 200, Roswell,GA 30076

电话：(770) 481-0609 传真：(770) 481-0597 Email:atoffice@huiyelaw.com

上海办公室

地址：中国 上海 延安西路

726 号华敏国际广场 13 楼

邮编：200050

电话：0086-21-52370950

传真：0086-21-52370960

Email: info@huiyelaw.com

Shanghai Office:

Address: 13th F, Huamin Empire Plaza726 West Yan An Road, Shanghai, P.R. ChinaZip: 200050Tel: 0086-21-52370950Fax:0086-21-52370960

成都办公室

地址： 中国 成都 金盾路 52

号国栋中央商务大厦 21 楼

邮编：610041

电话：0086-28-86980969

传真：0086-28-86980969

Email:cdoffice@huiyelaw.com

Chengdu Office:

A d d r e s s : 2 1 t h F, G u o Dong Central Commercial Building, 52 Jin Dun Road, Chengdu, P.R. ChinaZip:610041Tel:0086-28-86980969Fax:0086-28-86980969

北京办公室

地址：中国 北京 朝阳区 京

广中心商务楼 1403 室

邮编：100022

电话：0086-10-65973099

传真：0086-10-65973098

Email:bjoffice@huiyelaw.com

Beijing Office:

A d d r e s s : R o o m 1 4 0 3 , Jingguang Center Off ice Building, Chaoyang District, Beijing, P.R. ChinaZip:100022Tel: 0086-10-65973099Fax:0086-10-58763098

太原办公室

地址： 中国 山西太原 府西

街 169 号 华 宇 国 际 B 座 10

楼 A

邮编：030002

电话：0086-351-5601461

传真：0086-351-5601451

Email: tyoffice@huiyelaw.com

Taiyuan Office:

Address: A/10th F, Tower B, Huayu Internat ional Building, 169 Fuxi Street, X i n g h u a l i n g D i s t r i c t , Taiyuan, Shanxi, P.R.ChinaZip:030002Tel: 0086-351-5601461 Fax:0086-351-5601451

南京办公室

地 址： 中 国 南 京 庐 山 路

158 号嘉业国际城 4 号楼 19

楼

邮编：210019

电话：0086-25-83287788

传真：0086-25-83287799

Email:njoffice@huiyelaw.com

Nanjing Office:

Address: 19th F,Buidling No. 4, Jiaye International Build ,158 Lushan Road, Nanjing, P.R. China Zip: 210019Tel: 0086-25-83287788Fax:0086-25-83287799

兰州办公室

地 址： 中 国 兰 州 酒 泉 路

374 号乾昌大厦 8 楼

邮编：730030

电话：0086-931-8467881

传真：0086-931-8468951

Email:lzoffice@huiyelaw.com

Lanzhou Office:

Address: 8th F, Qian Chang Building, 374 Jiu Quan Road, Lanzhou, P.R. ChinaZip:730030Tel: 0086-931-8467881Fax:0086-931-8468951

Huiye Observation14

总第 130 期 2013 年 4 月刊

汇业专题 Huiye Research

法律和司法解释并没有规定禁令适用的实质

条件，只规定了法院对当事人对临时禁令裁

定提出复议申请时所进行审查的标准，主要

包括四方面内容：第一，被申请人正在实施

或即将实施的行为是否构成侵犯知识产权；

第二，不采取临时禁令是否会给申请人合法

权益造成难以弥补的损害；第三，申请人提

供担保的情况；第四，责令被申请人停止有

关行为是否损害社会公共利益。目前实践中，

我国对诉前禁令和诉中禁令的审查标准一

致，一般这四个审查标准作为法院决定是否

作出禁令的原则，即诉中禁令的适用条件。

三、本案引起的思考

鉴于禁令所适用案件通常都很复杂，法院如

何审慎地作出禁令并予以强制执行至关重

要。中国当前对于临时禁令的法律规定还相

当零散，适用范围还比较狭窄，尤其是对被

申请人的权利救济上，规定不够明确。因此

如何确保当事人的合法权益，仍然需要立法

和司法的进一步完善。本案中加多宝提出复

议申请，被中院驳回，并被并要求加多宝公

司三日内撤回所有被禁止发布的广告。笔者

的想法是，禁令制度中是否可以引进上诉程

序？即通过上诉对不予发布临时禁令的裁定

进行审查，当事人对法院驳回申请的裁定，

可以同 "不予受理 "、"驳回起诉 "的裁定一

样，提出及时的上诉。这样，临时禁令制度

的救济手段在逻辑上可能会显得更加合理。

In fact, the laws and judicial interpretations make no substantive terms to the application of injunction, only regulating the standards which the court adopts to review the application for reconsideration the party has put forward. It mainly includes four aspects. The first thing is whether the behavior the respondent is implementing or will implement constitutes infringement of IP right; The second is whether the rejection to issue the injunction will cause irretrievable loss for the applicant; The third thing is about the guarantee the applicant provides; The last thing is whether the halt of the behavior of the respondent will damage the public interest. So far in our practice, the four standards are regarded as the applicable terms of the injunction.

C. The thought from the case

As the cases applying to the injunction are always complicated, it is of great importance for the court to issue the injunction prudently and carry out it by force. The laws and regulations of China concerned with the injunction are still scattered and their scope of application is relatively confined, especially to the right relief of the respondent. Therefore, it needs further perfection legitimately and judicially to ensure the legal right and interest of the both parties. In this case, Gadobo raised reconsideration application, however, the intermediate court rejected it and required Gadobo to recall all the banned advertisements within three days. The thought of the writer is whether appeal procedure could be drew into the injunction system? Through appeal procedure, the court reviews the rule it made that the injunction would not be issued. In this way, the means of right relief of the injunction could be more logical in legal sense.