JohnsonJohnsonentangledin120Myuantrademarktrouble Author： CopyFrom： hits： 5 UpdateTime： 2012-5-30 11:30:30 Editor： “尘埃落定”的“采乐”商标纠纷引发案外案—— 佛山圣芳再战美国强生索赔1.2亿元 Despite the Supreme People's Court had sealed the over ten years legal battle between a Foshan-based company, the St-Flora (United) Co. Ltd and Johnson Johnson company in October 2009, the case turned out to be just a beginning of a falling dominoes effect. St-Flora filed suit recently challenging Johnson Johnson and Xi'an-Janssen Pharmaceutical Ltd (Janssen) and other four companies to Beijing Supreme People's Court for perjury-provoked property harm and demanding the defendants to pay 120 million yuan in damages. The case will be heard at the end of May this year. It's been a battle for over ten years. Johnson Johnson held that the No. 1214187 trademark of "采乐CAILE" St-Flora obtained certified to be used on Class 3, the goods of cosmetic constituted an imitation of "采樂"certified to be used on Class 5 which damaged to its lawful rights and interests. After Johnson Johnson sought rejection for the 3rd time in 2002, according to the amended trademark law and the evidence Johnson Johnson submitted, TRAB revoked the trademark of "采乐CAILE" in June 2005 on the ground that the trademark of "采樂" was considered as a well-known trademark. St-Flora then brought the case to the court, after lost in the first and second instance, the disgruntled St-Flora appealed to the Supreme People's Court and gained the support. The Supreme People's Court held that the evidence Johnson Johnson submitted at the third time failed to prove the cited trademark enjoyed high reputation and was familiar among Chinese customers before the trademark in question was registered. The court also upheld that there’s great disparity between the two marks on materials, production and distribution channel and would not confuse the public. The Supreme People's Court’s decisions indicated that St-Flora hold the trademark legally throughout the whole fight. However, St-Flora had suffered severely from the impact of the wrong ruling St-Flora filed suit challenging Johnson Johnson and other five companies to the court for infringement of its property rights ordering the defendants to pay 120 million yuan in damages, making an apology on a national newspaper and pay all legal cost. The reporter noticed that the six defendants companies also including an intellectual property agency, an accounting firm and a market-research firm The trial has already been delayed for two years. St-Flora explained that the subsidiary set up by Johnson Johnson in China refused to sign upon court documents and Beijing Higher People’s Court had to send the documents to the Johnson Johnson’s headquarters overseas. Our reporter contacted with Johnson Johnson China, who severed their ties with this case and directed us to Xi’an Janssen. We have yet heard a word from Janssen after contact. We will follow the developments of the case. (by Xie Huandong) 本报实习记者 谢环东 围绕着“采乐CAILE”商标，佛山市圣芳（联合）有限公司(下称圣芳公司）与美国强生公司曾争斗10余年，尽管2009年10月最高人民法院已对“采乐CAILE”商标案作出最终判决，但该案所引发的“多米诺骨牌”效应依然在持续。 近日，记者获悉，圣芳公司因认为强生公司在此前“采乐CAILE”商标案中提供“伪证”，致使其经济受损，遂以侵害财产为由，将强生公司、西安杨森制药有限公司（下称西安杨森公司）等6家企业诉至北京市高级人民法院，索赔1.2亿元，该案将于5月底开庭审理。 据悉，圣芳公司与强生公司之间的争斗由来已久。双方分歧在于，强生公司认为圣芳公司持有的使用在第3类化妆品等商品上的第1214187号“采乐CAILE”商标，对该公司注册使用在第5类人用局部抗菌剂等商品上的“采樂”商标构成复制和模仿，损害了强生公司合法权益。 据公开资料显示，1998年10月，广东南海梦美思化妆品有限公司注册了上述“采乐CAILE”商标。2002年6月，此商标被转让至圣芳公司名下。 2002年，依据修改后的商标法，强生公司第3次向商评委提出撤销“采乐CAILE”商标的争议申请。2005年6月，商评委根据强生公司提供的证据材料认定其第5类商品上的“采樂”商标为驰名商标，并以此为依据裁定撤销圣芳公司在第3类洗发水等商品上的使用的“采乐CAILE”注册商标。圣芳公司遂提起行政诉讼，但在法院一审、二审中均败诉。圣芳公司不服，又向最高人民法院提起申诉并获支持。 最高人民法院审理认为，强生公司第3次向商评委评提交的证据，不足以证明引证商标在争议商标申请日之前已达到驰名程度。同时，最高人民法院认为涉案的两件商标核定使用商品在性质、生产和销售渠道等方面有着明确的区别，不足以引起相关消费者的混淆误认。 最高人民法院的此份判决，表明圣芳公司使用的“采乐CAILE”商标自始合法有效，但历经此番争斗，圣芳公司也有伤“元气”。该公司负责人称，在最高人民法院最终纠正错误裁决之前，圣芳公司的企业声誉受到巨大影响，企业遭受重大损失。 2010年，圣芳公司又将强生公司等6家关联企业诉至法院，请求法院判令6家被告赔偿其经济损失1.2亿元，在全国性媒体上刊登致歉声明，承担相关诉讼费用等。 记者注意到，圣芳公司此番起诉的6家企业，除强生公司及其参股公司外，还包括一家知识产权代理机构、一家会计师事务所、一家市场研究公司等。 对于早在2010年的起诉，为何在今年5月末才能开庭审理，圣芳公司负责人称，因强生公司在国内的子公司拒绝签收法院送达的起诉状等文书，该案的所有法律文书由北京市高级人民法院采用涉外送达的方式递送给强生公司，为此该案拖延了两年之后才最终延至今年5月开庭审理。 随后，记者联系了强生（中国）有限公司（下称强生中国公司），该公司有关负责人称，该案与强生中国公司无关，系由西安杨森公司负责。随后，记者联系了西安杨森公司相关负责人，但未得到答复。对于此案进展，本报将会继续予以关注。
标签: 纠纷
