The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has reversed a decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and invalidated a third-party registration of a graphic representation of Bulgari Co. Ltd's 'snake head' design.
On 28 April 2019, CNIPA ruled that the evidence submitted by Bulgari Co. Ltd (Bulgari) was not sufficient to prove that it owned copyright in the 'snake head' graphic: registration of the trade mark in dispute had not violated Article 32 of the 2014 Trademark Law. Bulgari then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that Bulgari's 'snake head' graphics constituted original artistic works for the purposes of China's copyright law. Further, the evidence in the case proved that Bulgari had enjoyed copyright in the works prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark in dispute, and had publicised and used the works on commodities such as bags. The Defendant, Liu Mou, had also been involved in the business of selling bags, which meant that the business scope of the parties overlapped, and it was possible that the Defendant had been aware of the works involved. Finally, both the trade marks in dispute and the copyright works involved were similar in overall appearance, basic composition and visual effect. Liu's registration of the trade mark in dispute, therefore, violated the provisions of the first half of Article 32 of the trade mark law. The CNIPA ruling was not soundly based.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the registered trade mark in dispute infringed the copyright in Bulgari's art works. It cancelled the ruling of the CNIPA and ordered it to make a new ruling.
宝格丽"蛇头"图形商标行政案一审胜诉
日期： 2021-04-01
近日北京知识产权法院审结了一起"蛇头"图形商标权无效行政纠纷案，北京知识产权法院支持了原告宝格丽公司的诉讼请求，撤销被诉裁定，判令国家知识产权局重新作出裁定。
2019年4月28日，国家知识产权局作出裁定，认为宝格丽公司提交的在案证据不足以证明其享有"蛇头"图形的著作权，故在案证据不足以证明诉争商标的注册违反了2014年商标法第三十二条，裁定对诉争商标予以维持。宝格丽公司不服该裁定，向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。
北京知识产权法院经审理认为，宝格丽公司所主张的涉案作品为蛇头图形，具有一定审美意义，其表现形式具备美术作品应当具备的法律意义上的独创性，属于我国著作权法保护的美术作品。其次，在案证据可以证明宝格丽公司在诉争商标申请日前已经合法享有涉案作品的著作权或为该涉案作品的利害关系人。宝格丽公司在诉争商标申请日前对涉案作品在包等商品上进行了宣传和使用，且第三人陈述其亦曾进行过包商品的经营，双方经营范围存在重合部分，故刘某具有接触涉案作品的可能性。最后，将诉争商标与涉案作品进行比较，二者均是以蛇头为原型的图形，且在整体外观轮廓、图形基本构成、视觉效果等方面的表达方式相近，独创性较低，构成实质性相似。因此，刘某对诉争商标的注册违反了商标法第三十二条前半段的规定，国家知识产权局认定有误。
北京知产法院一审认定第三人刘某注册的第15911982号图形商标（以下简称诉争商标）侵害了原告宝格丽股份有限公司（以下简称宝格丽公司）享有的美术作品著作权，因此撤销国家知识产权局作出的商评字〔2019〕第88366号关于第15911982号图形商标无效宣告请求裁定，判令其重新作出裁定。
来源：京法网事 2021-04-01
链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/v66S76gCv6Dc2oinlnx_gg
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
