2009年4月24日，長沙市中級人民法院對“MICHELIN”等注冊商標的所有者法國米其林集團訴銷售“MICHELIN”輪胎的個體工商戶談國強和歐燦商標侵權案做出一審判決，認定被告銷售由原告在日本的子公司生產的面對巴西市場的，且沒有進行3C認證(1)的“MICHELIN”輪胎的行為侵犯了原告的注冊商標專用權。
法院的判決看上去似乎讓人難以理解，因為被告銷售的是原告自己的工廠生產的產品，并非未經其授權生產的假冒產品此案涉及了一個國際貿易中常見的問題，即商標商品平行進口。關于商標商品的平行進口，指的是未經商標權利人或者獨占許可使用人的授權或許可，向商標權人或獨占被許可人擁有商標權益的國家或地區出口由商標權人自己所在國家或地區生產的商標商品或經其同意在其他國家或地區生產的商標商品。平行進口產生的根本原因在于對利益的追求。由于商標權人其商品在不同國家和地區的生產成本不同，或根據當地的消費水平，會導致在不同的國家和地區市場售價不同。平行進口商在除去相關成本，將在某一國生產和銷售的商品進口到另一國后，其售價往往比進口國商標商品的市場售價要低而使得消費者更愿意購買平行進口商品。
在我國相關商標法律法規中沒有關于銷售平行進口的商品是否構成商標侵權行為的規定。在法律界，關于平行進口是否侵犯他人注冊商標專用權存在兩種不同的意見。多數學者依據權利用盡的原則，對平行進口中是否存在商標侵權持否定意見。但也有依據知識產權的地域性特點而認為銷售平行進口商品侵犯了商標權人的權利。
在本案中，法院認為，認定商標侵權的構成取決于被告銷售前述“MICHELIN”輪胎的行為是否對原告的注冊商標專用權權益造成損害。輪胎產品的生產和銷售應當符合銷售地關于速度的要求，銷售地的地理條件和氣候特征以及相關強制認證標準，而未經3C認證的并非面對中國市場的“MICHELIN”輪胎在中國使用可能存在安全隱患。如果由于使用這種未經安全認證的導致交通事故或其他民事糾紛，由此所產生的法律后果以及使用者對產品的負面評價會通過輪胎上的商標直接指向商標權人的原告。因此，被告的行為破壞了原告商標保證商品質量和商品提供者信譽的作用，對原告的注冊商標專用權造成了實質性損害。
法院對本案的判決表明，無論是權利用盡原則還是地域性原則，均不能直接認定平行進口商標商品是否存在商標侵權的問題。確認是否構成商標侵權行為，應考慮商標權人的商標權益是否收到損害。在本案中，法院認定原告商標權益受到損害的前提是被告銷售了原告的并非面向中國市場的，且未經過3C認證的產品。其依據是輪胎產品必須經過3C認證后才能銷售，未經3C認證則意味著使用安全不能得到保證。因此，原告通過商標體現出的信譽可能會受到損害。換句話說，本案的關鍵點之一是可以說明或者證明是否存在商品安全性問題的“3C認證”。
那么，平行進口不需要進行3C認證的商標商品，是否也會構成商標侵權行為？根據法院確認是否構成商標侵權行為，應考慮商標權人的商標權益是否收到損害的觀點，3C認證應只是用于證明使用平行進口商品可能存在安全隱患的比較有力的證據之一。因此，在平行進口商品，無論是否需要進行3C認證，只要在因其非面向中國市場而可能產生安全隱患從而會損害商標權人的信譽的情況下，進口和銷售這些商品應認定構成商標侵權行為。也就是說，即便是不需要3C認證的平行進口商品，如果有證據證明在中國使用可能存在安全隱患，進口和銷售這種平行進口商品存在構成商標侵權的可能性。例如不需要進行3C認證的，但可能不符合相關國家標準的商品，或者有證據證明可能在使用中存在安全問題的商品。
另一種情況是，如果被告在銷售前進行了3C認證，其銷售該平行進口輪胎產品是否構成商標侵權呢？根據法院的觀點進行推導，答案顯然是否定的 – 進行了3C認證的輪胎產品證明其在中國使用不存在安全問題，因此原告通過商標體現出的信譽應不會受到損害。當然，商標權人可能會因平行進口商品擠占了商標權人在進口國的市場份額而遭受利潤損失。例如，商標權人的商標商品在A國的售價為100元，在B國則為80元，利潤均為30元。平行進口商將在B國銷售的商品進口到A國后，售價90元。如此，商標權人的商標商品的利潤少了10元。但實踐中，出于保護消費者利益的考慮，一般不會因商標權人因平行進口商標商品遭受利潤損失而認定構成商標侵權。
法院在審理本案中在對平行進口商標商品是否構成商標侵權的問題上做出了有益的嘗試，其關于確認商標侵權行為應考慮商標權人的商標權益是否收到損害的觀點對涉及平行進口商標商品的案件，甚至是通常意義的商標侵權案件，在商標侵權構成的認定上具有積極的借鑒意義。對于受平行進口問題困擾的商標權人，或有可能采取措施制止平行進口其商標商品的行為，在能夠證明使用平行進口商品可能存在安全問題的情況下。而對于平行進口商而言，更應在獲得利益的同時，確保不會使消費者的利益受到損害。
注釋：
(1) 3C認證，中國強制性產品認證制度。輪胎產品列于《第一批實施強制性產品認證的產品目錄》中。
Trademark Infringement in Parallel Importation
On April 24, 2009, Changsha Intermediate People's Court (the "Court") made the first instance judgment in Michelin Group vs. Tan Guoqiang and Ou Can. The Court ruled that the Defendants, tire dealers Tan Guoqiang and Ou Can, infringed upon the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark, "MICHELIN & Device," by selling imported Japanese-made tires (targeting the Brazilian market) without consent from the trademark owner and without obtaining a Chinese Compulsory Product Certification ("3C Certification").(1)
Some questioned the Court's decision as the tires sold by the Defendants were in fact manufactured by the Michelin's own factory and were not counterfeits. The case concerns about parallel importation of trademarked products, a common occurrence in international trade. Parallel importation of trademarked products refers to branded goods, manufactured and sold in the country or area where the trademark owner is located or where the trademark products are authorized to be manufactured and sold. The trademarked products are imported into the countries or areas, where the trademark owner or the exclusive licensee enjoys the trademark and related rights without the authorization of the trademark owner and/or the exclusive licensee. Parallel importation is often motivated by extra benefits. Since manufacturing cost and consumer capability vary in different countries and areas, the trademark owner always sets different prices for their products in different markets. Parallel importers purchase products in one country at a price (P1) which is lower than the price at which they are sold in a second country (P2), and import the products into the second country. Consumers are inclined to buy the imported product in the second country at a price which is lower than P2.
Whether parallel importing of trademarked products constitutes trademark infringement is not specifically addressed in the PRC laws and regulations. There are two prevailing opinions regarding parallel importing in the academic field. Most scholars disagree that parallel imports constitute trademark infringement based on the "Exhaustion of Rights Doctrine," while some believe that trademark infringement shall be established in parallel import based on the locality nature of intellectual property rights ("IPR").
In this case, the Court focused on whether the Defendants' sale of imported MICHELIN tires shall constitute trademark infringement upon the Plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark "MICHELIN & Device." As the manufacture and sale of tire products shall be in compliance with the relevant speed requirements, geographical and climatic features, the Court held that the Defendants' failure to obtain the 3C Certification for MICHELIN tires which were originally targeting the Brazilian market may raise quality and safety issues. It was foreseeable that consumers would attribute traffic accidents or any other civil disputes to the Michelin Group as the manufacturer. Consequently, the standard of quality denoted by the Michelin trademark and plaintiff's reputation as a leading tire manufacturer would be damaged. Therefore, the Court concluded the Defendants' acts had caused substantial damages to the Plaintiff's exclusive rights to use the trademark "MICHELIN & Device".
The Court's judgment shows that the Exhaustion of Rights Doctrine or the Territoriality Principle alone is insufficient to justify the act of parallel imports. When affirming the trademark infringement, the Court should also consider whether the interests and rights of the trademark owner have been damaged. In this case, the grounds on which the Court established trademark infringement were that the tires had not obtained 3C Certification, and the tires were not manufactured for the Chinese market. According to the Court, tire products should be certified under the 3C system before they are sold in China. Otherwise the quality and safety of the products could not be ensured. Therefore, the Plaintiff's reputation as a leading tire manufacturer trademarked as "MICHELIN & Device" would be damaged. In short, the key issue of this case is the "3C Certification," which represents or proves the quality and safety of the tire products sold in China.
One subsequent issue is whether importation and selling of trademarked products not subject to 3C Certification may cause trademark infringement. According to the Court's ruling, when affirming trademark infringement in parallel importation, the key issue is whether the import and sales activities have damaged the interests and rights of trademark owners. If an imported product is without 3C Certification, it merely indicates that the parallel imported products might have potential quality and safety problems. However, the absence of 3C Certification does not necessarily establish the problems. Therefore, a trademark infringement should be established if the imports and sales of the products that are not targeting the Chinese market would damage the reputation of the trademark owner, even if the parallel imported products are not subject to the 3C Certification. In other words, although the imported products are not subject to 3C Certification, the imports and sales of the products may also constitute trademark infringement conditioned that potential quality problems and safety risks exist within the imported products to be used in China. For example, the said products may not require a 3C Certification, but they are incompliance with other national standards or have potential safety risks in use.
On the contrary, would the import and sales activities constitute trademark infringement if the Defendants had applied for 3C Certification before selling the MICHELIN tires? The answer is no according to the Court's ruling. The MICHELIN tires with 3C Certification means that they are free of quality and safety problems and, therefore, the reputation of the Plaintiff would not be damaged. The trademark owner may inevitably make less profit because of the competition of the parallel imported products in the local market. For example, the price of the trademarked products is RMB 100 in country A and RMB 80 in country B, and the profit is RMB 30 in both country A and B. Parallel importer imports the products that are sold in country B to country A and offer the price at RMB 90. As such, the trademark owner may suffer a profit loss of RMB 10 in country A. In practice, the parallel importing of the trademarked products does not necessarily constitute trademark infringement simply because the trademark owner suffers profit loss.
In Michelin, the Court demonstrated the progress of trademark infringement trials of parallel imported products into China. The ruling of the case set guidance over the issue of whether the imports and sales of parallel trademarked products constitute trademark infringement. The key focus of the issue is whether the alleged acts are detrimental to the interests and rights of the trademark owner. To trademark owners that are harassed by parallel imports, it is possible to take measures to stop others from parallel importing of their trademarked products, if they can prove the products have quality and safety problems in use. For parallel importers, they should ensure that consumers' interests would not be damaged while deriving profits.
Notes:
(1) "3C" is regulated under the Mandatory Certificating system in China. Tire products are included in the "Catalog for First Batch of Products subject to Mandatory Product Certification".
