商法专栏
知识产权保护
《商标法》对“欺骗性商标”定性
Legal attributes of deceptive marks
in China’s Trademark Law
王亭入
Damien Wang
铸成律师事务所
高级律师、客户经理
Senior Associate,
Client Manager
Chang Tsi & Partners
《巴
司嘉慕
Si Jiamu
铸成律师事务所
实习律师
Trainee
Chang Tsi & Partners
A
北京市西城区北展北街华远企业号A座7/8层
邮编：100044
7/F and 8/F, Tower A, Hundred Island Park
Bei Zhan Bei Jie Street, Xicheng District
Beijing 100044, China
电话 Tel: +86 10 8836 9999
传真 Fax: +86 10 8836 9996
电子信箱 E-mail:
[email protected]
www.changtsi.com
黎公约》第六条之五明确规定，
的利益’之立法目的相悖，损害的亦绝非
当手段取得注册的”
，指的是申请商标的
对于违反道德或公共秩序，尤
仅仅是特定民事权益主体的利益。在我国
行为或手段，而不是商标本身具有欺骗性。
其是具有欺骗公众性质的商标，可以拒绝
现行《商标法》并无规制‘可能导致消费
《商标法》第十六条关于地理标志的规定，
注 册或是 使 之 无 效。具有欺骗 公众性 质
者误认’的商标注册的特别条款的情况下，
可以看作是对欺骗性内容的一种规定，但
的商标（欺骗性商标）主要包括两种情况，
将其纳入十条一款（八）项‘不良影响’的
也仅仅适用于地理标志，范围较窄。由于
第一种是虚假的描述商品的内容等特点，
调整范畴予以有效制止并无不妥。
”
现行《商标法》缺乏对于欺骗性商标的规
第二种是具有地理欺骗性。
对于欺骗性商标，中国商标局和商标评
笔者认为，适用“不良影响”条款规制
欺骗性商标不符合法律本意，但是确实不
审委员会经常会以其虚假表示了商品的特
，
存在更好的选择。首先，对于“不良影响”
点，容易导致消费者误认误购为由，驳回
要 从 整 个商标 法 上 进 行 理 解。
《商标 法》
商标申请，适用《商标法》第十条第一款第
第十一条涉及的均是公序良俗或公共利益，
。
（八）项的“其他不良影响”
根 据 商 评 委 2012 年 第 2 期 的《法 务
通讯》的解释，这样做的理由是：
“商标的
基本 功能是‘标识自己，区别他人’
，使商
定，不得已适用“不良影响”条款。
借鉴经验
对于欺骗性商标，可以借鉴美国的作法。
故“不良影响”条款适用的前提一定存在
美国《商标法》第 2（a）严禁欺骗性的内
公共利益的损害，但不能说凡是损害公共
容 在联邦商标局登记薄或补充登记薄上
利益的，就一定属于不良影响。
注册。欺骗性的商标可以包括虚假描述产
因为，无论是绝对理由，还是相对理由，
品材料内容的商标以及具有地理欺骗性
品生产者或服务提供者能够平等、有效的
要么是纯粹的有损公共利益，如带有种族
的 商 标。根 据《美 国 商 标 审 查 指 南》
，联
参与市场竞争。
歧视性；要么在保护私权利的同时避免了
邦巡回上诉 法院在一项商标是否含有欺
损害公共利益，如在先申请原则、驰名商
骗性内容上，明确了以下测试方法：1）所
标跨类保护等，都同时蕴含了对于公共利
用的文字是否对商品的特征、质量、功能、
消费者混淆
益的考量。由于消费者是公共秩序和公共
成分或用途进行误导性描述？；2）如果有，
“若某商标标识可能会使消费者对商品
利益的必要组成部分，如果将可能引起消
潜在购买者是否可能相信该误导性描述
功能、质量、产地、来源产生误认，从而影
费者误认误购的商标一律认定为“不良影
是对商品的真实描述？；3）如果是，该误
响消费者的购买判断，则其不仅仅损害了
响”
，该条款 就成为了商标审查中的一把
导性描述是否可能影响购买决定？
不特定的相关公众的利益，还会使商标注
尚方宝剑。
册人获得不正当的市场竞争优势，损害同
何况，
“其他”这一限定似乎应当与第十
业竞争者的利益。此时，该商标已超越或
条一款（八）项前半句的“道德风尚”相对
背离了商标应有的区别来源之基本功能，
应，指向公共秩序，例如精神文明、政治、
其注册明显与我国现行《商标法》第一条
民族、种族、宗教、军事等等。
修订通过
2013 年 8 月 30 日，全国人民代 表 大
会常务委员会通过了关于修改《中华人民
共和国商标法》的决定，将于 2014 年 5
明确提出的‘保障消费者和生产、经营者
欺骗性
月 1 日起 施 行。
《决 定》将现行 第十 条 一
款（七）项修改为“带有欺骗性，容易使公
适用‘不良影响’条款
规制欺骗性商标不符合法
律本意，但是确实不存在
更好的选择
80
商法 | CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL 其次，现行《商标法》没有专门的调整
众对商品的质量等特点或者产地产生误认
欺骗性内容的条款。
《商标法》第十条一款
的”
。修改 后的《商标法》
，对欺骗 性商标
（七）项的“夸大宣传并带有欺骗性的”
，强
的审查标准实际上已经与美国非常接近，
《商标法》
调的是夸大宣传的欺骗性后果。
在具体的执行上，也可以借鉴美国的判断
第四十一条的“以欺骗手段或者其他不正
方法。g
2013 年 9 月 | September 2013
correspondents
IP protection
rticle 6 of the Paris Convention for
the Protection of Industrial Property
says trademarks covered by this article
may be neither denied registration nor
invalidated, with a number of exceptions including the following: “when they
are contrary to morality or public order
and, in particular, of such a nature as to
deceive the public.”
In trademark examination in China,
the China Trademark Office and China
Trademark Review and Adjudication
B o a rd ( T R A B) f r e quently r efus e a
mark by concluding that it deceptively
describes the character of the goods so
as to cause “consumer misunderstanding and from that a mis-purchase”,
which is defined as one of the so-called
“adverse effects”.
The applicable law is article 10.1(8) of
the Trademark Law, which provides that
“those detrimental to social morality and
custom or having other adverse effects
[shall not be used as a trademark]”.
The TRAB, in issue 2 of its 2012 Legal
Newsletter, explained: “the fundamental function of a trademark is to ‘label
products to distinguish from others’ so
that market entities can compete fairly
and effectively.
Consumer confusion
“If a mark could cause the consumers
to misunderstand the function, quality,
pla c e of o rigin and s o ur c e of th e
products, the consumers’ purchase
decision may be affected. Not only is the
public interest damaged, but also the
mark owner is entitled with unfair competition advantage so as to adversely
affect the competitors.
“Under this situation, this mark
has shifted away from its fundamental function, and violates the legislative purpose of the Trademark Law, as
specified by article 1 – ‘safeguarding
the interests of consumers, producers
and business operators’. Since there is
a specific article to regulate ‘consumer
misunderstanding and mis-purchase’,
applying an ‘adverse effect’ clause is
appropriate.”
The authors believe that in the context
of the existing Trademark Law, the application of an “adverse effect” clause is
clutching at straws but is not jurisprudentially correct. On one hand, the interpretation of “adverse effect” must be seen in
the entire context of the Trademark Law.
Article 10 of the Trademark Law is aimed
September 2013 | 2013 年 9 月
at the protection of public interest and
public order. Therefore, the application of
“adverse effect” premises the detriment
of public interest and public order. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that any
action detrimental to public interest and
public order should be defined as causing
“adverse effect”.
Trademark refusal
For trademark refusal grounds, it either
is absolutely public interest-related – for
example, a racially discriminative mark
– or protects public interest incidentally
when it is mainly aimed for the protection of private interest – for example, the
first-to-apply principle and cross-class
protection for well-known marks.
Because consumers are indispensible
parts of public interest and public order,
if “consumer misunderstanding and mispurchase” is viewed as an “adverse effect”,
the “adverse effect” could become a silver
bullet that could be easily misused by the
trademark authorities.
In addition, the “adverse effects” in the
law itself are restrained by the word “other”
(those detrimental to social morality and
custom, or having other adverse effects),
therefore, the “adverse effect” should
be in the same nature as “detrimental to
social morality and custom”, which seems
not to include consumer misunderstanding or mis-purchase.
Deceptive marks
O n the o the r hand, the cur r ent
Trademark Law does not have an independent clause to regulate deceptive
marks. Article 10.1(7) says that “those
representing promotion in an exaggerated manner and deceptive in nature
[should not be used as a trademark]”.
However, this clause focuses on and is
restricted by the prerequisite “promotion
in an exaggerated manner”.
Ar ticle 41 of the Trademark Law
provides that “registration was obtained
by deceptive or other improper means
[may be cancelled]”.
T hi s cla u s e i s w i d e l y a ck n o w l edged as referring to a deceptive act in
applying for trademarks, such as using
a forged company name. Article 16 of
the Trademark Law only involves false
geographical indications. Because of
the lack of an independent clause, the
trademark authorities have to cite the
“adverse effect” clause.
The application of an
‘adverse effects’ clause is
clutching at straws but is not
jurisprudentially correct
Drawing on experience
Experience can be drawn from section
2(a) of the US Trademark Law, which
is an absolute bar to the registration of
deceptive matter on either the Principle
Register or the Supplemental Register.
Deceptive marks may include marks that
falsely describe the material contents
of the product and marks that are geographically deceptive.
Based on the American Trademark
Manual of Examining Procedure, the US
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
has articulated the following test for
whether a mark consists of or comprises
deceptive matter: (1) are the terms misleadingly descriptive of the character,
quality, function, composition or use
of the goods? (2) if so, are prospective
purchasers likely to believe that the misleading description actually describes
the goods? (3) if so, is the misleading
description likely to affect the decision
to purchase?
NPC amendments
On 30 August 2013, the standing
committee of the National People’s
C ongre s s approved amendments to
the Trademark Law, which will take
ef fect on 1 May 2014. Among the
changes, article 10.1(7) was changed
into “[marks] that are deceptive so as
to easily cause the public to misunderstand the quality or other characters, or
place of origin of the goods [should not
be used as trademarks]”.
After the change, the examination
standards of deceptive marks will be very
close to those of the US. It is further recommended that in the application of this
clause, trademark authorities also take
the three-step examination method of the
US as a valuable reference. g
王亭入是北京市铸成律师事务所高级律师兼
客户经理，司嘉慕是铸成所实习律师
Damien Wang is a senior associate and client manager, and Si Jiamu is a trainee at
Chang Tsi & Partners
商法 | CHINA BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL 81