[:en]Fake Brands K.O. the Genuine: Just a Tip of "Infringement"[:zh]正牌不敵山寨：你所看見的只是侵權一角？[:tw]正牌不敵山寨：你所看見的只是侵權一角？[:]

[:en][fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

[/fusion_text][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

山寨竟告贏正牌？

相信大家都可能略有所聞，日前法院終審判決日本無印良品於中國侵權案中敗訴，需賠償中國山寨公司的經濟損失及合理開支共60多萬元人民幣，結果令人嘩然，大概也沒有人能想像到正牌無印反倒會敗給山寨無印吧！但你以為遭受山寨反控告侵權的情況很罕見？事實恰恰相反，甚至還有不少打敗正牌的經典案例，接下來讓我們一起來細數還有哪些被控告的「可憐正牌」吧！

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”2″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”default” sep_color=””]

美國運動品牌New Balance vs 「新百倫」商標權人周樂倫

[/fusion_title][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_2″ layout=”1_2″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

美國運動品牌 New Balance

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_2″ layout=”1_2″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

「新百倫」

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

原告周先生於2004年6月申請註冊「新百倫」第25類商標並獲核准，而New Balance則於2006年在上海成立新百倫貿易（中國）有限公司，以銷售其品牌的運動鞋產品，並使用「新百倫」作為中文名稱進行宣傳及營銷用途，周先生認為其「新百倫」商標權被New Balance侵犯，故向New Balance提出控告。進行一審的廣州中院認為由於New Balance「新百倫」公司的成立日，晚於原告周先生註冊商標之日，故宣判周先生勝訴。New Balance不服結果再上訴，然而廣東省高級人民法院基於一審的事實而宣布維持原判，並指New Balance應向周先生賠償經濟損失及為制止侵權行為500萬元人民幣。

勝方：「新百倫」商標權人周樂倫

Michael Jordan vs 中國運動品牌「喬丹體育」

Michael Jordan

中國運動品牌「喬丹體育」

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

在2012年，Michael Jordan控告中國品牌「喬丹體育」侵犯其肖權權，並要求撤銷「喬丹」等商標，但由於當時法院判決指「喬丹」僅是美國的一個普通姓氏，與Michael Jordan的名字沒有必然關係，故法院裁定「喬丹體育」沒有侵犯其商標權，Michael Jordan其後上訴，多年來雙方在訴訟上都各有勝敗；然而，2019年10月中國最高人民法院終審判決認為「喬丹體育」商標沒有體現出Michael Jordan的個人特徵，並且不具有可識別性，故沒有侵犯Michael Jordan的商標權，所以判決最終由「喬丹體育」勝出這場長達七年的商標之爭。

勝方：中國品牌「喬丹體育」

美國運動品牌「Brooks」 vs 中國運動品牌「安踏」

美國運動品牌「Brooks」

中國運動品牌「安踏」

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

美國運動品牌 Brooks 於2017年7月打進中國市場，然而卻在同年8月被中國運動品牌安踏控告商標侵權，事件由福建省泉州市中級人民法院受理。安踏除了要求Brooks停止侵權行為之外，還要求賠償經濟損失 350 萬元人民幣。最終法院判處Brooks敗訴，並需下架所有產品。

勝方：中國運動品牌「安踏」

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”2″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”default” sep_color=””]

著名連鎖快餐店「麥當勞」 vs 中國餐館「萬德福」

著名連鎖快餐店「麥當勞」

中國餐館「萬德福」

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

中國餐館「萬德福」因商標使用了紅底黃字的「W」，被著名連鎖快餐店麥當勞控告侵犯商標權，長達十年之久的糾紛最終於2013年獲得判決，北京高院作出終審判決，判定麥當勞敗訴。

勝方：中國餐館「萬德福」

[/fusion_text][fusion_title hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” content_align=”left” size=”2″ font_size=”” line_height=”” letter_spacing=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” margin_top_mobile=”” margin_bottom_mobile=”” text_color=”” style_type=”default” sep_color=””]

福特汽車 (中國) 有限公司 vs 四川野馬汽車有限公司

福特汽車 (中國) 有限公司

四川野馬汽車有限公司

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

福特(中國)於2006年把野馬引入中國，卻被四川野馬汽車有限公司指控福特(中國)的野馬商標侵權。四川野馬表示他們早於 1986 年為「野馬」註冊商標，而福特(中國)則於 2006 年才在中國為「野馬」註冊。他們認為福特(中國)涉嫌侵犯其商標權，並向成都市中級人民法院提出訴訟，要求福特(中國)賠償經濟損失。最終法院判決福特(中國)侵害了四川野馬的商標權，除了需要賠償對方的經濟損失 100 萬元人民幣外，還需於官網刊登道歉聲明。

勝方：四川野馬汽車有限公司

[/fusion_text][/fusion_builder_column][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_image_id=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” border_radius=”” box_shadow=”no” dimension_box_shadow=”” box_shadow_blur=”0″ box_shadow_spread=”0″ box_shadow_color=”” box_shadow_style=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]

冰山一角的侵權

以上知名品牌被反控告的案例僅僅只是冰山一角，事實上不論是中小企抑或是知名企業，都會有被山寨品牌侵權的風險。所以，對於一個品牌而言，若然不想品牌聲譽受損或遭受潛在的經濟損失，理應做好品牌管理，及早註冊潛在發展市場的商標，並於進入海外市場前進行商標檢索，以免誤墮侵權陷阱，令到時需要耗費大量時間及金錢進行訴訟。

[/fusion_text][fusion_global id=”7172″][/fusion_builder_column][/fusion_builder_row][/fusion_builder_container][:zh][fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”no” hundred_percent_height=”no” hundred_percent_height_scroll=”no” hundred_percent_height_center_content=”yes” equal_height_columns=”no” menu_anchor=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”center center” background_repeat=”no-repeat” fade=”no” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ video_mp4=”” video_webm=”” video_ogv=”” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_loop=”yes” video_mute=”yes” video_preview_image=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=””][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ layout=”1_1″ spacing=”” center_content=”no” link=”” target=”_self” min_height=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=”” background_color=”” background_image=”” background_position=”left top” background_repeat=”no-repeat” hover_type=”none” border_size=”0″ border_color=”” border_style=”solid” border_position=”all” padding_top=”” padding_right=”” padding_bottom=”” padding_left=”” margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” animation_type=”” animation_direction=”left” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_offset=”” last=”no”][fusion_text columns=”” column_min_width=”” column_spacing=”” rule_style=”default” rule_size=”” rule_color=”” hide_on_mobile=”small-visibility,medium-visibility,large-visibility” class=”” id=””]