商标侵权赔偿数额的计算依据 Fair calculation of TM infringement damages?

For the English version, please scroll down. You can also click on "Read more", or "阅读原文" , at the bottom of the post to view more articles on our website.

近，判令被告新百伦（贸易）中国有限公司立即停止侵害周乐伦“百伦”“新百伦”的注册商标权，并赔偿周乐伦500万元。。两审判决赔偿数额的差距如此之大，引发了我们对于商标侵权案件中赔偿数额如何计算的关注。

“百伦”商标在鞋等商品上于1996年由某公司注册，2004年该商标转让给周乐伦。继而周乐伦2004年申请“新百伦”商标，后遭新百伦公司的关联公司新平衡公司（美国）提出异议申请，但2011年商标局仍作出“新百伦”商标予以核准注册的决定。 

“NEW BALANCE”“NB”“N”商标由新平衡公司于1983年在鞋等商品上获准注册。2006年，以“新百伦”作为企业字号的新百伦公司成立。2007年，新平衡公司将上述商标许可新百伦公司使用。 

然而，在周乐伦的“新百伦”商标注册成功，新百伦公司在明知的情况下仍在天猫网站等上将中文商标“新百伦”与其英文商标共同使用。由此，周乐伦起诉新百伦公司及其某经销商构成商标侵权，并请求赔偿经济损失9800万元。 

此案侵权行为发生时，2013年《商标法》尚未生效。本案适用2001年《商标法》审理，其中第56条规定：“侵犯商标权的赔偿数额，为侵权人在侵权期间所获得的利益，或者被侵权人在被侵权期间因被侵权所受到的损失”。，，确定新百伦公司侵权期间获利共计1.958亿）。 

，而对赔偿数额进行了改判。改判理由主要是：在计算侵害商标专用权赔偿数额时，应当注重侵权人的产品利润总额与侵权行为之间的直接因果关系。本案中，虽然周乐伦提供了证据证明其涉案注册商标有实际使用的事实，但没有证据显示其在相关公众中已具有较高的知名度。

新平衡公司的“N”“NB”“NEW BALANCE”商标具有较高知名度，而被告使用“新百伦”又都是和这些商标组合使用，消费者购买新百伦公司商品更多考虑其英文标识的知名度及其蕴含的良好的商品质量，新百伦公司的经营获利并非全部来源于侵害周乐伦的注册商标，周乐伦无权对新百伦公司因自身商标商誉或者商品固有的价值而获取的利润进行索赔。

.76%的结论，计算出中文标识的鞋类产品利润贡献额为145万余元，又综合根据原告请求及全案证据，采用法定最高限额五十万以上酌定赔偿额的方式最终确定新百伦公司向原告赔偿500万元。 

计算关注点 

侵权期间所获得的利益。2001年《商标法》笼统规定“侵犯商标权的赔偿数额，为侵权人在侵权期间所获得的利益，或者被侵权人在被侵权期间因被侵权所受到的损失”。此处“所获得利益”，由于实践中绝大多数商标侵权案的原告为知名商标权利人，而被告多为故意攀附他人商标商誉的侵权人。此种情形下，侵权人全部获利几乎都与侵权行为存在直接因果联系，因而以被告“全部获利”作为赔偿依据的案例并不鲜见。然而，新百伦案暴露了2001年《商标法》关于赔偿计算依据的模糊地带，。 

商标权人所受损失作为确定赔偿数额依据应优先适用。2001年《商标法》框架下原告可以选择使用原告损失和被告获利方式进行赔偿额的计算。理论上，侵权损害赔偿制度设计的出发点是使原告权利恢复到没有被侵权的状态。因此，权利人所受损失应当是计算赔偿数额中最准确的方式，其他方式则仅应作为补充适用。2013年《商标法》即明确了侵权赔偿数额计算依据的优先次序，即赔偿数额首先按照权利人所受损失确定，在难以确定情况下才可按照侵权人在侵权期间所获得的利益确定。 

二审判决酌定数额是否恰当？，随即又酌定500万，此数额与145万之间的差距较大，。该具体数额是否恰当，有待商榷。 

What’s fair when calculating TM infringement damages?

The Guangdong Provincial Higher People’s Court recently rendered an appeal judgment ordering the defendant, New Balance Trading (China) (NB China) to immediately cease infringing upon Zhou Lelun’s registered Chinese trademarks “百伦” (“Balance”, as in New Balance) and “新百伦” (“New Balance”) and compensate him in the amount of RMB5 million (US$754,000). However, previously, the Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou Municipality had set the measure of damages in its judgment at RMB98 million. Such a large discrepancy drew the authors’ attention to the issue of how the measure of damages in trademark infringement cases is calculated.

The trademark “百伦” was registered by a company in 1996 for footwear, and was transferred to Zhou in 2004. Later in 2004, Zhou applied for the trademark “新百伦”, against which an opposition application was filed by NB China’s affiliate, New Balance Athletic Shoe (NB US). However, the Trademark Office nevertheless approved registration of the trademark “新百伦” in 2011. 

NB US secured registration of the trademarks “NEW BALANCE”, “NB” and “N” for such goods as footwear, in 1983. NB China, using “新百伦” in its company name, was established in 2006. In 2007, NB US licensed the above-mentioned English trademarks to NB China. 

However, NB China, fully aware of the successful registration of the trademark “新百伦”, nevertheless used the Chinese trademark, together with its English trademarks, on Tmall and other such websites. Consequently, Zhou sued NB China and one of its distributors for trademark infringement and sought compensation for economic losses of RMB98 million. 

At the time the infringement in this case occurred, the 2013 Trademark Law was not in effect, and the 2001 version applied. Article 56 of the 2001 version specifies that, “the measure of damages for trademark infringement shall be the benefits derived by the infringer during the period of infringement or the losses incurred by the injured party as a result of the infringement during the period of infringement”. Based on this, the court at first instance determined that the amount of damages payable by NB China to the plaintiff should be one half of the total benefits derived by it, namely RMB98 million. 

But the appeals court revised the measure of damages set by the first-instance court for the infringement. The main reason for the revision was: when calculating such measure of the exclusive right to use a trademark, weight should be placed on the direct causal relationship between the gross product profits of the infringer and the infringement. 

In this case, although Zhou provided evidence supporting his actual use of the registered trademarks, there was no evidence showing that they enjoyed a relatively high degree of reputation among the relevant public. NB US’s trademarks “N”, “NB” and “NEW BALANCE” had a relatively high degree of reputation, and the defendant’s use of “新百伦” was always in conjunction with these trademarks. When purchasing NB China’s goods, consumers considered the reputation of the English marks and the quality of the goods that they embodied. The profits derived by NB China from its operations were not all due to its infringement of Zhou’s registered trademarks. 

Therefore, Zhou was not entitled to claim from NB China the profits it made as a result of the goodwill of its own trademarks, or the inherent value of its goods. 

Based on a report provided by NB China at appeal that the rate of contribution of the Chinese mark “新百伦” to NB China’s profit as at the valuation reference date was 0.76%, the appeals court calculated that the amount contributed by the Chinese mark to the footwear product profits was a little over RMB1.45 million. It ultimately determined that NB China compensate the plaintiff in the amount of RMB5 million by determining the measure of damages based on the maximum statutory amount of at least RMB50,000. 

POINTS IN CALCULATION 

Benefits derived during period of infringement. In practice, the plaintiffs in most infringement cases are well-known trademark rights holders and the defendants usually infringers that deliberately try to hitchhike on the goodwill of others’ trademarks. Almost all of the “benefits derived”, as specified in article 56 of the 2001 Trademark Law, by the infringers are in a direct causal relationship with the infringement. Cases in which all of the benefits derived by the defendant serve as the basis for determining the damages are not a rarity. 

However, the New Balance case revealed some of the ambiguities of the 2001 Trademark Law regarding the basis for the calculation of damages. The revised judgment of the appeals court was rendered precisely on the basis of accurately distinguishing between all of the benefits derived by the infringer and the benefits derived by the infringer as a result of the infringement. 

Losses incurred by the trademark rights holder should apply on a priority basis for determining the measure of damages. Under the 2001 Trademark Law, the plaintiff may opt to use the plaintiff’s losses or the defendant’s benefits to calculate the amount of damages. Theoretically, the intent of the system of damages for infringement is to restore the rights of the plaintiff to their uninjured state. The losses incurred by the rights holder should be the most accurate method of calculating the measure of damages, with the other methods only serving as a supplement. 

The 2013 Trademark Law expressly specifies the priority sequence of the basis for calculating the measure of damages for infringement, namely that the measure of damages should be determined first based on the losses incurred by the rights holder and only on the basis of the benefits derived by the infringer where it is difficult to determine the same on the basis of the rights holder’s losses. 

Is the amount determined in the judgment at appeal appropriate? The appeals court calculated RMB1.45 million based on the Chinese mark’s contribution rate as the basis for determining the damages, after which it came up with the figure of RMB5 million, representing quite a large gap as compared to RMB1.45 million. However, the appeals court’s explanation of, and basis for, this discrepancy seem somewhat inadequate. Whether this specific amount is appropriate is worth further discussion. 

作者：润明律师事务所执行合伙人王亚东；润明合伙人陆蕾 

Wang Yadong is the executive partner and Lu Lei is a partner at Run Ming Law Office