最近一家法人代表為夏寶、名字為“帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”的企業(yè)引起了我們的注意，這家公司在中國(guó)大陸已經(jīng)申請(qǐng)和注冊(cè)了許多與我司名字（LITOKOL/麗多可）類似或相同的商標(biāo)，對(duì)廣大消費(fèi)者造成了困惑。在此，我方回復(fù)大家對(duì)本事件的關(guān)注，希望能提供一些有用的情況說(shuō)明。

It has come to our attention that an entity called “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”, represented by its legal representative Xiao Bao, has filed and registered in Mainland China several trademarks quite similar/identical to our Company’s name [LITOKOL/麗多可], causing confusion among the public. Hereby we recall your attention on the main points of this case, with the aim to provide some useful clarifications.

根據(jù)在CTMO-中國(guó)商標(biāo)局-公用數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)（http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn）上的可用信息顯示，以夏寶個(gè)人名義已注冊(cè)多個(gè)不同類別的外國(guó)商標(biāo)（英文名），部分與我們行業(yè)部門(mén)相關(guān)。

According to the information available on CTMO – China Trademark Office – public database [http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn], it appears that Xiao Bao, throughout out one of his enterprise “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”, has already registered several foreign-trademarks (English-wording) under different classes, partially connected to our industry-segment.

當(dāng)搜索聚焦在中文商標(biāo)時(shí)，也會(huì)產(chǎn)生同樣的結(jié)果，甚至更糟，更好的情況說(shuō)明見(jiàn)下圖。你可能很容易發(fā)現(xiàn)，很多注冊(cè)的商標(biāo)名稱都有與我公司類似或相同的文字（有些人可能會(huì)認(rèn)為它們代表著虛假模仿、擅自占用或仿冒品牌）

Same thing – or even worse – happens when a research is triggered with focus on the Chinese version of the trademarks, as better specified in the Exhibit listed below. As you may easily understand, there are plenty registrations having a similar and/or identical wording [some people may even consider that they represent deceitful imitation, squatter or copycat brands] with our Company’s name.

由此可見(jiàn)，由夏寶注冊(cè)的中文商標(biāo)與我公司中文商標(biāo)可能僅有兩字之差（例如：“麗多可碧歐”與“麗多可”），而英文商標(biāo)幾乎雷同。我公司商標(biāo)的原始版本與夏寶先生創(chuàng)建的最主要不同將追溯到商標(biāo)注冊(cè)時(shí)的國(guó)際分類上：我公司產(chǎn)品主要應(yīng)用于建筑材料行業(yè)領(lǐng)域（例如建筑砂漿、石膏、水泥等），而夏寶先生的商標(biāo)則是隨機(jī)分布的。

It can be seen that the Chinese trademarks registered by such person [Xiao Bao] may only be two words different from our Chinese trademarks (i.e. "Li Duo Ke Bi Ou" vs "Li Duo Ke"), while the English-wording trademarks are almost the same. The main difference between the original version of our trademarks and the alternative options created by Xiao Bao, sometimes it shall be traced back to the international classification under which the marks were registered: our products are mainly used in the field of building materials industry (i.e. building mortar, gypsum, cement, etc.); while his ones are randomly spread.

在此提供我公司（LITOKOL/麗多可）所有的官方信息供您參考，旨在讓任何感興趣的一方人士能夠方便識(shí)別我司與其他未經(jīng)授權(quán)的個(gè)體/實(shí)體。更多詳細(xì)信息可在CTMO在線數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)（http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn）和其他知名中文網(wǎng)站平臺(tái)上（https://www.tianyancha.com）查詢，只需搜索我們的官方公司名字即可。

For your information, hereby we share all the official data connected to our Company [LITOKOL/麗多可], with the intent to let any interested party to easily recognize us from any other un-authorized individual/entity. More details can be easily find both on CTMO online database [http://wsjs.saic.gov.cn], as well as on other well-known Chinese website platform such as [https://www.tianyancha.com/] by simply researching our official Company name.

除上述之外，由于2019年3月在APP今日頭條上發(fā)布的一篇與上述信息主題相同的新聞，夏寶先生和“帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”在中國(guó)媒體中出了名。該篇文章主要敘述了由夏寶先生注冊(cè)的眾多商標(biāo)與國(guó)內(nèi)外企業(yè)在中國(guó)大陸注冊(cè)的商標(biāo)的相似性。如需更多信息，請(qǐng)查看以下鏈接：https://www.toutiao.com/i6671046521162564110

Despite the above, Xiao Bao and “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司” are also well-known among Chinese media, because last March 2019 some news was published on the same topic by 今日頭條 APP. The article was mainly focus on the similarity of the trademarks registered by Xiao Bao with those brands belonging both to foreign and domestic enterprises based in Mainland China. For more information, feel free to check the following link: [https://www.toutiao.com/i6671046521162564110]

必須明確的是我們無(wú)法確認(rèn)該文章內(nèi)容的可靠性，因此，我司將此類媒體所傳達(dá)的內(nèi)容本身和結(jié)論分離開(kāi)來(lái)。我們的目的只是為讀者提供一個(gè)綜合框架，讀者可以自己體會(huì)，自由決定從這些事件中得出什么樣的評(píng)價(jià)。

It must be clear that we are not able to confirm whether the content of this article can be reliable and, therefore, our Company dissociates itself from the content and conclusion reached by such media. Our intent is to simply provide a comprehensive framework to our readers, who will be free to independently decided what kind of evaluation to draw from such events.

在這我們無(wú)法確定夏寶先生和“帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司”（包括但不局限于哪些支持并完成他目標(biāo)的商標(biāo)代理機(jī)構(gòu)）的這些活動(dòng)是否違反上述規(guī)則。然而，如果主管此方面的有關(guān)當(dāng)局認(rèn)為有必要進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的例行檢查，這將會(huì)是一個(gè)有趣的話題。

Here it is not possible to determine whether the actions and behavior performed by Xiao Bao and “帕尼多（徐州）信息科技有限公司” (including but not limited also to those Trademark Agencies that support him during the accomplishment of his goal) may or may not integrate a violation of the afore-mentioned rules. However, it can be an interesting topic on which the Authorities in charge may carried out further routine checks, if they deem it is necessary.

從法律的角度來(lái)看，時(shí)刻記住《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法》的條款和原則是有用的。根據(jù)其中的第五十七條，有下列行為之一的可視為侵犯注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)：

（一）«未經(jīng)商標(biāo)注冊(cè)人的許可，在同一種商品上使用與其注冊(cè)商標(biāo)相同的商標(biāo)的»；

（二）«未經(jīng)商標(biāo)注冊(cè)人的許可，在同一種商品上使用與其注冊(cè)商標(biāo)近似的商標(biāo)，或者在類似商品上使用與其注冊(cè)商標(biāo)相同或者近似的商標(biāo)，容易導(dǎo)致混淆的»；

（三）«銷售侵犯注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)的商品的»；

（四）«偽造、擅自制造他人注冊(cè)商標(biāo)標(biāo)識(shí)或者銷售偽造、擅自制造的注冊(cè)商標(biāo)標(biāo)識(shí)的»；

（五）«未經(jīng)商標(biāo)注冊(cè)人同意，更換其注冊(cè)商標(biāo)并將該更換商標(biāo)的商品又投入市場(chǎng)的»；

（六）«故意為侵犯他人商標(biāo)專用權(quán)行為提供便利條件，幫助他人實(shí)施侵犯商標(biāo)專用權(quán)行為的»；

（七）«給他人的注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)造成其他損害的»。

From a legal point of view, it is useful to keep in mind the clauses and principles state within PRC Trademark Law. According to the Article 57, any of the following acts shall be deemed to infringe the right of exclusive use of a registered trademark:

i.«Using a trademark that is identical with a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without obtaining licensing from the registrant of the registered trademark»; 
ii.«Using a trademark that is similar to a registered trademark on the same kind of goods, or using a trademark that is identical with or similar to the registered trademark on similar goods without obtaining licensing from the registrant of the registered trademark, and is likely to cause confusion»;
iii.«Selling goods that infringe on the exclusive right to the use of a registered trademark»;
iv.«Counterfeiting, or making without authorization, representations of another person's registered trademark, or selling such representations»;
v.«Altering a registered trademark without permission of its owner and selling goods bearing such an altered trademark on the market»;
vi.«Providing, intentionally, convenience for such acts as infringe upon others' exclusive right of trademark use, to facilitate others to commit infringement on the exclusive right of trademark use»
vii.«Impairing in other manners another person's exclusive right to the use of its registered trademark».

值得一提的是，新修訂版的《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法》將于2019年11月1日生效，主要針對(duì)惡意注冊(cè)現(xiàn)象。根據(jù)在高偉紳律師事務(wù)所官網(wǎng)（CLIFFORD CHANCE）上一篇新聞通訊發(fā)布的信息，新的修正案補(bǔ)充道，“任何無(wú)意使用的惡意申請(qǐng)都將被拒絕”

It is worth mentioning that a new amendment of the PRC Trademark Law will come into effect on November 1st, 2019 mainly focus to address registrations filed in bad faith. According to the information released by CLIFFORD CHANCE in its newsletter, the new amendment adds now that «any bad faith applications with no intent to use shall be rejected».

除了首次在立法層面意識(shí)到惡意注冊(cè)問(wèn)題之外，修正案還考慮采取以下措施來(lái)遏制和解決這一問(wèn)題：

In addition to recognizing the bad faith registration issues for the first time at a legislative level, the amendment contemplates the following measures to curb and tackles this problem:

- 審查員直接駁回

第4條允許商標(biāo)審查員在審查階段駁回惡意商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)。考慮到在商標(biāo)注冊(cè)表中同一申請(qǐng)方手中的數(shù)千搶注商標(biāo)的典型搶注情況，這一改變大受歡迎。

- Outright rejection by examiners

The Article 4 allows trademark examiners to reject apparent bad faith applications at the examination stage. This is a welcome change considering typical squatting situations involving thousands of squatted marks held by a same application on the trademark registry.

- 品牌所有者的反對(duì)/撤銷

《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法》第33條和第44條規(guī)定，不以使用為目的的惡意商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)是反對(duì)或撤銷的理由之一。該修正案提供了更明確的糾正措施，并有望減輕品牌所有者處理注冊(cè)沖突的負(fù)擔(dān)。

- Opposition/cancellation by brand owners

Article 33 and 44 of the PRC Trademark Law now codify that making a bad faith application with no intent to use is a ground for opposition or cancellation. The amendment appears to provide clearer redress and hopefully will lessen the burden of the part of brand owners to clear the conflict on the registry.

- 商標(biāo)代理機(jī)構(gòu)須負(fù)法律責(zé)任

根據(jù)第十九條規(guī)定，商標(biāo)代理機(jī)構(gòu)在知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道委托人申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)的商標(biāo)違反新修訂版的第四條規(guī)定(即不以使用為目的的惡意商標(biāo)注冊(cè)申請(qǐng))的情況下，不得接受其委托。第六十八條規(guī)定，對(duì)惡意申請(qǐng)商標(biāo)注冊(cè)的商標(biāo)代理機(jī)構(gòu)，繼續(xù)給予行政處罰。

- Trademark agency shall be held liable

According to the Article 19, a trademark agency may not represent an applicant where it knows or should have known that the mark being applied for violates amended Article 4 (i.e. a bad faith application with no intent to use). Article 68 goes on to provide administrative penalties against trademark agencies that take on representations for bad faith registration.

我們希望您能喜歡本篇文章！

We hope you enjoy reading it!