In May 2001, Yantai Changyu Group Co., Ltd. submitted an application for registration of the "Jiebaina" trademark to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce. After preliminary review and approval by the Trademark Office, it was announced. No one raised objections within the statutory objection period. The Trademark Office approved the registration in April 2002. The trademark registration certificate number is No. 1748888. The designated protected goods include wine, brandy, shochu, etc. , the exclusive period is until April 2012.
This move aroused opposition from wine manufacturers such as COFCO Great Wall. On July 10, 2002, the Trademark Office issued Trademark File No. (2002) No. 187 "Decision on Cancellation of the Registered Trademark No. 1748888 "Caibina", holding that "Caibina" is the name of the raw material variety of red wine. The registered trademark shall be revoked. At the same time, several wine production companies such as Great Wall, Weilong, and Dynasty also jointly submitted applications to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for cancellation of registration on the grounds that "Cabernet" is the common name of wine and the main raw material for making wine, requesting the cancellation of "Cabernet" "Jiebaina" trademark.
In response to the revocation decision made by the Trademark Office, Changyu Company submitted a review request to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. At the same time, dispute applications filed by Great Wall and other companies are also being reviewed by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. On May 26, 2008, after repeated arguments and multiple rounds of reviews, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made Decision No. 05143 (2008) revoking the Trademark Office’s Decision No. 187 and rejected the revocation request from Great Wall and other units. Trademark Dispute Ruling No. 05115 of Shang Ping Zi (2008) upholds the trademark registration of Changyu Company No. 1748888 "Jiebaina" registered on Class 33 wine (beverage) and other commodities. Decision No. 05143 has taken legal effect. The "Jiebaina" trademark is still a valid registered trademark.
Due to dissatisfaction with the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, in June 2008, COFCO Liquor Company, Weilong Company (the company withdrew the lawsuit during the trial of the case), Dynasty Company, and Great Wall Company filed a lawsuit against Beijing No. 1 Middle School The court filed an administrative lawsuit. In October 2008, the court held two public hearings on the case, and after more than a year, it recently made a first-instance judgment.
1. Is "Cabernet" a common name?
Obviously, the focus of the conflict between the two parties is the dispute over the brand and variety of Cabernet.
According to the provisions of my country's Trademark Law, common names refer to product names regulated by national standards, industry standards or by convention.
First, "Cabernet" is Changyu's original trademark name in the 1930s and is not a translation of "cabernet". What's more, the French word "cabernet" has many translations, such as "Cabernet", "Cabernet", "Cabernet", etc. "Cabernet" and "cabernet" have not formed a fixed Correspondence.
Secondly, in all domestic and international standards related to grape varieties, there is no statement that "Cabernet" and "cabernet" are grape varieties and strains.
Third, in the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) regulations and national wine standards, dry red wine, sweet white wine, etc. are common names for wine, and no wine is classified as "unsolved". "Bernard type wine".
2. Expert opinions from authoritative departments
The Grape Branch of the Chinese Agricultural Society gave the same conclusion on this dispute. They believe: “In the list of nearly a thousand grape varieties that have been published in China, there is no Cabernet variety, and the variety name Cabernet has never been used in national grape academia and production.” “About the strain issue. , among all the nutritional systems of Chinese and foreign wine grape varieties, the name of Cabernet nutritional system or strain has never appeared. "
"It is consistent with the regulations of the International Organization of Grapes and Wines (OIV) GB15037-2006. The provisions of national wine standards: wine names are classified according to color and luster, and are divided into white wine, rosé wine, and red wine; according to sugar content, they are divided into dry, semi-dry, semi-sweet, and sweet types.
Therefore, dry red wine, sweet white wine, etc. are all common names for wine, and no wine is classified as 'Cabernet wine', so 'Cabernet' is not a common name for the product," the China Winemaking Industry Association affirmed He told reporters, “Defining ‘Cabernet’ as a common name is inconsistent with internationally accepted norms and guidelines. ”
Legal experts believe: “There was a Supreme Court decision four or five years ago that raised the issue of how to distinguish unique names or common names. A unique name refers to a product name that is not commonly used for related products, has significant distinctive features, and enables consumers to distinguish the product from similar products of other operators through its use on the product. Due to long-term historical reasons, Changyu Jiebina has not been registered as a trademark since the founding of the People's Republic of China, but it has been used in this state. The use of Changyu Jiebina has distinctive and distinctive features, which can distinguish it from other similar products. It already has the attributes of a trademark and does not belong to a common name. ”
Grape and Wine Branch of the Chinese Horticultural Society: “Cabernet” is not the name of a grape variety. According to the names and recognition standards of grape varieties named by my country’s crop and horticulture circles, there is no name for a grape variety It’s called “Cabernet”. Secondly, “Cabernet” is not a collective name for grape varieties (or varieties). In our country, Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon are three completely independent grape varieties. "Cabernet" does not conform to the concept of grape strains, and it is incorrect to classify the above three varieties into one strain.
Wang Qi, secretary-general of the China Winemaking Industry Association, believes that "Cabernet" has developed in 70 years After such a process, if Changyu's efforts on Cabernet are completely negated, it will not only harm a company, but also cause greater losses to the Chinese wine industry." Wang Qi also believes that innovation should be encouraged, protected, and individual corporate brands respected. , is to protect China’s wine industry.
Huang Yibiao, a senior lawyer at Beijing Wanhuida Law Firm, believes that since "Cabernet" is not a grape variety or strain, it cannot be used as a common name for grape raw materials.
Feng Xiaoqing, deputy director of the Intellectual Property Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, believes that there is a corresponding relationship between social public interests and individual interests, and social public interests are accessible to an unspecified majority of people. The interests shared by all parties are a kind of public resource, and the two should be protected in a balanced way: individual interests cannot be harmed in the name of public interests.
Dong Baolin, director of the Expert Committee of the China Trademark Association of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and vice president of the Beijing Intellectual Property Research Association, believes that if the "Jie Baina" dispute continues and is not handled properly, it will not only damage Changyu Company A company’s trademark rights. If "Cabernet" is made into a generic name, foreign wine manufacturers can also use it. In this way, a national brand that Chinese enterprises have cultivated with great difficulty will disappear, which will further affect the competitiveness of our national brands in the international market.
3. The source of Jie Baina’s misunderstanding
The root cause can be traced back to 1956.
After the founding of New China, Changyu actually shouldered the important task of being the national wine training base. At that time, according to the instructions of the Ministry of Light Industry, Changyu Company was responsible for hosting the Wine and Wine University, which trained wine-making professionals nationwide for the country, and used Changyu Company as a teaching base.
In order to facilitate lectures and on-site teaching, teachers and technical workers habitually refer to the raw wine brewed from grape varieties such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon as the production method of "Cabernet" in the workshop. liquor. Therefore, some students mistakenly believed that the above-mentioned grape varieties are called "Cabernet", which left hidden dangers for subsequent erroneous statements about Cabernet.
According to reports, from the 1930s to the 1980s, there was no mention of "Cabernet" as a variety in various books and periodicals in the country. It was not until the 1980s that this statement appeared in some books and periodicals. Cabernet Sauvignon was called Cabernet, and Cabernet Franc was called Cabernet Sauvignon and Camenette. This was because there was not much information about wine in China at that time, and the translation There is a deviation in this, which to some extent misleads some authors. Therefore, the subsequent opinions about Jiebaina were so confusing that the dispute over Jiebaina had an opportunity to take advantage of it.
4. The essence of the Jiebaina dispute
For more than 70 years, Changyu Company has always used 'Jiebaina' as a brand and a registered trademark, which is undeniable. Continuity. The vitality of the "Jiebaina" trademark is also one of the few in the history of China's national industrial trademarks. A few other companies plagiarized and imitated Changyu's Cabernet dry red wine. Their production time was in the late 1990s. Just because a few companies plagiarized and imitated Cabernet in recent years does not mean it is a grape variety or strain. Or the common name of the goods, but deny a trademark with a vitality of 70 years.
However, the battle over Jie Baina may no longer be limited to the dispute over trademark registration! In a larger sense, the essence of this debate is whether the fundamental interests of consumers can be guaranteed.
“In fact, the most serious losses are consumers!” An industry expert pointedly pointed out, “More than 30 Cabernets are swarming up, ranging from more than 10 yuan to more than 80 yuan, and consumers will be dazzled by them. Authenticity.”
An industry veteran believes that if Changyu successfully registers Cabernet, it will be a heavy blow to the wine industry!
It seems that consumer interests and industry interests are the focus of the debate!
However, an industry expert has a very different view. He believes that in fact, the real interests that are harmed are only the interests of some small groups in the industry that are counterfeiting Cabernet dry red. They cannot represent the entire industry. industry interests. In the long run, the interests of the industry and the interests of consumers should reach the same goal.
In fact, the reason why Changyu Cabernet has a long history, a strong market and various honors is because it is the real image of Cabernet in the minds of consumers.
5. Overview of the progress of the Changyu Jiebaina trademark case
In May 2001, Changyu applied to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for registration of the Jiebaina trademark; in April 2002, the State Trademark Office issued the registration However, due to joint opposition from enterprises in the industry, the State Trademark Office revoked the registered trademark three months later. Changyu expressed dissatisfaction, and the case has since entered a lengthy administrative review.
In June 2008, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that Cabernet is not a common grape variety or product name commonly used in the industry, but is a wine trademark owned by Changyu Group.
In the same month, more than a dozen wine production companies including Great Wall, Weilong, and Dynasty protested. They believed that Cabernet is the common name of wine, the main raw material for making wine, and a public resource of the industry. No company has the right to possess it privately. They then jointly filed a lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court.
On December 30, 2009, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court issued the first-instance judgment on the case. The court held that since the plaintiff and the third party submitted a large amount of evidence during the litigation process that may affect the outcome of the substantive decision of the case, if it is not considered, it will not be conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of both parties, especially the possibility of harming social welfare. * interests, therefore, the judgment is to revoke the defendant’s Trademark Review and Adjudication Board’s ruling No. 05115, and make a new ruling based on considering the new evidence submitted by the parties.
Feng Xiaoqing, deputy director of the Intellectual Property Research Center of China University of Political Science and Law, said in an interview with a reporter from China Intellectual Property News: The first-instance judgment only requires the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to re-ruminate "the trademark dispute request submitted by COFCO Great Wall", and is not a direct judgment. Who wins and who loses in the trademark dispute? The legal procedures of this case have not yet been completed, and the legal effect of the "Jiebaina" trademark registration will not change in any way.