盈理幸自奇律师受邀在World Trademark Review发表的知识产权诉讼专题文章获得编辑再次推荐

幸自奇律师曾受邀并于2023年8月25日在该专栏上发表专题文章《专家篇章：中国从业者诉诸于民事诉讼打击商标抢注者》（Specialist Chapter: Practitioners in China Turn to Civil Litigation to Combat Trademark Squatters）。

WTR对“2024商标诉讼评论”中诉讼专题文章进行了回顾，在此期间，WTR内容编辑米莉·沃德女士(Millie Ward)采访了幸自奇律师，就在中国通过民事诉讼打击商标恶意抢注行为的法律救济方式及最新法律实践进行了探讨。

随后，米莉·沃德女士在2024年3月14日刊登的评论员文章中，对幸自奇律师已发表的诉讼专题文章进行了再次推荐。

WTR资深编辑伊丽莎白·卢瑟福德·约翰逊女士(Elizabeth Rutherford-Johnson)在领英上的推文写道“米莉·沃德女士提示读者特别关注加拿大、中国、德国和印度诉讼中的制胜策略…幸自奇律师(Ricky Xing)对充分利用诉讼保全程序提出了创造性建议，并分析了如何在打击商标抢注案件中通过反不正当竞争法寻求救济。”

以下为米莉·沃德女士评论员文章的中文摘要（因翻译原因对原文进行部分微调）：

在中国通过诉讼打击商标抢注者

Litigating against squatters in China

幸自奇律师提到，在中国通过民事诉讼为（商标抢注行为）提供救济成为一个“热门话题”,这是中国政府打击商标恶意抢注和囤积的尝试。2022年被国家知识产权局（CNIPA）主动驳回的商标申请数量惊人，达到37万件，占到了CNIPA审查总量700万件的2.5%，这说明（商标抢注和囤积）问题的严重性。行政程序、民事诉讼都被用来解决这一问题，例如CNIPA的恶意申请人名单和制裁制度（更多详情，请见《专家篇章：中国从业者诉诸于民事诉讼打击商标抢注者》）。

China’s exploration of civil litigation remedies has become a “hot topic”, Ricky Xing, as part of the country’s efforts to combat trademark squatting and hoarding. The sheer volume of rejected trademark filings in 2022 – a staggering 370,000, or 2.5% of the 7 million trademarks examined by the CNIPA – illustrates the scale of the problem. Administrative and civil actions are being leveraged to tackle this, such as the maintenance of a bad-faith applicants list by the CNIPA and the threat of sanctions (for further detail, see “Specialist Chapter: Practitioners in China Turn to Civil Litigation to Combat Trademark Squatters”).

适用《反不正当竞争法》规制商标抢注案件有一个相当矛盾的前提，这可能会给诉讼当事人带来法律适用的障碍。法律规定当事人必须是市场上的竞争对手，但这一前提条件在打击商标抢注和囤积的诉讼中恐怕难以满足 -- 此类案件中一方当事人为商标权人，通常为受人尊敬的品牌所有者或公司；而另一方则是规模较小、以恶意抢注为人所知的被告。

There is a rather paradoxical prerequisite for China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law to be applied to squatting cases, which can potentially cause problems for litigants. The law states that parties must be competitors in the market for it to apply, but this is unlikely to be the case if – as is so often true in squatting and hoarding litigations – one party is a registered, esteemed brand owner or corporation, bringing charges against a smaller, less reputable defendant that has filed in bad faith.

尽管在法律适用上存在障碍，但中国法院果断地对法律中“竞争者”定义采取了宽泛的解释方法。诉讼当事人应了解竞争对手的情况，但如果他们选择对不诚信的（商标）恶意申请人提起民事诉讼，这个（法律适用障碍）不会对他们的诉讼策略产生影响。

Despite this tension, the Chinese courts have taken a decidedly broad approach to what is meant by ‘competitor’ in the context of the law. Litigants should be aware of the competitor condition, but relax in the knowledge that it should not impact their strategy if they choose to take civil action against a bad-faith applicant.

幸自奇律师建议到，在中国提起诉讼的权利人应当“善用诉讼保全程序”。它的宝贵性在于不仅能冻结（被告资产），还为收集更多证据提供契机，这反过来又能提高获得胜诉判决的可能性。

Xing suggests that rights holders considering litigation in China should “use litigation preservation wisely”. Certainly, it remains invaluable for freezing proceedings and allowing time to collect evidence, which can in turn facilitate a more favourable judgement.