就“金银花”商标密集维权 原告被指恶意敛财

江西一行业协会称涉事商标已被撤销

　　从去年开始，一众商标维权案闹得沸沸扬扬。近日，江西数十家“金银花花露水”生产企业也一度遭遇“金银花”商标问题纠纷。对此，1月25日，江西省保健与消毒产品行业协会发表声明，第603857号金银花商标早在1994年已被撤销，诉讼单位上海碧丽公司是恶意敛财。

　　密集维权

　　所涉官司超九成为商标权纠纷

　　北京青年报记者了解到，日前，多家企业因生产了“金银花花露水”等产品，被“金银花”商标持有人上海碧丽化妆品有限公司起诉。有消息称，该公司总起诉金额约1200万元。

　　北青报记者查询企查查App注意到，成立于1995年的上海碧丽化妆品公司，在2019年突然较为密集地打起商标维权官司。该公司目前涉及司法案件114件，近94%的案件是侵害商标权纠纷。

　　根据部分裁判文书，上海碧丽以侵害603857号“金银花”商标专用权起诉多家公司。北青报记者查询发现，该公司所持的603857号“金银花”商标处于“无效程序中”，其另外一个“金银花”商标39922281号，也处于“驳回复审中”，并未注册成功。

　　北青报记者了解到，“金银花”商标早就被撤销。撤销理由包括该商标直接表示了商品的主要原料，“已属注册不当。”

　　行业协会

　　案件涉及的商标已被撤销

　　针对此事，1月25日，江西省保健与消毒产品行业协会发表声明。声明中提到，该协会部分成员反映因生产、销售“金银花花露水”涉侵犯第603857号“金银花”被上海碧丽化妆品有限公司起诉。

　　该协会通过正规渠道发现，第603857号金银花商标在1994年1月27日作出的(1994)商评字第15号“金银花”商标注册不当裁定书以违反1982年《商标法》第八条6款、8款及二十七条的规定为由予以撤销；并由商标局1995年3月28日进行公告。

　　After receiving the summons from Shanghai Bili Company, the affiliated enterprises of the association signed a so-called trademark understanding agreement ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 under the pressure of Bili Company's lawyers because they did not know that the honeysuckle trademark was revoked. And paid the compensation; many of the compensation was paid to the shareholders of Bili Company, or the private bank card number of the person outside the case, or to the account of the law firm involved in the lawsuit.

At present, the well-documented compensation has reached several million yuan.

　　defendant enterprise

　　Counterclaim plaintiff has malicious action

　　The association stated in the statement that the current so-called trademark lawsuit of Shanghai Bili Company is to defend its rights by touching porcelain with a trademark that does not have a basis for rights, and it is maliciously collecting money. This behavior has caused public outrage in the industry.

　　A reporter from Beiqing Daily learned that at present, many corporate attorneys who were sued by Shanghai Bili in court said that they had received notices from the court of the plaintiff's withdrawal of the lawsuit, and many of these cases had already been completed.

However, some lawyers said that the defendant companies did not accept the plaintiff's withdrawal, and some had already sent the court an application for non-withdrawal and a counterclaim, counterclaiming that the plaintiff had a malicious lawsuit; some had previously applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. The Supreme Court has accepted.

　　Text / reporter Zhang Xin