在生產經營活動中(zhong)，自(zi)行(xing)改變他人授權(quan)使(shi)用(yong)的(de)注冊商標的(de)行(xing)為，是否構成侵權(quan)？日(ri)前，濟南(nan)中(zhong)院一案例入選最高(gao)法(fa)院發布的(de)第三批種(zhong)業知(zhi)識產權(quan)司法(fa)保護(hu)典型案例，對該行(xing)為做(zuo)出了認定(ding)。

      西葫蘆品種“魯葫1號” 系山東某種子公司培育而(er)成。壽(shou)光某(mou)蔬菜(cai)種(zhong)(zhong)業(ye)(ye)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)、平原(yuan)某(mou)種(zhong)(zhong)業(ye)(ye)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)通過(guo)廣告(gao)、展陳、觀(guan)摩及訂貨(huo)會等多種(zhong)(zhong)形式宣傳、生產和銷售(shou)標(biao)有(you)西葫(hu)蘆(lu)(lu)新品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)“魯葫(hu)1號”字樣的西葫(hu)蘆(lu)(lu)品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)。案(an)外人壽(shou)光某(mou)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)系第45401365號“魯葫(hu)”注冊商(shang)(shang)標(biao)專用(yong)權人，2020年(nian)12月1日，該(gai)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)許可壽(shou)光某(mou)蔬菜(cai)種(zhong)(zhong)業(ye)(ye)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)使(shi)用(yong)該(gai)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)。山東(dong)某(mou)種(zhong)(zhong)子(zi)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)認(ren)為壽(shou)光某(mou)蔬菜(cai)種(zhong)(zhong)業(ye)(ye)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)、平原(yuan)某(mou)種(zhong)(zhong)業(ye)(ye)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)侵害(hai)了其植物新品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)權；壽(shou)光某(mou)蔬菜(cai)種(zhong)(zhong)業(ye)(ye)公(gong)(gong)司(si)(si)(si)(si)主張其包(bao)裝、銷售(shou)的產品(pin)所標(biao)注“魯葫(hu)1號”系“魯葫(hu)”注冊商(shang)(shang)標(biao)權人的授權使(shi)用(yong)，其所售(shou)品(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)實際為“京葫(hu)43”。

      法院審理

      經審理查(cha)明, 被(bei)訴侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)人(ren)在(zai)產(chan)(chan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)包裝(zhuang)正(zheng)面將“魯葫(hu)(hu)”與(yu)“1號(hao)”連續使(shi)(shi)用(yong)，改(gai)變了(le)(le)“魯葫(hu)(hu)”注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)的文字(zi)內(nei)容。據商(shang)(shang)標(biao)法(fa)的規定(ding)，商(shang)(shang)標(biao)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)人(ren)在(zai)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)的過程中(zhong)，不(bu)(bu)應(ying)自行(xing)(xing)改(gai)變注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)。授權(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種的品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種名稱與(yu)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)無論是(shi)文字(zi)本身還(huan)是(shi)內(nei)在(zai)含義均存在(zai)不(bu)(bu)同，若規范(fan)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)“魯葫(hu)(hu)”注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)，足(zu)以(yi)區分被(bei)訴侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)種子的來源。被(bei)訴侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)人(ren)在(zai)產(chan)(chan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)包裝(zhuang)正(zheng)面將“魯葫(hu)(hu)”與(yu)“1號(hao)”連續使(shi)(shi)用(yong)，改(gai)變了(le)(le)“魯葫(hu)(hu)”注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)的文字(zi)內(nei)容，屬于不(bu)(bu)規范(fan)使(shi)(shi)用(yong)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)的行(xing)(xing)為，其以(yi)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)性使(shi)(shi)用(yong)為由主張不(bu)(bu)侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)的抗辯不(bu)(bu)能成(cheng)立。山東(dong)省濟(ji)南(nan)市中(zhong)級人(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)于2022年3月(yue)(yue)11日作出（2021）魯01知(zhi)民(min)初445號(hao)民(min)事判(pan)決(jue)，決(jue)認為被(bei)告壽光某(mou)(mou)蔬(shu)菜種業(ye)(ye)(ye)公(gong)司未經原(yuan)(yuan)告許可，以(yi)商(shang)(shang)業(ye)(ye)(ye)目(mu)的生產(chan)(chan)、銷(xiao)售涉(she)案侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)產(chan)(chan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)的行(xing)(xing)為，構成(cheng)對原(yuan)(yuan)告植(zhi)物新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種權(quan)的侵(qin)(qin)犯，應(ying)承擔(dan)停止侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)、賠償損失的責任(ren)；被(bei)告平原(yuan)(yuan)某(mou)(mou)種業(ye)(ye)(ye)公(gong)司以(yi)商(shang)(shang)業(ye)(ye)(ye)目(mu)的銷(xiao)售涉(she)案侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)產(chan)(chan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)的行(xing)(xing)為，構成(cheng)對原(yuan)(yuan)告植(zhi)物新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種權(quan)的侵(qin)(qin)犯，應(ying)承擔(dan)停止侵(qin)(qin)權(quan)、賠償損失的責任(ren)。判(pan)決(jue)后，壽光某(mou)(mou)蔬(shu)菜種業(ye)(ye)(ye)公(gong)司、平原(yuan)(yuan)某(mou)(mou)種業(ye)(ye)(ye)公(gong)司向(xiang)最高(gao)人(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)提(ti)起(qi)上訴。最高(gao)人(ren)民(min)法(fa)院(yuan)于2022年11月(yue)(yue)3日作出（2022）最高(gao)法(fa)知(zhi)民(min)終(zhong)1296號(hao)民(min)事判(pan)決(jue)，駁回上訴，維持原(yuan)(yuan)判(pan)。

法官說法

李玉 濟南中院知產法庭四級高級法官

      問題一：被告以“魯葫”注冊商標為由主張不侵權的抗辯能否成立？

      《商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)法》第二十四條規定(ding)，注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)需要改(gai)(gai)(gai)變其(qi)標(biao)(biao)(biao)志(zhi)的，應(ying)當重(zhong)新(xin)提出注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)申請。根據(ju)該規定(ding)，商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)人在(zai)使(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)的過程(cheng)中，不應(ying)自行改(gai)(gai)(gai)變注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)。授權(quan)品種(zhong)的品種(zhong)名稱與注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)無論是文字本身還是內在(zai)含義均存在(zai)不同，若規范使(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)“魯葫(hu)”注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)，足以(yi)區分被(bei)訴(su)侵權(quan)種(zhong)子的來(lai)源。被(bei)訴(su)侵權(quan)人在(zai)產品包(bao)裝正面將“魯葫(hu)”與“1號”連(lian)續使(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)，改(gai)(gai)(gai)變了“魯葫(hu)”注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)的文字內容，屬于不規范使(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)注(zhu)(zhu)冊(ce)(ce)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)的行為，其(qi)以(yi)商(shang)(shang)標(biao)(biao)(biao)性使(shi)用(yong)(yong)(yong)(yong)為由(you)主張(zhang)不侵權(quan)的抗辯(bian)不能成(cheng)立(li)。

      問題二：授權品種繁殖材料的植物新品種名稱是否具有唯一性？

      《種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)子法（2015年修訂）》第二十七條規(gui)定，授予(yu)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)，應當(dang)與(yu)相(xiang)同或者(zhe)相(xiang)近的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)屬或者(zhe)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)中已知品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)相(xiang)區別(bie)。該(gai)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)經授權(quan)后(hou)即為(wei)該(gai)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)通用(yong)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)。下列名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)不得用(yong)于(yu)授權(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)命名(ming)(ming)：（一(yi)）僅以數字表示的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)；（二）違反(fan)社會公德的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)；（三）對(dui)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)特征、特性或者(zhe)育(yu)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)者(zhe)身份等容易引(yin)起誤(wu)解的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)。同一(yi)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)在申(shen)請(qing)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)保(bao)護、品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)審(shen)定、品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)登(deng)記(ji)(ji)、推廣、銷(xiao)售(shou)(shou)時只能使(shi)用(yong)同一(yi)個(ge)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)。生產推廣、銷(xiao)售(shou)(shou)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)子應當(dang)與(yu)申(shen)請(qing)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)保(bao)護、品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)審(shen)定、品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)登(deng)記(ji)(ji)時提供的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)樣品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)相(xiang)符(fu)。品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)是一(yi)個(ge)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)區別(bie)于(yu)其他植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)重要外(wai)在標志。品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)權(quan)人(ren)應當(dang)確保(bao)授權(quan)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)在申(shen)請(qing)審(shen)定以及之后(hou)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)生產推廣中保(bao)持一(yi)致(zhi)，以使(shi)得市場(chang)主(zhu)體(ti)能夠準(zhun)確識別(bie)相(xiang)應品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)。若同一(yi)植(zhi)(zhi)物(wu)(wu)(wu)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)在申(shen)請(qing)新品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)保(bao)護、品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)審(shen)定、品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)登(deng)記(ji)(ji)、推廣、銷(xiao)售(shou)(shou)等不同階(jie)段使(shi)用(yong)不同名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)即屬于(yu)“一(yi)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)多名(ming)(ming)”，構成違法行為(wei)，應當(dang)依法承擔相(xiang)應責(ze)任(ren)。因此(ci)，品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)唯(wei)一(yi)性，確保(bao)了(le)品(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)(pin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)與(yu)名(ming)(ming)稱(cheng)(cheng)之間的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)對(dui)應關系。對(dui)維護種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)子使(shi)用(yong)者(zhe)合法權(quan)益、促進(jin)種(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)(zhong)子市場(chang)的(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)(de)繁榮穩(wen)定和(he)健(jian)康發(fa)展有著重要意義(yi)。

      問題三：不通過DNA比對，僅憑被訴侵權品種外包裝標注的“魯葫1號” 能否直接推定認定被訴侵權品種繁殖材料為授權品種繁殖材料？

      《最高人民法院關于審理侵害植物新品種權糾紛案件具體應用法律問題的若干規定（二）》第六條規定，品種權人或者利害關系人（以下合稱權利人）舉證證明被訴侵權品種繁殖材料使用的名稱與授權品種相同的，人民法院可以推定該被訴侵權品種繁殖材料屬于授權品種的繁殖材料。在訴訟中，當品種權人舉證證明被訴侵權品種繁殖材料使用的名稱與授權品種相同時，被訴侵權人往往以被訴侵權品種繁殖材料并非授權品種繁殖材料為由提出抗辯。此時，如果要求品種權人提供進一步的證據以證明被訴侵權品種繁殖材料確系授權品種繁殖材料，則品種權人將不得不采取鑒定等方式實現證明目的，大大增加維權難度。實際上，品種權的名稱有相應的法律制度規范，授權品種的名稱具有獨特性，系該品種的通用名稱。種子法規定，授予植物新品種權的植物新品種名稱，應當與相同或者相近的植物屬或者種中已知品種的名稱相區別。該名稱經授權后即為該植物新品種的通用名稱。同一植物品種在申請新品種保護、品種審定、品種登記、推廣、銷售時只能使用同一個名稱。據此，如果被訴侵權人使用授權品種的名稱從事侵權行為，其涉及的繁殖材料屬于授權品種繁殖材料的可能性極大，根據民事訴訟的“高度蓋然性”的證明標準，本案直接推定認定被訴侵權品種繁殖材料即為授權品種繁殖材料。這種舉證責任的適時轉移，有效降低了品種權人的維權難度，體現了切實保護植物新品種權、嚴厲打擊侵權行為、激勵種業科技創新的司法追求。