May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
Typical Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court Regarding Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry by People's Courts (First Batch) [Effective]
最高人民法院发布人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例(第一批) [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】
 
  
  
Model Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court Regarding Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in the Seed Industry by People's Courts Published by the Supreme People's Court (First Batch) 

最高人民法院发布人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例(第一批)

(September 7, 2021) (2021年9月7日)

I. Henan Goldoctor Seed Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Doneed Seed Co., Ltd. and Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 一、河南金博士种业股份有限公司诉北京德农种业有限公司、河南省农业科学院侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
II. Jiangsu Province Jindi Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Qingengtian Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 二、江苏省金地种业科技有限公司诉江苏亲耕田农业产业发展有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
III. Jiangsu Mingtian Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Xiangshui Jinmancang Seed Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 三、江苏明天种业科技股份有限公司诉响水金满仓种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
IV. Sichuan Lvdan Zhicheng Seed Co., Ltd. v. Luzhou Taifeng Seed Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 四、四川绿丹至诚种业有限公司诉泸州泰丰种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
V. Xiamen Agripowers Seed Co., Ltd. v. Jiuquan Sanbao Seed Co., Ltd. and Villagers' Committee of Guanshankou Village in Jinfosi Town, Suzhou District, Jiuquan City, Gansu Province (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 五、厦门华泰五谷种苗有限公司诉酒泉三保种业有限责任公司、甘肃省酒泉市肃州区金佛寺镇观山口村村民委员会侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
VI. Jiangsu Gaoke Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Qin Yonghong (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 六、江苏省高科种业科技有限公司诉秦永宏侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
VII. CAAS Zhengzhou Fruit Research Institute v. Bailing Fruit Plantation in Erqi District of Zhengzhou City (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) 七、中国农业科学院郑州果树研究所诉郑州市二七区百领水果种植园侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
VIII. Heilongjiang Sunshine Seed Co., Ltd. v. Reexamination Board for New Varieties of Plants (administrative dispute over reexamination of rejection of an application for a new plant variety) 八、黑龙江阳光种业有限公司诉植物新品种复审委员会植物新品种申请驳回复审行政纠纷案
IX. In re Jiuquan A Yu Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. and Wang Deo (criminal case of production and sales of fake and inferior products) 九、酒泉某豫农业科技有限公司、王某某生产、销售伪劣产品案
X. In re Sai Doe (criminal case of counterfeiting registered trademarks) 十、赛某某假冒注册商标案
I. Henan Goldoctor Seed Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Doneed Seed Co., Ltd. and Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights)   一、河南金博士种业股份有限公司诉北京德农种业有限公司、河南省农业科学院侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
Petition for retrial: No. 4587 [2018], a civil judgment on petition for retrial of the Supreme People's Court 申请再审:最高人民法院(2018)最高法民申4587号
Second instance: No. 00356 [2015], a final civil judgment on IP of the High People's Court of Henan Province 二审:河南省高级人民法院(2015)豫法知民终字第00356号
First instance: No. 720 [2014], a first-instance civil judgment on IP of the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province 一审:河南省郑州市中级人民法院(2014)郑知民初字第720号
[Basic Facts] The corn variety "Zhengdan 958" was produced by crossing the female parent "Zheng 58" with the male parent "Chang 7-2," which was already in the public domain. The right holders of new plant varieties "Zheng 58" and "Zhengdan 958" were respectively Henan Goldoctor Seed Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as "Goldoctor Company") and the Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the "HAAS"). The HAAS and Beijing Doneed Seed Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Doneed Company") signed a Licensing Contract on the Hybrid Corn Variety "Zhengdan 958" and a supplementary agreement, under which Doneed Company was licensed to sell the hybrid corn variety "Zhengdan 958" for a certain period, and Doneed Company shall be responsible for dealing with any rights and interests of any third party involved in the process of seed production of Doneed Company for the purpose of performance of the contract, if any. Under license, Doneed Company began producing and selling the hybrid corn variety "Zhengdan 958" in large quantities in Gansu province after obtaining the Crop Seed Business Permit. Goldoctor Company asserted that Doneed Company committed infringement by its unauthorized act of using "Zheng 58" to produce and propagate the hybrid corn variety "Zhengdan 958" after the expiration of the license, and thus filed an action claiming that Doneed Company shall cease infringement and pay Goldoctor Company 49.52 million yuan in compensation for its economic losses and reasonable expenses, and that the HAAS shall be jointly and severally liable. 【基本案情】 母本“郑58”与已属于公有领域的父本“昌7-2”杂交而成“郑单958”玉米品种。“郑58”和“郑单958”的植物新品种权人分别为河南金博士种业股份有限公司(以下简称金博士公司)和河南省农业科学院(以下简称农科院)。农科院与北京德农种业有限公司(以下简称德农公司)签订《玉米杂交种“郑单958”许可合同》及补充协议,许可德农公司在一定期限内销售“郑单958”玉米杂交种,德农公司为履行合同而进行制种生产过程中涉及第三方权益的由德农公司负责。德农公司依据授权,在取得《农作物种子经营许可证》后,在甘肃省开始大量生产、销售“郑单958”玉米杂交种。金博士公司认为德农公司在授权期限截止后,未经许可使用“郑58”生产、繁育“郑单958”玉米杂交种的行为,构成侵权,故诉请德农公司停止侵权、赔偿金博士公司经济损失及合理开支4952万元,并要求农科院承担连带责任。
[Judgment] The Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province held at first instance that Doneed Company was supposed to obtain a license anew from the right holder of the variety to continue using "Zheng 58" after the termination of the contract. As Doneed Company failed to obtain a license from Goldoctor Company and continued using "Zheng 58" to produce "Zhengdan 958" after being delivered a letter by Goldoctor Company, Doneed Company committed infringement. Given that strengthening the protection of new plant variety rights was conducive to promoting the national policy on rural areas, agriculture, and farmers and that as Doneed Company had obtained a license from the right holder of the variety "Zhengdan 958," paid corresponding royalties, and invested a large quantity of human and material resources in the production of the hybrid variety "Zhengdan 958," Doneed Company would have sustained huge economic losses if it had been prohibited from using the female parent "Zheng 58" to produce the hybrid corn variety "Zhengdan 958". As such, the means of paying a certain amount of compensation may be adopted to redress the loss of Goldoctor Company, and thus the Intermediate People's Court of Zhengzhou City, Henan Province rendered a judgment that Doneed Company should pay 49.52 million yuan in compensation for losses and reasonable expenses, that the HAAS should be liable to the extent of 3 million yuan, and that the other claims of Goldoctor Company should be dismissed. Both Doneed Company and the HAAS filed an appeal. The High People's Court of Henan Province held at second instance that the HAAS and Goldoctor Company were subject to a cross license under which Doneed Company should be responsible for dealing with any rights and interests of any third party involved in the process of production by Doneed Company, and that the HAAS was irrelevant. Therefore, the High People's Court of Henan Province rendered a judgment affirming the disposition by the court of first instance as to compensation for losses and reasonable expenses, and setting aside the disposition by the court of first instance as to the joint and several liability of the HAAS. Doneed Company was dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment and petitioned the Supreme People's Court for retrial. The Supreme People's Court rejected the petition for retrial from Doneed Company. 【裁判结果】 河南省郑州市中级人民法院一审认为,德农公司在合同终止后继续使用“郑58”必须重新取得品种权人许可。德农公司未取得金博士公司授权,在金博士公司发函后仍继续使用“郑58”生产“郑单958”,构成侵权。考虑到加强植物新品种权保护有助于推动国家三农政策,德农公司已经取得“郑单958”品种权人的授权许可,并已支付相应的使用费,为生产“郑单958”杂交种花费了大量的人力物力,若禁止德农公司使用母本“郑58”自交种生产“郑单958”玉米杂交种,将造成巨大的经济损失,可采取支付一定的赔偿费的方式弥补金博士公司的损失,故判决德农公司赔偿损失及合理开支4952万元,农科院在300万元内承担责任,驳回金博士公司的其他诉讼请求。德农公司和农科院均提起上诉。河南省高级人民法院二审认为,农科院和金博士公司实行相互授权模式,德农公司生产过程中涉及第三方权益时应由德农公司负责,与农科院无关,故判决维持一审法院关于赔偿损失和合理支出的判项,撤销一审法院关于农科院承担连带责任的判项。德农公司不服二审判决,向最高人民法院申请再审,最高人民法院驳回了德农公司的再审申请。
[Significance] This case is of guiding significance for disputes over infringement of new plant variety rights involving hybrid varieties and their relationships with their parents in the process of production of hybrid varieties. The law does not prohibit the use of protected varieties for breeding and other scientific research activities; however, after the granting of the rights to a new variety and the approval of the variety, the right holder of the new variety and its licensees are still required to obtain consent or license from the right holder of the protected variety as the parent if they promote the new variety on the market, and repeatedly use the propagating material of a protected variety of another person to produce the propagating material of the new variety. In this case, in view of the fact that the licensee had already spent a large quantity of human and material resources in propagating and promoting the hybrid variety, the loss of the right holder of the parent might be redressed by paying compensation for expenses. Therefore, with the factors such as subjective fault on the part of the infringer, profits realized, and continued profitability by not ceasing the use of the parent for production until the expiration of the protection period taken into account in determining the damages for infringement, the right holder's claim for compensation and reasonable expenses of 49.52 million yuan was upheld in full. The judgment on this case safeguarded the lawful rights and interests of the right holder of the variety in accordance with the law and meanwhile played a positive role in encouraging the cultivation and promotion of fine varieties. 【典型意义】 本案对杂交种生产中涉及杂交种及其亲本关系的植物新品种侵权纠纷具有指导意义。法律并不禁止利用授权品种进行育种及其他科研活动,但在新品种获得授权及通过品种审定后,该新品种的权利人及其被许可人面向市场推广该新品种,将他人已授权品种的繁殖材料重复用于生产该新品种的繁殖材料时,仍需经过作为父母本的已授权品种的权利人同意或许可。本案中,考虑到被许可人已经为杂交种繁育推广花费了大量的人力、物力,可以通过支付赔偿费用对亲本权利人的损失予以补偿。因此,在侵权损害赔偿确定时,综合侵权人的主观过错、获利情况、不停止使用亲本生产直至保护期满可以继续获利等因素,对权利人请求的4952万元的赔偿数额和合理支出予以了全额支持。本案判决在依法维护品种权人合法权益的同时,对鼓励培育及推广良种亦起到了积极的促进作用。
II. Jiangsu Province Jindi Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Qingengtian Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights)   二、江苏省金地种业科技有限公司诉江苏亲耕田农业产业发展有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
Second instance: No. 816 [2021], a final civil judgment on IP of the Supreme People's Court 二审:最高人民法院(2021)最高法知民终816号
First instance: No. 773 [2020], a first-instance civil judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province 一审:江苏省南京市中级人民法院(2020)苏01民初773号
[Basic Facts] Jiangsu Province Jindi Seed Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jindi Company") was the exclusive licensee of the new rice variety "Jinjing 818." Jiangsu Qingengtian Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Qingengtian Company") solicited potential traders, without permission, by offline promotion via physical stores, online publicity through publishing "agricultural industry chain information matching" in WeChat groups, and other means, provided specific information on the trading of infringing seed to those who became members of Qingengtian Company, arranged delivery of goods and receipt of payments after negotiating transaction prices, quantity, and delivery time with buyers, and publicly sold the seed of the rice variety "Jinjing 818" packaged in white bags. Jindi Company believed that Qingengtian Company's acts constituted infringement, and thus filed an action, claiming a judgment ordering Qingengtian Company to cease infringement and pay 3 million yuan in compensation for economic losses. Qingengtian Company argued that it only provided information on seed for their own use to seed suppliers and buyers who were farmers, that the suppliers and buyers traded on their own, and that it did not sell the alleged infringing seed of the rice variety "Jinjing 818." 【基本案情】 江苏省金地种业科技有限公司(以下简称金地公司)为水稻新品种“金粳 818”的独占实施被许可人,江苏亲耕田农业产业发展有限公司(以下简称亲耕田公司)未经许可,以线下门店推广以及在微信群内发布“农业产业链信息匹配” 线上宣传等方式,寻找潜在的交易者,并对成为亲耕田公司会员的主体提供具体的侵权种子交易信息,在与买家商定交易价格、数量、交货时间后安排送货收款,对外销售白皮袋包装的“金粳 818”稻种。金地公司认为亲耕田公司的行为构成侵权,故诉请判令亲耕田公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失300万元。亲耕田公司辩称其仅是向作为农民的种子供需双方提供自留种子信息,由供需双方自行交易,并未销售被诉侵权“金粳 818”稻种。
[Judgment] The Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province held at first instance that Qingengtian Company provided positive and effective assistance in the consummation of the seed transactions involved in the case; and that in terms of sellers, sales areas, and sales volume, Xingengtian Company's assistance in selling seed was not in line with the circumstances under which farmers lawfully traded excess ordinary seed propagated by them for their own use on local marketplaces, and thus constituted infringement. Comprehensively considering the circumstances of the infringement by Qingengtian Company, the court applied punitive damages to determine the amount of damages, and rendered a judgment that Qingengtian Company shall cease infringement and pay 3 million yuan in compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses. Qingengtian Company was dissatisfied with the judgement and filed an appeal. The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that as sales contracts were established in accordance with the law, and the sales acts were performed when Qingengtian Company released specific information on the sale of infringing seed and determined through negotiating with buyers the packaging methods, prices, quantity, time limit for performance, and other elements involved in transaction for the sale of seed, Qingengtian Company should be determined to commit infringement by sales activities, and thus the assistance in infringement determined by the court of first instance should be corrected; and that as Qingengtian Company illegally sold seed in "white bags" without a seed production and business permit and committed serious infringement, it was correct for the court of first instance to apply punitive damages twice the basis for damages. Therefore, the Supreme People's Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original judgment. 【裁判结果】 江苏省南京市中级人民法院一审认为,亲耕田公司为涉案种子交易的达成提供了积极有效的帮助。亲耕田公司帮助销售种子的过程中,在销售主体、销售地域及销售数量上均不符合农民在当地集贸市场上合法交易个人自繁自用剩余常规种子的情形,构成侵权。综合考虑亲耕田公司侵权行为的情节,适用惩罚性赔偿确定损害赔偿数额,判决亲耕田公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失及合理开支300万元。亲耕田公司不服,提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为,亲耕田公司发布侵权种子销售具体信息,与购买者协商确定种子买卖的包装方式、价款和数量、履行期限等交易要素,销售合同已经依法成立,销售行为已经实施,应认定亲耕田公司构成销售侵权,对一审法院认定的帮助侵权予以纠正。亲耕田公司没有获得种子生产经营许可证,违法销售“白皮袋”种子的行为,侵权行为严重,一审法院按照赔偿基数的二倍适用惩罚性赔偿正确,故判令驳回上诉,维持判。
[Significance] This case accurately determined the nature of the infringing acts carried out by the accused infringer under the pretext of business entities such as "farmers" and "large grain grower" through organizing buyers and sellers via information networks. When Qinengtian Company released specific information on the sale of infringing seed and negotiated with buyers to determine transaction elements for the sale of seed such as packaging methods, prices, quantity, and time limit for performance, sales contracts were established in accordance with the law. Qinengtian Company, as the organizer of and decision maker in transactions with respect to the alleged infringing seed, carried out sales acts, which constituted infringement. Qinengtian Company was not a farmer, and the seed involved in the seed sales information it released and in the information on the seed transactions it organized amounted to tens of thousands of jin (a traditional Chinese unit of mass, with 1 jin equal to 0.5 kg), which far exceeded the quantity and scale of those propagated by farmers for their own use. In terms of the amount of damages, Qingengtian Company stated that it did not keep records of relevant transactions, and was unable to provide relevant account books, therefore, the people's court inferred that it realized more than 1 million yuan in profit from infringement, by referring to Qingengtian Company's promotional materials showing transaction amount of more than 100 million yuan and taking into account the circumstances of the infringement, and used 1 million yuan as the basis for calculating damages in this case. Qingengtian Company organized the sale of infringing seed in white bags bearing no product information, and produced and distributed seed without obtaining a seed production and distribution permit, which violated the relevant provisions of the Seed Law and thus fell under serious circumstances of infringement. As a result, the punitive damages system was applicable in accordance with the law, according to which the amount of punitive damages should be determined to be not less than two times the basis for calculation. The actual total amount of damages was three times the amount of compensatory damages. In the end, the claims of the right holder were upheld in full, and Qingengtian Company was ordered to cease infringement and pay 3 million yuan in compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses. 【典型意义】 本案对于被诉侵权人以通过信息网络途径组织买卖各方,以“农民”“种粮大户”等经营主体名义为掩护实施的侵权行为进行了准确定性。亲耕田公司发布侵权种子销售具体信息,与购买方协商确定种子买卖的包装方式、价款和数量、履行期限等交易要素,销售合同已经依法成立,亲耕田公司系被诉侵权种子的交易组织者、决策者,实施了销售行为,构成侵权。亲耕田公司并非农民,其发布和组织交易的种子销售信息所涉种子数量达数万斤,远远超出了农民个人自繁自用的数量和规模。在赔偿数额上,亲耕田公司表示自己不留存有关交易记录,无法提供相关账簿,故人民法院参考亲耕田公司宣传交易额过亿的资料,综合考虑侵权情节,推定其侵权获利超出100万元,并以100万元作为计算本案赔偿基数。亲耕田公司组织销售不标注任何产品信息的白皮袋侵权种子、未取得种子生产经营许可证但生产经营种子,违反种子法相关规定,属于侵权行为情节严重,依法适用惩罚性赔偿制度,在计算基数的二倍以上从高确定惩罚性赔偿数额,实际赔偿总额为补偿性赔偿数额的三倍,最终全额支持权利人的诉讼请求,判令亲耕田公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失及合理开支300万元。
III. Jiangsu Mingtian Seed Technology Co., Ltd. v. Xiangshui Jinmancang Seed Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights)   三、江苏明天种业科技股份有限公司诉响水金满仓种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
Second instance: No. 1492 [2018], a final civil judgment of the High People's Court of Jiangsu Province 二审:江苏省高级人民法院(2018)苏民终1492号
First instance: No. 293 [2018], a first instance civil judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province 一审:江苏省南京市中级人民法院(2018)苏01民初293号
[Basic Facts] Jiangsu Mingtian Seed Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Mingtian Company") was the licensee of the wheat variety "Huaimai 33," and its agent and notaries purchased "Huaimai 33" sold by Xiangshui Jinmancang Seed Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jinmancang Company") twice. Mingtian Company was of the opinion that Jinmancang Company's act constituted infringement, and thus filed an action, requesting the court to order Jinmancang Company to cease infringement and pay compensation for its losses. Jinmancang Company argued that it sold commodity wheat rather than seed. 【基本案情】 江苏明天种业科技股份有限公司(以下简称明天种业公司)为小麦品种“淮麦33”的被许可人,其代理人与公证人员两次购买响水金满仓种业有限公司(以下简称金满仓公司)销售的“淮麦33”。明天种业公司认为金满仓公司的行为构成侵权,故诉请判令金满仓公司停止侵权并赔偿损失。金满仓公司辩称,其销售的是小麦商品粮,并未销售小麦种子。
[Judgment] The Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province held at first instance that, according to the evidential materials provided by Mingtian Company, Jinmancang Company sold the alleged infringing product, and the price of the alleged infringing product was significantly higher than the price of commodity wheat for that year; thus, what it sold should be determined as "Huaimai 33" wheat seed. Therefore, the court rendered a judgment that Jinmancang Company shall immediately cease to sell the infringing seed and pay Mingtian Company 1 million yuan in compensation for its economic losses. Jinmancang Company was dissatisfied with the judgment and filed an appeal. The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province held at second instance that, as Jinmancang Company also admitted the sale of the alleged infringing seed according to the transcripts of interview by the public security authorities, the variety on sale, unit price, and quantity were consistent with those recorded in the two notarial certificates, and the price of the alleged infringing seed sold by Jinmancang Company was significantly higher than the price of commodity wheat that year, it was not improper for the court of first instance to determine that what Jinmancang Company sold was "Huaimai 33" wheat seed. Therefore, the High People's Court of Jiangsu Province dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original judgment. 【裁判结果】 江苏省南京市中级人民法院一审认为,依据明天种业公司提供的证据材料,金满仓公司销售了被诉侵权产品,且被诉侵权产品的价格明显高于当年小麦商品粮价格,应当认定其销售的是“淮麦33”小麦种子,故判决金满仓公司立即停止销售侵权种子,赔偿明天种业公司经济损失100万元。金满仓公司不服,提起上诉。江苏省高级人民法院二审认为,金满仓公司在公安机关的询问笔录亦承认销售了被诉侵权种子,销售的品种、单价、数量与两份公证书记载的一致,金满仓公司销售的被诉侵权种子价格明显高于当年小麦商品粮的价格,一审法院认定其销售的是“淮麦33”小麦种子并无不当,故判决驳回上诉,维持原判。
[Significance] The production and sales acts that infringe on new plant variety rights are extremely indiscernible. In addition, the scope of protection of new plant varieties under the law of China only extends to propagating material, rather than harvested material. For an alleged infringing plant which is both propagating material under variety rights and harvested material, the accused infringing party often raises a defense that the plant involved is harvested material used as consumer goods such as commodity grains, in an attempt to evade allegations of infringement. This case was a typical case of this kind. When making judgments about infringement in such case, people's courts must increase efforts to ascertain the facts, make full use of the rules of experience and professional common sense, and shift the burden of proof in due course. Wheat crops have dual properties, which are both harvested material and propagating material. The requirements for the purity, germination rate, water content, and other aspects of wheat seed as propagating material are all stricter than ordinary commodity wheat, and the production cost and sales price of seed are significantly higher than commodity wheat. The accused infringer in this case denied that it was selling seed and contended that it was selling commodity wheat, however, the prices for two purchases were significantly higher than the price of commodity wheat that year. In the process of notarized purchases, the on-site salespersons of the accused infringer took away all the mobile phones of the persons who entered the purchase site, which was an abnormal act contrary to transaction practices. Based on the relevant evidence on record and the facts ascertained, the people's court finally determined that the alleged infringer sold infringing seed instead of commodity grains, which constituted infringement of variety rights. 【典型意义】 侵害植物新品种权的生产、销售行为极为隐蔽,加之我国法律对于植物新品种的保护范围仅包括繁殖材料而不包括收获材料,对于既是品种权的繁殖材料也是收获材料的被诉侵权植物体,被诉侵权方往往抗辩所涉植物体是收获材料用作商品粮等消费品,试图逃避侵权指控。本案即属此类典型,人民法院在此类案件中作出侵权判定时必须加大事实查明力度,充分利用经验法则和专业常识,适时转移证明责任。小麦作物具有双重属性,既是收获材料又是繁殖材料。作为繁殖材料,小麦种子的纯度、发芽率、含水量等方面的要求均高于普通的商品粮,种子的生产成本和销售价格会明显高于商品粮。本案被诉侵权人否认销售的是种子,主张销售的是商品粮,但两次购买价格明显高于当年小麦商品粮的价格。在公证购买过程中,被诉侵权人的现场销售人员将进入购买现场人员的手机全部收走,具有违反交易惯例的反常行为。综合在案的相关证据和查明的事实,人民法院最终认定被诉侵权人销售的是侵权种子,不是商品粮,属于侵害品种权的侵权行为。
IV. Sichuan Lvdan Zhicheng Seed Co., Ltd. v. Luzhou Taifeng Seed Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights)   四、四川绿丹至诚种业有限公司诉泸州泰丰种业有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案
Second instance: No. 793 [2020], a final civil judgment on IP of the Supreme People's Court 二审:最高人民法院(2020)最高法知民终793号
...... 一审:四川省成都市中级人民法院(2018)川01民初1217号
 【基本案情】 四川省绿丹种业有限责任公司、四川农业大学农学院、宜宾市农业科学院联合选育的“宜香优2115”水稻于2012年12月24日通过农业部国家农作物品种审定委员会审定,并于2016年3月1日获得了植物新品种权。四川绿丹至诚种业有限公司(以下简称绿丹公司)获得“宜香优2115”独占生产、经营权以及市场维护、维权打假的权利。2018年,绿丹公司发现泸州泰丰种业有限公司(以下简称泰丰公司)未经许可套牌销售“宜香优2115”稻种,构成侵权,故诉请判令泰丰公司停止侵权,销毁库存侵权稻种,赔偿损失300万元并刊登声明消除影响。
 ......



Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . You can purchase a single article through Online Pay to immediately view and download this document. Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com


 


您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区,如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户,请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 ;您也可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇法规。如有问题请来电咨询;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code!
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP证010230-8