2020年4月2日，在 AJA RegistrarsLtd & Anor v AJA Europe Ltd [2020] EWHC 883(Ch)一案中，法院认定被告已作出通过仲裁解决争议的意思表示，且尽管假冒商标是侵权行为，但因与本案协议项下的名称权相关而适用仲裁条款，法院同意被告对申请书作出修改，提出应依据2015年协议仲裁条款中止当前诉讼程序移交仲裁。
一、背景介绍
被告（AJA Europe Ltd）向法院提出申请，依据《1996年仲裁法》（“《仲裁法》”）第9条或是法院的固有管辖权（inherent jurisdiction）中止诉讼程序。原告二（Holding Scocotec S.A.S）是原告一（AJA Registrars Ltd）的母公司，被告及其母公司与原告一签订了数个协议，就各方在各业务领域的知识产权使用权许可等权利均包含有效的仲裁条款。
本案涉及以下三个合同：2014年协议：原告一授予被告在约定地区使用“AJA”名称的可撤销许可。该名称权仍属于原告一，未经原告一同意，被告不得注册标志或商标。2015年协议：被告授予原告一在约定区域（即英国）使用“AJA”名称的可撤销许可，该名称权仍归被告所有，未经被告同意，原告一不得注册标志或商标，被告可更改名称并要求原告一在必要时也更改其名称。2018年修订契约：对2014年协议作出修订。
关于2014年协议（最初制定的）的真实解释是否赋予被告在英国使用“AJA”标志的权利存在争议，但被告认为自2018年修订契约生效之日起，不再授予此类权利，并且在任何情况下，经修订的2014年协议于2018年底终止。被告称，法院不得在被告提起的仲裁程序裁决作出前对原告一和被告之间的协议条款或补充协议产生的争议行使管辖权。被告请求对申请书作出修改，增加“或是原告一和被告之间与2015年12月30日签订的协议”。
二、法院认定
法院认定本案应适用如下法律：
《仲裁法》第9（1）条规定：仲裁协议的一方当事人，如就该协议应提交仲裁的事项被提起诉讼（本讼或反诉），可（在通知其他当事人后）向受理该诉的法院就该事项申请中止诉讼程序。（A party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought (whether by way of claim or counterclaim) in respect of a matter which under the agreementis to be referred to arbitration may (upon notice to the other parties to the proceedings) apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter.）
2014年协议的仲裁条款主要内容如下：
双方同意尽最大努力友好协商和解决因本合作协议条款产生的任何争议、矛盾、分歧或索赔（“争议”）。如果在争议发生后的三十（30）天内，任何此类争议不能由AJA和对方的高级代表通过普通谈判友好解决，则任何一方可通过书面通知另一方将争议提交仲裁解决，并说明争议的性质和争议点。（The Parties agree to attempt to resolve any dispute, controversy, difference or claim arising out of the terms of this Mutual Cooperation Agreement ('the Dispute'), by using their best efforts to negotiate and settle amicably such Dispute. If after thirty(30) days of it arising, any such Dispute cannot be settled amicably through ordinary negotiations by senior representatives of AJA UK and the Counterpart, the Dispute may be referred to and resolved by arbitration by either Party by notice in writing to the other Party, specifying the nature of the Dispute and the point at issue.）
原告主张，被告在英国地域范围内使用“AJA”标志或非常类似的标志，与原告一经营的提供证明的业务有相同的市场，从而形成其业务或服务是原告一的业务或服务的虚假陈述。
1. 2014年协议已根据2018年修订契约终止
当事人对修订前的2014年协议是否解释为授予被告在英国使用“AJA”标志的权利存在争议。被告认为2018年协议生效后不再授予此类权利且经修订的2014年协议于2018年底终止。（There is a disputeas to whether the 2014 agreement, as originally made, on its true interpretation conferred a right on the defendant to use the "AJA" logo in the United Kingdom but it is accepted by the defendant that, with effect from the date of the 2018 deed, there is no such right conferred, and, in any event, it accepts that the 2014 agreement, as amended, was terminated at the end of 2018.）
法院认为，对于2014年协议被有效终止已无争议，且至少从2018年3月20日起协议没有延伸到英国的权利。因此，本案不存在因2014年协议或2018年修订契约引起的争议。（It could well be, if the defence was that there was arguably an extant licence under such an agreement, but it is not disputed now that the 2014 agreement was validly terminated, and that at least from 20th March 2018 it did not extend to rights in the United Kingdom. There is therefore no matter in the claim that could be referred to arbitration as a dispute, controversy, difference or claim, arising from the terms of the 2014 agreement, or the 2018 deed.）
2. 被告已作出通过仲裁解决争议的表示
被告回函内容显示，被告对原告提出就授权使用“AJA”名称的问题进行仲裁，据此法院认定本案当事人意图通过仲裁解决的争议涉及2014年协议的效力、被告被授予权利的范围以及何时终止，应当通过仲裁解决。（the dispute that was intended to be arbitrated, and so fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, was the effect of the 2014 agreement; to what extent the defendant had been granted rights; and whether those rights had been terminated.）
3. 商标假冒行为可适用仲裁协议
商标假冒属于侵权行为，不是根据原被告之间任何合同提出的主张，原告需从商誉（goodwill）、虚假陈述（misrepresentation）和损害（damage）三方面主张被告的侵权行为。（The passing off claim is a claim in tort that depends on the claimant establishing, first, goodwill, second, a misrepresentation by the defendant, and, third, damage to the claimants' reputation or business as a result. It is therefore not a claim under any of the contracts between it and the defendant. But is a disputed passing off claim nevertheless a dispute, or controversy, arising out of the terms of the 2014 agreement or the 2018 deed?）
根据被告母公司与原告一在2010年达成的协议，母公司授予原告一使用“AJA”这一名称，条件是名称权仍属于母公司，该协议在2019年11月23日终止。因此，母公司可对原告一提出执行申请。法院认为，这使被告可辩称原告一就“AJA”名称不存在商誉，但因被告并非该协议当事人，不能适用其中的仲裁协议。该问题也并非依据被告签订的任何其他协议提出的。（I can see how that might enable the defendant to argue that the first claimant has no goodwill in the "AJA" name, but the defendant is not a party to that agreement, and so cannot rely on the arbitration agreement within it. Nor does that issue arise under any other agreement to which the defendant is a party.）
法院认为，本案主要问题为名称权的归属，原告一在英国范围内是否在与该名称有关联的企业中拥有独家商誉，以及被告的优先权是否意味着其并未虚假陈述。虽然这些问题属于侵权行为，但这反映了相关的合同权利问题。（Although the issues arise in a claim in tort, they reflect issues about contractual entitlement and rights under the agreements.）根据Marcus Smith J在Microsoft Mobile Oyv. Sony Europe Limited[2017]EWHC 374（Ch）的判例法规则，本案侵权问题与协议所有权争议之间存在足够密切的联系。因此，假冒属于2015年协议第16条应提交仲裁的争议。（I therefore consider that the passing off claim is brought in respect of a matter which, under clause 16 of the 2015 agreement, is to be referred to arbitration.）
关于是否可以将知识产权争议提交仲裁，虽然特定救济只能由法院或英国知识产权局作出，但这并不妨碍由仲裁员确定争议的实质和基本问题。如需要，法院就相关事项可授权，仲裁庭指示当事人提出必要的申请作为其裁决的一部分。（That is not an impediment, however, to an arbitrator determining the substance of the dispute, and the underlying issues. The court will, if necessary, lend its powers in aid of the reference. The arbitrator can direct one or other party to make the necessary application, as part of his or her award.）
4. 是否应当中止原告二的诉讼程序
原告二是商标的注册所有人，未与被告达成任何仲裁协议。因此，原告二的诉讼不能根据《仲裁法》第9条予以中止。根据法院的固有权力中止其索赔是否公正和方便，可能取决于原告一主张被告实施假冒行为的诉讼是否应当被中止。（The second claimant, which is the registered proprietor of the trade marks on which the claimantsrely, has not made any arbitration agreement with the defendant. Accordingly, its claim cannot be stayed under section 9. Whether it is just and convenient to stay its claim under the court's inherent power is likely to depend on whether the first claimant's passing off claim must be stayed.）
根据《仲裁法》第9条和第3部分的分析，法院认为应中止原告一的诉讼。根据自由裁量权和良好的案件管理，就名称权归属问题的争议同时进行诉讼和仲裁是不可行的，原告二的诉讼也应当中止。（Since I therefore conclude that I must order a stay in relation to the first claimant's claim, it is reasonably clear that, as a matter of discretion and good case management, the claim of the second claimant should also be stayed. It would be unsatisfactory to have a claim and a reference, both raising the issue of the ownership of the name rights, proceeding in parallel.）
鉴于被告的辩护词无法说服法院且过于零碎，且尽快解决争议的好处毋庸置疑，法院指示被告在28天内向原告二提交初步辩护意见。如原告一的诉讼被法院裁定中止，则原告二的诉讼中止将在其收到被告的抗辩书之日起效。（However, given the rather unsatisfactory and piece meal way in which the defendant's defence hase merged, and the undoubted benefit to dispute resolution in this case of clarity at an early stage, I shall direct that the defendant must send to the claimants, within 28 days, a draft defence to the second claimant's claim, with confirmation that the draft defence is in the form that the defendant would have served and filed, had it been required to do so. The stay of the second claimant's claim will take effect from the sending of the draft defence, provided that the stay in relation to the first claimant's claim is operational.）另外，如将这些应提交仲裁的事项作为一个整体，则不应强迫被告将除了之前的索赔函之外的争议实质内容公布于众。（I accept that if these matters as a whole are to be arbitrated then the defendant should not be compelled to put the substance of the dispute into the public domain, any further than the issued claim form already has done.）
法院认为，根据《仲裁法》第9条强制中止原告一的诉讼是有条件的（正如被告认可法院就此行使管辖权），被告应在六周内与原告协商一致指定一名仲裁员或是有效地提出并未经撤回指定仲裁员的申请。（In relation to the mandatory stay of the first claimant's claim, under section 9 of the 1996 Act, I will make that stay conditional, as the defendant accepts that I have jurisdiction to do. It is conditional on the defendant having, within six weeks of today, either appointed an arbitrator consensually with the claimants, or having validly made and not withdrawn an application for the appointment of an arbitrator.）
5. 结论
法院参考2008-2018年协议条款或其他条款，确定“AJA”名称权的归属。如被告有此建议，可与其母公司共同提交。如不符合条件，中止期将结束，被告对原告一的抗辩应在中止期结束后28天内提交。法院同意被告对其申请书作出的修改，增加“或是原告一和被告之间与2015年12月30日签订的协议”。
三、评论
本案争议涉及商标名称权转让协议争议及商标侵权问题。首先，法院根据被告回函内容认可了被告作出了通过仲裁解决争议的意思表示，对原告提出就授权使用“AJA”名称的问题进行仲裁。这是法院作出诉讼中止裁定并移交仲裁的前提。本案主要问题为名称权的归属，原告一在英国范围内是否在与该名称有关联的企业中拥有独家商誉，以及被告的优先权是否意味着其并未虚假陈述。虽然这些问题属于侵权行为，但这反映了相关的合同权利问题。法院引用判例法规则，认为本案侵权问题与协议所有权争议之间存在足够密切的联系。因此假冒属于本案2015年协议第16条应提交仲裁的争议。
关于是否可以将知识产权争议提交仲裁，法院认定仲裁员可对确定争议的实质和基本问题进行审理。法院可授权仲裁庭指示当事人提出必要的申请作为其裁决的一部分，这体现了法院充分尊重当事人仲裁条款和争议发生后明确作出的争议解决途径的意思表示，支持被告修改其申请书。