二手商品翻新改造，还能主张“商标权利用尽”抗辩吗？

二手商品翻新改造，还能主张“商标权利用尽”抗辩吗？

Can the "Exhaustion of Trademark Rights" Defense Still Be Claimed for Second-Hand Goods After Refurbishment and Modification?

作者：马海霞

Author:Maggie

英文翻译：黄泽霆

English Translation：Huang Zeting

关键词：商标权利用尽、实质性改变、二手商品翻新、商标侵权、指示性使用

Keywords: exhaustion of trademark rights, substantial change, second-hand goods refurbishment, trademark infringement, nominative fair use

（本文系为普法目的而创作，文中故事改编自真实案例，当事人名称已化名处理，如有雷同，纯属巧合，请勿对号入座。）

（This article is compiled for legal popularization purposes only.

The stories herein are adapted from real cases; all parties involved have been given pseudonyms.

Any resemblance to actual persons or events is purely coincidental, and readers are requested not to engage in personal association.）

一、案情简介

I. 

Background

原告“安心智行”公司是国内知名的儿童智能电子穿戴设备制造商，对其自主研发的“AX-Watch”系列智能手表享有注册商标专用权，该产品在市场上具有极高的知名度。被告“贝贝工坊”是一家主营二手电子产品回收与改造的工作室，其从二手市场大量收购“AX-Watch”旧款手表（部分为正品，部分来源不明）。被告将这些手表拆解后，保留了原表壳、表带及带有原告商标的表盘，但私自更换了电池、主板及屏幕总成，并进行了重新组装、抛光和系统刷机。随后，被告在网络电商平台以“AX-Watch官方正品·焕新升级版”的名义对外销售，宣称“续航提升60%”、“运行速度翻倍”，且未在显著位置标明该手表为“翻新手表”或“非原厂维修产品”。原告遂诉至法院，主张被告侵犯其注册商标专用权并构成不正当竞争，要求赔偿180万元。被告则辩称，其外观部件来源于正品，保留原商标属于正当的指示性使用，且基于“商标权利用尽”原则，其有权对二手商品进行维修和再次销售。法院经审理后认为，被告的上述行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，故支持了原告的诉请。

The plaintiff, "Anxin Zhixing" Company, is a well-known domestic manufacturer of children's smart electronic wearable devices and holds the exclusive right to use its registered trademark for the "AX-Watch" series of smart watches, which enjoy high market reputation. The defendant, "Beibei Workshop," is a studio primarily engaged in the recycling and modification of second-hand electronic products. It purchased a large number of used "AX-Watch" watches from the second-hand market (some were genuine, others of unknown origin). After disassembling these watches, the defendant retained the original cases, straps, and watch faces bearing the plaintiff's trademark, but privately replaced the batteries, mainboards, and screen assemblies, then reassembled, polished, and re-flashed the system. Subsequently, the defendant sold these products on e-commerce platforms under the name "AX-Watch Genuine Official · Renewed Upgraded Edition," claiming "60% longer battery life" and "double the operating speed," without clearly marking them as "refurbished" or "non-original repair products." The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging that the defendant infringed its exclusive trademark rights and constituted unfair competition, seeking RMB 1.8 million in damages. The defendant argued that its exterior parts came from genuine products, that retaining the original trademark was legitimate nominative fair use, and that under the principle of "exhaustion of trademark rights," it had the right to repair and resell second-hand goods. After trial, the court held that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and thus upheld the plaintiff's claims.

二、法律分析

II.

Legal Analysis

本案的核心争议在于，对二手商品进行实质性改造后再次销售并保留原商标，能否适用“商标权利用尽”原则。根据司法实践与相关法律规定，商标权利用尽原则适用的前提是转售的商品在物理状态、品质及功能上与商标权人最初投入市场的商品保持基本一致，未发生实质性改变。本案中，被告私自更换主板、电池等核心零部件，属于“重构式翻新”，使得手表的内在品质、功能及安全性脱离了原厂的质量控制体系，与原正品相比已发生实质性改变。同时，被告在实质性改造后仍保留并使用原商标，且未作显著翻新提示，极易导致相关公众对商品来源产生混淆误认，破坏了商标识别商品来源的基本功能及品质保障功能。因此，被告主张的“商标权利用尽”抗辩不能成立，其行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争。

The core dispute in this case is whether the principle of "exhaustion of trademark rights" can apply when a second-hand product, after substantial modification, is resold with the original trademark retained.

According to judicial practice and relevant legal provisions, the prerequisite for applying the exhaustion of trademark rights is that the resold goods remain substantially consistent—in physical condition, quality, and function—with the goods initially placed on the market by the trademark owner, and that no substantial change has occurred.

In this case, the defendant privately replaced core components such as the mainboard and battery, which constituted a "reconstructive refurbishment." This caused the internal quality, functions, and safety of the watches to fall outside the original manufacturer's quality control system, resulting in a substantial change compared with the genuine products. At the same time, after such substantial modification, the defendant continued to retain and use the original trademark without any conspicuous indication of refurbishment, which was highly likely to cause confusion among the relevant public as to the source of the goods, thereby undermining the trademark's essential function of indicating source and its quality assurance function. Therefore, the defendant's defense of "exhaustion of trademark rights" could not be sustained, and its actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition.

三、启示

Ⅲ. 

Implications

一句话来说，二手商品的翻新改造必须在尊重知识产权的前提下进行，不能以牺牲商标权人的合法权益和消费者的知情权为代价。In short, the refurbishment and modification of second-hand goods must be carried out with respect for intellectual property rights and cannot come at the expense of the legitimate rights of trademark owners or the consumers' right to information.

四、相关规定

IV. 

Relevant Provisions(Translation for Reference Only)

《中华人民共和国商标法》（2019修正）Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China (2019 Amendment)第五十七条 有下列行为之一的，均属侵犯注册商标专用权：

（一）未经商标注册人的许可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标相同的商标的；

（二）未经商标注册人的许可，在同一种商品上使用与其注册商标近似的商标，或者在类似商品上使用与其注册商标相同或者近似的商标，容易导致混淆的；

（三）销售侵犯注册商标专用权的商品的；

（七）给他人的注册商标专用权造成其他损害的。

Article 57: The following acts shall constitute infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark:

(1) Using a mark that is identical to a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the authorization of the trademark registrant;

(2) Using a mark that is similar to a registered trademark on the same kind of goods, or using a mark that is identical or similar to a registered trademark on similar goods, without the authorization of the trademark registrant, such use is likely to cause confusion;

(3) Selling goods that infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark;(7) Causing other damage to another person's exclusive right to use a registered trademark.

《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》（2025修订）Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (2025 Revision)第九条 经营者不得对其商品的性能、功能、质量、销售状况、用户评价、曾获荣誉等作虚假或者引人误解的商业宣传，欺骗、误导消费者。Article 9: Business operators shall not make false or misleading commercial representations regarding the performance, functions, quality, sales status, user evaluations, or past honors of their goods, so as to deceive or mislead consumers.