One Italian company transferred its equity of one Chinese joint venture to one Zhenjiang company and the parties agree to the installment payment term. The final payment shall be made upon the satisfaction of such requirement that the trademark registration organizations in America and Canada accept the transfer of one registered trademark from the Italian company to the Zhenjiang company within agreed time limit. The Italian company submitted the transfer application to WIPO which was accepted within the agreed time limit while the time of the notice issued by US Patent and Trademark Office to confirm the effectiveness of the transfer of the trademark is later than the agreed time limit under the equity transfer agreement. Therefore, the Zhenjiang company considered that the Italian company had breached the contract and refused to pay the final payment in accordance with the equity transfer agreement. The Italian company considered that it had performed its contract obligations and entrusted legal team of Chambers Yang to raise arbitration toward CIETAC to claim the final payment of equity transfer against the Zhenjiang company.
Upon acceptance of this case, in order to clearly explain to arbitration court that the application of trademark transfer to WIPO is fully in conformity with the equity transfer agreement, legal team of Chambers Yang has not only conducted researches on relevant regulations of registration and transfer of international registered trademark under International Registration of Marks Madrid Protocol, but has also conducted researches on the procedural provisions of transfer of international registered trademark under Trademark manual inspection procedures of US Patent and Trademark Office, and has made “time axis”. Based on these, legal team of Chambers Yang has comprehensively analyzed that the acceptance of trademark transfer application by WIPO shall be deemed the acceptance of trademark transfer application by US Patent and Trademark Office agreed under the equity transfer agreement. Meanwhile, legal team of Chambers Yang has refuted the opinion of the Zhenjiang company through logical analysis on the relevant terms of the aforesaid regulations of WIPO and US Patent and Trademark Office. And, our views have been fully supported by the arbitration court finally.
相关法律服务
杨春宝一级律师简介
杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多常见法律问题
股权转让尾款支付条件如何认定?
①法律概念与规则解释:股权转让合同中的付款条件属于附条件民事法律行为,当事人可以约定以某一事实发生或不发生作为付款义务触发依据。条件成就与否应依据合同文本、交易目的及诚实信用原则综合判断,不能仅凭表面时间或单一形式认定。若一方为条件成就提供了合理协助,则另一方不得恶意阻止或否定条件成就。②案件事实与实务场景引用:本案中,意大利公司与镇江公司约定尾款须以商标转让申请在规定期限内被美国、加拿大商标注册机构受理为条件。意大利公司及时向WIPO提交申请并获受理,但美国专利商标局发出确认通知的日期晚于约定时限。镇江公司据此认为意方违约拒付尾款。律师团队绘制时间轴,论证WIPO受理即视为美国商标局受理,仲裁庭最终支持意方,说明付款条件应结合合同目的与程序规则进行实质判断。③实务指引与风险提示:企业在约定涉外股权转让尾款支付条件时,应明确具体受理机关、受理含义与判定时点,避免歧义。对于涉及国际注册商标转让的情形,应提前了解马德里体系与各国国内程序的衔接规则。若发生争议,应保存申请受理回执、官方通知等全过程证据,并可通过时间轴等可视化方式向仲裁庭直观呈现履行进度,有助于获得支持。
国际注册商标转让受理时点如何界定?
①法律概念与规则解释:根据《马德里议定书》框架,国际注册商标的转让需通过世界知识产权组织国际局办理,国际局收到申请并形式审查后即予登记并通知各指定缔约方。各国商标主管机关随后依据本国程序进行审查并作出效力确认。因此,国际局受理转让申请与指定国商标局受理是不同层面的程序,但依国际条约惯例,向国际局提交并在规定期限内获受理通常视为向指定国完成申请递交。②案件事实与实务场景引用:本案意大利公司向WIPO提交商标转让申请,该申请在约定时限内被接受,而美国专利商标局后续发出确认转让有效的通知时间较晚。律师团队研究美国商标审查手册中关于马德里国际注册转让的流程规定,指出WIPO的受理通知与美国专利商标局的最终确认并非同一环节,合同约定的受理条件已在WIPO接受申请时成就。仲裁庭采纳该观点,驳回了镇江公司的抗辩,表明司法与仲裁机构认可国际局受理作为合同履行节点的效力。③实务指引与风险提示:跨境交易中若以商标转让为付款前提,应明确以哪个机构、哪个阶段的文件作为履约凭证。卖方在期限内向WIPO提交申请后,应同步追踪各指定国状态,并及时向买方提供受理证明。买方不能仅以最终确认通知晚于时限为由拒绝付款,除非合同明确将本国主管机关最终注册作为条件。起草合同时最好加入一条:以国际局受理申请之日为条件成就日,避免后续程序差异产生争议。
一方拒绝支付尾款是否构成违约?
①法律概念与规则解释:合同当事人应当按照约定全面履行义务,付款义务与对方履约义务存在牵连关系时,只有在对方根本违约或条件未成就的情况下,付款方才有权拒绝付款。若付款条件已成就,付款方无正当理由拒付则构成违约,守约方可依据合同约定和法律原则主张继续履行及赔偿损失。但具体是否违约需结合合同条款、履行事实及违约程度、证据规则等判断。②案件事实与实务场景引用:本案中,意大利公司已完成股权转让及商标转让申请程序,镇江公司以美国专利商标局确认通知迟到为由拒绝支付尾款。律师团队通过法规研究和逻辑分析,证明WIPO受理即满足合同约定条件,镇江公司的拒付理由不能成立。仲裁庭支持意大利公司的仲裁请求,确认镇江公司应当支付尾款。该案表明当付款条件实质成就时,付款方以形式瑕疵或外部程序延迟作为拒付借口,难以获得裁判机构支持。③实务指引与风险提示:企业在履约过程中应审慎评估对方行为是否符合合同实质要求,不能因非关键程序节点的差异而滥用抗辩权。对拒绝付款的一方而言,应保留充分证据证明条件未成就或对方存在根本违约,否则可能承担不利后果。对主张付款的一方,应及时固定合同履行证据,包括申请提交凭证、受理通知、沟通记录等,必要时通过仲裁或诉讼追索款项。裁判机构更看重整体履约行为与合同目的之间的契合度。
以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn




