(By Lv Xuanxuan)Information about “one-stop online services” and the app of “in Shanghai” for the general public appeared on the official website of “the People’s Government of Shanghai” on 22 February 2019. Online “windows” such as “in Shanghai”, “With You”, “One-stop Online Services”, “On Your Hands”, “On Your Fingertips” give more convenience to the public to deal with administrative affairs. However, the application of the internet plus will make it more difficult to prevent “free riders” in the public service area. Search results generated by search tools in certain apps using key words about the above services frequently show account numbers and service marks that are very similar to or even the same as the official service names. This article aims to explore the protection of public service and product marks in hope of contributing to the construction of the “service government”.
According to a recent media report, someone made a malicious complaint against Wechat public accounts, resulting in a large number of public accounts containing the word “beauty” closed by Tencent, perhaps because the word “beauty” has been registered as a trademark and such an owner filed a complaint on this matter. Afterwards L’Oreal appealed for recovering its public account of “YSL Saint Laurent Beauty”. As such an incident has been heated up via the Internet, Tencent recovered all the public accounts it previously closed. Now let me introduce you approaches to deal with a malicious complaint against a public account.
(By Ning Tinggang) Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently introduced some movie, TV series, music, animation and game related cases it heard in 2015 and 2016 via its public WeChat platform, including the trademark “Kuroko Basketball” invalidity case which inspired me. The way that the court dealt with this case shows a new trend of protecting merchandizing interests which we legal professionals should pay attention to.
Kuroko Basketball is a popular comic work about basketball created by ふじまき ただとし, a Japanese comics artist. The work was serialized on the magazine SHONEN JUMP published by Shueisha since the second issue in 2009, and then was adapted for an animation and first broadcast on 7th April 2012. The plaintiff, SL Sport Ltd. in Kaiping (“SL Company”), filed a trademark-register application to the trademark office on 19th July 2012. As approved, this trademark (“Disputed Trademark”) should be used under Class 25. In addition, SL Company registered tens of trademarks closely connected with popular comics works such as Kuroko Basketball and SLAM DUNK that Shueisha had published, including trademarks used under Class 18, 24, 25, 35 and other types of commodities or services. Thus, Shueisha filed a request for declaration of invalidity of the Disputed Trademark.
(By Wang Ting) In China, the Trademark Law applies the Principle of First Filing and when the Trademark Office reviews these applications, they usually examine whether there are prior applications or registrations existed, but not the intentions of filing such prior registrations. It means they don’t consider the bad faith during trademark registration procedure. Many foreign companies have applied and obtained the trademarks for their own products and services at the beginning. However, as so-called villains can always outsmart, besides the malicious registrations of others’ un-registered trademarks, there are lots of cases in which the trademark squatters register the well-known or popular trademarks on different goods or services. Thus foreign companies suffered from such consequences. Today, in our introduced case, we are going to discuss about the situations that the acts of malicious registrations under different classes are finally determined as improper means as stipulated in the Trademark Law.
(By Yue Mengyan) There are many applicants who register a tremendous number of trademarks without the use-oriented purpose. Moreover, they register trademarks on obvious malicious purpose. In such situation, their enforcement for trademark protection shall be limited and their claims for compensation against trademark infringement may not be favored by the court.
Appellant (Plaintiff at the first instance): Guangzhou Zhinanzhen Exhibition Service Co., Ltd. (the “ZHINANZHEN”)
(By Yue Mengyan) Pursuant to China trademark laws and regulations, if certain trademarks have been already registered for certain goods, applicants cannot apply for such same or similar trademarks for any same or similar products. However, if the trademark coexistence agreement is made by the right holder of prior registered trademark and applicant of an identical or similar trademark without interfering in each other’s interests, then it is possible for the applicant to successfully obtain the approval of such application.
Superior schooling within this nation is speedily turning into a need within the venture group as a substitute for an extravagance. With the previous the people today who had a secondary faculty teaching continue to experienced the prospect to manufacture a superior society for themselves as well as their people. People days are promptly turning into one other dieing coal of the earlier. About the off likelihood that you just wish to have vast obtaining prospective amid your life span you could be thoroughly restricted by your understanding future also, the amount of instruction you will have gotten.
(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark Office (the “CTMO”) has been increasingly tightened its standards on trademark reviewing and claiming that the trademark itself may cause “adverse effect”. Competent authorities are more than inclined to use such grounds indiscriminately by treating it as an all-purpose shield to deal with distinct situations. Recently, the Supreme People’s Court remedied such phenomenon by making its decision on the GAP Underwear’s cases. The following is our detailed introduction:
(By Luo Yanjie) Recently, the Supreme People’s Court interpreted a definite attitude through a complicated case lasting for years that prior-used logo shall not be used as counterargument against latter registered trademark except under certain circumstances. The followings are our detailed introduction:
Introduction to the Case:
1st Retrial Petitioner (Plaintiff at first instance, Appellant at second instance): LIANG Huo (the “Liang”);
2nd Retrial Petitioner (Plaintiff at first instance, Appellant at second instance): LU Yijian (the “Lu”)
1. Notice of the State Council on Issuing the Transitional Plan on Adjusting the Distribution of the Value-Added Tax Revenue between the Central Government and the Local Governments after the Comprehensive Promotion of the Pilot Program of Replacing Business Tax with Value-Added Tax
This Notice was issued by the State Council on 30th April 2016, stating that the transitional plan described therein would come into effect on 1st May 2016 and the transitional period would be two to three years. According to this Notice, the repayment base for the central government and the payment base for the local governments should be assessed on the base of the year 2014, and the total income from payments for the value added tax would be shared by the central government and the local governments, of which 50% belongs to the central government and the rest 50% would be allocated to and shared by the local governments of the areas of the taxpayers.
(By Yu Zhiyuan) I recently represented a client who was finally the winning party to a typical franchise dispute case, from which we can learn most legal risks possibly facing franchisors and franchisees during their performance of franchise business as well as operational standards and risk control measures for businesses in the brand chain industry.
- Case Facts
In this case, the franchiser, owner of a well-known early childhood education brand, entered into a franchise agreement with each franchisee to perform franchise activities as a chain store dealing in the franchiser’s brand. As mutually agreed, in addition to one-off franchise fees and deposits, each franchisee should pay royalty fees in advance before each royalty year begins, and if there is any overdue payment of royalty fees, penalties.
(By You Yunting) Mr. Wang Feng (in the Left Picture), the husband of the well-known international film star, Ms. Zhang Ziyi, is a famous singer in China, whose image has immense commercial value. Amateur singer Ding (in the Right Picture) became famous because of imitating Wang Feng in an imitation talented show. Except the similar appearance, he dressed up himself as Wang Feng did, sang the songs created by Wang Feng and even claimed to have his face changed in order to achieve a more vivid effect. As is reported that Wang Feng filed a lawsuit for infringing his rights of name and portrait against Ding who was suspected of profit-making publicity by using the name and photos of Wang Feng in Weibo. Wang Feng claimed to stop the infringement immediately and pay compensation for the infringement incurred.
(By You Yunting) I was once asked by a journalist what the foundation of intellectual property courts and the ratification of the Opinions on Quicker Development of the Globally Influential Scientific and Technological Innovation Center matter to small and medium-sized startups, and replied the outcome of those two events were the same, both of which ultimately aimed to enhance the awareness of intellectual property throughout our society and guide small and medium-sized enterprises to establish a competition barrier and a management philosopher on how to avoid infringing others’ intellectual property rights. As governmental authorities define and set official instructions and policies, each startup should take full use of its intellectual property during daily operation, trying to become positioned to succeed, just like a well-known Chinese aphorism says that even the pig can fly when the typhoon comes. Combined with my experiences, this article mainly deals with the issue of how small and medium-sized startups seek intellectual property protection both internally and externally.
(By Luo Yanjie) Recently, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court ordered New Balance Trading (China) Co., Ltd, an affiliate of US-based Sports footwear manufacturer New Balance, to compensate a Chinese shoes owner, Zhou Yuelun, with a rarely high amount of RMB 98 million for infringing his Chinese “新百伦” trademark, a Chinese transliteration from English word New Balance, in the first instance. Such high amount of compensation is unusual in China intellectual property infringement. It is for this reason that this case attracted extensive attention. Upon the public records, from the legal view, we will briefly introduce and analyze this case in today’s post.
(By Luo Yanjie) Article 15 of both the 2014 version and the 2001 version of the Trademark Law stipulated that an agent shall not rush-register trademarks of the principal or the represented. In practice, Article 15 is always used to prevent from rush-registration. The following judgment will introduce a typical rush-registration case with new ideas for reference.
Introduction to the Case:
Re-appellant (plaintiff at first instance, appellant at second instance): LEHMANBROWN LIMITED (the “HK Company”)