Category Archives: Protection

Why Zheng Yuanjie Finds it Difficult to Seek Protection of Intellectual Property Rights?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) Zheng Yuanjie, a famous fairy tale writer announced on his personal social account that he would no longer seek trademark protection or publish any written work. By his own account, he had sought trademark protection for 673 infringed trademarks unsuccessfully. After reading part of the content of his Weibo, I feel he may have some misunderstanding of intellectual property protection principles. Actually, he was given a lot of legal protection, but intellectual property protection is different considering its privity. What he is angry about may be unnecessary.

READ MORE

Changes in Trademark Crime Related Provisions of (Eleventh) Made by the Amendment to Criminal Law

Posted on by

(By Ye Sushuo)Comparison between trademark crime related provisions

Changes of trademark crime related provisions in Articles 213 to 215 of Section 7, Chapter 3 of Criminal Law
Crime Current Criminal Law (Eleventh) Amendment 2020
Article 213 Crime of falsifying a registered trademark A person who uses a mark that is the same as other’s registered trademark on the same type of products without permission of the registered trademark owner in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison or detainment and/or payment of a fine; and more than three and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances. A person who uses a mark that is the same as other’s registered trademark on the same type of products or services without permission of the registered trademark owner in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison and/or payment of a fine; and more than three and less than ten years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances.
Article 214 Crime of selling products with a falsified registered trademark A person who sells products in a large amount of sales which they know contain a falsified registered trademark should be sentenced to less than three years in prison or detainment and/or payment of a fine in case of a large amount of sales; and more than three years and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in case of a very large amount of sales. A person who sells products which they know contains a falsified registered trademark should be sentenced to less than three years in prison and/or payment of a fine in case of a large amount of illegal profits or serious circumstances; and more than three years and less than ten years in prison and payment of a fine in case of a very large amount of illegal profits or very serious circumstances.
Article 215 Crime of illegally manufacturing or selling illegally manufactured registered trademarks A person who falsifies or manufactures other’s registered trademark without permission or sells a registered trademark falsified or manufactured without permission in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison, detainment or surveillance, and/or payment of a fine; and more than three years and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances. A person who falsifies or manufactures other’s registered trademark without permission or sells a registered trademark falsified or manufactured without permission in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison, and/or payment of a fine; and more than three years and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances.

Change A: An additional type of trademarks – service marks

One of major changes in trademark related crimes is that acts of seriously infringing service marks are treated as the crime of falsifying a registered trademark. Whether provisions relating to the crime of falsifying a registered trademark apply to service marks was always a question discussed in academic and practical worlds. Because of the large-scale development of the Chinese service industry, there is an urgent need to strengthen criminal law protection of service marks.

READ MORE

How to Protect Public Service and Product Marks

Posted on by

(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”[1].

READ MORE

Does the Merchandizing Rights Fall into the Protection for Priority Right in China Trademark Cases?

Posted on by

(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.

Case Introduction

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.

READ MORE

Shall Quantities of Malicious Registration Be Improper Means in China Trademark Law?

Posted on by

(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.

READ MORE

Why Does Shanghai Court Dismiss a Non-use-Oriented Trademark Register in Malicious Lawsuit?

Posted on by

(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.

Case Introduction

Appellant (Plaintiff at the first instance): Guangzhou Zhinanzhen Exhibition Service Co., Ltd. (the “ZHINANZHEN”)

READ MORE

Could Coexistence Agreement Be Accepted in Trademark Application in China?

Posted on by

(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.

READ MORE

Does the “GAP Underwear” Trademark Have Adverse Effect by Its Name?  

Posted on by

(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:

READ MORE

What Startups Need to Know to Protect Their IPR in China

Posted on by

 (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.

READ MORE

Why Does China Court Order New Balance a High Amount Compensation of RMB 98 Million for Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by

(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.

READ MORE

Could Co-Founder Rush-Register A Planning Trademark As His Own?

Posted on by
lehmanbrown

 (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”)

READ MORE

DeBund Succeeds in Pushing Copycat Game App from AppStore

Posted on by

Recently, DeBund takes a big step forward in providing mobile internet legal services that You Yunting Team, on behalf of clients, succeeds in pulling a popular game from the AppStore by more than 10 lawyer’s letters.

The Developer of the complained game copied large amounts of background elements of a well-known game, including graphic design, plots, role names and geographic names, and also used the brand of the original game. The Developer also made a cartoon modeling on the game characters, and did a slight change to the game name, not exactly the same as the original game. The infringed benefits greatly from the complained game to millions of yuan every month.

READ MORE

China Supreme Court Approved Passive Use as the Use of Trademark

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark is to distinguish the goods and services from different trademark owners. However, if the public voluntarily called it another name and made use of it, then does such use still constituted the use of trademark as regulated in the Trademark Law. If you want to know more, please read the next posts.

Introduction to the Case:

Re-appellant (third party at first instance and appellant at second instance): Gui Pufang

Re-respondent (plaintiff at first instance and respondent at second instance): Guangdong Tea Imp. & Exp. Co. Ltd (the “GDT”)

READ MORE