(By You Yunting) Today we would like to introduce a typical case concerning the situation where a Chinese citizen tries to form a joint venture with a foreign individual. Pursuant to Chinese laws and regulations, foreign companies, enterprises, other commercial organizations and individuals (the “foreign investors”) can only form joint ventures with Chinese companies, enterprises and other commercial organizations, rather than with Chinese citizens. For these reasons, the court determined that the contract agreed upon by the Chinese citizens and foreign investors was invalid and each party should undertake the expenses and costs of establishment individually.
Meet Us at INTA Hong Kong
Mr. You Yunting will be attending this year’s INTA annual meeting in Hong Kong, 10th-13th May 2014.
If you would like to meet with the founder of Bridge IP Law Commentary, please email us, marking the subject heading “INTA 2014” and we will be in touch with some proposed times and venues. Or you can call our temporary mobile phone number: +852-69617471 to contact Mr. You directly.
First China Trade Secret Litigation Injunction Ends in Favor of Eli Lily and Company
(By You Yunting) We have introduced that Shanghai court issued the first trade secret litigation injunction in China pursuant to the new Civil Procedure Law. Recent, Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court made a judgment in favor of U.S. drug maker Eli Lily and Company and Eli Lily (China), determining that the defendant must cease infringing the trade secret of the plaintiff. In today’s post, we will introduce the abstract the judgment following with our comments.
Introduction to the Case:
Why Tudou.com Failed to Apply for Tudou trademark under Class 41?
(By You Yunting) Tudou.com (NASDAQ:TUDO) are connected with trademarks in different kinds of services relating entertainments under Class 41. However, Tudou.com failed to apply for its website name as a trademark by virtue of previous similar trademark. Tudou.com is focusing on providing services of video-sharing and video on-demand, but we found out its major services cannot be applied for trademark protection. Therefore, how to deal with this trademark application puts forward higher requests for trademark lawyers. In today’s post, we will introduce this case and discuss the comments in the following.
The Anti-Monopoly Judgment’s Digest of Huawei vs. InterDigital of China Courts
(By You Yunting) The anti-monopoly litigation of Huawei v. InterDigital caused the attention of intellectual property bound in China. Huawei had filed litigations in China accusing InterDigital of discrimination in patent licensing. Recently, Guangdong Higher People’s Court published its rulings in Huawei v. InterDigital. In today’s post, we will present the judgment of this case and address our comments in the following.
Introduction to the Case:
Appellant (Plaintiff in the first instance): Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd (the “Huawei”)
Alert: SoundCloud, Ubuntu and Lots of Famous Brands are being Rush-Registered as Trademarks in China ！
(By You Yunting) Recently, a news article sparked concern that the Qihu Investment Co., Ltd (a similar Chinese name to Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd) had rushed-registered hundreds of trademarks belonging to internet venture companies. Even though Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd later clarified that it had nothing with the Qihu Investment Co., Ltd, the news still attracted attention from both companies and lawyers.
Many famous companies’ brands, such as Ubuntu, Hotel Tonight and SoundCloud were being rush-registered as trademarks and some have even entered into the process of announcement by the Chinese Trademark Office after a preliminary examination and within three months of the date of the publication. The overseas companies may lose the exclusive right of trademark in China unless they file an opposition against these rush-registrations. Worse, they will not be able to use these brands they have created when entering the Chinese market for a significant length of time. In today’s post, we would like to address how venture companies should resolve trademark squatting.
Does QVOD Business Model Touch China’s Warning line of Government Regulatory?
(By You Yunting) Abstract: The nature of “QVOD Business Model” is that both large and small-sized companies are to jointly infringe online copyrights. Under the facts that large companies provided technology and commerce and then small companies engaged in infringing works, such cooperation set up an environment of competitive advantages resulting from weak regulatory. This cooperation’s true cleverness comes from the deepen understanding of safe harbor rules and the Internet’s globalization and anonymity. If “QVOD Business Model” is continuous operating, such model may be cumulative legal risks and thus is likely that a criminal investigation can make an end of “QVOD Business Model”.
How Many Ways would be Available to Protect Online Copyright?
(By You Yunting) Within the World Intellectual Property Day approaching, Zhihu.com invited me to answer some questions about the popularization of intellectual property rights with the second topic below regarding what channels of online copyright enforcement would be available in China.
Yesterday, we discussed what are the difficulties in the online copyright enforcement in China. With different types of infringement, today I will discuss how to protect online copyright. Actually, there are three channels consisting of online criticism, complaints and litigation.
What are the Difficulties in the Online Copyright Enforcement in China?
(By You Yunting) Within the World Intellectual Property Day approaching, Zhihu.com invited me to answer some questions about the popularization of intellectual property rights with the first one below regarding what the difficulties are in the online copyright enforcement in China.
The Copyright Law aims to protect many types of works, including cinematographic works, television, written works, works of fine arts and graphic works. However, there are different kinds of infringement. When referring to whether relates to Internet, it can distinguish into online infringement and offline infringement. When referring to the infringement methods, it may include unauthorized reproduction and personate plagiarism. When talking about infringing any specific rights, it may discuss the right of modification, the right of integrity and so on. Now that I think about it, I’d like to narrow it down to a topic regarding what difficulties are in the online copyright enforcement China.
How China Court Judges the Conduct of Using a Trademark as Enterprise Name?
(By Luo Yanjie) In practice, for the purpose of free-riding well-known brands, many operators often use another’s trademarks as their enterprise name to confuse consumers. As such, these conducts still constitute trademark infringement. In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case concerning that using another’s trademarks as enterprise names may constitute trademark infringement.
Introduction to the Case:
Plaintiff: Shanghai Jinsu Industrial Co., Ltd (the “Jinsu Co., Ltd”)
1st Defendant: Miergu Pipe Industrial Company (liter translated from “美尔固管业公司”)
How Venture Companies Should Deal with Trademark Squatting?
(By You Yunting) Recently, a news article sparked concern that the Qihu Investment Company (a similar Chinese name to Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd) had rushed-registered hundreds of trademarks belonging to internet venture companies. Even though Qihoo 360 Technology Co., Ltd later clarified that it had nothing with the Qihu Investment Company, the news still attracted attention from both venture companies and lawyers. In today’s post, we would like to address how venture companies should resolve trademark squatting.
Court Decision Made Compensation to a Foreign Buyer against Products Infringement of the Manufacturer in China
(By Luo Yanjie) In our today’s post, when a foreign company ordered a number of Hero pens from a Chinese company, the Chinese company used the fake products to replace the authentic ones and then the fake products were found to be confiscated and punished by the Customs. Finally, the foreign company brought the Chinese company into the court and won the lawsuit, claiming that the Chinese company disobeyed the contract.
Hero pens are famous and have received well reputation for its good quality in the industry of pens in China.
Does Using a Trademark with Common Meaning Constitute Trademark Infringement in China?
(By Luo Yanjie) According to Chinese legislation, a mark which has a common meaning in normal ways may be registered as a trademark where it has acquired distinctiveness through use and is readily distinguishable. If being registered, the mark with a common meaning would be protected under the Trademark Law. However, in practice, a competitor may use the trademark against the exclusive right holder, with a defense that the trademark has common meaning. Today, we will introduce a successful case where the court is in favor of the exclusive right holder of the trademark.
Intellectual Property Analysis on the Dilemma of Yunnan Baiyao
(By You Yunting)Abstract: The Yunnan Baiyao Group Co., Ltd had used its good historical reputation, its customer’s curiosity about its ingredients and the protection afforded to a state-secret recipe to make large profits. However, with the proliferation of awareness of an individual’s rights and the gradual strengthening of democratic consciousness, its enterprise institutions and culture are eroding consumer confidence in the brand and ruining its business reputation in the eyes of consumers.
Anheuser-Busch InBev Used the Packaging of its Beer Bottle to Defeat against Chinese Copycatted Competitor
(By You Yunting) Recently, we introduced that Zhejiang Xiyingmen Beer Company constituted trademark infringement through the use of recycled Budweiser’s beer bottle. In today’s post, we will introduce an unfair competition lawsuit where Zhejiang Xiyingmen Beer Company used the similar packaging and presentation with that of Budweiser-sponsored Harbin Beer.
Introduction to the Case:
Appellant (Defendant at the first instance): Xiyingmen Beer Company
Respondent (Plaintiff at the first instance): Anheuser-Busch and Harbin Brewery Group (the “Harbin Brewery”)