(By You Yunting and Wang Ting) Pursuant to China’s Company Law, any shareholder shall be entitled to inspect and copy the Articles of association, minutes of shareholders’ meetings, resolutions of meetings of the board of directors, resolutions of meetings of the board of supervisors and financial reports of a company in which he or she owns shares. However, if a shareholder operates a business in competition with a company in which he or she owns stocks, then when exercising the shareholder’s right to information, such inspection may result in leaks of confidential business and trade secrets. In today’s post, we will introduce this conflict, and discuss ways in accordance with relevant Chinese laws to balance this conflict of interests while maintaining a shareholder’s right to information and a business’ right to protect its trade secrets.
Why Chinese Court Says No to Copyright Protection for Instruction of Pharmaceutical Products?
(By You Yunting) Recently, the Foshan Higher People’s Court in Guangdong province heard a case and determined that medical instruction manuals provided with pharmaceutical and other medical products do not receive copyright protection.
In my opinion, this viewpoint is worth discussing. Although it is probably reasonable to presume that the defendant, as a drug distributor, has less of an obligation to be vigilant about copyright infringement than that of the drug manufacturer, the overall scenario coupled with the court’s decision to find non-infringement seems correct. However, in regard to the question whether the copyright law should protect medical product instructions, we find ourselves in a rather difficult position; it is not that easy to come to a simple conclusion. In today’s post, we will introduce and share the aforementioned case, as follows:
Can Carnival Films Retake the Downton Abbey Trademark Squatted in China?
(By Luo Yanjie) According to a recent report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the British television series Downton Abbey (In Chinese, translated as “唐顿庄园 Tangdun Zhuangyuan”), which is very popular in China, and Carnival Films, who produced Downton Abbey, was attempting to sell Downton (in Chinese, Downtown is translated as “唐顿 Tangdun”) branded wine in the North American, European and Australian markets. However, according to a disclosure by the State Trademark Office, some Chinese merchants drew first blood, registering the “唐顿庄园 Tangdun Zhuangyuan” trademark and subsequently obtaining rights in the trademark. This news also pointed out that a Shandong-based Merchant Li Xiangjun had already received ownership of the “唐顿庄园 Tangdun Zhuangyuan” trademark for wines in China.
Why did the Courts Determine Google Receive a Prior Right in its Pre-approved China Enterprise Name?
(By You Yunting and Wang Ting) Abstract: Generally, before registration, an enterprise never receives corresponding protection for its enterprise name. However, in relation to its pre-approved enterprise name before registration, the pre-approved enterprise name shall be provided appropriate protection.
Today, we will introduce a typical case touching upon this issue, specifically, the process of approving an enterprise name under the establishment of a foreign-invested company. In this case, Google successfully defended itself against a Chinese enterprise, and finally won rights in the Chinese transliteration of its name, written in Chinese as“谷歌” and pronounced “gu-ge”.
How did Lenovo Utilize Its Well-known Trademark to Defense against a “Free-Rider”?
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case discussing Lenovo’s defense against a “free rider” utilizing its well-known trademark. In this case, when Lenovo claimed cross-class protection for its Lenovo trademark, the court established two rules in its decision, which are as follows:
First, “misleading the public and causing injury to the interests of the registrant of a well-known trademark” is a legal basis for whether or not a well-known trademark may receive cross-class protection.
How shall Overseas Companies Undergo Registration Procedures When Attempting to Provide Guarantees for a Domestic Loan?
(By You Yunting and Wang Ting) The Chinese government imposes very strict regulations in regard to guarantees in foreign funds for domestic companies. Overseas companies or institutions, whether acting as a guarantor or a guaranteed person, must perform these registration procedures. Today we would like to introduce how domestic companies perform these registration procedures when overseas companies attempt to provide guarantees for domestic loans.
When overseas companies, in accordance with relevant regulations regarding loans to domestic finance organizations, offer loans to aforesaid finance organizations, these domestic groups can accept such loans and guarantees from both individuals and organizations outside China’s border. Such services provided by individuals and organizations in foreign jurisdictions can support the development of domestic companies, as well as exert positive effects on the investment of enterprise fixed assets and requirements of liquid capital.
Why the Calligraphic Character’s Copyright Failed to Defeat Trademark Right?
Abstract: To determine whether a prior copyright could defend itself against a later trademark right, whether the foundation of copyright exists should be the first enquiry. That is to say, it is worthy of discussion whether an author receives copyright for a single calligraphic character in calligraphic works.
Pursuant to China’s laws and regulations, prior ownership of copyright in a work is a defense against a later trademark right. In determining whether a prior copyright can defend itself against a later trademark right, however, the first matter to be decided is whether the foundation of copyright exists. That is, whether the author obtains copyright for a single calligraphic character in calligraphic works. In today’s post, we will introduce and discuss a typical case as follows:
Why did the Trademark Office Reject Audi’s “A4” Trademark Application?
(By Luo Yanjie) The Audi A4, A6 and other series of Audi cars are popular classic cars in China. However, Audi’s trademark applications for the A4, A6 etc., are always rejected. In today’s post, we will introduce a typical case regarding these trademarks, followed by our analysis for our readers.
Introduction to the Case:
In January 2007, Audi China filed an application with the State Trademark Office to register its “A4” mark (the “disputed trademark”). The State Trademark Office upheld that “A4”, a common vehicle model, lacked distinctiveness. Based on this finding, the Trademark Office rejected Audi’s application. After Audi applied for a trademark reexamination with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”), the TRAB held that, the disputed trademark comprised of the English Letter “A” and Arabic numeral “4” was so simple that it would be difficult to distinguish the function of the source of goods; in addition, it lacked distinctiveness, a requirement pursuant to the Trademark Law. Again, based on these findings, the TRAB rejected Audi’s application for reexamination.
How to Determine the Competent Jurisdiction for Online Infringement?
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The Supreme People’s Court’s decision concerning jurisdiction in terms of determining the domicile of a transit server seems rather amiss against the principle of the doctrine of the plaintiff accommodating the defendant. The place where a plaintiff discovers infringing content should be the final choice of jurisdiction in cases involving network and online infringement. Unfortunately, laws and judicial interpretations in our country do not currently make a distinction between the right of goodwill and a legal person’s right of reputation.
China’s Latest Laws and regulations in October 2013, Part II
7. Circular by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council on Cessation of New Construction of Buildings, Halls and Chambers and Clearing Up Housing for Office Use of Party and Governmental Offices
Promulgated on July 23, 2013 by the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council, the Circular on Cessation of New Construction of Buildings, Halls and Chambers and Clearing Up Housing for Office Use of Party and Governmental Offices was created in order to ensure the cessation in every aspect of the new construction of buildings, halls and chambers, and to regulate the management of housing for office use.
China Attempts to Utilize Patent to Protect Graphical User Interface for Software
(By You Yunting) In the epic battle of Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. starting from 2011, Apple filed its lawsuit against Samsung in the United States, alleged that Samsung infringed several graphical user interface (the “GUI”). If Apple filed its lawsuit against Samsung in China, however, its complaint regarding infringing several GUI may not be filed because at present China has not accepted applications of patent for GUI. Nevertheless, good news comes that China’s governments are changing their attitude on the application for GUI.
China’ s Latest Laws and regulations in October 2013, Part I
1.Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Procedures of Dealing with Self-Compensation Cases
Promulgated on July 26, 2013 by the Supreme People’s Court, the Provisions on the Procedures of Dealing with Self-Compensation Cases were effective on September 1, 2013.
The self-compensation cases in the Provisions refer to the cases of state compensation handled by a People’s Court where such court is the judicial organ liable for the compensation. The Provisions further indicates that the State compensation groups of primary People’s Courts, and compensation committees of the Intermediate People’s Courts or the People’s Courts of higher level shall each be responsible for the handling of self-compensation cases at the same level. In regard to compensation applications made by a claimant, the People’s Courts shall conduct an examination and file each case in accordance with the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Work of Case Filing of State Compensation Cases.
Why China Court Believe Google Books’ Scanning of Books Constitute Copyright Infringement?
![[`QLB)()1C]KSA}DJ`HN9OK](http://www.chinaiplawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/QLB1CKSADJHN9OK.jpg)
(By Luo Yanjie)Abstract: The fair use system in China adopts a legislative model of “exhaustive listing”, and many judicial breakthroughs in recent cases appear to be more in conformity with principles of fairness and impartiality. Copyright Infringement against the right of reproduction shall be prohibited. However, an interesting question is whether the infringing party assumes liability for damages in cases where the copyright owner doesn’t actually suffer any losses.
Google Books has triggered global protest and litigation from publishers worldwide. The following is an introduction to a case that developed in China.
Essential points on Writing Noncompetition Clauses In a China Labor Contract
(By You Yunting) In today’s post, our website would like to introduce some essential points in writing noncompetition clauses in a labor contract in accordance with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. Pursuant to the Labor Law, the Labor Contract Law and related laws and regulations, combined with the specific conditions of employing units, when writing noncompetition clauses or agreements, we will pay particular attention to the following points:
I. How to determine the scope of the noncompetition clauses?
Logic and Practical Analysis of Foreign Investment Facilitation in the Shanghai FTZ
(By Gong Lier) The China (Shanghai) pilot free trade zone (hereafter called ‘the free trade zone’) was officially launched in Waigaoqiao, Shanghai on 29th Sept. 2013. Attention should be paid to the news that the, i.e., the ‘Negative List’, of the free trade zone was issued at midnight on the same day, on which the five Shanghai municipal governmental rules were also implemented one after another, including the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Administrative Rules (No.7 municipal government’s order) (hereafter called ‘the Free Trade Zone Administrative Rules’), the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Foreign Investors’ Funded Projects Filing Rules (H.F.F.(2013) No.71) (hereafter called ‘the Foreign Investors’ Funded Projects Filing Rules’), the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Overseas Investment Projects Filing Rules (H.F.F.(2013) No.72) (hereafter called ‘the Overseas Projects Filing Rules’), the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Foreign Investors’ Funded Enterprises Filing Rules (H.F.F.(2013) No.73) (hereafter called ‘the Foreign Investors’ Funded Enterprises Filing Rules’), and the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Overseas Invested and Incorporated Enterprises Filing Rules (H.F.F.(2013) No.74) (hereafter called ‘the Overseas Invested and Incorporated Enterprises Filing Rules’).