Bridge IP Law Commentary - Page 23 of 65 - Your Guide to China IP Law！

Why BURBERRY’s Classic Pattern Registered Trademark was Revoked in China？

Posted on December 4, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Earlier in November, China’s Trademark Office announced canceling Burberry’s trademark of the “Haymarket Check” in China, known as iconic tan, black and red tartan (the “disputed trademark”), under Class 18 for packaging and bags because Burberry had not even used the registered trademark for over three years in China by the media.

A Chinese bag and apparel maker Polo Santa Roberta, who had disputes with Burberry for many years, filed an application with the China’s Trademark Office for revoking the disputed trademark that Burberry had not used for over three years. The State Trademark Office decided to revoke Burberry’s trademark due to inadequate evidence from Burberry after consideration, but Burberry applied for review with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, triggering heated debates in China.

How Patentees Protect its Publicized Invention without Grant of Patent Rights?

Posted on December 2, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: After the official publication of an application for a patent of invention, the applicant may demand the entity or individual exploiting that invention to pay an appropriate fee, but is not entitled to prevent others from using the patent. After grant of patent rights by the patent office, the applicant has no right of demanding the subsequent entity or individual to pay an appropriate fee. In today’s post, our case is involved in the 2011 Min Ti Zi No. 259 Civil Judgment of the Supreme People’s Court’s

Why China’s Courts Held an Ambiguous Attitude to the Rush Registration of Another’s Works as a Trademark?

Posted on November 25, 2013 by yytbest

When handling a dispute between trademark and copyright, Chinese courts always apply a rather high standard to determine whether works protected under trademark law will also receive protection under the copyright law. Our website previously discussed this question in the posts Analysis on Proof Requirements in Figurative Trademark Infringing Others’ Copyright Cases by China Court and Why the Calligraphic Character’s Copyright Failed to Defeat Trademark Right.Today, we’d like to introduce a case regarding conflicts between a work of fine art and a trademark, due to the identical combination of Chinese characters and English letters.

Why Shanghai Court Enforces Trademark’s Diligence Obligation on Original Equipment Manufacture?

Posted on November 21, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Original Equipment Manufacture (the“OEM”) refers to a commercial model where the Principal person is responsible for the brand, research and design, and marketing, meanwhile, the manufacturer is responsible for production. As a big manufacturing country, OEM is an important way for our manufactured products to participate in international competition. Under China’s Laws, however, it is unclear whether OEM constitutes as a trademark infringement, and local courts have handed out different decisions for this problem. According to the author’s information, Fujian higher court, Zhejiang higher court and Shanghai higher court held that OEM manufacturers does not involve trademark infringement, but Guangdong higher court decided that the OEM manufacturers shall take responsibility for trademark infringement in many cases. The Supreme Court has not yet expressed its opinion towards this problem.

How A.O.SMITH Corporation Protects Its Interests against the Free Rider AOSIMIHE?

Posted on November 20, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark infringement via the unauthorized use of an enterprise’s name is a common phenomenon in China. Since the requirements for registering a company in Hong Kong are well known for being comparatively lax, many companies attempt to register well-known trademarks as an enterprise name in Hong Kong, and then run a business in Mainland China using this registered name, effectively fulfilling its role as a “free-rider” of another’s well known trademark.

The A.O.SMITH Corporation was founded over 100 years ago in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, and is a global leader applying innovative technology and energy-efficient solutions to products marketed worldwide. However, the “American”AOSIMIHE (note: AOSIMIHE is a rough approximation of the name A.O. Smith transliterated into Chinese) Appliances (International) Group Ltd., registered in Hong Kong, is a free rider attempting to imply a connection between it and the United States-based A.O. Smith Corporation. Based on its Hong Kong company and trademark registration, the former succeeded in registering its “AOSIMIHE” trademark in Mainland China. Today, we’ll discuss how A.O.SMITH Corporation protected its legal interests against the “American” AOSIMIHE Appliances (International) Group Ltd.

Why Chinese Court Ruled that KPMG’s Takeover Constituted Infringement against Wahaha?

Posted on November 18, 2013 by yytbest

Danone established a joint venture company with the Wahaha Group in 1996, with a 51 percent ownership stake of stock in the company. In addition to this joint venture company, the Wahaha Group also operated several separate non-Wahaha joint ventures. In 2007, Danone attempted to offer four billion Yuan to purchase 51 percent of the shares of all non-Wahaha joint ventures, but this offer was rejected. Subsequently, Danone was involved in a series of complex litigation against the Wahaha group in a number of jurisdictions.

China Supreme Court Issued A New Typical Trademark Infringement Case of OEM

Posted on November 14, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) As a big manufacturing country, China deals with a lot of products categorized as original equipment manufacturing (the “OEM”). With regard to whether OEM constitutes trademark infringement, where local courts had handed out different decisions and infringing standards for this problem, the Supreme People’s Court has not yet expressed a clear standard for determining. Recently, China’s Supreme People’s Court has published the 2012 Top 50 typical trademark cases, and, among them, there is a case concerning OEM trademark infringement, where the manufacturer of an OEM won an infringement claim against it by the trademark holder. From the SPC’s decision in this case, we find rather clear evidence of the court’s attitude toward this particular issue.

How to Protect Trade Secrets When a Shareholder want to Inquiry Company’s Account Book?

Posted on November 12, 2013 by yytbest

(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?

Posted on November 8, 2013 by yytbest

(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?

Posted on November 7, 2013 by yytbest

(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?

Posted on November 6, 2013 by yytbest

(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”?

Posted on November 5, 2013 by yytbest

(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?

Posted on November 4, 2013 by yytbest

(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?

Posted on October 31, 2013 by yytbest

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?

Posted on October 30, 2013 by yytbest

(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.