Bridge IP Law Commentary - Page 26 of 64 - Your Guide to China IP Law！

Whether Patented Products’ Profit Influences the duty to Reward Inventors?

Posted on July 29, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract:

Other local laws and regulations cannot be used in legal judgments. Furthermore, enterprises shall award to the employee proper remuneration regardless of profitability.

(By Luo Yanjie) Patent carries huge value to enterprises; key patents can be especially valuable, because they are often only gained after a great deal of expense. Because of this, according to relevant provisions in the Patent Law, the right to apply for a patent belongs to an entity for any invention-creation, either made by a person in the course of executing tasks of the entity he belongs to, or made by him by primarily utilizing material and technical means belonging to the entity. Inventors having rights over inventions is well accepted, but a difficult position for the inventor to be in; often, we find the laws to be inadequate to properly serve and protect the interests of the inventor-creator. In today’s post, we will introduce to you a case touching upon this legal issue.

A Trademark Infringement Dispute Caused by Recycled Budweiser Bottles

Posted on July 29, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting)To save costs, Chinese beer manufacturers have been using recycled bottle to refill beer, and while most large-scale beer manufacturers will engrave their trademarks into their glass bottles, as well as recycle their own bottles. However, for small-scale beer manufacturers, such practices are impractical, and when small beer manufacturers use other larger manufacturer’s bottles with their trademarks, all the ingredients for trademark infringement are present. In today’s post, we will introduce to you two cases heard by two different courts concerning the same issue.

Why Wallet and Clothes in Different Trademark Classes Would be Taken by China Court as Similar Products?

Posted on July 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) When registering trademark in China, the applicant shall first determine the classification of the trademark to be registered. Class 18 of the Classification of Goods and Services include goods such as leather and artificial leather, goods made from these materials and not included in other classes, cases, travelling bags, and umbrellas. Goods under Class 25 includes clothing, footwear, and headgear. Looking at it closely, Class 18 is classified by its physical attribute, while Class 25 is classified by the purpose of the goods. Would the two Classes constitute similar goods for any particular product? In today’s post, a specific case would be introduced to analyze this question.

How to Judge the Validity of Trademark Transfer without Inner Approval of the Company in China

Posted on July 25, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Albert Chen) Abstract:

When a company’s trademark agent transfers a trademark without approval, a judgement of the validity of said transfer requires not only a consideration of the company approval, but also a determination of the third party good faith in the transfer. When a condition is not fulfilled the transfer will invariably be considered invalid.

Case Introduction:

In 2001, Leidi (China) Co., Ltd. (“Company L”) was granted the exclusive right in the use of the trademark “雷迪” (read as “Leidi” in Chinese). In November of 2002, Wu, as the executive director of Leidi China, transferred the trademark to the Hua Qu Duo Investment Company (“Company H”). The State Trademark Office made an announcement regarding the transfer in October 2003. Subsequently, Company H licensed the trademark to the Shanghai-based Leidi Mechanics Co., Ltd. (“Company S,” which had no affiliation with Company L).

Is RSS Output in Websites Kinda Fair Use in the Copyright Law?

Posted on July 24, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) A user on Zhihu.com asked some question about RSS

Is it kinda fair use of RSS?
Is it kinda fair use to transfer the excerpt context RSS to the full text RSS?
Is it kinda fair use of Flipboard and similar applications’ excerpt context which do not use RSS?

In terms of the first question: ,Is it kinda fair use of RSS?

If a website supports full content RSS output, then it is actually the using on the license of the copyright holder instead of the fair use. While, where a website only supports excerpt context RSS and if a third party scraps the content into a full context RSS, it is infringing as it has used the content without any license.

Let’s first check the definition of RSS. We could find a clear definition in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rss.): If a website placed the RSS file on its page, user could use a RSS feed to read the latest contents if he cannot open the content page. Based on the said character of RSS, in author’s opinion, RSS actually is a form of authorization from the site owners. If the website provides RSS file, it licenses users to read the content without visiting its website. According to the Copyright Law, Fair use means that under the specific circumstance we can use the content without the copyright’s holder’s permit and with payment of remuneration. The transliteration of a published work into Braiile and into minority nationality languages and free performance of a published work belong to fair use.

Introduction to the First Lawsuit on AppStore Promotion Dispute Judged in China

Posted on July 24, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract:

(By You Yunting) In today’s post, we would introduce you the first dispute concerning AppStore promotion dispute judged in China. Where only one party possesses relevant evidence but refuses to provide it to the opposing party, and such evidence would generally be considered unfavorable to the interests of the party possessing it, in most cases the court would support the opposing party’s request for the evidence and determine what adverse consequences the withholding party will bear as a result. A contract dispute involving the promotion of Apple’s Appstore will be discussed in today’s post. In this case, we saw a party fail to provide a correct iTunes Connect account, which the court later discovered, leading to a rejection of the party’s claim.

Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?

Posted on July 24, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but decide at the same time that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.

Could User Information Be Considered Trade Secret in China?

Posted on July 23, 2013 by You Yunting

Abstract: trade secret must have three basic features: confidentiality, practicability, and security. Therefore, whether user information in a website could be considered as trade secret or not, it shall also be judged based on these three basic features.

(By Luo Yanjie) User information is very important to a website daily operation. To judge it from the legal protection perspective, it is generally protected as a trade secret. The case introduced in this article is a typical dispute on whether the user information could be considered a trade secret, and thereby could infringement be decided.

Is an “A+B” Combined Trademark Substantially Similar to a Separate “B” Trademark?

Posted on July 23, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) The Taiwan-based Yilan Food Industry Co., Ltd. (“Yilan”) is a well-known food manufacturing company, and owns the registered trademark “旺旺” (read as “Wang Wang” in Chinese) in several classes. Alibaba (China) Co., Ltd. (“Alibaba”) is a renowned e-commerce company based in Mainland China; it owns and maintains a subsidiary that develops and promotes its instant messaging software called “淘宝旺旺” (read literally as “Tao Bao Wang Wang” in Chinese). When Alibaba attempted to register the trademark for its software application, Yilan immediately filed a protest against it. In today’s post, we will concentrate primarily on this case. The main issue surrounding the case is relatively simple: a trademark can be considered a type of rare “resource” for its owner to make use of, and if in this case the trademark “旺旺” is already owned and registered by another entity, does it seem reasonable that a subsequent registrant simply attaches the prefix “淘宝” to it to avoid inevitable issues surrounding confusion as a result of the similarity of the two?

Will Magic be Protected as A Work under China’s Copyright Law?

Posted on July 22, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie)

Case summary:

Yigal Messika is an Israeli magician. In March 2008, Messika began to design a tool used in his magic show named Tarantula, through the operation of which the audience could see floating art objects. Messika filmed a DVD recording his performance with the Tarantula. The Tarantula DVD went on sale in the United States on February 29, 2000, accompanied by the Tarantula gimmick. Each pair was sold for $ 75. Later on, Messika heard that his product was being ripped off by a Chinese businessman starting in April 2009. The copyright holder subsequently filed a lawsuit in court to protect the copyright infringed. The Court held that, because China, the US and Israel are all signatories to the Berne Convention, once the plaintiff’s magic met the standards in China’s Copyright Law, it could be protected by China’s laws.

Whether using the Name of Another’s Work Constitutes Copyright Infringement or Unfair Competition

Posted on July 19, 2013 by You Yunting

Abstract: The Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, but they also compete with each other.

(By Luo Yanjie Unfair competition refers to an operator’s misconduct that violates principles of fairness, justice, and good faith; it is also considered any behavior that violates widely adopted commercial ethics. As for copyright, as a kind of exclusive right, it mainly focuses on granting the right holder a monopolistic right in conformance with the law, and thereby grants the right holder monopoly rights as well as a competitive advantage through the exploitation of his/her own intellectual works.

Can A Subsequently Applied Trademark be Registered if the Owner of A Previously Registered Similar Trademark Does Not Oppose?

Posted on July 18, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract: Approval from a reference trademark holder in supporting the registration of a subsequently registered similar trademark is one of the key elements taken into consideration by administrative organs and the People’s Court in deciding whether to grant trademark rights to the latter, based primarily on Article 28 of the Trademark Law.

(By Luo Yanjie) China’s Trademark Law adopts the “first to file” principle, and in general, when a later applied-for trademark appears to be substantially similar to a previously registered trademark, it will not be granted exclusive rights in the use of the mark. In the case introduced in this post, the latter applicant succeeded in its trademark application due to approval by a previously registered holder of a similar trademark. The details of the case are as follows:

Is School Teaching a Method of Publicizing Work in China?

Posted on July 18, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie) According to the Copyright Law, the copyright holder has more than ten exclusive rights. The copyright holder is often unclear about the differences between the exclusive rights and may have a very vague understanding of the fair use system, a system which can cut against the copyright. Although the case introduced in this essay is fundamentally not a rights protection case, the judgement clarifies the methods used for publication and expands the scope of the fair use copyright exception. The following is a summary and analysis of the case:

Could NetDragon’s Providing Plants vs Zombies 2 Be Protected under the Safe Harbor Principle?

Posted on July 17, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) In recent days, Plants VS Zombies 2, the sequel to the global hit game Plants VS Zombies, came on the market in Apple’s AppStore in Australia. Afer initial release, millions of users downloaded the app from the Australia store. In China, however, the situation is quite different. As reported by the media, within the first 24 hours of the game’s release, many unlocked versions of the application were uploaded to third party media providers, like ZS91.com, and that the encrypted in-game items had been cracked.

Why Trademark “K” Failed in Its Application?

Posted on July 17, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract:

(By Luo Yanjie) China trademark application procedure follows the principle of “first application,” but when two trademarks are substantially similar, a subsequent trademark could be considered as distinctive as the previously registered one through a sound reputation among consumers; taking this into account, and the possibility that such reputation may well differentiate a subsequent trademark substantially similar to a previously registered one causes one to consider whether such reputation would be worthy of the granting of trademark rights and protection.