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

Posted on by

(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.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by

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.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by

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:

READ MORE

Is School Teaching a Method of Publicizing Work in China?

Posted on by

(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:

READ MORE

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

Posted on by
13734375027257

(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.

READ MORE

Why Trademark “K” Failed in Its Application?

Posted on by

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.

READ MORE

Why Couldn’t the Trademark “Bond” Be Applied to Contraceptives?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) The Beijing High People’s Court (the “Beijing High Court”) established the “merchandising right” in a 2011 judgment on an administrative dispute between the Trademark Adjudication and Review Board (the “Board”) and DANJAQ, LLC (the “DANJAQ”). That was the first judicial definition of the right, and the first time it was included as a protected “prior right.”

In today’s post, we would like to describe the facts in the case, and introduce to our readers the opinions of Beijing High Court and our comments on the matter.

READ MORE

Why Hainan Netcom Is Judged Infringement Liability for IP Addresses It Manages?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) Hainan Netcom is an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), but it also provides the content on the Internet. Even after the company failed todemonstrate that the IP address is used by a third party, and it fulfilled its obligation to check the content of the webpage, the company should still be liable for any corresponding infringement.

Case Summary:

Beijing Ciwen Filming Co., Ltd. (“Company C”) is the copyright holder of film Qi Jian (also known as “Seven Sword”) in mainland China. However, Company C discovered that Hainan Netcom hadbeen providing a link on its homepage (www.hai169.com) for its visitors to stream Qi Jian, without the authorization of Company C.As a result,in September of 2005, Company C filed a lawsuit against Hainan Netcom because it believed that Hainan Netcom had infringed upon its copyright.

READ MORE

Is the Territorial Scope of a Famous Brand Limited to Chinese Territories?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The determination of a product reputation is usually limited to Chinese territories, while on the other hand the reputation of a mark may involve consideration of overseas reputation.

Freeriding among Chinese manufacturers is unfortunately a very common and severe issue, and for most well known foreign companies, there may be situations in which they have not paid adequate attention to the Chinese market, and ergo have provided insufficient attention to policing its marks within the realm of IPR protection. As a result, the vast majority of foreign brands are helpless in facing rampant infringement.

READ MORE

Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part II

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Today, we would give our opinions on 360’s unfair competition ruling

Lawyer’s Comments:

The case is a part of the “3Q battle”, and has garnered wide attention in the society. From a legal standpoint, this case is not difficult.The ruling against 360 was proper for the following reasons:

1. The promotion of ads and charges are of the lawful items

It shall first be pointed out that despite the annoying functions in QQ, like the pop-up ads or value added service, these functions are of the legal profit model of Tencent. As known to all, QQ is a free software (despite the various charging items, the basic function of the software, namely the messaging is free). For Tencent has invested many resources in hardware and management cost, and should naturally be repaid through the ads or value added service. If other companies prevent the lawful advertising of Tencent, thereby reducing the chances of lawful transactionsfor Tencent and its clients, it would be of unfair competition.

READ MORE

Why China Court Protects Violation Against GPL License Agreement?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) We could find no regulation in China’s Copyright Law and Regulation on the Protection of Computer Software with regard to the open source software. In a dispute judged by Haidian People’s Court in the 1st instance and Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court in the 2nd instance, though both courts determined the validity of the open source agreement, they supported those violating the GNU GPL as failed in disclosing newly added source code could claim the copyright over the new work. To our understanding, the case, on the  one hand, had showed the pragmatism of China courts, and on the other hand, it also demonstrated that the open source software organization is necessarily to be seen in the right protection on the OSS software.

READ MORE

Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part I

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Although online ads or pop-up ads may make you feel uncomfortable, that is a profit model utilized by free software like Tencent’s QQ, the popular online messaging software. But, when the 360 Guard software removed QQ’s ads, it would no doubt damage Tencent’s legal rights. We’d like to introduce this case to our readers, beginning with today’s post and extending into tomorrow’s.

In 2010, Tencent introduced its “QQ Computer Keeper” to the market, which focuses on defending against attacks on Tencent. Before that, the Qihu 360 Company publicized its product 360 Guard. 360’s software could remove QQ’s ads, remove supplemental and additional functions found within QQ’s software, and prevent computer viruses from stealing QQ account information. Within the first 72 hours after the introduction of 360 Guard, it was downloaded more than 20 million times. Tencent believed that 360’s Guard software constituted unfair competition, and was possibly even stealing end user’s personal information. For this reason, Tencent announced that all computers with 360’s software installed would no longer be able to use QQ’s software.

READ MORE

Shanghai Court Promulgated New Rules on Service Invention Remuneration and Reward

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen)  Recently, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court (the “Higher Court”) issued the Guidelines on the Trial of Employment Remuneration and Reward for the Inventor and Designer (the “Guidelines”), which has further provided the issues involving the standard of the remuneration and reward as well as their payment. In today’s post, the author would like to interpret the new regulations in the Guidelines.

I. The standard of the service invention remuneration

According to the Guidelines, the remuneration for the service invention shall not be less than RMB 3,000 and not less than RMB 1,000 for  design patent and utility model.

READ MORE

Is It Illegal For Directors in Company to Squat Trademarks in China?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) As regulated in Article 15 of the Trademark Law:

“Where any agent or representative registers, in its or his own name, the trademark of a person for whom it or he acts as the agent or representative without authorization there from, and the latter raises opposition, the trademark shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.”

But in judicial practice, the agent or representative has a very vague definition of “authorized” . Our website once analysed the issues concerned in the post “Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law”. In today’s post, we would like to introduce the opinions of the court from a different aspect. The details are as follows:

READ MORE

In Selling Train Ticket Insurance, Why Did JD.com Deliberately Break the Unfair Competition Law?

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By You Yunting) The greed of JD.com and Ctrip.com (NASDAQ: CTRP) has been fully revealed, for they have added insurance fees as a compulsory sale with its train ticket offerings. In reality, all JD and Ctrip want to do is become engaged in the huge amount of train ticket transactions that take place every year in China, yet not be restricted by the statutorily imposed agency fee of up to RMB five Yuan. Clearly, it is plain to see that these two parties have sold insurance tacked onto ticket agency train tickets as a means of gaining even more profit. However, such a strategy could be considered entirely invalid, and in addition likely in violation of the Unfair Competition Law due to its chasing of illegal profits through such sales.

READ MORE