(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In software infringement lawsuits, the plaintiff shall demonstrate itself as the rights holder of the software involved and the “substantial similarity” of the defendant’s software with its own. On the opposite side of the coin, once a defendant counters by claiming that no infringements have been made, it shall present relevant evidence; otherwise, it shall bear any disadvantages resulting from the failure to present proof of a lack of infringement. As for the case described in this essay, although it involves open source software, no definitive solution has yet been made to solve this particular legal program, to our disappointment.
Could Yang Jiang Prevents the Auction Off of Qian Zhongshu’s Letters with Friends?
(By You Yunting)At first, the author would like to make a digression statement: in the article “Would Tencent Take the Copyright of Contents Published by Users on WeChat?”, the author analyzed the misunderstanding arisen by the Tencent User Agreement, and after its publication, Tencent modified its agreement, by which the original article has been amended into “For the contents created by the user when using the service herein provided, its IPR shall be the property of the user or the related right holder.” The author deeply appreciates their quick acceptation of the advice.
China’s Latest Laws and Regulations in May 2013
I. The State Administration of Foreign Exchange Has Issued various new regulations such as the Measures for the Administration of Foreign Exchange in Areas under Special Customs Supervision, Measures for the Administration of Registration of Foreign Debts and Measures for the Administration of Foreign Exchange of Direct Investment inside China by Foreign Investors.
In May 2013, the State Administration of Foreign Exchange issued a series of measures to regulate foreign exchange, including the Measures for the Administration of Foreign Exchange in Areas under Special Customs Supervision, Measures for the Administration of Registration of Foreign Debts, and Measures for the Administration of Foreign Exchange of Direct Investment within China by Foreign Investors. Meanwhile, the List of Regulations for the Administration of Foreign Exchange of Direct Investment within China to be Abolished and the Guidance of Operation of Business of Direct Investment within China were also issued at the same time. The new measures and regulations simplify and integrate the procedures related with foreign investment.
Why Ultraman Movie‘s Copyright Holder Confronts Obstacle in Claiming His Right over Ultraman Doll?
Abstract
(By Albert Chen) When the character in a film or television work satisfies the originality element, it could constitute as an independent work under the Copyright Law. But in that situation, the right holder of the film and television work could not necessarily claim the copyright over the character in it, and any infringement against the character shall be fought back by its designer or the licensee of the designer.
Case Summary
In 2009, China Shanghai Character License Administrative Corporation (“SCLA” hereinafter) gained the exclusive license from Tsuburaya Company for Ultraman Diga’s reproduction rights, distribution rights, rental and merchandising rights, and as well as the right to relicense the above rights within the territory of mainland China. After that, SCLA found that Hubei Xinyijia Supermarket Co., Ltd. ( “Xinyijia” hereinafter) has been selling out the Ultraman Diga toys, and thereafter SCLA filed their lawsuit in the court.
A Dispute and Settlement involving Technology Investments
Comments on a Shareholder’s Qualification Case Arising out of Technology Investments
(Steven Wang) Recently, the author has represented parties in a shareholder’s lawsuit, with the dispute centering on IPR investment. The court has already heard the case. The property value involved in the lawsuit totaled as high as RMB 300 million Yuan, and the laws applied in its hearing involved IPR law, contract law, and corporate law. The focus of the dispute referred to the patent, exclusive technology, contribution, revocation of shareholder qualification and the application of law when a number of conflicts arise among these different areas of the law. These conflicts have caused a lot of discussion regarding these legal conflicts, and several conclusions have been reached regarding issues presented in the case.
Is It Illegal to Auction off Qian Zhongshu and Yang Jiang’s Letter Manuscripts?
(By You Yunting) Recently, we noticed that a Beijing-based auction company was interested in selling letters and manuscripts, including those from the couple Mr. Qian Zhongshu and Ms. Yang Jiang (it should be noted both Mr. Qian and Ms. Yang are noted scholars in China). In addition, we have also seen letters from their daughter Ms. Qianyuan to Li Guoqiang, the chief editor of Hong Kong based magazine Guang Jiao Jing, and a manuscript of Mr. Qian’s work. In the meantime, some of the letters’ content has been disclosed to the media; in fact, following these disclosures there was apparent dissatisfaction from Mr. Qian’s widow, Yang Jiang, alleging that these public disclosures were in fact a violation of one’s private communication, and any public disclosure, by the media or otherwise, would be considered improper.
Why Ctrip’s Opponent Failed in Charging Its Advertisement’s Unfair Competition?
Abstract
(By Albert Chen) For the company operation in China, whether its slogan would constitute the unfair competition, it shall first judge whether the parties involved are conducting the same or similar industries. After that, it shall verify whether the defendant has conducted the accused propaganda. The last and also is the most important, it shall confirm whether the prohibitive words or phrases have been adopted in the slogan, or whether its description has appeared to be exaggerated or not the truth, and the fit with the fact shall also be judged.
Could User Information Be Considered Trade Secret in China?
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) To a website, its’ user information is very important to its 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.
Would Tencent Take the Copyright of Contents Published by Users on WeChat?
(By You Yunting) Recently, a news report titled “My WeChat, But Not My Copyright?” (note: the article is in Chinese) has raised wide suspicion over the copyright of the messages posted on WeChat, a LBS messaging software by Tencent. The reporter checked the User Agreement of Tencent and interviewed a representative from the company. Unfortunately, ultimately the reporter was still unable to reach a conclusion on the copyright ownership for messages posted on WeChat.
The author also examined the User Agreement of Tencent’s WeChat, and verified the dou
bt of the reporter. With regards to the copyright ownership of the content published by the user, Tencent’s User Agreement included very little information and does not answer the question. As regulated in Article 11.1 of Tencent Service Agreement and Article 9.1 of Tencent Public Platform Service Agreement:
Can Software User Interface be Protected by China Copyright Law?
Abstract
(By Albert Chen) User Interfaces (UI) are generally excluded from copyright protection, because a UI simply allows the software to be used by displaying various methods of operation; that being said, because UIs are all essentially limited by incorporating similar functions, similar kinds of software inevitably reach creative limits in expression of UI layouts and specification of features and functions. Looking at UIs in another way, the basic UI layout and framework essentially enter the public domain, and ergo are not afforded protection under the Copyright Law.
Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?
(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 at the same time, the court also decided 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.
Is Apple Breaching China’s Foreign Exchange Management Rules in the App Store?
(By You Yunting) In November of 2011, Apple Inc. began allowing its users in China to purchase app by RMB. At the time, the author believed that it means Apple would operate its AppStore in China. Yet unill now, the business concerning AppStore of Apple is still run by iTunes S.A.R.L.(the “iTunes”), the company registered in Luxembourg, a subsidiary of Apple Inc. Furthermore, according to the relevant International convention on transnational transaction, neither Apple nor iTunes is required to pay taxes for Chinese user’s purchase of the apps to the Chinese government. For Apple and iTunes, on one hand they take the payment in RMB, but on the other hand, they do not pay the taxes. This business model is achieved through the third party payment method. In this situation, the third party payment service provider would collect the payment from the Chinese users, and then transfer them to overseas. But this business model is at risk of violating the foreign currency control regulations of China. The following are the opinions of the author on this issue.
Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part II
(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. Both parties in the case have submitted large amounts of evidences to support their claims. As showed in the judgment, the case seems to be very complicated. Moreover, because 360 provided the service for free, 360’s lose in the case has gained the sympathy of Internet users. However, from a legal standpoint, this case is not difficult. The ruling against 360 was proper for the following reasons:
Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part I
(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, despite that being deemed reasonable in the eyes of some netizens, it would no doubt damage Tencent’s legal rights as QQ’s developer and operator. The author believes that it was proper for the court to determine that 360 had engaged in unfair competition practices. Today we’d like to introduce a bit about this case to our readers, beginning with today’s post and extending into tomorrow’s.
Whether using the Name of Another’s Work Constitutes Copyright Infringement or Unfair Competition
Abstract: The Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, but they also compete with each other. In the case introduced in this article, the first instance court denied the copyright infringement claim, but confirmed liability under the principles of unfair competition. This seems to be logically contradictory, and the court in the second instance corrected this glaring mistake.
(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. In this particular aspect, it shares a similar purpose with the Anti Unfair Competition Law. For this reason, the Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, yet on the other hand they also compete with each other.