(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 “first right.” The decision can be considered a clarification of the “merchandising right” by the judicial organs as well as broadening the scope of first rights.
Will Magic be Protected as A Work under China’s Copyright Law?
(By Luo Yanjie) Magic has long been a popular medium with which to entertain an audience, and how one should legally protect magic has long been a problem in the law. This problem has become especially obvious now that we have seen arguments regarding magic and the requirement that an expression be “original” as stipulated in the Copyright Law. Today, we would like to introduce to our readers how China protects magic works based on a case heard by the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, which can be considered the first established case concerning the magic work.
The Shanghai Branch of CIETAC Changed Its Name
Today, we noticed an announcement published on the website of the Shanghai Branch of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission stating that it has changed its name to the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (the “Shanghai Commission”). At the same time, it will begin to use the name of Shanghai International Arbitration Center. Additionally, starting on May 1, 2013, the Shanghai Commission will begin using new Arbitration Rules and a new arbitrator name list.
Dissatisfied with the First Instance Judgment, Qihoo Has Appealed in Its Anti-Monopoly Lawsuit Against Tencent
Our website has analyzed the case filed by Qihoo (NYSE: QIHU) against Tencent (SEHK: 700) stating that Tencent’s abuse of market dominance constituted a monopoly. The first instance of the case was decided by the Guangdong High People’s Court, which denied all of Qihoo’s claims. As recently disclosed by Qihoo, the company has appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, demanding either revocation of the first instance judgment and remand for the retrial, or amendment of the first instance legal judgment based on the facts such that all of Qihoo’s claims are supported.
How Does Monsanto Apply GMOs Patent into Company Operation?
Record of the Visit to St. Louis, Part I
(By You Yunting) In late March, the author had the opportunity to take a journey to the United States at the invitation of the US government in order to better understand how the US IPR system operates. The third he visited was St. Louis in the midwest, and while he was there there he visited the well-known bio-tech company, Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON, the “Monsanto”), and was received by senior legal officers. The following is the brief record of the visit there. The author notes that the title of this essay only covers part of the content of the essay and should not be adopted as theory.
How Does the US Government Determine Whether the Parallel Import of Trademarks Is Legal？
Record III of the Visit to New York
(By You Yunting) From late of March, the author visited the US at the invitation of the US government in order to get a better understanding of how the US IPR system operates. On Monday of the second week there, the author visited Wiggin and Dana LLP and Pryor Cashman LLP, two New York law firms. The law offices visited on that day were all in New York’s central business district and had spacious offices, with luxurious decorations, and the view outside was all of beautiful river scenery or of the Apple Countdown. The following is the record of that day’s visit.
Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, III
(By Luo Yanjie) In our previous two posts, we introduced the reader to the facts involved in the monopoly dispute between Qihoo and Tencent, as well as the Court’s decision. Today, we continue that discussion of the case and would like to share our opinions on it.
Lawyer’s comments and analysis
It is not difficult to find from the above judgment that Qihoo lost the lawsuit mainly because the court in the first instance denied its allegation that Tencent held a dominant position in the market; in addition, it’s evidence that the court’s decision was primarily based on a broad definition of “relevant market” in regard to Tencent’s QQ instant messaging software. The following is our analysis on the issue:
Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, II
(By Luo Yanjie) Today we will continue our introduction of the opinions of the Guangdong High People’s Court, the first instance court in the anti-monopoly dispute, concerning the facts in the case as well as its judgment.
II. About the dominant position of the defendant in the relevant market
As held by the court in the first instance, the plaintiff had a much narrower definition of the relevant product market and regional market, and the plaintiff calculated the market share based on the relevant product and regional market as it advocated, and that could not truly reflect the share and position of the defendant in the relevant market objectively. Especially taking into account that the product scope shown was the plaintiff’s most important evidence; more importantly, that the report from the Ai Rui research institution presented data contrasting with the scope determined by the court.
Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, I
(By Luo Yanjie) Starting today, we will have three posts introducing the decision in China’s most closely followed anti-monopoly case. Today’s post will first introduce the facts of the case. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. (NYSE: QIHU) (“Qihoo”) is a company whose primary business is security software. In October of 2010, Qihoo released software named “360 Privacy Protector,” which was claimed to prevent QQ, the instant messenger of Tencent Holdings Limited (SEHK: 700) (“Tencent”), from uploading the user’s personal information. Tencent was very dissatisfied with this claim, and believed that Qihoo actually intended to steal QQ users’ information and then replace QQ with its own product. For this reason, Tencent issued a notice to its users, demanding that users who installed QQ not install any of Qihoo’s software. At the same time it took technical steps to check the computers of its users to see whether they had installed Qihoo’s software. If any Qihoo software was found, the user was not allowed to sign in to QQ. This led to a large dispute on the internet in China. After the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (the “MIIT”) intervened, Qihoo recalled its 360 Privacy Protector, and Tencent revoked its regulation prohibiting QQ users from using Qihoo.
How Does the Federal Trade Commission Decide Whether Intellectual Property Licenses Violate Anti-trust Laws?
Day Five of the US Visit II
In late March, the author had the opportunity to make a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the US intellectual system operates. On the fifth day of the visit, the author went to the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and the following is a brief record of his visit there.
The FTC is the administration in charge of investigating and taking action against unfair competition and anti trust in the US. During the visit, FTC officials showed us a map showing that as of 1900, only the US and Canada had enacted competition laws, including unfair competition law and the anti trust law. Later by 1960, Sweden, France, and Japan passed legislation on competition. By 1980, many countries in Europe and South America passed competition laws, as well as Australia, India, Thailand, and South Africa. By 2012, almost all states of the world had laws in that field, except for a few African countries.
US Industrial Representative’s Interpretation on the Impossibility of Charges in China’s Music Industry
Record IV of Day Four of our U.S. Visit
(By You Yunting) In late March, the author had the opportunity to take a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the U.S. IPR system operates. On the fourth day of the journey, the author and his associate visited the International Intellectual Property Association (the “IIPA”). The following is the brief record of our visit there.
The IIPA is a copyright protection organization consisting of the Association of American Publishers (the “APP”), Business Software Alliance (the “BSA”), Entertainment Software Association (the “ESA”), Independent Film & Television Alliance (the “IFTA”), International Visual Art Association (the “INTVAA”), Motion Picture Association of America (the “MPAA”), National Music Publishers’ Association (the “NMPA”), and the Recording Industry Association of America (the “RIAA”).
Why did the US Rule that iPhone Jailbreaking is Legal, but iPad Jailbreaking is Illegal?
Record III of Day Four of Our Visit to the United States
(By You Yunting) At the end of this past March, on the invitation of the US government, the author visited America with other Chinese legal experts with the goal of better understanding its IPR system. On the fourth day of the journey, the author visited the Copyright Office of the US Library of Congress (the “US Copyright Office”). The following is the brief record of the visit on that day.
China’s Latest Laws and Regulations in March 2013
I. The Ministry of Commerce Issued Opinions Concerning the 2013 Guide on Attracting Foreign Investment Jobs
On March 19, 2013, the Ministry of Commerce issued Opinions Concerning the 2013 Guide on Attracting Foreign Investment Work (“Opinions”), which emphasizes attracting foreign investment in the high value-added manufacturing industry, enhancing openness of the service industry to the outside world, and strengthening the important role of foreign investment in the introduction of technology and knowhow. The Opinions also promote advancement of foreign investment in eastern areas and bringing change to central western areas, as well as further improving the investment environment to protect the legal rights and interests of foreign invested enterprises and improving protection of intellectual property rights. The Ministry of Commerce concurrently released a report on the situation of foreign investment attraction in 2012.
A Case Showing the Legal Effectiveness of Property Transfer Signed on the Behalf of a Spouse
Case Summary:
(By Zhang Fan) A and B are married. After being married, the couple established a real estate company through joint investment, by which A holds eighty percent of the shares and the owns the remaining twenty percent. C and D wish to purchase all of the company’s shares, to which both A and B agree. Additionally, both participate in the preliminary negotiation with C. Afterwards, however, negotiation was only carried out between A and C, and A signed on behalf of B on the concluded Share Transfer Contract, Shareholders Decision, and the documents prepared for the change of administration. As provided in the Share Transfer Contract, A’s eighty percent share option would be transferred to C, and B’s twenty percent share option would be transferred to D. B did not sign her name on the contract. After the payment by C to A for the share transfer, both parties went to the Administration for Industry and Commerce to register the change. Now the share holding of the company is eighty percent for C and twenty for B (B never took care of the registration transferring ownership to D).
The Prospect and Challenge of China’s Share Transfer System for Medium and Small Sized Companies (the New Three Board)
(Yu Zhiyuan) In September 2012, the China Securities Regulatory Commission promulgated the Supervision & Management Measures for Non-Listed Public Companies (the “Measures”), and the Measures came into effect January 1 2013. The Measures could be adopted as a fundamental regulatory rule of the OTC market of the security market in China. On January 31 2013, the overall regulatory rules for the three new boards, the Interim Management Measures for Liability Limited Companies for the Share Option Transfer of Medium and Small Sized Companies in China (the “Interim Measures”) was also published. The system construction of the OTC market has stepped into a substantial phase. Considering the large scale of the OTC market has the ability to exert great influence on the OTC market among multiple countries; it deserves people’s attention concerning its prospects and challenges in the future.