Bridge IP Law Commentary - Page 34 of 64 - Your Guide to China IP Law！

Introduction and Interpretation of China’s Judicial Interpretation on the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, I

Posted on February 27, 2013 by yytbest

Judicial Interpretation on the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, interpretation, analysis, Supreme People’s Court, Regulation on Several Issues Concerning Application of Law in Hearing Civil Disputes on the Right to Network Dissemination of Information, history, development, China Academy of Science, NCFC, NSFNET, copyright law, Interpretation on

(By You Yunting) On December 26 2012, China’s Supreme People’s Court published the “Regulation on Several Issues Concerning Application of Law in Hearing Civil Disputes on the Right to Network Dissemination of Information” (the “Network Interpretation”). The Network Interpretation came into effect on January 1, 2013. Therefore, in today and tomorrow’s posts, we are going to share an introduction and interpretation of the new regulation

Do All Minimum Price Limits Violate the Anti-trust Law in China?

Posted on February 26, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) In the post, “The Legal Sense of the Punishment over the Vertical Monopoly of Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye By NDRC,” which was posted several days ago, we described China’s first case on vertical pricing agreements (a vertical monopoly contract refers to a contract a monopolistic business signs with its business partner, which limits pricing or contains other monopolistic content). The application of Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law adopted by the court in that case was different from the application adopted by the China National Development and Reform Committee. We have found and studied the written judgment for that case, which is now in its second instance. Although according to the Civil Procedure Law, the judgment of the first instance has not yet come into effect due to the appeal, some of the main points of the decision are worth looking at. Therefore, we would like to share our opinions on it with our subscribers.

Full Text of the Anti-trust Punishment Ordered by China NDRC against MaoTai and WuLiangYe Vertical Pricing Monopoly

Posted on February 26, 2013 by yytbest

The Price Bureaus under the Provincial Development and Reform Commissions in Sichuan Province and Guizhou Province published their orders for punishment against the vertical pricing monopoly by MaoTai and WuLiangYe on their official websites. By the orders, the two distilleries were fined totaled RMB 449 million yuan (approximately $ 72, 064, 500 dollar). The following is our translation of the full text of the administrative punishments already ordered.

The punishment ordered by Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission:

Would NDRC’s Vertical Pricing Monopoly Fine against MaoTai and WuLiangYe Have Influences on Other China Companies?

Posted on February 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Over the past few days, the writer shared two essays concerning the administrative punishment ordered against Mao Tai Company and Wu Liang Ye Company, the top distilleries in China, over the accusation that they violated the Anti Monopoly Law by concluding monopoly agreements restricting or fixing retail prices (the “monopoly agreements”) with their dealers. The writer has received heated comments and arguments from the subscribers and followers of his Weibo and Blog. Many of these comments support the punishment, but some friends have expressed concerns over the issue. Today, the writer will share his opinions on whether the punishment will influence the normal commercial order.

How MaoTai and Wu Liang Ye Would Defend Against Vertical Pricing Monopoly Fines ordered by China NDRC?

Posted on February 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Abstract: Both Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye can rely on one of the seven situations in Article 15 of the Anti Monopoly Law for their defense. But, that defense will not be easy because it requires evidence that the relevant agreements will not limit market competitors and that consumers can share the interests produced by the agreements.

In yesterday’s post, the writer analyzed the legal meaning of the punishment ordered by the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”) against two top Chinese distilleries, Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye. Today’s post will go one step further to describe the way for Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye can protect their own interests.

Regulation on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Disputes of Infringement against Information Network Broadcasting Rights by the Supreme People’s Court

Posted on February 22, 2013 by yytbest

Adopted at the 1561^st Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on November 26, 2012, and came into effect from January 1, 2013.

For the purpose of correctly trying civil disputes of infringement of information network broadcasting rights, lawfully protecting the right of information network communication, promoting the healthy development of the information network industry and maintaining the public interest, according to the General Principles of Civil Law of the PRC, the Tort Liability Law of the PRC, the Copyright Law of the PRC, the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC and other relevant laws and regulations, in combination with civil trial practice, the regulation is made as follows:

The Legal Sense of the Punishment over the Vertical Monopoly of Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye By NDRC

Posted on February 21, 2013 by yytbest

(You Yunting) According to the report, Mao Tai Company and Wu Liang Ye Company, both are the top distilleries in China, would be ordered the penalty of 1% of their annual sales in 2012, approximately RMB 449 million yuan, by the National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) for their restricting or fixing the retail price of their downstream dealers. You might have noticed “would be”, and we have no idea about whether the final decision has been made, and it could not exclude the possibility that the news report is only the public opinion test by NDRC for its punishment in consideration.

Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law？

Posted on February 19, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Due to the late establishment of the relevant law and system, the trademark squatting situation in China is quite serious, and much squatting is conducted by trademark agents or partners. Article 15 of the Trademark Law provides that:

“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 therefrom, and the latter raises opposition, the trademark shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.”

How Do Chinese Courts Distinguish “Manufacture” and “Sale” When Hearing Design Patent Infringement Cases?

Posted on February 18, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, the manufacture and sale of patented products are easily distinguished. Sale normally refers to infringing sale and purchase of patented products with no engagement in assembly or manufacture. In the case introduced in this essay, however, whether the behavior of the defendant was “manufacture” or “sale” is the key point argued. Now we would like to use the case and relevant law to introduce the difference between design patent “manufacture” and “sale.”

Is it Infringing LV’s Trademark Right when Registering Similar Images as Patented Design?

Posted on February 15, 2013 by yytbest

(By Albert Chen) Brief of the case:The Louis Vuitton Company (the “LV Company”) holds the rights to the “LV” trademark in Mainland China, and it registered the trademark “LV” as early as January 15, 1986. At present, the term of protection of the mark has been extended to January 14, 2016. The registered classes for the “LV” trademark include toys, Chinese checkers, Backgammon, golf gloves, etc. On November 13, 2003, Guo filed an application for a patented design called “Mahjong (23)”, and the application was approved and published on July 14, 2004. The published patent includes 5 pictures, which contain the front view, left view, back view, top view and three-dimensional views. Among them, the front view contains an image consisting of the letters “L” and “V.”

Analysis on Trademark Infringement Case of Adidas

Posted on February 14, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) In 2001, the globally known sportswear brand Adidas acquired a trademark certificate issued by the Trademark Office of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”), namely a certificate numbered 1489454 for the “three slants” trademark, which was approved in Class 25 for clothing, ball shoes, hats, socks and other similar products; in addition, the certificate numbered 1536558 for the “three slants” trademark was approved in Class 18, which covers bags, clothing case, traveling bags and belts. On June 21 2003, Adidas transferred the trademarks to its affiliates.

Administrative Warning Issued to 360.cn by Beijing Administration of Industry and Commerce

Posted on February 13, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Recently, the Beijing Municipal Administration of Industry and Commerce (“Administration”) published on its official Weibo that the Beijing Administration and Xicheng Administration of Industry and Commerce made an appointment with the chief of Beijing’s Qihoo Co. (“Qihoo”), and issued an administrative warning against company conduct, claiming violations of unfair competition laws and regulations related to its “360 Safeguard” for use in computer internet browsers.

China Revised Its Law on Jurisdiction of Internet Infringement Involving Foreign Elements

Posted on February 12, 2013 by yytbest

(By Albert Chen) On the issue of jurisdiction in online infringement cases, Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning Application of Law in Hearing Network Copyright Disputes Involving Computers (the “Network Dispute Interpretation”) previously stated that:

“Online copyright infringement dispute cases are within the jurisdiction of the court in the place where infringement occurred or the residence of the defendant. The place where infringement occurred includes the place where the network server or computer terminal used to conduct the accused infringement is located. For situations where it is difficult to determine the place where the infringement occurred or the residence of the defendant, the place where the computer terminal or other device that the plaintiff used to discover the infringement is located may be used as the place where the infringement occurred.”

The Court Ultimately Supported Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company’s Application for an Injunction

Posted on February 11, 2013 by yytbest

(BY Albert Chen ) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) is the holder of the王老吉 (the “Wang Lao Ji”) trademark in mainland China. In 2000, it licensed Hongdao Group, a Hong Kong admitted company, to use the trademark. After Hongdao Group used the trademark and caused it to develop a definite business reputation, however, a dispute broke out between the two parties over the right to use the Wang Lao Ji trademark.

In the first round of the fighting between the parties, GPHC used arbitration with CIETAC to cancel the supplementary agreements signed between two parties in 2002 and 2003 based upon the fact that the agreements were executed under commercial bribery. This website has discussed the implementation problems arising in that case. After that, the subsidiary of Hongdao Group that had sold Wang Lao Ji, Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) began to sell its herbal tea under the brand name 加多宝(the “JDB”) Additionally, JDB used disputed slogans, such as “Wang Lao Ji now calls itself JDB,” “China’s top selling red can herbal tea now call itself JDB.” Claiming that such slogans constituted false advertising or unfair competition GPHC filed for an injunction with the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and demanded an immediate halt to such advertisements.

Why Pfizer Did Not Win the Blue Pill Trademark Infringement Case?

Posted on February 9, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Pfizer is the holder of a blue, diamond-shaped mark (the “Pfizer trademark,” number: 3110761). The trademark was approved in Class 5 for pharmaceutical preparation, medicines made for human consumption, antibiotics, medical nutrition supplements, cleaning agents, and veterinary preparation. The registration period for the trademark commenced on May 28, 2003 and will expire on May 27^, 2013.

On July 21, 2005, Pfizer representatives purchased a box of medicine priced at RMB 50 yuan from the New Concept Company. The medicine was mainly intended to cure “erectile dysfunction.” The front and back cover of the package contained both “Viagra”[1] and “TM,” which was underlined and accompanied by the diamond image. The manufacturer was printed as “Jiangsu Lian Huan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd” (“Lian Huan”) dated on April 14, 2005. The opaque inner packaging also contained the words “Viagra” and “TM,” as well as the manufacturer “Lian Huan.” The packaging of the medicine was also diamond-shaped, in accordance with the shape of the tablet. The medicine itself was light blue in color, diamond compass shaped, and contained the words “Viagra” and “TM.” Pfizer believes that these products constituted three-dimensional trademark infringement and thereby sued the manufacturer and seller.