(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Whether the confusion has been made among the consumers is the basis on which to judge the unfair competition liability. In recent two years, some China companies have engaged themselves in the fake licensing as first to establish a company outside mainland China in Hong Kong, with the same name like those reputed brands and then gain the benefits from the free riding on it. But once it has been judged confusion among the consumer, even it is licensed through the legal procedure, it shall also take the infringement liability.
(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.
By Luo Yanjie
According to China “copyright law”, commercial using pirated software is a typical act of infringement. We generally recommend the right owner taking civil action against pirates. But in many cases, administrative complaints against them will be more efficient because it is hard to get “evidences”. Today, we would like to introduce how to start a copyright infringement complaint inChina.
I. Legal basis of administrative complaints to pirates users
The current “copyright law” article 47 provides:“Any of the following acts of infringement shall, depending on its circumstances, be demanded for civil responsibility such as cease of the infringement, elimination of effects, public apology or compensation for loss; if the act causes a damage to the public interests simultaneously, the copyright administration department may order the person committing the act to stop the act of infringement, confiscate his illegal gains, confiscate and destroy the infringing copies and impose a fine thereon; if the circumstances are serious, the copyright administration department may also confiscate the key materials, tools and equipment mainly used for making infringing copies; and if the act constitutes a crime, criminal responsibility shall be demanded according to law”. This is the law basis for China Administration of copyright administrative punishment. In addition, the” Regulations for the protection of computer software” article 24 also make similar provisions in the light of computer software tort ( similar with ” copyright law”, repeat no longer here ). And” Decree of the National Copyright Administration of the PRC ” also provides the jurisdiction of an administrative copyright complaint case belongs to the State Copyright Bureau and the local copyright bureau, and make detailed provisions of legal procedure.
——A Lesson from a Success Case
I. The case and dispute
Several years ago, Mr. Liu and Mr. Chen jointly bought two realties, which were registered as joint ownership. Afterwards, disputes occurred and a lawsuit was initiated to claim for partition. The final judgment of second instance decides that two realities belong to Mr. Liu and Mr. Liu shall compensate Mr. Chen RMB 1.28 million.
Then, Mr. Liu, according to the final judgment, filed an application for execution to demand for registration for change. However, when Mr. Liu filed tax returns to the taxation authority, tax disputes arisen.
It is reported that the British Lotus who will adopt “路特斯”, the transliteration of Lotus in Chinese, as its local brand in China due to a Chinese domestic company first registered the trademark of “Youth Lotus”. It’s also mentioned in the report that British lotus lost the trademark though it should have the chance to get it through the trademark refusal review. Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce you the system of review on the trademark refusal in China.
As regulated in the Article 32 of China trademark law: