(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.
We introduced you to the first instance of Britney Spears’ trademark administrative lawsuit yesterday, and today we will continue that discussion concerning the second instance and provide our comments on the case.
In February 2012, Britney Spears appealed to the Beijing High People’s Court citing her dissatisfaction with the first instance decision. The court of second instance decided that as a first right, the right of publicity and use of one’s name is protected by Trademark Law. Furthermore, any unlicensed registration of the trademark would cause damage to the right of name when the relevant public mistakes the origin of the product or service with the name owner, or when the relevant consuming public believes there is an association between the two parties. Therefore, to determine whether a disputed trademark will harm the right to use one’s name, one must first consider whether the owner of the name is well known or popular. Moreover, to determine whether the relevant right will be regarded as a first right, the relevant date is the registration date of the disputed trademark. The focus of this case is whether Britney Spears was widely known in Mainland China among the relevant consuming public before the registration date of the disputed trademark, in this instance November 20, 2000; also, whether the relevant consuming public would be confused as to the source or origin of “布兰妮” or “Britney” as being substantially similar to the name Britney Spears, and thus inferring a relationship between the two parties.
(By Luo Yanjie) In past posts, we have introduced you to the trademark squatting of Yi Jian Lian, which is the name of a well-known basketball player in China. Today, we are going to show you another similar decision:
On 20th November 2000, Suzhou Yisheng Fashion Co., Ltd. (the “Yisheng Company”) applied for the trademark “布兰妮Britney” in Class 25, covering clothing articles, such as shirts, suits, coats, overcoats, skirts, t-shirts, wind coats and down jackets. The Trademark Office of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (the “Trademark Office”), after conducting a preliminary examination, published the application on its No. 807 Trademark Announcement. Britney Spears filed an opposition to the Trademark Office within the statutory period.
By You Yunting
A friend asked me a question: why by the latest USA legislature, to unlock iPhone shall be against the law, while it is permitted by law to do so for iPad? This question is complicated on essence, and it actually involves two restrictions designed by Apple on its devices.
On the initial launch of iPhone, the exclusive operating partner of Apple for its new device in USA was AT&T, and therefore it built the capability into the phone so as to ensure only the AT&T would be service network. Later on, as detained a slow internet speed, such a SIM lock was soon been unlocked, and from then on other operator could serve the users with iPhone.
By You Yunting
In the past few days, a Beijing court published a case (note: the link is in Chinese) involving a cybercafé who has purchased the Video-on-demand (VOD) system, and that made the court refuse the claims of the plaintiff though the right holder proved the piracy in the VOD.
VV8.com Company, a professional video system provider to cybercafé invested by IDG and Disney, detected the pirated TV drama against its copyright in the video system of a cybercafé. And then, the right holder filed a lawsuit against the piracy. The cybercafé afterwards argued that the system was purchased by it from Hero Inc. Company, who is a third party video provider, and in that transaction, both parties has agreed that all the copyright dispute shall be handled by Hero Inc.. Moreover, all the contents in the system are updated and ciphered by Hero Inc. with remote control, thus the cybercafé could not delete any videos in it. In the lawsuits, VV8.com expressed no intention to add Hero Inc. as the co-defendant and make no claim thereby.
With the Tort Liability Law coming into effect on 1st January of 2010, China internet companies are facing increasing pressures on the privacy violation. We would like to introduce the internet companies, especially the online game companies, the countermeasures to the risk of user information collection.
I. What legal risk from the user information collection?
Could there be any risk of collecting the hardware information, signing in IP information and software information of the users? That’s the question from a client of us. By our experience, in China, to collect the information that the owner would not like to open could possibly constitute the privacy violation. And in the internet industry, the law also prohibits the unauthorized visiting to the unlicensed computer system, the modification over other’s information or sending the information in others name arbitrarily which may constitute the privacy violation.
Some suggestions to Apple’s Chinese Operation
As reported by IT Times (note: the link is in Chinese), some apps in Apple’s App Store are complained by clients for its poor quality due to the loose supervision by the company, and also the settlement on the problem is difficult when encountered such problems. (the image above is the screen shot of one of the complained apps in App Store)
Therefore, we have searched the reports and news concerning the apps on the internet, by which we have found more than ten apps are charged for its fraudulence, including the apps designed for Taobao, the biggest online shop in China, mobile phone carrier service apps and traffic violation record, and the complains focus on the non-conformance to its publicity or being available. Besides, it also comes to our attention that the refund application is complicated for the entrance for the refund application is too difficult to be found shall there were no aid from Apple’s service tel.