(By You Yunting) Original Equipment Manufacture (the“OEM”) refers to a commercial model where the Principal person is responsible for the brand, research and design, and marketing, meanwhile, the manufacturer is responsible for production. As a big manufacturing country, OEM is an important way for our manufactured products to participate in international competition. Under China’s Laws, however, it is unclear whether OEM constitutes as a trademark infringement, and local courts have handed out different decisions for this problem. According to the author’s information, Fujian higher court, Zhejiang higher court and Shanghai higher court held that OEM manufacturers does not involve trademark infringement, but Guangdong higher court decided that the OEM manufacturers shall take responsibility for trademark infringement in many cases. The Supreme Court has not yet expressed its opinion towards this problem.
Danone established a joint venture company with the Wahaha Group in 1996, with a 51 percent ownership stake of stock in the company. In addition to this joint venture company, the Wahaha Group also operated several separate non-Wahaha joint ventures. In 2007, Danone attempted to offer four billion Yuan to purchase 51 percent of the shares of all non-Wahaha joint ventures, but this offer was rejected. Subsequently, Danone was involved in a series of complex litigation against the Wahaha group in a number of jurisdictions.
(By Albert Chen) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company’s lawsuit (GPC) against Jia Duo Bao (JDB) for false advertising was heard in January of this year at the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. In addition to the arguments held by each party regarding the false advertising, they also disputed whether an injunction could be issued as applied to GPC. Ultimately, the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court approved the injunction, basing its decision on findings that JDB had exploited GPC through false advertising, thereby confusing and misleading consumers. The Court then prohibited JDB from making advertisements with claims that GPC’s vitamin drink “Wang Lao Ji” had changed its name to JDB, or any other similar slogans indicating that somehow GPC’s Wang Lao Ji product was the same as JDB’s as the result of a name change.
Some net friends ask lawyers of Bridge IP Law Commentary on the http://www.zhihu.com/ (the Quora in China) that whether the original contents in the microblog could be protected by Copyright Law, and if can, how they are protected. Our replies are as follows:
1. The tweets could be the works as specified in the Copyright Law when they are original, despite they could only contain 140 characters. However, when the tweets only have a single word “Ah!” or the normal phrase like “It’s a fine day today”, then such microblogs could not be the legal works and could not be protected by Copyright Law.
The cyber age is a big challenge to the company like Microsoft, Adobe and Autodesk whose income mainly comes from the stand-alone software, for any netizen could get access to the copyrighted software easily through internet.
To prevent the easy software copy and pirating, the company tends to use the registration code or serial number for the software activation, or to adopt the DRM (digital right management) technology. However, a new problem is probably arousing after the old is settled, the solution of cracking is developed for such registration codes. Bridge IP Law Commentary today will analyze the legal responsibility for such cracking,
—comment on the game software infringement by China laws
Highlight: To introduce you the most common infringement against the online game and the methods by which the right owner could stop the infringement or to gain the profit by licensing the infringer.
As news reports, Shengtiantang, a China game company is complained and demanded to withdraw by Blizzard for the company’s developed game World of Starcraft on iOS platform, meanwhile, Apple has also noticed Shengtiantang of the no infringement evidence.