Comments on the Preliminary Process for Filing Infringement Action Against False Statements in the Registration-Based Case Filing System

(By Li Xiang)Article Six of the Regulations of the Supreme People’s Court on Hearing Civil Compensation Cases Arising from False Statements in Securities Markets (“Regulations”) states that “courts should accept and hear litigation cases brought by investors claiming damages for themselves arising from a false statement on the basis of decision made by an administrative authority or a criminal court”. According to this, administrative or criminal punishment is the preliminary process for filing a civil compensation case arising from a false statement.

READ MORE

Does the “GAP Underwear” Trademark Have Adverse Effect by Its Name?  

(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark Office (the “CTMO”) has been increasingly tightened its standards on trademark reviewing and claiming that the trademark itself may cause “adverse effect”. Competent authorities are more than inclined to use such grounds indiscriminately by treating it as an all-purpose shield to deal with distinct situations. Recently, the Supreme People’s Court remedied such phenomenon by making its decision on the GAP Underwear’s cases. The following is our detailed introduction:

READ MORE

Laws and Regulations Update in May 2016

1. The Supreme People’s Court Issues Official Reply Concerning the Disposition of Seized Property by the First Seizing Court and the Enforcement Court for a priority Claim

On 12th April 2016, the Supreme People’s Court issued an official reply to the request by the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province for clarifying some issues concerning the disposition of seized property by the first seizing court and the enforcement court for a priority claim. This Judicial Interpretation came into effect on 14th April 2016.

READ MORE

China Laws and Regulations Update in December 2014

  1. The State Council Releases the Catalogue of Investment Projects Subject to Government Verification and Approval (2014 Edition)

On 31st of October 2014, the State Council released the Notice of the State Council on Promulgating the Catalogue of Investment Projects Subject to Government Verification and Approval (2014 Edition), which became effective on the same date.

Enterprises that intend to invest in and construct the fixed-asset investment projects listed in the Catalogue shall apply to relevant project verification and approval authorities for verification and approval in accordance with pertinent provisions. Enterprises that intend to invest in and construct projects other than those listed in the Catalogue shall be subject to record-filing administration. Projects invested and constructed by public institutions, social organizations, etc. shall be governed by the Catalogue.

READ MORE

GAP Defeated a Trademark Squatting in China After 20 Years

GAP

(By You Yunting) It is well known that GAP is a famous brand in clothing. However, in China, someone attempted to register “GAP” under Class 9 for eyewear products as a trademark. GAP has been defeating similar trademark squatting for over 20 years.

Introduction to the Case:

Applicant of a retrial (Plaintiff in the first instance and Appellant the in second instance): GAP (ITM) INC.

Respondent (Defendant in the first instance and Appellee in the second instance): Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (the “TRAB”)

READ MORE

What is the Weakness of Getty Images China’s Protection Litigation against Photo Infringement?

(By You Yunting) Recently, Getty Images China brought cases regarding copyright infringement arose from Weibo to courts. These companies sued by Getty Images China almost take a similar pattern like that: first these companies have outsourced its right of operation for their Weibo to ads enterprises, then on its Weibo ads enterprises published photos that Getty Images China owned in their thought, and finally these companies were sued by Getty Images China. Some customers asked us how to face such litigation. We will share our analysis on this question and introduce a case which Getty Images China lost its litigation in the Supreme People’s Court.

READ MORE

Four Problems of China Supreme Court‘ s Judicial Interpretation on Crackdown of Web Rumor

(By You Yunting) Recently, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate jointly issued the Interpretations on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Laws for in the Handling of Defamation via Information Networks and Other Criminal Cases (hereinafter the “Judicial Interpretation”).

Upon reading the whole text of the Judicial Interpretation, in the author’s opinion, this Judicial Interpretation has a bad negative impact upon the rule of law and freedom of speech rather than the positive value of cracking down on web rumors and purifying the environment of internet, because of considering that this Judicial Interpretation attempts to use the idea of “governing the country with severe law during the trouble times” to solve the web rumors so that current crackdown against web rumors is too hard and the legislative proceedings of this Judicial Interpretation are defective .
II. The Problem in Violation of the Principle of Legality

READ MORE

Why Did the Court Not Rule in Accordance With Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law? Part II

(By You Yunting) August 1, 2013 was the fifth anniversary of the enactment of China’s AntiMonopoly Law. On the same day, Shanghai Higher People’s Courts handed down the first decision that supported a plaintiff’s claim in an anti-monopoly civil ligation in China. The court determined that Johnson & Johnson Medical Co. Ltd action constituted as a vertical monopoly for restricting the minimum sales price, and the company was ordered to make civil compensation for the plaintiff’s loss.

READ MORE

Why Did the Court Not Rule in Accordance With Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law? Part I

(By You Yunting) August 1, 2013 was the fifth anniversary of the enactment of China’s AntiMonopoly Law. On the same day, Shanghai Higher People’s Courts handed down the first decision that supported a plaintiff’s claim in an anti-monopoly civil ligation in China. The court determined that Johnson & Johnson Medical Co. Ltd action constituted as a vertical monopoly for restricting the minimum sales price, and the company was ordered to make civil compensation for the plaintiff’s loss.

READ MORE

China Supreme Court: Which Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Design Patent Disputes?

(By Albert Chen) Past essays on this websites have introduced the design patent dispute between Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Hebei Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Hebei Xin Kai”) and Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. In another dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction. This dispute deserves attention and will be introduced in today’s post.

Case summary:

In 2005, Hongda and Dongfeng Hongda Auto Manufacturing (Wuhan) Co., Ltd. (“Dong Feng”) filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Higher People’s Court (the “Beijing Higher Court”), claiming that Hebei Xin Kai, Gaobeidian Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Gaobeidian Xin Kai”), and Beijing Xin Sheng Bai Li Auto Trading Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Xin Sheng”) infringed their design patent. The Beijing Higher Court accepted the case.

READ MORE

Is a Copyright’s Creation Time Important for Deciding Copyright Infringement?

(By Albert Chen) In 2010, Getty Images China (“Getty China”) filed a copyright infringement suit against Sinotrans Chongqing Co. (“Sinotrans Chongqing”). After the first instance, second instance, and review, the Supreme Court confirmed the copyright held by Getty China over the pictures involved in the case. The point that deserves the most attention in the case is the different understandings on whether the creation date of the copyright is an essential requirement for showing infringement.

READ MORE

China Supreme Court: Which Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Design Patent Disputes?

43a7d933c895d143c806572873f082025aaf074c_副本

(By Albert Chen) Past essays on this websites have introduced the design patent dispute between Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (“Hongda”), Hebei Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Hebei Xin Kai”) and Shuanghuan Auto Co., Ltd. In another utility model patent dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction in design patent disputes. This dispute deserves attention and concentration and will be introduced in today’s post.

Case summary:

READ MORE

The Development of China Court’s Judgment over Criminal Offence of Online Game Cheating Programs, III

Today, our website will introduce the most recent crime adopted by courts in some regions of China to combat online game cheating programs: the crime of damaging computer information systems.

III. The crime of damaging computer information systems

Although there problems with all of the crimes previously discussed for combating cheating programs, with the strengthening of legislation, the online game industry finally found a suitable crime in 2011. According to Article 286 of the Criminal Law:

“Those who violate the law by deleting, modifying, adding, or interfering with the function of computer information systems so that information systems are unable to run normally, which leads to severe consequences, may be sentenced to imprisonment of no more than five years of detention; when the consequences are especially severe, the violator may be sentenced to imprisonment of more than five years. Those who violate the law by deleting, modifying, or adding data or applicable procedures to the storage, processing, or transmission programs in computer information systems, which leads to severe consequences, may be punished as per the preceding paragraph.”

READ MORE

The Development of China Court’s Judgment over Criminal Offence of Online Game Cheating Programs, II

Today, we will introduce the second crime adopted in China to combat cheating programs in online games: criminal copyright infringement.

II. The state of criminal copyright infringement

After years of combating cheating programs using the crime of illegal operation, the judicial organs in some regions tried to use criminal copyright infringement from Article 217 of the Criminal Law to combat cheating programs. The subjective aspect of criminal copyright infringement requires the unlicensed copying and distribution of the copyrighted work of another for profit.

READ MORE

The Development of China Court’s Judgment over Criminal Offence of Online Game Cheating Programs, I

(By You Yunting) Since Shanda imported the massively popular online game, MIR, from South Korea in 2001, the online game industry has gradually become one of the most profitable businesses in China, and has made a fortune for tycoons such as Chen Tianqiao and Ding Lei. On the other hand, all kinds of illicit activities have arisen with the development of the online game business, among which cheating programs to assist players is the most troublesome for the game companies.

According to information acquired by the writer while working in a game company, cheating programs are software that run with the game software, thus giving them their name as game cheating programs. Cheating programs have several harms. First, they incur Gresham’s Law (bad money chases out good money), which makes rules-obeying players easily defeated and thereby damages the fairness of the game. Second they put more burden on the server and force the operator to purchase more servers and the bandwidth, which undoubtedly increases costs and decreases the stability of the server. Third, they enable players to fulfill game objective more quickly, which abnormally speeds up the progress of the game and could force the game company invest more human resources into developing new game content or elements. Although it is possible that some cheating programs are used to make up for the defects in the game, most have harmed the gaming experience, added costs of the company’s development and operation, and could jeopardize stable running of the game.

READ MORE