(By Wang Ting and You Yunting)The limited liability of the shareholders means that the liability of the shareholder to the company are limited to its capital contribution, and the independent personality of corporation means that the Company shall fulfill its external liabilities by all of its properties. Therefore, the shareholders usually do not take personal responsibility in IPR infringement cases even when the long-term business of the company is infringement of the intellectual property rights (“IPR”) in most cases. However, today we will introduce a recent case, in which the shareholders were determined to take such joint liabilities for the IPR infringements.
(By Yue Mengyan) An employee violates non-competition clause in his previous labor contract with his former employer, and works for a new employer, which has a competitive relationship with his former one. Could the former employer claim the new employer to be liable for such infringement, in addition to the employee’s liability for breach of contract? Pursuant to relevant laws and regulations in China, we will introduce a case and make our analysis in the following.
Appellant (defendant of first instance): Liu Guoqing
(By You Yunting) Recently, Uber Shanghai carries out a marketing activity called Call for one hundred million by one button of Uber cooperated with 1qiaobao, an App owned by PINGAN INSURANCE GRP. According to the Uber’s official Weibo, users can use the Uber App to call the securicar provided by both Uber and 1qianbao, and anyone who is the winner of the caller can obtain all the financing earnings of one hundred million yuan, which is about ten thousand yuan. I think this activity has huge legal risks, therefore hereunder are the risks and its reason.
(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, enterprises are always using the application of trademarks to protect their brands, but because of the strict trademark review and long review periods, sometimes enterprises could not obtain the approval of trademark registration. Even so, with regard to their famous goods, enterprises could rely on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect their rights and interests. In today’s post, we will introduce and share a typical case with readers.
Introduction to the Case:
(By You Yunting) Recently, Sohu vs Toutiao has attracted attention from the media. Sohu sued Toutiao for copyright infringement and unfair competition, whilst Toutiao filed lawsuits against Sohu for defamation. It is quite normal for two enterprises in competition to take legal proceedings against each other. However, what really surprised us was, in their dispute, that governmental officials attended Sohu’s press conference, in favor of Sohu. In today’s post, we will discuss the reason for theimproper governmental interference. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.
Is It Illegal for the SARFT to Prohibit Installing Youku and Iqiyi in Internet Cable Box?
–Analysis on the Prohibition of Installing Youku App and Iqiyi App on the Internet Cable Box
(By You Yunting) According to some media reports, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (the ”SARFT”) issued a rule to local administrations requesting to delete Youku App, Iqiyi App, Sohu App and browsers from Wasu Box and Internet cable Set-top boxes (the “boxes”), which enables users to support TV, games, online video, music and photos. At first glance, i was astonished how it could be called boxes if without Youku App, Iqiyi App and browsers. However, Hangzhou Wasu Digital TV Media Group confirmed receiving the rule shortly after the reports came out. That being the condition, we would like to analyze the rule.
(By You Yunting) The Chinese internet industry is a fiercely competitive one in which many large internet companies have used lawsuits to gain a competitive advantage. Lawyers are engaged by internet companies to fight against their competitors using any new laws and regulations that might offer opportunity. In the most recent unfair competition litigation Qihoo 360 v. Baidu, Qihoo 360 applied for a litigation injunction to prevent Baidu engaging in infringement. On May 23, 2014, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court issued its first litigation injunction since the new Civil Procedure Law came into effect.
(By You Yunting) Recently, we introduced that Zhejiang Xiyingmen Beer Company constituted trademark infringement through the use of recycled Budweiser’s beer bottle. In today’s post, we will introduce an unfair competition lawsuit where Zhejiang Xiyingmen Beer Company used the similar packaging and presentation with that of Budweiser-sponsored Harbin Beer.
Introduction to the Case:
Appellant (Defendant at the first instance): Xiyingmen Beer Company
Respondent (Plaintiff at the first instance): Anheuser-Busch and Harbin Brewery Group (the “Harbin Brewery”)
(By You Yunting) Our website has previously introduced the case where ABlnbev (China) Sales Co., Ltd filed a lawsuit against its competitor, who was unauthorized to use the bottles with the trademarks “Budweiser” and “ABlnbev”. Recently, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court made a final judgment in favor of ABlnbev (China) Sales Co., Ltd.
Introduction to the Case:
Appellant: (Defendant at the first instance): Xiyingmen Beer Company (the “Company Z”)
Respondent: (Plaintiff at the first instance): ABlnbev (China) Sales Co., Ltd
(By Luo Yanjie) Recently, there has been a widely tracked case as to whether 360’s QQ Guard engaged in practices which constituted unfair-competition against Tencent (3Q battle for short). The Supreme People’s Court has made a judgment affirming the initial judgment, deciding that 360’s QQ Guard engaged in unfair competition against Tencent. We have already introduced the case and discussed the comment on the original judgment. Even though the Supreme Court upheld the original judgment, the statement in the judgment of second instance, backed by the Supreme Court, impressed us with its deepened understanding of unfair competition in the era of internet. We will combine the judgment with analysis for our readers in the following article to help you understand the implications.
(By You Yunting) VICTORIA’S SECRET is the largest American retailer of lingerie whose products does not sell on the Internet in China. Considering the fact that a Shanghai-based company sold its products on the Internet in China and confessed that it was the unique designated general distributor in China, VICTORIA’S SECRET brought the Shanghai-based company to the court on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Introduction to the Case:
Plaintiff: VICTORIA”S SECRET STORES BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC．(the “VICTORIA’S SECRET”)
(By You Yunting) Recently, Evad3rs released a new jailbreak tool called Evasi0n7.0 for Apple’s iOS 7 with Chinese name “太极7”. Due to Evasi0n 7.0 forcing Chinese jailbreak users to the default installation of TaiG app store in China, all public opinions on domestic Internet websites are criticism-oriented and most reports stated that Evasi0n 7.0 was a counterfeit software tool.
The principal Pod2g of Evad3rs team today expressed his opinions on Twitter that Evad3rs have decided to remotely disable the default installation of TaiG app store in China for further investigations on the piracy issue. As an intellectual property lawyer, I paid great attention to this issue. I hope this post has broached several legal problems as follows.
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The Supreme People’s Court’s decision concerning jurisdiction in terms of determining the domicile of a transit server seems rather amiss against the principle of the doctrine of the plaintiff accommodating the defendant. The place where a plaintiff discovers infringing content should be the final choice of jurisdiction in cases involving network and online infringement. Unfortunately, laws and judicial interpretations in our country do not currently make a distinction between the right of goodwill and a legal person’s right of reputation.
(By You Yunting) Perfetti Van Melle Confectionery (China) Co., Ltd. (“Perfetti”) has a well-known candy named Alpenliebe, whose slogan is “浓浓奶香情 Nong Nong Nai Xiang Qing”. “浓浓 Nong Nong” refers to a strong scent, while “浓浓奶香情 Nong Nong Nai Xiang Qing” in English refers to a “strong milk taste,” i.e., the candy is notable for its rather strong milky flavor. A Zhejiang-based company owned the “浓浓 Nong Nong” trademark under the classification for candies, and filed a lawsuit accusing Perfetti of infringement and unfair competition for its use of that slogan. In today’s post, we will introduce relevant legislation on substantiality and procedure in this particular case.