Among the Ten IPR Cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court in 2012, one of the more interesting ones involves a case of portrait infringement involving international basketball star Yao Ming’s likeness. Despite the court’s understanding that infringement had been found for the unlicensed use of Yao’s portrait and name, granting compensation as high as RMB 1 million Yuan, such an amount is far less than Yao’s typical payment for participating in ads and other marketing materials. For this reason, the court’s decision to grant such an amount is simply inadequate to prevent further acts of infringement involving a well-known person’s name and likeness.
(By You Yunting) Update: Apple made the following statement to the recently made court decision:
In AppStore, Chinese users could get more than 700,000 best apps from Apple developers. And as a holder of intellectual property, it has always been Apple’s awareness the importance of IPR protection, and thereby we carefully treat each infringement complaint. Apple cherishes the opinions and advices put forward by China Written Works Copyright Society, China Writers Association and Internet Society of China. For a better aid to the right protection of the content owners, Apple would continue improving the service quality.
The post will be published on our website for two days, and today is the second half of it. (the image is the picture of Apple Store in Lujiazui from the www.apple.com.cn)
III. The legal risk in the lawsuit filed against design infringement
Furthermore, once Apple initiate the lawsuit basing on the design, it may be trapped in the patent validity and serial lawsuits, and it’s also a common challenge of patent lawsuits in China.
1. The poor stability of design patent
Despite the design patent is granted by the administration after approval, the organ will not examine the novelty and creativity of the patent applied for it being instable at all. For example, in the design dispute between SECO and HONDA (note: the link is in Chinese), when HONDA sued against SECO for the claimed plagiarism of SECO’s S-RV to its CR-V, the defendant filed the application of patent validity, and present the evidence including the previous design patent applied by HONDA.
The post will be published on our website for two days, and today is the first half of it. (the image is the picture of Apple Store in Lujiazui from the www.apple.com.cn)
By the report of Shanghai Daily, Apple Inc filed an application to the United State Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the appearance design of its store in Lujiazui, Pudong New Area. In consideration of the fake Apple Store in Kuning, Yunan Province in south and west China, the application made this time may be the international application, and will enter into China soon to stem the flooding knock off stores. More interesting is that the journalist of the Daily interviewed our attorneys before the report, and we reserved our opinion on the application. To complete our comments on it, here’s our analysis on the issue:
—Analysis on the law Nature of the Works of Word Stock
Today’s essay follows “Legal Commentary on the case of Founder VS P&G and Chinese Character, I”
(2) The Founder Word Stock is the composite works
The Stock here refers to the Founder Word Stock composing all the individual words in it rather than the stock software. The new works come from the selection or arrangement of the existing works is called the composite works. In our opinion, it’s necessary for Founder to apply the copyright registration for the whole Stock since only focusing on the determination of the copyrighted works over the Stock Software or the individual words is not enough. And such registration could benefit the protection over the Stock against any other infringement, such as to print a book or magazine in the script in the Stock with no license.
—Analysis on the law Nature of the Works of Chinese Character Word Stock
Highlight: Today and tomorrow, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce and analyze you the case of script copyright conflict between Founder and P&G, and also the system of word stock works behind the case. And the following is the first half—the introduction on the case and the part analysis on the nature of the works of word stock.
On the morning of 5th July, 2011, the appeal of the Founder Electronics (HKEX:0418, 0618) was rejected by the No.1 Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing in its case of the script copyright conflict against P&G (NYSE: PG), and the decision of the first hearing was supported. The final judgment maintains an ambiguous attitude towards the determination of “飘柔”, the localized name of the Rejoice brand of P&G , to be a fine art works, neither to support it or opposite it.