Superior schooling within this nation is speedily turning into a need within the venture group as a substitute for an extravagance. With the previous the people today who had a secondary faculty teaching continue to experienced the prospect to manufacture a superior society for themselves as well as their people. People days are promptly turning into one other dieing coal of the earlier. About the off likelihood that you just wish to have vast obtaining prospective amid your life span you could be thoroughly restricted by your understanding future also, the amount of instruction you will have gotten.
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: when applying for a trademark, the trademark office will judge the similarity of the submitted trademark based on the International Classification of the Trademark Registration for Product and Service (the “Classification”), but the court does not use this only standard. Even if the court finds that the later trademark application to be similar with the earlier applications, and the trademark office approves the later applied trademark’s application, the earlier trademark holder shall have no right to demand the later user for any damages.
(By Albert Chen) Abstract:
When a company’s trademark agent transfers a trademark without approval, a judgement of the validity of said transfer requires not only a consideration of the company approval, but also a determination of the third party good faith in the transfer. When a condition is not fulfilled the transfer will invariably be considered invalid.
In 2001, Leidi (China) Co., Ltd. (“Company L”) was granted the exclusive right in the use of the trademark “雷迪” (read as “Leidi” in Chinese). In November of 2002, Wu, as the executive director of Leidi China, transferred the trademark to the Hua Qu Duo Investment Company (“Company H”). The State Trademark Office made an announcement regarding the transfer in October 2003. Subsequently, Company H licensed the trademark to the Shanghai-based Leidi Mechanics Co., Ltd. (“Company S,” which had no affiliation with Company L).
(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but decide at the same time that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.
Abstract: trade secret must have three basic features: confidentiality, practicability, and security. Therefore, whether user information in a website could be considered as trade secret or not, it shall also be judged based on these three basic features.
(By Luo Yanjie) User information is very important to a website daily operation. To judge it from the legal protection perspective, it is generally protected as a trade secret. The case introduced in this article is a typical dispute on whether the user information could be considered a trade secret, and thereby could infringement be decided.
(By Luo Yanjie)
Yigal Messika is an Israeli magician. In March 2008, Messika began to design a tool used in his magic show named Tarantula, through the operation of which the audience could see floating art objects. Messika filmed a DVD recording his performance with the Tarantula. The Tarantula DVD went on sale in the United States on February 29, 2000, accompanied by the Tarantula gimmick. Each pair was sold for $ 75. Later on, Messika heard that his product was being ripped off by a Chinese businessman starting in April 2009. The copyright holder subsequently filed a lawsuit in court to protect the copyright infringed. The Court held that, because China, the US and Israel are all signatories to the Berne Convention, once the plaintiff’s magic met the standards in China’s Copyright Law, it could be protected by China’s laws.
(By Luo Yanjie Unfair competition refers to an operator’s misconduct that violates principles of fairness, justice, and good faith; it is also considered any behavior that violates widely adopted commercial ethics. As for copyright, as a kind of exclusive right, it mainly focuses on granting the right holder a monopolistic right in conformance with the law, and thereby grants the right holder monopoly rights as well as a competitive advantage through the exploitation of his/her own intellectual works.
(By Luo Yanjie) According to the Copyright Law, the copyright holder has more than ten exclusive rights. The copyright holder is often unclear about the differences between the exclusive rights and may have a very vague understanding of the fair use system, a system which can cut against the copyright. Although the case introduced in this essay is fundamentally not a rights protection case, the judgement clarifies the methods used for publication and expands the scope of the fair use copyright exception. The following is a summary and analysis of the case:
(By Albert Chen) The Beijing High People’s Court (the “Beijing High Court”) established the “merchandising right” in a 2011 judgment on an administrative dispute between the Trademark Adjudication and Review Board (the “Board”) and DANJAQ, LLC (the “DANJAQ”). That was the first judicial definition of the right, and the first time it was included as a protected “prior right.”
In today’s post, we would like to describe the facts in the case, and introduce to our readers the opinions of Beijing High Court and our comments on the matter.
(By Albert Chen) Hainan Netcom is an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”), but it also provides the content on the Internet. Even after the company failed todemonstrate that the IP address is used by a third party, and it fulfilled its obligation to check the content of the webpage, the company should still be liable for any corresponding infringement.
Beijing Ciwen Filming Co., Ltd. (“Company C”) is the copyright holder of film Qi Jian (also known as “Seven Sword”) in mainland China. However, Company C discovered that Hainan Netcom hadbeen providing a link on its homepage (www.hai169.com) for its visitors to stream Qi Jian, without the authorization of Company C.As a result,in September of 2005, Company C filed a lawsuit against Hainan Netcom because it believed that Hainan Netcom had infringed upon its copyright.
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The determination of a product reputation is usually limited to Chinese territories, while on the other hand the reputation of a mark may involve consideration of overseas reputation.
Freeriding among Chinese manufacturers is unfortunately a very common and severe issue, and for most well known foreign companies, there may be situations in which they have not paid adequate attention to the Chinese market, and ergo have provided insufficient attention to policing its marks within the realm of IPR protection. As a result, the vast majority of foreign brands are helpless in facing rampant infringement.
(By Luo Yanjie) Today, we would give our opinions on 360’s unfair competition ruling
The case is a part of the “3Q battle”, and has garnered wide attention in the society. From a legal standpoint, this case is not difficult.The ruling against 360 was proper for the following reasons:
1. The promotion of ads and charges are of the lawful items
It shall first be pointed out that despite the annoying functions in QQ, like the pop-up ads or value added service, these functions are of the legal profit model of Tencent. As known to all, QQ is a free software (despite the various charging items, the basic function of the software, namely the messaging is free). For Tencent has invested many resources in hardware and management cost, and should naturally be repaid through the ads or value added service. If other companies prevent the lawful advertising of Tencent, thereby reducing the chances of lawful transactionsfor Tencent and its clients, it would be of unfair competition.
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Although online ads or pop-up ads may make you feel uncomfortable, that is a profit model utilized by free software like Tencent’s QQ, the popular online messaging software. But, when the 360 Guard software removed QQ’s ads, it would no doubt damage Tencent’s legal rights. We’d like to introduce this case to our readers, beginning with today’s post and extending into tomorrow’s.
In 2010, Tencent introduced its “QQ Computer Keeper” to the market, which focuses on defending against attacks on Tencent. Before that, the Qihu 360 Company publicized its product 360 Guard. 360’s software could remove QQ’s ads, remove supplemental and additional functions found within QQ’s software, and prevent computer viruses from stealing QQ account information. Within the first 72 hours after the introduction of 360 Guard, it was downloaded more than 20 million times. Tencent believed that 360’s Guard software constituted unfair competition, and was possibly even stealing end user’s personal information. For this reason, Tencent announced that all computers with 360’s software installed would no longer be able to use QQ’s software.
“Where any agent or representative registers, in its or his own name, the trademark of a person for whom it or he acts as the agent or representative without authorization there from, and the latter raises opposition, the trademark shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.”
But in judicial practice, the agent or representative has a very vague definition of “authorized” . Our website once analysed the issues concerned in the post “Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law”. In today’s post, we would like to introduce the opinions of the court from a different aspect. The details are as follows:
(By Luo Yanjie) In our previous two posts, we introduced the reader to the facts involved in the monopoly dispute between Qihoo and Tencent, as well as the Court’s decision. Today, we continue that discussion of the case and would like to share our opinions on it.
Lawyer’s comments and analysis
It is not difficult to find from the above judgement that Qihoo lost the lawsuit mainly because the court in the first instance denied its allegation that Tencent held a dominant position in the market; ithe court’s decision was primarily based on a broad definition of “relevant market” in regard to Tencent’s QQ instant messaging software. The following is our analysis on the issue: