Author Archives: yytbest

In Selling Train Ticket Insurance, Why Did JD.com Deliberately Break the Unfair Competition Law?

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By You Yunting) The greed of JD.com and Ctrip.com (NASDAQ: CTRP) has been fully revealed, for they have added insurance fees as a compulsory sale with its train ticket offerings. In reality, all JD and Ctrip want to do is become engaged in the huge amount of train ticket transactions that take place every year in China, yet not be restricted by the statutorily imposed agency fee of up to RMB five Yuan. Clearly, it is plain to see that these two parties have sold insurance tacked onto ticket agency train tickets as a means of gaining even more profit. However, such a strategy could be considered entirely invalid, and in addition likely in violation of the Unfair Competition Law due to its chasing of illegal profits through such sales.

READ MORE

Does a Previously Registered Noted Trademark Influence Subsequently Registered Similar Trademarks?

Posted on by

Abstract

(By Luo Yanjie) In determining the similarity of two trademarks, one must take into account the common understanding among the public as to the trademark and the goods it presents (as well as the source), and the public’s comprehension of the words, pictures, designs, or a combination of all of the above. Concurrently, however, the reputation of the trademark must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether the above factors would lead to confusion as to source among the relevant consumers and market. Generally, trademarks are judged by their similarity with the appearance of another trademark; however, in the following described case, the second instance court also considered the reputation of the reference trademark and the understanding of the consumer in relation to a more comprehensive protection of a well-known brand. The significance of the case is primarily that, due to the millions of trademark applications made in China each year, even subsequently registered trademarks that are incredibly similar to those previously registered may be approved for commercial use by the China Trademark Office, due to strained and restricted resources on its part. In any case, the trademark involved in this case is a well-known one, and for this reason, the court decided that the subsequently registered mark would not be approved for use.

READ MORE

Litigation in China: A Long and Rocky Road

Posted on by

(By Dr. Wenbao Qiao) For foreign companies doing business in China, disputes and litigation may sometimes be inevitable. Once a dispute cannot be resolved out of court, there is a long and rocky road to the final success, with several important points to be considered for the planning and handling of litigation in China: 

Documents and Evidence 

The first step of each procedure is to collect and prepare all necessary documents and evidence. According to Chinese law, documents and evidence from another country (such as excerpts from the commercial register or powers of attorney) have to first be notarized in their country of origin and then certified by the Chinese Embassy or Consulate in the respective country. Only notarized and certified documents and evidence will be accepted by Chinese courts. While preparing the documents and evidence, attention should be paid to the timeline required for notarization and certification. There are several important statutory deadlines shown below. Failure to meet these deadlines can lead to the loss of a case. Notarization and certification in Germany usually takes two to three weeks, which in turn may play a critical role for the scheduling of time in preparation for trial.

READ MORE

China’s Latest Laws and Regulations in June 2013, II

Posted on by

V. The State Council Has Issued Amended Regulations on the Administration of Foreign-Funded Insurance Companies.

On June 8, 2013, the State Council issued amended Regulations on the Administration of Foreign-Funded Insurance Companies (Order No. 336), which will take effect on August 1, 2013. The amendments are comprised of two paragraphs. The first paragraph of Article 7 has been revised to “the minimum amount of registered capital of a joint venture and wholly foreign invested insurance company is RMB twenty million or convertible currency in equivalent.” The second paragraph of Article 7 has been revised to read, “a foreign-funded insurance company shall allot no less than RMB twenty million of working capital to its branch.” The regulation of “contribution of a foreign-funded insurance company shall be convertible currency” is deleted.

READ MORE

Could Apple Get Trademark “iWatch” in the Mainland China?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The author would first like to apologyze, that as mentioned in the previous post “Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?”:

“For the prospect of iWatch application in mainland China… the author would like to stop here, and I will resume the discussion over this issue in tomorrow’s post.”

Yet due to work obligations, the author broke his promise. For the make-up, the author took an early raise this morning to continue his analysis on the issue.  First, the author’s conclusion of the issue is: despite the obstacles of iWatch acquisition, it would not prevent Apple from gaining it.

READ MORE

Why Did Apple Filed the First “iWatch” Trademark In Jamaica?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) According to media reports, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has filed for “iWatch” trademark in several countries and regions, including: Japan, Mexico, Russia and Taiwan. Searching the trademark database in mainland China and Taiwan, the author discovered that Apple filed its iWatch trademark in Taiwan in June 2013.As for the trademark application in mainland China, because it takes a longer period of time for trademark application to be recorded on China Trademark Office’s website, we could only check the information concerning applications made several months ago. Therefore, if Apple filed the application in early June, then we would have no way to confirm it right now. Furthermore, we have found no records regarding Apple’s iWatch trademark application in China. The following are information of Apple’s “iWatch” trademark application in Taiwan:

READ MORE

China’s Latest Laws and Regulations: June 2013, Part I

Posted on by

I. The State Administration of Taxation Issued a Notice Concerning Issues Related to Declaration of Tax Rebate (Exemption) for Exported Goods by Exporting Enterprises.

Recently, the State Administration of Taxation issued a Notice Concerning Issues Related to the Provision of Proceeds for Declaration of Tax Rebate (Exemption) of Exported Goods by Exporting Enterprises, which clarifies the policy for declaration of value-added tax rebate (exemption) of exported goods by exporting enterprises. The Notice will take into effect on August 1, 2013. At the same time, the State Administration of Taxation also announced the policy interpretation for the notice.

READ MORE

Why Did the Supreme People’s Court Changed Its Attitude towards Revoking Trademarks When It Is Unused for 3 Years

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) China is a heavily administrated and controlled country. If administrative approval is not obtained, business activity such as producing and selling of Alcoholic beverages, medicine, etc.,  could be ruled to be invalid by the court. According to the Trademark Law of China, once the trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it could be eliminated. There is a significant amount of people who uses their right to their trademark however, many people fail to obtain the proper administrative approval or violates administrative rules. This brings us to the issue of  whether or not such a trademark should be removed even though it has been used. For this kind of cases, we find an example in the 10 annual cases of 2011 promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court of China. In that case, the Supreme Court overturned its opinions expressed in the previous year, “Kangwang Trademark Dispute”, in which the court determined that despite a shortage of administrative approval, the using of the trademark is sufficient according to the Trademark Law. 

READ MORE

Why Did the Court Verify the Validity of a Company’s Trademark Transfer 5 Years after Its Cancellation?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) The Luzhou Qian Nian Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Company L”) found that its competitor, the Shandong-based Zhu Ge Jia Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Company S”) acquired three trademarks from a company that had its registration for the marks cancelled five years prior to the trademark transfer. Following this, Company L filed a request to have the trademark revoked, because it had not been used for a continuous three-year period. However, the Trademark Office denied the application, and Company L requested a review of the decision, which was also rejected, leading Company L to ultimately file an administrative lawsuit. In the lawsuit, Company L was equally unsuccessful, and the court refused its demands in both the first and second instance. Following a series of rejections, Company L then appealed the case to the Supreme People’s Court (“Supreme Court”) for a rehearing. 

READ MORE

How to Judge the Validity of Trademark Transfer without Inner Approval of the Company in China

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Albert Chen) When a company’s trademark agent transfers a trademark without approval, a judgment of the validity of said transfer requires not only a consideration of the presence (or lack of) company approval, but also a determination of whether there was good faith when considering the third party in the transfer. When it can be shown that no inner-company approval was made, and that the transaction was not undertaken in good faith, such a transfer will invariably be considered invalid.

READ MORE

Introduction to A Case on Whether OEM Would Constitute Infringement in China

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Luo Yanjie) For the infringement caused by OEM in China, different courts hold different opinions in China, and in this essay you could see a case describe the infringement determination. The determination of trademark infringement should be subjected to whether or not potential consumers would be confused when making their decision to purchase the product. If the potential consumer is not confused by the product, then it should not be considered as an infringement.

READ MORE

Despite the Record-Making CNY 1, 000, 000 Compensation for Yao Ming, Infringer Did Not Lose the Lawsuit

Posted on by

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.

READ MORE

Why China Supreme Court Agree with Resigned Employees Establishing Competing Businesses?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The experience an employee gains throughout the course of his employment is regarded as a personal right under the law, and even though an employer may spend a great deal of time and money cultivating the employee and improving their skill set, if there was no noncompete agreement entered into prior to this, the employer will usually not be able to impede or stop a resigned employee from starting another business to compete with his or her previous employer.

For most companies, talent is considered its most valuable asset. With the development of the economy, market competition grows ever more fierce, and many employers find themselves troubled at the prospect of a number of employees “job hopping” to competitors, bringing the benefit of the employers’ training, experience and expertise with them. The case introduced herein is a typical case in which the employee was not bound by a noncompete, nondisclosure, or similar agreement. Facing stiff competition, many employers file suit on the basis of unfair competition, and yet, due to lacking substantial evidence, many employers end up failing in bringing a successful case.

READ MORE

China Supreme Court’s Opinions on the Standard to Judge Noted Product Decoration？

Posted on by
360截图-27670942_副本

Abstract

(By Albert Chen) Despite trademark is the important mark to indicate the origin of the product in its circulation, to decide whether the package of a noted product could constitute the special decoration, the trademark is not the absolute cause for the consideration. The reputation of the product shall be judged from the sales time, area, amount and object, and on the other hand, the fundamental condition for to decide the special decoration is whether it is distinctive.

Case Introduction

READ MORE

Using Counterfeit Software to Manufacture Hardware May Constitute Copyright Infringement by the User

Posted on by

Abstract:

(By Luo Yanjie) Using another party’s copyrighted software,  and combining that technology with specific hardware product to produce a similar product may constitute copyright infringement. When determining whether such action constitute as a crime, the penalty may be calculated by the total value  of the hardware and software products,

When employees of high-tech companies leaves their employment, they may cause their former employer huge financial losses if they illegally uses the technology or software they obtained from their former employer. Therefore, companies generally take preventive measures with its employees by methods such as a duty not to compete or a non-disclosure agreement. For serious offenses, companies could consider filing criminal charges. In this post, you would see one such typical case.

READ MORE