Author Archives: yytbest

Why Glasses and Clothing Were Deemed Similar Products Under the Trademark Law, Part I

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Today and tomorrow’s posts will introduce an administrative lawsuit recently decided by Chinese courts. The greatest focus point in the case is that the courts broke the barrier between trademark classes to hold that glasses and clothing are similar classes of trademark application.

According to China’s Trademark Law, trademark applications in China follow the “first application” principle. This means that for similar products whoever applies for a trademark first owns it and receives protection in that class, except for well-known trademarks, which receive cross-class protection. To determine what classes are identical or similar, the Trademark Office, Trademark Adjudication and Review Board (the “Board”), and other administrative institutions follow the Similar Products and Services Form that they promulgated. In practice, however, courts do not blindly follow this form. Today’s case is a prime example of the different opinions held by and different results reached by administrative organs and courts.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by

(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

Is there Any Local Protection in the Patent & Anti Monopoly Lawsuit between Monsanto and DuPont?

Posted on by
360截图-117208636_副本

Visit to St. Louis in the US, Part II

(By You Yunting) At the end of this past March, at the invitation of the US government, the author visited America with other Chinese legal experts with the goal of better understanding its IPR system. The third city in the visit was St. Louis, located in the middle of the United States. On March 26 2013, the day where the most-watched lawsuit in the bio-science industry, the lawsuit between Monsanto and DuPont, entered into a mediation agreement, and coincidently, the second day after that, namely on March 28, the author visited Monsanto’s legal department in St. Louis to better understand the facts involved in the case. The day after that, the author went to the Federal Court in the Eastern District, in St. Louis, Missouri, and exchanged opinions regarding the case with the judge hearing it. Considering the influence coming from that lawsuit would not be less than that produced by the lawsuit between Samsung and Apple in the tech industry, the author would like to introduce to the readers some of the facts presented to us by the judge. Also, we would like to remind our readers that the title of this essay covers only part of the content of this post; that being said, it shall not be taken as suited for a professional study.

READ MORE

Is School Teaching a Method of Publicizing Work in China?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) According to the Copyright Law, the copyright holder has more than ten exclusive rights. Because of the many kinds of works and complexity of society’s use of the work, 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 judgment 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:

READ MORE

Is It Illegal For Directors in Company to Squat Trademarks in China?

Posted on by
A0132

 (By Luo Yanjie) As regulated in Article 15 of the Trademark Law:

“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 therefrom, 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 and limit, and interpretation regarding the meaning of “authorized” is currently in dispute. Our website once introduced and analyzed the issues concerned in the post “Whether Sales Agents Are Included in the Trademark Agent Squatting Articles of China Trademark Law”, and in today’s post we would like to introduce the opinions of the court having analyzed the case from a different aspect. The details are as follows:

READ MORE

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

Posted on by
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

Measures on Compulsory Licensing for Patent Exploitation

Posted on by

Order No. 64 of the State Intellectual Property Office

(promulgated on 15 March 2012 and implemented on 1 May 2012)

Chapter I  General Provisions

Article 1  The Measures are formulated in accordance with the Patent Law of the PRC (hereinafter as “the Patent Law”), the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the PRC (hereinafter as “the Implementing Regulations”) and the relevant laws and regulations for the purposes of regulating the procedures relating to granting, royalty adjudication and termination of compulsory licensing for the exploitation of invention patents or utility model patents (hereinafter as “compulsory licensing”).

READ MORE

Why Couldn’t the Trademark “Bond” Be Applied to Contraceptives?

Posted on by

(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 “first right.” The decision can be considered a clarification of the “merchandising right” by the judicial organs as well as broadening the scope of first rights.

READ MORE

Will Magic be Protected as A Work under China’s Copyright Law?

Posted on by
5064a

(By Luo Yanjie) Magic has long been a popular medium with which to entertain an audience, and how one should legally protect magic has long been a problem in the law. This problem has become especially obvious now that we have seen arguments regarding magic and the requirement that an expression be “original” as stipulated in the Copyright Law. Today, we would like to introduce to our readers how China protects magic works based on a case heard by the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, which can be considered the first established case concerning the magic work.

READ MORE

The Shanghai Branch of CIETAC Changed Its Name

Posted on by

Today, we noticed an announcement published on the website of the Shanghai Branch of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission stating that it has changed its name to the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (the “Shanghai Commission”). At the same time, it will begin to use the name of Shanghai International Arbitration Center. Additionally, starting on May 1, 2013, the Shanghai Commission will begin using new Arbitration Rules and a new arbitrator name list.

READ MORE

Dissatisfied with the First Instance Judgment, Qihoo Has Appealed in Its Anti-Monopoly Lawsuit Against Tencent

Posted on by

Our website has analyzed the case filed by Qihoo (NYSE: QIHU) against Tencent (SEHK: 700) stating that Tencent’s abuse of market dominance constituted a monopoly. The first instance of the case was decided by the Guangdong High People’s Court, which denied all of Qihoo’s claims. As recently disclosed by Qihoo, the company has appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, demanding either revocation of the first instance judgment and remand for the retrial, or amendment of the first instance legal judgment based on the facts such that all of Qihoo’s claims are supported.

READ MORE

How Does Monsanto Apply GMOs Patent into Company Operation?

Posted on by

Record of the Visit to St. Louis, Part I

 (By You Yunting) In late March, the author had the opportunity to take a journey to the United States at the invitation of the US government in order to better understand how the US IPR system operates. The third he visited was St. Louis in the midwest, and while he was there there he visited the well-known bio-tech company, Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON, the “Monsanto”), and was received by senior legal officers. The following is the brief record of the visit there. The author notes that the title of this essay only covers part of the content of the essay and should not be adopted as theory.

READ MORE

How Does the US Government Determine Whether the Parallel Import of Trademarks Is Legal？

Posted on by

Record III of the Visit to New York

(By You Yunting) From late of March, the author visited the US at the invitation of the US government in order to get a better understanding of how the US IPR system operates. On Monday of the second week there, the author visited Wiggin and Dana LLP and Pryor Cashman LLP, two New York law firms. The law offices visited on that day were all in New York’s central business district and had spacious offices, with luxurious decorations, and the view outside was all of beautiful river scenery or of the Apple Countdown. The following is the record of that day’s visit.

READ MORE

Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, III

Posted on by

(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 judgment 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; in addition, it’s evidence that the 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:

READ MORE

Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, II

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Today we will continue our introduction of the opinions of the Guangdong High People’s Court, the first instance court in the anti-monopoly dispute, concerning the facts in the case as well as its judgment.

II. About the dominant position of the defendant in the relevant market

As held by the court in the first instance, the plaintiff had a much narrower definition of the relevant product market and regional market, and the plaintiff calculated the market share based on the relevant product and regional market as it advocated, and that could not truly reflect the share and position of the defendant in the relevant market objectively. Especially taking into account that the product scope shown was the plaintiff’s most important evidence; more importantly, that the report from the Ai Rui research institution presented data contrasting with the scope determined by the court.

READ MORE