Settlement Archives - Page 6 of 10 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

The Court Ultimately Supported Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company’s Application for an Injunction

Posted on February 11, 2013 by yytbest

(BY Albert Chen ) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) is the holder of the王老吉 (the “Wang Lao Ji”) trademark in mainland China. In 2000, it licensed Hongdao Group, a Hong Kong admitted company, to use the trademark. After Hongdao Group used the trademark and caused it to develop a definite business reputation, however, a dispute broke out between the two parties over the right to use the Wang Lao Ji trademark.

In the first round of the fighting between the parties, GPHC used arbitration with CIETAC to cancel the supplementary agreements signed between two parties in 2002 and 2003 based upon the fact that the agreements were executed under commercial bribery. This website has discussed the implementation problems arising in that case. After that, the subsidiary of Hongdao Group that had sold Wang Lao Ji, Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) began to sell its herbal tea under the brand name 加多宝(the “JDB”) Additionally, JDB used disputed slogans, such as “Wang Lao Ji now calls itself JDB,” “China’s top selling red can herbal tea now call itself JDB.” Claiming that such slogans constituted false advertising or unfair competition GPHC filed for an injunction with the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and demanded an immediate halt to such advertisements.

Why Pfizer Did Not Win the Blue Pill Trademark Infringement Case?

Posted on February 9, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Pfizer is the holder of a blue, diamond-shaped mark (the “Pfizer trademark,” number: 3110761). The trademark was approved in Class 5 for pharmaceutical preparation, medicines made for human consumption, antibiotics, medical nutrition supplements, cleaning agents, and veterinary preparation. The registration period for the trademark commenced on May 28, 2003 and will expire on May 27^, 2013.

On July 21, 2005, Pfizer representatives purchased a box of medicine priced at RMB 50 yuan from the New Concept Company. The medicine was mainly intended to cure “erectile dysfunction.” The front and back cover of the package contained both “Viagra”[1] and “TM,” which was underlined and accompanied by the diamond image. The manufacturer was printed as “Jiangsu Lian Huan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd” (“Lian Huan”) dated on April 14, 2005. The opaque inner packaging also contained the words “Viagra” and “TM,” as well as the manufacturer “Lian Huan.” The packaging of the medicine was also diamond-shaped, in accordance with the shape of the tablet. The medicine itself was light blue in color, diamond compass shaped, and contained the words “Viagra” and “TM.” Pfizer believes that these products constituted three-dimensional trademark infringement and thereby sued the manufacturer and seller.

Analysis on Proof Requirements in Figurative Trademark Infringing Others’ Copyright Cases by China Court

Posted on January 31, 2013 by yytbest

— A trademark certificate cannot be taken as evidence of copyright ownership

(By Luo Yanjie) On June 27th 2002, Hua Yuan Company (hereinafter “Hua Yuan”) filed an application to revoke the disputed trademark “老人城LAORENCHENG” (hereinafter Lao Ren Cheng) pursuant to on Article 31 of the Trademark Law, with the claim that the trademark infringed upon Hua Yuan’s first rights in the mark. The disputed trademark was applied in Class 25 with registration number 1497462. During prosecution of the trademark, Hua Yuan submitted certificate of the No. 590673 trademark and No. 696935 trademark as evidence of its first rights in the mark. As indicated by the documents, the trademarks were registered before the trademark “Lao Ren Cheng.” Considering the opposition was mainly filed on the ground that Hua Yuan’s first rights had been infringed rather than due to similarity of the trademarks, the focus of this particular case depends on whether a trademark certificate may be treated as evidence of trademark ownership.

“Do Not Hire Agreements” among Google, Intel, Apple and Other Tech Firms Violates Chinese Laws?

Posted on January 30, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) As reported, the CEOs of tech giants Apple, Intel, and Google might be forced to go to court to account for mutual unwritten agreements about not soliciting each other’s workers for employment. These cases started due to the dissatisfaction of relevant employees, who believed that such “do not hire agreements” damaged that legal rights and interests. The news has also revealed emails from former Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, threatening Palm and Google and demanding that they stop using headhunters to obtain the email addresses of Apple employees. This news also raised the concerns within the industry.

Summary of Administrative Case Verdict on “Britney Spears” Trademark Squatting (I)

Posted on January 26, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) In past posts, we have introduced you to the trademark squatting of Yi Jian Lian, which is the name of a well-known basketball player in China. Today, we are going to show you another similar decision:

On 20th November 2000, Suzhou Yisheng Fashion Co., Ltd. (the “Yisheng Company”) applied for the trademark “布兰妮Britney” in Class 25, covering clothing articles, such as shirts, suits, coats, overcoats, skirts, t-shirts, wind coats and down jackets. The Trademark Office of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (the “Trademark Office”), after conducting a preliminary examination, published the application on its No. 807 Trademark Announcement. Britney Spears filed an opposition to the Trademark Office within the statutory period.

Summary of the Administrative Case Verdict in the Yi Jian Lian Trademark Squatting Case

Posted on January 23, 2013 by yytbest

We are often consulted by clients asking what standards are used to determine trademark squatting, and why was malicious squatting found against Sony Ericson and HERMES but denied against COCA COLA or LANDROVER? Furthermore, once a trademark application has damaged anothers’ name right, copyright, or trade name right, what standards do courts use to determine infringement. Under the Trademark Law, what measures can be taken to protect the trademarks of well-known fictional figures, such as 007 or Harry Potter?

A Brief Introduction to China’s Collective Trademark Application and Use System

Posted on January 14, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) A recent report said that the National Tourism Resort Brand Association for the well-known tourist attraction, Dian Lake in Kunming, received approval for a “D” type trademark certificate from the State Trademark Office—Yunnan Province’s first collective trademark. The above report shows that the collective trademark is of great value, but currently very few have been registered. What then are the features of the application and registration for collective trademarks compared with the normal ones? And, what factors should be noted for their use? In today’s post, we would like to share China’s collective trademark system with the reader.

Is OEM the Safe Harbor for Trademark Infringement in China?

Posted on January 11, 2013 by yytbest

(By Albert Chen) Whether original equipment manufacturing (OEM) can lead to trademark infringement has been long argued. The opinions on it may vary among the judicial organs in various regions and between the judicial department and various administrative departments. A Shanghai court once confirmed that a processing party should not assume infringement liability in the case Shenda vs. Jolida. Following this decision, some began to advocate the idea that OEMs could be considered a safe harbor in the seas of trademark infringement. Can that point of view reasonably be established in China? In today’s post, we would like to introduce you to Chinese cases and popular opinions in judicial circles concerning OEMs and trademark infringement.

Why Apple Failed to Stop the Application of Apple-Trademark by Others?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Two companies with a great gap in their relative strength have been seen battling with each other over the trademark of an apple image; they are the globally known Apple Inc. and a fruit food making company in Zhuang He, a small city of China. At the end of the battle, the small company won the fight, Dalian Chenji Guopin Co., Ltd. (the “Chenji”) was supported by the authority in the dispute lasted for 5 years. The dispute was triggered by Chenji’s design, which consists two apples overlapped together, and the Chinese characters “陈记” written on them. In examining the mark, we can find the apple resembles that of Apple’s, which appears to have been bitten by someone. For this reason, Apple filed the trademark opposition with the trademark office.

Another iPad Like Battle for WeChat (微信) Trademark Dispute?

Posted on December 26, 2012 by yytbest

(By Albert Chen) In yesterday’s post, we analyzed why Tencent would confront with the trademark squatting, and mainly blamed it for the defect on the internal management. Today, we would continue our discussion, and share our opinions on how could Tencent take back or stop the first application by others.

Before the end of this year, no one would oppose “iPad battle” shall be the trademark dispute of the year, and yet with the breaking out of conflict on the trademark of “微信”, a LBS software from Tencent Inc. (the “Tencent”) and its English name is WeChat, that affirmation would be challenged.

WeChat Trademark And Tencent’ s Problem in Trademark Management

Posted on December 25, 2012 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) In recent, several medias have interviewed the author on the squatting of “微信” trademark, which is the name of a LBS software of Tencent Inc. (the “Tencent”), and the English name of it is WeChat. The story of it is: A company admitted in Beijing (the “Beijing Company”) made its trademark application of “微信” in Class 38 on 17^th January of 2011. Tencent, who runs WeChat (“微信”) software, made its own application several a week later on 24^th. For the first application principle, Tencent’s application has been refused by the authority. And part of Beijing Company’s application has also been refused, while part of it was opposed. Currently, WeChat (“微信”), the hit product of Tencent, is with no any records in Class 38, which is the most related class for the app.

All General Vocabulary Cannot Be Registered As Trademarks in China?

Posted on December 21, 2012 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Early in this year, JDB Inc., the famous herbal tea manufacturer argued with Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company (the “GPC”) regarding ownership of the Wang Lao Ji trademark, which concluded in JDB being ordered to cease its use of the trademark. Now, JDB has begun its second battle with GPC, this time accusing GPC of infringeing the trademark “Ji Qing Shi Fen (吉庆时分).” Wanglaoji Health Industry Co. Ltd. (Guangzhou Wanglaoji Company) affiliated with GPC, recently made a statement that the State Trademark Office had accepted its application to revoke the registration of “Ji Qing Shi Fen (吉庆时分)”, the main reason being that the mark is considered generic in the sense that it is vocabulary in common use. Due to this, the State Trademark Office further advocated that it is uncertain whether there can be any exclusive right in the use of the registered mark.

Why Nippon Lost Its Lawsuit against Trademark Infringement by Taobao Sellers?

Posted on December 18, 2012 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie)In March 2011 the globally well-known paint producer Nippon Paint Co. Ltd. (“Nippon”), discovered Zhanjin Company had set up a shop on Taobao.com, the biggest online market in China, and had been using Nippon trademarks, ads and trade dress concerning Nippon products with no approval or license from it. With no reply from Taobao.com after filing a complaint, Nippon sued Zhanjin and Taobao in court, and yet the complaint was rejected by the judge. Dissatisfied with this result, Nippon made an appeal to the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, who ruled that the adoption of Nippon’s trademark by Zhanjin is for product information display only, and it could lead to no likelihood of confusion among the public. In addition, the court ruled that no commercial interests of the plaintiff would be damaged. Based on these rulings, the alleged trademark infringement claim could not be established, and therefore the original decision was maintained.

How Large Is the Scope of Protection for Well-Known Trademarks in China? (II)

Posted on December 14, 2012 by yytbest

2e2eb9389b504fc29c72b99de5dde71190ef6d7c

In yesterday’s post, we introduced trans-class protection for well-known trademarks and the factors that might lead to this status being granted. Today, we would like to conclude by explaining situations in which well-known trademarks will not be granted trans-class protection.

III. Situations where trans-class protection will not be granted to well-known trademarks

As discussed above, well-known trademarks only enjoy trans-class protection when meeting the following conditions. Now, we will introduce some common situations where trans-class protection cannot be achieved:

How Large Is the Scope of Protection for Well-Known Trademarks in China? (I)

Posted on December 13, 2012 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Henan Dazhong Paint (Hongkong) Co., Ltd (“Paint Company”), a manufacturer of varnish and paint, recently applied for the trademark “多美滋,” which attracted the dissatisfaction of the International Nutrition Company (“INC”), a globally known Danish infant and children’s nutrition company and the trademark holder of “多美滋DUMEX.” As a result, INC filed an objection to the State Trademark Office (“Office”), but the objection and objection review were both refused by the Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”). After that, INC appealed TRAB’s decision to the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court. Recently, the Court made its decision and found that “the adoption of the trademark on the paint product could influence the interests of the plaintiff.” Based on this decision, the Court revoked TRAB’s decision to approve the registration of the trademark “多美滋” for paint.

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Settlement