Category Archives: Litigation

Beijing Files Most IPR Lawsuits in China

As reported by Mr. Chi Qiang, the chief justice of Beijing Higher People’s Court,on the 5th Session of the 13th People’s Congress of Beijing, there have judged 12, 269 IPR cases in Beijing courts of each level, which is a year by year increase of 16.3% and occupies 22.3% of all around China. For these cases, both total amount and new type case are rank first in all the courts nationwide.

Other recommended posts on our website:
1. The Actual Term of Trademark Registration in China
2. How to Apply for the Trademark Record in China Custom
3. How to improve the success rate of trademark registration in China?
4. Matters for Attention in Trademark Refusal Review in China
5. Introduction of China’s Legal System of Trademark Renewal
6. Introduction on the Regulations concerning the Capital Contribution in IPR or Domain Name in China
7. The Copyright Registration in China Could Be FREE?
8. China Copyright Protection Term Longer than EU’s?
9. Matters for Attention in the Patent Preliminary Injunction Application in China(I)

READ MORE

When Could Come the Decision of the 2nd Instance on the iPad Trademark Dispute？

As interviewed by China media Shanghai Business, when could come the decision of the 2nd instance on the iPad dispute, which hearing will be held on 29th February, 2012, Mr. You Yunting replied as follows:

For the court is less likely to make the decision on the coming hearing on the case, we estimate no such decision could be made till the expiration of the lawsuit time limit. By PRC Civil Litigation Law, the hearing on the appealed case shall be decided within 3 months from the filing day of the 2nd instance. For any prolonged on the procedure, it shall be approved by the chief judge of the court. Therefore, we estimate the case could be decided 2 months after the hearing for it could be filed 1 month before the proceeding, and the specific date of the decision may be the end of April.

READ MORE

Once Apple Lost iPad Trademark: Would There be A Name Change on iPad3 in China?

For the claimed iPad trademark infringement, as media reported, the Industry and Commerce Administration of Shijiazhuang City, Hubei Province of China, detained more than 40 iPads on the report of Proview, the registered owner of iPad trademark. For this issue, Mr. You Yunting was interviewed by Donews, a tech website in China, and the following is the details of the interview: (the image above is Proview’s Certificate of Trademark issued by Chinese government )

1. When the infringement of Apple is judged established, could anyone bought iPad choose to return the device to Apple?

READ MORE

Before 2nd Instance of iPad Trademark Dispute: iPad was Withdrew in Some Cities by Local Chinese Government

After losing the lawsuit in the trademark transfer dispute against Proview in the 1st instance, Apple will attend the hearing of the 2nd instance on 29th, Feburary, 2012. However, just before the hearing, on the complaint of Proview, the administration of Industry & Commerce has started the investigation on trademark dispute, and on 13th February, the administration in Shijiiazhuang City detained 41 iPad devices and ordered for stop iPad’s sales.(the link is in Chinese)

On the issue, Mr. You Yunting, the founder of our website was interviewed by medias, which details are as follows:

READ MORE

Complaints from China IT Tycoon: Weak Protection over IPR Jeopardizes Industry Innovation

According to the report of Nandu Daily, Mr. Ding Lei, the CEO of NetEase (NASDAQ: NTES) and the representative of People’s Congress in China stated on the conference of Guangdong People’s Congress that despite the innovation could make customers more satisfied and bring more market share to the company, which is also the impetus to the company, it’s also haunted with the dilemma of “more innovation more suffering” due to the weak protection on IPR by the state.

According to Ding’s words, the lawsuit on the infringement against the company may last for years, therefore the proceeding may be a suffering to the company; moreover, the judged compensation may be very low even the infringed company wins the lawsuit. “Previously, Baidu stately posted the works of Han Han in its product Baidu Wenku, and why? The reason could only be the poor combat on the infringement”, said Mr. Ding.

READ MORE

Apple Lost the Trademark Opposition against Red Apple Trademark after the Proceeding for 10 Years

According to the report of hc360.com (the news is in Chinese), Beijing High People’s Court adjudicated the final judgment on the trademark opposition filed by Apple Inc (Apple) against Zhejiang Red Apple Electronic Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Red Apple) on 28th November, 2011, Ltd, rejecting Apple’s opposition on the defendant’s registered trademark in class 9 of CCTV monitor. Till then the proceeding of the case for 10 years is finally ended up.

Early in November of 2002, Zhejiang Red Apple’s application of red apple trademark was approved by China Trademark Office, and afterwards opposed by Apple, who demanded no approval for the mark, for the similarity between the red apple image and the first applied Apple trademark. Despite the opposition, the trademark office approved the application and issued the “Image Trademark Opposition Ajudication”, (2007) Trademark Yi Zi No. 3887 on 27th August, 2007.

READ MORE

The Interpretation on the Ceased Use for Three Consecutive Years in China Trademark Law

It’s regulated in China Trademark Law that when the registered trademark is ceased for use for three consecutive years, the trademark office shall order him to rectify the situation within a specified period or even cancel the registered trademark. And the understanding on the ceased use is the most consulted question to us. In fact, such article was once referred in the administrative adjudication made by the Supreme People’s Court of China, and that may help us in understanding the article.

READ MORE

The Extension of the iPad Trademark Battle: Proview Charged iPad Distributor GOME in China

According to Guangzhou Daily, the widely concerned iPad trademark conflict is oiled by the battle between Proview and GOME (HKEx: 00493), the distributor of iPad. And the new dispute has been brought to the Shenzhen Futian People’s Court and heard on 30th, December, 2011.

Shenzhen Proview claims itself the legal trademark owner of iPad, and as investigated, GOME sold the tablet with iPad trademark in its stores with no license from GOME, therefore, the misconduct of GOME shall be the trademark infringement. Thereby, Proview demands GOME stop selling the tablet, destroy all the marks or package related to the infringement, cancel any propaganda concerning iPad and take all the expenses on the investigation, evidence collection and other reasonable costs.

READ MORE

Increased Penalty for the IPR Protection after China Criminal Law Revision


As reported, Mr. Jiang Zengwei, the deputy minister of China Commerce Ministry, replied on the press conference on 13th, December that China will enhance the strength of the IPR infringement punishment from 6 aspects, including the completion on the civil evidence rule and increasing the penalty sum.

The specific measures include to research the revision on the criminal law for the strengthened deterrence with more scientific description on the crime; to draft the current effective measures into the judicial interpretation; to increase the penalty sum as times of the infringing products’ value; to complete the civil evidence rule; to research the increase on compensation; to research the application conditions for the great amount, serious consequence and serious circumstance in the criminal law for the more feasibility of the law.

READ MORE

Coca Cola Gets the Preliminary Win in the Case of “Qoo” against “Ku Wawa” in China

It was reported by  the Beijing News and Legal Evening Paper that the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court (“Court”) has sentenced the case Coca Cola charging the infringement of the trademark “Ku Wawa” registered in the against Coca Cola’s copyright of designed trademark “Qoo”, judging that the Trademark Review and Adjudication shall rescind its approval for trademark registration of “Ku Wawa” and make a new decision.

The Court held that the trademark “Ku Wawa” bore no material similarity with  the trademark “Qoo”, which however was registered by Coca Cola in 2001, and for this reason “Ku Wawa” shall not infringe the copyright of “Qoo”. On the other hand, although the registered products of beer of “Ku Wawa” is different from the beverage of “Qoo”, they actually relate in consumers and marketing approaches. Accordingly, the Court decided the trademark “Ku Wawa” constitutes a similar trademark used in the similar products, which could be trademark infringement, and demanded the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board cancel “Ku Wawa” and make a new decision.

READ MORE

Matters for Attention in Trademark Refusal Review in China

It is reported that the British Lotus who will adopt “路特斯”, the transliteration of Lotus in Chinese, as its local brand in China due to a Chinese domestic company first registered the trademark of “Youth Lotus”. It’s also mentioned in the report that British lotus lost the trademark though it should have the chance to get it through the trademark refusal review. Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce you the system of review on the trademark refusal in China.

As regulated in the Article 32 of China trademark law:

READ MORE

McDonald’s Lost the First Instance of the Trademark Administrative Lawsuit against Wonderful

We once reported the administrative refusal on Mcdonald’s opposition on Wonderful’s trademark (the W trademark) which is similar to Mcdonald’s “M” trademark (you may check the details in How Could McDonald’s Beat Free Rider of Trademark in China?). After that, Mcdonald’s initiated the administrative lawsuit on the refusal.

According to Beijing Morning Post’s report on 10th December, Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court judged on the first instance of the administrative lawsuit, refusing the claims of Mcdonald’s.

READ MORE

Common Problems Concerning the Notarization of Internet Evidences in China

Recently, Judge Gao Fei, from Dongcheng District People’s Court in Beijing, has published an article on the China Press and Publishing Journal, discussing the relevant problems of the electronic evidences of network copyright in China. The article analyzes the four main problems in the evidence preservation of network copyright infringement disputes due to the evidence being intangible and easy to be modified, and it also gives the solution. Bridge IP Law Commentary today will introduce you our interpretation on the article.

READ MORE

According to China Court’s First Instance Judgement, Apple Loses the iPad Trademark

According to the latest news, Shenzhen Media People’s Court judged on the iPad trademark conflict between Apple Inc (the “Apple”) and Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (the “Proview”), and Apple’s claim of Proview’s infringement against its trademark was rejected. That means the ownership of iPad trademark in China still belongs to Proview.

For this case, Bridge IP Law Commentary has expressed our opinions and analysis in the No “iPad” Chinese trademark right for Apple after payment in the transaction. And we anticipate that Apple may appeal to the higher court, while the case may end up in the consequence that Apple shall lose iPad trademark in mainland China shall the higher court maintained the judgment.

READ MORE

No “iPad” Chinese trademark right for Apple after payment in the transaction, and our analysis.

—-the Key points to the trademark transaction under the frame of China laws

Highlight:Apple gets involved in the litigation against a Chinese company for the ownership of iPad trademark, which Apple has claimed the property from purchase. However, such conflict could be averted if proper preparation has been done before the trademark transaction.

Recently, the trademark conflict over “iPad” initiated by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL, the “Apple”) against Proview Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (the “Proview”) was heard for the third time on Shenzhen Intermediate Court. In the trial, Apple affirmed it owns the global trademark right of “iPad”, which was stroke back by Proview that such right in mainland China is exclusively held by Proview and the claimed transaction of Apple for the acquisition of such right has no permission or authorization from it, furthermore, Apple was also accused of its malicious purchase of the registered “iPad” behind the IP Application Development Company worldwide.

READ MORE