(By You Yunting) “疯狂来往” App, an in-game of China’s leading e-commerce Alibaba(NYSE: BABA)’s Messaging App Laiwang, was blamed for user’s private data leakage, according to the news. “疯狂来往” App (pronounced as “Feng Kuang Lai Wang”) was made to record players as one persons holds up a mobile device displaying words and others use gestures to provide clues to an answer, a little like guessing game. Considering that “疯狂来往”App is an interactive game among friends and acquaintances, many of the players were dressed rather casually when caught on the videos and some videos shows users in their underwear or naked while playing the game at home with family or friends. Worsen the videos also involved private information of teenagers under eighteen. Regardless of its sharing features into social networking websites such as Wechat and Qzone, some sharing videos were also automatically stored on Youku.com, a video website, which anyone can read online.
(By You Yunting) Recently, Sohu vs Toutiao has attracted attention from the media. Sohu sued Toutiao for copyright infringement and unfair competition, whilst Toutiao filed lawsuits against Sohu for defamation. It is quite normal for two enterprises in competition to take legal proceedings against each other. However, what really surprised us was, in their dispute, that governmental officials attended Sohu’s press conference, in favor of Sohu. In today’s post, we will discuss the reason for theimproper governmental interference. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.
(By Albert Chen & Huang Mengren) As said in a news report, the trade representative recently announced Taobao.com is removed from US notorious market list, and that could be contributed to Taobao.com’s effort in the last year, including the cleaning up on the website under the cooperation with the right holders and the industry association.
Really, in the last year, we have noticed the endeavor from Taobao.com. The website has executed a MEMO with MPAA, Motion Picture Association of America, to combat any illegal sales of the works registered in MPAA. And also we have seen the it launched the system of spot check over all the products sold on it, the IPR protection platform, and the amendment on IPR articles in Taobao Rules in accordance with its experience on IPR protection and the trend of the market.
In recent, more and more Chinese companies is developing their business outside China and thereby brings more chances for exhibition. Meanwhile, with the rapid economy development on China, the exhibition sponsored by China becomes more and more influential. Such exhibitions have become the key occasion for the release of new product and technology of the companies in China and abroad, which followed by many legal problems with the IPR matters are the most prominent ones. Bridge IP Law Commentary today will give our analysis on the issues related to the exhibition trademark.
With the gradual mature of the pledge system in China, the local banks are issuing large loans to the film and television programs manufacture companies. And as reported by Today Morning Express, a Zhejiang based newspaper, the two most popular movies at the end of 2011 in China are both backed by the band, with RMB 150 million packing loan from China Minsheng Banking Corp. (CMBC, SSE: 600016, SEHK: 1988) for THE FOLWERS OF WAR (金陵十三钗) and RMB 100 million loan from Bank of Beijing (BOB, SSE: 601169) for FLYING SWORDS OF DRAGON GATE (龙门飞甲).
As reported by Xinhua.com, it was released on the China Industry and Commerce Administration Conference on 26th, December, 2011 that the trademark examination period is further shortened to the current 10 months calculating from the documents submitting to the examination due, and on the other hand, the trademark opposition and dispute hearing could be finished within 18 months, which has reached the level of U.S.A and Japan.
For the rapid development in the economy, the trademark application in China surpassed the annual examinable amount around 2000, which then led to the overstock. And the examination period was prolonged to more than 3 years by the end of 2007. On that account, the administration took series measures to promote the process, and consequently, the examination period was reduced to less than 1 year by the end of 2010.
It is reported on the website of the China Daily that the Gaoxin District People’s Court in Hefei City of Anhui Province heard the case of a local private server operator providing piratic online game Legend of Mir II(the “Mir II”), in which 25 defendants were prosecuted. If the defendants’ behaviors are affirmed to have constituted the crime of copyright infringement, and the prime culprit shall be sentenced for three to seven-years imprisonment once the crime were established. And it’s released by the attorney of Shanda Games Limited (the “Shanda Games”)(NASDAQ：GAME) that it’s preliminarily promised by the prosecuted to compensate Shanda Games RMB 300 million. Bridge IP Law Commentary estimates that it could be for the understanding of Shanda Games aiming at a lighter sentence, though the plea bargain is not legally regulated in China.
——It is important to get a localized trademark application program.
The China Industry and Commerce News reported that the developer of the game Angry Birds, ROVIO MOBILE OY (ROVIO) hasn’t yet applied for any Chinese trademark such as “愤怒的小鸟” of the trademark “ANGRY BIRDS”, but only has applied the trademark “ANGRY BIRDS” and the figure trademark of a angry birds for international extension on the No. 9、16、28、41 classifications of goods and services. Therefore, ROVIO company will face great challenges on trademark protection of “ANGRY BIRDS “in China. Bridge IP Lawyer Commentary would aware the foreign enterprises and individuals who want to apply for trademark registration in China of the following two aspects.
According to the report of Beijing News, the Supreme Court of China revealed recently that Baidu, the defendant in the lawsuit against Universal, Warner and Sony BMG, has reconciled with its opponent.
Universal, Warner and Sony BMG sued Baidu in 2008, claiming Baidu has infringed the companies’ record producer right by links, online audition and download service through search box and ranking list in its MP3 column. But the claim was rejected by the No. Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing in the first instance, and Baidu is judged of no infringement as an cyber search operator.
Several Common Knowledge in Law concerning the Conflict between Tudou and Youku in China
Recently, two biggest video sharing portals in China are embroiled in the copyright dispute of some hit dramas. And it’s triggered by Tudou (NASDAQ: TUDO) ’s accusation of Youku pirating the entertainment show Kang Xi Lai Le with Tudou owns its exclusive cyber copyright in China, and Youku (NYSE: YOKU) ’s refusal on the deletion after Tudou’s allegation. Following that, Youku stated that Tudou had been long pirating its copyrighted films and television programs. According to the latest statement from the both sides, both parties have filed the lawsuit, and Tudou has made complaint to the industry association. The post of Bridge IP Law Commentary today will analyze several common knowledge in law, and give our answer on Youku’s reluctance to delete the infringing video as alleged by Tudou.
analysis on the copyright dispute between video-sharing giants Tudou vs Youku in China
Bridge IP Law Commentary will post two comments on the copyright conflict of the entertainment show “Kang Xi Lai le” between Tudou (NASDAQ: TUDO) and Youku (NYSE: YOKU), two China video sharing giant in China. The first post is from Attorney Albert Chen.
The hottest news hitting the headline of IT news in China these days may be the battle between Youku and Tudou, who are the top two online video providers in mainland China. The war was triggered by Youku’s streaming of Kang Xi Lai Le (the “Show”), a popular entertainment show from Taiwan, which is claimed by Tudou of piracy and against its exclusive right of the show in China.
Recently, the Qiaodan Company (Qiaodan is the pronunciation of Michael Jordan’s name), a Chinese domestic sporting goods manufacturer, confronted trademark troubles on IPO in China, because Nike has opposed to 8 trademarks of Qiaodan, claiming that it might lead to the confusion with Nike’s “Air Jordan”. Nevertheless, such opposition was refused by China Trademark Office, and Nike filed no administration lawsuit afterwards.
The opposition filed by Nike to Qiaodan is based on the provision of the China trademark law:
As reported by Beijing News, Judge Kong Xiangjun, the head of third adjudication division of IPR cases in Supreme People’s Court, stated that the hearing standard of Weibo copyright conflict shall by those for general cyber copyright conflict.
According to the previous judicial interpretation from the Supreme People’s Court, it demanded the court to balance the interest among the oblige, ISP and social public, for one hand the cyber copyright protection shall be strengthened, and also the hearing shall promote the innovation and the business model development to ensure the social public interest.
On 20th December, Mr. Steven Duke （杜史文）, Vice Consul of U.S.A, visited DeBund Law Offices/Bridge IP Law Commentary for the survey on the IPR protection in China.
On the meeting with the Consul, Mr. You Yunting introduced the IPR protection in China and replied the questions interested by the visitor, which mainly include the national treatment of foreign companies in IPR dispute settlement, the destroy of knockoff model through judicial way, the copyright of video-sharing programs, the transaction and transfer of patent, the protection of trade secret and the development of IPR judge and lawyers in China.
Which Chinese authority has the jurisdiction over the patent infringement?
Recently, the International Trade Commission of United State ruled on the patent conflict between Apple and HTC, determining that HTC has infringed the No.647 patent of Apple iPhone and banning the import of HTC’s smart phone with this patent feature from 19th, April, 2012.
For the case, Bridge IP Law Commentary would like to discuss a problem that which authority shall have the jurisdiction over the conflict shall it occurred in China? In fact, there’s no similar administration like ITC in China considering the IPR conflict with foreign products involved, and the administration duty on the infringement combat mainly focuses on the fake patent, namely those products claimed being patented or claiming owning others patent. Although the administration will handle some patent conflicts of unlicensed using, the complicated dispute, like the one between Apple and HTC, is mainly handled by the court.