Tag Archives: domicile

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

Posted on by

(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 dispute involving Hongda and Xin Kai, the Supreme People’s Court has rendered a decision on jurisdiction. This dispute deserves attention and will be introduced in today’s post.

Case summary:

In 2005, Hongda and Dongfeng Hongda Auto Manufacturing (Wuhan) Co., Ltd. (“Dong Feng”) filed a lawsuit in the Beijing Higher People’s Court (the “Beijing Higher Court”), claiming that Hebei Xin Kai, Gaobeidian Xin Kai Auto Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Gaobeidian Xin Kai”), and Beijing Xin Sheng Bai Li Auto Trading Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Xin Sheng”) infringed their design patent. The Beijing Higher Court accepted the case.

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

China Arbitration War: CIETAC Announced Its Shanghai Brunch Illegal

 By Albert Chen

China International Economic and Trading Arbitration Committee (CIETAC), the well-known China based international arbitration chamber, has been on the front page of local medias these days for it hearing the trademark dispute of Wang Lao Ji and the chamber’s internal strife. And by the latest news known to us, CIETAC holds the currently heard or adjudicated cases by its previous Shanghai Branch may face the risk of invalidity.

I. The conflict

The battle was triggered by the publishing of the chamber’s new rules of association and the arbitration rules (the “new rules”), which was rejected by CIETAC Shanghai Branch with the defenses that vote of the new rules did not base on the most wills. Moreover, to Shanghai Branch’s opinions, the clauses of the new rules also damage the free will to choose the arbitration committee and hearing place, and considering the vastly improved arbitration fees and the applicable scope of the sole arbitrator hearing. What’s worse, the new rules may also jeopardize the independence of the Shanghai Branch. For these reasons, Shanghai Branch stated on 4th May (Note: the link is in Chinese) of 2012 to denounce CIETAC and restate it as an independent committee.

READ MORE