(By You Yunting) Abstract: The nature of “QVOD Business Model” is that both large and small-sized companies are to jointly infringe online copyrights. Under the facts that large companies provided technology and commerce and then small companies engaged in infringing works, such cooperation set up an environment of competitive advantages resulting from weak regulatory. This cooperation’s true cleverness comes from the deepen understanding of safe harbor rules and the Internet’s globalization and anonymity. If “QVOD Business Model” is continuous operating, such model may be cumulative legal risks and thus is likely that a criminal investigation can make an end of “QVOD Business Model”.
(By You Yunting) Recently stock markets have heightened topics about mobile game and serious competition disputes of intellectual property rights (the “IPR”) between China mobile games enterprises are often appeared in the newspapers. According to the reports, Beijing Chukong Inc., the developer of popular “捕鱼达人”(Fishing Joy) mobile games, was engaged in a controversy of IRP because earlier in December the Guangzhou-based SEALY Technology suspected Beijing Chukong Inc.’s “捕鱼达人”(Fishing Joy) of plagiarism on its arcade game product “捕鱼达人”. In response, Beijing Chukong Inc. alleged that: first, the online time of its “捕鱼达人”(Fishing Joy) was earlier than that of SEALY Technology and its mobile game had been reported to the Ministry of Culture. Second, Beijing Chukong Inc. owns the “捕鱼达人”trademark. Third, there are significant differences in art images and playing methods between two products.
(By Luo Yanjie) Trademark infringement via the unauthorized use of an enterprise’s name is a common phenomenon in China. Since the requirements for registering a company in Hong Kong are well known for being comparatively lax, many companies attempt to register well-known trademarks as an enterprise name in Hong Kong, and then run a business in Mainland China using this registered name, effectively fulfilling its role as a “free-rider” of another’s well known trademark.
The A.O.SMITH Corporation was founded over 100 years ago in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, and is a global leader applying innovative technology and energy-efficient solutions to products marketed worldwide. However, the “American”AOSIMIHE (note: AOSIMIHE is a rough approximation of the name A.O. Smith transliterated into Chinese) Appliances (International) Group Ltd., registered in Hong Kong, is a free rider attempting to imply a connection between it and the United States-based A.O. Smith Corporation. Based on its Hong Kong company and trademark registration, the former succeeded in registering its “AOSIMIHE” trademark in Mainland China. Today, we’ll discuss how A.O.SMITH Corporation protected its legal interests against the “American” AOSIMIHE Appliances (International) Group Ltd.
By Luo Yanjie
In recent, the Supreme People’s Court of China asked for public opinions on “judicial protection on the medical instruction’s copyright and the definition of its legal boundary”. The lawyers of our website are confronted with the same problems in practices: shall the instruction be protected by the copyright law? So, in today’s post, we would like to share our opinions on the copyright protection of the insert with the reference to our past cases and experiences.
I. Could the instruction be the works on law?