Tag Archives: IPR

For What Reason Should an E-Group Administrator Be Brought to Account for an Unauthorized Piece of Work Transmitted through the E-Group: Indirect or Direct Infringement?

Posted on by

（By Albert Chen）Last year Beijing Intellectual Property Tribunal dealt with an infringement case involving a QQ group and made the same decision as the first-trial court that the group’s administrator should be responsible for the infringement, but with different reasons. Detailed analysis of differences in the reasons for decision given by the two courts will help you answer the question of whether the group administrator should be brought to account for direct or indirect infringement.

Case Introduction

READ MORE

What Startups Need to Know to Protect Their IPR in China

Posted on by

 (By You Yunting) I was once asked by a journalist what the foundation of intellectual property  courts and the ratification of the Opinions on Quicker Development of the Globally Influential Scientific and Technological Innovation Center matter to small and medium-sized startups, and replied the outcome of those two events were the same, both of which ultimately aimed to enhance the awareness of intellectual property throughout our society and guide small and medium-sized enterprises to establish a competition barrier and a management philosopher on how to avoid infringing others’ intellectual property rights. As governmental authorities define and set official instructions and policies, each startup should take full use of its intellectual property during daily operation, trying to become positioned to succeed, just like a well-known Chinese aphorism says that even the pig can fly when the typhoon comes. Combined with my experiences, this article mainly deals with the issue of how small and medium-sized startups seek intellectual property protection both internally and externally.

READ MORE

Are Zong Qinghou’s Proposed Trademark Reforms Viable?

Posted on by
wahaha

(By You Yunting) Recently, Chairman Zong Qinghou of Hangzhou Wahaha Group, acting as NPC representative (NPC refers to National People’s Congress), proposed a draft proposal revising the Trademark Law and strengthening the protection of well-known trademarks. We have previously introduced this case in the article Wahaha Group suing KMPG in China, please read this post for further background information. In my opinion, his draft indicates that Chinese entrepreneurs have already found that the growth of Chinese enterprises will be limited unless they improve the standard of protection offered under intellectual property rights law. However, his draft only focused on the intellectual property rights protection of the Wahaha Group, did not account for the interests of the public, and required special protection for the Wahaha Group beyond conventional protection from the government. As such, his draft is not practical.

READ MORE

How Mobile Game Protects its Intellectual Property Right?

Posted on by
捕鱼达人

(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.

READ MORE

China’s Latest Laws and Regulations in April 2013

Posted on by

I. The Supreme People’s Court and Local People’s Courts Successively Released White Books on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in 2012 and Model Cases.

On April 22, before World Intellectual Property Day, the Supreme People’s Court released the White Book on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property By Chinese Courts in 2012 (the ”White Book”) and Model Cases embodying new Issues related to intellectual property protection.

Afterwards, the local people’s courts successively released local white books on local intellectual property protection and local model cases. On April 25, the Shanghai High People’s Court held a press conference and released the White Book of the Shanghai People’s Court on Intellectual Property Adjudication in 2012 and Ten Key Cases.

READ MORE

How Does the Federal Trade Commission Decide Whether Intellectual Property Licenses Violate Anti-trust Laws?

Posted on by

Day Five of the US Visit II

In late March, the author had the opportunity to make a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the US intellectual system operates. On the fifth day of the visit, the author went to the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and the following is a brief record of his visit there.

The FTC is the administration in charge of investigating and taking action against unfair competition and anti trust in the US. During the visit, FTC officials showed us a map showing that as of 1900, only the US and Canada had enacted competition laws, including unfair competition law and the anti trust law. Later by 1960, Sweden, France, and Japan passed legislation on competition. By 1980, many countries in Europe and South America passed competition laws, as well as Australia, India, Thailand, and South Africa. By 2012, almost all states of the world had laws in that field, except for a few African countries.

READ MORE

What Chinese Intellectual Property Legal Issues Are American Companies Dissatisfied With?

Posted on by

Day three of the visit to the United States

(By You Yunting) Beginning at the end of this March, on the invitation of the US government, I visited America with the goal of understanding its IPR system. On my third day in the US, I visited the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”), the United States-China Business Council (“USCBC”), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and the East Asia Bureau of the US Department of State. The following is the brief record of my meetings on that day.

READ MORE

Why China Should Revoke the Regulations Which May Put All the Piracy Selling Vendors into Jail?

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) You could find the vendors selling the pirated films, TV dramas, music or software in almost each single street in the cities of China. And according to the current regulation that the amount of the sales totaled 500 discs could be prosecuted for the criminal law violation, any vendors who has been selling the pirated discs for at least one month could constitute the crime of copyright infringement, and to be sent in to jail. Despite what the vendor has done may damage the IPR of the copyright holder, it is fair to combat them under the laws and regulations. But it seems that the existing judicial interpretation has a too wide governing scope, and could have damaged the purpose of the Criminal law. And in the practices, the vendors who have been prosecuted for their piracy selling could be less than 1% of all. Thus it has made the vendors do not care the punishment regulated in the criminal law, and that on the other hand has broken the principle “any violation against the criminal law shall be prosecuted and punished”, and thereafter it may promote the law enforcement upon the selection or the law enforcement in the political campaign or the rule of man. And the at the same time, it could harm the IPR protection.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by
u=192487636,1824686138&fm=23&gp=0_副本

(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.

READ MORE

Analysis on Application of Red Flag Rule in China

Posted on by

By Luo Yanjie

Recently, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court issued “Investigation Report about Infringement of Right of Information Network Dissemination in the Area” which introduces the application of “red flag” principle in China. Today we would like to share the topic with readers as follows:

I. The basic concept of “red flag” principle

“Red flag” principle is an exception of “safe harbor” principle. It means if the fact of infringement obviously like a “red flag” flying, network service providers cannot pretend not to see, or to shirk responsibility as not knowing. In this premise, even if the right people have issued a notice, the court should also identify the Internet service provider is aware of third party’s infringement and shall bear tort liability.

READ MORE

How to Apply for the Trademark Record in China Custom

Highlight: You could get to know the effective way of combating infringing product by trademark record in China custom in today’s post.

As reported by xinhuanet.com, the first instance of the knockoff brand product case with the biggest amount involved in recent was heard. The suspect of the case purchased the knockoff LV, Adidas, LACOSTE and other brand products for export, afterwards the knockoffs were detained for the suspicious infringement basing on the recorded trademark by the customhouse after the inspection, and finally the products were appraised fake with the market value of more than 230 million yuan.

READ MORE

New Chinese Laws & Regulations of November, 2011 (1)

Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary will post you the latest China laws and regulations promulgated in November, and the following is the first part of the month:

1. The State Council of People’s Republic of China decides to start pilot VAT reform in Shanghai and a series of policies will be promulgated

On 16th November, 2011, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation issued the Experimental Plan of Transfer of Levy on Business Tax to VAT, and the Notice of Experiment of Transfer of Levy on Business Tax to VAT in the Transportation Industry and Part Modern Service Industries in Shanghai, which provide that the pilot of VAT replaces the existing business tax will be carried out in the transportation industry and part modern service industries in Shanghai from 1st January, 2012. Before that, with regarding to VAT, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation has issued the Notice on Return the Period-end Un-credited VAT Levied on the Purchase of Integrated Circuit Enterprises, and on the same day, the State Administration of Taxation issued the Announcement on the Adjustment of the Administration Measures of the Preferential Policy “Levy first and Return Immediately” for VAT.

READ MORE

The Introduction on the Chinese Laws and Regulations concerning the Withholding Tax

Highlight: to introduce you the regulations concerning the withholding tax in China, including the scope and the calculation base of the tax.

Recently a reader consult our website for the relevant legal problems regarding the withholding tax in China. The withholding tax is a usually encountered question in foreign exchange payment for those foreign companies having cooperation with Chinese enterprises in intellectual property right. Ms. Chen Danhong, the attorney of our website replied the question as follows:

READ MORE

Introduction on the Regulations concerning the Capital Contribution in IPR or Domain Name in China

Highlight: The contribution of capital in IPR or domain name is permitted by China Company Law, though there regulates the proportion limitation on it. Bridge IP Commentary will introduce you the regulations of the investment in IPR.

Recently, a Company registered in Shanghai made its contribution of the 70% of the total registered capital of the company with domain name, which has been evaluated to be RMB 10 million yuan, and it has been the first company which made its capital contribution in domain name.

READ MORE