How Many Ways would be Available to Protect Online Copyright?

 (By You Yunting) Within the World Intellectual Property Day approaching, Zhihu.com invited me to answer some questions about the popularization of intellectual property rights with the second topic below regarding what channels of online copyright enforcement would be available in China.

Yesterday, we discussed what are the difficulties in the online copyright enforcement in China. With different types of infringement, today I will discuss how to protect online copyright. Actually, there are three channels consisting of online criticism, complaints and litigation.

READ MORE

How to Settle Trademark and Trade Name Conflict in China

By Albert Chen

For the prior approval on the company name by the administration of industry and commerce as well as the preliminary examination by the trademark authority in China, no material checks on any conflict against first rights would be conducted. And that has resulted in the numerous conflicts between the trade name and trademark. In today’s post, you could see our opinions on the settlement of the conflict.

I. The administrative way

It is feasible to settle the trademark and trade name conflict through administrative way in China. By Opinions on Several Issues concerning the Settlement on the Conflict between Trademark and Trade Name (the “Opinions”) issued by the SAIC (the State Administration of Industry and Commerce), the conflict occurred within a province shall be settled as in charge of the provincial administration of industry and commerce, and those involves different provinces, shall be settled by SAIC.

READ MORE

Why the Cybercafé could be Exempted from the Liability of Pirate Video Broadcast?

By You Yunting

In the past few days, a Beijing court published a case (note: the link is in Chinese) involving a cybercafé who has purchased the Video-on-demand (VOD) system, and that made the court refuse the claims of the plaintiff though the right holder proved the piracy in the VOD.

VV8.com Company, a professional video system provider to cybercafé invested by IDG and Disney, detected the pirated TV drama against its copyright in the video system of a cybercafé. And then, the right holder filed a lawsuit against the piracy. The cybercafé afterwards argued that the system was purchased by it from Hero Inc. Company, who is a third party video provider, and in that transaction, both parties has agreed that all the copyright dispute shall be handled by Hero Inc.. Moreover, all the contents in the system are updated and ciphered by Hero Inc. with remote control, thus the cybercafé could not delete any videos in it. In the lawsuits, VV8.com expressed no intention to add Hero Inc. as the co-defendant and make no claim thereby.

READ MORE

Will JDB Revoke Wang Lao Ji Trademark Arbitration Award through Litigation?

By You Yunting

In recent, a spat over the established brand Wang Lao Ji, also known as Wong Lo Kat, which is the most valuable herbal tea trademark in China, has occurred. The biggest distributor of the drink in China, JDB group, claimed that it has filed the application to Beijing No. 1 Peoples’ Bank to revoke the adjudication made by the China International Economic and Trade Committee (CIETAC) on the dispute.

The basic facts of the case in the reports: Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. (the “Guangzhou Pharmaceutical’, SZSE: 600332) is the registered owner of the Wang Lao Ji trademark, who signed a trademark license agreement with Hung To Group Co., Ltd. (the “Hung To”, the parent company to JDB), by which Hung To gets the loan of the trademark of 10 years.

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

How Could McDonald’s Beat Free Rider of Trademark in China?

Highlights:This article introduces the case initiated by McDonald’s to protect its trademark right against malicious imitation and the related laws and regulations in China, also the legal suggestions from Bridge IP Commentary to McDonald’s in the case that to protect its right basing on the general vocabulary defined in the Trademark Law and the copyright of its trademark.


Recently, the McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD) administrative litigation against the imitation of its trademark by a Beijing company attracts the media’sattention. Several years ago, the trademark “wonderful and its graph” (hereinafter referred to trademark “W”)was registered by  the company in the State Administration of Industry and Commerce, and the registered ranges include restaurant, café, research and development, clothing design and so on. On finding the trade mark and the judgment of similarity with its “M”, McDonald’s then filed an opposition against the trademark to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board(hereinafter referred to the Trademark Board) under the State Administration of Industry and Commerce for re-examination. The Trademark Board finally decides to cancel the registration of the trademark “W” in the field of restaurant, café, cocktail party service, hotel, bar, teahouse service, however, while to maintain the registration in clothing design and package design. Therefore, MacDonald filed an administrative litigation to the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court to cancel the decision of the Trademark Board.

READ MORE