Tag Archives: manufacturer

Why Shanghai Court Not Accept Nikon D600’s Dispute over False Advertisement?

Posted on by
NIKON D600

(By You Yunting) Abstract: If Shanghai plans to become an international financial center, it is judicial fairness that is an important aspect of a very good investment environment that must be provided by governments. If the court attempts to protect an enterprise beyond the letter of the law, it will cause greater long-term damage on China’s interests, and on fairness and justice than any immediate benefits obtained now, whatever companies company achieves those benefits.

On March 15, 2014, China CCTV exposed the professional SLR quality problems of Nikon D600 SLR, where black spots frequently appear on photographs. After this exposure, our team, acting as a representative of our client Mr. Xu, brought the case concerning Nikon into court. On March 18, 2014, my colleague Luo Yanjie and our client filed a legal complaint to Huangpu District Primary People’s Court.

READ MORE

Why Court Decision Exempts Wal-Mart From liabilities of Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by
castel

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: In the event that a party unknowingly sells goods that infringe upon another party’s exclusive right to use a registered trademark but can prove that it has obtained the goods lawfully and is able to identify the supplier shall not be held liable for damages. In a case that a trademark holder separately sues sellers, despite no laws requesting the manufacturers to join in the lawsuit, for the purpose of preventing contradictory judgment, the courts could notify him or her requesting joinder. It is the manufacturers that could decide whether acting as a third party to join the lawsuit.

READ MORE

Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by

(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but decide at the same time that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.

READ MORE

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

Why Ctrip’s Opponent Failed in Charging Its Advertisement’s Unfair Competition?

Posted on by
u=615186427,68769916&fm=21&gp=0 (1)

Abstract

(By Albert Chen) For the company operation in China, whether its slogan would constitute the unfair competition, it shall first judge whether the parties involved are conducting the same or similar industries. After that, it shall verify whether the defendant has conducted the accused propaganda. The last and also is the most important, it shall confirm whether the prohibitive words or phrases have been adopted in the slogan, or whether its description has appeared to be exaggerated or not the truth, and the fit with the fact shall also be judged.

READ MORE

Would Those First Users Involved in OEM Constitute Trademark Infringement?

Posted on by
360截图-30623479

(By Albert Chen) The author once introduced readers to different judicial opinions adopted in the Shanghai and Guangzhou courts over whether trademark infringement could be caused by an OEM. According to a ruling handed down by the Fujian Higher People’s Court in 2012, which came to the attention of the author recently, the judge confirmed that an OEM could lead to trademark infringement, but at the same time, the court also decided that no liability shall be taken by the first user of the mark, for no confusion would be made. As for that point, the author certainly has a different opinion.

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

Music Industry’s Revision Suggestion to Drafted Copyright Law, II

The exposure draft of revised Copyright Law (the “Draft”) has gained wide attention among the public after its publication on the website of the National Copyright Association of China (NCAC). One of the reasons contributing to the heated discussion is the articles possibly damaging the interests of musicians who have expressed their strong opposition to the Draft.

In recent, the Record Committee of China Audio & Video Association (CAVA) affiliated to General Administration of Press and Publication of PRC has made their suggestions to the modification on the Draft. To the introduction on the website of CAVA, it has more than 520 member units that are engaged in audio-video production, duplication, distribution and marketing. The member units have not only the largest state record corporation, audio-video press, but also the best music-make corporation, distribution and marketing corporation and the large chain marketing corporation at home. Under CAVA there are several working committees such as distribution, record, disc, educative publishing, digital audio-video and china marketing committee. And the Record Committee making the suggestion this time is the working committee of the CAVA.

READ MORE

Music Industry’s Revision Suggestion to Drafted Copyright Law, I

The exposure draft of revised Copyright Law (the “Draft”) has gained wide attention among the public after its publication on the website of the National Copyright Association of China (NCAC). One of the reasons contributing to the heated discussion is the articles possibly damaging the interests of musicians who have expressed their strong opposition to the Draft.

In recent, the Record Committee of China Audio & Video Association (CAVA) affiliated to General Administration of Press and Publication of PRC has made their suggestions to the modification on the Draft. To the introduction on the website of CAVA, it has more than 520 member units that are engaged in audio-video production, duplication, distribution and marketing. The member units have not only the largest state record corporation, audio-video press, but also the best music-make corporation, distribution and marketing corporation and the large chain marketing corporation at home. Under CAVA there are several working committees such as distribution, record, disc, educative publishing, digital audio-video and china marketing committee. And the Record Committee making the suggestion this time is the working committee of the CAVA.

READ MORE