China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

By King & Wood's Trademark Group

In March, the leading domestic industrial recorder enterprise Hangzhou Pangu Automation Systems Co., Ltd. ("Pangu Ltd.", 杭州盘古自动化系统有限公司) found that searching on www.baidu.com ("Baidu", 百度公司) for "Pangu recorders (in Chinese)" etc. returned results heading "Pangu recorder professional manufacturer Hangzhou Mengkong instruments www.mkong.com.cn (in Chinese)", and clicking the link leads to the website of Hangzhou Mengkong Instrument Technology Co., Ltd. ("Mengkong", 杭州盟控仪表技术有限公司).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

作者：金杜律师事务所商标组

今年3月，国内工业记录仪龙头企业杭州盘古自动化系统有限公司，发现在百度网站www.baidu.com搜索“盘古记录仪”等时，返回的搜索结果的第一条的标题为“盘古记录仪专业生产厂家，杭州盟控仪表www.mkong.com.cn”，点击后即进入杭州盟控仪表技术有限公司)的企业网站。

盘古公司早在2002年10月14日就已经在“集成仪表；工业自动化控制系统”商品上注册了“PG图+PANGU+盘古”文字图形组合商标（如下图所示）。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By King & Wood's Securities Group

Following the promulgation of the Notice on Further Regulating the Administration of Development and Filing of Equity Investment Enterprises in Pilot Areas (the "Pilot Rules") by the National Development and Reform Commission (the "NDRC") on 31 January 2011 and positive feedback from the six pilot areas, the NDRC is now determined to apply its administration and filing system to equity investment enterprises ("EIEs") across the nation. 

On November 23, 2011, the NDRC promulgated its first set of nationwide rules on the administration of equity investment enterprises, the Notice on Promoting Regular Development of Equity Investment Enterprises (the "Notice"). The main objective of the Notice is to standardize the establishment and operation of private equity funds.  This Notice evolved from the Pilot Rules and has addressed five major topics.  Together with the Notice, the NDRC also issued a set of forms for filing and guidance for EIEs' constitutional documents (i.e. guidance on articles of association/partnership agreement of EIEs, guidance on the fund raising prospectus, etc.).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

In recent years, the world has witnessed several milestone events signaling the arrival of a new generation of global internet companies. Apart from the much-hyped dawn of social media, there is a much broader trend taking place, one that has outgrown the traditional boundaries of the tech sector itself. “In short,” as Marc Andreessen wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal column, “software is eating the world.” As corresponding developments are happening in China, this new era has caused and will continue to cause dramatic implications on the monitoring and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the country.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Hazel Yin

It was reported ¹ that on December 15, 2011, the Intermediate Court of Changsha, Hunan Province dismissed a consumer's complaint that automobile producer Dongfeng Nissan and its 4S store ² abused their dominant position in violation of China's Anti-monopoly Law ("AML") by reaping exorbitant profits and expelling their competitors.  The case was originally filed in November 2010 and the court hearing was held in May 4, 2011.  It is the first antitrust lawsuit in the automobile industry and yet another defeated attempt by Chinese consumers in bringing AML private actions.

The plaintiff, Mr. Liu Dahua, is a Nissan car owner.  In October 2009, He had his car repaired at a local 4S store of Nissan.  Finding that the 4S store charged much higher price for repair services than other local auto repair factories, Mr. Liu asked the 4S store to sell the spare parts separately so he could do the repairs elsewhere.  However, the 4S store turned down his request saying that Dongfeng Nissan did not allow its 4S stores to sell spare parts alone, meaning that customers could only purchase the spare parts as well as the repair services together from Dongfeng Nissan's 4S stores.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By King & Wood's Finance Group

The China Banking Regulatory Commission (the "CBRC") issued Guiding Opinions of the China Banking Regulatory Commission on the Implementation of the New Regulatory Standards by the Chinese Banking Industry (Yin Jian Fa [2011] No. 44) (the "Guiding Opinion") on April 27, 2011, which clearly creates new rules for liquidity and capital held by banks in accordance with the "Basel Accord III" ("Basel III"), and on the basis of comprehensively assessing the effectiveness of the current prudent regulatory system, to improve the capital adequacy ratio, leverage ratio, liquidity, loan loss reserve and other regulatory standards. The four new regulatory standards for capital listed above will be implemented on January 1, 2012.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

作者：金杜律师事务所融资组

中国银行业监督委员会（“银监会”）于2011年4月27日发布了《中国银监会关于中国银行业实施新监管标准的指导意见》（银监发[2011]44号）（“《指导意见》”），明确将根据《第三版巴塞尔协议（Basel III）》确定银行资本和流动性监管新制度，在全面评估现行审慎监管制度有效性的基础上，提高资本充足率、杠杆率、流动性、贷款损失准备等监管标准，并提出上述四项新资本监管标准从2012年1月1日开始执行。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By King & Wood's Trademark Group

There has been a long debate on whether an unregistered trademark can be the subject of a franchise contract in China. Proponents argue that an unregistered trademark is the franchiser's property and is thus eligible for being franchised so long as it is of economic value in the eyes of the franchisee. Opponents of this argument see an unregistered trademark as not legally owned by a franchiser without going through the trademark registration process and therefore not eligible for being licensed in a franchise contract. The Regulation on Administration of Commercial Franchises ("Regulation on Franchises") (商业特许经营管理条例) enacted by the State Council of the PRC on February 6, 2007, while clearly including registered trademarks, enterprise marks, patents and know-how into the checklist of business resources that a franchiser "possesses" for franchising, fails to touch on the issue of unregistered trademarks. However, it leaves room by putting the catch-all of "any other business resource" undefined.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

金杜律师事务所商标组

未注册商标能否成为特许经营合同标的？长久以来争论不休。正方观点认为，未注册商标是特许人的无形财产，只要被特许人认可其经济价值，即可成为特许标的。反方观点认为未经注册，特许人未在法律上获得商标所有权，因此未注册商标不能作为特许人的经营资源而被许可给他人。国务院2007年2月6日颁布的《商业特许经营管理条例》明确把注册商标、企业标志、专利、专有技术列为特许人拥有的可许可给其他经营者使用的经营资源，但并未提及未注册商标。不过，与此同时，该《条例》又以“等经营资源”的表述方式留出解释空间。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Xianjie Ding and Di Yao King & Wood's IP Legal Group

New developments in e-commerce regulation bring the issue of intellectual property infringement and the liability of e-commerce operators to light. A landmark case in China removed the defence of the "Safe Harbor Principle" for the first time, and should serve as an admonition to online platforms

The rise of e-commerce in China

In 2011, the e-commerce business in China underwent major changes. After significant amounts of private equity (PE) investments and many successful initial public offerings (IPOs) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or NASDAQ, e-commerce operators have increased resources to develop their business strategies. They are no long playing a neutral role by providing a merely technical and automatic processing of the data (for example, merely providing space for a blog, etc.) but marketing aggressively as a real internet value-added service provider (for example, providing services in building up or optimising a member's own website, etc.). This change in role will lead to great legal challenges in the future in the area of trade mark infringements committed on an e-commerce operator's platform. This article will introduce two high-profile online trade mark infringement cases in both the EU and China, and offer an analysis of the implications on the development of e-commerce.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Susan Ning and Ding Liang

On December 16, 2011, the Beijing Lawyers Association organized a seminar inviting Mr. Zhou Zhigao, an official from the Price Supervision, Inspection and Anti-monopoly Bureau (Price Supervision and Anti-monopoly Bureau) of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), to speak on anti-price monopoly legislation and enforcement. 
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By  Susan Ning, Ji Kailun and Yin Ranran

On December 12th, 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") conditionally approved the acquisition of the hard disk drive ("HDD") business of the Korean Samsung Electronics ("Samsung") by the US Seagate Technology ("Seagate")¹. This is the 4th conditional approval of this year and the 10th conditional approval by MOFCOM since China's Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML") entered into effect in 2008.

According to MOFCOM's announcement, this review process lasted for almost 7 months starting from May 19th when the notification was first submitted to MOFCOM. The review process entered into the Extended Phase II and was cleared on the next business day of the expiry date of this phase.²  
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Susan Ning and Ding Liang

On November 14, the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") announced its decision to fine two private pharmaceutical companies nearly RMB 7 million for violating the Anti-monopoly Law (AML) (please see our previous article entitled NDRC Fined Two Pharmaceutical Companies for Abusive Conducts).  The NDRC's news release did not clearly indicate which article(s) of the AML the two companies have violated and the method the NDRC adopted to calculate the fine. 

On December 16, Mr. Zhou Zhigao, an official from the NDRC's Price Supervision, Inspection and Anti-monopoly Bureau discussed the reasoning behind this case in a seminar.  According to Mr. Zhou, the two pharmaceutical companies were fined under Article 17(3) of the AML because they abused their dominance by refusing to deal with reserpine manufacturers.  He also discussed the method used in that case to calculate the fine.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By You Yang and Lin Kaiyi King & Wood's Real Estate Group

A real estate pooled investment fund ("RE Pooled Fund") is where trust companies raise funds from investors (who act as both "settlors" and "beneficiaries" in the trust) and work with real estate developers to provide beneficiaries with profits in return. RE Pooled Funds generate returns through specific assets, equity investments, loans, or a hybrid thereof.

With housing purchase restrictions being implemented in China's major cities, real estate developers working with trust companies are facing serious cash flow pressure and some of them have even experienced operating difficulties. When real estate developers are unable to provide trust companies with high investment returns on schedule, and investors continue to hold expectations of high returns regardless of investment risk, trust companies are inclined to pay investors at their own expense and solve investment return problems with real estate developers internally rather than disclose investment risk to the investors. This is partly because trust companies value their reputation and the reputation of their investment products and want to avoid upsetting trustees and commercial banks who engage in selling the trust company's products. Trust companies may also be concerned about the potential for class-action lawsuits by investors. However, such trust companies may one day be unable or unwilling to pay investors out of their own pockets, or investors may no longer be satisfied with being paid investment returns, leading to a very unsustainable situation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

作者：尤杨 蔺楷毅 金杜律师事物所房地产组

房地产集合资金信托产品是指信托公司从多个委托人（也是“投资人”，相对于单一信托而言）处募集资金，用于与房地产公司合作开发房地产项目，获得收益后支付给委托人作为投资回报的信托计划，常见形式有特定资产收益型、股权投资型、贷款型以及复合型等。

伴随近期全国各主要城市商品房限购政策的出台和执行，不少处于信托计划中的房地产开发商面临着非常严峻的现金流压力，部分公司已经陷入经营困境。当这类房地产开发商没有能力向信托公司按期支付高额投资回报时，投资人却不愿面对投资风险，执着的向信托公司讨要预期回报，信托公司虽然有苦难言，却又不愿公开披露风险，惟恐得罪投资人和代理销售信托产品的商业银行，更不愿酿成集体诉讼，断了将来继续发行信托产品的信誉和财路，只能自己掏腰包堵上投资人的窟窿，再内部消化与房地产开发商的那些理不清的纠葛。试想一下，如果有一天信托公司再也没有能力或者不想堵投资人的窟窿，又或者投资人的风险意识、维权意识觉醒，不再满足于被敷衍的支付投资回报，转而追究事实真相和责任，事态将会如何发展？这样的平静还能继续维持吗？

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

金杜律师事务所外商直接投资组

继上海、北京、重庆出台外商投资股权投资企业试点文件后，天津的QFLP(合格境外有限合伙人)试点工作也已展开。2011年11月15日，天津市发展和改革委员会、天津市人民政府金融服务办公室、天津市商务委员会、天津市工商行政管理局联合发布《关于本市开展外商投资股权投资企业及其管理机构试点工作的暂行办法》("《办法》")及其实施细则。 《办法》对由外商投资的股权投资基金和股权投资基金管理企业的设立、资金募集和投资、风险控制、信息披露、备案管理等方面进行详细规范，同时鼓励该试点在天津滨海新区先行先试。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

金杜律师事务所知识产权组

历时三年之久的麒麟协和食品株式会社与陈某某、王某商标权转让合同纠纷一案日前终于一审审理终结。原告麒麟协和食品株式会社是“可得然”中文商标的商标权人，由上海欧卡内实业有限公司（“欧卡内公司”）代理其在中国销售可得然胶。2006年3月，被告欧卡内公司法定代表人陈某某向国家商标局抢先申请注册“可得然”的英文译音“CURDLAN”商标。双方于2007年签订《商标权转让合同》，约定被告将“CURDLAN”商标以2000美元的价格转让给原告。2008年5月，国家商标局以“转让人使用的签字与以前在商标局办理商标事宜时使用的签字明显不符”为由，要求原告补充提供转让人的身份证件（复印件）以及经公证的转让人同意转让的声明，因被告一直未予提供，导致商标局对“CURDLAN”商标转让不予核准，原告诉诸法院。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Liu Xinyu and Gao Xiaorui King & Wood's International Trade Group

Improper commodity classification in customs declaration may cause different legal liabilities. This article will begin the analysis with two cases.

Case 1: A large-scale foreign-investment enterprise ("Enterprise A") imported 72.6 tons of ethylene powder from Germany, and made a customs declaration in the name of ethylene powder with a commodity code ("HS code") of 29,012,100. Later, the customs office extracted samples from the declared goods for inspection. The laboratory identification report issued by the customs laboratory center revealed that the materials were actually a type of polymer with the main ingredient being vinyl acetate, and the proper corresponding HS code was 39052900. Through further investigation, the customs office found that Enterprise A had imported the same materials as "ethylene powder" three times. The customs office finally determined that Enterprise A's acts constituted false declarations, and imposed administrative penalties on Enterprise A in accordance with relevant laws.

Case 2: According to a news report, the merchandiser of a well-known foreign-funded enterprise ("Enterprise B"), when scrutinizing Enterprise B's former declaration materials for imported raw materials, found that the beginning of the HS code on the commercial invoice was 3302 rather than 1302, the correct beginning of HS code for the imported raw materials. Imported materials with HS codes 1302 and 3302 were levied different customs duties of 20% and 15%, respectively. HS code 1302 was the correct coding for imported materials by Enterprise B and the merchandiser was aware of the fact. However, Enterprise B continued to use the original commodity code when filing customs declaration for the imported materials, and carried out this misconduct for the next 30 months. Finally, the customs anti-smuggling department discovered Enterprise B's acts and determined Enterprise B had evaded customs duties amounted to over RMB 1 million. Finally, a lawsuit was instituted by the competent procuratorate before the courts.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

作者：刘新宇 高晓瑞 金杜律师事务所国际贸易组

报关商品归类错误可能会引起不同的法律责任，这里先举两个案例:

案例一：某大型外商投资企业（“A公司”）从德国进口72.6吨乙烯胶粉。A公司在向海关申报该批货物的名称为乙烯胶粉、货物商品编码（“HS编码”）为29012100。此后，受理申报的海关提取了该票乙烯胶粉的样品送检，经海关化验中心出具的化验鉴定书显示，该批货物为以醋酸乙烯为主要成分的聚合物，归类参考意见为HS编码：39052900。同时，经海关调查A公司此前曾以同样方式进口乙烯胶粉合计三票。最终海关认定A公司的行为构成申报不实，根据相关规定对A公司给予行政处罚。

案例二：据有关媒体报道，某知名外资企业（“B公司”）的采购人员在审查本公司向海关申报进口原料的有关文件时，发现了国外供应商提供的商业发票中HS编码为1302开头，这一编码当时对应的税率为20%，而B公司进口时向海关申报所用的HS编码为3302开头，该编码当时对应税率为15%。据海关认定，虽然采购人员知道以1302开头的HS编码才是B公司实际进口货物的正确编码，但B公司仍继续使用原来的商品编码向海关伪报这批货物，并在此后的近30个月的时间里沿用了这一错报HS编码。最终，查获该行为的海关缉私部门认定B公司偷逃应缴税款总计100多万元，涉嫌构成走私普通货物罪，并由检察院向法院提起公诉。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran

On December 13, it was reported that the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) asked China Telecom to submit more detailed "rectification proposal" in relation to its pledge for suspension of antitrust probe¹.   Earlier on December 2, China Telecom and China Unicom announced that they have applied to the NDRC for suspension of its antitrust investigation into their internet access pricing practices, by promising to adjust the internet access prices and overhaul their broadband services (see our article entitled "China Telecom and China Unicom Seek to Settle Antitrust Probe").

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By King & Wood's Labor & Employment Group

The State Administration of Work Safety passed the Decision on the Amendment to the Interim Punishment Rules for the Regulations on Reporting and Investigating Work Safety Accidents (hereinafter the "Decision") on August 29^th, 2011. The Decision will be effective as of November 1^st, 2011.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Susan Ning, Ding Liang, Liu Jia and Sun Yiming

On November 14, the National Development and Reform Commission ("NDRC") announced its decision to fine two private pharmaceutical companies nearly RMB 7 million for violating the Anti-monopoly Law ("AML")¹. The penalty decision was released right after the NDRC publicly confirmed its investigation over China Telecom and China Union for alleged abuse of dominance in the broadband market. It seemed that the NDRC could not wait to show its determination to enforce the AML with another striking case.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming, Liu Jia and Yin Ranran

On 2 December 2011, China Telecom and China Unicom announced that they have applied to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) for suspension of its antitrust investigation into their internet access pricing practices, by promising to adjust the internet access prices and overhaul their broadband services.

According to their announcements ¹, China Telecom and China Unicom stated that they have proactively cooperated with the NDRC's investigation and have engaged in "self-evaluation" of the challenged pricing practices.  Both companies acknowledged "room for improvement" for their interconnection services and pricing practices.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

作者：金杜律师事务所外商投资组

对于讨论日久的PE监管问题，中国发改委在日前给出了说法，发改委于12月8日发布《关于促进股权投资企业规范发展的通知》（“《通知》”）。《通知》是我国首个全国性股权投资企业管理规则，规定股权投资企业的资本只能以私募方式募集。《通知》规范了股权投资企业的设立、资本募集与投资领域，要求股权投资企业遵照《公司法》和《合伙企业法》有关规定设立。资本只能以私募方式，向特定的具有风险识别能力和风险承受能力的合格投资者募集，资本募集人须向投资者充分揭示投资风险，不得承诺固定回报。股权投资企业的所有投资者只能以合法的自有货币资金认缴出资。资本缴付可以采取承诺制，即投资者在股权投资企业资本募集阶段签署认缴承诺书，在股权投资企业投资运作实施阶段，根据股权投资企业的公司章程或者合伙协议的约定分期缴付出资。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Susan Ning, Sun Yiming and Liu Jia

On December 7, the Provisional Measures on Investigating and Penalizing Violation of Notification Obligations for Concentrations between Business Operators (Provisional Measures) were reviewed and discussed at the No. 57th Ministerial Affairs Meeting of the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) and were passed in principle.¹  

It was discussed at the meeting that currently companies frequently ignore their merger control notification obligations under the Anti-Monopoly Law which has caused negative social impact.  Under such circumstances, the Provisional Measures are expected to strengthen MOFCOM's enforcement in relation to investigation and punishment for those companies who fail to honor their notification obligations.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

作者：胡梅 刘海涛 北京金杜律师事务所争议解决组

近几个月来，为数不少的中国企业被指控违反美国证券法和上市公司准则，并因此受到了相关调查和法院诉讼。这些问题的曝光通常源于公司聘请的会计师事务所对公司财务信息真实性的怀疑，或是出于外界对公司某些不正当交易的指责。这些公司在被内部审计委员会、美国证监会和相关证交所调查的同时，也面临受害股东提起的法律诉讼。大多数这类中国公司根本没有预想到会面临这些诉讼和调查，也没有料想到其强度和因此会产生的高额费用。这一切都对公司及其董事、管理人员和员工形成了巨大的压力。公司为配合调查或应诉需要调集大量的人力和资金，相关的开支动辄上千万美元，同时还不可避免地殃及公司的日常运作和员工的士气。

为了合规以及应对在美诉讼都要付出高昂的资金成本，外加股价的低迷和交易量的骤减，对于中国企业来说，美国资本市场的吸引力已不如往日。这些因素正促使一些中国公司重新考虑是否要继续保留其美国上市公司的资格。这类公司有多种退出机制可供选择。公司可以先退市，再通过私募收购实现私有化。公司也可选择退市后作场外交易，或者作为粉单上市公司。退市的成本一般会很高昂，因此在决定退市前公司需要先作慎重周密的考虑。

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

King & Wood's Trademark Group

After a three-year trial, the case of Kirin Kyowa Foods Co., Ltd. vs. Chen and Wang over a trademark assignment contract has currently been decided by the first instance. Kirin Kyowa Foods Co., Ltd. (the "Plaintiff"), as the proprietor of the trademark "可得然", appointed Shanghai Aucane Enterprise Co., Ltd. ("Aucane") as its sales agent for gelatine bearing the "可得然" trademark. In March 2006, Chen (the "Defendant"), the legal representative of Aucane, preemptively filed an application for registration of "CURDLAN", which is the English equivalent of the "可得然" trademark at the China Trademark Office (the "TMO"). In 2007, both parties signed a Trademark Assignment Contract (the "Contract"), requiring the Defendant to assign the trademark "CURDLAN" to the Plaintiff at the price of US$2,000. In May 2008, the TMO took office action on the grounds that "the assignor's signature is evidently inconsistent with the one filed with the TMO in the past", and required the Plaintiff to provide a copy of the assignor's ID card and its notarized statement of agreement on the said trademark assignment. However, the Defendant failed to provide any of the above materials, causing the TMO to refuse the assignment of "CURDLAN", and thus the Plaintiff appealed to the court.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

King & Wood's Trademark Group

On November 9, 2011, the China Trademark Office (the "TMO") has partially adjusted its official website for the purpose of facilitating the public in browsing and searching information about recordal of pledges of exclusive rights to registered trademarks. The adjustments are in respect of the place of the information, the means of disclosure and the items of disclosure.

Thanks to such adjustments, the public may directly search whether the exclusive right of a registered trademark is pledged in the column "Use of Trademark Rights" on the TMO website, including name of the pledgor, name of the pledgee, the registration number of the pledged trademark, and validity period of the pledge. Moreover, the pledge information in e-charts has changed to web links below which the public may find a collection of information of pledges as of November 2009.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

金杜律师事务所商标组

2011年11月9日，商标局对“中国商标网”商标专用权质权登记信息公示页面进行部分调整，以方便公众进行网页浏览及查询。具体涉及信息公示的位置、方式和内容等方面的调整。

本次调整后，公众如需了解某个商标是否存在质押登记，可直接在“中国商标网”的“商标权运用”一栏中查询相关信息，包括“出质人名称”、“质权人名称”、“出质商标注册号”、“质权登记期限”等。另外，质权登记信息由表格页面调整为链接页面，并将2009年11月至今的登记信息在该链接下汇总。

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link