作者:何放 金杜律师事务所争议解决部

本文以2017年6月22日江苏省高级人民法院作出的(2017)苏民终442号终审判决为案例,讨论了一起罕见的法院在商标确认不侵权诉讼判令败诉方(本案中为确认不侵权诉讼的被告暨中国商标权人)承担相当金额合理费用的案件。 Continue Reading 被抢注商标人的反击:评一起因OEM定牌加工海关侵权查扣程序引发的商标确认不侵权诉讼

近日,捷豹路虎有限公司(以下简称路虎公司)收到广东省高级人民法院的二审判决书,在与广州市奋力食品有限公司(以下简称奋力公司)的商标侵权纠纷中获得了二审胜诉判决。广东省高级人民法院维持了广州市中级人民法院(2014)穗中法知民初字第75号判决书,在同一案件中,认定三件商标“路虎”、“Land Rover”、“Land Rover及图”构成使用在陆地机动车辆商品上的驰名商标,判令奋力公司立即停止侵权,并赔偿路虎公司人民币120万元。

Continue Reading 从捷豹路虎终审全面胜诉看驰名商标“跨类”保护

作者:矫鸿彬 刘宇欣 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

jiao_hongbin在知识产权案件中,权利冲突出镜率很高。在权利出现冲突的情况下,就要看哪一方能够举出证明力更强的权属证据。相较于由政府主管部门核准或授予才产生权利的商标权和专利权,著作权自作品创作完成之日起即产生、无需任何主管机关审查核准,无官方证书可兹证明,因此,著作权权属的举证难度显然更大。在这种情况下,如果某一作品(通常为美术作品)已经被初审公告或核准注册为商标,则著作权利人通常会提交商标公告、商标注册证等用于证明著作权权属。但是,这类证据会达到预期的效果吗?(排版时做成引言设计)

我国现行《商标法》即2013年《商标法》)第三十二条规定:“申请商标注册不得损害他人现有的在先权利”。著作权作为在先权利中常见的一种,在商标评审阶段中,相关主体往往以争议商标的注册侵犯了其在先著作权为由针对争议商标提出异议或无效宣告申请。另外,《最高人民法院关于审理注册商标、企业名称与在先权利冲突的民事纠纷案件若干问题的规定》(法释【2008】3号)第一条规定:“原告以他人注册商标使用的文字、图形等侵犯其著作权、外观设计专利权、企业名称权等在先权利为由提起诉讼,符合民事诉讼法第一百零八条规定的,人民法院应当受理”。可见,即使针对已注册商标,著作权人仍然可以基于在先著作权针对商标注册及或使用人提起侵权之诉。然而,由于作品创作的私密性强、权属问题举证困难等因素,在先权利人往往发现其难于举证证明其对涉案作品享有在先著作权。 Continue Reading 商标申请或注册能证明著作权权属吗?

By Dang Zhe  He Shijia King & Wood Mallesons’ IP group

dang_zheOn 30 December 2016, the KWM IP litigation team helped US Deere & Company and its Chinese subsidiary John Deere (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (“Deere China”) win at first instance a lawsuit involving trademark infringement and unfair competition. The Beijing IP Court confirmed that Deere & Company’s trademarks, “JOHN DEERE” in Classes 7 and 12, and “约翰.迪尔” in Class 7 were well-known marks It ordered the three defendants to cease infringement,, make a public statement to eliminate adverse effects, found unfair competition and awarded the plaintiff RMB 5 million in punitive damages and RMB 360,000 in reasonable expenses. On 10 January 2017, at a press release for the second anniversary of the Beijing IP Court, the case was selected as a paradigm of “strengthening judicial protection of IPRs”.

Read full article, please click here.

By Lou Xianying(Cecilia), Sun Haoguang and Yuan Jiaqi King & Wood Mallesons’ Corporate & Securities group

lou_ceciliaSince the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC”) handed down its retrial judgment (2014) Civil Retrial No. 38 on the “PRETUL Case”  , the question of “whether the use of a trademark on an OEM  product constitutes infringement” has arisen as a topic of heated debate in 2016. Although the SPC gave an answer to this particular case, it did not provide explanations on other subsequent questions, which are now facing people concerned. This article aims to address these questions by analyzing the SPC’s judgment on PRETUL and two similar cases handled by the Beijing IP Court.

Read full article, please click here.

作者:楼仙英  孙浩洸  袁嘉琪 金杜律师事务所公司证券部

lou_cecilia随着2015年底最高人民法院就“PRETUL案件” 作出了(2014)民提字第38号判决,关于“OEM 商标使用是否构成侵权”的问题成了2016年的一个热点。特别是,虽然最高院对于这个问题给出了一个答案,但是并未就伴随而来的衍伸问题进行解释,而现在这些问题也都摆在了人们面前。本文将结合北京知识产权法院审理的另外两个相关案件,对最高院的上述判决进行进一步解读。

全文阅读,请点击此处

By David Calligan and Karen Butler, King & Wood Mallesons London

捕获MiFID II will introduce a comprehensive regulatory regime governing direct electronic access (DEA) to trading venues (regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities and organised trading facilities).

What is DEA?

There are two types of DEA: direct market access (DMA) and sponsored access (SA). DMA is an arrangement where a member of a trading venue allows a client to use its trading code so the client can electronically transmit orders in financial instruments directly to the trading venue; such arrangements involve the use by the client of the member’s infrastructure to transmit the orders. SA does not involve the use by the client of the member’s infrastructure. SA clients are seen by ESMA as having a higher risk trading flow as it does not go via a DMA provider’s trading system; instead, SA clients’ order flow goes through validation checks provided by the trading venue and is monitored by the member of the trading venue which sponsors the access. Accordingly, a trading venue has an obligation to authorise the provision of SA on a case by case basis.

Read The Full Article Please Click Here

作者:杨晓莉 张家绮 康立芳 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

杨晓莉一、案情简介

2012年1月18日,斐济共和国政府(下称“斐济政府”)向我国商标局申请将“FIJI PURE MAHOGANY”(第10437014号)、“FIJI PURE” (第10437015号)和“FPM” (第10437016号)注册为证明商标,指定使用的商品为第19类“人工种植的红木木材”。

全文阅读,请点击此处