Written by:Xu Jing Ye Wanli(Intellectual Property)

 

 

 

 

Fighting against trademark piracy has become one of the priorities in the governance of trademark system in China for years, which has also been a long-time headache to genuine brand owners. The most common strategy is to file oppositions to defeat registration of the pirate marks, in order to avoid market confusion among the public if the pirate marks are used for commerce. While most of the bad-faith filing can be defeated at the early stage under the current practice, the strategy incurs significant costs for genuine brand owners – legal costs, such as attorney fees for filing oppositions, are substantially higher than the costs of trademark pirates. This imbalance of costs makes trademark piracy “unstoppable”, resulting in continuous and strong interference with ordinary business operation of genuine brand owners.

Continue Reading Trademark Piracy Results in Civil Liabilities? Note on Emerson Electric v. Xiamen Anjier

Written by:Liao Fei(Intellectual Property)

 

 

 

 

On April 13, 2022, the CNIPA issued the “Notice on Continuously Cracking down on Malicious Trademark Registrations” (hereinafter referred to as “the Notice”), continuing to maintain the high-pressure “zero tolerance” posture and the normalized crackdown mode. The Notice stressed that strengthened efforts will be made to fight against malicious hoarding and preemptive registration in trademark, which are highlighted by the activities of “hoarding ” and “free-riding” of trademarks, in accordance with the regulations on malicious application for trademark registration with no intent to use as in the “Guidelines for Trademark Examination and Trial”.

Continue Reading CNIPA Releases “Notice on Continuously Cracking down on Malicious Trademark Registrations”

作者:徐静 叶万理(知识产权部)

 

 

 

 

商标抢注可谓是我国商标领域多年来治理的重点,也是品牌商心中之痛。一直以来,面对大批量抢注且注而不用的行为,权利人的常规处理方式是通过异议阻止注册,以防止对方商标注册后的使用,引起市场混淆。尽管根据目前商标行政程序制止抢注的规则,绝大多数恶意抢注商标都能够被扼杀于摇篮,防患于未然;但权利人为制止抢注而付出的代价,即商标异议程序等付出的费用包括律师代理费均远远高于抢注人的注册成本,这就使得抢注现象依然屡禁不止,权利人不堪其扰。 Continue Reading 商标抢注也需承担民事赔偿责任 ——浅析艾默生公司诉厦门安吉尔水公司不正当竞争纠纷案

作者:廖飞(知识产权部)

 

 

 

 

2022年4月13日,国家知识产权局发布《关于持续严厉打击商标恶意注册行为的通知》,继续保持高压“零容忍”态势和常态化打击方式,强调按照《商标审查审理指南》规定的不以使用为目的的商标恶意注册申请若干情形,强化整治以“囤商标”“傍名牌”“搭便车”“蹭热点”为突出表现的商标恶意囤积和商标恶意抢注行为。

Continue Reading 国家知识产权局发布《关于持续严厉打击商标恶意注册行为的通知》

著者:毛琎(知的財産)

 

 

 

一、事件の概要

本事件は、接触分解分野において、主に重質原料の接触分解やガソリンの接触改質に使用される低温再生触媒循環方法の特許に関するものである。係争特許は、導入した後しばらくは商業的成功を収め、国家科学技術賞を受賞した。該特許の名称は「低温再生触媒循環方法及びその装置」であり、具体的に、流動接触分解プロセスであり、該プロセスは、ライザー反応器内で炭化水素原料が触媒と接触して反応し、反応物は分離器に流れ油ガスから触媒を分離し、分離した使用済み触媒はストリッピング区域でストリッピングし、再生器に入ってコークス燃焼して再生し、再生された触媒は、ライザー反応器に戻され、再利用されることを含む。請求項1には、「下部に流動媒体分配設備が設けられ、下流に触媒混合緩衝空間が設けられる」と限定され、明細書にも該構成要件が対応して記載されている。本事件の肝心な技術的争点は、「下流」に位置する「混合緩衝空間」に焦点が当てられている。 Continue Reading 無効戦略に基づいて特許権者が明細書の記載が不十分であることと特許が進歩性を具備しないことを二者択一にする

Written by:Mao Jin(Intellectual Property)

 

 

 

I.Case in brief

This case relates to a patent for a cooled regenerated catalyst circulating method in the field of catalytic cracking, which is mainly used for catalytic cracking of heavy raw materials and catalytic upgrading of gasoline. The patent involved has achieved commercial success in the society and won the national science and technology award after it was published. The title of the patent is: “Method and equipment for circulating cooled regenerated catalyst”. Specifically, it relates to a fluidized catalytic cracking process where hydrocarbon feedstock is caused to contact and react with the catalyst in the riser reactor, the reactant flows into the settler to separate the catalyst from oil and gas, the separated catalyst to be regenerated is stripped in the stripping section and then enters the regenerator for coking regeneration, and thereafter, the regenerated catalyst is returned to the riser reactor for recycling. Claim 1 recites “fluidized media distribution facilities are provided at the lower part, and a catalyst mixing buffer space is provided in the downstream”, and such technical feature is also described in the description accordingly. The key technical dispute in this case focuses on the “mixing buffer space” located “downstream”. Continue Reading Formulating Invalidation Strategy to Force Patentee to Pick One out of Insufficient Disclosure of Description and Lack of Inventiveness

作者:毛琎(知识产权)

 

 

 

一、案情简介

本案涉及催化裂化领域一种主要用于重质原料的催化裂化和汽油催化改质的冷再生催化剂循环方法专利。涉案专利在面世后的一段时间内,在社会上取得了商业成功,获得了国家科学技术奖励。该专利名为:“一种冷再生催化剂循环方法及其设备”,具体而言,是一个流化催化裂化过程:烃类原料在提升管反应器与催化剂接触反应,反应物流入沉降器进行催化剂与油气的分离,分离出待生催化剂经汽提段汽提后进入再生器烧焦再生,再生后的催化剂将返回提升管反应器循环使用。权利要求1限定了“下部设有流化介质分布设施,下游设有催化剂混合缓冲空间”,说明书中也相应地记载了该技术特征。本案的关键技术争议即集中在此位于“下游”的“混合缓冲空间”。 Continue Reading 基于无效策略使专利权人在说明书公开不充分与专利不具有创造性之间进行二选一

Written by:Mao Jin(Intellectual Property)

 

 

 

 

I.Case in brief

China began to implement exhaust emission standards in 2001, which has gone through five stages and will soon enter in the sixth stage (CHINA VI). The exhaust gas reduction technology used in each stage is different accordingly. The two patents involved in this case protection is a metering pump device being used for exhaust gas purification, and the two involved exhaust gas reduction technologies meet CHINA V emission Standards and will not be adopted by CHINA VI Standard. Once China fully enters the CHINA VI era in terms of exhaust emission standards, the metering pump devices claimed in the two patents conforming to the CHINA V Standards will be completely obsolete. Therefore, for the Plaintiff (i.e. the Patentee), there is a technical timeliness limitation in the case, i.e., if the Plaintiff cannot win the patent infringement lawsuit before China fully enters the CHINA VI stage, the technologies claimed in the subject patents will be out of date, and the subject patents will also be useless. Continue Reading Designing Invalidation Strategy to Obtain Technical Feature Interpretation Favorable for Non-infringement Defense in Invalidation Procedure

著者:毛琎(知的財産)

 

 

 

 

一、事件の概要

中国は、2001年より排ガス基準を導入してから、5段階(国5)を経てまもなく第6段階(国6)を適用するようになる。各段階で採用される排ガスの還元技術が全く同じではない。本事件に係る2つの係争特許は、正に排ガス浄化機能に用いられる計量ポンプユニットを特許請求し、かつ、国5基準適用の排ガス還元技術に関わっており、国6基準にこれらの技術が採用されていない。排ガス基準が全面的に国6時代に入ると、両特許が保護する国5基準に係る計量ポンプユニットが全て淘汰されることになる。そのため、本事件は、特許権者である原告にとって一定の時効性があり、全面的に国6時代に入る前に勝訴しないと、係争特許の技術がそのまま淘汰され、係争特許の価値が実質的にゼロになる。 Continue Reading 無効審判手続きで意図的に権利非侵害の抗弁に有利な構成要件の解釈を得る無効戦略の設計

作者:毛琎(知识产权部)

 

 

 

一、案情简介

我国从2001年开始实行尾气排放标准,已经历了五个阶段(国五),马上迎来第六个阶段(国六)。各个阶段采用的尾气还原技术不尽相同。本案两件涉案专利保护的正是用于尾气净化功能的计量泵装置,且两专利所涉及的技术均属于国五标准下的尾气还原技术,并不被国六标准所采用。一旦尾气排放标准全面进入国六时代,则两专利所保护的涉及国五标准的计量泵装置则将被全面淘汰。因此,本案对作为专利权人的原告存在一定的技术时效性限制,如果原告不能在全面进入国六阶段之前赢得专利侵权诉讼,则涉案专利的技术将被自然淘汰,而涉案专利的价值也将实质上归零。 Continue Reading 设计无效策略在无效程序中针对性取得对不侵权抗辩有利的技术特征解释结果