2011年7月22日，美国华盛顿州通过了修改其《反不正当竞争法》的议案，新增一章名为《产品销售-窃取或盗用信息技术》的新法（以下简称“新法”）。根据该法律规定，在生产、经营中使用假冒盗版信息技术产品（包括假冒硬件产品和软件产品）并拒不改正的产品制造商，无论其违法行为发生在何处，只要其产品在华盛顿州销售或者许诺销售，都将可能构成不正当竞争，从而导致其在美国华盛顿州被政府或其竞争者起诉，并可能因此导致货物在美国被扣押、被禁止销售、以及被判令支付赔偿金，甚至惩罚性赔偿。该法案的颁布和实施虽然远在美国华盛顿州，但却对于全球所有向美国出口的制造业企业均有影响。中国被视为“世界工厂”而美国又是“中国制造”产品的最大出口市场，众多的中国制造企业均应注意该法案可能对其生产经营活动所产生的实质性影响，避免由于在生产经营过程中使用假冒盗版IT产品导致向美国出口受阻并引发其他法律风险。Continue Reading 使用盗版软件将可能导致在美国被诉 – 评美国华盛顿州新修订之《反不正当竞争法》
November 2011
Do Shopping Malls and Supermarkets Qualify for Class 35 Trademarks?
By King and Wood on
Posted in Intellectual Property
By King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group
Whether service trademarks used by shopping malls and supermarkets can be registered in International Class 35 and receive protection as a registered trademark is rigorously debated both academically and in judicial practice in China.
Opponents argue that the China Trademark Office (CTMO) has clearly stated that wholesale and retail services are not included in Class 35, and thus the services of shopping malls and supermarkets cannot be classified as such (the CTMO published this in their official written reply to Sichuan Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce, "Reply to the Issue of Whether Shopping Mall and Supermarket Services are Included in Class 35" on August 13, 2004). Furthermore, it stated that the contents of "sale promotion (for others)" refer to providing advice, planning, promotion and consulting for others to sell goods or services. As a result of the Reply, even if a trademark is registered under "sales promotion (for others)", such marks of wholesale and retail enterprises, such as department stores, supermarkets, wholesale markets, can hardly be effectively protected by China’s Trademark Law.Continue Reading Do Shopping Malls and Supermarkets Qualify for Class 35 Trademarks?
第 35 类是否包括商场、超市等服务
By King and Wood on
Posted in Intellectual Property
金杜律师事务所知识产权组
在中国大陆的理论和司法实践中对用于商场、超市的服务商标可否获得注册保护以及是否应在国际分类第35类注册存在较大分歧和争议。
反对者认为，商标局曾于2004年8月13日在致四川省工商行政管理局《关于国际分类第35类是否包括商场、超市服务问题的批复》（“《批复》”）中已明确澄清第35类不包括商品的批发、零售，商场、超市服务不属于该类别。‘推销（替他人)’服务的内容是指为他人销售商品(服务)提供建议、策划、宣传、咨询等。显而易见，按照此《批复》，百货商场、超市、批发市场等批发、零售企业即使在“推销(替他人)”服务项目上注册其商标，也不能得到中国《商标法》的有效保护。Continue Reading 第 35 类是否包括商场、超市等服务
Extra-judicial Mediation System and Practice （Part II of II）
By King and Wood on
Posted in Dispute Resolution
By He Wei and Zeng Ying King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group
This article continues to discuss Extra-judicial Mediation System and Practice. The first part of this article was published on Chinalawinsight on October 2011.
II. A review of extra-judicial mediation
Compared with mediation during arbitration or litigation, extra-judicial mediation can offer a more amicable way for the solving of disputes and avoid many of the disadvantages of "judicial mediation".
In judicial mediation judges and arbitrators primarily rely on rigid laws and regulations to guide the mediation process whereas the regulations applicable to extra-judicial mediation are more flexible. Article 17 of the Several Provisions provides that "in the mediation of cases, relevant organizations may, without violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations, guide the parties to reach settlement agreements by referring to industrial practices, village regulations, community conventions, local good customs and other codes of conduct."Continue Reading Extra-judicial Mediation System and Practice （Part II of II）
非司法体系下的调解制度及实践（二）
By King and Wood on
Posted in Dispute Resolution
本文分两部分刊登， 2011年10月31日金杜法律博客(Chinalawinsight)刊登的了本文的第一部分。文章第二部分将继续对《非司法体系下的调解制度及实践》进行解读。
二、非司法体系下的调解制度评析
非司法体系下的调解相对于诉讼和仲裁中的调解更有利于帮助当事人握手言和、消除纷争，同时也可以克服法院调解和仲裁调解的弊端，体现出自身独特的优势。
首先，在适用法律的问题上，仲裁和法院的调解中，法官和仲裁员作为法律专业人士，仍然多以刚性的法律法规为依据，引导当事人解决纠纷。而在非司法体系下的调解中，适用的规则就更加灵活。最高人民法院《若干意见》第17条规定：“有关组织调解案件时，在不违反法律、行政法规强制性规定的前提下，可以参考行业惯例、村规民约、社区公约和当地善良风俗等行为规范，引导当事人达成调解协议。”Continue Reading 非司法体系下的调解制度及实践（二）