新冠疫情肆虐全球,通过疫苗进行免疫预防是各国应对疫情的重要抓手;此外,免疫疗法在治疗恶性肿瘤等疾病中的应用也日趋成熟。抗体药物作为免疫治疗领域的重要发展方向,如何为其提供相适应的专利保护已成为各国知识产权实务中的焦点。国家知识产权局在2021年1月15日起正式施行的新版《专利审查指南》(以下简称“我国新指南”)中,对化学和生物相关的实质审查内容做出了较大调整,其中即包括对单克隆抗体专利审查标准的完善。
Continue Reading 抗体专利审查实务—以新版EPO审查指南为视角
Intellectual Property
Typical Cases | The Application of Punitive Damages Infringement: Typical Cases
Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation of the Application of Punitive Damages in Hearing Civil Cases Regarding Infringement upon Intellectual Property Rights (The “Interpretation”) came into effect on March 3rd, 2021. Later on March 15th, the SPC reported The Application of Punitive Damages in Civil Cases Regarding IPR Infringement: Typical Cases (The “Typical Cases”) to assist in understanding and applying the Interpretation and Punitive Damages in judicial practice.
Continue Reading Typical Cases | The Application of Punitive Damages Infringement: Typical Cases
Brief Review of the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
China’s punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property was first embodied in the revised Trademark Law in 2013, and was incorporated into the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law in 2019. In recent years, with China gradually strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights, a consensus has been reached in the industry to establish a punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property comprehensively. In the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China enacted in 2020, the punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property is generally stipulated. Correspondingly, both the Copyright Law and the Patent Law revised in 2020 stipulate a system of punitive damages ranging from one to five times, which is consistent with the Trademark Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law revised in 2019. The punitive damages system in the field of intellectual property in China has been basically established as such. However, the provisions on punitive damages in the Civil Code and various laws on intellectual property rights are silent about specific and explicit guidelines for application, and are different form each other in terms of wording and content to some extent, which leads to certain difficulties in practical application. In order to better implement the punitive damages system for intellectual property rights, the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court passed the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation”) on February 7, 2021, which came into force on March 3, 2021. The Interpretation, consisting of seven articles, specifies the applicable scope, content and timing of claims, determination of “intentional” and “serious circumstances”, as well as determination of the calculation base and fold to calculate the punitive damages in civil cases of intellectual property rights. The key articles of the Interpretation are hereby commented on as follows for readers’ reference.
Continue Reading Brief Review of the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
「最高人民法院による知的財産権侵害民事事件の審理における懲罰的損害賠償の適用 に関する解釈」について
中国では、知的財産権分野における懲罰的損害賠償制度は、2013年に改正された「商標法」で初めて登場され、続いて2019年に改正された「不正競争防止法」に導入されている。近年、中国が知的財産権に対する保護の強化に伴い、知的財産権分野における懲罰的損害賠償制度を全面的に確立することは、業界内のコンセンサスとなっている。2020年に制定された「中華人民共和国民法典」は、知的財産権分野における懲罰的損害賠償制度を包括的に規定している。これに対応して、2020年に改正された「著作権法」と「専利法」は、2019年に改正された「商標法」と「不正競争防止法」と一致するように、いずれも1~5倍の懲罰的損害賠償制度が規定され、中国の知的財産権分野の懲罰的損害賠償制度は基本的に確立されている。しかし、「民法典」及び各知的財産権部門法において、懲罰的損害賠償制度の規定は全て概括性のものであり、具体的かつ明確的な適用ガイドラインがなく、文言や内容にも相違があるため、実際に適用する際には難点がある。知的財産権の懲罰的損害賠償制度をより良く実施できるために、最高人民法院の審判委員会は、2021年2月7日に「知的財産権侵害民事事件の審理における懲罰的損害賠償の適用に関する解釈」(以下「解釈」と略称する)を可決し、同解釈は、2021年3月3日より施行される。「解釈」には、知的財産権民事事件における懲罰的損害賠償の適用範囲、請求の内容と時期、故意および情状が深刻であることの認定、計算基準と倍数の確定等を具体的に規定している計7条の規定がある。ここで、ご参照のために、同解釈のポイントとなる規定を以下の通り紹介する。…
Continue Reading 「最高人民法院による知的財産権侵害民事事件の審理における懲罰的損害賠償の適用 に関する解釈」について
《关于审理侵害知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》简评
我国知识产权领域的惩罚性赔偿制度首次体现在2013年修订的《商标法》中,并在2019年被吸收进修正的《反不正当竞争法》中。近年来,随着我国逐步加强对知识产权的保护力度,全面确立知识产权领域的惩罚性赔偿制度已经成为业内共识。2020年制定的《中华人民共和国民法典》中,概括性地规定了知识产权领域的惩罚性赔偿制度。与此相适应地,2020年修正的《著作权法》、《专利法》中均规定了一至五倍的惩罚性赔偿制度,与2019年修正的《商标法》、《反不正当竞争法》保持统一,我国知识产权领域的惩罚性赔偿制度已经基本确立。但《民法典》及各知识产权部门法中关于惩罚性赔偿制度的规定均是概括性的,因而缺乏具体及明确的适用指引,且存在部分措辞及内容上的差异,导致在实际适用中存在一定困难。为了更好地落实知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度,最高人民法院审判委员会于2021年2月7日通过了《关于审理侵害知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》(以下简称“《解释》”),并于2021年3月3日起施行。《解释》共7个条文,对知识产权民事案件中惩罚性赔偿的适用范围、请求内容和时间、故意和情节严重的认定、计算基数和倍数的确定等作出了具体规定。现对该解释的重点条款解读如下,供读者参考。…
Continue Reading 《关于审理侵害知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》简评
PRC Bad Faith Registration:Admission of Bad Faith and Breakthrough Classification
The main reason of the opponent: before the application of the opposed trademark, the opponent’s cited trademarks have gained high popularity and influence, the opposed trademark is identical or similar to the opponent’s previously registered and used trademarks “WAHL” No. 18393195 in Class 3, “WAHL” No. 280072 in Class 8 and “WAHL” No. 14003711 in Class 8. The opposed party has the subjective Maliciousness of imitating the opponent’s trademark and take ride of the goodwill of the leading brands in the industry for its own benefit, and also has the intention to deceive and mislead the relevant public to confuse and misunderstand the source of the products. If the opposed party’s behavior is allowed, it is bound to harm the rights and interests of the real brand owner and cause confusion to the relevant consumers, leading to confusion in the market and causing many adverse social effects.
Continue Reading PRC Bad Faith Registration:Admission of Bad Faith and Breakthrough Classification
GE Logo Recognized as Well-known Trademark after Winning a Long Battle before the Supreme People’s Court
General Electric Company, as represented by King & Wood Mallesons, has recently won an important trademark litigation before the Supreme People’s Court in China after over ten years of process, resulting in its GE logo successfully recognized as well-known trademark in China.
Continue Reading GE Logo Recognized as Well-known Trademark after Winning a Long Battle before the Supreme People’s Court
Trademark Trends 2021
The newly built Trademark Review Tribunal was officially put into use in the China Trademark Building this March, marking the official opening of the “offline + online” working mode for the regularization of “oral hearing” of trademark review. On the day of the hearing, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Division VII conducted online oral hearings on two cases of “DaFu Feiyue and Device” (“大孚DaFu Feiyue及图”) opposition review case and “JuFengYuan” (“聚豊園”) invalidation case.
Continue Reading Trademark Trends 2021
商标局阻击恶意注册:第33707057号“WAHL”商标异议案(基于被异议人的恶意从而认定实际使用中商品存在关联性)
基本案情:
异议人主要理由:在被异议商标申请之前,异议人引证商标已获得了较高的知名度和影响力,被异议商标与异议人在先注册并使用的第18393195号“WAHL”商标第3类、第280072号及第14003711号“WAHL”商标第8类构成相同类似或密切关联商品上的相同或近似商标。被异议人存在明显模仿异议人商标、攀附行业中领军品牌良好商誉于己牟利的主观恶意,同时具有欺骗、误导相关公众对产品来源混淆误认的企图。若放任被异议人的该行为,势必损害真正品牌所有人的权益,并造成相关消费者混淆,引发市场混乱,造成诸多不良社会影响。…
Continue Reading 商标局阻击恶意注册:第33707057号“WAHL”商标异议案(基于被异议人的恶意从而认定实际使用中商品存在关联性)
通用电气公司十年等到最高院认驰判决
2008年12月8日,上海东锦纺织染整有限公司(以下称“上海东锦公司”)向商标局提出第7099996号“”商标(以下称“被异议商标”)的注册申请;商标局经审查,初步核准其在第24类“门帘”商品上的注册。通用电气公司对该商标提出异议申请,主张被异议商标的注册构成对其注册在第11类电气照明设备等商品上的第138422号驰名商标“”的复制,损害了通用电气公司的权益。原商标评审委员会(以下称“原商评委”)、一审、二审法院经审理,均认为通用电气公司提交的证据不足以证明引证商标已达到驰名程度,且引证商标核定的商品与被异议商标指定的“门帘”商品间关联性较弱,被异议商标的注册申请不会造成相关公众混淆误认并损害通用电气公司的利益,从而裁定/判决核准被异议商标的注册。通用电气公司对二审判决不服,向最高人民法院提起再审。最高人民法院经审理,决定提审,并于2020年底作出(2020)最高法行再205号行政判决书,认定:通用电气公司第138422号商标“”在被异议商标申请日2008年12月8日前,已达到驰名程度,被异议商标构成对通用电气公司驰名商标的复制、摹仿,其核定使用的第24类“门帘”商品与引证驰名商标指定的第11类“照明装置、照明设备”存在密切关联,容易误导公众,致使通用电气公司的利益可能受到损害,进而撤销原商评委裁定、一审、二审判决,驳回被异议商标的注册申请。至此,针对被异议商标持续十多年的争议,对我们客户而言,就此画上了完美的句号。…
Continue Reading 通用电气公司十年等到最高院认驰判决
