Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

By Richard W. Wigley  KingandWood Mallesons’ IP Group

wigley_richardThe framework for variants of class action-type litigation in the People’s Republic of China has been in place since the initial promulgation of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C. (“CPL”) in 1991.   The recently amended CPL provides requirements for filing a “joint litigation” for suits where “the object of the action is of the same category and a party consists of numerous persons” and where the parties may choose to elect a representative.[1] Further to whether standing is afforded the plaintiff and the filing requirements for such litigation, the CPL provides that “[t]he plaintiff must be a citizen, legal person, or an organization having a direct interest with the case … there must be a specific defendant … [and] there must be a specific claim and a specific factual basis and grounds ….”[2] Though with certain differences, the CPL provides a framework which allows for joint litigation which has similarities to what is commonly referred to as a “class action lawsuit”.
Continue Reading Trends in Class Action-Type Public Interest Litigation in China

By Sun Mingfei and Gui Hongxia King&Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

sun_minguntitledOften the first battle that parties face in an intellectual property infringement dispute is determining which court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute. For many reasons, the plaintiff will usually wish to initiate proceedings at the court where the plaintiff has its domicile or at a court relatively experienced in intellectual property disputes. A plaintiff will generally try to avoid initiating proceedings at the court where the defendant has its domicile. When determining jurisdiction, the parties and the court should seek to determine the places with the most significant connection to the dispute. Apart from where the defendant has its domicile, the other place that will have a connection with the dispute will be the place of infringement. In an online environment, there have been many cases that have considered whether the place of receipt in an online transaction can be considered as the place of infringement. However, no uniform understanding has yet been reached in judicial practice. As a result, there have been a large number of jurisdictional challenges.
Continue Reading Do courts at the place of receipt in an online transaction have jurisdiction over patent infringement cases?

By Li Zhongsheng King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group

untitled1.Introduction

More than 30 years have passed since China took a substantial leap forward in the judicial protection of intellectual property (IP); opening up policy and updating trial practice.

After joining the WTO, the IP legislative department was widely regarded as the most internationalized department in the Chinese legal system with regular changes made to its laws and judicial interpretations (including the Patent Law, the Trademark Law, the Copyright Law and the Law against Unfair Competition).

Looking at these legislative changes now, there are several principles that stand out:
Continue Reading Comments on judicial protection of intellectual property in Chinese courts in 2014

作者：李中圣 金杜律师事务所知识产权组

untitled一、引言

改革开放三十多年来，中国知识产权审判取得巨大进步。从立法方面看，中国多次修改和完善专利法、商标法、著作权法、反不正当竞争法等法律和司法解释。尤其是加入WTO以后的十几年里，知识产权立法是中国法律体系中与国际接轨程度最高的法律部门之一。知识产权立法和修改，充分体现以下原则：第一，维护知识产权权利人利益与维护公众利益的统一。着力兼顾智力创造者、商业利用者和社会公众的利益，协调好激励创新、促进发展和保障智权的关系。第二，适应国际立法趋势与立足本国国情的统一。既向有较多积累的国家学习，又准确定位中国经济社会发展阶段和实际水平，强化区别情况和宽严适度观念，在知识产权司法保护中注重根据不同知识产权的属性和特点，符合不同知识产权的功能和保护需求，使知识产权司法保护更加适应中国所处的国际国内环境，符合经济社会发展的阶段性特征，符合文化发展和科技创新的要求。第三，维持法律稳定性与提高法律适应性的统一。保持法律的稳定性，保证公众参与法律实践的预期和维护法律自身的权威，同时及时兴利除弊，推动立法进步。
Continue Reading 2014年中国法院知识产权司法保护评述

By Lin Jiuchu  Zhang Jiaqi King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group

林久初Case review

Teletubbies is a TV program jointly created by DHX Worldwide Limited and a subsidiary corporation of BBC for children. It was broadcasted by BBC between 1997 and 2001 and became very popular nationwide. Ever since its debut, Teletubbies TV program has gained huge business success and numerous rewards and was broadcasted by 35 media in 120 countries. CCTV also introduced it into China and began to broadcast it on February 11, 2002, since when it was adored and watched by a large number of Chinese children and parents. Apart from the TV program, its correlative CDs, books, stuffed toys and clothes were also very popular. As the name of a famous TV program and cartoon characters, Teletubbies was widely known in China in a very short time.
Continue Reading Legitimate rights of the specific name of famous services, TV programs and cartoon characters shall be protected as prior rights under Article 32 of the 2014 Trademark Law

By Chen Changhui King&Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group

untitledAfter the Third Amendments to the Chinese Patent Law, Tort Liability Law (2009), Opinions on Further Strengthening Combat Against Infringement Upon Intellectual Property and Manufacture and Sales of Counterfeit Commodities (2011) issued by the State Council, the New Civil Procedure Law (2012), and Judicial Interpretation of Civil Procedure Law (2015) have been promulgated consecutively, and China is preparing to join The Hague Agreements Concerning the International Registration of Designs. For the purpose to enhance patent enforcements and adapt to these treaties, laws and regulations, the SIPO published Draft of the Fourth Amendments to the Chinese Patent Law (for public comments) on April 1, 2015. The Draft comprises substantive amendments to a total of 30 articles, including revisions of current 18 articles, addition of 11 articles, deletion of one article, addition of one chapter “Patent Enforcement and Application”, and adaptive wording amendments to or adjustment of two articles.

Main amendments to the current Patent Law in the Draft include the following aspects:
Continue Reading Main amendments in draft of fourth amendments to the Chinese Patent Law

作者：陈长会 金杜律师事务所知识产权组

untitled自专利法第三次修改以来，侵权责任法（2009）、国务院《关于进一步做好打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品工作的意见》（2011）、新的民事诉讼法（2012）、民事诉讼法司法解释（2015）等法律法规相继颁布，并且中国正在准备加入《工业品外观设计国际注册海牙协定》。为了加强专利权保护并适应这些条约和法律法规，2015年4月1日，中国知识产权局发布了专利法第四次修改草案（征求意见稿）[1]。草案涉及实质性修改的条文共30条，其中对现有条文修改18条，新增11条，删除1条，并新增“专利的实施和运用”一章。另有适应性文字修改或调整的条文2条。
Continue Reading 《中国专利法第四次修改草案》的主要修改内容

作者：楼仙英 秦昔 魏子熙  金杜律师事务所知识产权部

lou_ceciliaqin_sidney当“互联网+”成为上半年度最受瞩目的关键词时，互联网产业正从“毛头小伙””的青春梦想演变为整个国家转型依托的“中国梦”。虽然互联网的大佬们在不同的场合都在强调“弱监管”、“多促进”、“业务引导监管”的互联网监管“自由主义”，但是当整个产业成为国家战略时，监管“互联网+”的行动也悄然而至。

虽然此前工商总局针对电子商务行为已经颁布了《网络交易管理办法》、《网络零售第三方平台交易规则制定程序规定（试行）》等行政管理规定，但基本只是针对线上行为的规范。而在目前的“互联网+”时代下，随着越来越多的传统企业将业务触角延及线上时，监管如何保证线上与线下的一致性，不仅是对政府，更是对企业内部管理的挑战。 
Continue Reading 监管“互联网+”后对无店零售模式的挑战

作者：林久初 张家绮 金杜律师事务所商标部

lin_jiuchu案件介绍 

天线宝宝是迪斯全球有限公司（原名拉格道尔有限公司）与英国广播公司（BBC）的子公司合作制作的幼儿电视节目。该节目于1997年至2001年通过英国广播公司（BBC）在英国首播，立即引起了强烈的反响，在商业上取得了巨大成功，获奖无数。自开播以来，该节目已在全世界通过35家不同的广播媒体在120个国家播放。中国中央电视台随后引进天线宝宝电视节目，于2002年2月11日开播。一经播出，该节目同样受到中国幼儿及家长的喜爱和持续的关注。与电视节目相关的节目光盘、图书、毛绒玩具、儿童服饰等周边商品亦同时推出，同样受到追捧。天线宝宝（TELETUBBIES）作为电视节目名称和卡通人物形象名称迅速在中国广为知晓。 

在广东经商的个人楼繁荣在天线宝宝节目播出不久的2002-2004年间先后抢注了多个天线宝宝（TELETUBBIES）文字和图形商标，迪斯全球有限公司对这些恶意抢注的商标分别提出异议、争议、无效等法律手段，其中包括对第4249617号“01”商标向商评委提出争议申请。迪斯全球有限公司争议申请的理由之一是被申请商标的注册损害迪斯全球有限公司对天线宝宝（TELETUBBIES）这一知名服务的特有名称、知名电视节目名称、知名卡通形象名称享有的合法权益，请求依据2001年《商标法》第三十一条撤销被申请商标的注册。
Continue Reading 天线宝宝作为知名电视节目名称、知名卡通形象名称受到保护

By Ding Xianjie King & Wood Mallesons’ Trademark Group

xian-jie_dingWhether OEM constitutes trademark infringement has been an area of controversy in the field of intellectual property for many years. The ongoing debate has arisen recently, mainly focusing on the following three points: a) whether export-related OEM constitutes trademark infringement regulated by the Trademark Law of the PRC; b) whether OEM satisfies the requirement of “prior use” with an ability to prevent others from registering the trademark on the same or identical goods by illegitimate means; c) whether OEM can defend others’ cancellation requests on the grounds that the trademark has not been used for three years consecutively.

With regards to the abovementioned issues, the focus of the argument lies in whether the “brand-post” in OEM is a use of trademark in the sense of Trademark Law. If a) above is not satisfied, b) and c) will be problematic. This article summarizes existing case law and the prevalent literature, and concludes that the current controversy over the use of trademarks shall be weakened, but over the substance of trademark right protection.
Continue Reading Analysis of the use of trademarks in OEM based on the legislative intent of trademark protection