Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

By Cecilia Lou  Ding Xianjie Yao Di  King and Wood Mallesons’ IP Legal Group

The current PRC Trademark Law (“Law”) was implemented in 1983, and revised in 1993 and 2001, and it has played a significant role in supporting the development of the PRC social economy since its implementation. However, the current Law is complained a lot in practice mainly because the registration procedure is fairly complex and time consuming, bad faith registration is common and difficult to stop and it provides insufficient protection against trademark infringement. Thus, The latest draft of revision of PRC Trademark Law Draft (“the Draft”) has been released and is currently open for any public comments until January 31, 2013. Generally speaking, the Draft addresses to the above mentioned issues.
Continue Reading Five Issues You should be Aware of the Latest Draft of Revision of PRC Trademark Law

By Denning Jin King and Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

Introduction

Fair and equitable treatment (FET) originated from the Havana Charter of 1948 and the adoption of the FET standard accelerated in the late 1960s and in the 1970s when it was widely incorporated in bilateral investment treaties. By the end of 2009, 2,750 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been concluded,[i] and the vast majority have incorporated FET together with other standards such as full protection and security, using very similar language, as a safeguard against violations by the host state.[ii] However, it was not until the early twenty-first century that FET was applied in investor-state arbitral jurisprudence,[iii] where claimants lodged claims and tribunals found host state liability based on FET.
Continue Reading Fair and Equitable Treatment – Should the Standard be Differentiated According to Level of Development, Government Capacity and Resources of Host Countries?

作者：韦理察  金杜律师事务所知识产权法律事务组

当今中国，为发展企业标识投入大量资源的企业，在商标权利的行使和保护领域遇到了越来越多的问题。首先，企业的注册商标在未经授权的情况下被伪造者使用在相同或相似的商品上。另外，许多公司和个人在中国注册知名品牌的标识，构成“商标侵权”或“商标抢注”。一些商标侵权者试图利用知名品牌标识的品牌价值“搭便车”，而恶意抢注者可能向品牌所有者索要高额标识转让费用。然而，如果国外品牌商委托中国的贴牌加工企业（Original Equipment Manufacturer，“OEM”）代工生产专供出口产品，而该国外委托方的品牌标识已被中国第三方企业注册，这种代工行为是否构成对中国商标所有权人的商标侵权?

《中华人民共和国商标法》[i]（“《商标法》”）为商标权利合法持有人提供了可以利用的法律保护框架。商标法于1982年通过，在1993年和2001年进行了两次修订。
Continue Reading 最高人民法院为OEM贴牌加工专供出口产品是否属于“商标使用行为”提供指导意见

By Mark Schaub, Sun Liang, Wang Ni and Melanie Stoeckert  King and Wood Mallesons’ Corporate  Group

On 17 December 2012 the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) promulgated the Guiding Opinions on Promoting Brand Consumption in China (the “Opinions”). The Opinions are not particularly interesting for what they do but for what they signal as to MOFCOM’s attitude towards brands, and in particular the importance placed upon the building and developing of Chinese brands.

The main concepts embodied in the Opinions are as follows:

Brands Matter

It is clear on a number of fronts, that the Chinese authorities are not content with China being relegated to producing for foreign brand owners or for producing no-name brand products.
Continue Reading Go Forth and Build Brands in China

作者：丁宪杰 楼仙英 姚迪 金杜律师事务所知识产权组 上海办公室 

  2012年12月14日，中国商标局发布了《关于申请注册新增零售或批发服务商标有关事项的通知》，通知在2013年1月1日起实施《商标注册用商品和服务国际分类表》第十版2013修改文本的第35类中增加“药用、兽医用、卫生用制剂和医疗用品的零售或批发服务”项目。

根据该通知，商标局规定新增服务与所销售商品原则上不类似，同时，新增服务与“替他人推销”等其他第35类服务原则上亦不类似。

在此之前，中国商标局一直拒绝接受零售服务、批发服务、以及分销服务上的商标注册申请。
Continue Reading 中国商标局发布了《关于申请注册新增零售或批发服务商标有关事项的通知》

By Ding Xianjie Cecilia Lou and Yao Di  King and Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group  Shanghai Office

On December 14, 2012, the China Trademark Office issued a Notice on Adding Trademark Specifications on Retail and Distribution Service Trademark. In this Notice, the CTMO specifies that “Retail and Distribution Service for pharmaceutical, veterinary, sanitary and medical goods” will be added in Class 35 of the Revision of 10th Edition of Goods and Services Classifications in China, and the new Revision will be effective dated January 1, 2013.

According to the Notice, the newly expanded service will not be deemed as similar to pharmaceutical goods. Also, the services are also different from prior “Distribution for others” in Class 35.
Continue Reading CTMO Released Notice to Open Trademark Registration in Retail and Wholesale Service in China

By Ding Xianjie and Steven Yao Tang Lei King and Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

(1) Chaozhou Ge Lan Te Clothes Ltd. vs. Haochang Ltd. (Jiangxi High Court, No.19, 2007)

In this case, the Plaintiff not only brought a claim for protection of copyright, but also sought protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The Court of first instance held that generally a ‘well-known commodity’, should be identified based on the following elements: Familiarity of the disputed commodity to the relevant public, the timing, sales amount and percentage of market coverage of that commodity sold in the market, the extent of advertisement promotion, the scale of capital investment, the scope of geographical distribution, and authoritative awards received by the commodity, etc.
Continue Reading Protecting of Works of Applied Art under Chinese Judicial Practice(II)

作者：丁宪杰 姚迪 唐磊 金杜律师事务所知识产权诉讼组 上海办公室

1、 作为外观设计专利获得《专利法》保护的相关案例和分析

根据《专利法实施细则》[i]第二条的规定，外观设计“是指对产品的形状、图案或者其结合以及色彩与形状、图案的结合所作出的富有美感并适于工业应用的新设计。”《专利法》第二十三条规定：“授予专利权的外观设计，应当不属于现有设计；也没有任何单位或者个人就同样的外观设计在申请日以前向国务院专利行政部门提出过申请，并记载在申请日以后公告的专利文件中。授予专利权的外观设计与现有设计或者现有设计特征的组合相比，应当具有明显区别。”综合以上规定，授予外观设计专利的要求是“新颖性”和“明显区别”，只要“实用艺术品”在申请日以前没有公开，获得外观设计专利授权应该没有太大难度。

就拿前述胶带切割机的案子来说，虽然其不能得到《著作权法》的保护，但从专利法对外观设计的要求看，其部件布局尚有一定的设计特点，若该产品有外观设计专利、原告以侵犯外观设计专利为由起诉对方的话，由于被告的产品外观与其基本一致，胜诉的可能性将非常大。
Continue Reading 我国司法实践中对“实用艺术品”的保护途径(二)

作者：丁宪杰  姚迪 唐蕾 金杜律师事务所知识产权诉讼组 上海办公室
一、我国法律对“实用艺术品”的规定

在中国，法律意义上的“实用艺术品”（works of applied art）一词来源于《保护文学艺术作品伯尔尼公约》（以下简称《伯尔尼公约》），该公约第二条、第七条明确规定了各成员国应给予“实用艺术作品”不低于25年的著作权保护[i]。在我国决定签署《伯尔尼公约》之后不久，国务院颁布了《实施国际著作权条约的规定》[ii]，其中第六条明确规定：“对外国实用艺术作品的保护期，为自该作品完成起二十五年。”除此之外，纵观我国《著作权法》[iii]及其实施条例，以及其他法律法规，均未提及“实用艺术品”一词。

二、司法实践中对“实用艺术品”的保护情况

虽然法律法规未对“实用艺术品”做出明确定义和规定，但在目前的司法实践中，各地法院都普遍承认“实用艺术品”能够作为“美术作品”得到《著作权法》保护，对“实用艺术品”作为著作权法意义上的“作品”的认定标准也比较统一。
Continue Reading 我国司法实践中对“实用艺术品”的保护途径(一)

By Richard W. Wigley King & Wood Mallesons’ Intellectual Property Group

In China today, companies which have invested resources in developing their marks encounter numerous problems in protecting and enforcing their trademark rights.  First and foremost, they face counterfeiters who without authorization use their marks on the same or similar goods. In addition, certain companies or individuals will become “trademark pirates” or “trademark squatters” and register marks of a famous brand in China.  While some trademark pirates do this to “free ride” on the brand equity of the brand owner, some trademark squatters may do it in an attempt to “negotiate” payment from the brand owner in exchange for the mark.  However, if the holder of a mark in a foreign market contracts with an original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) in China for the manufacture of goods bearing said mark solely for export where the rights to said mark in the P.R.C. are held by another entity, are such actions (i.e. the manufacture solely for export of said goods) an infringement upon the P.R.C. trademark holder’s rights?
Continue Reading China’s OEM’s Manufacturing Solely for Export receive Supreme People’s Court’s Guidance on what Constitutes Trademark “Use”