By Ding Xianjie King and Wood Mallesons’ IP group

Trademark squatting has been a common occurrence in China for many years, and even been a kind of “business” by trademark squatters, which has caused huge troubles to brand owners. It is not the case, as ordinary people might think, that all types of trademark squatting can be regulated by the explicit provisions of existing laws, otherwise the phenomenon would not be so difficult to eradicate. Continue Reading A new ground to defend bad faith trademark registration – CNIPA rules that new trademark application should reasonably yield to prior trademark right if the applicant has full awareness of other’s prior trademark

作者:丁宪杰 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

长期以来,商标抢注现象在中国屡见不鲜,甚至曾经成为一门“生意”,给品牌拥有者带来无穷烦恼,因为并非如普通人所想像的那样,针对各类抢注行为都能利用现行法律的明确规定予以规制,否则商标抢注现象也就不会长期难以根治。中国商标法第十三条、第十五条、第三十二条都是品牌拥有人对抗抢注人的常用条款,但第十三条基于驰名商标认定、其适用条件高,第十五条第一款限于代表人或代理人抢注、适用情况有限,第十五条第二款和第三十二条又限定于商标必须在中国有在先使用并仅禁止他人在相同类似商品或服务上的注册;即便是放宽类似商品和服务认定的条件以适用第三十条、第三十一条,也是仅可禁止他人在放宽类似认定标准的商品或服务上的抢注,对打击商标抢注的效果有限。近来,随着打击商标抢注行为的力度之加强,商标法第四条和第四十四条第一款也开始为行政和司法机关频频适用,但在实际裁判中这几个条款往往更适用于那些不以使用为目的的大量囤积商标、以及扰乱商标注册秩序的行为。因此,精明的抢注人仍可从日趋严格的法律适用中发现可钻的漏洞,即在非类似商品上抢注他人少量在先使用甚或尚未使用的商标、且在数量上无法断定其目的是囤积,从而达到其坐待渔利等目的;同时,这些抢注者往往还都精通商标法律实践,利用法律的规定通过不断提交注册申请来保持其抢注的商标的有效性、不被他人依商标法第四十九条以连续三年不使用为由而撤销。而正当的品牌拥有人在扩展业务时,往往被这些抢注者的商标注册所阻碍,即便有证据证明抢注人明知商标属于品牌拥有人,但苦于这些抢注者之精明而无措。简言之,一个商标抢注人,如果在非类似商品上抢注他人的商标且并非大量抢注,在他人商标未能被证明为驰名商标的情形下,他人将很难阻止其注册。 Continue Reading 明知他人商标的存在,在申请新的商标时理应合理避让

By Jiao Hongbin, Liu Yuxin King and Wood Mallesons’ IP group

Recently, Guangzhou IP Court ruled on its first trademark infringement and unfair competition case regarding parallel import, in which it found such acts should neither constitute trademark infringement nor unfair competition. Continue Reading First Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case regarding Parallel Import Concluded by Guangzhou IP Court

作者:矫鸿彬 刘宇欣 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

近日,广州知识产权法院在其审理的首例涉平行进口商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷案件中认定平行进口的行为不构成商标侵权及不正当竞争。

平行进口通常指”未经知识产权权利人的同意,将国外合法生产的产品进口到国内”的行为。中国司法实践中对该行为的合法性尚无相关明确规定。在该案中,广州市南沙区人民法院及广州知识产权法院均认为,在平行进口的产品系在国外合法生产的正品的情况下,平行进口行为并不构成商标侵权及不正当竞争。两审法院的观点概述如下: Continue Reading 广州知识产权法院首例涉平行进口商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷尘埃落定

by Xu Jing King and Wood Mallesons’ IP group

On April 21, 2020, Beijing Higher People’s Court released the Guidelines on Determination of Damages and Statutory Damages in Disputes over Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition (the “Guidelines”). It provides detailed guidelines on methods of damages calculation, punitive damages, recovery of attorney fees, evidence rules on defendant’s failure of producing evidence, and statutory damages. While the Guidelines have binding force among all the courts in Beijing, but it mirrors many existing practices across the country and is actually a secondary authority for all People’s courts. This note serves as an overview of those provisions related to trademark and passing off in the Guidelines followed by our comments and recommendations. Continue Reading Guidelines on Damages Calculation in IP Disputes

作者:徐静 金杜律师事务所知识产权部

2020年4月21日,北京市高级人民法院发布《北京市高级人民法院关于侵害知识产权及不正当竞争案件确定损害赔偿的指导意见及法定赔偿的裁判标准》(以下简称“《指导意见》”)。《指导意见》对损害赔偿计算的方式、惩罚性赔偿、律师费、举证妨碍以及法定赔偿等问题提供了较为详细的指引。尽管《指导意见》仅在北京高级人民法院辖区的各级法院适用,但是其与各地法院诸多既存的实践相一致,可以作为各地法院实践的参考。本文旨在对《指导意见》与商标及仿冒类不正当竞争案件的相关条款进行简单介绍,并提供我们的建议。 Continue Reading 北京市高级人民法院发布知识产权案件损害赔偿计算指导意见

Triumph Controls UK Limited & others v Primus International Holding Company & others [2019]

Written by Barri Mendelsohn

This case covers the typical arguments which arise in SPA disputes in circumstances where a target does not perform as well as expected.  In March 2019, the UK’s High Court handed down its judgment on, amongst others, three key areas which corporate lawyers, buyers and sellers should be mindful of, being: Continue Reading Share purchase agreements: Lessons for Seller

Triumph Controls UK Limited等诉 Primus International Holding Company [2019]

作者:Barri Mendelsohn

本案涵盖在目标公司业绩未达预期的情况下,有关股份购买协议纠纷的典型争议。2019年3月,英国高等法院就公司律师、买方和卖方应当注意的三个关键方面做出判决,其中包括: Continue Reading 股份购买协议:对卖方的启示