By Ariel Ye and Liu Yuwu King and Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

Background

On September 24, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) launched its Hong Kong Arbitration Center (“the Center”) as its first branch outside mainland China. This is a significant step taken by CIETAC in its plan to expand globally.

CIETAC, established in 1956, is the dominant arbitration institution in mainland China and one of the main arbitration institutions in the Asian-Pacific region. For Chinese enterprises, CIETAC is their first choice for an international arbitral institution due to historical and practical reasons. Continue Reading New Choice for Mainland-Related International Arbitration—Establishment of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Hong Kong Arbitration Center

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)

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

I. “Works of applied art” as defined under Chinese law

Under Chinese law, the term “works of applied art” originates from the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (the “Berne Convention”), in which Article 2 and Article 7 state that all signatory countries should give at least a 25-year protection to works of applied art. After China joined the Berne Convention, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China promulgated the Provisions on the Implementation of the International Copyright Treaties in 1992 (the “1992 Provision”), in which Article 6 provides that the term of protection for foreign works of applied art shall be 25 years, commencing from the creation of the works. Other than the 1992 Provision, the term “works of applied art” is not mentioned in any law or regulation, including the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Copyright Law”) and its implementing regulations. Continue Reading Protecting of Works of Applied Art under Chinese Judicial Practice(I)

作者：Monique Carroll 叶渌 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

我们最近写了关于外国投资者如何运用投资条约保护其海外投资免于遭受“政治风险”的文章。[i]海外投资中的“政治风险”是指投资受到投资东道国政治或管理决策不利影响的风险。现在，我们密切关注中国投资者如何获得投资条约保护。

从历史上，西方发达国家就是投资条约最大的支持者，除德国之外，中国现在是加入投资条约最多的国家。可以假定中国政府同意加入这么多条约的动机是为了给中国投资者海外投资提供更多保护。这也表现了中国政府希望为国内投资提供同等保护的意愿。

石油、天然气和电气能源领域和/或南美、东欧和中亚地区或撒哈拉沙漠以南非洲地区的投资者，应该特别考虑投资条约保护，因为这些领域和地区目前引起了许多投资纠纷。[ii] Continue Reading 中国投资者获得投资保护指南

By Monique Carroll and Ariel Ye King & Wood Mallesons’ Dispute Resolution Group

We recently wrote about how foreign investors can use investment treaties to protect investments made abroad from political risk[i]. ‘Political risk’ in foreign investment is the risk that an investment will be adversely effected by a host country’s political or regulatory decisions. We now look more closely at how Chinese investors can gain investment treaty protection.

Whilst developed Western countries have historically been the greatest proponents of investment treaties, China has now entered into more investment treaties than any other country besides Germany. One can assume that the Chinese government’s motivation for agreeing to so many treaties is to increase the protections provided to Chinese investors abroad. It also signals a willingness to provide the same protections to investments made in China. Continue Reading Guide to obtaining investment protection for Chinese investors

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”

By Mia Qu King & Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group  Shanghai Office.

As a result of the development of the biomedical industry and the Contract Research Organization (CRO) and Contract Manufacturing Organization (CMO) business models, China has become one of the most important outsourcing destination countries, acquiring considerable market share of the global outsourcing market. This paper aims to provide an overview of the intellectual property issues as related to biomedical outsourcing in the Chinese context.

I. Types of outsourcing and their respective legal relationships

In practice, there are many different types of possible relationships between pharmaceutical enterprises and CROs, for example: the revenue and risk sharing model, technology sharing model, cooperative management and development model, general research & development (R&D) model and technology service model. Continue Reading Intellectual Property Issues of Biomedical Outsourcing in the PRC

作者：瞿淼 金杜律师事务所知识产权诉讼组 上海办公室

随着生物医药行业以及CRO (Contract Research Organization，生物医药研发外包)和CMO（Contract Manufacturing Organization，合同制造厂）合作模式的发展，中国作为外包的重要目的地国家之一，已经在全球获得了可观的市场份额。本文将对中国法律制度框架下生物医药外包中的相关知识产权问题进行一个综合的介绍。

外包的类型及相应的法律关系

在实践中药企与CRO的合作可以有多种多样的形式，例如风险共担、收益共享模式、技术资源共享模式、研发管理型合作模式、一般合同研发服务模式等等。但无论商业上采取哪种模式以及双方达成何种商业条款，一般在法律上都能够被界定为某一种或几种特定的法律关系。 Continue Reading 中国生物医药外包中的知识产权问题