By King & Wood Mallesons’ Trademark Group

According to the statement dated as of March 1, 2012 issued by a representative for Michael Jordan, the suit filed by former NBA basketball legend Michael Jordan against a Chinese sportswear and shoe manufacturer Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd., whose trade name and trademark 乔丹 is equivalent to the commonly used Chinese translation for Jordan, has been accepted by court in China. The specific claims of the suit remain a myth presently.

Subsequent to the above statement, Michael Jordan also released another statement:

Continue Reading Michael Jordan vs. Qiaodan Sportswear Co., Ltd Lawsuit Accepted

作者：金杜律师事务所商标组

篮球“飞人”迈克尔•乔丹（以下简称“乔丹”）起诉乔丹体育股份有限公司（以下简称“乔丹体育”）的诉讼事件近期闹的沸沸扬扬。昨日，该事件有了新的进展，根据迈克尔•乔丹的发言人发布的书面文件，法院已受理上述起诉,但是乔丹的诉讼请求尚不明确。

该书面文件显示的日期为3月1日，内容提及法院已受理迈克尔•乔丹对乔丹体育提起的诉讼。同时，迈克尔•乔丹在一份声明中表示：“我很高兴，中国法院受理了我的诉讼，以保护我的姓名权和中国消费者的利益。乔丹体育未经授权使用我的中文名字、球衣号码23号、甚至试图用我孩子的名字从事经营活动。我认为中国消费者的权益应当受到保护、不应被误导，他们应该对其购买的商品具有清楚的知情权。我采取这一行动旨在保护我的姓名权和品牌。任何人均有权保护自己的姓名权。对于本案的受理，说明中国认可姓名权是每个人应有的权利。”

Continue Reading 乔丹告乔丹体育诉讼获受理

By Susan Ning, Liu Jia and Huang Jing

On April 24, 2012, TV.SOHU.COM, v.QQ.COM,and iQIYI.COM (the specialized video website of Baidu)jointly announced the establishment of an alliance called "Video Content Cooperation" (VCC) for vedio copyright joint purchasing. The VCC is viewed as another "faction" after the recent combination of Youku and Tudou. It is reported that the main purpose of the VCC is to jointly purchasing the copy right for their own each website.1  

TV.SOHU.COM, v.QQ.COM, and iQIYI.COM are all internet video websites and are close competitors. Their cooperation may affect the competition status in the market. This article will analyze under the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) whether joint purchase arrangement could constitute "horizontal monopoly agreement".

Continue Reading Joint purchasing under the AML-SOHU, QQ and Baidu launched Video Content Cooperation Alliance

作者：胡梅 Holly Blackwell  金杜律师事务所争议解决组 上海分所

美国的诉讼证据开示制度对于缺乏美国诉讼经验的当事人来说非常陌生，对于中方当事人来说更是如此，因为中国诉讼程序与其大相径庭。中国法下的诉讼程序与其他大陆法系国家类似，双方当事人只须提供支持己方诉求或抗辩的相关证据既可。美国证据开示制度则不仅要求当事人提供对己方有利的证据，也要求当事人提供对其不利的证据。美国证据开示规则能使诉讼当事人较容易地得到对方、甚至是第三方的信息，例如公司内部电子邮件、文件、记录和规章。即使此类信息的披露会违反中国法律规定，一方也可以要求对方披露所需信息。尽管海牙公约提供了一条取得中国境内证据的途径，但当一方当事人在美国法庭提起诉讼时，美国法庭并不总倾向于适用《海牙公约》[i]的程序。从近期的一些美国案例中，我们不难看出要求中方当事人出示证据的困难性，以及中方当事人就此问题在美国诉讼中面临的挑战。

Continue Reading 在中国境内为美国诉讼取证

By Meg Utterback and Holly Blackwell King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

The concept of US discovery is very alien to the uninitiated litigant and particularly foreign to Chinese parties, because the Chinese litigation process is far different.  China proceedings are conducted much like other civil code jurisdictions, with the parties proffering only evidence that supports the claims or defenses.  US discovery is intended to uncover both supporting and damaging evidence.  US discovery rules provide litigants liberal access to information possessed by opponents, and even third parties, such as internal company emails, documents, records, and policies.  Disclosure of requested information may be required, even though such disclosure would be prohibited under PRC law.  The Hague Convention provides one avenue of obtaining evidence located in China, but US courts are not always willing to require the use of the Hague Convention procedures where a party has submitted to the jurisdiction of the US court.  Recent US cases demonstrate the challenges of requiring discovery from Chinese parties and the challenges that Chinese parties face in US courts.

Continue Reading Obtaining Discovery in China for Use in US Litigation

By Richard W. Wigley and Xu Jing King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group

The means available for effective enforcement of settlement agreements associated with litigation is an issue which is often raised by litigants in the P.R.C.  Specifically, it is often asked, what is a party’s recourse should the other party breach a private settlement agreement, but where the breach occurs after the Appeal in the litigation at issue has been withdrawn? As P.R.C. law is a civil law system based upon the statutory law, there is no equivalent to the case precedent system of common law countries, such as the United States, Australia, and the U.K.  There is relevant statutory law as provided in the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C., but there exist certain legal issues which may require additional clarification beyond the statutory law.  With this in mind, as per the Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Case Guidance ("Provisions"), the Supreme People’s Court does on occasion publish what it sees as "indicative" cases, where the decisions reached in the cases are deemed to be used as guidelines in relevant judicial review by the lower courts.[1]

Continue Reading Supreme People’s Court provides a Guideline Case for Court Enforcement of Settlement Agreements

作者：Richard W. Wigley  徐静 金杜律师事务所争议解决组

 在中国的民事诉讼中，如何有效地执行和解协议经常会成为诉讼参与人关注的焦点。尤其是当上诉人撤回上诉请求后，而另一方当事人不执行庭外和解协议，另一方当事人的权利如何得到救济？中国是一个以成文法为基础的大陆法系国家，没有美国、澳大利亚、英国等英美法系国家一样的判例制度。虽然中国有相应的成文法，如《民事诉讼法》，但司法实践中存在大量法律问题需要在成文法之外予以释明。基于上述原因，最高人民法院在《关于关于案例指导工作的规定》的第一条中，明确说明了“指导性”案例的价值，即作为对全国法院审判、执行工作提供指导作用[i]。

Continue Reading 最高人民法院为各级法院执行和解协议提供指导性案例

By King & Wood Mallesons’ Labor Group

Beijing Implementation Rules on Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance (Beijing Municipal Decree No. 242) (hereinafter "the Rules") was released and effective on December 5th, 2011. Based on the Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance promulgated by the State Council of the People’ s Republic of China and taking into consideration the Beijing practice, the Rules details the determination of work-related injuries, appraisal of work capability, and payment of work-related injury benefits, etc.

With regard to the determination procedure of work-related injuries, the Rules for the first time ever provides that if labor dispute concerning determination of the employment relationship affects the determination of work-related injuries, the labor dispute must be resolved in accordance with law before the application for work-related injury determination, and the time for resolving the labor dispute is excluded from the time limit for applying for the determination. In addition, the Rules establishes the scheme of designation of jurisdiction for work-related injury determination, i.e. when departments of work-related injury determination at district or county level deem that the application for determination is out of their jurisdiction, they shall report the application to the municipal social insurance administrative departments for designation of jurisdiction.

Continue Reading Beijing Released New Regulations on Work-Related Injury Insurance: Time for Resolving Labor Disputes Excluded from Time Limit for Applying for Work-Related Injuries Determination

作者：金杜律师事务所劳动组

《北京市实施〈工伤保险条例〉若干规定》（北京市人民政府令第242号）（以下简称“《规定》”）已于2011年12月5日发布并实施。《规定》在国务院《工伤保险条例》的基础上，结合北京市的实际情况，对工伤认定、劳动能力鉴定、工伤保险待遇支付等方面进行了细化规定。

在工伤认定程序上，《规定》首次提出，因确认劳动关系发生争议而影响工伤认定的，应当在申请工伤认定前依法解决劳动争议，且解决劳动争议的时间将不计算在工伤认定申请时限内。此外，《规定》还建立了工伤认定的指定管辖制度，即区、县工伤鉴定部门认为工伤认定申请不属于本辖区管辖的，应当及时报请市社会保险行政部门指定管辖。

Continue Reading 北京出台实施工伤保险新规：解决劳动争议不计入工伤认定申请时限