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

On June 15, 2020, Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPC”) released a draft of the SPC’s Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings Involving IP Disputes for public comments (the “Draft”).  The deadline for accepting comments is July 31, 2020.  The Chinese version is accessible through the SPC’s website[1] and an English translation is attached to this article for your easy reference.
Continue Reading Overview of the SPC’s Draft for Evidence Rules in IP disputes

On June 15, 2020, Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (the “SPC”) released a draft of the SPC’s Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings Involving IP Disputes for public comments (the “Draft”).  The deadline for accepting comments is July 31, 2020.  The Chinese version is accessible through the SPC’s website[2] and an English translation is attached to this article for your easy reference.
Continue Reading OVERVIEW OF THE SPC’S DRAFT FOR COMMENTS FOR THE PROVISIONS ON EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING IP DISPUTES

By Dang Zhe and He Shijia King & Wood Mallesons’ IP group.

dang_zheAt the end of 2016, KWM’s IP Litigation Group obtained favorable judgements for its clients in “Ariston Case[1]” and “John Deere Case[2]”, two typical disputes concerning infringement of well-known trademarks by ordinary registered trademarks. The two cases are respectively included in the “Top 10 Cases Concerning IPR Judicial Protection Heard by Courts in Jiangsu in 2016” and the “Exemplary Cases in Terms of ‘Strengthening the Judicial Protection on IPR’” at the occasion of the 2nd anniversary of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Based on these two cases, this article introduces and explains the evolution and development of judicial interpretations and practice relating to the protection of well-known trademarks, and therefrom draws conclusions and trends about certain adjudication rules in China.
Continue Reading How to Handle Complex Disputes Between Registered Trademark and Well-known Trademark in China?

By Xu Jing King & Wood Mallesons’ IP group.

01The specific measures established in this case provide a guiding standard to determine essential factors of irreparable damage to a patented design. This case serves as guidance and reference for handling other similar cases.
Continue Reading Christian Louboutin’s fight against counterfeits of their lipsticks in China

By Ni Zhenhua King & Wood Mallesons’ IP group.

ni_zhenhuaThe exemplary case of SAP SE

SAP SE (the Plaintiff), founded in 1972 and headquartered in Walldorf, Germany, is the largest provider of enterprise management and collaborative commercial solutions in the world. It is also the world’s third largest independent software supplier, with more than 102,500 enterprises in 120 countries worldwide using SAP software and over 80% of Fortune 500 enterprises benefiting from its management solutions. In the 1980s, SAP SE entered the Chinese market. Thanks to its successful operation over three decades, it has won great recognition in China. 
Continue Reading Protecting foreign copyright in China: how is compensation for damages calculated?

By Mia Qu King&Wood Mallesons’ IP Litigation Group

On April 8th, 2014, the Shanghai International Arbitration Center officially issued the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone Arbitration Rules (the “FTZ Rules”). The FTZ Rules, which brings a lot of bold attempts and innovation based on the present legal frame and arbitration practice, is of important innovative significance. The FTZ Rules will enter into force on 1st May. This article will focus on the influence that the FTZ Rules will impose on IP disputes.

The innovative aspects of the FTZ Rules include: (1) the provisions regarding the interim measures; (2) the provision about the open panel of arbitrators; (3) the provision of combined trial of certain cases; (4) the provision of third party’s participation in the arbitration (including other parties of the arbitration agreement or even non-parties of the arbitration agreement); (5) the provision of evidence rules; (6) the provision that mediation may be conducted both by an arbitral tribunal or by an independent mediator; (7) introducing a friendly arbitration system; and (8) introducing procedures for disputes with small claims. The innovative arrangements which are most relevant to IP disputes are reflected in the above (1)、(5) and (8), which will be illustrated in detail as follows:
Continue Reading Arbitration in the Pilot Free Trade Zone: The New Alternative for IP Disputes——Comments on the Application of the Pilot Free Trade Zone Arbitration Rules in IP Dispute Resolution

By King & Wood’s Trademark Practice

Foreign companies often have concerns regarding whether the litigation process in an overseas venue will be efficiently handled by the relevant courts. In China, given the large increase in IP-related lawsuits in recent years, this is a reasonable concern. In 2009, P.R.C. courts had concluded 6,262 cases with a yearly increase of 31.89%. 1With such an upsurge in litigation, the P.R.C. courts have faced a very significant challenge.

Continue Reading P.R.C. Courts Show Improved Efficiency in Handling Foreign-related IP Lawsuits