On July 27, 2020, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China (“SPC”) issued the SPC Guidelines Concerning Alignment of Application of Law and Strengthening Search of Similar Cases (Trial) (the “Guidelines”), which will come into effect on July 31, 2020. Strengthening search of similar cases is one of the improving measures in the Outlines for the Fifth Five-Year Reform of the People’s Court (2019-2023), and the similar case search has been tested in several people’s courts in different levels for years. This is an encouraging progress in PRC court’s efforts in resolving the issue of “different results on the same issue”, and it is expected to see more transparency and predictability in litigating IP cases before PRC courts.
Continue Reading SPC Issues the Guidelines on Search of Similar Cases, Increasing Importance of Precedents in Adjudication
China’s OEM’s Manufacturing Solely for Export receive Supreme People’s Court’s Guidance on what Constitutes Trademark “Use”
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”
Commentary on the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation
By Susan Ning and Ding Liang King & Wood Mallesons’ Antitrust Group
The Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct (“Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation”), as adopted at the 1539th Session of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) in January 2012, were issued on May 3, 2012 and came into force on June 1, 2012. The Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretationreflects important experience accumulated in the judicial practice of monopoly civil disputes and is expected to play an important role in monopoly civil dispute cases. This article will briefly discuss the key issues involved in the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation.
I .The Drafting Background of the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation
Continue Reading Commentary on the Anti-Monopoly Judicial Interpretation
反垄断司法解释评述
《最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定》（以下简称“反垄断司法解释”）已于2012年1月30日由最高人民法院审判委员会第1539次会议通过，于2012年5月3日公布，自2012年6月1日起施行。《反垄断司法解释》凝结了垄断民事纠纷案司法实践中积累的一些重要经验，将在未来垄断民事纠纷案中起到重要作用。本文将对《反垄断司法解释》所涉及的重要内容做简要的梳理和评述。
一、《反垄断司法解释》的起草背景
早在2008年8月1日《反垄断法》正式实施后，最高人民法院就已开始着手准备垄断民事纠纷案所能出现的各种问题。2008年10月24日，最高人民法院在天津召开研讨会，讨论人民法院在审理垄断民事纠纷案中急需解决的问题。
Continue Reading 反垄断司法解释评述