Trademark

Subscribe to Trademark via RSS

By King & Wood’s Trademark Group

There has been a long debate on whether an unregistered trademark can be the subject of a franchise contract in China. Proponents argue that an unregistered trademark is the franchiser’s property and is thus eligible for being franchised so long as it is of economic value in the eyes of the franchisee. Opponents of this argument see an unregistered trademark as not legally owned by a franchiser without going through the trademark registration process and therefore not eligible for being licensed in a franchise contract. The Regulation on Administration of Commercial Franchises ("Regulation on Franchises") (商业特许经营管理条例) enacted by the State Council of the PRC on February 6, 2007, while clearly including registered trademarks, enterprise marks, patents and know-how into the checklist of business resources that a franchiser "possesses" for franchising, fails to touch on the issue of unregistered trademarks. However, it leaves room by putting the catch-all of "any other business resource" undefined.Continue Reading An Unregistered Trademark is Formally Franchisable in Beijing

金杜律师事务所商标组

未注册商标能否成为特许经营合同标的？长久以来争论不休。正方观点认为，未注册商标是特许人的无形财产，只要被特许人认可其经济价值，即可成为特许标的。反方观点认为未经注册，特许人未在法律上获得商标所有权，因此未注册商标不能作为特许人的经营资源而被许可给他人。国务院2007年2月6日颁布的《商业特许经营管理条例》明确把注册商标、企业标志、专利、专有技术列为特许人拥有的可许可给其他经营者使用的经营资源，但并未提及未注册商标。不过，与此同时，该《条例》又以“等经营资源”的表述方式留出解释空间。Continue Reading 北京正式确认未注册商标为可特许资源，其他地区待确认

金杜律师事务所知识产权组

历时三年之久的麒麟协和食品株式会社与陈某某、王某商标权转让合同纠纷一案日前终于一审审理终结。原告麒麟协和食品株式会社是“可得然”中文商标的商标权人，由上海欧卡内实业有限公司（“欧卡内公司”）代理其在中国销售可得然胶。2006年3月，被告欧卡内公司法定代表人陈某某向国家商标局抢先申请注册“可得然”的英文译音“CURDLAN”商标。双方于2007年签订《商标权转让合同》，约定被告将“CURDLAN”商标以2000美元的价格转让给原告。2008年5月，国家商标局以“转让人使用的签字与以前在商标局办理商标事宜时使用的签字明显不符”为由，要求原告补充提供转让人的身份证件（复印件）以及经公证的转让人同意转让的声明，因被告一直未予提供，导致商标局对“CURDLAN”商标转让不予核准，原告诉诸法院。Continue Reading 麒麟协和食品株式会社商标权转让合同纠纷一案

King & Wood’s Trademark Group

After a three-year trial, the case of Kirin Kyowa Foods Co., Ltd. vs. Chen and Wang over a trademark assignment contract has currently been decided by the first instance. Kirin Kyowa Foods Co., Ltd. (the "Plaintiff"), as the proprietor of the trademark "可得然", appointed Shanghai Aucane Enterprise Co., Ltd. ("Aucane") as its sales agent for gelatine bearing the "可得然" trademark. In March 2006, Chen (the "Defendant"), the legal representative of Aucane, preemptively filed an application for registration of "CURDLAN", which is the English equivalent of the "可得然" trademark at the China Trademark Office (the "TMO"). In 2007, both parties signed a Trademark Assignment Contract (the "Contract"), requiring the Defendant to assign the trademark "CURDLAN" to the Plaintiff at the price of US$2,000. In May 2008, the TMO took office action on the grounds that "the assignor’s signature is evidently inconsistent with the one filed with the TMO in the past", and required the Plaintiff to provide a copy of the assignor’s ID card and its notarized statement of agreement on the said trademark assignment. However, the Defendant failed to provide any of the above materials, causing the TMO to refuse the assignment of "CURDLAN", and thus the Plaintiff appealed to the court.

Continue Reading Trademark Assignment Dispute Over “CURDLAN” — Kirin Kyowa Foods Co., Ltd. vs. Chen and Wang

King & Wood’s Trademark Group

On November 9, 2011, the China Trademark Office (the "TMO") has partially adjusted its official website for the purpose of facilitating the public in browsing and searching information about recordal of pledges of exclusive rights to registered trademarks. The adjustments are in respect of the place of the information, the means of disclosure and the items of disclosure.

Thanks to such adjustments, the public may directly search whether the exclusive right of a registered trademark is pledged in the column "Use of Trademark Rights" on the TMO website, including name of the pledgor, name of the pledgee, the registration number of the pledged trademark, and validity period of the pledge. Moreover, the pledge information in e-charts has changed to web links below which the public may find a collection of information of pledges as of November 2009.Continue Reading China Trademark Office Adjusts Means of Disclosure for Pledge of Exclusive Rights

金杜律师事务所商标组

2011年11月9日，商标局对“中国商标网”商标专用权质权登记信息公示页面进行部分调整，以方便公众进行网页浏览及查询。具体涉及信息公示的位置、方式和内容等方面的调整。

本次调整后，公众如需了解某个商标是否存在质押登记，可直接在“中国商标网”的“商标权运用”一栏中查询相关信息，包括“出质人名称”、“质权人名称”、“出质商标注册号”、“质权登记期限”等。另外，质权登记信息由表格页面调整为链接页面，并将2009年11月至今的登记信息在该链接下汇总。Continue Reading 国家工商总局商标局调整商标专用权质权登记信息公示方式

By King & Wood Intellectual Property Group

Liu Zhaolong, a Chinese national, was found to have purchased raw wine, bottles, bottle caps, labels, bottle capping equipment and other illegal materials and tools, and manufactured counterfeit wines imitating Chivas, Remy Martin, Ballantine’s, Jack Daniels, Martell, Hennessy, Royal Salute and other famous wine brands. Liu filled the counterfeit wines and distributed them to several cities in China, the illegal turnover of which has been over RMB 200,000 (around US$31,250). As a result, Beijing Daxing District Court found that Liu Zhaolong had violated the provisions of Article 213 of the Criminal Law of China and committed the crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark.Continue Reading Criminal Liability: the Last Resort for Trademark Protection

金杜律师事务所知识产权组

因未经注册商标权人许可，自行购买原料酒、酒瓶、酒盖、标签、封盖机等原料和犯罪工具，通过灌装方式假冒芝华士、人头马、百龄坛、杰克丹尼、马爹利、轩尼诗、皇家礼炮等著名洋酒，销往全国数个城市，非法经营额达到20余万元，刘兆龙被北京市大兴区人民法院认定触犯中国《刑法》第213条，构成假冒注册商标罪。Continue Reading 恶意仿冒马爹利等知名洋酒品牌获刑—-刑事责任，商标保护的最后一道屏障

By King & Wood’s Intellectual Property Group

Pursuant to the judicial interpretations enacted by the Supreme People’s Court of China in February 2008, if a prior registered trademark owner files an infringement lawsuit against the use of a latter registered trademark, courts will refuse to accept the case. The prior trademark registrant must first initiate a trademark dispute action with the China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) to invalidate the latter registered trademark. The are various reasons that may prevent the latter registered trademark from being invalidated within a short period of time, making it difficult for the prior registrant to prevent continued infringement by the latter mark in a timely manner.Continue Reading Copyright, a Drawn Sword towards Bad Faith Trademark Registration

金杜律师事务所知识产权组

根据中国大陆最高人民法院于2008年2月作出的生效司法解释，依据在先注册商标对在后注册商标的使用提起商标侵权诉讼的，法院不予受理，在先权利人应首先向商标评审委员会请求撤销在后申请的注册商标。这种情况导致权利人在基于各种原因无法及时撤销在后注册的侵权商标的情况下，很难制止其使用。

但是，如果在侵权注册商标的申请日之前，权利人对相同、近似商标享有其他种类的在先民事权利，比如，著作权、企业字号权、肖像权、姓名权、外观设计专利权等，权利人可依据该在先权利对侵权注册商标的使用直接提出侵权之诉，同样可达到制止后者使用的目的。Continue Reading 著作权，对抗恶意注册商标的一把利剑