No.201 April 28, 2023 |
| |
Subscribe |
 |
|
|
| |
Contact us |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Unitalen News |
|
| |
| |
In this issue
|
 |
|
|
 Announcement of CNIPA on the Review Results of the Re-filing of Trademark Agencies (No. 529)
|
|
| |
| |
Announcement of CNIPA
No. 529
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China and Provisions on Supervision and Administration of Trademark Agency, and the related requirements of the Announcement of the China National Intellectual Property Administration on Re-registration of Trademark Agencies (No. 507), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has organized and completed the re-registration. The relevant matters are hereby announced as follows:
I.From January 1 to March 31, 2023, the CNIPA organized the trademark agency re-registration work. After review, a total of 16,921 trademark agencies among those that have submitted an application for re-registration meet the requirements. The review results have been sent by mail, and the specific list is available in the “Trademark Agency" column at sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/index.html for public inquiry.
II.The new registration is valid for three years, since the date of approval notice for the re-filing sent by mail. The trademark agencies intending to continue to engage in trademark agency business after the expiration of the validity period may apply for extension within six months before the expiration of the validity period. See "Instructions for Trademark Agency Re-filing" in "Trademark Agency" column at sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/index.html for more details.
III.Information of trademark filing practitioners shall be associated with the trademark agency business, that is, trademark filing practitioners associated with registered trademark agencies may submit trademark applications, sign and assume legal responsibility.
IV.CNIPA will mark the trademark agencies that did not re-register in the trademark online service system and the trademark agency system, and no longer accept their application for trademark agency business, except for pending trademark agency business. CNIPA will cancel the registration of the trademark agencies that did not re-register and without pending agency business.
V.The trademark agencies that: have not submitted re-registration applications, have failed in re-registration, or have been cancelled registration, shall apply for a new registration if they intend to continue to engage in trademark agency business. See "Instructions for Trademark Agency Re-Registration" in "Trademark Agency" column at sbj.cnipa.gov.cn/sbj/index.html for more details. For trademark agencies with pending agency business that are subject to new filing, they may continue the original pending business when the new filing is pending, and the original digital certificate continues to be valid.
It is hereby notified.
CNIPA
April 20, 2023
(Source: CNIPA Website)
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
| SAIP Designates CNIPA as PCT ISA/IPEA
|
|
| |
| |
Under a letter of intent on Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) cooperation between the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property (SAIP), beginning May 1, 2023, the CNIPA has become the PCT International Searching Authority (ISA)/International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) for international patent applications in English or Arabic (attached with English translation) submitted by nationals or residents in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has been officially affirmed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Relevant details will be published in the PCT Gazette and relevant PCT legal documents.
(Source: CNIPA Official WeChat Account)
|
|
|
| |
| |
| NCAC and WIPO Take Cooperation to a New Level
|
|
| |
| |
The National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on April 25, 2023 signed an updated Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on bilateral cooperation in Beijing, taking their cooperation to a new level. Zhang Jianchun, Vice Minister of the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China, and Daren Tang Director General of the WIPO, signed the MoU respectively.
The NCAC and WIPO have been supporting each other and cooperating sincerely in international copyright affairs. Since the two sides signed the original MoU in 2015, they have made fruitful achievements in strengthening international copyright exchanges and cooperation. Through joint promotion, the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances, the first international intellectual property treaty concluded in China and named after a Chinese city, took effect on April 28, 2020, and the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, the first and only human rights treaty within copyright so far, came into force in China on May 5, 2022.
The updated MoU aims to consolidate the existing exchanges and cooperation in the field of copyright, expand and strengthen the bilateral cooperation in formulating and implementing international copyright treaties, discussing digital copyright protection issues, improving the risk prevention and control capacity of the copyright industry, sharing copyright to encourage creation and innovation among the small- and medium-sized enterprises, and promoting the inheritance and development of folk literature and art, and other issues.
(Source: http://www.iprchn.com)
|
|
|
| |
| |
| 2023 Meeting of IP5 Deputy Heads of Office Held Online
|
|
| |
| |
The 2023 meeting of IP5 Deputy Heads of Office was held via video conference recently. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held this year's presidency. Liao Tao, Deputy Commissioner of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) led a Chinese delegation to the meeting, which was officiated by USPTO Deputy Commissioner Valencia Martin Wallace and attended by delegations led respectively by European Patent Office (EPO)'s Vice President Christoph Ernst, Japan Patent Office (JPO)'s Deputy Commissioner Karsura Masanori, Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO)'s Vice Commissioner Ryu Donghyun. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) also sent representatives to the meeting as observers.
During the meeting, Deputy Heads of the five offices listened to working progress and reports made by different working groups and through the cooperation framework of the roadmap for new emerging technologies and artificial intelligence in the past year, and held discussion on the preparation for the IP5 Heads of Office meeting, IP5's contribution to sustainable development, update on the IP5 Joint Statement, program management, interactive mode with the industry and other crucial issues related to the IP5's future cooperation. The meeting also reviewed the cooperation projects set to be proposed for approval by the IP5 Heads of Office. Having laid a solid foundation for the upcoming June meetings of IP5 Heads, this meeting will also exert its own role in bolstering IP5 cooperation.
(Source: CNIPA Website)
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cases in Spotlight
|
|
| |
| The Case of Second Trial of "金龍魚橋米(Jinlongyu Bridge Rice)" Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute
|
|
| |
|
|
Spotlight: ★★★★★
Hearing authority: Hubei Provincial High People's Court
Cause of action: Trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute
Unitalen representative: the appellee
Case brief
Appellant Jingshan Association of Grain Sector had the certification trademark of the geographical indication "京山橋米(Jingshan Bridge Rice)", and the appellee was authorized to use the trademark "金龍魚橋米(Jinlongyu Bridge Rice)" of the person not involved in the case. The appellant and its licensee, Hubei National Treasure Bridge Rice Co., Ltd. believed that the appellee's use of marks such as "泉眼山下巧米香(quan yan shan xia qiao mi xiang)", "橋米源京山(qiao mi yuan jing shan)", "地處京山(di chu jing shan)", "納大紅山脈(na da hong shan mai)", "成就孫橋(cheng jiu sun qiao)" (hereinafter referred to as "the sued infringing marks") on the sued goods is sufficient to cause misunderstanding of the source of origin and specific quality, constituting the infringement of the certification mark "京山橋米(Jingshan Bridge Rice)". The appellee argued that the sued infringing mark was "descriptive use" which objectively and truly described the characteristics of the product such as production region and geographical location, rather than "trademark use". After hearing, Hubei High People's Court held that the raw material of the "金龍魚橋米(Jinlongyu Bridge Rice)" sued goods was indeed "Bridge Rice 537" rice purchased from Sunqiao Town, Jingshan City. The sued infringing mark as a whole is not similar to the certification mark "京山橋米(Jingshan Bridge Rice)", and the appellee had been authorized to use the registered trademark "金龍魚橋米(Jinlongyu Bridge Rice)". Taking into account the subjective intent, using manner, consumer awareness and other factors, the aforementioned use truthfully expressed or described the production region, geographical location and other characteristics of the rice product, belonging to descriptive use of the relevant text and pictures, which did not constitute trademark infringement.
Typical significance
This case provides a full discussion on the proper use of the geographical indication certification mark. The geographical indication certification mark refers to a mark certifying the place of origin of the goods of which the special quality is primarily determined by the natural conditions of the location involved and is used to prove that the goods using the geographical indication certification mark has special quality and meets special standards. The trademark owner has the right to prohibit natural persons, legal persons or other organizations from marking the certification trademark on the goods that are not produced from such region, and to pursue the infringement responsibility of the certification trademark. The protection of a certification mark has its own special characteristics, but as a registered trademark, like ordinary trademarks, the certification mark is still subject to general provisions of the Trademark Law, and the registered trademark right holder thereof also has no right to prohibit others from properly using the names of places or other names that indicate the quality, raw materials and characteristics of goods contained in the trademark.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Trademark Infringement Case Between Jinsha Cellar Wine Company and Jinsha Gu Liquor Company, Jinsha Andi Dou Liquor Company, and Shandong Heidou Company
|
|
| |
|
|
Spotlight: ★★★★★
Hearing authority: Shandong Provincial High People's Court
Cause of action: Trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute
Unitalen representative: Jinsha Cellar Wine Company （Appellant-plaintiff in the original trial)
Case brief
All parties filed an appeal. The defendant in the original trial Jinsha Andi Dou Liquor Company and Jinsha Gu Liquor Company, used the mark "金沙古沙(Jinsha Gusha)" on the liquor goods they produced and sold, and the appellee, Shandong Heidou Company, sold the above sued infringing goods. After hearing, the court of first instance held that the use of the mark "金沙古沙(Jinsha Gusha)" constituted trademark infringement. The defendant in the original trial was not satisfied, and appealed to Shandong High People's Court, arguing that: (1) the trademark "金沙回沙酒(Jinsha Hui Sha Jiu)" contained the name of the place "金沙(Jinsha)" and the generic name of a specific part of the brewing process, and was not distinctive; (2) the mark "金沙古沙(Jinsha Gusha)" was used properly, and Jinsha Cellar Wine Company had no right to prohibit; and (3) the trademark involved had become a geographical indication, and entered the public domain, which did not have the conditions for trademark protection. Shandong High People's Court held that: (1) the role of Jinsha Huisha liquor as a liquor trademark indicating the source of goods had been significantly greater than its popularity as a place name and the generic name of wine obtained in a specific part of the brewing process, and Huisha liquor as a liquor trademark had achieved a high degree of prominence through long-term use. (2) The use of the mark "金沙古沙(Jinsha Gusha)" was clearly beyond the descriptive use that described the source of the goods and the Jinsha production region and the corresponding brewing process, which was trademark use, and the defense of proper use was not established. (3) The trademark involved was a geographical indication and belonged to the public resource. The argument that it shall not be protected by the trademark law lacks legal basis.
Typical significance
The case fully discusses the distinctiveness of trademarks containing place names and generic names. The essence of whether a trademark is distinctive lies in whether it can play the role of identifying the source of goods, rather than just making a simple judgment on the form. Moreover, the court made a precise distinction between the use of the sued mark as trademark use, or fair descriptive use. Neither of the plaintiff and the court in the original trial of this case prohibited the defendant from properly using the place name "金沙(Jinsha)" and the corresponding generic name of the brewing process, but only required that the defendant shall follow the principle of honesty and credit when using the place name "金沙(Jinsha)" and the corresponding generic name of the brewing process in the case where the plaintiff already has been a well-known trademark, and should not infringe the prior rights of others. However, the defendant in this case obviously broke through the scope of fair descriptive use by highlighting and enlarging the sued mark, which constituted trademark use and trademark infringement. In addition, the goods with registered trademark being recognized as geographical indications does not ipso facto affect the exercise of the exclusive right of the registered trademark.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Unitalen News
|
|
| |
|
|
| Three Cases Represented by Unitalen Selected into Typical Cases of Trademark Litigation and Non-litigation in 2022 by Beijing Trademark Association
|
|
| |
| |
|
On April 21, on the occasion of the 23rd World Intellectual Property Day, Beijing Trademark Association released the "Top 10 Typical Cases of Trademark Litigation" and "Top 10 Typical Cases of Trademark Non-Litigation" in 2022, and three cases represented by Unitalen were selected, namely:
Top 10 typical cases of trademark litigation in 2022
"North Star Sunshine City" trademark infringement and unfair competition case
Top 10 Typical Cases of Trademark Non-Litigation in 2022
"LAURA BIAGIOTTI" trademark dispute case
"LIQUI MOLY" trademark administrative investigation and disposal case
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Top 10 Typical IP Cases of Unitalen Law Firm in 2022
|
|
| |
| |
|
On the occasion of the 23rd "World Intellectual Property Day", Beijing Unitalen Law Firm has carefully selected ten typical IP cases, involving various fields such as trademark infringement, patent infringement, copyright infringement and unfair competition, which provide models for similar cases to be used as a reference for the protection of rights.
Top 1 Two cases of "一品石(Yi Pin Shi)" mutual trademark infringement and copyright infringement lawsuits
Top 2 Three cases of mutual trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuits concerning Hua Hua Niu
Top 3 Case of second trial of "金龍魚橋米(Jinlongyu Bridge Rice)" trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute
Top 4 Case of "圣象(Sheng Xiang)" invalidation administrative litigation
Top 5 Two cases of counterappeal against review concerning "Zhou Liu Fu" trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute by Fujian Procuratorate
Top 6 Case of Hunan Broadcasting System responding to lawsuit of "聲臨其境(sheng lin qi jing)" trademark infringement
Top 7 Trademark infringement case between Jinsha Cellar Wine Company and Jinsha Gu Liquor Company, Jinsha Andi Dou Liquor Company, and Shandong Heidou Company
Top 8 Case of administrative dispute on invalidation of patent for invention between Chengdu Alang Company, CNIPA, and Beijing Zulin Company, et al.
Top 9 A series of cases of patent infringement and request for invalidation between Zhongdian Boson v. Hefei SunPure
Top 10 Case of right protection of the Korean patent between Zhejiang Sanhua Intelligent Control Co., Ltd. vs. a Zhejiang company
|
|
|
| |
| |
| The Case of Unitalen Representing "Hua Hua Niu Trademark Ownership Dispute" Selected into the Ten Typical Cases of IP Judicial Protection by Henan Court in 2022
|
|
| |
| |
|
On April 25, 2023, Henan High People's Court released the Top Ten Typical Cases of IP Judicial Protection of Henan Court in 2022, and the case of "Dispute over Trademark Ownership between Hua Hua Niu Dairy Group Co., Ltd. and Henan Zhengniu Biotechnology Co., Ltd. et al." represented by Unitalen was selected!
Read more: Unitalen Client HuaHuaNiu Won Three Civil Cases Concerning Trademark Right Confirmation
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Unitalen Representing Tencent's Rights Protection Case Selected into Typical Cases of IP Judicial Protection (2018-2022) by Changsha Court
|
|
| |
| |
|
Recently, Changsha Intermediate People's Court informed the IP judicial protection status of Changsha court from 2018 to 2022 and released twenty typical cases. The case of Unitalen representing "(Plaintiff) Tencent Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. Against (Defendant) Hubei Jixuan Network Technology Co., Ltd., Hubei Jili Network Technology Co., Ltd., and Changsha Qili Network Technology Co., Ltd. Concerning Unfair Competition Dispute" [Changsha Kaifu District People's Court (2021) Xiang 0105 Min Chu No. 11329] was selected into Typical Cases of IP Judicial Protection (2018-2022) by Changsha Court.
This is the first case of pre-litigation behavior preservation for game account rental. This case was selected into 50 typical IP cases of Chinese courts in 2021 released by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, Typical Cases of IP Judicial Protection of 2021 by Hunan Court, the 2021 Top Ten Hot Copyright Cases of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (IAPIP) China and the 2021 Top Ten Judicial Cases of China's Internet Governance.
Read more: Unitalen Represented Tencent Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. in Case Concerning Unfair Competition Dispute Suing Hubei Jixuan Network Technology Co., Ltd., Hubei Jili Network Technology Co., Ltd., and Changsha
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Unitalen Awarded "2022 Outstanding Cooperation Firm" by UNISOC
|
|
| |
| |
|
On April 26, 2023, the 23rd World Intellectual Property Day, the IP team of UNISOC (Shanghai) Technology Co., Ltd. paid a special visit to Unitalen Shanghai branch, and awarded Unitalen the honor of "2022 Outstanding Cooperation Firm" and presented a commemorative trophy.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| Nine Senior Trademark Attorneys of Unitalen Selected for 2023 Senior Trademark Talent Pool
|
|
| |
| |
|
On May 8, the China Trademark Association published the "Senior Qualified List (First Batch) for 2023 Trademark Talent Pool Entry Declaration", and nine senior trademark attorneys of Unitalen were evaluated as senior trademark talents.
List of selected senior talents of Unitalen (in Chinese stroke order):
YU Zehui, TIAN Daliang, LI Yongbo, LI Bo, CHEN Shaojuan, ZHAO Lei, HUANG Bo, YIN Jing, and LI Lin
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
