Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
I
1
B
2
(
3
A
4
W
5
A
6
I
1
2
E
:LATES
1. DSQUA
BY HFG)
2. PIRELL
REPRESENTE
3. LITENS W
AUTOMOBILE
4. MOUTAI
WEBSITE
5. THE COU
AS COPYRIGH
6. HANVON
I:NEW
1. SIPO DE
2. EXAMINA
EXAMINATION
ST CASE
ARED2 WINS
LI WINS A TRA
ED BY HFG)
WINS OVER R
ENGINE
ABANDONS T
URT RULED T
HT INFRINGEM
N WINS A PAT
W TREND
EEPENS IP PR
ATION PERIO
N WILL BE CO
ES OF C
S A TRADEMA
ADEMARK INV
RMB 10.64
THE APPLICA
THAT MERELY
MENT
TENT INVALID
DS OF CH
ROTECTION I
OD FOR TRAD
OMPLETED FO
HINA IP
ARK INVALIDA
VALIDATION
4 MILLION CO
ATION FOR “N
Y USING THE
DATION CASE
HINA IP
IN THE E-COM
EMARK REGIS
OR 100,000
14/F, HuaqJingan DistTel:+86-21-www.hfg.co
PROTE
ATION CASE A
CASE AGAINS
OMPENSATION
NATIONAL S
SAME CHARA
CONCERNIN
PROTEC
MMERCE SEC
STRATION W
0 OVERSTOCK
i Building, Ntrict, Shang-5213 5500om
CTION
AGAINST THE
ST THE TRAD
N IN A PATEN
PIRIT” TRAD
ACTER NAME
G FACE RECO
CTION
CTOR
WILL BE SHORT
KED INVENTI
No.969 Wu hai, China, Fax:+8
E TRADEMARK
DEMARK OF “
T INFRINGEM
DEMARK AND
ES IN A FAN F
OGNITION SY
TENED TO 5
ON PATENTS
IP GO
(A
Ding Road200040
86-21-5213-
K OF “D2” (
“PEINEILI B
MENT CASE C
D MAKES AN A
FICTION CANN
YSTEM
MONTHS AN
BEFORE THE
OSSIP IN
August 2
,
-0895
(REPRESENTE
BEI NAI LI”
CONCERNING
APOLOGY ON
NOT BE DEEM
D SUBSTANT
E END OF 20
N CHINA
2018)
ED
ITS
MED
TIVE
019
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
2
I:Latest Cases of China IP Protection
1. DSQUARED2 wins a trademark invalidation case against the trademark of “D2”
(represented by HFG)
(From the Internet)
In July 2018, the Beijing IP Court made an administrative judgment on the trademark of “D2” with App. No.
4231099 (hereinafter referred to as “the Disputed Trademark”) that the Invalidation Decision on the Disputed
Trademark made by the TRAB (hereinafter referred to as “the Disputed Decision”) should be revoked in
accordance with the law, as part of the Disputed Decision was based on unclearly identified facts and contained
incorrect law application.
In 2016, DSQUARED2 TM S.A. (the Invalidation Applicant) filed an invalidation application against the
Disputed Trademark registered by Hangzhou Xiaoshan Heshang Town Chenchen Grocery Store. During the
administrative procedure, the TRAB ruled that the Disputed Trademark is not similar with the trademark of “D2
DSQUARED2” with App. No. 3968186 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cited Trademark”) and should be
maintained. The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Disputed Decision, filed an administrative lawsuit in the
Beijing IP Court.
Disputed Trademark Cited Trademarks
App. No. 4231099
Class 25: Shirts; trousers; knitwear [clothing]; etc.
App. No. 3968186
Class 25: Raincoat
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
3
The Applicant, DSQUARED2 TM S.A., is a famous Italian clothing company. This company has sold its
products in “I.T” store in China since 2002. It registered the Cited Trademark in November 2010, designated to
the goods of raincoat in Class 25.
The Respondent, Hangzhou Xiaoshan Heshang Town Chenchen Grocery Store, applied for the Disputed
Trademark in Class 25, designated to the goods of shirts, trousers, knitwear [clothing], etc..
DSQUARED2 TM S.A., filed the invalidation application to the TRAB based on the claim that the Disputed
Trademark violates Articles 28, 31 and 41 of the Trademark Law in 2001. After examination, the TRAB held that:
i) The Disputed Trademark is not similar with the Cited Trademark on similar goods, and the Respondent did not
improperly register the trademark with certain influence that had been priorly used by others; ii) Meanwhile, as
there is no evidence to prove that the Disputed Trademark was obtained by fraud or other improper means, the
Disputed Trademark does not have the nature of exaggeration and fraud in advertising goods; iii) Therefore, the
Applicant’s claim should not be supported.
The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Disputed Decision, filed the administrative lawsuit in the Beijing IP
Court. After the hearing, the Court held that: i) As the designated goods of the Disputed Trademark (shirts,
trousers, knitwear [clothing], etc.) and the Cited Trademark (raincoat) have high relevance in the terms of
marketing channel and consumers, which constitute similar goods, and part of the elements of the two
trademarks are extremely similar, the coexistence of the two trademarks on similar goods can easily confuse
and mislead the relevant public about the source of the goods, and the two trademarks constitute similar
trademarks used for similar goods; ii) The Disputed Decision made by the TRAB should be corrected.
At last, the Court ruled that the Disputed Decision made by the TRAB should be revoked and the TRAB
should make a new invalidation decision.
【Comments by HFG】Lanny Lee, the Chief Executive Lawyer of HFG, pointed out that the key to the
success of this case is how to identify similar trademarks used for similar goods. In fact, the current judicial
practice has already gone beyond the act of strictly following the Classification of Similar Goods and
Services, and can even identify goods/services in different categories or non-similar groups as similar goods
or services. The most important factors in determining the similarity of the goods or services are the
relevance between the goods or services, whether they are identical or have high relevance in the usage,
user
dee
prov
exa
good
2.
(con
refe
TRA
of th
Disp
proc
it sh
r, common
em that such
viders, and
mining the
ds and mad
PIRELLI w
Bei Nai L
In August 2
nsisting of “
erred to as “
AB (hereinaft
he Disputed
In 2016, P
puted Trade
cedure, the
hould be ma
utility, sale
h products
d whether
evidence p
de the above
wins a tr
Li” (repr
018, the Bei
“PEINEILI” a
“the Dispute
ter referred
d Decision w
PIRELLI & C
emark regis
TRAB ruled
aintained.
es channels
are provide
will cause
provided by
e-mentione
rademark
resented
ijing IP Cour
and Chinese
ed Trademar
d to as “the D
was based on
C.S.P.A. (the
stered by Q
that the Dis
and consum
ed by the s
e confusion
HFG, the C
ed judgmen
k invalida
by HFG)
(Fro
rt made a fir
characters
k”) that the
Disputed De
n unclearly i
e Invalidatio
Qingdao Les
sputed Trad
mer, etc., w
ame source
n among co
Court identi
nt.
ation cas
)
om the Inter
rst-instance
equivalent
e Invalidatio
ecision”) sho
dentified fa
on Applican
shi Sanitary
demark didn
whether the
e or there i
onsumers.
fied that ra
e against
rnet)
e judgment o
to PIRELLI)
n Decision o
ould be revo
acts and con
nt) filed an
y Products
’t violate th
HFG IP
y can easily
s a specific
Based on
aincoat and
t the trad
on the trade
) with App.
on the Dispu
ked in accor
ntained inco
n invalidatio
Co., Ltd..
he provisions
P GOSSIP in C
y make the
c relationsh
the above
clothing co
demark o
emark of “PE
No. 120333
uted Tradem
rdance with
orrect law ap
on applicat
During the
s of the Trad
China (August
relevant pu
ip between
e factors, a
onstitute sim
of “PEINE
EINEILI Bei N
384 (hereina
ark made by
the law, as
pplication.
tion against
e administra
demark Law
t 2018)
4
ublic
n the
after
milar
EILI
Nai Li”
after
y the
part
t the
ative
w and
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
5
Disputed Trademark Cited Trademarks
App. No. 12033384
Class 5: Medicine for human purposes; medical oils; oil
formulation; etc.
Cited Trademark 1: App. No. 8522336
Class 12: Motor coaches; automobile tires; etc.
Cited Trademark 2: App. No. 3968186
Class 12: Motor coaches; automobile tires; etc.
Cited Trademark 3: App. No. 7281559
Class 12: Vehicles; vehicles for locomotion by land, air or water.
Cited Trademark 4: App. No. 733416
Class 12: Rubber wheels; pneumatic and non-pneumatic tires;
etc.
The Applicant, PIRELLI & C.S.P.A. is a famous Italian tire manufacturer, whose main brand “PIRELLI” and its
Chinese equivalence “Bei Nai Li” enjoy high reputation in the tire industry and other relevant areas and have
been identified as well-known trademarks.
The Respondent, Qingdao Leshi Sanitary Products Co., Ltd. applied for the Disputed Trademark in January
2013, designated to the goods of paste, personal sexual lubricants, chemical preparations for the diagnosis of
pregnancy, medicines for human purposes, disinfectants for hygiene purposes, lotions for pharmaceutical
purposes, isotopes for medical purposes, medicinal oils, oil formulation, etc. in Class 5.
The Applicant filed the invalidation application to the TRAB based on the claim that the Respondent
improperly registered the trademark with certain influence that had been priorly used by others. After
examination, the TRAB held that the Disputed is not similar with the Cited Trademarks on similar goods, and the
Respondent did not improperly register the trademark with certain influence that had been priorly used by
others, therefore, the Applicant’s claim should not been supported.
The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Disputed Decision, filed the lawsuit in the Beijing IP Court. After the
first-instance hearing, the Court held that: i) the Third Party has registered a large quantity of trademarks,
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
6
which has disturbed the public order, damaged the public interest, disturbed the trademark registration order
and violates the principles of good faith; ii) Therefore, the registration of the Disputed Trademark violates the
relevant provision about improper registration in the Trademark Law.
【Comments by HFG】Lanny Lee, the Chief Executive Lawyer of HFG, pointed out that from the perspective
of present judicial practice, Article 44 of the Trademark Law pays more attention to the protection of the
public interest and public order. If the applicant registers a large quantity of trademarks without legitimate
reasons, and has no actual intention to use the trademarks, it can be deemed as improper occupation of
public resources.
In this case, the Third Party registered 439 trademarks, in which many are intended imitation of
famous/well-known marks of others. Although the Third Party interpreted such large amount of trademark
registration as commercial reserves, but it failed to submit the evidence to prove that these applications
are really for the usage. Above all, the Court held that the Third Party disturbed the regular trademark
registration order, and finally made the above-mentioned judgment.
3. Litens wins over RMB 10.64 million compensation in a patent infringement
case concerning automobile engine
(From the Internet)
On 24 July, 2018, the Jiangsu High People’s Court made a second-instance judgment on an invention patent
infringement case filed by Litens Automotive Parts (Suzhou) co., Ltd (the Plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as
“Litens Suzhou”) against Gates Unitta Power Transmission (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1, hereinafter
referred to as “Gates Unitta Shanghai”) and Chery Automobile Co., Ltd. (Defendant 2, hereinafter referred to
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
7
as “Chery”), ruling that i) the two types of four-cylinder engine assembly of SQR481 and SQR484 series
manufactured and sold by the two defendants constitute patent infringement and ii) the two defendants should
bear joint liabilities for compensation of over RMB 10.64 million in total for damages and reasonable
expenditure.
Background:
The Plaintiff, Litens Suzhou, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Litens Automotive Group in Canada, was
registered in 2003, and mainly manufactures automatic tension pulleys and shock absorbers of automobile
engines.
Defendant 1, Gates Unitta Shanghai, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Gates Nitta Belt Company LLC in the
United States, was registered in 2003, and mainly produces automotive transmission equipment. In the above
dispute, Defendant 1 mainly provided technical solutions and major parts for Defendant 2.
Defendant 2 is a well-known full-vehicle manufacture in China which produced and sold the products
accused of infringement.
The patent involved in this case is the Chinese invention patent of “Synchronous Transmission Device with
Non-Circular Drive Parts as well as Operation and Construction Method Therefor” with Patent No. ZL02823458.8,
applied by Litens Automotive Group (the parent company of Litens Suzhou) through the PCT route. This patent
was applied on October 24, 2002, granted on June 25, 2008 and its priority date is November 27, 2001. The
patent is to set the driving wheel of the engine timing system (on/off control system for engine intake and
exhaust system) as a non-circular wheel and correct the torque by using the fluctuation of the non-circular
wheel to reduce or offset the fluctuation load torque generated by the camshaft, so as to eliminate or reduce
the vibration and noise of the automobile engine timing system.
This patent was licensed to Litens Suzhou through a patent license. Afterwards, Litens Automotive Group
authorized Litens Suzhou to file a lawsuit for compensation in its own name.
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
8
Litigious Process:
In 2012, the Plaintiff, Litens Suzhou, filed the first lawsuit against Gates Unitta Shanghai, Chery and Suzhou
New Century Automobile Trade Co., Ltd (as the company was only involved in selling the accused products and
has evidence of legitimate sources, after being canceled in the process of second instance, the Plaintiff
withdrew the lawsuit against it, it will not be discussed here) in the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court,
claiming for compensation of over RMB 38.44 million for damages, on the grounds of Claims 1, 30, 39 and 58 of
the patent involved in this case.
On August 2, 2010 before the lawsuit was filed, Gates Nitta Belt Company LLC (the parent company of
Gates Unitta Shanghai) filed an invalidation application against the patent involved in this case to the Patent
Reexamination Board of SIPO, and the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO ruled that the patent should be
maintained. On August 6, 2012 after the patent lawsuit, Gates Unitta Shanghai again filed an invalidation
application against the patent to the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO, and the Patent Reexamination Board
of SIPO still ruled that the patent should be maintained.
On December 19, 2014, after the hearing, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court made a first-instance
judgment, ruling that the products accused of infringement do not fall into the scope of protection of the
patent, and dismissed Litens Suzhou’s claim. Litens Suzhou, dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment,
appealed to the High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province. The High People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held that:
i) The first-instance court made a restrictive interpretation of the relevant technical features of the claims and
improperly narrowed the scope of protection of the claims; ii) Through infringement comparison, the products
accused of infringement fall into the scope of protection of Claims 1, 30, 39 and 58; iii) The act conducted by
Chery is manufacturing, using and selling the products that infringed on the patent right; iv) Gates Unitta
Shanghai provided technical solutions and major parts for the patent infringement of manufacturing and selling
the infringing products conducted by Chery, which constitutes contributory infringement.
In terms of compensation, the second-instance court made the final judgment, ruling that according to the
relevant data of sales volume and profit margin of the products accused of infringement, the two defendants
should bear joint liabilities for compensation of over RMB 10.64 million in total for damages and reasonable
expenditure to Litens Suzhou.
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
9
【HFG Former Patent Examiner’s Views】The former patent examiner and senior patent attorney of HFG
pointed out that this patent lawsuit had lasted for about six years from 2012 to 2018, which mainly
involved the identification of patent infringement, particularly the interpretation of claims and
infringement comparison. In the field of mechanical mechanism, the technical features of the patent are
usually described in structural terms, and include the position relationship between the parts and the
features of change in the movement, but not limited to the mere mechanical connection relation of each
part. Based on the technical expertise and complexity of the patent involved in this case and the infringing
products, both parties and the second-instance court invited several expert assistants to participate in the
analysis and discussion to determine the correct interpretation of technical solutions.
In accordance with the provisions of functional features in Article 4 of the Interpretation by the
Supreme People's Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent
Infringement Disputes and Article 8 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues
Concerning the Application of Laws to the Trial of Patent Infringement Disputes (2), the determination of
whether the technical features of the patents involved in this case is functional features or not shall be
based on the correct interpretation of technical solutions, and the records of patent examination,
reexamination, invalidation and other procedures shall also be taken into consideration to determine
whether the technical solutions to be protected can be obtained by a person having ordinary skill in the art
from the claims.
In addition, as the technical solutions applied in the infringing products of synchronous transmission
device for engine transmission system cannot be identified by technical identification when the infringing
products are being used, Litens Suzhou conducted the related measurement tests by itself and issued four
measurement experiment reports to prove that the infringing products fall into the scope of protection of
the claims involved in this case.
Therefore, although the identification of patent infringement is complicated in the field of automobile
parts where infringement occurs frequently, professional and reasonable protection measures can be
taken to stop massive infringement and pave the way for the promotion of products in the market.
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
10
4. Moutai abandons the application for “National Spirit” Trademark and makes
an apology on its website
(From the Internet)
In the evening of August 13, 2018, Kweichow Moutai Co., Ltd. (a well-known spirit manufacturer in China,
hereinafter referred to as “Moutai”) made a statement on its official website, declaring that it had decided to
abandon the application for the trademark of “National Spirit Moutai” in Chinese equivalence, withdraw the
lawsuit against the TRAB and make an apology to the TRAB and relevant parties.
The reason that Moutai had been continuously pursuing the registration of “National Spirit Moutai”
trademark can be traced back to the year of 1975, when the vice-premier Wang Zhen formally stated in a
national conference that “Kweichow Moutai is the national spirit”.
Due to the above-mentioned episode, Moutai had been applying for “National Spirit Moutai” trademark
since 2001. In the following 17 years, the trademark application was refused for many times. Moutai,
dissatisfied with the refusal decision, filed applications for review to the TRAB for many times.
On May 25, 2018, the TRAB refused the registration of “National Spirit Moutai” trademark again. It is stated
clearly in the Decision on Refusal of the Registration of “National Spirit Moutai” Trademark with App. No.
8377491 that the TRAB held that: i) The refused trademark “National Spirit Moutai” was designated to the goods
of “fruit extracts, alcoholic; liquor [beverages], etc.” in Class 33; ii) Moutai claimed that although the refused
trademark “National Spirit Moutai” contains the word “National”, it cannot be deemed as a mark that is
identical or similar with the name of the People's Republic of China, therefore, the application for the refused
trademark does not violate the provision of Article 10.1.1 of the Trademark Law; iii) The above-mentioned
claim should not be supported.
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
11
On July 2018, Moutai, dissatisfied with the above review decision, filed an administrative lawsuit against
the TRAB to the Beijing IP Court, and listed 31 institutions and enterprises including Wuliangye, JNC, Langjiu
and Fenjiu (all the above are well-known spirit manufacturers in China) as the Third Party.
However, in the evening of August 13, Moutai made a statement unexpectedly, declaring that it respects
and is willing to accept the review decision made by the TRAB; besides, the company has decided to file an
application for withdrawing the lawsuit against the TRAB to the Beijing IP Court and hereby expresses its
sincere apology to the TRAB and relevant parties.
Hence, after 17 years of vain effort, Moutai finally abandoned the application for “National Spirit Moutai”
trademark.
【Comments by HFG】In this case, Moutai has made a wise choice, because even if Moutai files a lawsuit
against the TRAB, there is little chance for it to win the lawsuit. The TRAB refused the trademark
application filed by Moutai from the perspective of the interests of major domestic spirit manufacturers,
on the grounds of fairness and consistency of legal interests. If the trademark of “National Spirit Moutai” is
registered, it can be seen that not only major spirit manufacturers, manufacturers of various types will
apply for trademarks that includes “National”, which will cause consumers’ confusion and bring negative
effect to fair competition in other commodity markets. Considering this, “National Spirit Moutai”
trademark violates the provision of “having other unhealthy influence” in Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark
Law, and shall not be registered.
5.
copy
Yong
othe
shou
com
is a
disc
influ
the
clas
the
The cou
cannot b
In the morn
yright dispu
g) against Ya
ers on the g
uld cease th
mpensation o
The Plainti
lso well kno
cussion on th
uencial laws
The fan fic
Beijing Univ
smates. The
characters s
rt ruled
be deeme
ning of Augu
te case filed
ang Zhi (the
grounds of
heir unfair c
of over RMB
ff, Zha Lian
own as a fa
he Internet
suit case con
ction involve
versity, and
e model of t
such as Guo
that me
ed as cop
ust 16, 2018
d by Zha Lia
author of th
copyright in
competition
1.88 million
ngyong, has
an fiction o
, and the P
ncerning fan
ed in this ca
describes in
the Bianjing
o Jing, Huan
rely usin
pyright in
(From
, the People
angyong (a C
he campus n
nfringement
n acts of pu
n for damag
a great influ
of Jin Yong’
laintiff clai
n fiction.
ase, There T
nteresting e
g University
g Rong, Yang
ng the sa
nfringem
m the Inte
e’s Court of
Chinese well
novel There
t and unfair
blishing and
ges to Zha Li
uence amon
’s wuxia nov
med huge c
They Were,
pisodes and
in the fan f
g Kang, Qiao
ame char
ment
ernet)
Tianhe Dist
l-known wux
They Were,
r competitio
d selling the
iangyong.
ng readers, a
vels. As var
compensatio
is created b
positive ca
fiction is the
o Feng and
HFG IP
acter na
rict, Guangz
xia novelist,
known by h
on, ruling t
e novel The
and the cam
rious fan fic
on, this case
based on the
mpus life of
e Beijing Un
Ling Huchon
P GOSSIP in C
ames in a
zhou made a
known by h
his pen name
that i) Yang
ere They We
mpus novel T
ctions have
e is known
e campus lif
f the main c
niversity, an
ng are Yang
China (August
a fan fict
a judgment
his pen name
e Jiang Nan)
g Zhi and ot
ere and ii) m
There They W
e caused he
as China’s m
fe of Yang Z
haracter an
nd the mode
Zhi’s classm
t 2018)
12
tion
on a
e Jin
) and
thers
make
Were
eated
most
Zhi in
d his
els of
mates
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
13
and friends, which are the same with the name of famous heroes in Jin Yong wuxia novels. The fan fiction and
Jin Yong wuxia novels are also similar in the relationship and personality of the characters as well as the story.
In October 2016, Zha Liangyong filed a lawsuit to the People’s Court of Tianhe District, Guangzhou,
claiming that: i) The character names in the novel There They Were are the same with that of Jin Yong wuxia
novels, which constitutes copyright infringement; ii) Yang Zhi used the original elements of Jin Yong wuxia
novels to attract the readers, and gained huge profit by acquiring competitive advantages, which violates the
principles of good faith and has brought great obstacles to the use of Jin Yong wuxia novels by Zha Liangyong,
therefore constitutes unfair competition; iii) Considering this, Yang Zhi should make compensation of over RMB
5 million for damages.
After the hearing, the court held that: i) Merely using the same character names cannot be deemed as
copyright infringement; ii) Considering the influence of Jin Yong wuxia novels in the field of literature, film and
television in the China Circle, Yang Zhi’s act of using the character names same with Jin Yong wuxia novels is
suspected of taking advantage of the reputation of others to gain profit and constitutes unfair competition.
Therefore, the court ruled that Yang Zhi should make compensation of over RMB 1.88 million in total for
damages to Zha Liangyong, without fully supporting the Plaintiff’s claim of compensation of over RMB 5 million.
【Comments by HFG】Lanny Lee, the Chief Executive Lawyer of HFG, pointed out that the personality,
relationship of characters and background story in the novel There They Were were not based on Jin Yong
wuxia novels. The novel There They Were is a modern novel, and the story and plot are different from Jin
Yong wuxia novels. Therefore, the key point of this case is whether the name, relationship, personality of
the characters and the story can be deemed as original and protected by the Copyright Law or not.
After the hearing, the Court held that the novel involved in this case is only similar in non-critical
elements like character names, and has originality in the whole plot; on the whole, it will not make the
readers believe that it is a work of Jin Yong, and hence does not constitute copyright infringement.
Therefore, the Court ruled that Yang Zhi enjoys the complete copyright.
However, Yang Zhi obviously took advantage of the readers’ interest and attention to the heroes in Jin
Yong wuxia novels to raise the attention to his own work, and is suspected of making huge profit, which has
obviously exceeded the necessary limits. Therefore, the Court held that Yang Zhi’s act is improper and
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
14
violates the accepted business morals in the cultural industry, which should be prohibited by the
Anti-Unfair Competition Law. This case has a symbolic significance on fan fictions, which sets a line for the
creation of fan fictions while provides some creation space to encourage the creation of fan fictions, which
will help culture communication and development.
6. Hanvon wins a patent invalidation case concerning face recognition system
(from the Internet)
On July 30, 2018, the Patent Reexamination Board of SIPO ruled that the invention patent of “Ramp Type
Image Acquisition Device and Face Recognition System” with Patent No. 200810115547.0 (hereinafter referred
to as “Disputed Patent”) should be maintained in the ruling on the application for patent invalidation filed by
Guangzhou Realand Information Technology Co., Ltd. (a Chinese manufacturer of access control products
established in 2008, hereinafter referred to as “Realand”).
The disputed patent was applied by Hanvon Technology Co., Ltd. (a Chinese manufacturer of
human-computer interactive products established in 1998, hereinafter referred to as “Hanvon”) on June 25,
2008 and granted on March 23, 2016. It relates to a ramp type image acquisition device and a face recognition
system using the device therefor, which sets the axis of the camera vertical to the ramp type interface.
The above-mentioned patent invalidation case resulted from a patent lawsuit.
On April 20, 2017, Hanvon filed a lawsuit against Realand to the Beijing IP Court on the grounds of patent
infringement, claiming for compensation of RMB 500,000 for damages. In response to the lawsuit, on December
4, 2017, the defendant, Realand, filed the above application for patent invalidation, stating that Claims 1-6 of
the disputed patent do not possess inventive step specified in Paragraph 3, Article 22 of the Patent Law.
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
15
Afterwards, Hanvon, in response to the reasons of invalidation application provided by Realand,
supplemented the review decision issued before the disputed patent was granted. The disputed patent was
refused in the procedure of substantive examination, and then after two years of review process, it was finally
granted, which shows to some extent that the right of the disputed patent is relatively stable.
In this patent infringement dispute concerning face recognition technology, the disputed patent was
maintained, and its effectiveness and stability was basically confirmed. The subsequent litigation procedure
will focus on the identification of infringement. It still needs to be concerned about whether Realand’s act will
be determined as infringement.
【Comments by HFG】With the rapid development of intelligent identification technology, human-machine
interactive products such as attendance machines, household intelligent door locks, mobile phones and
computer interface unlocking products have been popularized around the world. Hanvon applied for the
disputed patents in 2008, with strong awareness of innovation protection. Through eight years of refusal,
reexamination and authorization procedures, the disputed patent was finally granted.
In the above patent invalidation procedure, although Realand submitted 11 pieces of evidence,
including a design patent of a bank counter machine with a ramp interface, as the image acquisition device
with a inclined camera was not disclosed, the disputed patent was unable to be invalidated. It can be seen
that the disputed patent has high stability.
At present, intelligent home door locks are becoming popular and low-priced and facing fierce
competition in China, but many relevant companies do not have self-developed technologies. There is a
large quantity of face recognition devices with ramp type interfaces in the Chinese market, and there is a
high possibility of patent infringement in these devices. Therefore, the patentee, Hanvon, filed the first
patent infringement lawsuit, which not only protected its technology innovation, but also warned potential
infringing competitors in the fierce market competition and improved the competitiveness of its products.
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
16
II:New Trends of China IP Protection
1. SIPO deepens IP protection in the e-commerce sector
(From the Internet)
On August 8, 2018, the State Intellectual Property Office (hereinafter referred to as “SIPO”) announced
that it will launch a four-month specific action in the e-commerce sector, enhancing the countermeasures
against intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting on e-commerce platforms. This action is based on
the problems of e-commerce platforms which are increasingly reported by the public, particularly, the massive
infringement and counterfeiting occurs on Pin Duo Duo and other shopping platforms recently.
The SIPO will launch the specific action from four aspects as below:
1. Enhancing countermeasures in the key areas. In the e-commerce sector with large commodity
transaction volume and high social concern, the SIPO will enhance the countermeasures against online
intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting acts, strengthen the information management of online
transaction platforms such as Internet self-operated stores, third party-operated stores and mobile client
transaction platforms, lead the platforms to conduct self-inspection, and attach importance to complaints
about intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting.
2. Enhancing countermeasures and exposure of key cases. The SIPO will comprehensively check the current
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
17
situation and problems of intellectual property protection on large e-commerce platforms, intensify efforts to
combat with infringement and counterfeiting acts that are widely reported by the public and have great social
influence, and pay close attention to the investigation and raid action of typical cases.
3. Intensifying efforts to trace and combat with offline sources. The SIPO will effectively promote
coordinated law enforcement and joint law enforcement among different departments to improve the accuracy
of tracing the offline source of infringement and counterfeiting, conduct in-depth investigation to identify the
source of production and cut off the circulation chain, strengthen integrated online and offline
countermeasures, and quickly and effectively combat with offline intellectual property infringement and
counterfeiting acts.
4. The SIPO will strengthen the implementation of responsibilities, clarify responsibilities and intensify
efforts of countermeasures. At the same time, the SIPO will strengthen statistical analysis and comprehensively
record the situation of specific action in various regions.
The above specific action plan shows that the SIPO is enhancing enforcement, aiming to significantly
increase the cost of breaking the law and make great efforts to combat with infringing and counterfeiting on
e-commerce platforms.
【Comments by HFG】Recently, the news that Pin Duo Duo went public soon after it was established for a
short time has triggered a series of controversies. Many consumers complains that the products purchased
on Pin Duo Duo are suspected of infringement, which has attracted a lot of attention. Meanwhile, Pin Duo
Duo will also face a class-action filed by the U.S law firms.
The controversy about Pin Duo Duo has swept the Internet, and the core issue is counterfeiting.
Although many media speak for Pin Duo Duo and report the news of listing, it cannot change the fact that
there is a large quantity of counterfeits on the Pin Duo Duo platform. At present, the China government
attaches great importance to the problem of selling infringing products on e-commerce platforms.
Meanwhile, the Market Supervision Administrations, Public Security Bureaus and other authorities in China
are enhancing countermeasures against illegal e-commerce operators to regulate the market and safeguard
the interest of consumers and the rights of intellectual property owners.
18
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
2. Examination period for trademark registration will be shortened to 5 months
and substantive examination will be completed for 100,000 overstocked
invention patents before the end of 2019
(From the Internet)
On May 5th, 2018, the General Office of the State Council of the PRC released the notification to deepen
“delegation, regulation and services” (the abbreviation of “streamline administration and delegate power,
strengthen regulation, improve government service, and continuously improve government effectiveness”)
nationwide for the reform and transfer of the government’s function. The main measures hereof to encourage
the operation of trademark, patent bureaus and other departments are as below:
1. The SIPO should be responsible for the reform of trademark examination facilitation, sharply shortening
the period for trademark registration, publicizing the trademark database to the society and shortening the
examination period for trademark registration to six (6) months before the end of 2018; further shortening such
examination period to five (5) months before the end of 2019 and shortening such period to four (4) months in
five years.
2. The SIPO should be responsible for the reform of patent application facilitation, shortening the period
for an invention patent with a high value for more than 10%; completing 100,000 overstock of examination of
invention patent examination and shortening the examination period for invention patent with a high value for
more than 30% before the end of 2019; and shortening such examination period for one thirds in five (5) years,
in which shortening the examination period for invention patent with high value to a half.
3. The SIPO has been responsible for carrying out the creative research on supervision for patent agency on
19
HFG IP GOSSIP in China (August 2018)
the basis of “Internet plus” and proposing the project of Internet supervision platform, which is adapted for the
background of “Internet plus”.
4. The Development and Reform Commission, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the State
Administration of Taxation, and the SIPO should cooperate with each other and be responsible for optimizing
the service to entrepreneurial and innovative enterprise, providing more convenience in terms of business
registration, patent application, etc., practicing beneficial policy on taxation actively, insisting comprehensive
and cautious supervision and supporting these enterprises to develop healthily.
【Comments by HFG】The three basic numbers that the amount of trademark & patent application,
trademark registration& patent granting and effective trademark registration in our country have been at
the top of the world consistently for more than ten years, plus, China has been working hard on the
strategy to develop intellectual property and accelerate the intellectual property establishment.
Therefore, the amount of trademark and patent application is rising continuously, in some extent, such
fact has caused more difficulties on trademark and patent management and longer examination period.
The amount of Chinese trademark and patent application has been consistently and rapidly increasing
for several years. Meanwhile, the examination period and the amount of overstocked trademark and
patent rank a high level worldwide at the same time. To resolve the overstock of trademark application,
SAIC has established 56 trademark hearing windows nationwide, strongly motivating the trademark
registration cyberization process in the meantime. So far, China has reached the target to register
trademark at home. The proportion of online trademark application has increased to 88% among all
trademark application.
Compared with the substantial examination of trademark, the substantial examination of invention
patent is also the reason to cause the examination period for patent so long. Thus, the present operation of
SIPO is to pick patent with high level preliminarily and carry out their examination in advance, accelerating
the speed for patent with high value to pass examination, and creating green channels for patent with high
value which helps them enter into the market and create value. Meanwhile, there are lots of “trash”
patent with low value merged in all patent application cases. Therefore, it is an effective reform method to
let patent with low value make way for the patent with high value.
HFG Law Firm August 30, 2018
ABO
HFGprov
com
busi
Cons
HFGlong
judi
auto
HFGa on
com
phar
Case
Mini
bran
man
cont
HFG
Cham
Plea
Cont
Tel:
Fax:
Ema
OUT HFG
G since foundviding clients
mmercial req
ness interest
sulting Co. L
G collects ang-term practi
cial authori
onomous reg
G integrates tne stop solut
mmunication,
rmaceuticals
es completed
stry of Publi
nd protection
ny main provi
tinuous years
G is recomme
mbers and P
ase feel comf
tact informa
+86 21 5213
:+86 21 521
ail:Hfg_chin
d in 2003,a
s with servic
uirements o
ts for clients
Ltd and HFG
n abundant
ical experien
ties at vari
ions of the c
the commerc
ion to compa
petrochem
s standard, t
d by HFG ar
ic Security f
n committee
inces. HFG h
s.
ended by Leg
artners and
fort to conta
ation:
3 5500
13 0895
s a firm uniq
ce of the hig
f clients fro
s. At the mom
Intellectual
and diversif
nce, and doe
ious levels
country.
cial and corp
anies whose
mistry, wine s
the acquirem
re evaluated
for several co
e of CAEFI an
has been awa
gal 500 as th
WRT 1000.
act us if you
m
quely integra
ghest standa
m all walks
ment, HFG co
Property Age
ied knowled
es all kinds o
at province
porate law se
intangible a
such as grape
ment of certi
d as the top
ontinuous ye
nd the classic
arded as the
he No.1 in te
have any ad
ated and co-
rd and quali
of life all o
onsists of thr
ency Co. Ltd
dge base and
of intellectua
es, municipa
ervices of IP c
assets out va
e wine, fashi
ficate and th
ten represe
ears, in addi
cal lawsuit in
best IP servi
erms of IP b
dvices or opi
-managed by
ity all the ti
ver the wor
ree entities:
d. and sets u
d multi-lingu
al property b
alities direct
contentious
alue the tang
on cosmetics
he earnings
entative crim
ition, the to
n that every
ice provider
business in Sh
nions for IP n
y multi-natio
me. By pro
ld, we do ou
HFG Law Fir
p two office
ual commun
business for
tly under th
and non-con
gibles. Serv
s, retail and
of patent tec
minal cases a
p ten best c
year by man
by many int
hanghai sinc
news of food
onal professi
ofound unde
ur best to o
rm, HFG Inte
es in Beijing
nication capa
clients in ad
he central
ntentious pra
vice scope of
e-commerce
chnology etc
and top five
cases claimed
ny medium a
ternational c
ce 2010 and
d industry in
onals, persis
rstanding fo
btain the la
ellectual Prop
and Shangha
ability throu
dministrative
government
actices, prov
f HFG includ
e trade, food
c.
classic case
d by high qu
and high cour
clients for sev
by MIP ranke
this season.
sts in
r the
rgest
perty
ai.
ugh a
e and
and
iding
des IT
d and
es by
uality
rts at
veral
ed in
.