Filter

Open

15

DEC

2020

Newsletter: Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese) - Volume 8

  • 250 Million CNY! "Ultra-long-acting local anesthetic" patent successfully transformed
  • Rules and Responses to Global Litigation Disputes of Standard Essential Patent
  • Analyzing the definition of distinctive features of trademarks in the public domain
  • The judge said in the case: Comment on the pre-enforcement case of Ding Moumei and Yantou Company, Tmall Company, etc. infringing on the design patent right

250 Million CNY! "Ultra-long-acting local anesthetic" patent successfully transformed

At present, in clinical medical practice, two types of anesthesia are mainly used: analgesics and local anesthetics (hereinafter referred to as local anesthetics). The former reduces the patient’s stress response and improves comfort, however, many drugs are used in the anesthesia process, the cost is high, the operation process is complicated, postoperative complications may occur and the risk is higher; In terms of the latter, it is simple and easy to perform, the patient can stay awake, it has little physiological interference and is relatively cheap, but the disadvantage is that the action time is short and the application is limited.

The "ultra-long-acting local anesthetic" developed by Professor Liu Jin's team at West China Hospital is an innovative improvement to the shortcomings of local anesthetics. "Ultra-long-acting local anesthetics" will work through local anesthesia, and the duration of anesthesia can reach more than 50 hours, which is 2 to 5 times the action time of existing anesthetics. Generally speaking, a new drug creation cycle takes nearly 10 years. In the entire drug development process, hospitals and enterprises need to participate in the whole process, and evaluate and invest in stages. Since drug development failures may occur in any link, the development process is extremely cautious. Take "ultra-long-acting local anesthetics" as an example, the results are expected to enter the clinical research stage in 2 to 3 years, and it can enter clinical applications in about 6 to 7 years from now.

Professor Liu Jin introduced that "ultra-long-acting local anesthetics" are anesthesia and postoperative multi-modal analgesia based on local infiltration anesthesia and precise nerve block guided by ultrasound to reduce and avoid repeated use of anesthetics and analgesia throughout the body medicine and its systemic side effects. He also said that in the future, West China Hospital will continue to carry out clinical research cooperation after the new drug is launched, and expand the indications through further tracking of the first-line clinical research. With its excellent performance, the "ultra-long-acting local anesthetic" has attracted the attention of a large number of domestic companies and has been scrambling to seek cooperation. In the end, West China Hospital and Yichang Renfu reached a cooperation agreement. Among them, the patent license fee alone reached 50 million CNY, and the project cooperation development contract reached 200 million CNY, with a total amount of 250 million CNY, which became the highest single patent transfer fee signed by West China Hospital.

From People.cn

2020.9.10

Rules and Responses to Global Litigation Disputes of Standard Essential Patent

In a context where standards are global in nature, the market for patent implementers usually spans multiple countries, and patents are also regional, standard-essential patent disputes usually present a situation of parallel litigation in multiple countries. In this situation, there is a game of jurisdiction in various countries around the world, such as the issue of anti-suit injunctions, and the parties also have disputes over jurisdiction. For example, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany have all made relevant rulings in the recently widely watched case of standard-essential patent disputes between Huawei, ZTE and Convenson.

Overall, in the UK, the Supreme Court’s ruling is beneficial to patent holders. Following Germany, the UK may become the preferred litigation venue for SEP holders. At the same time, in view of the strong position of the British courts on the issue of jurisdiction and global licensing fee clauses, the patent implementers whose global license fee clauses are judged will be in a passive position. In the United States, because the US standard-essential patent injunction rules follow the four-factor analysis method, it is relatively difficult to obtain the standard-essential patent injunction. Under the US jurisdiction, the US court's ruling on global licensing fees will not make patent implementers excessively passive. However, under the circumstance that British and American courts tend to rule global license fees, it is foreseeable that conflicts and coordination issues between the global license fee clauses decided by various courts around the world may arise in the future for the same case. In addition, the time sequence of case acceptance and the matters involved are also decisive for the jurisdiction of the British and American courts.

Regarding the jurisdictional dispute over standard-essential patents, the Intellectual Property Court of China's Supreme People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Intellectual Property Court) rejected Convenson’s appeal against jurisdiction over the standard-essential patent dispute with ZTE on August 21. The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme Law held that Convenson is a foreign company without a domicile or representative office in China. Whether China has jurisdiction depends on whether the dispute has proper connections with China. The Supreme Intellectual Property Court analyzed the characteristics of standard-essential patent disputes and held that China has jurisdiction in terms of the causes of standard-essential patent disputes, core disputes, dispute types, and licensing targets. Regarding the principle of court convenience, the Supreme Intellectual Property Court believes that the ongoing parallel litigation abroad does not affect the jurisdiction of the Chinese courts. Since the standard essential patent disputes involved are obviously more closely related to China, the Chinese courts are more convenient to hear.

The Anglo-American courts tend to expand the interpretation of the standards organization’s intellectual property policies and the nature of the FRAND clauses, believing that the two are contractual and global, and then consider them to be reasonable in jurisdiction; The Supreme Intellectual Property Court tends to believe that the FRAND clause does not mean that the contract has been established, which is basically consistent with the previous view of the Chinese courts on the nature of the FRAND clause. Judging jurisdiction issues by considering the characteristics of standard-essential patent disputes and the close connection of case facts is actually based on more objective characteristics and reasons, and strictly follows the consideration factors and principles of international judicial jurisdiction rules.

At present, although China does not have statutory provisions related to anti-suit injunctions, China's behavior preservation system actually covers the rule function of one party requesting the other party to do or not to do a certain behavior. On August 28, the Supreme Intellectual Property Court ruled on Huawei's application for preservation of Convenson's behavior. Since the behavior of this kind of behavior preservation is a litigation behavior of one party in another country, the Supreme Intellectual Property Court in this case clarified the legitimacy of China’s jurisdiction over the case, and on the premise of routine judicial comity, based on the consideration of the relevant elements of the behavior preservation system in China, it is believed that the Chinese lawsuit preceded the German lawsuit, and the German ban interfered with the Chinese lawsuit and even made the Chinese lawsuit meaningless. The behavior preservation effect on the German courts was within a moderate range. Therefore, we support Huawei’s application. It is ruled that Convenson shall not apply for the enforcement of the ban on infringement in Germany.

The rules in the field of standard-essential patents are still undergoing development and changes. The emergence of every typical case on a global scale affects the application of rules in various jurisdictions to varying degrees. Related companies need to keep track of the rules and practices of various jurisdictions around the world to maintain sensitivity to the rules, so that we can respond quickly and effectively whether it is active prosecution, passive response, or early stage of litigation risk prevention and control.

From IPRCHN 2020.9.17

Analyzing the definition of distinctive features of trademarks in the public domain

As the status of intellectual property in contemporary economic and social development continues to rise, the importance of its protection has become increasingly prominent. The most important feature of intellectual property is exclusiveness, that is, it excludes the free use of others without permission. However, the acquisition of intellectual property rights is inseparable from the use of public resources and previous achievements, which involves the public domain that is not protected by intellectual property rights. At present, the number of trademark registrations in China ranks among the top in the world, but trademark hoarding, squatting, and registration applications that are not used for the purpose of registration occur from time to time, which violates the legislative purpose of the trademark law and squeezes public domain resources. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the issues related to the distinctive features of trademarks based on the public domain perspective, define the scope of protection of trademark exclusive rights, protect the interests of consumers, and promote healthy market competition and healthy development.

According to the provisions of China's trademark law, the distinguishing feature is whether the mark can become the basic condition for the protection of trademark rights. From the perspective of the public domain, the distinctive feature of a trademark is an important lever to maintain the dynamic balance between the public domain and the monopoly domain of trademark exclusive rights. The existence of distinctive features determines the dynamic boundary between the mark in the monopoly domain of the protected trademark and the mark in the public domain. Marks that do not have distinctive features cannot be protected by trademark exclusive rights. If a distinctive feature is obtained through use, it can be protected by trademark law. After the trademark is approved for registration, if the trademark loses distinctive features due to improper use and becomes a generic name for goods or services, the mark enters the public domain.

When defining the distinctive features of trademarks, concepts and concepts in the public domain can be introduced. In trademark rejection, opposition, invalidation and litigation procedures, the distinctive feature of a trademark is a substantive issue that must be involved. The distinctive feature of a trademark is the basic condition for a mark to be protected by the exclusive right to use a trademark, and it is also the main boundary between the public domain and the monopoly of exclusive right to trademark. From the perspective of the public domain, first consider whether a trademark has acquired distinctive features through use. At the same time, signs that flow into the public domain must not re-enter the domain of trademark exclusive rights monopoly by acquiring distinctive features, so as to ensure a clear distinction between the trademark exclusive right monopoly domain and the public domain. Boundary, and maintain the balance between the interests of trademark owners and the public interests of society.

From IPRCHN

2020.9.9

The judge said in the case: Comment on the pre-enforcement case of Ding Moumei and Yantou Company, Tmall Company, etc. infringing on the design patent right

Case No. (2019) Su 01 Min Chu No. 687

On January 28, 2016, Ding Moumei submitted a design patent application entitled "Portable Folding Mosquito Nets for Infants and Children" to the State Intellectual Property Office, which was granted on June 22, 2016. The defendant Dingtou Company is the operator of the Taobao store "Tongmeng Maternal and Infant Store", and Suao Company is an affiliate of Dingtou Company. On March 2, 2019, Ding Moumei lodged a complaint with the defendant Tmall, stating that the U-shaped mosquito nets and other products manufactured and sold by Lutou Company and Suao Company were suspected of infringing on its design patent rights. On March 7, 2019, Lutou Company provided Tmall with the "Counter-Notice", "Tmall Intellectual Property Complaint and Appeal" and related comparative documents, promising that the complained product displayed on the Tmall platform did not infringe Ding Mou May's rights. After receiving the complaint, Tmall commissioned Zhejiang Intellectual Property Research and Service Center to conduct patent infringement appraisal three times. The latter issued three "Patent Infringement Judgment Consultation Reports". The conclusion was that the patent infringement was not established. Tmall failed to take measures such as deleting sales links

On March 26, 2019, Ding Moumei sued Dongtou Company, Suao Company and Tmall Company to the Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing Intermediate Court). On April 4, 2019, Ding Moumei filed a "Counter-Appeal and Litigation Statement" to Tmall, insisting that Diantou constituted infringement, and Tmall's online shopping platform should immediately take necessary measures such as deleting links. On April 8, 2019, Tmall deleted the sales link of the alleged infringing product on the Tmall online shopping platform.

On June 10, 2019, Yantou Company applied to Nanjing Intermediate People's Court to restore the deleted links first and provided corresponding property guarantees.

The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court concluded that, first of all, Tmall handled Ding’s complaint in accordance with regulations and laws. Ding insisted on complaining and believed that Tmall should take necessary measures such as deleting the link, so Tmall took the measures for sales links. Secondly, the production and sale of the alleged infringing products by Yantou Company is unlikely to constitute infringement. Third, failure to restore the sales link may cause irreparable losses to the Yantou company. Finally, the Yantou company provided a certain guarantee. Based on this, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court ruled that Tmall immediately restored the sales link of the alleged infringing product.

Judge Comment

The case was called by the industry as the first "reverse behavior preservation" case in China, and it caused positive responses in the industry. Unlike the case where the patentee usually applies for behavior preservation in order to stop the infringement in a timely manner, that is, a temporary injunction, the special situation of this case is that in the patent infringement litigation, the accused infringer applied to the court for prior execution to restore the deleted link and obtained the court’s decision to support. Generally speaking, Tmall and other e-commerce platforms will decide to maintain the status quo or take necessary measures such as deleting, blocking, disconnecting, and terminating transactions and services based on the complaint materials of the complaining merchants and the complaint materials of the complained merchants, in accordance with their platform's intellectual property complaint handling rules. However, once a complaint business brings an intellectual property infringement lawsuit, e-commerce platforms usually take measures such as deleting the sales link. The right holder complained to the e-commerce platform and required it to take measures such as disconnecting the sales link, similar to applying for behavior preservation measures (litigation injunction) in civil litigation. Therefore, the court ruling to restore the deleted sales link based on the application of the counterparty can also be regarded as a reverse application and extension of the law of behavior preservation.

First, effectively prevent the loss of the respondent from further expanding. At present, the sales of products that have been complained of or accused of infringement largely depend on the accumulation of goodwill and word of mouth, and the timing of sales. Although the court's final judgment will bring justice to the accused infringer, the rapid changes in online transactions, especially the unique stickiness of online customers, often make the broken sales link may cause irreparable losses to the accused infringer. In particular, some special products have strong seasonality. During the peak sales season, if the deleted sales link is not restored in a timely manner, it may cause continuous reduction and loss of the goodwill and reputation accumulated by the respondent or the product against which it is sued, as well as the loss of trading opportunities, which may cause irreparable losses. Therefore, the court promptly issued a ruling on June 14 to restore the deleted links in advance, which had a positive effect.

Secondly, the e-commerce law came into effect on January 1, 2019. The e-commerce platform shall notify the complainant of the complaint of the party concerned, and then transfer the complaint to the complainant after the complainant appeals. In addition, Article 43 of the Electronic Commerce Law also gives the complainant a "15-day waiting period" to decide whether to withdraw the complaint or file a lawsuit in the court. At this time, the online shopping platform may decide whether to restore the deleted or broken link. As mentioned above, after such a procedure and a long period of time, it may cause irreparable losses to network sellers. It is common for competitors in the same industry on the current e-commerce platform to use the e-commerce law to make malicious complaints and achieve the purpose of unfair competition. This case can effectively solve this dilemma and help promote the healthy development of e-commerce.

From IPRCHN

2020.9.21

  • 2.5亿元!“超长效局麻药”专利成功转化
  • 标准必要专利全球诉讼管辖争议的规则与应对
  • 探析公共领域视野下商标显著特征的界定
  • 法官以案说法:评丁某梅与曳头公司、天猫公司等侵害外观设计专利权先予执行案

2.5亿元!“超长效局麻药”专利成功转化

目前,在临床医学实践中,主要采用镇痛药和局部麻醉药(下称局麻药)两种类型麻醉。前者降低了患者的应激反应,提高舒适度,但在麻醉过程中使用的药物多、种类多,费用较高,且操作过程复杂,在术后可能会出现并发症,风险较高;相比而言,后者简便易行,患者可以保持清醒,对生理干扰小且价格相对便宜,缺点在于作用时间较短,应用受到限制。

华西医院刘进教授团队研发的“超长效局麻药”正是针对局麻药的短板进行创新改进。“超长效局麻药”会通过局部麻醉方式发挥作用,麻醉时长可达50小时以上,是现有麻药品种作用时间的2倍至5倍。一般而言,新药创制周期需要近10年,在整个药物研发过程中,医院和企业需要全程参与,分阶段评估与投资。由于任何一个环节都可能出现药物研发失败,因此研发过程极为小心谨慎。以“超长效局麻药”为例,该成果预计2年至3年后才能进入临床研究阶段,从现在算起大约6年至7年后可以进入临床应用。

刘进教授介绍,“超长效局麻药”是以局部浸润麻醉和超声引导下的精准神经阻滞为主的麻醉和术后多模式镇痛,以减少和避免全身反复使用麻醉药物和镇痛药及其全身副作用。他同时表示,未来,在新药推出后,华西医院将与企业继续开展新药上市后的临床科研合作,通过进一步跟踪一线临床研究,扩大适应症。

凭借优良性能,“超长效局麻药”吸引了国内大量企业关注,并被争相寻求合作。最终,华西医院与宜昌人福达成合作协议,其中仅专利许可费就达5000万元,项目合作开发合同达到2亿元,总额2.5亿元,成为华西医院单次签约最高的一笔专利转移转化费。

摘自People.cn

2020910

标准必要专利全球诉讼管辖争议的规则与应对

在标准具有全球性、专利实施者的市场通常横跨多个国家、专利又具有地域性的大背景下,标准必要专利纠纷通常呈现多个国家平行诉讼的局面,在此局面下,全球各个国家在管辖权上存在博弈,比如禁诉令的问题,当事人在管辖问题上亦存在争议。如最近广受关注的华为、中兴通讯与康文森标准必要专利纠纷案,目前中国、英国和德国均已作出相关裁决。

整体而言,英国方面,英国最高法院裁决对专利持有人利好,继德国之后,英国或将成为标准必要专利持有人优选的诉讼地。同时,鉴于英国法院在司法管辖权以及全球许可费条款裁决问题上的强势立场,被裁决全球许可费条款的专利实施者将处于被动境地。美国方面,由于美国的标准必要专利禁令规则遵循四要素分析法,标准必要专利禁令相对难以获得,美国管辖规则下,美国法院对全球许可费的裁决不至于使得专利实施者过分被动。但是,在英美法院都倾向于裁决全球许可费的情形下,可以预见后期可能会出现针对同一案件,全球各个法院裁决的全球许可费条款之间的冲突和协调问题。此外,案件受理的时间先后和涉诉的事项也对英美法院管辖问题具有决定性的作用。

对于标准必要专利的管辖纠纷,我国最高人民法院知识产权法庭(下称最高法知产法庭)于821日驳回了康文森对其与中兴通讯标准必要专利纠纷案管辖权异议的上诉。最高法知产法庭认为,康文森属于在中国境内没有住所和代表机构的外国企业,中国是否具有管辖权取决于该纠纷与中国是否存在适当联系。最高法知产法庭分析了标准必要专利纠纷的特点,认为从标准必要专利纠纷的发生原因、核心争议、纠纷类型、许可标的来看,中国具备管辖权。对于方便法院原则,最高法知产法庭认为国外正在进行的平行诉讼不影响中国法院对案件的管辖权,由于涉案标准必要专利纠纷明显与中国具有更加密切的联系,中国法院审理更为便利。

英美法院倾向于通过扩大解释标准组织的知识产权政策以及FRAND条款的性质,认为两者具备合同性、全球性,进而认为其具备管辖的合理性;最高法知产法庭则倾向于认为FRAND条款并不意味着合同已经成立,这与我国法院先前关于FRAND条款性质的观点基本一致。通过对标准必要专利纠纷特点、案件事实的密切联系的考量,进而判断管辖问题,实际上是从更加客观的特点和原因出发,严谨遵循国际司法管辖规则的考量因素和原则。

目前,中国虽然还没有禁诉令相关的成文法规定,但我国的行为保全制度实际上涵盖了一方当事人请求另一方当事人为或不为一定行为的规则功能。828日,最高法知产法庭对华为对康文森行为保全的申请做出裁定。由于此种行为保全针对的行为是一方当事人在他国的诉讼行为,在该案中最高法知产法庭在明确中国对案件管辖权正当性的基础上,在例行司法礼让的前提下,基于我国行为保全制度相关要素的考量,认为中国诉讼在德国诉讼之前,德国禁令对中国诉讼存在干扰甚至使中国诉讼失去意义,行为保全对德国法院的影响则在适度范围之内,因此支持华为的申请,裁定康文森不得在德国申请执行停止侵权禁令。

标准必要专利领域的规则尚处于发展变化之中,全球范围内每一个典型案例的出现,都在不同程度上影响着各个法域的规则适用,相关企业需要不断地跟踪全球各个法域的规则实践,保持对规则的敏感度,以便无论是在主动起诉、被动应诉还是前期诉讼风险防控阶段都能够快速有效应对。

摘自IPRCHN

2020917

探析公共领域视野下商标显著特征的界定

随着知识产权在当代经济社会发展中的地位不断提升,其保护的重要性日益凸显。知识产权最重要的特征是专有性,即排除他人未经许可的自由使用。但是,知识产权的获得离不开对公共资源和在先成果的利用,这就涉及不受知识产权保护的公共领域问题。目前,我国商标注册数量居于世界前列,但商标囤积、抢注及不以使用为目的的申请注册行为时有发生,这违背了商标法的立法宗旨,挤压了公共领域资源。因此,有必要基于公共领域视野,厘清商标显著特征的有关问题,界定商标专用权保护范围,保护消费者利益并促进市场良性竞争和健康发展。

根据我国商标法规定,显著特征是标志能否成为商标专用权保护客体的基本条件。从公共领域视角来看,商标显著特征是维持公共领域与商标专用权垄断领域的动态平衡的重要杠杆,显著特征的有无决定了受保护商标垄断领域的标志与公共领域的标志的动态界限。对于不具备显著特征的标志,不能获得商标专用权保护。如果通过使用获得显著特征,则可受到商标法的保护。在商标获准注册之后,如果因使用不当,商标丧失显著特征而成为商品或服务的通用名称时,则该标志进入公共领域。

在界定商标的显著特征问题时,可以引入公共领域的理念和概念。在商标驳回、异议、无效宣告和诉讼等程序中,商标显著特征是必定涉及的实体问题。商标显著特征是标志受到商标专用权保护的基本条件,也是公共领域与商标专用权垄断领域的主要界限。在公共领域视野下,首先考虑商标是否通过使用获得了显著特征,同时流入公共领域的标志不得通过获得显著特征重新进入商标专用权垄断领域,以保障商标专用权垄断领域与公共领域之间的明确界限,进而维持商标权利人的利益与社会公共利益的平衡。

摘自IPRCHN

202099

法官以案说法:评丁某梅与曳头公司、天猫公司等侵害外观设计专利权先予执行案

案号(2019)苏01民初687

2016128日,丁某梅向国家知识产权局提交了名称为“便携式婴幼儿折叠蚊帐”的外观设计专利申请,于2016622日获得授权。被告曳头公司是淘宝店铺“同梦母婴专营店”的经营者,苏奥公司系曳头公司的关联公司。201932日,丁某梅向被告天猫公司投诉,称曳头公司、苏奥公司制造和销售的U型蚊帐等产品涉嫌侵害其外观设计专利权。201937日,曳头公司向天猫公司提供《反通知》《天猫知识产权投诉申诉书》以及相关对比文件材料,承诺其在天猫平台上展示的被投诉产品未侵害丁某梅的权利。接到投诉后,天猫公司分三次委托浙江省知识产权研究与服务中心进行专利侵权鉴定,后者出具三份《专利侵权判定咨询报告》,结论均为专利侵权不成立,天猫公司遂未采取删除销售链接等措施。

2019326日,丁某梅将曳头公司、苏奥公司、天猫公司诉至江苏省南京市中级人民法院(下称南京中院)。201944日,丁某梅向天猫公司提出《反申诉及诉讼说明》,坚持认为曳头公司构成侵权,且天猫公司网购平台应当立即采取删除链接等必要措施。201948日,天猫公司删除了被诉侵权产品在天猫网购平台的销售链接。

2019610日,曳头公司向南京中院申请先予恢复被删除的链接,并提供了相应的财产担保。

南京中院经审理认为,首先,天猫公司对丁某梅的投诉依规依法进行了处理,丁某梅坚持投诉并认为天猫公司应当采取删除链接等必要措施,天猫公司遂采取了删除销售链接之措施。其次,曳头公司制造、销售被诉侵权产品构成侵权的可能性较小。再次,不恢复销售链接可能给曳头公司造成难以弥补的损失。最后,曳头公司提供了一定的担保。基于此,南京中院裁定天猫公司立即恢复被诉侵权产品的销售链接。

【法官评析】

该案被业界称为国内首例“反向行为保全”案,在业内引起积极的反响。与通常由专利权人为及时制止侵权行为而向法院申请行为保全,即临时禁令不同,该案的特殊情形在于,在侵害专利权诉讼中,被诉侵权人向法院申请先予执行恢复被删除链接并获得法院裁定支持。一般而言,天猫等电子商务平台会根据投诉商家的投诉材料和被投诉商家的申诉材料,依据其平台知识产权投诉处理规则,决定维持现状或者采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接、终止交易和服务等必要措施。但是一旦投诉商家提起知识产权侵权诉讼,电子商务平台通常会采取删除销售链接等措施。权利人向电子商务平台投诉,要求其采取断开销售链接等措施,类似于民事诉讼中申请行为保全措施(诉讼禁令)。所以,法院根据相对人申请,裁定先予恢复被删除的销售链接,也可以认为是行为保全法律规定的反向适用和延伸。

首先,有效防止被投诉人损失进一步扩大。当前,被投诉或者被诉侵权产品的销售很大程度上依赖于商誉和口碑的积累以及销售时机的把握。尽管法院最终的判决将还被诉侵权人以公道,但网络交易瞬息万变特别是网络客户特有的粘性,往往使得被断开的销售链接可能给被诉侵权人造成难以弥补的损失。特别是一些特殊商品具有较强的季节性,在销售旺季,若不及时恢复被删除的销售链接,可能造成被投诉人或其被诉产品所积累的商誉和口碑的持续消减和损失以及交易机会的丧失,可能造成难以弥补的损失。因此,法院在614日及时下达了先予恢复被删除链接的裁定,起到了积极效果。

其次,电子商务法于201911日生效实施。电子商务平台针对当事人投诉,要向被投诉人通知,然后待被投诉人申诉后,将申诉转通知给投诉人。此外,电子商务法第四十三条还给予投诉人“十五日等待期”以决定是否撤回投诉或向法院起诉等。此时,网购平台才可能决定是否恢复被删除或断开的链接。如上所述,经过如此程序和较长期间,可能给网络销售商造成难以弥补的损失。当前电子商务平台上同业竞争者利用电子商务法这一规定的不足进行恶意投诉,实现不正当竞争目的的情形较为常见。该案可以有效解决这一困境,有利于促进电子商务健康发展。

摘自IPRCHN

2020921

About the Firm

Ge Cheng & Co Ltd.
Address Level 19, Tower E3, The Towers, Oriental Plaza, No 1 East Chang An Avenue, Beijing 100073, China.
Tel 86-10-8518 8598
Fax 86-10-8518 3600
Email davidcheng@gechengip.com , info@gechengip.com
Link www.gechengip.com

Related Newsletters

29
DEC
2020
29
DEC
2020
中国特許法の第4回改正に焦点を当てよう 10月17日、第13回全国人民...

Read More

29
DEC
2020
29
DEC
2020
Newsletter: Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) - Volume 10 Focus on the Fourth Revision...

Read More

15
DEC
2020
15
DEC
2020
2億5000万元!「超長時間作用型局所麻酔薬」の特許転化に成功 標準必...

Read More

27
OCT
2020
27
OCT
2020
Newsletter: Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) - Volume 8 Draft Amendment to the Pate...

Read More

27
OCT
2020
27
OCT
2020
特許法の改正案には、特許権の乱用を禁止する新しい条項が追加され...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3