Filter

Open

28

MAY

2021

Newsletter: Volume 4 (2021) Chinese IP Information

(English and Chinese)

  • Interpretation of the "deceptive" provision in the prohibition provisions of trademark registration
  • Four cases involving intersecting civil and administrative procedures for patents of medical application inventions were held in the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court
  • Interpretation and application of the leading "Case of dispute over the infringement on the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design between Wuxi New Silicon Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Rixin Technology Co., Ltd."
  • Zhejiang's first judicial interpretation of punitive damages with "Wyeth" received 30.55 million yuan in compensation

Interpretation of the "deceptive" provision in the prohibition provisions of trademark registration

Article 10 of the Trademark Law stipulates several situations in which "shall not be used as trademarks". Among those, item (7) regulates that “Those in the nature of fraud in advertising that easily confuses the public with the quality or other characteristics or origins of the goods, or the place of origin of the goods shall not be used as trademarks.” In practice, the said provision is usually referred to as a "deceptive" provision.

The so-called prohibition provisions refer to the clauses in the Trademark Law that forbidden the use of certain words, graphics, or combinations of graphics and text as trademarks. If violating the stipulation, it means that it cannot be used as a trademark itself, nor can it obtain possibility of registration through use.

In accordance with the law, with the nature of fraud means that a trademark shows something exceeding the inherent degree or inconsistent with the facts for the characteristics like the quality or place of the designated goods or services, easily making the public have misunderstanding of the said points. Next, let’s show you what kind of logo will be identified as "deceptive" in combination with a case.

One group limited company applied for the registration of its logo on the 32nd category of non-alcoholic juice beverages, beer (non-alcoholic) and other commodities. After being rejected by CNIPA on the grounds of violating the "deceptive" provision during reexamination, it sued to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The Intellectual Property Court held that the term “Xian zha” has the meaning of “freshly squeezed”, and its use on non-alcoholic beverages and other commodities can easily make the relevant public believe that its products are all “freshly squeezed”, which may lead to misidentification on the characteristics of technology and craftsmanship. Therefore, it was identified as deceptive, and the plaintiff's litigation request was rejected.

In judicial practice, the following factors need to be seriously taken into consideration for the application of "deceptive" clauses:

The basis for judging whether the trademark is deceptive is that the registered trademark objectively expresses or describes the quality of the goods or services and other characteristics or origin information, which is quite different from the truth, may causing a wrong understanding for the related public. Whether a trademark applicant has a subjective intention to deceive is usually not considered.

Only when a mark is combined with a product or service can it play the role of identifying the origin. To determine whether a mark is deceptive, a concrete analysis and judgment should be made based on the understanding of trademark’s meaning and combining the characteristics of the designated goods or services.

When judging whether a sign is in the nature of fraud, it is not required that the sign actually produces deceptive results. As long as the registration mark itself may cause the public to misunderstand, it is in compliance with the regulation of "deceptive" clauses.

The judgment to determine whether the logo is deceptive should be consistent with the general cognition level and cognitive ability of the public. If the public will not misunderstand the quality or place of the goods or services designated for use by the trademark in terms of their daily life experience, it does not conform to the cases stipulated in the "deceptive" provision.

The "deceptive" clause stipulates marks violating the public interests, it does not apply to situations where marks only damage the private rights of specific subjects. If a trademark only infringes on the prior rights and interests of others, it should be regulated by other provisions of the Trademark Law.

The "deceptive" term is an absolute prohibition term for trademarks, and marks applying to the conditions specified in this clause cannot be used as trademarks, nor can they be registrable through use.

The "deceptive" term is one of the most direct manifestations of the principle of good faith in the Trademark Law. Its legislative purpose is to prevent "deceptive" signs from influencing consumers to make wrong decisions on consumption, and to enable trademarks to play their due role in indicating the source of commodities or services.

From: Beijing Intellectual Property Court

2021.4.23

Four cases involving intersecting civil and administrative procedures for patents of medical application inventions were held in the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court

On the morning of April 25, the Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court carried out trial to consolidate four cases involving trot and administrative confirmation of rights for medical invention patents.

Two medical invention patents of “Levo-Ornidazole” from Shenghe Company were involved in two cases of infringement for patent rights. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court believed that Warner Company and CITIC Company infringed the aforementioned two patent rights of Shenghe Company in the first instance, and judged the two companies to jointly compensate Shenghe Company in total of 800,000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. The trial implemented investigations based on whether the alleged infringing product "Levo-Ornidazole Tablet" belongs to the prior art and whether it has priority right.

In two cases of administrative disputes over the invalidation of patent rights, Huamei Company filed an invalidation request for the above-mentioned two patents. The CNIPA reckoned that both patents involves inventive step and maintained the validity of the patent rights. The first-instance of Beijing Intellectual Property Court judged revoking the sued decision and its new decision by the CNIPA. The CNIPA and Shenghe Company both refused to accept it and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court, claiming that the technical problem to be solved by the two patents is providing a medicine with less toxicity and safer medication, and the prior art did not give technical enlightenment, so it involves inventive step. Huamei Company defended that it is inevitable to find the medical use of "Levo-Ornidazole" during the research and development of chiral drugs. During the trial, all parties engaged in a fierce debate on the creative issue of the patent involved. The case was not sentenced in court.

The Intellectual Property Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court adopted a “two-in-one” collaborative trial model for the technical intellectual property administrative and civil appeal cases, which systematically guaranteed the simultaneous trial and coordination of administrative case of rights confirmation and civil case of infringement, effectively alleviating bottlenecks in litigation procedures, for instance, the "long period" of patent holders' rights protection. In order to enable the full and in-depth progress of the confrontation between all parties, the administrative case and civil infringement case involving the same patent right were handed over to the same collegiate panel.

From: Supreme People’s Court

2021.4.26

Interpretation and application of the leading "Case of dispute over the infringement on the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design between Wuxi New Silicon Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Rixin Technology Co., Ltd."

On December 14, 2020, the CNIPA released the leading case for administrative enforcement of intellectual property rights "Case of dispute over the infringement on the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design between Wuxi New Silicon Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Rixin Technology Co., Ltd.". The interpretation and application of the leading case are explained as follows.

1. Election process and guiding significance

This leading case is the first case of an infringement dispute over the exclusive rights of integrated circuit layout designs judged by the Integrated Circuit Administrative Enforcement Committee of CNIPA(hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Enforcement Committee"), which recommended it as a guiding case. On August 16, 2018, the Administrative Enforcement Committee made a decision handling the case and determined the claimant's infringement. After the decision was made, neither party filed an administrative litigation against the decision.

The Administrative Enforcement Committee has determined the following principles in the administrative adjudication of the leading case: confirming the carrier for the protection scope of the layout design shall be based on the copy or pattern with the integrated circuit sample as a reference.

2. The interpretation and explanation of the case’s main points

(1)Validity determination of right carrier

In accordance with Article 8 of the Regulations on the Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), only registered layout-designs of integrated circuits can be protected by exclusive rights, registration is necessary for obtaining exclusive rights.

According to Article 16 of the Regulations, regardless of whether the layout design is put into commercial use, the copy or pattern is a constituent element for registration; only based on putting into commercial use, the integrated circuit sample becomes the registration element. For this aspect, obviously, the copy or pattern is at the core of the exclusive right carrier for layout design. In addition, the exclusive right of layout-design is established after registration, and it has the legal effect of public summons and public faith to the public, who can trust this publicity as a certain conduct. From this perspective, the layout-design reflected in the copy or pattern shall prevail.

As for the determination of the right carrier validity, the Administrative Enforcement Committee believed that for layout-designs that have not been put into commercial use while registration, the copies or pattern shall prevail. For the layout-design that has been put into commercial use during registration, if the copy or pattern can clearly and completely present all the details of the layout design, the copy or pattern shall prevail; if the details of the copy or pattern are not clear enough, and the protection scope of the exclusive right cannot be defined while relying on the copy or pattern alone, and the layout-design of the integrated circuit sample is consistent with the copy or pattern, the integrated circuit sample may be referred to clarify the unclear details of the copy or pattern.

(2) Determination of protection scope for the exclusive right of layout-design

In accordance with Article 4 of the Regulations, the protected layout-design should involve inventive step, or the combination as a whole should have inventive step although the layout-design consisting of conventional designs. According to Article 30 of the Regulations, all the copying conducts protected by the layout design or any part with inventive step of it, or commercial use conducts on integrated circuit protected by layout-design circuit or with it are all regarded as infringement. It can be seen that for the protection scope of the exclusive right of layout design, all the inventive areas of the layout design shall prevail.

Regarding how to ensure the protection scope of the exclusive right of layout-design, the Administrative Enforcement Committee believed that in consideration of the fact that the inventive step of the layout-design is not required to be declared while registration, in infringement disputes, the scope of protection of the exclusive rights claimed by the right holder should be determined in terms of the layout-design specified in the right carrier and combined with the statement on inventive step made by the rights holder in the request determines, and whether the infringement is established should be judged on the basis of the protection scope. In addition, the description of design ideas and functions involved in the inventive step statement of the right holder shall not be considered when determining the protection scope of the exclusive right of layout-design.

From: CNIPA

2021.4.8

Zhejiang's first judicial interpretation of punitive damages with "Wyeth" received 30.55 million yuan in compensation

On April 26, the 21st World Intellectual Property Day, the Zhejiang Higher People’s Court opened a second-instance trial and declared the first case applying to the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages to the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement on Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter referred to as Judicial Interpretation of Punitive Damages), the defendant was sentenced to punitive damages of 30 million yuan and compensation for reasonable expenses of 550,000 yuan.

"Wyeth", coming from the United States, is an old brand popular among consumers in the infant milk powder industry. It has been developed for nearly 100 years. The American Wyeth Company is also the trademark owner of trademarks like “Hui Shi”"Wyeth".

The defendant Guangzhou Wyeth Company was established in 2010. In recent years, it has produced and sold goods such as maternal and child care products with the marks of “Hui Shi” “Wyeth”, and “Hui Shi Little Lion” on a large scale for a long time. Trademarks like "Hui Shi" and "Wyeth" have been registered in the categories of toiletries through squatting, assigning form others and other methods. Guangzhou Wyeth Company also indicated in activities associated with Wyeth Company of the United States in its promotion.

Then Wyeth Company and Wyeth Shanghai Company sued Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and named Guangzhou Wyeth Company, Chen Zeying, Guan Xiaokun, Guangzhou Zhengai Company, Qingdao Wyeth Company, and Hangzhou Xiangdi Company as the defendants, and demanded Guangzhou Wyeth Company, etc. The defendant stopped trademark infringement and unfair competition, and applied punitive damages of 30 million yuan for economic losses and 550,000 yuan for reasonable expenses.

The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment and determined that the above six defendants jointly committed trademark infringements. Qingdao Wyeth had committed unfair competition and applied punitive damages, it was determined for infringement profit of at least 10 million yuan, 3 times. Finally the court fully supported the litigation request of Wyeth Company and Wyeth Shanghai Company, namely compensation of 30 million yuan and a reasonable cost of 550,000 yuan.

All defendants dissatisfied about the decision and appealed to the Zhejiang Higher People's Court. After the trial, the Zhejiang High Court further clarified the applicable conditions of punitive damages, compensated for the application deviation caused by determining the base with discretionary thought in the first instance, and carried out accurate calculations on the base of punitive damages based on the evidence submitted by Wyeth Company and Guangzhou Wyeth Company, therefore, the upper and lower limits of infringement profits were determined. Particularly, according to the Judicial Interpretation of Punitive Damages, were calculated separately, and the total amount of compensation was finally determined with separate calculation of the base and multiples. Due to the lower limit of the total amount of compensation has exceeded Wyeth's litigation request, the court of second instance pronounced a judgment in court, rejected the appeal, and upheld the original verdict!

In commercial practice, the material investment requires huge amount of material investment on exploiting the consumer market, and whether the products are enable to achieve good consumer performance and market share in the market has is closely related to the investment of brand owners and users. Therefore, the law regulates a punitive compensation system against malicious registration, intentional infringement and other acts that seriously infringe on the interests of brand owners, for the purpose of curbing infringements and compensating right holders for losses, meanwhile, warns market competition entities to return to the framework of fair competition and focus on their own brands instead of deliberately cling to the reputation of other businesses.

From: China Intellectual Property Magazine

2021.4.26

  • 解读商标注册禁用条款之欺骗性条款
  • 最高法知产法庭开庭合审四起涉医药用途发明专利民事和行政程序交叉案件

  • 指导案例无锡新硅微电子有限公司与南京日新科技有限公司侵害集成电路布图设计专有权纠纷案的理解与适用

  • 浙江适用惩罚性赔偿司法解释首案,惠氏获赔3055万元

解读商标注册禁用条款之欺骗性条款

《商标法》第十条规定了不得作为商标使用的几种情形,其中第一款第(七)项规定:带有欺骗性,容易使公众对商品的质量等特点产生误认或者产地产生误认的标志不得作为商标使用。实践中,通常将该条款称为欺骗性条款。

所谓禁用条款,是指《商标法》中关于禁止以某些文字、图形或图文组合等标志作为商标标志进行使用的条款。违反该类条款的规定,就意味着其本身不得作为商标使用,亦不能通过使用取得可注册性。

根据法律规定,带有欺骗性,是指商标对其指定使用商品或者服务的质量等特点或者产地作了超过其固有程度或与事实不符的表示,容易使公众对商品或者服务的质量等特点或者产地产生错误的认识。下面,我们就结合案例带大家一起了解什么样的标志会被认定带有欺骗性

某集团有限公司将该标志申请注册在第32类无酒精果汁饮料、啤酒(无酒精)等商品上,被国家知识产权局以违反欺骗性条款为由复审驳回后起诉到北京知识产权法院。知产法院审理认为,鲜榨一词有新鲜压榨的含义,使用在无酒精饮料等商品上容易使相关公众认为其产品均为新鲜压榨而成,从而有可能对商品的技术、工艺等特点产生误认,认定带有欺骗性,驳回了原告的诉讼请求。

在司法实践中,欺骗性条款的适用需要重点考虑以下几方面的因素:

判断标志带有欺骗性的基础是,注册标志客观上表示或描述了商品或服务的质量等特点或产地信息,这种描述与实际情况存在较大差异,可能使相关公众产生错误的认识。对商标申请人主观上是否有欺骗的主观意图通常不作考虑。

标志只有与商品或服务相结合才能起到识别来源的功能。判断标志是否带有欺骗性,应当在理解商标标志含义的基础上,结合指定使用的商品或服务本身的特点进行具体分析和判断。

判断标志是否具有欺骗性时,不要求该标志实际产生欺骗的结果。只要注册标志本身存在使公众产生误认的可能,就符合欺骗性条款规制的情形。

判断标志是否带有欺骗性,应与公众的普遍认知水平和认知能力相一致。如果公众基于日常生活经验等不会对商标指定使用的商品或者服务的质量等特点或者产地产生误认的,不属于欺骗性条款规定的情形。

欺骗性条款规制的是违反公共利益的标志,不适用于标志仅损害特定主体私权利的情形。如商标标志仅侵害他人在先权益,应适用商标法其他规定进行规制。

欺骗性条款属于商标绝对禁用条款,属于该条款规定情形的标志不得作为商标使用,亦无法通过使用获得可注册性。

欺骗性条款是诚实信用原则在《商标法》中最直接的体现之一。其立法目的在于避免带有欺骗性的标志影响消费者做出错误的消费决定,使商标发挥应有的指示商品或服务来源之作用。

摘自北京知识产权法院

2021423

最高法知产法庭开庭合审四起涉医药用途发明专利民事和行政程序交叉案件

425日上午,最高人民法院知识产权法庭公开开庭合并审理四起涉医药用途发明专利的侵权民事和确权行政程序交叉案件。

在两起侵害发明专利权纠纷案件中,涉及圣和公司左旋奥硝唑两项医药用途发明专利。上海知识产权法院一审认定华纳公司、中信公司侵犯圣和公司前述两项专利权,判令两公司共同赔偿圣和公司经济损失及合理开支共计80万元。此次庭审集中围绕被诉侵权产品左奥硝唑片是否属于现有技术以及是否享有先用权展开调查。

在发明专利权无效行政纠纷两案中,华美公司针对前述两项专利提起无效宣告请求,国家知识产权局认为两项专利均具备创造性,维持专利权有效。北京知识产权法院一审判决撤销被诉决定并由国家知识产权局重新作出被诉决定。国家知识产权局、圣和公司均不服,向最高人民法院提起上诉,主张两项专利所要解决的技术问题是提供一种降低毒性、用药更安全的药物用途,现有技术并未给出技术启示,具备创造性。华美公司辩称,发现左旋奥硝唑的医药用途是手性药物研发的必然结果。庭审中,各方围绕涉案专利的创造性问题展开激烈辩论。本案未当庭宣判。

最高人民法院知识产权法庭通过统一审理技术类知识产权行政和民事上诉案件的二合一协同审理模式,在制度上保障了确权行政案件与侵权民事案件的同步审理、协调对接,可以有效缓解专利权人维权周期长等诉讼程序瓶颈问题。本次庭审通过将涉及相同专利的确权行政案件和侵权民事案件交由同一合议庭审理,便于各方诉辩交锋的全面深入展开。

摘自最高人民法院

2021426

指导案例无锡新硅微电子有限公司与南京日新科技有限公司侵害集成电路布图设计专有权纠纷案的理解与适用

20201214日,国家知识产权局发布了知识产权行政执法指导案例无锡新硅微电子有限公司与南京日新科技有限公司侵害集成电路布图设计专有权纠纷案。下面就该指导案例的理解与适用进行说明。

一、推选经过和指导意义

该指导案例为国家知识产权局集成电路行政执法委员会审理的第一件集成电路布图设计专有权侵权纠纷案件,由国家知识产权局集成电路行政执法委员会(以下简称行政执法委员会)推荐作为指导案例。2018816日,行政执法委员会作出处理决定,认定请求人侵权行为成立。处理决定作出后,双方当事人均未就该决定提起行政诉讼。

行政执法委员会在该指导案例行政裁决中确定了如下原则:确定布图设计保护范围的载体,以复制件或图样为基础,以集成电路样品为参考。

二、案件要点的理解与说明

(一)权利载体的效力认定

根据《集成电路布图设计保护条例》(以下简称《条例》)第八条的规定,只有经过登记的集成电路布图设计才能获得专有权保护,登记是获得专有权的必要条件。

根据《条例》第十六条的规定,无论该布图设计是否投入商业利用,复制件或图样都是登记行为的构成要件;只有在投入商业利用的前提下,集成电路样品才成为登记行为的构成要件。可见,从登记行为构成要件这个角度来看,复制件或图样处于布图设计专有权载体的核心地位。另外,布图设计专有权经登记后确立,其面向社会公众产生公示公信的法律效力,社会公众可信赖这种公示而为一定行为。从公示公信效力这个角度来看,应当优先以复制件或图样反映的布图设计为准。

关于权利载体的效力认定问题,行政执法委员会认为:登记时尚未投入商业利用的布图设计,以复制件或图样为准。登记时已投入商业利用的布图设计,复制件或图样能够清晰完整地呈现布图设计全部细节的,以复制件或图样为准;复制件或图样的细节不够清晰,单独依靠复制件或图样无法界定专有权保护范围的情况下,集成电路样品与复制件或图样呈现的布图设计一致时,可以参考集成电路样品来明确复制件或图样不清晰的细节。

(二)布图设计专有权的保护范围认定

根据《条例》第四条的规定,受保护的布图设计应当具有独创性,或者虽然该布图设计由常规设计组成,但该组合作为整体应当具有独创性。根据《条例》第三十条的规定,对受保护布图设计的全部或者其中任何具有独创性部分的复制行为,以及对受保护布图设计、含有该布图设计的集成电路或者含有该集成电路的物品的商业利用行为,视为侵权行为。可见,布图设计专有权的保护范围以该布图设计的所有独创性区域为准。

关于如何确定布图设计专有权保护范围,行政执法委员会认为:鉴于布图设计登记时不要求声明其独创性,在侵权纠纷中,应依据权利载体载明的布图设计,结合权利人在请求书中作出的独创性声明,确定权利人主张的专有权保护范围,并以此保护范围为准判断侵权行为是否成立。此外,对于权利人在独创性声明中涉及设计思想、功能的描述,在确定布图设计专有权保护范围时不予考虑。

摘自国家知识产权局

202148

浙江适用惩罚性赔偿司法解释首案,惠氏获赔3055万元

426日,在第21个世界知识产权日,浙江省高级人民法院二审开庭审理并当庭宣判适用最高人民法院《关于审理侵害知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿的解释》(以下简称《惩罚性赔偿司法解释》)第一案,被告被判惩罚性赔偿3000万元及赔偿合理费用55万元。

惠氏,来自美国,是消费者耳熟能详的婴幼儿奶粉界老品牌,已经存续了近100年时间,美国惠氏公司也是惠氏”“Wyeth”等商标的商标权人。

被告广州惠氏公司,成立于2010年,近年来长期大规模地生产、销售带有惠氏”“Wyeth”“惠氏小狮子标识的母婴洗护产品等商品,并通过抢注、从他人处受让等方式在洗护用品等类别上注册了惠氏”“Wyeth”等商标。广州惠氏公司还在宣传推广中暗示与美国惠氏公司相关联的行为。

惠氏公司、惠氏上海公司于是向杭州市中级人民法院起诉,将广州惠氏公司、陈泽英、管晓坤、广州正爱公司、青岛惠氏公司、杭州向笛公司共同列为被告,要求广州惠氏公司等六被告停止商标侵权及不正当竞争行为,适用惩罚性赔偿经济损失3000万元,以及合理费用55万元。

杭州中院作出一审判决,认定上述六被告共同实施了商标侵权行为,青岛惠氏实施了不正当竞争行为,适用惩罚性赔偿,认为侵权获利至少1000万,确定3倍,最终全额支持惠氏公司、惠氏上海公司的诉讼请求,即赔偿3000万元和合理费用55万元。

各被告均不服,上诉至浙江省高级人民法院。浙江高院在审理后,进一步明确了惩罚性赔偿的适用条件,弥补了一审以裁量性思路确定基数所导致的适用偏差,以惠氏公司和广州惠氏公司提交的证据为基础对惩罚性赔偿的基数进行了精确的计算,并以此确定了侵权获利的上限和下限。尤其是根据《惩罚性赔偿司法解释》的规定,将基数与倍数分开计算,最终确定了赔偿总额。因该赔偿总额的下限已超过了惠氏公司的诉讼请求,二审法院当庭宣判,驳回上诉,维持原判!

商业实践中,消费市场开拓所需的物质投资甚巨,商品能够在市场上取得不俗的消费业绩和市场份额,与品牌权利人和使用者的投入密不可分。因此,对于恶意注册、故意侵权等严重侵害品牌方利益的行为,法律规定了惩罚性赔偿制度,遏制侵权、补偿权利人损失的同时也警示市场竞争主体回到公平竞争的框架下,注重自身品牌建设,而不要故意攀附他人商誉。

摘自中国知识产权杂志

2021426

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

30
JUN
2021
30
JUN
2021
特許請求の範囲における数字「一」の解釈 水平的独占契約の実施者が他...

Read More

30
JUN
2021
30
JUN
2021
Newsletter: Volume 5 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Interpretation of th...

Read More

28
MAY
2021
28
MAY
2021
商標登録禁止条項における「欺瞞的」条項への解釈 最高人民法院の知的...

Read More

19
MAY
2021
19
MAY
2021
Newsletter: Volume 3 (2021) Chinese IP Information (English and Chinese) Are you rea...

Read More

19
MAY
2021
19
MAY
2021
新薬の特許権期間補償に準備できていますか? 指導事例:「上海崇明区...

Read More

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5