中国国家知识产权局调整部分专利收费标准和减缴政策
CNIPA Adjusting Some Patent Fee Standards and Payment Reduction Policies
近日，中国国家知识产权局调整部分专利收费标准和减缴政策，有关事项公告如下：
Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) announced adjustments to some patent fee standards and payment reduction policies, and the announcement reads as follows:
一、专利权人提出专利权期限补偿请求，应缴纳专利权期限补偿请求费，收费标准为每件200元。专利权期限补偿请求经审查符合期限补偿条件的，应缴纳专利权补偿期年费，收费标准为每件每年8000元，不足一年部分不收取。
I. When a patentee files a request for patent term compensation, payment of a patent term compensation request fee is required, which is set at 200 yuan per case. If the request for patent term compensation meets the term compensation conditions after review, the patentee shall pay the annual fee for the patent term compensation, which is set at 8,000 yuan per case per year. No fee will be charged for periods of less than a year.
二、对专利开放许可实施期间的专利年费减免15%。同时适用其他专利收费减免政策的，可以选择适用最优惠的政策，但不得重复享受。
II. During the implementation period of open-licensing for patents, the annual maintenance fee for the patent will be reduced by 15 percent. If other patent fee reduction policies also apply, the patentee may choose the most favorable policy but cannot benefit from multiple reductions simultaneously.
三、通过《工业品外观设计国际注册海牙协定》进入中国的外观设计国际申请，缴纳的第一期和第二期单独指定费，可按照中华人民共和国财政部有关规定进行减缴。
III. For international design applications entering China through the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registrations of Industrial Designs, the fees paid for the first and second phases of designations may be reduced in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China.
四、通过批量著录项目变更请求进行申请人（或专利权人）姓名或名称变更，且不涉及权利转移的，按一件变更缴纳著录事项变更费。
IV. If the name or title of the applicant (or the patentee) is changed through the batch requests of change of bibliographic data, and no transfer of rights is involved, the fee shall be paid for one change.
五、由中国国家知识产权局作为受理局受理并进行国际检索的国际专利申请（PCT申请），在进入中国国家阶段时免缴申请费及申请附加费。由中国国家知识产权局作出国际检索报告或专利性国际初步报告的PCT申请，在进入中国国家阶段并提出实质审查请求时，免缴实质审查费。PCT申请进入中国国家阶段的其他收费标准依照国内部分执行。
V. International patent applications (PCT applications), received and subjected to international searches by the CNIPA (as the Receiving Office), are exempted from the application fees and additional fees for application when entering the national phase in China. For PCT applications where the CNIPA has issued the international search reports or the international preliminary reports on patentability, the fees for substantive examination shall be exempted when entering the national phase in China and requesting substantive examination. Other fee standards for PCT applications entering the national phase in China shall follow the domestic fee standards.
六、中国国家知识产权局代世界知识产权组织等机构以及其他国家和地区收取的费用，其收费标准和减缴规定按照中国国家知识产权局与上述机构、国家和地区的约定或者有关国际合约执行。
VI. Fees collected by the CNIPA on behalf of institutions such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and other countries and regions will be charged and reduced in accordance with the agreements between the CNIPA and the above institutions, countries and regions or the relevant international treaties.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
中国澳门特别行政区经济及科技发展局简化发明专利延伸注册所需文件
Macao Special Administrative Region of China - Economic and Technological Development Bureau Simplifying Documents Required for Extension of Registration of Patent for Invention
根据澳门经济及科技发展局（简称经科局）于2024年6月12日发布的通告，为了便利企业在中国澳门地区进行专利布局，促进科技成果转化，经科局免除申请人提交发明延伸注册申请时需要提前向国家知识产权局获取文件的要求，简化了延伸注册的申请程序。
According to the notice issued by the Macao Economic and Technological Development Bureau (DSEDT) on June 12, 2024, in order to facilitate the patent layout of enterprises in Macao, China, and promote the transformation of scientific and technological achievements, the DSEDT exempts the applicant from the requirement of obtaining documents from the CNIPA in advance when applying for extension of invention registration, thereby simplifying the application procedures for extension of registration.
根据12月13日第97/99/M号法令核准的《工业产权法律制度》第二十三条第四款的规定，经科局发布通告称，自2024年7月1日起，向中国澳门经科局提交发明专利延伸申请时，若申请人在申请书上声明由澳门局向国家知识产权局调用“专利说明书”及“专利登记薄副本”作为申请资料，经审核无误，视为已向澳门局提交了有关文件。
According to Article 23.4 of the Industrial Property Code approved by Decree-Law No. 97/99/M on December 13, the DSEDT issued a notice stating that starting from July 1, 2024, when an applicant files an application for an extension of a patent for invention with the DSEDT of the Macao SAR, if the applicant declares in the application that DSEDT can use the "description of the patent" and "a copy of the patent register" from the CNIPA as the application materials, it shall be deemed that the relevant documents have been submitted after verification of the DSEDT.
（来源：集佳知识产权）
(Source: Unitalen Attorneys at Law)
中国国家知识产权局与意大利农业、粮食主权与林业部签署地理标志领域谅解备忘录
CNIPA and Italy's Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry Sign MoU on Geographical Indications
7月28日下午，在国务院总理李强和意大利总理梅洛尼的共同见证下，《中华人民共和国国家知识产权局与意大利共和国农业、粮食主权与林业部谅解备忘录》在北京人民大会堂签署。中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨与意大利驻华大使馆大使安博思分别代表两国主管部门签字。
On the afternoon of July 28, under the joint witness of Premier Li Qiang of the State Council and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Between the National Intellectual Property Administration of the People's Republic of China and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forestry of the Italian Republic was signed at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the CNIPA, and Italian Ambassador to China Massimo Ambrosetti signed the MoU on behalf of their respective administrations.
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
典型案例：
集佳代理“DR.MARTENS”首获司法认驰，“马丁靴”并非鞋靴商品的通用名称
Unitalen Representing "DR. MARTENS" First Won Judicial Determination of a Famous Trademark, and "马丁靴(Martin Boots)" Determined Not to Be a Common Name for Footwear and Boots Goods
基本案情
Case Brief
原告埃瓦国际有限公司（下称“埃瓦公司”或“原告”），作为国际注册第584207号等“Dr. Martens”系列商标全球独家授权许可商，在中国负责设计、生产、宣传以及经营销售“Dr. Martens”品牌系列产品。自20世纪60年代至今，“Dr. Martens”品牌的鞋靴产品已在全球超过80个国家和地区销售，是全球享有最高知名度的鞋履商标品牌之一。自2003年起，在中国报刊媒体中就已有对“DR.MARTENS”及其产品的宣传报道。2007年，“Dr. Martens”品牌进入中国市场后其销售区域遍布全国，该品牌在中国境内具有极高的知名度。
The plaintiff, Airwair International Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Airwair" or "the plaintiff"), as the exclusive global authorized licensee of the "Dr. Martens" series of trademarks, including the No. 584207 international registered trademark, is responsible for the design, production, promotion, and sale of the series of products of the brand "Dr. Martens" in China. Since the 1960s, "Dr. Martens" footwear and boots products have been sold in more than 80 countries and regions worldwide, one of the most recognizable footwear trademark brands in the world. Since 2003, "DR. MARTENS" and its products have been advertised and reported by the Chinese newspapers and media. In 2007, the brand "Dr. Martens" entered the Chinese market, with its sales areas covering all over the country. The brand has enjoyed high popularity in China.
被告汕头某服饰公司的法定代表人胡某，在2011年7月申请、并于2012年6月获得注册了与权利商标在相同商品“服装；鞋”上的第9780715号“Dr.mannar”商标。被告汕头某服饰公司在天猫、淘宝网、1688 等电商平台销售鞋靴产品，并在店铺首页及商品链接网页、鞋盒包装、包装纸等多处使用“马丁”“马丁靴”“马丁鞋”“MARTIN”“Dr.Mannar”等侵权标识。埃瓦公司以前述被告的涉案行为构成商标侵权为由诉至上海知识产权法院。
The defendant, Hu, the legal representative of a clothing company in Shantou, filed an application in July 2011 and obtained the approval in June 2012 for registration of the No. 9780715 "Dr. mannar" trademark for use on the same goods "clothing; footwear" as the authorized trademark. The defendant, the clothing company in Shantou, sold footwear and boots products on Tmall, Taobao, 1688 and other e-commerce platforms, and used the infringing marks such as "马丁(Martin)", "马丁靴(Martin Boots)", "马丁鞋(Martin Shoes)", "MARTIN", and "Dr. Mannar" on the homepages of the stores, the linked webpages of the goods, the packaging of the shoe boxes, the wrapping paper and other places. Airwair filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of the defendant constituted trademark infringement.
法院认定
Determination of the Court
上海知识产权法院经审理认为，原告经授权，有权就第G584207号“DR.MARTENS”商标（以下称“权利商标”）在中国进行销售推广，并基于许可提起民事诉讼。权利商标经过长期的宣传、使用、推广，在国内具有极高的知名度，在其核准注册的“鞋靴、服装”商品上已经属于驰名商标，被诉侵权商品亦为鞋靴商品，且因被告胡某注册有第9780715号“Dr.Mannar”商标，因此，本案有认驰必要性。被诉“Dr.mannar”“Dr.Mannar 马丁靴”“
”“
”等标识与原告权利商标“Dr.Martens”“马丁 DR.MARTENS”“
”等在字母构成、读音、中英文含义均近似，汕头某服饰公司将被诉标识使用在鞋靴类商品上并在各网购平台进行销售，容易使相关公众认为商品具有相同的来源或者其来源之间具有密切的联系，从而容易对商品来源产生混淆和误认。此外，在案也并无证据可以证明“马丁靴”一词为法定或约定俗成的通用名称，相反，关于权利商标的各类宣传报道中均能体现“马丁靴”对应或指向权利商标，与权利商标形成了一定对应关系。因此，被诉行为已构成对权利商标的侵权行为。
Upon trial, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the plaintiff, by virtue of the authorization, is entitled to conduct sales and promotion concerning the No. G584207 trademark "DR. MARTENS" (hereinafter referred to as "the authorized trademark") in China and to file a civil lawsuit on the basis of the license. The authorized trademark has enjoyed a high reputation in China after a long period of advertisement, use and promotion, and has already become a famous trademark in the goods of "footwear, boots and clothing" on which it is approved for registration. Further, the sued infringing goods also pertain to footwear and boots goods, and because the defendant Hu has registered the No. 9780715 trademark for "Dr. Mannar", it is necessary to obtain the determination of the famous trademark in this case. The sued "Dr. mannar" "Dr. Mannar马丁靴(Martin Boots)", "
", "
" and other marks are similar to the plaintiff's authorized trademarks "Dr. Martens", "马丁(Martin) Dr. MARTENS", "
", etc., in terms of the letter composition, pronunciation, and Chinese and English meanings. The clothing company in Shantou used the sued marks on footwear and boots goods and sold them on various online shopping platforms. Such act would easily make the relevant public believe that the goods have the same source or there is a close connection between their sources, and thus may easily confuse the public with source of the goods. In addition, there was no evidence in the case that the term "马丁靴(Martin Boots)" is a legal or conventionally used common name. On the contrary, various advertisements and reports concerning the authorized trademark can all reflect that the term "马丁靴(Martin Boots)" corresponds to or is directed to the authorized trademark, which has formed a certain correspondence with the authorized trademark. Therefore, the sued acts constitute an infringement of the authorized trademark.
最后，法院判决汕头某服饰公司、胡某立即停止侵权、消除影响；并适用惩罚性赔偿，全额支持埃瓦公司关于赔偿300万元的诉讼请求。现本案正在二审中。
In the end, the court ruled that the clothing company in Shantou and Hu should cease the infringement immediately and eliminate the influence and that punitive damages should be applied to fully support the litigation request for compensation of 3 million yuan by Airwair. This case is now in its second trial.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案是一起驰名商标打击恶意注册并实施侵权行为的典型案件，有利于遏制市场内“搭便车”“傍名牌”的恶意侵权行为。
This case is a typical case for a famous trademark to combat malicious registration and infringing acts, which helps deter the malicious infringing acts of "free-riding" in the market.
集佳代理德国知名化学品公司取得专利无效案件胜利
Unitalen Representing the Famous German Chemicals Company Won the Patent Invalidation Case
基本案情
Case Brief
德之馨有限公司（Symrise AG，以下简称“德之馨公司”）总部位于德国霍尔茨明登，是世界主要的香精香料、食品和化妆品原料、营养品公司之一。2006年，德之馨公司在法兰克福交易所上市。2023年，德之馨公司的收入为47.3亿欧元。
Headquartered in Holzminden, Germany, Symrise AG (hereinafter referred to as "Symrise") is one of the world's leading companies in flavors and fragrances, food and cosmetic ingredients, and nutritional supplements. In 2006, Symrise was listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. In 2023, Symrise generated revenues of EUR 4.73 billion.
2023年8月，某无效宣告请求人针对德之馨公司的名称为“抗微生物组合物”的中国发明专利（以下简称“涉案专利”）提出专利无效宣告请求，其中包括公开不充分、权利要求得不到说明书支持以及缺乏创造性等无效理由。
In August 2023, a petitioner for invalidation submitted a request for patent invalidation against the Chinese invention patent (hereinafter referred to as "the patent involved") entitled "Antimicrobial Compositions" owned by Symrise, which included invalidation grounds such as insufficient disclosure, claims being not supported by the description, and lack of an inventive step.
德之馨公司委托集佳作为代理人应对该无效宣告请求。在接受委托后，集佳团队仔细地研究了涉案专利以及请求人提交的请求书和大量证据材料，并与客户进行了深入的讨论。在此基础上，针对无效宣告请求中的无效理由，逐一准备了详细的答辩意见并提交合议组。
Symrise entrusted Unitalen as the agent to respond to the invalidation request. After accepting the entrustment, the Unitalen team carefully studied the patent, the Request, and the large amount of evidence materials submitted by the petitioner, and had in-depth discussions with the client. On this basis, the team prepared a detailed defense to each invalidation grounds in the invalidation request and submitted it to the collegiate panel.
其中，对于公开不充分的无效理由，无效请求人认为涉案专利的实施例没有记载测试方法。集佳团队认为涉案专利的说明书已经明确记载了效果数据，而且说明书的其他段落已经明确记载了测试的相关标准，本领域技术人员基于说明书的记载可以容易地选择相应的标准进行测试。对于权利要求得不到说明书支持的无效理由，集佳团队分别分析了各特征能够得到说明书支持的理由，提交了补充实验数据，并且对于无效请求人提供的相关证据一一进行了回应。对于创造性的无效理由，集佳团队着重陈述了现有技术中并不存在技术启示，存在相反教导等反驳理由。
Therein, for the invalidation ground of insufficient disclosure, the petitioner for invalidation argued that the embodiments of the patent involved do not disclose the testing method. The Unitalen team held that the description of the patent involved has explicitly disclosed the data of the effect. Other paragraphs of the description have explicitly disclosed the relevant standards for testing. Thus those skilled in the art can readily select the corresponding standards for testing based on the disclosure of the description. For the invalidation ground that the description does not support the claims, the Unitalen team analyzed the reasons why individual features are supported by the description, submitted the supplemental experimental data, and responded to the relevant evidence provided by the petitioner for invalidation one by one, respectively. For the invalidation ground of the lack of an inventive step, the Unitalen team focused on stating that there is no technical enlightenment in the prior art and that there are opposite teachings and other counterarguments.
基于口审的情况，集佳团队认为需要进一步补充实验数据来证明涉案专利的充分公开以及权利要求能够得到说明书支持。基于此准备了补充代理意见提交给国家知识产权局。最终在没有对涉案专利的权利要求进行修改的情况下，国家知识产权局作出无效宣告请求审查决定，维持专利权有效。
Based on the circumstances of the oral proceedings, the Unitalen team believed that further supplemental experimental data are required to prove sufficient disclosure of the patent involved and that the description supports the claims. On this basis, the team prepared the supplemental agent's opinion and submitted it to the CNIPA. In the end, the CNIPA made a Decision of Examination upon Request for Invalidation without requiring amendments to the claims of the patent involved and upheld the validity of the patent right.
案件决定要点
Key Points of the Decision of the Case
“如果实验数据的测试方法在本领域是公知的，本领域技术人员根据说明书记载的内容能够确定上述方法，则不能以说明书中未记载该测试方法为由来认定说明书公开不充分”。
"If the test method for experimental data is well known in the art, and those skilled in the art can determine the above method based on the disclosure of the description, it cannot be determined that the disclosure of the description is insufficient on the ground that the test method is not disclosed in the description."
集佳新闻：
集佳荣登《商标律师》(The Trademark Lawyer)中国区“2024年度十佳商标事务所”排行榜
Unitalen Ranked in the List of "Top 10 Trademark Law Firms of 2024" by The Trademark Lawyer in China
近日，国际知名商标评选机构《商标律师》杂志(The Trademark Lawyer)公布了2024年度亚太地区商标代理机构排行榜，集佳知识产权凭借在商标领域的优质服务和出色业绩荣膺中国区“2024年度十佳商标事务所”称号。
Recently, The Trademark Lawyer magazine, an internationally renowned trademark selection organization, released the 2024 Asia-Pacific Trademark Agency Rankings, and Unitalen Attorneys at Law won the award "Top 10 Trademark Law Firms of 2024" in China for its high-quality services and outstanding performance in the trademark field.
.jpg)