中国国家市场监督管理总局发布《标准必要专利反垄断指引》
State Administration for Market Regulation of China Issues the "Antitrust Guidelines for Standard Essential Patents"
中国国家市场监管总局日前对外发布《标准必要专利反垄断指引》。
The State Administration for Market Regulation of China recently issued the "Antitrust Guidelines for Standard Essential Patents" to the public.
《指引》共六章二十二条，界定标准必要专利相关概念，提出涉及标准必要专利的垄断行为分析原则以及相关市场界定思路，建立事前事中监管规则。加强信息披露、许可承诺、善意谈判等行为指引和高风险行为预防。
The "Guidelines" consists of six chapters and 22 articles, defining the concepts related to standard essential patents, proposing analysis principles for antitrust behaviors involving standard essential patents and relevant market definition ideas, establishing pre- and in-process regulatory rules, and strengthening guidance on information disclosure, licensing commitments, good faith negotiations and other behaviors, and prevention of high-risk behaviors.
标准必要专利许可覆盖无线通信、音视频、物联网等众多领域。标准必要专利领域的公平竞争问题，涉及国内国际两个市场，与众多产业创新发展密切相关。制定出台指引有利于主动顺应国际治理趋势和产业发展大势，推动打造统一规范有序、鼓励创新发展的市场环境，也有利于更好参与全球公平竞争治理，服务高水平对外开放，提升产业国际竞争力。
Standard essential patents licensing covers various fields, including wireless communications, audio and video, and the Internet of Things. The issue of fair competition in the field of standard essential patents involves both domestic and international markets and is closely related to the innovative development of numerous industries. Formulating and issuing the Guidelines is conducive to actively complying with international governance trends and the overall trend of industrial development, thereby promoting the creation of a unified, standardized, and orderly market environment that encourages innovative development. It is also beneficial for better participating in global fair competition governance, serving high-level opening up to the outside world, and enhancing the international competitiveness of industries.
附全文：标准必要专利反垄断指引
Full text attached: Antitrust Guidelines for Standard Essential Patents
（来源：新华网）
(Source: Xinhua Net)
《利雅得外观设计法条约》成功缔结
Riyadh Design Law Treaty Successfully Concluded
11月11日至22日，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）缔结外观设计法条约外交会议在沙特阿拉伯首都利雅得召开，会议成功缔结《利雅得外观设计法条约》。
From November 11 to 22, the Diplomatic Conference on Design Law Treaty, organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), was held in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. The conference successfully approved the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.
外观设计法条约谈判历经近20年最终达成。该条约旨在协调统一各国外观设计申请程序和形式，包括申请文件、代理、申请日的确定、宽限期、修改或者分案、公布、续展、期限救济、权利恢复等相关规定，使设计人能够更便利、更快捷、更经济地在本国和海外市场上保护其设计。
The negotiations for the Design Law Treaty spanned nearly two decades. The treaty aims to harmonize and standardize the procedures and formalities for design applications across countries, covering provisions relating to application documents, representation, determination of filing dates, grace periods, amendments or division of applications, publication, renewals, relief in respect of time limits, and reinstatement of rights. These measures will enable designers to protect their designs in domestic and international markets more conveniently, quickly, and affordably.
(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“湘西黄金茶”地理标志证明商标 北京高院维持有效，证明商标实质条件被明确
Unitalen Represented the Case of "XIANGXI HUANG JIN CHA (湘西黄金茶)" Geographical Indication Certification Trademark, Beijing High Court Upheld its Validity, and the Substantive Conditions for the Certification Trademarks were Clarified
基本案情
Case Brief
原审第三人吉首市经果技术推广站申请注册第15887938号“湘西黄金茶”商标（以下简称“诉争商标”）。原审原告保靖县天成黄金茶产销专业合作联社（以下简称“天成联合社”），作为引证商标第8532976号“保靖黄金茶BAO JING HUANG JIN CHA及图”商标（以下简称“引证商标”）的授权许可使用人，认为诉争商标与引证商标在商标标志、核定使用商品、产地范围等方面有所重叠，诉争商标的申请注册违反2013年商标法第十六条关于“地理标志证明商标”的注册标准，其作为无效宣告的申请人之一，不服国家知识产权局作出的商评字[2019]第267403号重申《关于第1480号关于第15887938号“湘西黄金茶”商标无效宣告请求裁定》，向北京知识产权法院提出诉讼。
The third party in the original trial, Jishou City Jingguo Technology Promotion Station, applied for the registration of trademark No. 15887938 "湘西黄金茶" (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed trademark"). The plaintiff in the original trial, Baojing County Tiancheng Huang Jin Cha Production and Marketing Professional Cooperation Association (hereinafter referred to as "Tiancheng Association"), as the authorized licensee of the cited trademark No. 8532976 "保靖黄金茶 BAO JING HUANG JIN CHA and device" (hereinafter referred to as the "cited trademark"), considered that the disputed trademark and the cited trademark overlapped in terms of trademark marks, approved goods for use, scope of origin, etc., and that the application for registration of the disputed trademark violated the registration standard of "geographical indication certification trademark" in Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013. As one of the petitioners for invalidation, Tiancheng Association was not satisfied with Shang Ping Zi [2019] No. 267403 restating Regarding No. 1480 Ruling on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark No. 15887938 "湘西黄金茶" issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration, and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
一审审理过程中，引证商标权利人保靖县茶叶产业开发办公室取消对天成联合社的商标使用授权许可。
During the first instance trial, the right holder of the cited trademark, Baojing County Tea Industry Development Office, canceled the trademark usage authorization license for Tiancheng Association.
北京知识产权法院经审理认为，在案核心证据的形成时间虽晚于诉争商标申请日期，但其研究的事实可以证明，在除保靖县外的湘西各县市内，系列黄金茶试种产品质量均被认可。同时，吉首市经果推广站在商标申请注册和无效宣告阶段均提交了“湘西黄金茶”地理标志证明商标使用管理规则，以及其被湘西州政府授权申请注册诉争商标并作为质量标准监督管理机构委托湘西州质量监督管理局为诉争商标产品检测单位的相关证据，结合在案其他论文载明的事实，可以认定吉首市经果推广站关于诉争商标产区划定和质量管理的相关申请材料符合地理标志证明商标相关要求和质控标准。诉争商标与引证商标两个地理标志证明商标，虽产区覆盖范围存在重叠，但分别具有自身的使用管理规则、质量管控体系。因此，诉争商标的申请注册并未违反2013年商标法第十六条第二款之规定。
After the trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, although the establishment time of the core evidence on record was later than the application date of the disputed trademark, the facts as studied can prove that the quality of the series of Huang Jin Cha trial products has been recognized in all counties and cities in Xiangxi in addition to Baojing County. Meanwhile, the Jishou Jingguo Promotion Station submitted the "湘西黄金茶" geographical indication certification trademark usage management rules during the trademark application for registration and invalidation stages, as well as the relevant evidence that it was authorized by the Xiangxi Prefecture government to apply for registration of the disputed trademark and act as the quality standard supervision and management agency to entrust the Xiangxi Prefecture Quality Supervision and Management Bureau as the product testing unit for the disputed trademark. Combined with the facts stated in other papers on record, it can be determined that the application materials of the Jishou Jingguo Promotion Station regarding the delineation production area and quality management of the disputed trademark meet the relevant requirements and quality control standards of the geographical indication certification trademark. Although there is an overlap in the coverage of production areas between the disputed trademark and the cited trademark, both geographical indication certification trademarks have their own usage management rules and quality control systems. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate the provision of Paragraph 2, Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013.
天成联合社对一审判决亦不服，向北京市高级人民法院提出上诉。
Tiancheng Association was also dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing High People's Court.
二审情况梳理
Review of the Second Instance Situation
北京市高级人民法院在二审查明，保靖县茶叶产业开发办公室作为引证商标权利人曾基于2013年商标法第十六条等法条在2018年已对诉争商标提出过无效宣告申请。北京知识产权法院已作出（2019）京73行初6928号行政判决书，认为在案证据不足以证明诉争商标的申请注册违反涉案法条，维持了诉争商标的注册，该判决书现已生效。在前述6928号行政判决书中，明确记载了关于《吉首年鉴》《茶叶通讯》等证据内容及相关历史情况。
The Beijing High People's Court found in the second instance that the Baojing County Tea Industry Development Office, as the right holder of the cited trademark, had requested invalidating the disputed trademark in 2018 based on Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013 and other legal provisions. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has issued an Administrative Judgment (2019) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 6928, stating that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove that the application for registration of the disputed trademark violates the relevant legal provisions and has upheld the registration of the disputed trademark. The Judgment has now come into effect. In the aforementioned Administrative Judgment No. 6928, it is clearly recorded that there are evidence contents and related historical situations regarding the Jishou Yearbook, and Journal of Tea Communication, etc.
北京市高级人民法院认为，根据历史记载，首先本案中的“黄金茶”虽起源于今保靖县，但黄金茶古道边分布多片古茶园，黄金茶古道途经湘西土家族苗族自治州多县市。
Beijing High People's Court held, according to historical records, as follows: Firstly, although the "Huang Jin Cha" in this case originated in present-day Baojing County, there are many ancient tea gardens along the Huang Jin Cha ancient road, which passes through many counties and cities in the Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture.
其次，在案证据可以证明自2009年以来，通过树种输出等方式，黄金茶树种已引种至吉首市。且有《吉首年鉴》等证据及说明佐证，2012-2014《吉首年鉴》记载内容中对黄金茶的表述均为“湘西黄金茶”。2009年以来黄金茶的种植已主要由保靖县逐步扩展至湘西土家族苗族自治州辖区的吉首、龙山等县市。
Secondly, the evidence on record can prove that since 2009, the Huang Jin Cha species have been introduced to Jishou City by exporting tree species and other means. Furthermore, evidence and explanations such as the Jishou Yearbook corroborate this, with entries in the Jishou Yearbook from 2012 to 2014 describing the Huang Jin Cha as "湘西黄金茶(Xiangxi Huang Jin Cha)". Since 2009, the cultivation of Huang Jin Cha has gradually expanded from Baojing County to counties and cities such as Jishou and Longshan under the jurisdiction of Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture.
再次，“湘西黄金茶”出产的黄金茶产品可以达到规定的质量水准，且经现代科学技术不断培育发展后，已经形成自有特色和质量管理体系。诉争商标的申请注册并未违反2013年商标法第十六条第二款之规定。
Thirdly, the Huang Jin Cha products produced under the name "湘西黄金茶" can meet the prescribed quality standards, and after continuous cultivation and development through modern science and technology, they have formed their own characteristics and quality management system. The application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate the provision of Paragraph 2, Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013.
综上，二审判决维持一审原判，驳回天成联合社的上诉请求。
In summary, the second instance judgment upheld the original judgment of the first instance and rejected the appeal request of Tiancheng Association.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案是涉及商标法第十六条对地理标志证明商标认定的典型案件，在司法实践中对类案审理有一定借鉴意义。
This case is a typical one involving the recognition of geographical indication certification trademarks under Article 16 of the Trademark Law, and it provides certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases in judicial practice.
集佳代理上海某联（集团）有限公司、上海某联（集团）有限公司吴某材眼镜公司诉南京吴某材眼镜有限公司等不正当竞争纠纷案
Unitalen Represented a Case of Unfair Competition Disputes between a Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd., a Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd. WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company vs. Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses Co., Ltd.
基本案情
Case Brief
1807年，吴某材将1719年在上海创建的、附带经营眼镜业务的“澄明斋珠宝玉器铺”改为专营眼镜业务的吴某材眼镜店，1926年更名为吴某材眼镜公司，至1998年10月更名为上海某联（集团）有限公司吴某材眼镜公司（以下简称上海吴某材公司）。1947年，吴某材眼镜公司南京分公司登记设立。但因历史原因，上海吴某材公司和南京吴某材眼镜有限公司（以下简称南京吴某材公司）已不具有关联关系。1989年起，某联集团、上海吴某材公司陆续注册多个“吴良材”文字商标，经过长期使用已经具有很高的市场知名度，并于2004年被认定为驰名商标。2015年，某联集团、上海吴某材公司发现南京吴某材公司及其分支机构、授权许可加盟商在登记注册及经营中使用“吴良材”文字的企业名称及文字标识，并宣称“南京吴某材眼镜是由上海吴某材眼镜公司设立的南京分公司发展起来的”等，在大众点评网开展团购。某联集团、上海吴某材公司认为，南京吴某材公司构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，故诉请法院判令停止侵权、消除影响并赔偿损失及合理费用。
In 1807, WU X Cai transformed the "Chengmingzhai Jewelry and Jade Shop" established in Shanghai in 1719, which also operated an eyeglasses business, into WU X Cai Eyeglasses Store specializing in the eyeglasses business. In 1926, the store was renamed WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company, and in October 1998, it was renamed Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd. WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai WU X Cai Company). In 1947, the WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company Nanjing Branch was registered and established. However, due to historical reasons, Shanghai WU X Cai Company and Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing WU X Cai Company) are no longer affiliated. Since 1989, the X Lian Group and Shanghai WU X Cai Company have successively registered multiple "吴良材" word trademarks, which have gained high market recognition after long-term use and were recognized as well-known trademarks in 2004. In 2015, X Lian Group and Shanghai WU X Cai Company discovered that Nanjing WU X Cai Company and its branches, authorized franchisees used the enterprise name and logo containing the words "吴良材" in their registration and operation and claimed that "Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses was developed from the Nanjing branch of Shanghai WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company", and they conducted group buying on Dianping.com. The X Lian Group and Shanghai WU X Cai Company believe that Nanjing WU X Cai Company constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition, and therefore request the court to order the cessation of infringement, elimination of impact, and compensation for losses and reasonable expenses.
裁判结果
Result of Ruling
一审法院判决南京吴某材公司停止商标侵权及不正当竞争行为，立即停止在特许经营中授权许可被特许经营人使用含“吴良材”文字标识，立即停止其分支机构在江苏省南京市以外地区注册、使用含“吴良材”文字的企业名称，并消除影响，赔偿经济损失人民币260万元。南京吴某材公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。
The first instance court ruled that Nanjing WU X Cai Company shall cease trademark infringement and unfair competition, immediately cease using logos containing the words "吴良材" by authorizing franchisees in the franchise operations, immediately cease registering and using enterprise names containing the words "吴良材" outside of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province by its branches, eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses of RMB 2.6 million. With dissatisfaction, Nanjing WU X Cai Company appealed against the first instance judgment.
上海知识产权法院综合考虑历史、现状和公平等因素认为，首先,南京吴某材公司与历史上的吴某材眼镜公司具有一定的历史渊源，南京吴某材公司注册使用含“吴良材”文字的企业名称早于涉案商标注册时间，故不构成不正当竞争。但是，虽然南京吴某材公司和上海吴某材公司与历史上的吴某材眼镜公司具有一定的历史渊源，可彼此之间并无关联关系，在上海吴某材公司的“吴良材”商标已具有很高的知名度并被认定为驰名商标，而南京吴某材公司在全国范围内尚无知名度的情况下，于2004年至2015年大规模在全国范围发展特许加盟店，并授权加盟店使用含有“吴良材”文字的企业名称，还对外宣传中声称其是“百年老店”，隐瞒其与上海吴某材公司不具有关联关系的事实，并谎称其是上海吴某材公司的南京分店，上述行为在主观上明显具有攀附上海吴某材公司商誉和误导消费者的意图，如果不对其企业名称的使用范围进行适当的限制，则难以达到防止市场混淆的效果，也不足以保护商标权人利益，因此，将南京吴某材公司注册含有“吴良材”文字企业名称分支机构的地域范围限制在南京地区范围内具有一定的合理性。第二，虽然南京吴某材公司作为字号在先使用人本身有权继续使用其企业名称，但相应的主体范围亦应当有所限制，即不得许可他人注册使用含有“吴良材”文字的企业名称和标识，故南京吴某材公司授权许可加盟商使用含“吴良材”文字的企业名称和标识构成商标侵权和不正当竞争；南京吴某材公司及其分支机构、加盟商使用“吴良材”文字亦构成商标侵权。第三，南京吴某材公司通过片面和不完整的“百年老店”陈述，以隐瞒和谎称的方式，误导相关公众认为其与上海吴某材公司之间存在关联关系，恶意攀附上海吴某材公司的商誉，其行为构成虚假宣传。综上，二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, taking into account factors such as history, current situation, and fairness, believes: Firstly, Nanjing WU X Cai Company has a particular historical connection with the historical WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company. Nanjing WU X Cai Company registered and used an enterprise name containing the words "吴良材" before the registration time of the involved trademark, so it does not constitute unfair competition. However, although Nanjing WU X Cai Company and Shanghai WU X Cai Company have a particular historical connection with the historical WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company, they have no affiliation with each other. In the case where the trademark "吴良材" of Shanghai WU X Cai Company has already gained high reputation and has been recognized as a well-known trademark, whereas Nanjing WU X Cai Company has no nationwide recognition, Nanjing WU X Cai Company extensively developed franchised stores nationwide from 2004 to 2015, authorized these franchise stores to use enterprise names containing the words "吴良材", claimed in external promotions that it was a "century-old store", concealed the fact that it was not associated with Shanghai WU X Cai Company, and falsely claimed to be the Nanjing branch of Shanghai WU X Cai Company. These behaviors intended to take advantage of the goodwill of Shanghai WU X Cai Company and mislead consumers. Without appropriate restrictions on the scope of use of its enterprise name, it would be difficult to prevent market confusion and insufficient to protect the interests of trademark owners. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the geographical scope of Nanjing WU X Cai Company's branches registered with enterprise names containing the words "吴良材" to within the Nanjing area. Secondly, although Nanjing WU X Cai Company, as the prior user of the enterprise name, has the right to continue using its enterprise name itself, the corresponding scope of the subject should also be limited; that is, it should not permit others to register or use enterprise names and logos containing the words "吴良材". Therefore, Nanjing WU X Cai Company's authorization to franchisees to use enterprise names and logos containing the phrase "吴良材" constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition; the use of the words "吴良材" by Nanjing WU X Cai Company, its branches, and franchisees also constitutes trademark infringement. Thirdly, by presenting a partial and incomplete narrative of being a "century-old store," Nanjing WU X Cai Company misled the relevant public through concealment and false statements into believing that it has an association with Shanghai WU X Cai Company, maliciously taking advantage of the goodwill of Shanghai WU X Cai Company. This behavior constitutes false advertising. In summary, the second instance judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original ruling.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案裁判较为妥当地处理了历史遗留的商业标识冲突问题，对于规范“老字号”的使用以及促进市场主体诚信经营，同时防止市场混淆，维护消费者的合法利益，均具有一定的裁判指导意义。
The ruling in this case has appropriately addressed the issue of commercial identification conflicts left over by history. It provides specific ruling and guiding significance for regulating the use of "time-honored brands," promoting honest business practices among market entities, preventing market confusion, and safeguarding the legitimate interests of consumers.
集佳新闻：
国际商标协会（INTA）首席执行官Etienne Sanz de Acedo来访集佳
INTA CEO Etienne Sanz de Acedo Visits Unitalen
2024年11月26日上午，国际商标协会（INTA）首席执行官Etienne Sanz de Acedo先生访问集佳，INTA中国代表处首席代表苏红等陪同来访，集佳合伙人会议主席于泽辉所长与合伙人赵雷律师热情欢迎来宾并开展座谈。
On the morning of November 26, 2024, Mr. Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of the International Trademark Association (INTA), visited Unitalen. SU Hong, Chief Representative of the INTA China Representative Office, accompanied the visit. YU Zehui, President of Unitalen and Chairman of partners meeting of Unitalen, and ZHAO Lei, partner and attorney at Unitalen, warmly welcomed the guests and held a discussion.
集佳深度参与第十四届中国国际商标品牌节
Unitalen Actively Participated in the 14th China International Trademark and Brand Festival
第十四届中国国际商标品牌节于2024年11月22日至25日在陕西省西安市盛大举行。
The 14th China International Trademark and Brand Festival was held grandly in Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, from November 22 to 25, 2024.
集佳深度参与 喜获多项荣誉
Unitalen actively participated and won multiple honors
11月22日晚，在西安国际会展中心隆重举行的欢迎会暨颁奖典礼上，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司蝉联2023年度“优秀商标代理机构”与2024年度“品牌商标建设卓越贡献奖”殊荣，并荣登“2024商标代理服务能力数据统计600”之5A级机构榜单。
In the evening of November 22, at the grand welcome reception and award ceremony held at the Xi'an International Convention and Exhibition Center, Unitalen Attorneys at Law once again won the honors of "Excellent Trademark Agency" for 2023 and the "Outstanding Contribution to Brand and Trademark Construction" for 2024, and was listed on the "2024 Trademark Agency Service Capability Data Statistics 600" as a 5A level agency.
2024年11月23日下午，集佳合伙人赵雷律师应邀担任本届INTA论坛的主持人。INTA首席执行官Etienne Sanz de Acedo先生重磅发布了《INTA助力中国企业出海知识产权实践指南》系列报告。
On the afternoon of November 23, 2024, Unitalen partner and attorney ZHAO Lei was invited to serve as the host of this INTA Forum. Mr. Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of INTA, has released a series of reports titled "INTA's Guide for Chinese Enterprises in Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Practices".
2024年11月24日下午，在商标节经典论坛之一的商标典型案例评析会议上，北京市集佳律师事务所代理的“金沙”商标权无效宣告答辩案入选“2022-2023商标代理典型案例”。
On the afternoon of November 24, 2024, at the analysis session of trademark typical cases, one of the classic forums of the Trademark Festival, the defense case of invalidation of trademark rights for "金沙(Jinsha)" represented by Beijing Unitalen Law Firm was selected as one of the "Trademark Agency Typical Cases for 2022-2023".
2024集佳沙龙成功举办 探寻知识产权商业维权的界定与规制之道
2024 Unitalen Salon successfully held, exploring the definition and regulation of intellectual property commercial rights protection
11月24日，由中华商标协会主办、北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司与中关村远见知识产权创新研究院协办的“集佳沙龙——知识产权商业维权的界定与规制”主题活动在西安国际会展中心成功举办。
On November 24, the theme event "Unitalen Salon-Definition and Regulation of Intellectual Property Commercial Rights Protection", hosted by the China Trademark Association and co-organized by Unitalen Attorneys at Law and Zhongguancun Vision Intellectual Property Innovation Institute, was successfully held at the Xi'an International Convention and Exhibition Center.
集佳代理的两个案例入选上海市第三中级人民法院（上海知识产权法院）十年知识产权司法保护典型案例
Two cases Represented by Unitalen Selected as Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection over the Past Decade by the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court (Shanghai Intellectual Property Court)
2024年11月26日，上海市第三中级人民法院（上海知识产权法院、上海铁路运输中级法院）发布十年知识产权司法保护状况和典型案例。集佳代理的两个案例入选典型案例！
On November 26, 2024, Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court (Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, Shanghai Railway Transport Intermediate Court) released the status and typical cases of intellectual property judicial protection over the past decade. Two cases represented by Unitalen were selected as typical cases!
集佳代理某酒庄的“某酒庄与上海某实业发展有限公司、某（上海）供应链管理股份有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案”因在“未注册驰名商标的认定及保护”方面的重要意义入选。本案曾入选最高院“2017年50件典型知识产权案例”，后被选入“2017年上海十大知识产权案例”。（相关阅读：Chinese “Lafite” Mark Recognized as an Unregistered Well-known Mark by Shanghai IP Court）
The case of "Dispute over Infringement of Trademark Rights between a winery vs. a certain Shanghai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and a certain (Shanghai) Supply Chains Management P.L.C.", where Unitalen represented the winery, was selected due to its significance in the "recognition and protection of unregistered well-known trademarks". This case was previously selected as one of the "50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases in 2017" by the Supreme People's Court and later selected as one of the "Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases in Shanghai in 2017". (Related Reading: Chinese “Lafite” Mark Recognized as an Unregistered Well-known Mark by Shanghai IP Court)
集佳代理上海某联（集团）有限公司等的“上海某联（集团）有限公司、上海某联（集团）有限公司吴某材眼镜公司诉南京吴某材眼镜有限公司等不正当竞争纠纷案”因体现了“特殊渊源老字号的使用应谨守合理边界”的重要意义而入选。该案曾入选“2017年上海十大知识产权案例”。
The case of "Unfair Competition Dispute between a Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd., a Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd. WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company vs. Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company", where Unitalen represented said Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd., was selected due to its significance in demonstrating the importance of "observing reasonable boundaries in the use of time-honored brands with special origins". This case was previously selected as one of the "Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases in Shanghai in 2017".
.jpg)