业界新闻：
In this issue
《2025年马德里体系年鉴》发布
Madrid System Yearly Review 2025 Released
最新版《马德里体系年鉴》现已在线发布，为您提供2024年马德里体系使用情况的事实与数据。主要数据如下：
The latest edition of the Madrid System Yearly Review is now online, providing you with facts and figures on the use of the Madrid System in 2024. Here are the key figures at a glance:
•提交的马德里国际申请约65,000件 (+1.2%)；国际申请中的指定约452,889个 (+1.1%)
•~65,000 Madrid international applications filed (+1.2%); ~452,889 designations in international applications (+1.1%)
•有效国际注册达915,034件 (+2.7%)
•915,034 active international registrations (+2.7%)
•有效国际注册中的指定达7,325,670个 (+0.6%)
•7,325,670 designations in active international registrations (+0.6%)
•英国连续第四年在2024年提交的国际申请中成为收到指定最多的马德里成员 (28,877项)
•For the fourth consecutive year, the UK received the most designations (28,877) in international trademark applications filed in 2024.
相关阅读：Madrid Yearly Review 2025
Related Reading: Madrid Yearly Review 2025
（来源：WIPO）
(Source: WIPO)
中国国家知识产权局第二十五届中国专利奖授奖
25th China Patent Award Winners Revealed by CNIPA
根据《中国专利奖评奖办法（2023年修订）》规定，经国务院有关部门知识产权工作管理机构、地方知识产权局、有关全国性行业协会，以及中国科学院院士和中国工程院院士等推荐，中国专利奖评审委员会评审，社会公示，国家知识产权局和世界知识产权组织决定授予“用于制备高压LDMOS器件的方法及器件”等30项发明、实用新型专利中国专利金奖，“汽车”等10项外观设计专利中国外观设计金奖；国家知识产权局决定授予“体声波谐振器”等60项发明、实用新型专利中国专利银奖，“塔扇”等15项外观设计专利中国外观设计银奖；国家知识产权局决定授予“一种漂浮式光伏电池组件”等607项发明、实用新型专利中国专利优秀奖，“三维扫描仪”等47项外观设计专利中国外观设计优秀奖；国家知识产权局决定授予广东省知识产权局等8家单位中国专利奖最佳组织奖，上海市知识产权局等19家单位中国专利奖优秀组织奖，于吉红等12位院士中国专利奖最佳推荐奖。
In accordance with the provisions of the China Patent Award Evaluation Measures (2023 Revision), after recommendations from intellectual property management institutions of relevant departments under the State Council, local intellectual property offices, relevant national industry associations, as well as academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering, evaluation by the China Patent Award Review Committee, and public scrutiny, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) awarded the China Patent Gold Award to 30 patents for invention and utility model including "Method for preparing high-voltage LDMOS device and device" and the China Design Gold Award to 10 patents for design including "Automobile"; the CNIPA awarded the China Patent Silver Award to 60 patents for invention and utility model including "Bulk Acoustic Wave Resonator" and the China Design Silver Award to 15 patents for design including "Tower Fan"; additionally, the CNIPA awarded the China Patent Excellence Award to 607 patents for invention and utility model including "Floating type photovoltaic cell module" and the China Design Excellence Award to 47 patents for design including "3D Scanner"; furthermore, the CNIPA awarded the Best Organization Award of the China Patent Award to 8 entities such as the Intellectual Property Office of Guangdong Province, the Excellent Organization Award of the China Patent Award to 19 entities including the Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration, and the Best Recommendation Award of the China Patent Award to 12 academicians including YU Jihong.
Attachment: Decision of the CNIPA on Awarding the 25th China Patent Award
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of CNIPA)
2025修订！《申请撤销无正当理由连续三年不使用注册商标》指南
2025 Revision: Guidance on Application for Cancellation of a Registered Trademark for Non-use in Three Consecutive Years without any Justified Reason
根据《中华人民共和国商标法》第四十九条和《商标法实施条例》第六十六条规定，注册商标没有正当理由连续三年不使用的，任何单位或者个人可以向国家知识产权局申请撤销该注册商标，提交申请时应当说明有关情况。中国国家知识产权局商标局决定对2023年3月发布的《申请撤销连续三年不使用注册商标》内容进行修订。
According to the provisions of Article 49 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China and Rule 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, where a registered trademark stays unused for three consecutive years without any justifiable reason, any unit or individual may apply to the CNIPA for cancellation of the registered trademark, and shall provide an explanation of the relevant circumstances when submitting the application. The Trademark Office of the CNIPA has revised the contents in the Application for Cancellation of a Registered Trademark for Non-use in Three Consecutive Years that was issued in March 2023.
修订后内容请参阅：申请撤销无正当理由连续三年不使用注册商标
Please refer to the revised content: Application for Cancellation of a Registered Trademark for Non-use in Three Consecutive Years without any Justified Reason
（来源：中国国家知识产权局商标局网站）
(Source: website of Trademark Office of CNIPA)
典型案例：
Cases in Spotlight:
集佳代理华为牢牢守住首发正品的市场防线和市场份额 入选南京法院护航首发经济高质量发展典型案例
Unitalen Helped Huawei in Safeguarding Market Defense Line and Market Share for First-Launch Genuine Product — Case Selected as One of Typical Cases for Safeguarding the High-Quality Development of the First-Mover Economy by Nanjing Court
基本案情
Case Brief
“FreeClip”耳机作为华为公司耗时多年、投入了巨额研发资金而精心打造的集逆场声学技术、多通道深度神经网络DNN通话降噪算法、头部动作跟踪技术、IP54级抗水抗汗技术、华为自研分辨空间模型算法等多种最新科学技术和纯粹几何极简美学于一体的创新产品，自2023年12月在海外首发上市以来就迅速以强大的创新技术及强力出圈的极致美学概念斩获消费者芳心，在全球掀起狂热浪潮，一举成为同类产品中市场表现最为亮眼的佼佼者。
As an innovative product that integrates cutting-edge technologies (including inverse-field acoustics technology, multi-channel Deep Neural Network (DNN) call noise reduction algorithms, head-motion tracking technology, IP54 water and sweat resistance technology, and Huawei's self-developed spatial discrimination model algorithms) with pure geometric minimalist aesthetics and that was meticulously developed by Huawei through years of research and development and substantial investment, the "FreeClip" earbuds have rapidly captivated consumers with groundbreaking innovative technology and striking aesthetics since their overseas launch in December 2023, igniting a worldwide sensation and emerging as the market leader among similar products.
被告某科技有限公司在华为公司全球首发“FreeClip”耳机商品之后不久即恶意推出仅外观高度相似的“山寨”耳机，同时大范围大规模高强度地在全网各大电商平台以畸低的价格和“大牌/官方平替”、“顶配全功能还原”等虚假宣传用语蒙骗消费者，让消费者以为“山寨”耳机和华为“FreeClip”耳机一样拥有最新技术功能和极致美学外观，短时间内“山寨”耳机由于质量等问题遭到了大量消费者投诉。“山寨”耳机的横行不仅对华为公司“FreeClip”正品耳机市场进行了大肆掠夺、在短短三四个月内便给华为公司造成了巨大的经济损失，还对华为公司正品“FreeClip”耳机声誉造成了严重的贬损。
The defendant, a certain technology company, shortly after the global launch of Huawei's "FreeClip" earbuds, maliciously rolled out "counterfeit" earbuds that merely have an appearance highly similar to Huawei's "FreeClip" earbuds. Meanwhile, the defendant extensively and aggressively marketed the "counterfeit" earbuds across major online e-commerce platforms at abnormally low prices, while employing false advertising claims such as "budget alternatives to high-end/official products" and "fully replicated top-tier functionality", thereby deceiving consumers into believing that the "counterfeit" earbuds possess the same cutting-edge technologies, functions, and striking aesthetic design as Huawei's "FreeClip" earbuds. However, within a short period, the "counterfeit" earbuds faced numerous consumer complaints due to defects, including low quality. The proliferation of these "counterfeit" earbuds not only severely eroded the market share of Huawei's genuine "FreeClip" earbuds, causing significant economic losses to Huawei within just three to four months, but also severely damaged the reputation of Huawei's genuine "FreeClip" earbuds.
为了尽快协助华为公司肃清市场、禁止“山寨”耳机的短期内的大规模铺货、最大限度地减少华为公司以及无辜消费者的损失，集佳快速响应，对案件进行全面研判并最终建议以“FreeClip”耳机的实用艺术作品著作权及特有装潢请求权向南京市中级人民法院起诉，同时同步向法院申请诉中财产保全及行为禁令。
To promptly assist Huawei in eliminating counterfeit products from the market, prohibiting the large-scale distribution of "counterfeit" earbuds in the short period, and minimizing losses for both Huawei and innocent consumers, Unitalen responded swiftly, comprehensively studied the case, and ultimately recommended filing a lawsuit with the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court based on the copyright of works of applied art and the right distinctive trade dress of the "FreeClip" earbuds. Simultaneously, Unitalen filed with the court petitions for property preservation during litigation and a behavioral injunction.
法院审理及案件结果
Court Hearing and Case Outcome
南京市中级法院积极受理了案件，快速严谨地从“对可能兼具实用性和艺术性的造型或设计，当事人可以选择著作权法保护，也可以选择专利法中的外观设计予以保护，保护的重点各有不同......允许实用艺术作品同时获得著作权和外观设计保护可以弥补外观设计权保护在获得条件、程序、保护期、保护范围等方面弱点”角度出发，对本案权利基础、侵权行为、损害后果及案件的紧急性进行了充分的审查，及时对本案做出了财产保全裁定，对“山寨”耳机的全网铺货和大肆销售施加了相当压力。
The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court actively accepted the case, promptly and meticulously conducted a thorough review on the right basis of the case, infringement behaviors, damages, and the urgency of the case, from the perspective "for shapes or designs that may combine practicality and artistry, parties may choose to seek protection under the Copyright Law or to seek design patent protection under the Patent Law, with distinct focuses of protection... allowing works of applied art to obtain copyright and design patent protection simultaneously can compensate for the weaknesses of design patent protection in terms of acquisition conditions, procedures, protection periods, and scope of protection", and timely made a property preservation ruling, exerting significant pressure on the full-network distribution and mass sales of the "counterfeit" earbuds.
同时，集佳也充分发挥专业优势，积极配合法院及原告工作，短期内成功促成双方当事人达成一揽子停止侵权、赔偿损失的协议。本案最终以华为公司撤回起诉、成功快速禁止“山寨”耳机继续在市场上销售、有力维护了华为公司的合法权益及市场秩序方式结案。
Meanwhile, Unitalen also fully leveraged its professional expertise and actively cooperated with the court and the plaintiff, successfully facilitating, within a short period, a comprehensive settlement agreement whereby the parties agreed to cease the infringement and compensate for the losses. The case was ultimately closed when Huawei withdrew its lawsuit, successfully and swiftly prohibiting the "counterfeit" earbuds from being sold in the market, and effectively safeguarding Huawei's legitimate rights and interests, as well as market order.
案件意义
Significance of the case
本案的核心意义在于法院从充分保护知识产权角度出发，明确确认“（对于实用艺术作品）权利人有权选择著作权法保护或者外观专利设计保护”的裁判规则，同时法院在综合考虑“FreeClip”耳机产品全球首发时间和被告侵权时间间隔极短、“FreeClip”耳机最热卖时段侵权产品对正品市场的巨大影响等因素基础上，通过及时作出符合比例原则的财产保全裁定，快速有效地遏制了“山寨”耳机的蔓延，牢牢帮权利人守住了首发正品的市场防线和市场份额。
The core significance of this case lies in the fact that the court, from the perspective of fully protecting intellectual property, clearly confirmed the adjudication rule that "(for works of applied art) right holders have the right to choose to seek protection under the Copyright Law or to seek design patent protection". Additionally, based on comprehensively considering factors such as the extremely short interval between the global launch time of "FreeClip" earbuds product and the defendant's infringement time, as well as the vast impact of infringing products on the genuine product market during the best-selling period of "FreeClip" earbuds, the court, by timely making a property preservation ruling that complies with the principle of proportionality, quickly and effectively curbed the spread of the "counterfeit" earbuds, and thus helped the right holder to firmly safeguard the market defense line and market share of the first-launch genuine products.
集佳代理小米公司商标维权案，上海知产法院公开宣判并全额支持3000万诉请
Unitalen Represented Xiaomi in Trademark Protection Case and Secured a Full 30-Million-Yuan Award in Shanghai IP Court's Judgment
日前，上海知识产权法院对小米科技有限责任公司、小米通讯技术有限公司诉潮州某公司等商标侵权及不正当竞争纠纷两案公开宣判。该两起案件均认定了驰名商标并依法适用了惩罚性赔偿，全额支持权利人主张的经济损失，判赔金额分别为3000万元、500万元。
Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court publicly pronounced judgments in two cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes filed by Xiaomi Inc. and Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. against a Chaozhou-based company and others. In both cases, the court recognized the well-known trademarks, applied punitive damages under the law, and fully upheld the rights holders' claims for economic losses, awarding damages of 30 million yuan and 5 million yuan, respectively.
基本案情
Case Brief
小米公司系第8228211号“小米”商标、第8911270号“
”商标的商标权人，上述商标核定使用的商品类别是第9类手提电话等。潮州某公司等在其生产、销售的智能马桶、花洒商品上使用了与涉案权利商标近似的“小米零度”“
”等被诉侵权标识，苏某系第32483813“
”商标的注册人，并授权潮州某公司使用。且潮州某公司在其生产、销售的马桶商品上使用与小米公司“小爱同学”语音唤醒指令高度近似的“小爱小爱”作为语音唤醒及操控指令。
Xiaomi Company is the trademark owner of No. 8228211 trademark "小米" (Xiaomi) and No. 8911270 trademark "
", both of which are designated for use on goods in Class 9 including mobile phones. The Chaozhou-based company and others used the accused infringing marks such as "小米零度"(Xiaomilingdu) and "
" that are similar to the trademarks involved on their smart toilets and shower products produced and sold. SU X is the registrant of No. 32483813 trademark 
and authorized the Chaozhou-based company to use the trademark. Additionally, the Chaozhou-based company used "Xiao Ai Xiao Ai (小爱小爱)" as a voice wake-up and operation command on its toilet products produced and sold, which is highly similar to Xiaomi Company's "Xiao Ai Tong Xue (小爱同学)" voice wake-up command.
集佳律师在接受委托后，深入挖掘各被告多平台的侵权行为，对各被告共同侵权行为进行了详细的法律分析论证。另外，案件审理之初，我们就向法院申请调取了多平台的销售数据，平台提供的数据显示，被告侵权获利极高。
After accepting the commission, the lawyers of Unitalen thoroughly investigated the infringement behaviors of each defendant across multiple platforms. They conducted a detailed legal analysis and argumentation regarding their joint infringement behaviors. Additionally, at the outset of the case hearing, we applied to the court for obtaining sales data from multiple platforms. The data provided by the platforms indicated that the defendants reaped substantial profits from their infringing behaviors.
法院判决
Court Judgment
上海知识产权法院经审理认为，由于小米公司主张权利的注册商标核准使用在第9类手提电话等商品上，而被诉侵权标识使用于第11类智能马桶、花洒商品上，二者属于既不相同也不相类似的商品，故本案有认定驰名商标的必要。且本案被诉侵权行为发生时，涉案权利商标经小米公司使用和宣传已为我国相关公众广为知晓，构成第9类手提电话等商品上的驰名商标。被诉侵权标识容易导致相关公众对商品来源产生误认，或者误认为其来源与小米公司注册商标的商品有特定的联系，潮州某公司和苏某构成商标侵权。小米公司“小爱同学”语音指令具有较高的知名度和影响力，纳入反法六条规定的权益保护范畴，“小爱小爱”语音唤醒和操作指令容易使相关公众误认为相关马桶商品与小米公司可能存在产品研发、技术支持、授权合作等方面的特定联系，或可接入其智能家居服务系统，潮州某公司构成不正当竞争。鉴于潮州某公司、苏某以侵权为业，主观恶意明显，侵权情节严重，故以其侵权获利为计算基数适用两倍的惩罚性赔偿，全额支持原告3000万元的赔偿。
After hearing, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that, since the registered trademarks for right claims by Xiaomi Company were designated for use on goods in Class 9 including mobile phones, while the accused infringing marks were used on goods in Class 11 including smart toilets and shower products, and the goods in the two classes are neither identical nor similar, there is a need for determining whether the trademarks are well-known trademarks. Furthermore, when the accused infringing behaviors in the case occurred, the trademarks involved had been widely known to the relevant public in China through the use and promotion by Xiaomi Company, constituting well-known trademarks for use on goods in Class 9, including mobile phones. The accused infringing marks are likely to cause the relevant public to be misled regarding the source of the goods or to believe that their source is specifically related to the goods with Xiaomi Company's registered trademarks. Therefore, the Chaozhou-based company and SU X constitute trademark infringement. Xiaomi Company's "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" voice command has a high level of popularity and influence, falling within the scope of rights protection under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The "Xiao Ai Xiao Ai" voice wake-up and operation command may mislead the public into believing that there may be specific connections between related toilet products and Xiaomi Company in terms of product research and development, technical support, or authorization and cooperation, or believing that the toilet products can connect to the smart home service system of Xiaomi Company. Therefore, the Chaozhou-based company constitutes unfair competition. Given that the Chaozhou-based company and SU X specialized in infringement with apparent subjective malice and severe infringement circumstances, the court applied double punitive damages calculated based on their profits from infringement and upheld the full 30 million yuan damages claim of the plaintiff.
案件意义
Significance of the case
该两案再次认定“小米”“
”构成驰名商标，有力维护了当事人的合法权益，亦有利于引导市场主体在科技创新过程中恪守诚信原则，良性竞争。上海新闻广播《法眼看天下》栏目、上海广播电视台的《案件聚焦》栏目，均对该案进行了公开的报道和讨论。
In both cases, the courts reaffirmed that "小米"(Xiaomi) and "
" are well-known trademarks, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved. This outcome also encourages market participants to abide by the principle of good faith and engage in fair competition during technological innovation. The cases were publicly reported and discussed in media programs such as Shanghai News Radio's "Legal Perspective on the World" program and Shanghai Media Group's "Case Focus" program.
集佳代理益世界公司诉《动友富翁》换皮游戏侵权案，判赔500万
Unitalen Represented Yishijie Company in a Game Copycat Infringement Case against the Game "Dongyou Monopoly (《动友富翁》)" and Secured 5 Million Yuan Damages
案情回顾
Brief of the Case:
上海益世界信息技术集团有限公司（曾用名：上海益玩网络科技有限公司）成立于2012年，是一家拥有自研、独代、联运、投放与玩家平台的综合性网络游戏公司。《金币大富翁》系益世界公司推出的一款现实题材的Q版2D多人在线模拟经营类手游，游戏上线即获得超高人气，具有极高的知名度。
Shanghai Yishijie Information Technology Group Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shanghai Yiwang Network Technology Co., Ltd.), founded in 2012, is a comprehensive online gaming company specializing in independent research and development, exclusive agency, joint operation, advertising services, and player platforms. "Coin Tycoon (《金币大富翁》)" is a reality-themed, Q-style 2D multiplayer online simulation and management mobile game developed by Yishijie Company. The game gained extremely high popularity and recognition upon its release.
麟贝公司、动友公司、摩多公司共同研发、运营的《动友富翁》游戏，在游戏内容上整体抄袭《金币大富翁》手游的游戏设计，甚至出现《动友富翁》游戏中的bug内容与《金币大富翁》雷同的情况。
The game "Dongyou Monopoly", jointly developed and operated by Linbei Company (麟贝公司), Dongyou Company(动友公司), and Modo Company (摩多公司), plagiarized the overall game design of the mobile game "Coin Tycoon" in terms of game content, with even bug content in "Dongyou Monopoly" mirroring those found in "Coin Tycoon".
两款游戏比对
Comparison of two games
法院认定及案件结果
Court Determination and Case Outcome
法院认为，本案两款游戏属于同一类型的游戏，存在直接的竞争关系。在益世界公司《金币大富翁》游戏正式运营后很短时间内，麟贝公司、动友公司、摩多公司就完成了《动友富翁》游戏的开发、运营，本质上是与益世界公司争夺该类型游戏的商业机会或市场份额。从两款游戏玩法规则的比对情况来看，《动友富翁》游戏实质上就是对《金币大富翁》游戏中的美术素材进行“换皮”后的结果，甚至因为照搬而出现了明显的错误之处，两款游戏给玩家带来的游戏体验基本一致，可以说除了游戏画面中的美术素材不同外，《动友富翁》游戏是对益世界公司《金币大富翁》游戏的“复刻”，该等程度的模仿行为明显超过合理限度且会造成实质性替代的后果，已经超出合理借鉴、自由模仿的界限而属于抄袭的范畴。对《金币大富翁》游戏玩法规则的全面抄袭、仅对其美术素材进行替换，正是麟贝公司、动友公司、摩多公司能够在短短数月内完成开发、运营《动友富翁》游戏的关键。如果按照通常的游戏研发流程，仅玩法设计、数值体系等就需不断试错和优化，麟贝公司、动友公司、摩多公司未必能在短时间内就上线运营《动友富翁》游戏并与益世界公司《金币大富翁》游戏展开市场竞争，不正当地攫取相关市场份额。麟贝公司、动友公司、摩多公司并非凭借自身智力劳动或资金投入来赢得竞争优势，而是通过抄袭手段来直接攫取他人智力成果中关键、核心的个性化商业价值。这种擅自使用他人智力成果、无视他人巨大投资、以牺牲他人诚信经营利益为代价来抢夺商业机会的行为，有悖于诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德，构成不正当竞争，并判令麟贝公司、动友公司、摩多公司共同赔偿益世界公司经济损失及合理支出共计500万元。
The court held that the two games involved in the case belong to the same genre and are in direct competition with each other. Shortly after the official operation of Yishijie Company's game "Coin Tycoon", Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company completed the development and operation of the game "Dongyou Monopoly", essentially competing with Yishijie Company for business opportunities or market share in this game genre. From a comparison of the gameplay rules between the two games, it can be seen that "Dongyou Monopoly" is essentially the result of "reskinning" the art assets from "Coin Tycoon", and even exhibits obvious errors due to direct copying. The two games offer players a similar gaming experience. It can be said that, except for the difference in art assets in the game screens, "Dongyou Monopoly" is a "reproduction" of the game "Coin Tycoon" of Yishijie Company. Such a degree of imitation clearly exceeds reasonable limits, will cause the consequence of substantial substitution, goes beyond the boundary of reasonable reference and free imitation, and falls within the scope of plagiarism. The complete plagiarism of the gameplay rules of "Coin Tycoon" and the mere replacement of the art assets are the keys for Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company to complete the development and operation of the game "Dongyou Monopoly" in just a few months. If following the usual game development process, where even gameplay design and numerical systems require continuous trial and error and optimization, Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company may not have been able to launch and operate the game "Dongyou Monopoly" in a short period and compete with Yishijie Company's game "Coin Tycoon" in the market, improperly seizing relevant market share. Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company did not gain their competitive edge through their own intellectual efforts or capital investment. Instead, they resorted to plagiarism to directly appropriate the key and core personalized commercial value from others' intellectual achievements. The behaviors — using others' intellectual achievements without authorization, disregarding others' huge investments, and seizing business opportunities at the expense of others' honest operations — violate the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, thus constituting unfair competition. The court ordered Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company to jointly compensate Yishijie Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 5 million yuan.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案判决立足于反不正当竞争法、著作权法，在尊重游戏产业商业营运规律的基础上，分析认定游戏玩法规则是否构成不正当竞争的相关要件，规制扰乱游戏市场竞争秩序的行为，维护游戏开发商的合法权益。
The judgment in this case is based on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Copyright Law. By respecting the commercial operation rules of the gaming industry, the court analyzed and determined the relevant elements for whether the gameplay rules constitute unfair competition, regulated behaviors that disrupt the competition order of the gaming market, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of game developers.
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
2金3银！集佳代理18件专利荣获第二十五届中国专利奖
2 gold and 3 silver! 18 Patents Represented by Unitalen Won the 25th China Patent Award
近日，中国国家知识产权局公布第二十五届中国专利奖授奖决定，对在实施创新和推动经济社会发展等方面作出显著贡献的专利权人、发明人（设计人）以及相关组织者给予表彰。其中，集佳代理的18件专利荣登榜单，包括2项中国专利金奖、3项中国专利银奖、11项中国专利优秀奖和2项中国外观设计优秀奖。
Recently, the CNIPA announced the decision on the awarding of the 25th China Patent Award, aiming at giving commendation to patentees, inventors (designers) who have made significant contributions in implementing innovation and promoting economic and social development and relevant organizers, wherein 18 patents represented by Unitalen have made them to the list, including 2 Chinese Patent Gold Awards, 3 Chinese Patent Silver Awards, 11 Chinese Patent Excellence Awards, and 2 Chinese Design Excellence Awards.
Annex: List of Patents Represented by Unitalen Winning the 25th China Patent Award
集佳蝉联“IAM全球专利1000强”（IAM Patent 1000） 李德山、李洋、潘炜3位合伙人荣登杰出个人推荐榜单
Unitalen Selected on "IAM Patent 1000" List, with 3 Partners LI Deshan, LI Yang, and PAN Wei on the Outstanding Individual Recommendations List
近日，国际权威知识产权媒体IAM（Intellectual Asset Management）公布了2025年度“IAM全球专利1000强”（IAM PATENT 1000）评选结果，集佳凭借在专利领域的杰出表现及客户的广泛认可，连续11年入选“专利确权”和“专利诉讼”两大领域的年度推荐事务所榜单。
Recently, the international authoritative intellectual property media IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) announced the selection results of the "IAM Patent 1000" in 2025. With outstanding performance in the patent field and wide recognition from clients, Unitalen has been on the list of the annual recommended firms in the fields of "Patent Prosecution" and "Patent Litigation" for 11 consecutive years.
同时，集佳三位专利代理师以优异成绩入选杰出个人榜单，李德山副所长获评“专利诉讼”和“专利确权”两大领域杰出人物，李洋副所长和潘炜博士获评“专利确权”领域杰出人物。
Meanwhile, three patent attorneys of Unitalen were recognized on the list of outstanding individuals with excellent achievements. Vice president LI Deshan was awarded as an outstanding individual in the fields of "Patent Litigation" and "Patent Prosecution", and vice president LI Yang and Dr. PAN Wei were awarded as outstanding individuals in the field of "Patent Prosecution".
集佳蝉联Asia IP 2025年度中国区多项大奖
Unitalen Honored with Multiple Awards in China Region Selected by Asia IP in 2025
近日，国际权威知识产权媒体《亚洲知识产权》（Asia IP）发布2025年度中国知识产权大奖（2025 China IP Awards）获奖名单，集佳凭借在知识产权领域卓越的专业实力与优秀的行业口碑，再次荣登“商标确权”“专利确权”“专利诉讼”推荐榜单，并蝉联“北京年度事务所”大奖！
Recently, the international authoritative intellectual property media "Asia IP" released the list of winners of the 2025 China IP Awards. With outstanding professional performance and excellent reputation in the field of intellectual property, Unitalen has been listed on the recommendation lists of "Trademark Prosecution", "Patent Prosecution" and "Patent Litigation", and won the award "Regional Firms of the Year (Beijing)"!
集佳再次入选“涉外商标代理机构服务能力Top40榜单”
Unitalen Selected into the "TRADEMARK AGENCY TOP 40 FOR FOREIGN-RELATED"
2025年5月19日（美西时间），在美国圣迭戈会议中心举办的第147届INTA中华商标协会论坛上发布了《中国涉外商标代理机构服务能力数据统计40》，该榜单是在中华商标协会指导下，由《中华商标》杂志社和知产宝联合发布。集佳凭借在涉外商标代理领域的杰出实力与良好口碑，再次荣登TOP40榜单！
On May 19, 2025 (Pacific Time), the TRADEMARK AGENCY TOP 40 FOR FOREIGN-RELATED was released at the 147th INTA Chinese Trademark Association Forum hosted at the San Diego Convention Center in the United States. The list was jointly released by the China Trademark magazine and IPHOUSE under the guidance of China Trademark Association. By virtue of its outstanding performance and excellent reputation in the field of foreign-related trademark agency, Unitalen was selected for the TOP 40 list!
集佳第十八届知识产权论坛成功举办 聚焦人工智能时代的知识产权新格局
The 18th Unitalen IP Forum Successfully Held with Focus on New IP Landscape in the AI Era
2025年5月15-16日，集佳第十八届知识产权论坛——“AI赋能创新：人工智能时代的知识产权新格局”在南京成功举办。本届论坛由北京知识产权研究会、中关村远见知识产权创新研究院主办，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司、北京市集佳律师事务所联合主办。
On May 15 to 16, 2025, the 18th Unitalen IP Forum – "AI Empowered Innovation: New IP Landscape in the AI Era" was successfully held in Nanjing. This Forum was hosted by Beijing Intellectual Property Association and Zhongguancun Vision Intellectual Property Innovation Institute, and jointly hosted by Unitalen Attorneys at Law and Beijing Unitalen Law Office.
本届论坛特别邀请了来自司法界、学术界及企业界的相关领军人物，请他们分享人工智能时代下知识产权保护的宝贵经验和未来展望。100余位行业专家、企业代表齐聚一堂，多维度把脉人工智能时代的知识产权保护新格局，共谋知识产权保护新思路、新途径。
This Forum invited leading figures from judicial circles, academia, and business circles to share their valuable experiences and future perspectives on intellectual property protection in the AI era. Over 100 industry experts and business representatives gathered to conduct a multidimensional analysis of the new landscape for intellectual property protection in the AI era, exploring new ideas and approaches for intellectual property protection.
.jpg)