中华人民共和国最高法发布第四批人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例
The Supreme People's Court of the PRC Released the Fourth Batch of Typical Cases of IPR Judicial Protection in the Seed Industry by People's Courts
为充分发挥典型案例指引作用，加强种业知识产权保护，以高水平司法推动种业创新和高质量发展，为加快推进种业振兴和维护国家粮食安全提供更加有力司法服务和保障，中华人民共和国最高人民法院从全国法院过去一年审结案件中评选出第四批人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例15件，现予发布。
The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China (PRC) released the fourth batch of 15 typical cases of IPR judicial protection in the seed industry by People's Courts, which were selected from the cases concluded by the national courts in the past year, with the purpose to fully leverage the guiding role of typical cases, strengthen IPR protection in the seed industry, promote innovation and high-quality development of the seed industry through high-level judicature, and provide more powerful judicial services and guarantees to accelerate revitalization of the seed industry and maintain China's food security.
附：中华人民共和国最高法发布第四批人民法院种业知识产权司法保护典型案例（附裁判文书）
Attachment: The Supreme People's Court of the PRC Released the Fourth Batch of Typical Cases of IPR Judicial Protection in the Seed Industry by People's Courts (with the judgment documents attached)
（来源：中华人民共和国最高人民法院新闻局）
(Source: The General Office of the Supreme People's Court of the PRC)
尼斯分类NCL12-2024文本中日韩商品和服务类似群
Publication of China-Japan-Korea Similar Groups of Goods and Services under the Nice Classification NCL12-2024
根据中日韩商标领域合作安排，为进一步便利申请人，现发布尼斯分类NCL12-2024文本中日韩商品和服务类似群编码对照表。
In accordance with the cooperation arrangement of China, Japan, and Korea in the trademark field, in order to further facilitate the applicants, the comparison table of codes for China-Japan-Korea similar groups of goods and services under the Nice Classification NCL12-2024 is hereby published.
Attachment: Publication of China-Japan-Korea Similar Groups of Goods and Services Under the Nice Classification NCL12-2024
（来源：中国国家知识产权局商标局网站）
(Source: website of the Trademark Office of the CNIPA)
世界知识产权组织公布2023年全球知识产权申报统计数据 中国是国际专利申请最大来源国
The WIPO Released Statistics Data on Global Intellectual Property Applications in 2023: China is the Top Origin of International Patent Applications
近日，世界知识产权组织公布2023年全球知识产权申报统计数据。数据显示，2023年，全球PCT（《专利合作条约》）国际专利申请总量为27.26万件，同比下降1.8%，中国申请量为69610件，仍是申请量最大的来源国。美国以55678件申请量位居全球第二，日本、韩国和德国紧随其后。
Recently, the WIPO released the statistics data on global intellectual property applications in 2023. The data shows that in 2023, the number of PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) international patent applications worldwide amounted to 272,600, decreasing 1.8% from the previous year. China continued to be the top origin with the largest application volume of 69,610. The United States ranked second in the world with an application volume of 55,678, closely followed by Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Germany.
申请人方面，中国华为技术有限公司以6494件PCT国际专利申请量位居全球榜首，韩国三星电子位居第二，紧随其后的是美国高通公司、日本三菱电机和中国京东方科技。在前10位申请人中，中国宁德时代增长最快，2023年公布的申请量增加了1533件，排名上升84位至第八位。
In terms of applicants, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. of China ranked first in the world with 6,494 PCT international patent applications, and Samsung Electronics of Korea ranked second, closely followed by Qualcomm of the United States, Mitsubishi Electric of Japan, and BOE Technology of China. Among the top 10 applicants, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. of China marked the fastest growth in volume, with an increase of 1,533 applications published in 2023, ranking from 84th to 8th.
在教育领域，美国加利福尼亚大学仍是最大的申请人，中国苏州大学位居第二，其次分别是美国得克萨斯大学系统、中国清华大学和美国斯坦福大学。在排名前5位的教育机构中，中国清华大学的增幅最大。
In the field of education, the University of California of the United States was still the largest applicant with the highest volume, with Soochow University of China ranking second. The University of Texas system of the United States, Tsinghua University of China, and Stanford University of the United States followed. Among the top five educational institutions, Tsinghua University had the greatest growth rate.
在已公布的PCT国际专利申请中，计算机技术占比最大，为10.2%，其次是数字通信、电气机械、医疗技术和制药。这5个领域的申请量约占2023年已公布PCT申请总量的2/5。
Among the published PCT international patent applications, computer technology accounted for the largest proportion at 10.2%, followed by digital communication, electrical machinery, medical technology, and pharmaceuticals. The application volume in the five fields accounted for about 2/5 of the total published PCT applications in 2023.
(来源：人民日报海外版)
(Source: People's Daily Overseas Edition)
Typical Cases:
集佳协助客户跨类维权欧盟抢注商标，异议复审获驰名认定
Unitalen Assisted the Client in Cross-Class Right Protection Against a Registered Trademark in the EU, with Well-known Trademark Recognition obtained in the Opposition Review
基本案情
Case Brief
2021年，某知名互联网公司监测到其第9类商标在欧盟遭遇第28类抢注，指定商品为“玩具”等。
In 2021, a famous internet company discovered that its trademark of Class 9 was registered preemptively in Class 28 in the EU, and the designated goods was "toys", etc.
针对上述商标，某知名互联网公司委托集佳对其提起异议申请。在异议案件中，我方主张基于欧盟《商标法》第8(1)(b)条混淆误认条款和第8(5)条驰名商标条款，申请商标与异议人在第9类商品和第41类服务上的在先相同商标构成相同或类似服务上的近似商标，容易导致消费者的混淆误认；且其申请注册系不合理利用异议人在先商标的声誉，不应予以核准注册。
For the above trademark, the famous internet company entrusted Unitalen to file an opposition application. In the opposition case, we advocated that based on the confusion and misidentification clause of Article 8 (1) (b) and the well-known trademark clause of Article 8 (5) of the EU Trademark Law, the trademark applied for and the opposer’s prior identical trademark on goods of Class 9 and services of Class 41 constituted similar trademarks on the same or similar services, which could easily lead to confusion and misunderstanding of consumers; and the application for its registration involved improper use of the reputation of the opposer’s prior trademark, and should not be approved.
经审理，欧盟知识产权局对前述异议理由未予支持。随后，集佳受客户委托，提交异议复审申请。在异议复审申请中，集佳律师与外所律师多次沟通，通过检索在先案例，搜集和整理欧盟使用证据，提供多家同类行业[a1] 同时经营第9;41类与第28类的商标申请注册档案和使用信息等，以主张第9;41类相关软件、服务与第28类玩具具有强关联性，并补充了大量欧盟使用证据以证明所享有的声誉。
After review, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) did not support the aforementioned opposition reasons. Subsequently, Unitalen was commissioned by the client to submit an opposition review application. In the opposition review application, Unitalen lawyers communicated multiple times with the lawyers of the foreign firm and asserted the strong correlation between related software and services of Class 9; 41 and toys of Class 28 by searching for prior cases, collecting and sorting evidence of use in the EU, and providing trademark application registration files and use information of multiple companies in the same industry [a2] operating Class 9; 41 and Class 28 simultaneously, and added a large amount of evidence of use in the EU to prove the enjoyed reputation.
经复审审理，欧盟知识产权局评审委员会认定第28类“玩具”等商品与第9类相关商品构成低程度类似。同时，结合复审中补充提交的证据，审查员认为该客户商标已积累较高声誉，被异议商标的申请构成不正当攀附在先商标声誉的搭便车行为，故所有指定商品不予核准注册，并裁定由被异议人承担异议合理费用。
After a review examination, the Review and Adjudication Board of the EUIPO determined that goods of "toys" and the like in Class 28 and related goods in Class 9 constituted a low degree of similarity. At the same time, in combination with the supplementary evidence submitted in the review, the Examiner believed that the client's trademark had accumulated a relatively high reputation, and the application for the disputed trademark constituted an improper free-riding behavior of attaching to the reputation of the prior trademark. Therefore, none of the designated goods was allowed, and it was ruled that the opposed party bore the reasonable cost of the opposition.
案件评析
Case Analysis
本案经异议和异议复审，最终协助客户成功跨类异议第28类欧盟抢注商标。
After opposition and opposition review, Unitalen ultimately assisted the client with successful cross-class opposition to the registered trademark of Class 28 in the EU.
本案难点之一在于商品关联性有限，跨类保护难。欧盟知识产权局在判断商品类似时，并没有中国大陆的类似群组划分，主要依据商品的功能、用途、目标群体、消费渠道、相关公众的注意义务等，同时会参考既有的在先案例。
One of the difficulties in the case lies in the limited relevance of goods and the difficulty of cross-class protection. When determining the similarity of goods, the EUIPO, without such divisions as the similar groups in mainland China, mainly depends on the function, use, target groups, consumption channels, and the duty of attention of the relevant public of the goods. At the same time, it will refer to the prior cases.
经检索，欧盟在先案例仅认定第9类件与第28类“游戏器具”构成类似，但与第28类“玩具”，在先案例均认定不构成类似。基于前述不利因素，集佳团队与外所律师协同办案，积极搜集和整理有利的案例、证据以及同行业情况，成功说服审查员跨类支持了商品类似的主张，进而在部分商品上支持了第8(1)(b)条混淆误认条款。
After searching, in the EU's prior cases, Class 9 was only determined to constitute a similarity with "gaming equipment" in Class 28, but not constitute a similarity with "toys" in Class 28. Based on the aforementioned unfavorable factors, the Unitalen team collaborated with the lawyers of the foreign firm to handle the case and actively collected and sorted favorable cases, evidence, and situations in the same industry. As a result, we successfully convinced the Examiner to support the assertion of similarity of cross-class goods and then support the confusion and misidentification clause in Article 8 (1) (b) on some of the goods.
本案难点之二在于驰名证据收集。欧盟《商标法》第8(5)条驰名商标条款的适用，需要满足以下条件：(i)在先注册商标必须在相关地区享有声誉；(ii)有争议的申请必须与在先商标相同或相似；(iii)所申请标志的使用必须能够获得不公平的优势，或者损害在先标志的声誉或显着性；(iv)此类使用必须无正当理由。
The second difficulty in the case lies in the collection of evidence for the well-known trademark. The application of the well-known trademark clause of Article 8 (5) of the EU Trademark Law requires to meet the following conditions: (i) a previously registered trademark must have a reputation in the relevant region; (ii) the disputed application must be identical or similar to the prior trademark; (iii) the use of the mark applied for must be able to obtain an unfair advantage, or damage the reputation or distinctiveness of the prior mark; and (iv) such use must lack justified reasons.
本案中，异议人商品在欧盟上线时间仅比被异议商标的申请日早9个月，尚不足一年。在异议复审阶段，集佳协助客户补充收集大量使用证据，同时通过对同类行业相关市场进行论证，主张被异议商标无正当理由，不公平地利用在先商标的显著性及声誉，从在先商标的吸引力（the power of attraction）、声誉（the reputation）和声望（the prestige）中获益，构成“寄生（parasitism）”“搭便车（free-riding）”行为。最终成功在第9类“计算机软件（已录制）”等商品上认定驰名，从而成功异议第28类不构成类似的商品项目。
In this case, the opposer’s products were launched in the EU only 9 months earlier than the application date of the disputed trademark, less than a year. During the opposition review stage, Unitalen assisted the client in collecting and adding a large amount of use evidence. At the same time, through argumentation of relevant markets in the same industry, Unitalen advocated that the disputed trademark unfairly utilized the distinctiveness and reputation of the prior trademark without justified reasons and benefited from the power of attraction, the reputation, and the prestige of the prior trademark, constituting a "parasitism" and "free-riding" behavior. Finally, the prior trademark was successfully recognized as a well-known trademark on "computer software (recorded)" and the like in Class 9, and thus the goods in Class 28 not constituting a similarity were successfully opposed.
本案对企业跨类打击海外商标抢注，以及如何在商标使用时间较短的情况下，通过收集使用证据主张驰名商标条款，具有借鉴和参考意义。
The case has referential significance for enterprises regarding how to crack down on overseas trademark registration in a cross-class manner and how to assert the well-known trademark clause by collecting use evidence in the case where the trademark is used in a relatively short time.
“卡波”技术秘密侵权案
A Case of Infringement on Technical Secrets of "Carbomer"
基本案情
Case Brief
广州天某高新材料公司、九江天某高新材料公司系生产免洗消毒洗手液原料“卡波”的技术秘密权利人。华某于2012至2013年在广州天某高新材料公司工作期间，多次违反公司管理制度将卡波生产工艺有关技术资料从办公电脑拷贝到外部存储介质中，并利用其卡波产品研发负责人的身份，向广州天某高新材料公司的子公司九江天某高新材料公司生产车间主任李某生索要到卡波生产工艺技术相关设备图纸。华某先后将其非法获取的卡波生产工艺相关图纸、文件发送给安徽纽某精细化工公司法定代表人刘某及朱某良、胡某春等人，并组织研究改进，后由胡某春修改了设计图纸并采购了相关设备，最终由安徽纽某精细化工公司生产卡波产品并向国内外销售。一审法院认为，安徽纽某精细化工公司、华某、刘某、朱某良、胡某春侵害了广州天某高新材料公司、九江天某高新材料公司的技术秘密，判决停止侵害并按照侵权获利的2.5倍确定赔偿数额，判令安徽纽某精细化工公司赔偿经济损失3000万元，华某、刘某、朱某良、胡某春承担部分连带责任。广州天某高新材料公司、安徽纽某精细化工公司等提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，一审判决认定安徽纽某精细化工公司、华某、刘某、朱某良、胡某春侵害技术秘密并无不当；但侵权获利数额认定中未考虑被侵害的技术秘密对于产品利润的贡献度，故在确定该贡献度为50%的情况下认定有关侵权获利为600万元；考虑到安徽纽某精细化工公司本身以侵权为业，且在其前法定代表人因涉侵害涉案技术秘密的刑事犯罪被判处刑罚后仍持续生产，并销售至20余个国家和地区，足见侵权故意之显著、侵权情节之严重，故将惩罚性赔偿倍数提高至法定最高倍数；鉴于刘某作为安徽纽某精细化工公司的前法定代表人在侵权过程中作用明显，改判其对全案赔偿承担连带责任。最高人民法院最终改判以侵权获利5倍计算赔偿数额，由安徽纽某精细化工公司赔偿广州天某高新材料公司、九江天某高新材料公司经济损失3000万元及维权合理开支40万元，刘某、华某、朱某良、胡某春对前述赔偿数额分别在3000万元、500万元、100万元、100万元范围内承担连带责任。
Guangzhou Tian X High-Tech Material Company (Guangzhou Tian X company) and Jiujiang Tian X High-Tech Material Company (Jiujiang Tian X company) are the right holders of the technical secrets for the production of the raw material "Carbomer" for hand sanitizers. HUA X, from 2012 to 2013 during his tenure in Guangzhou Tian X company, repeatedly violated the company's management system and copied technical information related to the Carbomer production process from his office computer to the external storage medium, and took advantage of his identity as the person in charge of Carbomer production development to request drawings of equipment related to Carbomer production process technology from LI X Sheng, the production department director of Jiujiang Tian X company, a subsidiary of Guangzhou Tian X company. HUA X sent the illegally obtained drawings and documents related to the Carbomer production process to LIU X, the legal representative of Anhui NIU X Fine Chemical Company (Anhui NIU X company), ZHU X Liang, HU X Chun and others, and organized research and improvement. Later, HU X Chun amended the design drawings and purchased the related equipment. Finally, Anhui NIU X company produced Carbomer products and sold them at home and abroad. The court of first instance held that Anhui NIU X company, HUA X, LIU X, ZHU X Liang, and HU X Chun infringed on the technical secrets of Guangzhou Tian X company and Jiujiang Tian X company. The court ordered the infringers to stop infringement and determined the amount of damages based on 2.5 times the infringement profits. The court ordered that Anhui NIU X company compensated for an economic loss of 30 million Yuan, and HUA X, LIU X, ZHU X Liang, and HU X Chun assumed partial joint and several liabilities. Guangzhou Tian X company and Anhui NIU X company filed appeals. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that the determination in the first instance judgment that Anhui NIU X company, HUA X, LIU X, ZHU X Liang and HU X Chun infringed the technical secrets was proper, while the contribution degree of the infringed technical secrets to product profits was not taken into account in the determination of the amount of infringement profits. Therefore, in the case that the contribution degree was determined to be 50%, the relevant infringement profits were determined to be 6 million Yuan. Considering that Anhui NIU X company itself engaged in infringement as its business and continued with its production and sales to more than 20 countries and regions after its former legal representative was sentenced to criminal punishment for infringing on the involved technical secrets, fully showing evident infringement intention and serious infringement circumstances; therefore, the multiple of punitive damages was increased to the statutory maximum multiple. Considering that LIU X, as the former legal representative of Anhui NIU X company, played a key role in the infringement, LIU X was judged to bore joint and several liability for the full damages of the case. The Supreme People's Court ultimately made the judgment that the amount of damages was calculated based on 5 times the infringement profits, and Anhui NIU X company compensated Guangzhou Tian X company and Jiujiang Tian X company for an economic loss of 30 million Yuan and the reasonable expenses for right protection of 400 thousand Yuan, and LIU X, HUA X, ZHU X Liang, and HU X Chun bore joint and several liability for the aforementioned amount of damages within the range of 30 million Yuan, 5 million Yuan, 1 million Yuan, and 1 million Yuan, respectively.
典型意义
Case Significance
该案系最高人民法院判决的首例依法适用惩罚性赔偿的侵害知识产权案件，探索了侵权情节严重程度与惩罚性赔偿倍数之间的对应关系，充分发挥了惩罚性赔偿制度在有效保护权利人、威慑遏制侵权行为发生、警示潜在侵权人等方面的作用，对于推动知识产权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度的落实落细、加大知识产权保护力度、鼓励民营企业创新发展、激发社会创新活力具有积极意义。该案为最高人民法院指导性案例，入选最高人民法院发布的“人民法院充分发挥审判职能作用保护产权和企业家合法权益典型案例（第三批）”和“侵害知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿典型案例”。
The case is the first intellectual property infringement case ruled by the Supreme People's Court by applying the punitive damages in accordance with the law. The case explores the corresponding relationship between the severity of infringement circumstances and the multiple of punitive damages, and gives full play of the punitive damages system in effectively protecting right holders, deterring and curbing infringement behaviors, and warning potential infringers. The case has a positive significance in promoting the implementation of the punitive damages system in intellectual property infringement, enhancing intellectual property protection efforts, encouraging private enterprises to innovate and develop, and stimulating social innovation vitality. The case is a guiding case of the Supreme People's Court and has been selected into the "Typical Cases of the People's Courts Fully Utilizing Functions of Trial Roles to Protect Property Rights and the Lawful Rights and Interests of Entrepreneurs (Third Group)" and the "Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement Civil Cases to Which the Punitive Damages Apply" published by the Supreme People's Court.
（来源：中华人民共和国最高人民法院新闻局）
(Source: The General Office of the Supreme People's Court of the PRC)
集佳新闻：
集佳律所入选“2023年度律新社精品品牌律所30佳”
Unitalen Law Office Selected into the "Top 30 Excellent Brand Law Firms of Legal Vision in 2023"
2024年3月2日，由中国法学交流基金会指导、律新社主办的“致•追光者”第二届法律服务业品牌发展论坛暨律新社2023年度品牌盛典隆重举行，现场发布了备受关注的《律所卓越品牌影响力指南（2023）》，北京市集佳律师事务所凭借在知识产权领域的卓越实力和良好口碑，荣登“2023年度律新社精品品牌律所30佳”榜单。
On March 2, 2024, the Second Legal Service Industry Brand Development Forum and Legal Vision 2023 Brand Festival themed "To THE LIGHT CHASER" was grandly held. This event was guided by the China Legal Exchange Foundation and hosted by Legal Vision. The highly anticipated "Brands Guide to Law Firms of Excellence (2023)" was released on site. Unitalen Law Firm, with its outstanding strength and good reputation in the field of intellectual property, was honored as one of the "Top 30 Excellent Brand Law Firms of Legal Vision in 2023".
集佳获评2023年AAAAA级专利代理机构
Unitalen Ranked as an AAAAA Level Patent Agency in 2023
近日，北京市专利代理师协会发布2023年专利代理机构等级评定结果，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司凭借稳健的综合实力获得各界肯定，再次获评最高等级——AAAAA级专利代理机构。
Recently, the Beijing Patent Attorneys Association released the 2023 patent agency rating results. Unitalen Attorneys at Law was recognized by all sectors for its stable comprehensive strength and was once again awarded the highest level, the AAAAA Patent Agency.
.jpg)