2024年AIPPI世界知识产权大会在杭州举办
2024 AIPPI World Congress Set to Take Place in Hangzhou
10月19日至22日，2024年国际保护知识产权协会（AIPPI）世界知识产权大会在浙江杭州举办。大会主题是“知识产权的平衡保护与创新发展”。
From October 19 to 22, the 2024 International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) World Congress is set to take place in Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province. The conference is themed "Balancing Protection and Innovative Development of Intellectual Property."
大会突出亮点可以概括为“三多”：
The highlights of the conference can be summarised in the following "three lots of":
一是参会代表数量多。大会注册参会总人数达到2259人，是欧洲之外举办大会注册参会人数最多的一次。参会人员来自92个国家和地区，其中境外（包括中国港澳台地区）注册参会人员超过1500人。参会人员的国别和地区数量创AIPPI历次大会的历史新高，体现了广泛的代表性。
Firstly, there are a lot of delegates participating in the conference. The total number of registered participants for the conferecne reached 2,259, marking a record high for attendance of the conference held outside Europe. Participants come from 92 countries and regions, of which more than 1,500 are registered outside mainland China (including regions of Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, China). The number of countries and regions represented by the participants has reached an all-time high in the history of the AIPPI conference, showcasing a broad level of representation.
二是大会活动形式多。大会组织30多场研讨、论坛、午餐会等学术活动。大会议题涵盖知识产权各个领域，包括专利、商标、著作权、外观设计等。
Secondly, there are a lot of diverse activities featured at the conference. Over 30 academic events, such as seminars, forums, and luncheons, are organized in the conference. The conference topics will cover various fields of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and designs.
三是中国元素多。从参会代表看，700多位来自中国的知识产权人士注册参会，其中14位来自中国国家知识产权局、法院、企业和知识产权服务机构的嘉宾参与相关议题讨论，中方参与度之高也前所未有。
Thirdly, there are a lot of Chinese elements. In terms of delegates participating in the conference, over 700 intellectual property professionals from China registered for the conference. Among them, 14 guests from the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), courts, enterprises, and IP service organizations will participate in discussions on related topics, marking an unprecedented level of Chinese participation.
（来源：中国保护知识产权网）
(Source: http://ipr.mofcom.gov.cn/index.shtml)
中国台湾公布专利法部分修正草案
Taiwan, China Published a Draft Amendment to Certain Provisions of the Patent Act
2024年9月11日，中国台湾地区智慧财产局公布了专利法部分条款的修正草案，并自该草案公布之日起60内征询公众意见，以便应对新兴电子产业蓬勃发展。
On September 11, 2024, Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) of China announced a draft amendment to certain provisions of the Patent Act and solicited public opinions within 60 days from the date of the announcement of the draft in order to address the booming development of emerging electronics industries.
为了适应国际外观设计的保护趋势，本次修订内容主要是与外观设计专利部分相关，重点内容如下：
In order to adapt to trends in international design protection, the main focus of this amendment is related to the portion concerning patents for design. The key points are listed as follows:
1. 放宽图像设计须应用于“物品”的限制，扩大以电脑程序或其他电子技术产生的图像为外观设计专利的保护主题。明确此类外观设计专利的侵权实施行为，并制定相关申请、修改等程序（见修正案第121款、第124款和第136款）；
1. The restriction that image designs must be applied to an "article" is relaxed, and the scope of subject matter for patents for design is expanded to include images generated by computer programs or other electronic technologies. The acts of infringement on such patents for design are clarified, and relevant procedures for application, amendment, etc., are established (see Articles 121, 124, and 136 of the Amendment);
2. 引入多项外观设计制度，允许申请人有2项以上相似设计时在同一申请中提交，仍保留原衍生外观设计制度。若申请人在1件申请中包括多项相似设计时，应指明某1项设计为原设计（见修正案第127款、第129款、第139款、第140款和第141之一款）；
2. A multiple design system is introduced, allowing applicants to submit two or more similar designs in the same application while retaining the original derivative design system. If an applicant has multiple similar designs in one application, he/she shall specify one of the designs as the original one (see Articles 127, 129, 139, 140, and 141-1 of the Amendment);
3. 放宽外观设计专利的不丧失新颖性的宽限期，由6个月延长至12个月，但是专利公报上的公开不适用该宽限（见修正案第122款和第142款）；
3. The grace period for maintaining novelty of a patent for design is extended from 6 months to 12 months, but this extension does not apply to the publication in a patent gazette (see Articles 122 and 142 of the Amendment);
4. 放宽提分案的期限，由现行的原申请案再审查审结前就必须提出分案申请，放宽至于原申请案或再审查核准审定书送达后的3个月内都可以提出分案申请（见修正案第130款、第134款和第141款）；
4. The time limit for filing divisional applications is relaxed. Currently, divisional applications must be filed before the reexamination of the original application is closed. The new rule allows divisional applications to be filed within 3 months after the date on which an approval decision for the original application or reexamination is served (see Articles 130, 134, and 141 of the Amendment);
5. 明确专利权属纠纷应提起民事诉讼，由法院裁决，删除以权属纠纷为举发理由的相关条款（见修正案第10款、第35款、第59款、第69款、第71款、第119款、第140款和第141款）；
5. It is clarified that patent ownership disputes shall be resolved through civil litigation and adjudicated by the courts. Relevant provisions that allowed ownership disputes to be raised as grounds for invalidation have been removed (see Articles 10, 35, 59, 69, 71, 119, 140, and 141 of the Amendment).
6.明确过渡条款（见修正案第157之五款）。
6. Transitional provisions are specified (see Article 157-5 of the Amendment)
（来源：集佳知识产权）
(Source: Unitalen)
中国台湾专利再审查加速程序于2024年9月1日启动
AEPRe of Taiwan, China Hits the Road on September 1, 2024
2024年8月29日，中国台湾地区智慧财产局公布了发明专利申请再审查加速审查程序（AEPRe）将于2024年9月1日启动。
On August 29, 2024, the TIPO of China announced that the Accelerated Examination Program for Re-examination (AEPRe) of patent applications for invention will begin on September 1, 2024.
根据统计，2023年中国台湾地区发明专利再审查数量为6,538件，首次OA平均下发周期为10.1个月，平均审结周期为13.1个月。根据中国台湾地区智慧财产局的评估，通过AEPRe程序，申请人有望在2至3个月内就收到审查结果。
According to statistics, in 2023, the number of re-examinations of patents for invention in Taiwan, China, was 6,538, the average issuance period for the first Office Action (OA) was 10.1 months, and the average closing period was 13.1 months. According to the assessment of the TIPO of China, through the AEPRe, applicants can expect to receive examination results within 2 to 3 months.
申请AEPRe程序，需要满足以下条件：
To apply for the AEPRe, the following requirements need to be met:
1.案件适合要求：发明专利申请的再审查案，且初审核驳审定理由为“仅核驳部分权项、部分权项未核”；
1. Requirement for eligibility of the case：re-examination of the patent applications for invention where the reason for the rejection decision of the preliminary examination is "only some of the claims are rejected";
2. 申请时间要求：申请人应于“即将进行再审查函”此类通知书送达之日起至“第一次再审查审查意见通知函”此类通知书送达之前，提出AEPRe请求，该请求可在线提交；
2. Requirement for the filing time: the applicant shall file an AEPRe request, which may be submitted online, within the period from "notified by TIPO that the invention application will soon be undergoing Reexamination" to "received first Reexamination OA"; and
3. 修改方案适用情况：申请人提交请求时应根据中国台湾专利法第49款的规定提出修改，且全部修改内容应符合以下情况：
3. Application of the eligible claim amendments: applicants shall make amendments according to Article 49 of the Patent Act of Taiwan, China, when submitting the request, and all of the amendments should conform with the following circumstances:
a. 删除具有不准予专利事由的权项；
a. Delete claims that have grounds for rejection in the rejection decision of the preliminary examination; and
b. 将初审核驳审定理由无不准专利事由的权项，改为独立权项。
b. Re-write the claims that are not rejected in the rejection decision of the preliminary examination to independent claims.
前述修改内容，应同时调整权项编号、从属关系以及新增的从属权项。
The foregoing amendments shall be accompanied by adjustments in the numbering of the claims, the reference relationships, and the addition of new dependent claims.
（来源：集佳知识产权）
(Source: Unitalen)
典型案例：
集佳助力客户打击泰国抢注，跨类异议成功！
Unitalen Successfully Assisted a Client in Opposing Trademark Squatting in Thailand with Cross-Class Opposition
基本案情
Case Brief
2022年10月，集佳在商标监测时发现第05；10类泰国商标“
”初审公告，指定商品“性交用润滑剂；避孕套”，但疑似抢注国内某知名手游外设公司的商标。在我方报告监测情况后，国内权利人决定对该抢注商标提起异议。
In October 2022, during the trademark monitoring, Unitalen noticed the preliminary examination announcement of a Thailand's trademark "" in Classes 05 and 10, with designated goods including "sexual lubricants; condoms." However, it was suspected to be a case of trademark squatting targeting a well-known domestic company specializing in mobile game peripherals. Upon our report on the monitored situation, the domestic right holder decided to file an opposition against the squatted trademark.
国内权利人委案后，我方立即为其制定异议策略。本案因异议人无泰国在先商标权利，且抢注商标类别与异议人主营及国内已注册在先商标类别完全不同，商品关联度亦较低。因此在策略上，我方建议可援引泰国《商标法》第8（9）条“申请商标违反公序良俗，不应予以注册”，以及第8（10）条“若申请商标与驰名商标相同或构成近似，从而使公众可能会对商品来源产生混淆的，不应予以注册”为由，提起异议申请。
After the domestic right holder entrusted the case to us, we immediately formulated an opposition strategy for the right holder. In this case, since the opponent had no prior trademark rights in Thailand, the classes of the squatted trademark were utterly different from those of the opponent's main business and its domestically registered prior trademarks, and the product relevance was also low, in terms of the strategy, we suggested citing Article 8(9), which stipulates that "any mark which is contrary to public order, morality or public policy shall not be registrable" and Article 8(10), which stipulates that "a mark, which is identical with a well-known mark or so similar thereto that the public might be confused as to the origin of the goods shall not be registrable" of Thailand's Trademark Act as grounds for filing the opposition application.
围绕前述异议条款，我方重点提交异议人与其泰国经销商签订的分销协议及授权书、泰国电商网站销售证据、在泰国参展的照片、泰国视频网站宣传证据等在先使用证据，结合国内外在先商标注册证明、公司及品牌介绍等，主张异议人为商标真正所有人，且其商标具有较高知名度。同时，申请商标“”系完全由异议人商标图形部分“
”和文字部分“
”“
”组合而成，非偶然申请。被异议人亦抢注其他中国主体商标的事实，表明其恶意明显。
Based on the aforementioned opposition clauses, we mainly submitted evidence of prior use, including distribution agreements and Letter of Authorization signed between the opponent and its distributor in Thailand, sales evidence from Thailand's e-commerce websites, photographs of exhibitions in Thailand, and promotional evidence from Thailand's video websites. In combination with certificates of domestic and overseas prior trademark registrations, company and brand introductions, etc., we claimed that the opponent is the true holder of the trademark and that its trademark has a high degree of popularity. At the same time, the trademark "" filed is entirely composed of the combination of the device portion "" and the textual portions "" and "" of the opponent's trademark, indicating that the application is not made by chance. The fact that the opposed party also squatted on trademarks of other Chinese entities further demonstrates its apparent malice.
2023年2月，被异议人提交了异议答辩，审查员经审理，依据泰国《商标法》第8（9）条，支持了我方的异议主张。在异议决定中，审查员认定双方商标标识构成近似。同时，异议人提交的证据材料，可以证明异议人早在2018年便已在中国及海外其他国家注册并使用涉案标识，为涉案标识的真正权利人。而被异议人迟至2022年申请，且在答辩中未提供任何证据证明其商标使用早于异议人。基于以上，审查员认为被异议人在知晓异议人商标的情况下，恶意模仿并抢注异议人的商标，违反了公序良俗，故决定争议商标不予注册。
In February 2023, the opposed party submitted a defense to the opposition. After examination, the Examiner upheld our opposition claims under Section 8(9) of the Trademark Act of Thailand. In the decision on opposition, the Examiner determined that the trademark marks of both parties were similar. Meanwhile, the evidence submitted by the opponent could demonstrate that the opponent already registered and used the mark involved in China and other overseas countries as early as 2018, establishing that the opponent is the actual right holder of the mark involved. The opposed party, on the other hand, applied for the mark as late as 2022 and did not provide any evidence in its defense to prove that its use of the trademark preceded that of the opponent. Based on the above, the Examiner concluded that the opposed party maliciously imitated and squatted on the opponent's trademark with knowledge of the opponent's trademark, violating public order, morality, or public policy. Therefore, the Examiner decided that the trademark in dispute shall not be registered.
律师点评
Attorney's Comments
本案系在无泰国在先商标的情况下，通过主张违反公序良俗条款，成功在关联度较低的商品上跨类异议成功的典型案件。
This case is a typical example of a successful cross-class opposition on goods with low relevance, achieved by claiming a violation of the public order, morality or public policy clause, despite the absence of prior trademark in Thailand.
“施耐德”仿冒混淆纠纷案——对侵权获利巨大的恶意侵权行为赔偿数额的确定
"Schneider" Counterfeiting and Confusion Dispute Case—Determination of the Amount of Compensation for Malicious Infringement with Huge Profits
基本案情
Case Brief
施某德电气欧洲公司（以下简称施某德欧洲公司）将核定使用在第9类断路器、电开关等商品上的“
”“施耐德”注册商标许可给其投资的施某德电气（中国）有限公司（以下简称施某德中国公司）使用。施某德中国公司在全国各地投资有多个电气生产企业，且多以“施耐德”作为企业字号。“
”“施耐德”等系列商标在电气行业和市场上具有较高的市场知名度。施某德中国公司认为，苏州施某德电梯有限公司（以下简称苏州施某德公司）突出使用“施耐德”“SCHNEiDER”标识的行为构成商标侵权，登记含有“施耐德”字号的企业名称，并使用与“
”商标核心要素“Schneider electric”近似域名的行为构成不正当竞争，遂诉至法院，请求判令苏州施某德公司停止侵权、变更企业名称、赔偿损失、消除影响。苏州施某德公司辩称，被诉标识的使用经境外公司授权，不存在攀附涉案商标商誉的主观过错。一审法院经审理认为，被诉行为构成商标侵权及不正当竞争，判决苏州施某德公司立即停止被诉行为；办理企业名称变更手续；赔偿损失4000万元及合理开支15万元；刊登声明，消除影响。江苏省高级人民法院二审认为，苏州施某德公司明知涉案商标及涉案字号的知名度，通过与境外公司签订品牌使用协议以获取与涉案商标近似标识的授权，目的在于攀附涉案商标的商誉，一审判决对商标侵权及不正当竞争行为的认定正确。综合考虑涉案商标的知名度及市场价值、苏州施某德公司的主观恶意、侵权行为的时间及规模等因素，一审判决确定的4000万元赔偿数额，并无不当。江苏省高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
Schneider Electric Europe (hereinafter referred to as Schneider Europe) licensed the registered trademarks "
" and "施耐德 (Schneider)" approved for use on Class 9 circuit breakers, electric switches and other products to Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Schneider China) in which it invested. Schneider China has invested in multiple electrical production enterprises across the country, and most use "施耐德 (Schneider)" as their corporate name. The "
", "施耐德 (Schneider)" and other series of trademarks have a high market reputation in the electrical industry and the market. Schneider China believes that the prominent use of the "施耐德（Schneider）" and "SCHNEiDER" marks of Suzhou Schneider Elevator Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Suzhou Schneider) constitutes trademark infringement, and its registration of a corporate name containing the "施耐德 (Schneider)" name and use of a domain name similar to the core element "Schneider electric" of the "
" trademark constitutes unfair competition, so it filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that Suzhou Schneider stop the infringement, change the corporate name, compensate for losses, and eliminate the impact. Suzhou Schneider argued that the use of the mark involved was authorized by an overseas company, and there was no intent to freeride on the goodwill of the trademark. After trial, the court of the first instance held that the alleged behavior constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition and ordered Suzhou Schneider to immediately stop the alleged behavior, handle the procedures for changing the corporate name, compensate for losses of 40 million RMB and reasonable expenses of 150,000 RMB, and publish a statement to eliminate the impact. The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province held in the second instance that Suzhou Schneider was aware of the popularity of the trademark and the mark involved in the case, and signed a brand use agreement with an overseas company to obtain authorization for a mark similar to the trademark involved in order to freeride on the goodwill of the trademark involved. The first instance judgment was correct in its determination of trademark infringement and unfair competition. Taking into account the popularity and market value of the trademark involved, the subjective malice of Suzhou Schneider, the time and scale of the infringement, and other factors, the amount of 40 million RMB in compensation determined by the first instance judgment was not improper. The High People's Court of Jiangsu Province rejected the appeal in the second instance judgment and upheld the original judgment.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案为严厉惩治“搭便车”等仿冒混淆行为的典型案例。在有充分证据证实侵权获利超出法定赔偿最高限额的情况下，人民法院合理分配举证责任，正确适用裁量性赔偿方式酌情确定赔偿数额，有力打击攀附他人商誉的市场混淆行为，显著提高侵权成本，充分体现切实加大知识产权保护力度的鲜明司法导向。
This case is a typical example of severely punishing "free-riding," counterfeiting, and confusion behaviors. When there is sufficient evidence proving that the profits from infringement exceed the statutory maximum limit of compensation, the People's Court reasonably distributes the burden of proof and correctly applies the discretionary compensation method to determine the amount of compensation as appropriate, which effectively cracks down on market confusion behaviors that piggyback on the goodwill of others, significantly increases the cost of infringement, and fully reflects the clear judicial orientation of effectively strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights.
（案例来源：中华人民共和国最高人民法院）
(Source of case: Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China)
北京互联网法院审理全国首例“车联网”著作权侵权纠纷案
The Beijing Internet Court Hearing China's First Copyright Infringement Dispute Case Involving the "Internet of Vehicles"
基本案情
Case Brief
原告为某影视作品著作权人，被告A科技公司系车载系统应用管理服务提供方，被告B视频公司系侵权作品内容提供方，被告C新能源公司为某品牌汽车生产制造商。原告主张三被告未经许可，在某品牌汽车上的视频软件车载APP端提供电视剧的在线点播服务，侵犯了原告信息网络传播权，诉求三被告停止侵权、赔偿损失、赔礼道歉。
The plaintiff is a copyright holder of a film and television work, the defendant A technology company is a provider of in-vehicle system application management services, the defendant B video company is a provider of the work infringing the copyright, the defendant C new energy company is an automobile manufacturer of a brand. The plaintiff claimed that the three defendants, without authorization, provided online Video on Demand service for its TV show in the in-vehicle video software APP terminal of the vehicles under the brand, infringing the plaintiff's right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks, and demanded that the three defendants stop the infringement, pay compensation for losses, and make apologies.
法院审理认为，B视频软件公司将侵权视频置于视频软件车载端网络服务器中向用户提供播放服务，侵犯了原告对涉案作品享有的信息网络传播权。A公司与B公司合作，负责该品牌汽车车载系统中视频软件车载端APP上线、展示、推广且提供会员套餐服务并收费，A科技公司作为涉案作品提供行为参与者、获益者，与B视频公司构成共同侵权，应与B视频公司承担连带责任。二被告赔偿原告经济损失及合理开支合计5万元。
After the hearing, the court held that the B video software company uploaded the video infringing the copyright on to the network server of the in-vehicle video software terminal to provide users with playback services, infringing the plaintiff's right of Communication to the Public on Information Networks of the work involved. The A company, working with the B company, was responsible for the launch, presentation, and promotion of the in-vehicle video software APP terminal in the in-vehicle system of the vehicles under the brand, provided the membership package service, and charged money for the service. As a participant and beneficiary of supplying the work involved, the A technology company constituted a joint infringement with the B video company and shall bear joint liability with the B video company. The two defendants compensated the plaintiff for the economic loss and reasonable expenses totaling 50,000 RMB.
典型意义
Typical Significance
该案是全国首例涉“车联网”著作权侵权案件，首次认定车载系统提供方与作品提供方以分工合作的形式实施著作权侵权行为，构成共同侵权。本案为涉“车联网”著作权案件审理提供了有益参考，也为涉“物联网”等新场景下的著作权案件审理提供了借鉴思路，助推数字经济健康发展。
The case is China's first copyright infringement case involving the "Internet of Vehicles". It was first ruled that the act of the in-vehicle system provider and the show provider conducting copyright infringement in the form of division of labor constituted joint infringement. This case provides an advantageous reference for the trial of copyright cases involving the "Internet of Vehicles." Also, it provides ideas for the trial of copyright cases involving the "Internet of Things" and other new scenarios, which will promote the healthy development of the digital economy.
（案例来源：北京互联网法院）
(Source of case: Beijing Internet Court)
集佳新闻：
集佳代理的“LAFITE”（拉菲）商标侵权案因获得7917万高额赔偿入选中华商标协会三十年三十件经典案例
The Trademark Infringement Case of "LAFITE" (拉菲) Represented by Unitalen Selected as One of the 30 Classic Cases in the 30th Year of the Chinese Trademark Association for Obtaining a High Compensation Amount of 79.17 Million RMB
为隆重纪念中华商标协会成立30周年，协会对1994年至2024年期间的商标案例进行了回顾与梳理，按年度评选出了31件具有标杆性、示范性和开创性的商标经典案例。其中，集佳代理的“LAFITE”（拉菲）商标侵权案因适用惩罚性赔偿规则最终确定的赔偿额高达7917万元而入选，该案之前也已被最高人民法院评为2023年度全国十大知识产权案件。
In grand commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the China Trademark Association, the Association has reviewed and sorted out trademark cases from 1994 to 2024 and selected 31 classic trademark cases with benchmarking, demonstrative, and pioneering features annually. Therein, the trademark infringement case of "LAFITE" (拉菲), represented by Unitalen, was selected for having a final compensation amount of up to 79.17 million RMB by applying the rules of punitive damages. The case was awarded as one of the top ten intellectual property cases in China in the year of 2023 by the Supreme People's Court.
相关阅读：https://www.unitalen.com.cn/html/report/24051443-1.htm
Read more: https://www.unitalen.com.cn/html/report/24051443-1.htm
2024北京民营企业百强榜单重磅发布 集佳再度荣登“北京民营企业文化产业百强”榜单
2024 Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises List Released, Unitalen Once Again Ranked Among "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises in Cultural Industry"
9月26日，北京市工商联召开2024北京民营企业百强发布会，发布2024北京民营企业百强“1+4”榜单，即“北京民营企业百强”“北京民营企业科技创新百强”“北京民营企业文化产业百强”“北京民营企业中小百强”和“北京民营企业社会责任百强”。北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司凭借出色的业务能力与良好的社会形象，再度荣登“北京民营企业文化产业百强”榜。
On September 26, the Beijing Federation of Industry & Commerce held a news conference on the 2024 Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises. It released the 2024 Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises "1+4" List, i.e., "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises", "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises in Science and Technology Innovation", "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises in Cultural Industry", "Beijing Top 100 Private Small and Medium-sized Enterprises" and "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises in Social Responsibility". Unitalen Attorneys at Law, with its excellent business capabilities and great social image, was once again ranked in the "Beijing Top 100 Private Enterprises in Cultural Industry" list.
.jpg)