产权组织发布《世界知识产权组织知识产权典型案例集·中华人民共和国卷》（2019-2023）
WIPO Released the WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: People's Republic of China (2019-2023)
2026年4月26日，世界知识产权组织（WIPO）发布了《世界知识产权组织知识产权典型案例集·中华人民共和国卷》第二辑。该出版物由世界知识产权组织与中华人民共和国最高人民法院联合出版。新版案例集收录了最高人民法院精选的中国法院于2019年至2023年间作出的代表性裁判文书，并以中英双语形式呈现。
On April 26, 2026, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published the second edition of the WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: China, a joint publication with the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China. The new volume features representative judgments rendered by Chinese courts between 2019 and 2023, selected by the SPC, and is presented in both Chinese and English.
2019年产权组织与最高人民法院共同出版了该系列丛书中国卷第一辑，收录了2011年至2018年间的30个典型案例。第二辑在此基础上进一步收录了66件新增案例，涵盖了中国法院在商标、专利、版权、垄断与竞争、集成电路布图设计、植物新品种以及刑事保护等领域的司法审判实践。
In 2019, WIPO and the SPC jointly published the first edition of the China volume in this series, which comprised 30 representative judgments from 2011 to 2018. The second edition advances this work to an additional 66 judgments, covering recent judicial adjudication by Chinese courts in the areas of trademark, patent, copyright, monopoly and competition, integrated circuit layout design, new plant varieties, and criminal enforcement.
Attachment: WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights People's Republic of China (2019–2023)
（来源：WIPO 中国）
(Source: WIPO China)
《二〇二五年中国知识产权保护状况》白皮书正式发布
Intellectual Property Protection in China 2025 White Paper Officially Released
5月7日，中国国家知识产权局正式发布《二〇二五年中国知识产权保护状况》白皮书，全面呈现2025年中国知识产权保护工作进展，系统介绍制度建设、审批登记、文化建设、国际合作等方面的扎实成果，为社会各界和国际社会了解中国知识产权保护最新实践提供权威窗口。
On May 7, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) officially released the Intellectual Property Protection in China 2025 White Paper, which comprehensively presents the progress of China's intellectual property protection in 2025, systematically introduces the solid achievements in institutional construction, examination, grant and registration, cultural construction, and international cooperation, and provides an authoritative window for all sectors of society and the international community to understand China's latest practices in intellectual property protection.
Attachment of the full text: Intellectual Property Protection in China (2025)
（来源：中国国家知识产权局网站）
(Source: website of the CNIPA)
典型案例：
Cases in Spotlight:
集佳代理案例入选《世界知识产权组织知识产权典型案例集·中华人民共和国卷（2019-2023）》
Case Represented by Unitalen Selected into the WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: People's Republic of China (2019-2023)
2026年4月26日，在第26个世界知识产权日当天，《世界知识产权组织知识产权典型案例集·中华人民共和国卷（2019-2023）》公开发布。
On April 26, 2026, the 26th World Intellectual Property Day, the WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: People's Republic of China (2019-2023) was officially released to the public.
集佳代理的“华润”商标侵权及不正当竞争案（类似服务的认定及将自然人姓名作为商标使用的定性）入选典型案例集。本案还曾入选最高人民法院发布的2021年中国法院50件典型知识产权案例。
The trademark infringement and unfair competition case of "China Resources," represented by Unitalen (identification of similar services and determination of the use of natural persons' names as trademarks), has been selected for inclusion in the typical cases collection. The case was also selected among the 50 typical intellectual property cases of Chinese courts in 2021, as released by the Supreme People's Court.
Related reading: Unitalen Client China Resources Holdings Won a Retrial Case of Civil Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition
首例：整体性抄袭医疗器械产品界面设计，被认定为不正当竞争行为，集佳代理迈瑞成功维权
First-ever: Overall Plagiarism of Medical Device Product Interface Design Determined as Unfair Competition — Unitalen Successfully Safeguarded Mindray's Rights
基本案情
Case Brief
迈瑞自1991年成立以来，始终致力于临床医疗设备的研发和制造，从拳头产品监护仪出发，埋头研发30年，多年坚持将营收的10%左右投入研发。迈瑞生产的D6除颤监护仪、N系列病人监护仪、SV系列呼吸机等核心产品（“涉案权利产品”），系迈瑞投入数亿元研发费用、历时十余年向市场陆续推出的，经过不断的用户调研、功能迭代，在国内外市场享有极高的知名度和市场占有率。
Since its establishment in 1991, Mindray has been committed to the R&D and manufacturing of clinical medical devices. Starting with its flagship product — the patient monitors — Mindray has been dedicated to R&D for 30 years, consistently investing approximately 10% of its revenue in R&D. The core products produced by Mindray, such as the D6 defibrillator-monitor, N-series patient monitors, and SV-series ventilators (the "rights products involved"), were successively launched onto the market over more than a decade with hundreds of millions of yuan invested in R&D. Through continuous user research and iterative functional improvements, these products have achieved exceptional brand recognition and market share both domestically and internationally.
迈瑞经调查发现，科曼生产、销售的多个型号呼吸机、病人监护仪及体外除颤监护仪等多款产品，在用户界面的颜色构成、参数布局、提示信息用语及布局、操作键位布局等全部要素上，均与迈瑞涉案权利产品用户界面高度相似，产品说明书内容亦高度相似。迈瑞认为，科曼实施了多产品从产品界面到说明书的系统性、整体性的抄袭行为，为维护自身合法权益提起诉讼。
Through investigation, Mindray found that the user interfaces of multiple models of ventilators, patient monitors, and external defibrillator-monitors manufactured and sold by Comen are highly similar to those of Mindray's rights products involved in all elements, including color scheme, parameter layout, prompt information wording and layout, and operation key layout. The contents of the product manuals are also highly similar. Mindray contended that Comen has committed systematic, pervasive plagiarism across multiple products, from the product interfaces to the manuals, and accordingly filed a lawsuit to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.
针对涉案界面抄袭行为，一审法院对被诉侵权界面逐一核实，认定被诉侵权界面在颜色构成、参数布局、提示信息用语及布局、操作键位布局等全部要素上均与对应的权利产品界面高度相似，属于设计基本一致的界面，并按照有利于科曼的方式来计算相同或近似界面占比，分别为25%、43.8%、48.4%、33.7%、27.5%。法院最终认定被诉产品界面与涉案权利产品界面相似比例已经超出了界面同质化的善意、合理的范围，被诉产品相似界面系整体抄袭相应权利产品界面。
Regarding the alleged interface plagiarism behavior, the first instance court verified that the accused infringed interfaces one by one and determined that the accused infringing interfaces were highly similar to the corresponding interfaces of rights products in all elements, including color scheme, parameter layout, prompt information wording and layout, and operation key layout, constituting interfaces with basically identical designs. The court calculated the proportions of identical or similar interfaces in a way favorable to Comen: 25%, 43.8%, 48.4%, 33.7%, and 27.5%, respectively. The court ultimately determined that the similarity proportions between the accused product interfaces and the interfaces of the rights product exceeded the bounds of good faith and reasonable interface homogenization. Thus, the similar interfaces of the accused products constituted overall plagiarism of the corresponding interfaces of the rights products.
示例：
Examples:
|
The Power-On Self-Test Interface of the Ventilators |
|
The CPR Interface of the Defibrillator-Monitors |
|
Mindray Comen Example of A Third Party |
针对涉案说明书抄袭行为，一审法院委托广东省知识产权保护中心进行鉴定，并结合鉴定意见书统计的数据，核实并比对说明书原文，认定被诉呼吸机、体外除颤监护仪、病人监护仪等五款产品说明书内容丰富，相同内容占比为36.91%、37.3%、15.85%、14.14%、10.71%，明显超过了善意、合理的范围。法院据此认定涉案五份被诉说明书与权利说明书相同部分，可以认定为抄袭。
In respect of the plagiarism behavior on the manuals involved, the court of first instance commissioned the Guangdong Intellectual Property Protection Center to conduct an appraisal. Based on the statistical data in the appraisal opinion and after verifying and comparing the original text of the manuals, the court determined that the manuals for the five accused products, including the ventilators, external defibrillator-monitors, and patient monitors, were content-rich, with identical content accounting for 36.91%, 37.3%, 15.85%, 14.14%, and 10.71%, respectively, clearly exceeding the scope of good faith and reasonableness. The court accordingly determined that the five accused descriptions contained the same parts as the rights manuals and could be deemed plagiarism.
最终，一审法院和二审法院均判决认定被诉型号的呼吸机、监护仪及除颤监护仪界面整体抄袭行为构成不正当竞争，说明书构成著作权侵权，并判令科曼立即停止侵权行为，即不得在本案判决生效之日起在生产的被诉体外除颤监护仪、病人监护仪、呼吸机产品中使用侵权说明书、侵权界面。
Ultimately, both the court of first instance and the court of second instance determined that the overall plagiarism behavior involving the interfaces of the accused models of ventilators, patient monitors, and defibrillator-monitors constituted unfair competition, and that the manuals constituted copyright infringement. The courts ordered Comen to cease the infringing behavior immediately. From the date the judgment took effect, Comen was prohibited from using the infringing manuals and interfaces in the accused products, including external defibrillator-monitors, patient monitors, and ventilators manufactured thereby.
典型意义
Typical Significance
1.法院适用《反不正当竞争法》第二条对涉案医疗器械界面进行整体保护，为未来产品用户界面的维权提供了新思路。
1. The court applied Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to afford overall protection to the medical device interfaces involved, providing a new approach for future rights protection of product user interfaces.
2.长期以来，医疗器械行业的维权多聚焦于底层技术或外观设计，路径相对局限于专利维权，而产品用户界面（UI）则长期处于维权真空地带。本案裁判有效填补了这一司法空白，为医疗器械用户界面的模仿行为划定了清晰边界，也昭示了行业监管、患者安全均不应成为抄袭同行业优秀原创设计的挡箭牌，对医疗器械乃至整个高端制造行业的知识产权保护具有典型意义。
2. For a long time, the rights protection of the medical device industry has mainly focused on underlying technology or appearance design, with remedies relatively limited to patent rights protection, while the product user interface (UI) has long been in a vacuum of rights protection. The judgment in this case effectively fills this judicial gap, delineates clear boundaries for imitation in the behavior of medical device user interfaces, and indicates that industry regulation and patient safety should not be used as a shield for plagiarizing excellent original designs in the same industry. The case is of typical significance for the intellectual property protection of medical devices and even for the entire high-end manufacturing industry.
集佳代理案件入选北京法院2025年度知识产权司法保护十大案例
Case Represented by Unitalen Selected into the Top 10 Cases of Intellectual Property Protection by Beijing Courts in 2025
4月26日，北京高院发布北京法院2025年度知识产权司法保护十大案例，集佳律所代理的涉抢注商标并滥用行政程序不正当竞争纠纷案入选十大典型案例。
On April 26, the Beijing High People's Court released the top 10 intellectual property protection cases handled by Beijing courts in 2025. A dispute case over unfair competition involving trademark squatting and abuse of administrative procedures, represented by Unitalen Law Firm, was selected as one of the top 10 typical cases.
入选案例介绍
Introduction to the Selected Case
案例八 涉抢注商标并滥用行政程序不正当竞争纠纷案
Case 8: A Dispute Case over Unfair Competition involving Trademark Squatting and Abuse of Administrative Procedures
基本信息
Information Brief
案号：（2023）京0101民初3748号；（2024）京73民终1803号
Case Numbers: (2023) Jing 0101 Civil First 3748; (2024) Jing 73 Civil Final 1803
原告（集佳代理）：某甲有限公司、广东某电器公司
Plaintiffs (represented by Unitalen): Party A Co., Ltd.; and a Guangdong Electrical Appliance Company
被告：某乙有限公司、山东某电器公司、山东某仪器公司、范某
Defendants: Party B Co. Ltd.; a Shandong Electrical Appliance Company; a Shandong Instrument Company; and FAN [Redacted]
案情摘要
Case Brief
原告某甲有限公司、广东某电器公司系小家电品牌“MORPHY RICHARDS”“摩飞”商标专用权人。被告范某系被告某乙有限公司、山东某电器公司、山东某仪器公司（简称三公司）的实际控制人。自2017年起，被告范某利用三公司开始在小家电相关商品上申请注册“摩飞”“摩飞电器”等多件与原告商标近似的商标，其中大部分已被宣告无效，在先生效判决曾认定相关商标系“以其他不正当手段”取得注册。自2021年起，范某通过三公司针对原告申请注册的“摩飞”系列商标多次提起撤销、无效和异议等程序。二原告主张四被告的上述行为严重干扰原告的正常经营，构成不正当竞争。一审法院认为三公司恶意抢注并对原告商标大量提起商标行政程序的行为违反了诚实信用原则，具有明显的主观恶意，构成不正当竞争，判决三公司立即停止涉案不正当竞争行为、刊登消除影响的声明并赔偿原告经济损失90万元及合理开支10万元。三公司不服提起上诉。二审法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
The Plaintiffs, Party A Co., Ltd., and a Guangdong Electrical Appliance Company are the exclusive right holders of the trademarks for small household appliance brands "MORPHY RICHARDS" and "摩飞". The Defendant, FAN [Redacted], is the actual controller of the three defendant companies: Party B Co., Ltd., a Shandong Electrical Appliance Company, and a Shandong Instrument Company (collectively referred to as the "three companies"). Since 2017, the Defendant Fan [Redacted], through three companies, has filed applications to register multiple trademarks for small household appliance-related goods, including "摩飞" and "摩飞电器," which are similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks. The majority of these applications have been declared invalid, and a prior effective judgment had already determined that the relevant trademarks were registered through "other improper means". Since 2021, Fan [Redacted], through the three companies, has repeatedly initiated proceedings, including revocation, invalidation, and opposition against the "摩飞" series of trademarks registered by the Plaintiffs. The two Plaintiffs alleged that the aforesaid conduct of the four Defendants had seriously disrupted their normal business operations and constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance held that the three companies' malicious squatting and the filing of numerous trademark administrative proceedings against the Plaintiffs' trademarks violated the principle of good faith, demonstrated clear subjective malice, and thus constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the three companies to cease the unfair competition behaviors at issue immediately, publish a statement to eliminate the effects, and compensate the Plaintiffs with RMB 900,000 for economic damages and RMB 100,000 for reasonable expenses. The three companies disagreed with the decision and filed an appeal. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
典型意义
Typical Significance
本案系认定恶意抢注他人商标并滥用商标行政程序构成不正当竞争的典型案例。本案适用反不正当竞争法对被诉行为进行规制，有效遏制恶意抢注及滥用商标行政程序的不正当竞争行为，对维护正常的商标注册管理秩序、营造公平竞争的市场环境具有积极意义。
This case is a typical case of determining that malicious squatting of others' trademarks and abuse of trademark administrative procedures constitute unfair competition. This case applies the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate the accused conduct, effectively curbing unfair competition involving malicious squatting and abuse of trademark administrative procedures. It thus has positive significance for maintaining the normal order of trademark registration and administration and fostering a fair and competitive market environment.
集佳新闻：
Unitalen News:
3个入选！集佳代理案例入选最高人民法院《全国法院知识产权案件法律适用问题年度报告（2025）》
Three Cases Represented by Unitalen Selected into the Annual Report on Legal Application Issues in Intellectual Property Cases Handled by Courts Nationwide (2025) by the Supreme People's Court
4月21日，最高人民法院发布《全国法院知识产权案件法律适用问题年度报告（2025）》，报告从全国法院2025年审结的知识产权案件中梳理出45个法律适用问题。集佳代理的3个案例，获选为商标行政案件审判方面3类法律适用问题的指导案例，分别为：
On April 21, the Supreme People's Court released the Annual Report on Legal Application Issues in Intellectual Property Cases Handled by Courts Nationwide (2025), which identifies 45 legal application issues arising from intellectual property cases concluded by courts nationwide in 2025. Three cases represented by Unitalen are selected as guiding cases addressing three categories of legal application issues in trademark administrative litigation, namely:
15.图形商标固有显著性的判断——洁柔图形商标无效宣告案 （2025）最高法行再318号
15. Judgment of Inherent Distinctiveness of Device Trademarks — Invalidation Case on Device Trademark of C&S, (2025) SPC Admin. Retrial 318
16.产区范围存在重合的在后地理标志证明商标有效性的判断—“湘西黄金茶”商标无效宣告再审案 （2025）最高法行申4791号
16. Validity Judgment of the Subsequent Geographical Indication Certification Trademark with Overlapping Production Areas — A Retrial Case on Invalidation of Trademark "湘西黄金茶" (2025) SPC Admin. Retrial Application 4791
20.对商标使用证据的整体审查判断——“留余”商标权撤销复审行政纠纷案 （2025）最高法行再507号
20. Overall Examination and Judgment on Trademark Use Evidence — An Administrative Dispute Case Concerning the Reexamination on Revocation of the Trademark Right of "留余" (2025) SPC Admin. Retrial 507
集佳2个案例入选《最高人民法院知识产权法庭裁判要旨摘要（2025）》
Two Cases Represented by Unitalen Selected into the Summary of Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court of China (2025)
4月22日，最高人民法院发布《最高人民法院知识产权法庭裁判要旨摘要（2025）》。集佳代理的1个专利授权确权案件和1个技术秘密案件入选《摘要》，分别为：
On April 22, the Supreme People's Court of China released the Summary of Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court of China (2025). A patent authorization and confirmation case and a technical secret case represented by Unitalen were selected for the Summary, namely:
37.专利国际申请受理局未接受申请日的修改文件时的处理【涉“容器盖”PCT发明专利授权案】 （2025）最高法知行终538号
37. Handling of Situations Where the Receiving Office of an International Patent Application Not Accepting Amended Documents on the Filing Date [PCT Invention Patent Application Case Concerning the "Container Lid"] (2025) SPC IP Admin. Final 538
113.不得以出租生产线规避技术秘密侵权【“长链二元酸”技术秘密侵权案】 （2022）最高法知民终445号
113. Leasing a Production Line Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Liability for Technical Secret Infringement [Technical Secrets Infringement Case Concerning the "Long-Chain Dibasic Acid"] (2022) SPC IP Civil Final 445
集佳代理案件入选广州知识产权法院知识产权司法保护典型案例（2025）
Cases Represented by Unitalen Selected into Exemplary Cases of Intellectual Property Protection by the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2025)
2026年4月，广州知识产权法院发布了《广州知识产权法院知识产权司法保护状况及典型案例（2025年）》，其中案例七：化侵权对抗为战略合作，促版权产业互利共赢——辞某公司与读某公司、石某经营部著作权侵权纠纷案【（2025）粤 73 民初 5078 号】中的原告方由集佳代理。本案涉及《汉语大词典》这一特大型的、历史性的汉语语文词典的维权。案件“双赢”结局与创新解纷模式，不仅获得了当事人的认可，更引发了权威媒体的关注。
In April 2026, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court released the Intellectual Property Protection and Exemplary Cases of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2025). In Case 7: Transforming Infringement Confrontation into Strategic Cooperation to Promote Mutual Benefit and Win-Win Outcomes in the Copyright Industry — Copyright Infringement Dispute Case between CI [Redacted] Company and DU [Redacted] Company, SHI [Redacted] Business Department [(2025) Yue 73 Civil First 5078], the plaintiff was represented by Unitalen. The case concerned the protection of the rights to the Grand Chinese Dictionary, a monumental and historic Chinese-language dictionary. The "win-win" outcome and innovative dispute-resolution model in this case not only earned the recognition of the parties but also attracted attention from authoritative media outlets.
集佳律师事务所2025年度十大知识产权典型案例
Top 10 Typical Intellectual Property Cases Represented by Unitalen Law Firm in 2025
1.兰州新伟公司诉某电器公司专利侵权诉讼、侵权行政查处及无效答辩系列案
1. Series Cases on Patent Infringement Litigation, Infringement Administrative Investigation and Invalidation Defense: Lanzhou Xinwei Company v. an Electrical Appliance Company
2. Administrative Litigation Case on the Invention Patent Reexamination: Dongguan Simplewell Electromechanical Company v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)
3.某NPE诉某国外知名网络公司发明专利侵权诉讼系列案
3. Series Cases on Invention Patent Infringement Litigation: an NPE v. a Well-Known Foreign Internet Company
4.某纸业公司诉国家知识产权局、中顺洁柔公司“图形”商标无效宣告案
4. Case of Announcement of Invalidation Against the "Device" Trademark: a Paper Company v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and C&S Paper Co., Ltd.
5.贵州金沙公司诉滨州一品天下公司等侵害“摘要”驰名商标专用权三案
5. Three Cases on the Exclusive Right Infringement of the Well-Known Trademark "摘要(ZHAI YAO)": Guizhou Jinsha Company v. Binzhou Yipin Tianxia Company et al.
6.迈瑞公司诉科曼公司医疗器械界面抄袭不正当竞争案
6. Unfair Competition Case Involving Medical Device Interfaces Plagiarism: Mindray v. Comen
7. Dispute Cases over Infringement on Technical Secrets: Cathay Biotech v. HILEAD Company, CAO [Redacted], et al.
8.北京某图像视觉公司诉中恒公司软件著作权侵权案
8. Case over Infringement on Software Copyright: a Beijing Image & Vision Company v. Zhongheng Company
9.郑某某等人侵犯著作权罪刑事案
9. Criminal Case over Infringement on Copyright involving ZHENG [Redacted] and others
10.意大利泰诺健公司与南通大兵公司假冒注册商标刑事附带民事诉讼案
10. Criminal Case with Ancillary Civil Lawsuits for Counterfeit Registered Trademark: Technogym S.p.A. (Italy) v. Nantong Dabing Company
集佳团队与各界朋友再聚 INTA 148届伦敦年会
Unitalen Team Reunited with Professionals from Across the Globe at INTA's 148th Annual Meeting in London
当地时间2026年5月2日至6日，全球知识产权行业的顶级盛会——国际商标协会（INTA）第148届年会在英国伦敦盛大举行，本届年会围绕 “法律与政策”、“无形资产的商业化” 以及 “塑造 IP 未来的技术”三大主线。作为INTA会员和长期合作单位，集佳由多位合伙人和顾问组成代表团，深度参与本次盛会，与全球超万名商标、品牌、专利、法律及创新领域专业人士广泛交流，共同探讨行业的最新热点问题与前沿趋势。
From May 2 to 6, 2026 (local time), the top event in the global intellectual property industry — the 148th Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) — was grandly held in London, United Kingdom. This year's annual meeting centered on three major themes: "Law & Policy," "Commercialization of Intangible Assets," and "Technology Shaping the Future of IP". As an INTA member and long-standing cooperative institution, Unitalen sent a delegation comprising multiple partners and consultants to participate fully in this prestigious event. The team engaged in extensive exchanges with over 10,000 professionals worldwide across trademarks, brands, patents, law, and innovation, jointly exploring the latest hot topics and cutting-edge trends shaping the industry.
.jpg)