业界新闻：

中国国家知识产权局2021年度报告公布

China National Intellectual Property Administration Released the 2021 Annual Report

近日，中国国家知识产权局公布2021年度报告，其中涉及2021年专利、商标、地理标志集成布图设计申请情况如下：

Recently, the CNIPA released the 2021 annual report, which involves the application of patents, trademarks, geographical indications, and layout designs of integrated circuits in 2021 as follows:

2021年中国发明专利申请量为158.6万件，同比增长5.9%。中国发明专利授权率为 55.0%。2021年，共受理通过 PCT 途径提交的国际专利申请7.3万件，同比增长1.5%。2021年收到进入中国国家阶段的 PCT国际申请10.7万件，同比增长6.3%，其中发明专利申请10.6万件，实用新型专利申请916件。

In 2021, the number of patent applications for invention in China was 1.586 million, a year-on-year increase of 5.9%. China's invention patent allowance rate was 55.0%. In 2021, a total of 73,000 international patent applications submitted via the PCT route were accepted, a year-on-year increase of 1.5%. In 2021, 107,000 PCT international applications entering the Chinese national phase were received, a year-on-year increase of 6.3%, including 106,000 invention patent applications and 916 utility model patent applications.

2021年，中国商标注册申请量945.1万件，其中国内商标申请919.3万件，占总量的97.3%，同比增长0.8%；国外在华商标申请25.8万件，占总量的 2.7%，同比增长1l.6%。2021年，共收到中国申请人提交的马德里商标国际注册申请5928件。

In 2021, the number of trademark registration applications in China was 9.451 million, including 9.193 million domestic trademark applications, accounting for 97.3% of the total, a year-on-year increase of 0.8%; and the number of foreign trademark applications in China was 258,000, accounting for 2.7% of the total, a year-on-year increase of 11.6%. In 2021, a total of 5,928 applications for the Madrid trademark international registration submitted by Chinese applicants were received.

2021年，受理地理标志产品保护申请22 个，批准保护地理标志产品99个，核准使用地理标志产品专用标志市场主体7677家。截至2021年底，共核准注册国外地理标志商标215件，比2020年底增加 2.4%。排名前三位的国家为：法国（154件）、意大利（24 件）、美国（14件），三国注册量占外国在华地理标志商标注册量的 89.3%。

In 2021, 22 applications for the protection of GI products were accepted, 99 GI products were approved for protection, and 7,677 market entities were approved to use special marks for GI products. By the end of 2021, a total of 215 foreign geographical indication trademarks had been approved for registration, an increase of 2.4% over the end of 2020. The top three countries are: France (154 cases), Italy (24 cases), and the United States (14 cases). The registrations from the three countries account for 89.3% of the foreign geographical indication trademark registrations in China.

2021年，共收到集成电路布图设计登记申请2.0万件，同比增长41.6%；予以公告并发出证书1.3万件，同比增长11.6%。自2001年10月1日《集成电路布图设计保护条例》实施以来，共收到集成电路布图设计登记申请6.6万件，予以登记公告并发出证书5.2万件。

In 2021, a total of 20,000 applications for registration of layout designs of integrated circuits were received, a year-on-year increase of 41.6%; and 13,000 were published and issued certificates, a year-on-year increase of 11.6%. Since the implementation of the Protection Regulation of Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits on October 1, 2001, a total of 66,000 cases for registration of layout-designs of integrated circuits have been received, and 52,000 of them have been published and issued certificates.

报告详情请点击：国家知识产权局2021年度报告

（来源：中国国家知识产权局）

For details, please click: China National Intellectual Property Administration 2021 Annual Report

(Source: the CNIPA)

关于办理印花税相关业务的提醒

Reminder on Handling Stamp Tax Related Business

为配合《中华人民共和国印花税法》的实施，中国国家知识产权局自2022年7月1日（含）起，将停止涉及专利证书和集成电路布图设计登记证书印花税的代征业务。

In order to comply with the implementation of the Stamp Tax Law of the People's Republic of China, the CNIPA will stop the collection of stamp taxes involving patent certificates and integrated circuit layout designs registration certificates from July 1, 2022 (inclusive).

为更好的维护权利人权益，对于自缴费日起未满3年的多缴、错缴、重缴的印花税，请相关权利人尽快提交意见陈述书（关于费用）办理退款手续。

In order to better protect the rights and interests of the right holders, for the overpaid, wrongly paid and double-paid stamp taxes within 3 years from the date of payment, the relevant right holders are requested to submit an observations (about the fees) as soon as possible to go through the refund procedures.

根据相关业务处理流程，2022年6月15日（含）后办理登记手续的专利申请，其颁证日将迟于2022年7月1日。因此，对于2022年6月15日（含）后办理登记手续的，则无需缴纳印花税。

（来源：中国专利电子申请网）

According to the relevant business processing procedures, the patent applications for registration after June 15, 2022 (inclusive) will be issued after July 1, 2022. Therefore, stamp tax is not required for registrations completed after June 15, 2022 (inclusive).

(Source: China Patent Electronic Application Website)

海牙协定在中国生效首日 外观设计国际申请超百件

Over One Hundred International Applications for Design Patents on the First Day of China's Entry to the Hague System

北京时间5月5日，《工业品外观设计国际注册海牙协定》在中国生效当日，共有49家中国企业提交外观设计国际申请108件，其中，中国国家知识产权局收到中国申请人提交的外观设计国际申请58件，截至日内瓦时间下午5:30，由中国申请人直接向世界知识产权组织（WIPO）提交的外观设计国际申请有50件。

On May 5 Beijing Time, the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (Hague Agreement) entered into force in China. On the effective day, a total of 49 Chinese enterprises submitted 108 international applications for design patents. The CNIPA received 58 international applications for design patents. As of 5:30 PM Geneva Time, the WIPO had received 50 international applications for design patents directly from Chinese applicants.

在中国国家知识产权局收到的申请中，联想（北京）有限公司、世耳医疗科技（上海）有限公司、北京小米移动软件有限公司等申请量居前。WIPO数据显示，向国际局直接提交外观设计国际申请的中国申请人中，Shenzhen Smoore Technology（深圳麦克韦尔科技有限公司）、Dreame Innovation Technology（追觅创新科技有限公司）、Shenzhen TCL Digital Technology（深圳TCL数字技术有限公司）等申请量居前。

（来源：中国国家知识产权局政务微信）

Lenovo (Beijing) Co., Ltd., GEMT Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd. etc. pace all applicants via the CNIPA route while WIPO's data suggests Shenzhen Smoore Technology, Dreame Innovation Technology and Shenzhen TCL Digital Technology are the most prolific Chinese filers.

(Source: the CNIPA Official WeChat Account)

中国建成5G基站逾160万个 专利数量世界领先

With over 1.6 Million 5G Base Stations, China Takes Global Lead in Number of Patents

据中华人民共和国工业和信息化部最新统计显示：截至4月末，中国已建成5G基站161.5万个，成为全球首个基于独立组网模式规模建设5G网络的国家。5G基站占移动基站总数的比例为16%。

According to the latest statistics from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China, by the end of April, China has built 1.615 million 5G base stations, becoming the first country in the world to build a 5G network on a scale based on an independent networking model, 5G base stations accounting for 16% of the total number of mobile base stations.

自2019年6月5G牌照发放以来，中国基础电信运营商坚持统筹谋划、适度超前原则，推动共建共享，让5G网络建设更快、更高效。统计显示，2021年中国5G基站已经开通142.5万个，5G网络已覆盖全部地级市城区、超过98%的县城城区和80%的乡镇镇区，5G手机终端连接数达到5.18亿户。今年一季度，新建5G基站达到13.4万个。

Since the issuance of 5G licenses in June 2019, China's basic telecom operators have adhered to the principle of overall planning and moderate advance, and promoted joint construction and sharing, so that 5G network construction can be faster and more efficient. According to the statistics, in 2021, 1.425 million 5G base stations had been opened in China, and the 5G network had covered all prefecture-level cities, more than 98% of county towns, and 80% of townships. The number of 5G mobile phone terminal connections reached 518 million. In the first quarter of this year, the number of newly constructed 5G base stations reached 134,000.

近年来，中国5G关键技术创新突破取得新进展。中国企业声明的5G标准必要专利数量保持世界领先。（来源：人民日报）

In recent years, China's 5G key technological innovation breakthroughs have made new progress. The number of 5G standard essential patents declared by Chinese companies remains the world leader. (Source: People's Daily)

中瑞两局第九次正式会谈及第七届产业界圆桌会在线举行

The Ninth Formal Talks Between the CNIPA and the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) and the Seventh Round Table of the Industry Community Held Online

近日，中国国家知识产权局和瑞士联邦知识产权局以在线方式举行第九次正式会谈。中国国家知识产权局国际合作司、瑞士联邦知识产权局国际贸易关系部主要负责人作为双方代表团团长共同主持会议。

Recently, the CNIPA and the IPI held their ninth formal talks online. The principals of the CNIPA International Cooperation Department and the IPI International Trade Relations Department co-chaired the meeting as heads of delegations from both sides.

双方进一步就专利期限延长、规范商标注册行为、疫情影响下推动创新发展及激励措施、地理标志工作以及共同关心的知识产权国际议题等进行深入沟通和探讨。会议期间，两局还以在线方式举行了第七届中瑞产业界圆桌会。

（来源：中国国家知识产权局政务微信）

The two sides further conducted in-depth communication and discussions on the extension of patent term, standardization of trademark registration, promotion of innovation and development under the influence of the epidemic and incentive measures, geographical indication work, and IP international issues of common concern, etc. During the meeting, both offices also held the seventh China-Swiss Round Table of the Industry Community Online.

(Source: the CNIPA Official WeChat Account)

典型案例：

集佳助力合肥仁洁取得专利侵权诉讼及无效程序全面胜利

Unitalen Assisted SunPure in Winning a Complete Victory in Patent Infringement Litigation and Invalidation Procedure

基本案情：

Case Brief:

合肥仁洁智能科技有限公司成立于2019年，总部坐落于中国合肥国家级高新技术产业开发区，是一家专业从事光伏智能清扫机器人研发、生产、销售及服务为一体的高科技创新型企业，为光伏电站提供标准化、专业化、智能化的清扫整体解决方案。

Founded in 2019, SunPure Technology Co., Ltd., is headquartered in Hefei National High-tech Industrial Development Zone, China. It is a high-tech innovative company focusing on research and development, production, sales and service of intelligent solar panel cleaning robots and standardized, specialized, and integrated cleaning solutions for Photovoltaic (PV) power plants.

合肥仁洁公司相关产品

Related products of SunPure

涉案专利是北京中电博顺智能设备技术有限公司于2020年3月6日申请的一项发明专利，专利号为202020268065.5，名称为“一种光伏板清洁机器人”。2021年9月，专利权人向济南市中级人民法院提起诉讼，称被告合肥仁洁智能科技有限公司生产的光伏智能清扫机器人侵犯了其专利权，并索赔经济损失及合理支出118万余元。同时，中电博顺还将合肥仁洁的合作企业列为共同被告，对合肥仁洁公司正常的商业运营推广及制造生产活动造成了极大的影响。

The patent involved is an invention patent applied for by Beijing Zhongdian Boson Intelligent Equipment Tech Co., Ltd. on March 6, 2020, with the patent number of 202020268065.5, and a title of "PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL CLEANING ROBOT". In September 2021, the patentee filed a lawsuit with the Jinan Intermediate People's Court, claiming that the intelligent PV cleaning robot produced by the defendant SunPure Technology Co., Ltd. infringed the patent right thereof, and claimed economic losses and reasonable expenses of more than 1.18 million yuan. At the same time, Zhongdian Boson also listed cooperative enterprises of SunPure as co-defendants, which had a great impact on SunPure's normal business operations, promotion, and manufacturing activities.

无效宣告程序

Invalidation Procedure

集佳团队经过与客户的讨论，决定在积极应对侵权诉讼的同时启动无效宣告程序。2021年9月18日，集佳代理客户首次针对涉案专利权向国家知识产权局提出了无效宣告请求，明确指出涉案专利权因相对于最接近的现有技术不具备新颖性、创造性而不符合专利授权条件，应予宣告无效的理由和证据。

After discussions with the client, Unitalen team decided to initiate the invalidation procedure while actively responding to the infringement lawsuit. On September 18, 2021, Unitalen filed an invalidation request regarding the right of the patent involved with the CNIPA for the first time, explicitly pointing out the grounds and evidences for invalidation that the patent involved did not possess novelty or involve an inventive step, and thus fails to comply with the conditions for granting a patent.

涉案专利附图

the Drawings of the patent involved

通过仔细研读涉案专利的申请文本、授权文本以及授权过程的审查历史文档，集佳团队确定涉案专利的核心发明点为光伏板清洁机器人的行走轮及挂轮的位置关系、轮径、轮间中心距等参数以提升光伏板清洁机器人在光伏板间的越障能力，使得机器人更加平稳顺滑地在光伏板间运行。结合现有技术的证据情况和侵权诉讼案件的分析，集佳团队认为涉案从属权利要求中涉及参数限定的部分为此次无效中的难点和重点。由此，集佳团队积极收集多方面证据，并制定了全方面的无效策略。基于多方面证据的收集和多角度的充分论述，最终复审委采纳了集佳团队从属权利要求中参数限定系常规选择的主张。

By carefully reviewing the application documents, authorization documents and the examination history documents during the authorization process of the patent involved, Unitalen team determined that the core inventive point of the patent involved is the positional relationship between the walking wheels and the hanging wheels, and parameters such as the wheel diameter and the center distance between the wheels of the photovoltaic panel cleaning robot, so as to improve the photovoltaic panel cleaning robot's ability to overcome obstacles between photovoltaic panels, such that the robot runs more smoothly between the photovoltaic panels. In combination with the evidence of the prior art and the analysis of infringement lawsuits, Unitalen team believed that the difficult point and the focus in the invalidation lies in the portion related to the parameter defining in the dependent claims of the patent involved. As a result, Unitalen team actively collected evidence from various aspects and formulated a comprehensive invalidation strategy. Based on the collection of various evidence and the full statements from multiple perspectives, the Invalidation and Reexamination Department finally adopted the claim of Unitalen team that the parameters defining in the dependent claims were a conventional selection.

国家知识产权局认为权利要求与现有技术的区别技术特征属于本领域技术人员的可预期技术效果的常规技术选择。因此，国家知识产权局于2022年4月2日作出第54999号《无效宣告请求审查决定书》，以涉案专利缺乏创造性的理由，宣告涉案专利权全部无效。

The CNIPA deemed that the distinguishing technical features of the claims over the prior art belong to the conventional technical selection of those skilled in the art, and the technical effect thereof can be expected. Therefore, on April 2, 2022, the CNIPA made No. 54999 "Examination Decision on Request for Invalidation", declaring all the right of the patent involved invalid on the grounds that the patent involved lacks inventiveness.

侵权诉讼程序

Infringement Litigation Procedure

对于中电博顺在济南市中级人民法院针对合肥仁洁提起的侵权诉讼，集佳团队立即启动针对涉案专利的无效宣告请求的同时申请国家知识产权局加急受理。在获取国家知识产权局的无效宣告请求受理通知书后，集佳团队旋即向济南市中级人民法院提请中止本案的审理。

Regarding the infringement lawsuit brought by Zhongdian Boson with Jinan Intermediate People's Court against SunPure, Unitalen team immediately started the request for invalidation of the patent involved and applied to the CNIPA for expedited acceptance. After receiving the notice of acceptance of the invalidation request from the CNIPA, Unitalen team immediately requested the Jinan Intermediate People's Court to suspend the hearing of this case.

集佳团队在确定侵权诉讼案以现有技术抗辩为突破口的诉讼策略后，积极寻找可以用于证明相关现有技术的证据，同时该证据亦可辅助无效请求程序。经过集佳团队与合肥仁洁高效缜密的摸排工作，最终确定位于天津市某工业园区中的某太阳能发电站所配备的光伏板清洁机器人，已于2017年投产使用且该产品搭载了与涉案专利相同的技术方案，且在集佳团队与客户的多次沟通以及坚持不懈的努力之下，最终从该电站的运营方取得系列配套材料文件，形成完整坚固的证据链条加以证明待证事实。

After determining the litigation strategy of the infringement lawsuit with the defense of the prior art as the breakthrough point, Unitalen team actively sought evidence that can be used to prove the relevant prior art, and such evidence can also assist the invalidation request procedure. After the efficient and thorough search of Unitalen team and SunPure, it was finally found that the photovoltaic panel cleaning robot equipped in a solar power station in an industrial park in Tianjin had been put into production in 2017 and the product was equipped with the same technical solution of the patent involved. Moreover, under the repeated communication between Unitalen team and the client and the unremitting efforts, finally a series of supporting material documents was obtained from the operator of the power station, forming a complete and solid chain of evidence to prove the facts.

集佳团队在合肥仁洁的协助下精心策划取证过程，从多个不同的角度证明涉案专利所采用的技术方案早在申请日之前已被市面上的产品所公开。由于侵权诉讼案并未实质开庭审理，该产品公开证据尚未在诉讼过程中经过审理法院的认定，但可以确定的是，集佳团队组织形成的坚实证据在无效审理程序中对合议组起到了积极的作用，从而认定涉案专利的从属权利要求所记载的技术方案属于本领域的公知常识。

With the assistance of SunPure, Unitalen team carefully planned for the evidence collection process, and proved from various perspectives that the technical solutions adopted by the patent involved had been disclosed by the products on the market long before the application date of the patent involved. Since the infringement lawsuit has not actually been tried in court, the evidence for publication of the product has not been confirmed by the trial court during the litigation process. However, it is certain that the solid evidence formed by Unitalen team has played a positive role in the invalidation process. Therefore, it is deemed that the technical solutions disclosed in the dependent claims of the patent involved belong to the common knowledge in the art.

最终，在国知局做出了宣告涉案专利全部无效的审查决定后，中电博顺公司已丧失提起专利侵权诉讼的权利基础。2022年4月8日，济南市中级人民法院依照法律规定裁定驳回了原告的起诉，集佳团队代理客户赢得了案件的胜诉。

In the end, after the CNIPA made the examination decision to declare all the rights of the patent involved invalid, Zhongdian Boson has lost the right basis to file a patent infringement lawsuit. On April 8, 2022, the Jinan Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit in accordance with the law, and Unitalen team represented the client winning the case.

案件影响

Case Influence

在本案中，集佳专利诉讼及无效团队快速响应，同时启动了诉讼和无效请求程序，二者相互配合，相互保障。在无效程序中积极检索，反复研讨，形成具有说服力的证据组合提起无效程序并最终取得成功。同时，集佳团队积极推进案件审理进程，在对方提起诉讼后仅七个月便高效迅速地解决纠纷为客户摆脱诉累。在诉讼和无效程序双管齐下，既为客户赢得了诉讼的全面胜利，又保障了其商业利益，为其市场运营推广保驾护航，扫除阴霾。

In this case, Unitalen Patent Litigation and Invalidation Team responded quickly and started the litigation and invalidation request procedures at the same time, which cooperated and guaranteed each other. Unitalen team actively searched and discussed repeatedly in the invalidation procedure to form a convincing evidence combination to initiate the invalidation procedure and finally succeeded. Meanwhile, Unitalen team actively promoted the case trial process, and resolved disputes efficiently and quickly only seven months after the other party filed the lawsuit to get rid of the burden of litigation for the client. The two-pronged approach of litigation and invalidation procedures not only won a comprehensive victory for the client, but also protected the client's commercial interests, protected its market operation and promotion, and eliminated the cloud of doubt.

“周六福金行”因“仿牌”之称，起诉“周六福珠宝”侵害名誉权、商业诋毁，周六福珠宝在系列案件中获胜

"CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry" Sued "Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry" for Infringement of Reputation Right and Discrediting due to the Alleging of "Fake Brand", and Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry Won a Series of Cases

案件概况

Case Brief

2021年7月，香港周六福黄金钻石首饰集团有限公司、香港周六福珠宝金行国际集团有限公司（“周六福首饰公司” 、“周六福金行”）在深圳罗湖法院针对周六福珠宝股份有限公司（“周六福珠宝”）提起恶意反赔之诉和不正当竞争之诉，其认为周六福珠宝在全国针对周六福首饰公司及其经销商进行工商投诉、向多地人民法院起诉的行为属于恶意诉讼，同时构成反不正当竞争法第二条的不正当竞争。在一审庭审过程中，在双方围绕恶意诉讼的四个要件展开辩论后，对方主动放弃恶意反赔之诉，仅保留不正当竞争之诉的诉由，后双方又围绕“起诉行为是否违反诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德”展开交锋，同时我方指出对方的证据存在对日期等信息进行涂改的情形后，对方深感败局已定，于2021年12月撤回了起诉。本案涉及知识产权恶意诉讼和不正当竞争的裁判规则的准确理解与适用。

In July 2021, HK ZHOU LIU FU Gold Diamond Jewelry Group Co., Limited and HK CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry Int'l Group Limited ("ZHOU LIU FU Jewelry company" and "CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry") filed a counter-compensation against the malicious lawsuit and an unfair competition lawsuit against Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry Co., Ltd. ("Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry") with Shenzhen Luohu Court, arguing that Zhou Liu Fu Jeweler’s industrial and commercial complaints and multiple lawsuits with the people's courts in many places in the country against ZHOU LIU FU Jewelry company and its dealers belonged to malicious lawsuits, which also constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Law Against Unfair Competition. During the first-instance trial, after the two parties debated on the four elements of malicious lawsuit, the other party voluntarily gave up the counter-compensation against the malicious lawsuit, and only retained the cause of action for unfair competition lawsuit. Later, the two parties debated about "whether the prosecution behavior violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics". At the same time, after we pointed out that the other party's evidence had been altered in respect of the date and other information, the other party deeply felt it would lose the lawsuit, and withdrew the lawsuit in December, 2021. This case involves the accurate understanding and application of adjudication rules for IP malicious lawsuit and unfair competition.

2021年8月，周六福金行与其经销商在深圳罗湖法院针对周六福珠宝提起侵害名誉权纠纷的诉讼，认为周六福珠宝委托律所向其经销商发送律师函、宣传中含有“抵制仿牌”“香港周六福珠宝金行某门店因侵权被罚款140万元”“香港周六福珠宝金行蹭着知名品牌周六福珠宝的热度混淆视听，被多方举报，深陷官司之中”等字样的行为侵害其名誉权。集佳律师从多方面进行举证和详细说理，最后深圳罗湖法院认定周六福珠宝的发函属于维权的合理范围，宣传的内容乃是依据行政处罚决定、民事裁定或民事判决书的内容发布，不属于虚构或编造的事实。因此周六福珠宝的行为并非侮辱诽谤的行为，不构成名誉权侵权。一审判决作出后，对方提起上诉又撤诉。

In August 2021, CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry and its dealers filed a lawsuit against Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry with Shenzhen Luohu Court for dispute on infringement of reputation rights, arguing that Zhou Liu Fu Jeweler’s act of entrusting the law firm to send a lawyer's letter to its dealers, and the propaganda containing "boycott fake brands", "a store of HK CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry was fined 1.4 million yuan for infringement" and "HK CHOW LO FOOK Jeweler’s free ride of the popularity of the well-known brand Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry to confuse the public and was denounced by many parties and was deeply involved in a lawsuit" and other words infringed its reputation right. Unitalen lawyers provided evidence and reasoned in detail from various aspects. In the end, Shenzhen Luohu Court determined that Zhou Liu Fu Jeweler’s letter was within the reasonable scope of rights protection. The content of the propaganda was based on the content of the administrative penalty decision, civil ruling or civil judgment, and was not a fictitious or fabricated fact. Therefore, the behavior of Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry was not an insult or defamation, and did not constitute an infringement of the right of reputation. After the first-instance judgment was made, the other party filed an appeal and then withdrew.

2021年12月，周六福金行及其经销商新都区帝尊珠宝店在成都中院针对周六福珠宝及锦爱珠宝店提起商业诋毁纠纷，认为2021年7月周六福珠宝的经销商锦爱珠宝店在门头LED屏上播放“认准这边正牌周六福、抵制香港某某公司仿牌周六福”“无售后、无质保、无公证、个体经营”构成商业诋毁。经集佳律师精心研判，制定了反诉策略，并在2022年2月提出反诉，指控周六福金行及其经销商新都区帝尊珠宝店在2021年4月在先在其宣传标语中使用了“抵制没有®标的任何仿牌周六福 正宗港牌·国家认证·值得信赖”“我也不知道怎么做，活动就想送点礼品，周某福并非正规香港周六福珠宝金行国际集团有限公司的品牌！请认准蔡少芬代言的品牌！”构成商业诋毁。双方围绕商业诋毁的四个构成要件，结合证据和事实，在庭审中展开激烈的交锋。最终，法院认定新都区帝尊珠宝店的宣传指向竞争对手周六福珠宝，其发布的内容属于编造、传播虚假信息或误导性信息，宣传目的在于通过传播锦爱珠宝店销售并非正规“周六福”品牌的信息使得消费者产生不良印象从而影响消费者决策，周六福的品牌形象、价值均受到了损害与贬低，因此，周六福金行宣称周六福珠宝为“仿牌周六福”，构成商业诋毁。判决中，法院确认了周六福金行及其多个经销商由于不规范使用周六福商标的行为构成对周六福珠宝所拥有的第7519198号、第13062591号“周六福”注册商标专用权的侵害，故锦爱珠宝店在宣传用语中使用“仿牌周六福”字样指称周六福金行并非没有事实依据。本案中，“个体经营”是事实，“无公证”并不能指代具体的实际意义，该宣传用语并不能产生任何正面或负面的效果。尽管如此，法院还是认为“无售后、无质保”的宣传存在一定的误导性。最后法院综合考虑双方的实际情况，判决新都区帝尊珠宝店赔偿新都区锦爱珠宝店所产生的经济损失。

In December 2021, CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry and its dealer Xindu District Di Zun Jewelry Store filed a discrediting dispute with Chengdu Intermediate Court against Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry and Jin Ai Jewelry Store, arguing that in July 2021, the dealer of Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry Jin Ai Jewelry Store broadcast on the LED screen of the storefront signboard "to believe the genuine Zhou Liu Fu here, and boycott the fake CHOW LO FOOK of a certain company in Hong Kong", and "no after-sales, no warranty, no notarization, self-employed", which constituted the discrediting. Unitalen lawyers, after careful research and judgment, formulated a counterclaim strategy, and filed a counterclaim in February 2022, accusing that CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry and its dealer Xindu District Di Zun Jewelry Store used "Boycott any fake brand Zhou Liu Fu without ® mark Authentic Hong Kong brand · National authentication · Trustworthy" and "I don't know what to do but giving some gifts. Zhou X Fu is not the official brand of HK CHOW LO FOOK Jewelry Int'l Group Limited. Please look for the brand endorsed by Cai Shaofen!" priorly in their promotional slogans in April 2021, which constituted the discrediting. The two parties engaged in a fierce confrontation in the court hearing around the four elements of discrediting, based on the evidences and facts. In the end, the court determined that the propaganda of Xindu District Di Zun Jewelry Store pointed to its competitor Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry, and the content it published was fabricated, disseminated false or misleading information, and the purpose of the propaganda was to spread the information that Jin Ai Jewelry Store sold products of unofficial "CHOW LO FOOK" brand, to make consumers have a bad impression and influenced their decision-making. The brand image and value of Zhou Liu Fu were damaged and degraded. Therefore, CHOW LO FOOK Jewelery's act of claiming that Zhou Liu Fu Jewelery was a "fake CHOW LO FOOK" constituted discrediting. In the judgment, the court confirmed that CHOW LO FOOK Jewelery and its multiple dealers infringed the exclusive rights of Zhou Liu Fu Jewelery's registered trademarks No. 7519198 and No. 13062591 for "Zhou Liu Fu" due to the irregular use of the trademark of Zhou Liu Fu. Thus, it is not without fact that Jin Ai jewelry store used the words "fake Zhou Liu Fu" in its promotional slogan to allege CHOW LO FOOK Jewelery. In this case, "self-employment" is a fact, "no notarization" does not refer to any specific practical meaning, and the propaganda slogan cannot produce any positive or negative effect. Nevertheless, the court still held that the advertisement of "no after-sales, no warranty" was misleading to some extent. Finally, the court comprehensively considered the actual situation of both parties and ruled that Xindu District Di Zun Jewelry Store shall compensate for the economic loss of Xindu District Jin Ai Jewelry Store.

典型意义

Typical Significance

该系列案件是作为被告如何在案件中进行有效抗辩或主动出击的典型案件。典型意义主要体现在两个方面：一方面在于对恶意诉讼、不正当竞争、名誉权侵权和商业诋毁等法律规则的构成要件的准确理解与适用；另一方面在于诉讼策略的合理制定，即如何在被诉案件中主动利用反诉达到反客为主的效果，从而在案件的交锋中胜出。

This series of cases typically shows how the defendant can effectively defend or take the initiative in the case. The typical significance is mainly reflected in two aspects: on the one hand, the accurate understanding and application of the constituent elements of legal rules such as malicious lawsuit, unfair competition, reputation right infringement and discrediting; on the other hand, the reasonable formulation of litigation strategies, that is, how to take the initiative to use counterclaims in the accused cases to achieve the effect of reversing the positions of the host and the guest, thus winning in the confrontation of the case.

集佳代理韩国高端化妆品“后”“the history of 后”商标在华首获司法认驰

Unitalen Represented Trademarks "后" and "the history of 后" of the Korean High-end Cosmetics Recognized as Well-known for the First Time in China by the Judicial System

基本案情

Case Brief

株式会社LG生活健康（下称“LG生活健康”）旗下品牌“WHOO后”（包括“”“”“”等商标），意为皇后的秘诀。WHOO后品牌最早于2003年在韩国上市，后于2005年进入中国市场。截至2016年，WHOO后品牌化妆品在中国88个城市开设有近200个线下专柜，在线上天猫及京东商城开设有官方品牌专卖店，产品销售范围涵盖中国大陆绝大部分省市地区。凭借优质的产品和服务，该品牌现已成为全世界最顶级的韩妆代表品牌之一。

The brand "WHOO后" (including trademarks "", "", and "", etc.) is a sub-brand of LG Household & Health Care Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "LG H&H"), which means the queen's secret. The WHOO后 brand was first launched in Korea in 2003, and then entered the Chinese market in 2005. As of 2016, cosmetics of the WHOO后 brand have nearly 200 off-line counters opened in 88 cities in China, and have official brand stores on-line in Tmall and JD.com. The product sales covered most provinces and cities in mainland China. With high-quality products and services, the brand has now become one of the top representative brands of Korean cosmetics in the world.

LG生活健康在本案中主张的权利商标有两枚，包括第3类“润肤液、化妆品”等商品上核准注册的第4819575号“”商标（2005年申请，2009年核准注册）和第9327294号“”商标（2001年申请，2012年核准注册）。

LG H&H has two trademarks claimed in this case, including Trademark No. 4819575 "" (applied for registration in 2005 and approved for registration in 2009) and Trademark No. 9327294 "" (applied for registration in 2001 and approved for registration in 2012) approved for registration on goods of "Moisturizer Lotion; Cosmetics", etc. in class 3.

2020年，LG生活健康发现深圳市某贸易有限公司（下称“深圳某公司”）在www.whoo.com网站、“Whoo后”新浪微博等处使用“The History of Whoo一后”“The History of Whoo后”“Whoo一后”“Whoo 后”等商标宣传寿衣、花圈、棺材、骨灰盒等殡葬商品和服务，并扬言“致力于打造中国最好的殡葬礼仪及殡葬用品品牌——Whoo一后”。不仅如此，深圳某公司自2016年5月起还在第20、24、26、44、45等殡葬用品及殡葬服务相关类别上申请“Whoo后”“Whoo一后”“”等商标并核准注册，最早申请的商标在一审判决作出之前已被国知局无效宣告公告；在第21类“化妆用具”等商品上申请注册“”商标被驳回。深圳某公司法定代表人曾表示愿意将核准注册的“Whoo后”相关商标和“whoo.com”域名以250万美元的价格出售。

In 2020, LG H&H found out that a Trading Limited Company in Shenzhen (hereinafter referred to as the "Shenzhen Company") used trademarks "The History of Whoo一后", "The History of Whoo后", "Whoo一后" and "Whoo 后", etc. on the website www.whoo.com, Sina Weibo account "Whoo后", etc. to promote funeral goods and services such as shrouds, wreaths, coffins, cremation urns and the like, and declared to "commit to build the best funeral etiquette and supplies brand Whoo一后 in China". Not only that, since May 2016, the Shenzhen Company has also applied for registration of trademarks "Whoo后", "Whoo一后", and "", etc. in the classes related to funeral supplies and funeral services of classes 20, 24, 26, 44, and 45, and the trademarks have been approved for registration. The earliest applied trademarks had been announced invalid by the China National Intellectual Property Administration before the first-instance judgment was made; the trademark "" applied for registration on goods of "Cosmetic utensils" etc. in class 21 was rejected. The legal representative of the Shenzhen Company had expressed the willingness to sell the approved and registered trademarks related to "Whoo后" and the domain name "whoo.com" at a price of 2.5 million US dollars.

2021年，LG生活健康针对深圳某公司向深圳中院提起商标侵权诉讼，深圳中院经审理支持了LG生活健康关于停止侵权、消除影响的诉讼请求，并判赔人民币45万元（LG生活健康主张50万元）。目前该案尚在上诉期内。

In 2021, LG H&H filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the Shenzhen Company with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. After hearing, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court supported the claims of LG H&H in ceasing the infringement and eliminating the impact, and awarded compensatory damages in the amount of RMB 450,000 yuan (LG H&H claimed 500,000 yuan). This case is currently in the appeal period.

法院认定

Determination of the Court

第一，关于认驰必要性。法院认为本案深圳某公司使用被诉商标的商品和服务与LG生活健康的权利商标核定使用的商品不属于相同或类似商品及服务，涉及跨类保护的问题，因此本案具有认定驰名商标的必要。

First, regarding the necessity of being recognized as well-known. The court held that, in this case, the goods and services on which the accused trademarks of the Shenzhen Company are used and the goods on which the trademarks claimed by LG H&H are approved for use are not the same or similar goods and services, which involves the issue of cross-class protection. Therefore, it is necessary for the trademarks to be recognized as well-known in this case.

第二，关于认驰可能性。法院认为，在案证据能证明两枚权利商标经持续使用的商品在市场份额、销售区域、宣传促销等方面，具有巨大的市场影响力，品牌价值极高，并认定在深圳某公司申请注册“Whoo后”相关商标之前，第4819575号“”商标和第9327294号“”商标已在第3类化妆品商品上达到驰名状态，且驰名状态一直持续至被诉行为取证及起诉时。

Second, regarding the possibility of being recognized as well-known. The court held that the evidence in this case could prove that the products of the two claimed trademarks that have been continuously used have huge market influence in terms of market share, sales area, publicity and promotion, etc. and have high brand value, and determined that before the Shenzhen Company applied for registration of trademarks related to "Whoo后", Trademark No. 4819575 "" and Trademark No. 9327294 "" have achieved the well-known state on goods of cosmetics in class 3, and the well-known state has maintained until the alleged act was evidenced and prosecuted.

第三，关于商标侵权认定。法院认为，在实际使用和宣传中，“whoo”与“”商标以及“Whoo 后”商标经常同时出现，且“Whoo”本身系对“后”的音译，上述商标经过大量且长期的宣传和使用，形成并不断加深对应关系。被诉商标“Whoo一后”“Whoo 后”“The History of Whoo一后”“The History of Whoo后”分别构成对“”“”商标的复制、摹仿和翻译。结合涉案权利商标具有强显著性以及高知名度，相关公众会认为被诉商标与LG生活健康涉案驰名商标具有相当程度的关联，使商标注册人的利益受到损害。因此法院认定商标侵权成立。

Third, regarding determining the trademark infringement. The court held that in actual use and publicity, "whoo" and trademark "" and trademark "Whoo 后" often appeared together, and "Whoo" itself is a transliteration of "后". The above trademarks, upon extensive and long-term publicity and use, have formed and continuously deepened the corresponding relationship. The accused trademarks "Whoo一后", "Whoo 后", "The History of Whoo一后" and "The History of Whoo后" constitute reproduction, imitation and translation of the trademarks "" and "", respectively. Considering the strong distinctiveness and high notability of the trademarks claimed in this case, the relevant public will mistake that the accused trademarks are considerably related to the well-known trademarks of LG H&H involved in this case, which will damage the interests of the trademark registrant. Therefore, the court found that the trademark infringement was established

第四，关于判赔额的确定。LG生活健康主张的经济损失及合理支出共计50万元，法院综合考虑权利商标知名度、被诉侵权行为情节和性质、LG生活健康的合理支出、深圳某公司的侵权故意等因素，酌情确定经济损失及合理维权费用合计 45 万元。

Fourth, regarding determining the amount of compensation. The economic losses and reasonable expenses claimed by LG H&H amounted to 500,000 yuan. The court has comprehensively considered factors such as the notability of the trademarks claimed, the circumstances and nature of the alleged infringement act, the reasonable expenses of LG H&H, and the infringement intent of the Shenzhen Company, and determined the economic losses and reasonable right protection costs totaling 450,000 yuan as appropriate.

典型意义

Typical Significance

本案不仅保护了LG生活健康的合法权益，维护了WHOO后品牌声誉，还打击了攀附他人商标知名度、淡化丑化驰名商标的恶意侵权行为。在“”“”商标在华首次认驰后，相信将来LG生活健康WHOO后品牌在华的维权之路将会更为顺畅。

This case not only protects the legitimate rights and interests of LG H&H and protects the brand reputation of WHOO后, but also defeats the malicious infringement act of clinging to the notability of others' trademarks and downplaying and defaming the well-known trademarks. After the "" and "" trademarks were recognized as well-known trademarks for the first time in China, it is believed that in the future, right protection of the WHOO后 brand of LG H&H in China will be unhindered.

集佳新闻：

集佳荣获“中日商标交流贡献奖”

Unitalen Received the "China-Japan Trademark Exchange Contribution Award"

2022年是中华商标协会（CTA）与日本弁理士会（JPAA）签署合作协议20周年，CTA与JPAA共同开展了“中日商标交流贡献奖”评选工作，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司凭借长期以来在中日商标领域杰出的业绩表现、显著的交流贡献和卓越的影响力获此殊荣。

2022 marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the cooperation agreement between the China Trademark Association (CTA) and the Japan Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA). CTA and JPAA together carried out the selection of the "China-Japan Trademark Exchange Contribution Award". Unitalen Attorneys at Law has won this honor for its outstanding performance, remarkable exchange contribution and excellent influence in the field of Chinese and Japanese trademarks.

集佳西安分公司与西安外国语大学欧洲学院共建人才培养基地

Unitalen Xi'an Branch and School of Occidental Studies in XISU Jointly Build a Talent Training Base

为积极拓展校企合作新机制，探索人才培养新模式，2022年5月20日下午，北京集佳知识产权代理有限公司西安分公司与西安外国语大学欧洲学院举行了校企合作洽谈暨校外实习实践基地签约授牌仪式。

To actively expand the new mechanism of school-enterprise cooperation and explore new models of talent training, on the afternoon of May 20, 2022, Xi'an Branch of Unitalen Attorneys at Law and the School of Occidental Studies of Xi'an International Studies University (XISU) held a school-enterprise cooperation negotiation and off-campus internship and practice base signing and licensing ceremony.

集佳视点：

知识产权恶意诉讼的应对及反制

Coping with and Countering against IP-related Malicious Proceedings

随着中国对知识产权的保护力度不断加大，侵权赔偿数额日益增加，使得恶意提起知识产权诉讼这一现象在知识产权领域中逐渐凸现。日前最高人民法院发布了《关于知识产权侵权诉讼中被告以原告滥用权利为由请求赔偿合理开支问题的批复》（以下简称为“《滥用权利请求赔偿合理开支批复》”或“该批复”），最高院民三庭也于近日针对该批复发表了理解与适用，结合最高人民法院院该批复及其理解与使用，以及我所代理的“一品石”案件，简单介绍如何应对知识产权恶意诉讼以及反制。

With the increasing protection effort on intellectual property and the increasing amount of compensation for infringement in China, malicious proceedings filed with respect to intellectual property gradually emerge in the IP field. Recently, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Official Reply on Issues concerning the Claim of the Defendant for Compensation for Reasonable Expenses on the Ground that the Plaintiff Abuses Rights in the Action of Intellectual Property Infringement" (hereinafter referred to as the "Official Reply on the Claim for Compensation for Reasonable Expenses on the Ground of Rights Abuses" or the "Official Reply"). The Third Civil Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court has also issued an understanding and application of the Official Reply recently. In combination with the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court and its understanding and application, as well as the "一品石" (Yipinshi)" case represented by Unitalen, coping with and countering against IP-related malicious proceedings will be introduced briefly here.

一、知识产权权利滥用及恶意诉讼的鉴别

I. Identification of abuse of intellectual property rights and malicious proceedings

1、何谓“恶意诉讼”？

1. What is "malicious proceedings"?

本质上属于滥用诉权，有悖于《民事诉讼法》第十三条规定的“民事诉讼应当遵循诚信原则”，司法实践中一般表现为滥用权利（权利基础有瑕疵）、虚构事实起诉、恶意保全、重复诉讼等情形。

Malicious proceedings essentially is an abuse of the procedural rights, and is contrary to the provision of Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Law that "in civil procedures, the principle of good faith shall be adhered to". In judicial practice, malicious proceedings is generally manifested as abuse of rights (flawed foundation of rights), fabricating facts to prosecute, malicious preservation, multiplicity of actions, etc.

根据《江苏省高级人民法院关于实行最严格知识产权司法保护为高质量发展提供司法保障的指导意见》，行为人明知其获得的知识产权不具有实质上的正当性，却以其形式上享有的知识产权为依据，以不正当竞争、妨碍对方正常经营等为目的，对他人提起知识产权诉讼，给他人造成损害的，系知识产权恶意诉讼。

According to the Guiding Opinions of the High People's Court of Jiangsu Province on Implementing the Strictest Judicial Protection on Intellectual Property and Providing Judicial Guarantee for High-quality Development, where an actor knows that the intellectual property rights he/she has acquired are not substantively legitimate, but based on the intellectual property rights he/she enjoys in form, for the purpose of unfair competition and hindering the normal operation of the opposite party, he/she initiates intellectual property proceedings against others and causes damage to others, it is a malicious proceedings of intellectual property.

2. 司法实践中，知识产权恶意诉讼构成“四要件”：

2. The "four elements" of constituting malicious proceedings of intellectual property in judicial practice.

1）一方当事人以提起知识产权诉讼的方式提出了某项请求，或者以提出某项请求相威胁（放弃诉请、撤诉）。

1) One party makes a certain request by filing an intellectual property proceedings, or threatens to make a certain request (abandoning claims, withdrawing lawsuits).

2）提出请求的一方当事人明知己方没有法律和事实上的依据，具有主观上的恶意。“恶意”主要体现在一是明知自己的诉讼请求缺乏事实和法律依据，二是具有侵害对方合法权益的不正当的诉讼目的。

2) The party making the request knows that he/she has no legal and factual basis and has subjective malice. "Malice" is mainly reflected in firstly knowing that his/her claims lack factual and legal basis, and secondly having an improper purpose of proceedings that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of the other party.

3）产生了实际的损害后果（财产损失、声誉降低）。

3) There are actual damage consequences (property damage, loss of reputation).

4）提出请求的一方当事人提起知识产权诉讼行为与产生的损害后果之间具有因果关系。

4) There is a causal relationship between the act of filing of an intellectual property proceeding by the one party making the request and the resulting damage consequences.

二、对最高人民法院《滥用权利请求赔偿合理开支批复》的简要解读

II. A brief interpretation on the "Official Reply on the Claim for Compensation for Reasonable Expenses on the Ground of Rights Abuses" of the Supreme People's Court.

中国此前的现行法律和司法实践中，只有败诉的被告承担胜诉原告律师费等合理开支，胜诉被告若要主张败诉原告赔偿其所支付的合理开支，只能另行起诉。最高院的《滥用权利请求赔偿合理开支批复》对标国际条约（RCEP协定规定的是“败诉方向胜诉方支付合理的律师费等费用”，未限定诉讼主体地位，即未将败诉方、胜诉方与原告、被告相对应），解决“单向赔付”问题。

In the previously existing laws and judicial practice in China, only the defeated defendant bears reasonable expenses such as the attorney fees of the prevailing plaintiff, and if the prevailing defendant intends to claim that the defeated plaintiff compensates for the reasonable expenses that the defendant has paid, the defendant can only file a lawsuit separately. The "Official Reply on the Claim for Compensation for Reasonable Expenses on the Ground of Rights Abuses" of the Supreme People's Court benchmarks against the international treaties (the RCEP agreement stipulates that "the defeated party pays reasonable attorney fees and other fees to the prevailing party", and does not limit the status of the subject of the lawsuit, that is, the defeated party and the prevailing party are not corresponding to the plaintiff and the defendant), and solves the problem of "one-way compensation".

1. 适用条件：

1. Applicable conditions:

被告承担举证责任（原告的起诉属于滥用权利；被告合法权益因原告起诉而受到损害）

The defendant bears the burden of proof (the plaintiff filling a lawsuit is an abuse of rights; the defendant's legitimate rights and interests are damaged due to the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff).

原告的起诉构成法律规定的滥用权利（滥用权利vs恶意起诉；仅系程序性规定，构成要件需按民法典总则编关于滥用权利的实体审查标准进行判断）

The plaintiff filling a lawsuit constitutes an abuse of rights stipulated by laws (abuse of rights vs malicious proceedings; it is only a procedural provision, and the constituent elements have to be judged according to the review standards for the entity of abusing rights in the General Provisions of the Civil Code).

原告赔偿被告因诉讼所支付的合理开支（律师费、交通费、食宿费等合理开支，不包括因滥诉所受的其他经济损失，应通过其他途径寻求解决）。

The plaintiff compensates the defendant for the reasonable expenses incurred from the proceedings (attorney fees, transportation fees, room and board expenses, etc., excluding other economic losses caused by the abuse of the procedural rights, which should be resolved through other ways).

2.适用方式：

2. Ways of application:

1）通过反诉方式依法提出请求，基于胜诉的被告主张滥用权利的原告承担起因诉讼所支出的合理开支的诉讼请求，与原告起诉被告侵权之间，具有因果关系，应当合并审理。如“一品石”商标案，在被诉案件中主张原告方权利恶意取得、权利滥用抗辩；

1) The claim is made in accordance with the law by means of counterclaim. There is a causal relationship between the claims made based on that the prevailing defendant claims that the plaintiff that abuses rights shall bear the reasonable expenses incurred from the lawsuit and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant for infringement, and the cases should be consolidated for hearing. For example, in the "一品石" (yipinshi) trademark case, in the accused case, it is claimed for defense that the plaintiff's rights were acquired maliciously and the rights were abused;

2）通过另行起诉方式提出请求，可以另案提起因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷诉讼，主张律师费等合理开支。如“一品石”著作权案，主动提起不正当竞争之诉/侵权诉讼，对商标注册人的恶意警告、恶意投诉、恶意诉讼行为一并追究责任。或者被诉侵权案件胜诉后，另行提起恶意诉讼反赔之诉（因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷），主张赔偿合理开支。

2) By making the request by means of a separate lawsuit, a separate lawsuit may be filed for the liability dispute regarding the damages caused by the malicious intellectual property proceedings, claiming reasonable expenses such as attorney fees. For instance, in the copyright case of "一品石" (yipinshi), an unfair competition lawsuit/infringement lawsuit was initiated, and the malicious warnings, malicious complaints and malicious lawsuit act of the trademark registrant are held accountable together. Or after the accused infringement case prevails, a lawsuit may be separately filed for counter-compensation against the malicious lawsuit (for the liability dispute regarding the damages caused by the malicious intellectual property proceedings), claiming compensation for the reasonable expenses.

3）为其他方式预留适用空间，其中“依法请求”的表述，为反诉、另诉之外其他方式的适用预留了探索空间。如，在受到投诉、警告的情况下，主动提起确认不侵权之诉，后者通过无效宣告/撤销等程序，动摇其权利根基。

3) Applicable spaces are reserved for other means, and the expression "requesting according to law" reserves spaces for exploration for the application of other means than counterclaims and separate lawsuits. For example, in the case of receiving complaints or warnings, a lawsuit for confirmation of non-infringement may be initiated, and through procedures such as invalidation/revocation, the foundation of rights may be moved.

三、对恶意诉讼/权利滥用的应对策略

III. Coping Strategy against Malicious Proceedings/Right Abuse

1.在被诉案件中,主张原告方权利恶意取得、构成权利滥用进行抗辩。除了上述我所代理的“一品石”案件外，最高人民法院指导案例82号“歌力思”案、最高人民法院发布的知识产权案件年度报告（2015年）中的“赛克思”案，以及2018年中国法院10大知识产权案件“优衣库”案，均是此类案件的典型案例。

1. For the defendant, it may be claimed for defense that the plaintiff's rights were acquired maliciously, which constitutes abuse of rights. In addition to the above "一品石" (yipinshi) case represented by Unitalen, the "ELLASSAY" case, the guiding case No. 82 of the Supreme Court, the "SAIKESI" case in the Annual Report on IP Cases (2015) issued by the Supreme People's Court, and the "Uniqlo" case in the top 10 IP cases in Chinese courts in 2018 are all typical cases of this type.

2.在受到投诉、警告的情况下，主动提起确认不侵权之诉。我所曾经代理的“微信支付”案等案件，就是此类案件的典型案例。

2. In the case of receiving administrative complaints or warnings, a lawsuit for declaration of non-infringement may be initiated. The "WeChat Pay" case and others represented by Unitalen are typical cases of this type.

3.被诉侵权案件胜诉后，另行提起恶意诉讼反赔之诉（因恶意提起知识产权诉讼损害责任纠纷），主张赔偿合理开支。2019年中国法院10大知识产权案件，以及我所代理的“金蝶妙想”案等案件，均是此类案件的典型案例。

3. After the accused prevails in an infringement case, a lawsuit may be separately filed for counter-compensation against the malicious lawsuit (for the liability dispute of damages caused by the malicious intellectual property proceedings), claiming compensation for the reasonable expenses. The top 10 IP cases in Chinese courts in 2019 and the "金蝶妙想" (jindiemiaoxiang) case and others represented by Unitalen are typical cases of this type.

4.主动提起不正当竞争之诉/侵权诉讼（如“一品石”著作权案），对商标注册人的恶意警告、恶意投诉、恶意诉讼行为一并追究责任。

4. An unfair competition lawsuit/infringement lawsuit (such as the copyright case of "一品石" (yipinshi)) may be initiated, and the malicious warnings, malicious complaints and malicious lawsuits of the trademark registrant may be held accountable together.

5.此外，可以针对原告方的“权利商标”通过提起无效宣告或撤销等程序，动摇其权利根基。我所代理的“Zirkulin”案等案件，均是此类案件的典型案例。

5. In addition, through procedures such as invalidation/revocation against the "trademarks claimed" by the plaintiff, the foundation of rights may be moved. The "Zirkulin" case and others represented by Unitalen are typical cases of this type.