Search

Region
Country
Firm
Author
Date
to
Keywords
Search

Newsletter - September 2022 - English and Chinese

Unitalen Attorneys at Law China


业界新闻:

中欧两局专利合作条约国际检索单位试点项目延期

CNIPA-EPO Pilot of International Searching Authority under the Patent Cooperation Treaty Extended

 

近日,中国国家知识产权局和欧洲专利局共同发布联合公报,宣布两局专利合作条约(PCT)国际检索单位试点项目将于2022年12月1日起延期一年至2023年11月30日。根据该项目,中国申请人提交的PCT申请可以选择欧洲专利局作为国际检索单位。试点项目适用于以英文向中国国家知识产权局或世界知识产权组织国际局提交的PCT申请,延长期内限额为3000件。由欧洲专利局完成国际检索的申请将无需进行欧洲补充检索。

Recently, the CNIPA and the EPO issued joint communiqué, announcing that the CNIPA-EPO Pilot of International Searching Authority (ISA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) will be extended for one year from December 1, 2022 to November 30, 2023. According to the project, the EPO can be selected as the ISA for the PCT application submitted by the Chinese applicant. The pilot is applicable to PCT application submitted in English to the CNIPA or the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the number of applications is limited to 3000 during the extension period. Applications with international searches completed by the EPO will not require European supplementary searches.

2020年12月1日启动以来,270余名申请人积极参与了该项目。

Since the launch on December 1, 2020, more than 270 applicants have actively participated in the project.

(来源:中国国家知识产权局网站)

(Source: Website of the CNIPA)

《2022年全球创新指数报告》发布 中国名列第11位 连续十年稳步提升

The 2022 Global Innovation Index Report Was Released, and China Ranked 11th, Rising Steadily for Ten Consecutive Years

世界知识产权组织(WIPO)于当地时间9月29日发布《2022年全球创新指数报告》。结果显示,中国排名第11,较去年再上升1位,连续十年稳步提升,位居36个中高收入经济体之首。《报告》对全球132个经济体的创新生态系统表现进行综合评价排名。中国在《报告》中主要表现包括:

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released the 2022 Global Innovation Index Report on September 29 local time. The results show that China ranks 11th, up one place from last year, and steadily rises for ten consecutive years, and ranks first among 36 middle and high income economies. The Report comprehensively evaluates and ranks the performance of innovation ecosystems of 132 economies in the world. China's main performances in the Report include:

一是9项细分指标排名全球第一。创新投入方面,国内市场规模,提供正规培训的公司占比,阅读、数学和科学PISA量表等3个细分指标排名第一,国内产业多元化、产业集群发展情况等2个细分指标排名第二,全球研发公司前三位平均支出、高校排名前三位平均分、资本形成总额GDP占比、企业供资GERD占比等4个细分指标排名第三。创新产出方面,本国人专利申请量、本国人实用新型申请量、本国人工业品外观设计申请量、本国人商标申请量、劳动力产值增长、创意产品出口在贸易总额中的占比等6个细分指标排名第一。

First, nine segmenting indexes rank first in the world. In terms of innovation investment, three segmenting indexes such as the scale of the domestic market, the proportion of companies providing formal training, and reading, mathematics and science PISA scale rank first, two segmenting indexes such as domestic industrial diversification and industrial cluster development rank second, and four segmenting indexes such as the average expenditure of the top three global R&D companies, the average score of the top three universities, the proportion of GDP in total capital formation, and the proportion of enterprise funding GERD rank third. In terms of innovation output, six segmenting indexes such as the number of patent applications, utility model applications, industrial design applications, trademark applications of the local people, labor output growth, and the proportion of creative product exports in total trade rank first.

二是知识产权高质量发展指标表现良好。《报告》显示,2021年,中国品牌总价值达1.9万亿美元,同比增长7%,全球排名第18,其中,中国工商银行在全球银行业排名第一,华为在全球科技行业排名第二;风险投资规模达940亿美元,同比增长84%,全球排名第16。2020年,高新技术产品出口值达7577亿美元,同比增长6%,全球排名第四;高科技制造业占制造业的比重达48.1%,较2018年增长1个百分点,全球排名第14;知识产权收入达89亿美元,同比增长34%。

Second, the high-quality development indexes of intellectual property perform well. The Report shows that in 2021, the total value of Chinese brands reached 1.9 trillion US dollars, up 7% year on year, ranking 18th in the world. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) ranked first in the global banking industry, and Huawei ranked second in the global technology industry. The scale of venture capital reached 94 billion US dollars, up 84% year on year, ranking 16th in the world. In 2020, the export value of high-tech products reached 757.7 billion US dollars, up 6% year on year, ranking fourth in the world. The high-tech manufacturing industry accounted for 48.1% of the manufacturing industry, an increase of one percentage point over 2018, ranking 14th in the world. Intellectual property revenue reached 8.9 billion US dollars, up 34% year on year.

三是世界5大科技集群中中国独占两席。报告显示,东京—横滨地区依然是全球最大的科技集群,深圳—香港—广州地区、北京、首尔、圣何塞—旧金山地区分列第二至第五位。

Third, China holds two exclusive seats among the world's 5 major S & T clusters. The Report shows that Tokyo-Yokohama region is still the largest S & T cluster in the world, Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou region, Beijing, Seoul, San Jose-San Francisco region rank second to fifth respectively.

PISA:Program for International Student Assessment,国际学生评估项目。

PISA: Program for International Student Assessment.

GERD:Gross Expenditure on Research and Development,研发支出总额。

Gross Expenditure on Research and Development.

(来源:中国国家知识产权局政务微信)

(Source: Official Wechat of the CNIPA)

 

中国知识产权保护得到外资企业普遍认可

China's Intellectual Property Protection Is Generally Recognized by Foreign-Funded Enterprises

9月28日,中国驻美大使秦刚发布推特表示:“过去十年来,中国知识产权保护满意度总体评分显著提高。中国政府有信心也有能力确保世界各地的企业获得公平、严格的知识产权保护”。

On September 28, QIN Gang, China's ambassador to the United States, tweeted: "Over the past decade, the overall score of satisfaction of China's intellectual property protection has improved significantly. The Chinese government is confident and able to ensure that enterprises around the world receive fair and strict intellectual property protection".

近日,中国国家知识产权局公布的一组数据,同样显示了合资企业和外资企业对中国知识产权保护环境的认可:2021年,国外申请人在华取得发明专利授权和商标注册同比分别增长23%和5%,充分说明其对中国知识产权保护环境的认可。2021年,合资企业和外资企业对知识产权保护的满意度得分相对于“十三五”初期分别提升4.52分和2.36分。

Recently, a set of data released by the CNIPA also shows that joint venture enterprises and foreign-funded enterprises have recognized China's intellectual property protection environment: in 2021, invention patent authorization and trademark registration obtained by foreign applicants in China increased by 23% and 5% respectively year on year, fully demonstrating recognition of China's intellectual property protection environment. In 2021, the satisfaction scores of joint venture enterprises and foreign-funded enterprises on intellectual property protection increased by 4.52 points and 2.36 points respectively compared with the initial stage of the "13th Five Year Plan".

(来源:中国知识产权报)

(Source: China Intellectual Property News)

中国国家知识产权局主办第十四次金砖国家知识产权局局长视频会议

The CNIPA Hosted the 14th BRICS Intellectual Property Office Director Video Conference

9月15日,由中国国家知识产权局主办的第十四次金砖国家知识产权局局长会议以视频形式举行。会议由中国国家知识产权局局长申长雨主持。巴西工业产权局局长克劳迪奥·费塔多,俄罗斯联邦知识产权局局长尤里·祖博夫,印度专利、外观设计和商标局局长乌纳特·潘迪特,南非公司与知识产权注册局局长罗伊·沃勒分别率团参会。世界知识产权组织总干事邓鸿森发表视频致辞,副总干事王彬颖和助理总干事爱德华·夸夸作为特邀嘉宾出席会议。

On September 15, the 14th BRICS Intellectual Property Office Director Conference hosted by the CNIPA was held in video format. The conference was chaired by SHEN Changyu, director of the CNIPA. Claudio Fetado, director of the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), Yuri Zubov, director of the Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Unat Pandit, director of the General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, and Roy Waller, director of the Companies and Intellectual Property Registration Office, led delegations to the conference. DENG Hongsen, director general of the WIPO, delivered a video speech, WANG Binying, deputy director general, and Edward Kwakwa, assistant director general, attended the conference as special guests.

会上,金砖五局局长共同批准更新《金砖知识产权合作运行指南框架》。该更新文件将“知识产权支撑联合国2030年可持续发展议程”写入合作目标,将数字技术、知识产权保护和管理纳入未来合作内容,进一步完善了合作机制。

In the conference, five directors of patent offices of BRICS jointly approved the updating of Framework for BRICS IPR Cooperation Operation Guidelines. The updated document included "Intellectual Property Supporting the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations" in the cooperation goals, and incorporated digital technology, intellectual property protection and management into future cooperation, and the cooperation mechanism was further improved.

会议审议了金砖五局8个合作领域的工作进展,批准了《金砖五局人工智能审查规则对比研究报告》《金砖五局外观设计视图提交要求对比研究报告》《金砖五局商标申请和审查程序对比手册》等多项成果。

The conference reviewed the progress of work in 8 cooperation areas of 5 patent offices of BRICS, and approved several achievements such as the Comparative Study Report on the Artificial Intelligence Review Rules of the 5 Patent Offices of BRICS, the Comparative Study Report on the Design View Submission Requirements of the 5 Patent Offices of BRICS, and the Comparison Manual on the Trademark Application and Review Procedures of the 5 Patent Offices of BRICS.

(来源:中国国家知识产权局政务微信)

(Source: Official Wechat of the CNIPA)

 

典型案例:

“空气净化设备”侵害发明专利权纠纷案

Case of Dispute over Infringement of Patent Right for Invention by "Air Purification Device"

基本案情:

Case brief:

达尔文技术国际有限公司(简称达尔文公司)是专利名称为“空气净化设备”的发明专利权人,该专利主要用于防雾霾的空气净化装置,于2007年12月26日获得授权。达尔文公司发现,航天通信控股集团股份有限公司北京科技分公司(简称航天通信北京分公司)自2014年11月起生产、销售、许诺销售侵害达尔文公司涉案发明专利权的“J·inG悟净高效立式空气净化器”(简称被控侵权产品)。南京宇洁环境系统技术有限公司(简称宇洁公司)向航天通信北京分公司提供、出售专用于实施涉案专利的静电沉降滤网。2012年达尔文公司曾经针对宇洁公司未经许可生产用于帮助侵犯涉案专利权的静电沉降滤网行为发送过律师函。达尔文公司起诉要求二被告停止侵权、赔偿损失及合理开支共计100万元等。

Darwin Technology International Limited (hereinafter referred to as Darwin Company) is the patentee of the invention with the patent name of "Air Purification Device". The patent is mainly used in air purification apparatus to prevent haze, and is patented on December 26, 2007. Darwin Company found that since November 2014, Beijing Science and Technology Branch of Aerospace Communications Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch) has produced, sold and promised to sell "J • inG Wujing High Efficiency Vertical Air Purifier" (hereinafter referred to as the alleged infringing product) that infringed Darwin Company's patent right for invention involved. Nanjing Yujie Environmental System Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yujie Company) provided and sold the electrostatic settling filter screen specially used to implement the patent involved to Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch. In 2012, Darwin Company sent a lawyer's letter to Yujie Company for its unlicensed production of electrostatic settling filter screen to help infringement of the patent rights involved. Darwin Company filed a lawsuit to request the two defendants to stop infringement, compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1 million yuan.

一审法院认为,被控侵权产品技术方案落入涉案专利权利要求1-3、15、18-21、24-27的保护范围,航天通信北京分公司及宇洁公司的涉案行为构成侵权,其提出被控侵权产品采用现有技术的抗辩不能成立。航天通信公司北京分公司制造、销售了侵犯达尔文公司专利权的涉案被控侵权产品,宇洁公司提供了其中的蜂巢凝并滤网。被控侵权产品中的蜂巢凝并滤网虽可用于空调,但其具有与涉案空气净化器产品相适配的尺寸,且仅仅当其使用在实施涉案专利产品中时,才能实现其颗粒沉积作用。因此,蜂巢凝并滤网属于实施涉案专利的专用产品,不具有“实质性非侵权用途”。宇洁公司知晓涉案专利的存在,其明知蜂巢凝并滤网系用于实施涉案专利的专用部件仍然向航天通信公司北京分公司提供,其作为帮助侵权行为人具有主观上的故意。因此,宇洁公司对航天通信北京分公司的侵权行为实施了帮助,构成共同侵权。一审判决二被告停止侵权,连带赔偿达尔文公司经济损失35万元及合理开支15万元。宇洁公司、航天通信北京分公司不服提起上诉。二审判决驳回上诉,维持原判。

The court of first instance held that the technical solution of the alleged infringing product fell within the protection scope of claims 1-3, 15, 18-21 and 24-27 of the patent involved, and the acts involved of Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch and Yujie Company constituted infringement, and the defense proposed that the alleged infringing product used the existing technology could not be established. Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch manufactured and sold the alleged infringing product involved that infringed Darwin Company's patent rights, and Yujie Company provided the honeycomb coagulation filter screen therein. Although the honeycomb coagulation filter screen in the alleged infringing product can be used for air conditioning, it has the size suitable for the air purifier product involved, and its particle deposition can only be realized when it is used in the product for implementing the patent involved. Therefore, the honeycomb coagulation filter screen belongs to the special product for implementing the patent involved and does not have "substantial non-infringing use". Yujie Company was aware of the existence of the patent involved and knew that the honeycomb coagulation filter screen was a special part for implementing the patent involved, but still provided it to Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch. Yujie Company serves as an infringer assistor and has a subjective intention. Therefore, Yujie Company has helped Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch in its infringement, which constitutes a joint infringement. The first instance decided that the two defendants should stop the infringement and jointly compensate Darwin Company for the economic loss of 350000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 150000 yuan. Yujie Company and Aerospace Communications Beijing Branch appealed against the judgment. The second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

点评:

Comments:

本案为专利侵权纠纷中认定帮助侵权的典型案例。本案既涉及技术用途的分析,也涉及帮助者主观意图的判断。该案对诉讼中如何认定“实质性非侵权用途”规则具有借鉴意义。

This case is a typical case of identifying contributory infringement in patent infringement dispute. This case involves not only the analysis of the use of technology, but also the judgment of the assistor's subjective intention. This case is of reference significance for how to identify the "substantial non-infringing use" rule in the litigation.

(案例来源:北京市高级人民法院)

(Source of case: Beijing Higher People's Court)

 “斐乐”侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Case of Dispute over Infringement of Trademark Right and Unfair Competition by "FILA"

主要案情:

Case brief:

2008年,斐乐体育有限公司(简称斐乐公司)经授权取得了“FILA”系列注册商标在中国地区的唯一合法使用权。通过持续的商业推广和宣传,“FILA”系列注册商标在国内外具有较高知名度。2016年6月,斐乐公司发现浙江中远鞋业有限公司(简称中远鞋业公司)在网络及线下实体店、温州独特电子商务有限公司(简称独特公司)在京东等线上网络销售平台开设“杰飞乐旗舰店”“杰飞乐官方旗舰店”,宣传展示、销售的鞋类商品,并使用与斐乐公司所持有的“FILA”系列注册商标近似的商标标志。刘某作为中远鞋业公司原法定代表人、独特公司法定代表人、“GFLA杰飞乐”等商标的注册人,参与了上述生产、销售和宣传行为。斐乐公司请求判令三被告停止侵权、赔偿经济损失900万元及合理开支41万元。

In 2008, Fila Sports Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Fila Company) was authorized to obtain the only legal right to use the "FILA" series of registered trademarks in China. Through continuous commercial promotion and publicity, the "FILA" series of registered trademarks have high reputation at home and abroad. In June 2016, Fila Company found that Zhejiang Zhongyuan Shoes Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongyuan Shoes Company) on online and offline physical stores, and Wenzhou Unique E-commerce Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Unique Company) on online network sales platform such as JDcom opened "GFLA Flagship Store" and "GFLA Official Flagship Store", publicized the footwear products displayed and sold, and used trademark signs  and  similar to the "FILA" series of registered trademarks held by Fila Company. Liu, as the former legal representative of Zhongyuan Shoes Company, the legal representative of Unique Company, and the registrant of "GFLA 杰飞乐" and other trademarks, participated in the above production, sales and publicity activities. Fila Company requested to order the three defendants to stop infringement, compensate economic losses of 9 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 410000 yuan.

一审法院认为,中远鞋业公司、独特公司在被诉商品上使用“”标志、标注“飛樂(中國)”以及在网站上使用标志,侵犯了斐乐公司“FILA”系列商标享有的商标权。中远鞋业公司、独特公司作为同类商品的经营者,理应知晓斐乐公司商标的知名度,其在生产的商品上突出使用与涉案商标近似的标志,且在多个网络销售平台上进行销售,销售金额巨大。同时,商标局早在2010年7月19日就以第7682295号“”商标与斐乐公司的第G691003A号“”商标近似为由,驳回了该商标在“服装、帽、鞋”上的注册申请,三被告此时已经充分知晓斐乐公司在先注册的“FILA”系列商标,仍在明知其使用被诉标志可能会导致商品来源混淆误认的情况下,继续生产和销售侵权商品,主观恶意明显,侵权情节严重,应适用惩罚性赔偿。考虑到中远鞋业公司存在三个品牌,但并未提供证据证明每个品牌的销售量和获利情况,推定被诉商品的营业利润所占比例为1/3,据此计算中远鞋业公司2015、2016年度侵权所得营业利润为2638322元,按照3倍确定赔偿数额为791万元作出判决。二审驳回上诉,维持原判。

The court of first instance held that the use of the "" logo, the marking of "飛樂 (China)" on the sued products, and the use of the logos  and  on the website by Zhongyuan Shoes Company and Unique Company infringed the trademark rights of "FILA" series of trademark enjoyed by Fila Company. As operators of similar products, Zhongyuan Shoes Company and Unique Company should know the popularity of the trademark of Fila Company. They prominently used logos similar to the trademark involved on the products they produce, and sold them on multiple online sales platforms, with huge sales amounts. Meanwhile, as early as July 19, 2010, the Trademark Office rejected the application for registration of the trademark on "clothing, headgear, footwear" on the ground that No. 7682295 trademark "" was similar to No. G691003A trademark "" of Fila Company. At this time, the three defendants had been fully aware of the "FILA" series of trademarks registered by Fila Company previously, and continued to produce and sell the infringed products in the case of being aware that use of the sued logo might lead to confusion and misunderstanding of the source of products, the subjective malice was obvious, and the infringement was serious, and punitive damages shall be applied. Considering that Zhongyuan Shoes Company has three brands, but no evidence has been provided to prove the sales volume and profit of each brand, it is presumed that the operating profit of the sued products accounts for 1/3 of the total. Based on this, it is calculated that Zhongyuan Shoes Company's operating profit from infringement in 2015 and 2016 is 2638322 yuan, and a judgment is made that amount of compensation is determined to be 7.91 million yuan according to 3 times of the operating profit. The appeal was rejected in the second instance and the original judgment was upheld.

典型意义:

Typical significance:

本案是惩罚性赔偿适用中因侵权人在商标授权程序中知悉权利人的商标权仍实施侵权行为从而认定存在侵权故意的典型案件。

This case is a typical case where it is determined that there is willful infringement in the application of punitive damages due to the infringer knowing the trademark right of the registrant in the trademark authorization procedure but still committing infringement.

(案例来源:北京市高级人民法院)

     (Source of case: Beijing Higher People's Court)

“约翰迪尔”侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案

Case of Dispute over Infringement of Trademark Right and Unfair Competition by "John Deere"

基本信息:

Basic information:

案号:(2016)京73民初93号、(2017)京民终413号

Case No.: (2016) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 93, (2017) Jing Min Zhong No. 413

原告:迪尔公司、约翰迪尔(中国)投资有限公司

Plaintiffs: Deere Company, John Deere (China) Investment Co., Ltd

被告:约翰迪尔(北京)农业机械有限公司、约翰迪尔(丹东)石油化工有限公司、兰西佳联迪尔油脂化工有限公司

Defendants: John Deere (Beijing) Agricultural Machinery Co., Ltd., John Deere (Dandong) Petrochemical Co., Ltd., Lanxi Jialian Deere Oil Chemical Co., Ltd

主要案情:

Case brief:

迪尔公司成立于1837年,为世界知名的农业机械制造商和工程及林业设备制造商,其于1976年进入中国,于2000年成立约翰迪尔(中国)投资有限公司(简称约翰迪尔中国公司)。迪尔公司持有为“JOHN DEERE”“约翰.迪尔”等系列商标,迪尔公司将其商标非独占许可给约翰迪尔中国公司使用。二原告发现,三被告在中国生产、销售带有与迪尔公司的注册商标相同或近似标识的工业用油等商品,同时在工业用油等商品上注册了“佳联迪尔”商标,将企业字号登记为“佳联迪尔”“约翰迪尔”等。二原告主张根据侵权获利的3倍计算惩罚性赔偿数额,请求判令三被告连带赔偿经济损失500万元等。

Founded in 1837, Deere Company is a world-famous agricultural machinery manufacturer and engineering and forestry equipment manufacturer. It entered China in 1976 and established John Deere (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as John Deere China Company) in 2000. Deere Company holds series of trademarks such as "JOHN DEERE" and "约翰.迪尔". Deere Company grants its non-exclusive license to exploit the trademark to John Deere China Company. The two plaintiffs found that the three defendants produced and sold industrial oil and other products with the same or similar logo as the registered trademark of Deere Company in China, and registered the trademark "佳联迪尔" on industrial oil and other products, and registered the business names as "佳联迪尔" and "约翰迪尔". The two plaintiffs claimed to calculate the amount of punitive damages based on 3 times of the profits from infringement, and requested to order the three defendants to jointly compensate the economic losses of 5 million yuan.

一审法院认为,三被告共同侵害了二原告的商标权。关于赔偿数额的计算,考虑到三被告实施的侵权行为方式多样,不仅在相同或类似商品上使用涉案商标,还通过注册域名、企业字号等方式使用涉案商标,以及以注册商标的方式复制、摹仿、翻译涉案商标;三被告加盟商数量众多,在辽宁、黑龙江、新疆、北京均有销售网络,且侵权获利可观,通过对在案证据进行推算,三被告两年的侵权销售额超过1600万元;在行政处罚后依然继续实施侵权行为,主观恶意明显且侵权情节严重。对于侵权获利,参考被查封扣押的侵权商品数量、相关行政处罚涉及的侵权商品月销售额、在商标权无效宣告案件中体现的侵权商品月销售额,二被告平均销售单价、涉案商品所在行业的平均利润率等指标进行计算。按照上述方法确定数额的3倍计算,远超出二原告所主张的500万赔偿数额。一审对二原告的赔偿请求予以全额支持。二审驳回上诉,维持原判。

The court of first instance held that the three defendants jointly infringed the trademark rights of the two plaintiffs. As for the calculation of the amount of compensation, considering that the three defendants committed various forms of infringement, not only using the trademarks involved on the same or similar products, but also using the trademarks involved through registering domain names, business names, etc., and copying, imitating, and translating the trademarks involved in the way of registered trademarks. The three defendants have a great number of franchisees, and they have sales networks in Liaoning, Heilongjiang, Xinjiang, and Beijing, and the profits from infringement are considerable. Based on the calculation from the evidence on record, the three defendants' sales volume from infringement in two years exceeded 16 million yuan. After the administrative penalty, the defendants still continued to commit infringement, with obvious subjective malice and serious infringement. For the profit from infringement, it is calculated by reference to the number of infringing products seized and detained, the monthly sales volume of infringing products involved in relevant administrative penalties, the monthly sales volume of infringing products reflected in the case of invalidation of trademark rights, the average unit sales price of the two defendants, the average profit rate of the industry in which the products involved are, and other indicators. 3 times of the amount determined by the above method is far more than the compensation amount of 5 million claimed by the two plaintiffs. The first instance fully supported the two plaintiffs' claim for compensation. The appeal was rejected in the second instance and the original judgment was upheld.

典型意义:

Typical significance:

本案是惩罚性赔偿适用中存在侵权故意且情节严重情形的典型案件。被告的持续侵权行为不仅体现出其对所实施行为的侵权性质系明知,而且无视行政处罚决定继续侵权,同时具备侵权故意和情节严重两项要件,满足惩罚性赔偿的适用要件。

This case is a typical case where there is willful infringement and serious circumstances in the application of punitive damages. The continuous infringement of the defendants shows being aware of the nature of the infringement of the acts committed, and the defendants continue to commit infringement in disregard of the administrative penalty decision. The infringement of the defendants has two elements at the same time: willful infringement and serious circumstances, which meet the applicable requirements of punitive damages.

(案例来源:北京市高级人民法院)

(Source of case: Beijing Higher People's Court)

 

集佳新闻:

集佳高级合伙人赵雷律师应邀出席“中国商标品牌保护数字化论坛”并发表主题演讲

Attorney ZHAO Lei, Senior Partner of Unitalen, Was Invited to Attend the "China Trademark and Brand Protection Digital Forum" and Delivered Keynote Speech

2022年9月15日上午,由中华商标协会主办的“中国商标品牌保护数字化论坛暨中华商标协会数字化工作委员会揭牌仪式”在京举行。本次论坛以“新时代商标品牌保护数字化与专业化融合新趋势”为主题,集佳高级合伙人赵雷律师应邀出席并做主题演讲。

In the morning of September 15, 2022, the "China Trademark and Brand Protection Digital Forum and the China Trademark Association Digital Working Committee Inauguration Ceremony" hosted by the China Trademark Association was held in Beijing. The theme of this forum was "the new trend of integration of digitization and professionalization of trademark and brand protection in the new era". Attorney ZHAO Lei, senior partner of Unitalen, was invited to attend the forum and give a keynote speech.

在本次论坛上,中华商标协会数字化工作委员会正式成立。集佳知识产权入选了首批数字化工作委员会委员单位,赵雷律师被任命为数字化工作委员会委员。

At this forum, the Digital Working Committee of China Trademark Association was formally established. Unitalen Intellectual Property was selected as one of the first members of the Digital Working Committee, and attorney ZHAO Lei was appointed as a member of the Digital Working Committee.

集佳合伙人彭鲲鹏博士参与撰写美国律师协会组织编写的仿制药诉讼工具书

Dr. PENG Kunpeng, Partner of Unitalen, Participated in Writing the Generics Litigation Reference Book Organized by the American Bar Association

近日,美国律师协会(ABA)组织编写的《Pre-ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Developing a Drug Product and Patent Portfolio》(Third Edition)正式出版,集佳合伙人彭鲲鹏博士作为特邀作者,参与了其中中国药品注册和专利链接制度相关内容的撰写。

Recently, the Pre ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Developing a Drug Product and Patent Portfolio (Third Edition) organized by the American Bar Association (ABA) was officially published. Dr. PENG Kunpeng, a partner of Unitalen, as a specially invited author, participated in the writing of the content related to the Chinese drug registration and patent linkage system therein.

集佳上海分所当选为上海市商标品牌协会副会长单位

Shanghai Branch of Unitalen Was Elected as the Vice President Unit of Shanghai Trademark Association

2022年9月21日,上海市商标品牌协会第五届理事会第六次会议圆满落幕。在本次会议上,集佳上海分所当选为上海市商标品牌协会副会长单位。

On September 21, 2022, the sixth conference of the fifth council of Shanghai Trademark Association was successfully concluded. In the conference, Shanghai Branch of Unitalen was elected as the vice president unit of Shanghai Trademark Association.

 

 

Unitalen Attorneys at Law



About the Firm

Unitalen Attorneys at Law

Address7th Floor, Scitech Place, No. 22 Jian Guo Men Wai Ave., Beijing, 100004 P. R. China
Tel86-10-5920 8888
Fax86-10-5920 8588
Contact PersonDeshan Li
Emailmail@unitalen.com
Linkwww.unitalen.com


Related Newsletters