黑人黄色大片-无码人妻精品一区二区50-韩日免费av-国产精品探花视频-96看片-国产美女免费无遮挡-黄色顶级片-av另类-天堂8中文在线-在线观看国产视频-色啪网-五月婷婷爱-ass东方小嫩模pics-天天干天天操天天爱-影音先锋国产资源

In a bid to further enhance the user experience of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has announced joining the "PPH Improvement Initiative," which involves cooperation between the world's five leading intellectual property (IP) offices, namely China, the United States, Europe, Japan and the Republic of Korea. The objective of this initiative is to strive for an average duration of 3 months both from the grant of a PPH request to the issuance of first office action and for an average response time from examiner to the applicant, thereby providing PPH users with a more predictable examination cycle.

(Source: website of the CNIPA)

On April 15, Shen Changyu, Commissioner of the CNIPA, and Kathi Vidal, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), held a productive meeting in Beijing. The offices shared the latest progress of IP work in their respective countries, exchanged in-depth views on mutual concerns, and signed a new memorandum of understanding on cooperation between the two offices.

Under the framework of the new version of the memorandum of understanding on cooperation, the two offices will further expand areas of cooperation and deepen pragmatic cooperation in information exchange, patent and trademark examination, automation, and industrial outreach.

(Source: website of the CNIPA)

According to the "Memorandum of Understanding on the PPH Project between the CNIPA and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (MOIC) of Bahrain,", the PPH pilot project between China and Bahrain was officially launched on May 1, 2024 and will last for five years until April 30, 2029.

After the launch of the PPH pilot between China and Bahrain, applicants can submit PPH requests to the CNIPA in accordance with the "Procedure for Submitting PPH Requests to the CNIPA under the PPH Pilot Project between China and Bahrain" and submit PPH requests to the MOIC in accordance with the "Procedure for Submitting PPH Requests to the Patent Office of the Directorate of Foreign Trade and Intellectual Property of the MOIC under the PPH Pilot Project".

Attachment: Procedure for Submitting PPH Requests to the CNIPA under the PPH Pilot Project between China and Bahrain (English)

Attachment: Procedure for Submitting PPH Requests to the Patent Office of the Directorate of Foreign Trade and Intellectual Property of the MOIC under the PPH Pilot Project (English)

(Source: website of the CNIPA)

Recently, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court made a first-instance judgment that the plaintiff, GEAR UP INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, represented by Unitalen, won the first-instance lawsuit against LUO X, CHEN X, and the other two companies for infringing on the exclusive right to use a well-known trademark, and obtained compensation of one million yuan. In this case, Unitalen assisted the plaintiff in comprehensively utilizing the strike method of combining civil infringement and administrative right confirmation, which not only timely stopped the trademark infringement but also ultimately eradicated the malicious preemptive trademark registration that had been registered for 10 years, achieving a comprehensive victory in both administrative and civil litigations!

Case Brief

The plaintiff is the registered trademark owner of the globally renowned fashion brands "" and "". Since the 1990s, its unique design style and high-quality craftsmanship have enjoyed a high reputation worldwide. Since entering China in 2005, it has promoted and advertised its registered trademarks through various channels, including direct-sale stores in major cities and provinces, major e-commerce platforms, endorsements by well-known popular stars, and advertisements in various media. In March 2013, the defendant LUO X registered the trademark "" for "headphones" of Class 9 and registered and operated a company  with the company name "EVISU" in Hong Kong in the same year. The company's shareholders are LUO X and CHEN X, a married couple. Later, LUO X and his wife successively registered trademarks such as "Evisu", "", "", and "Evisuhf" in Class 9 and Class 35, etc., and applied for a design patent for the packaging with the "Evisu" logo and registered the "Evisu" logo as an artwork.

Since 2017, LUO X and his wife have been selling and advising headphone products with the sued trademarks "" and "" through two companies under their respective names on e-commerce platforms such as Taobao, Alibaba's wholesale website 1688, and Pinduoduo. They have also registered the website www.evisuhf.com and continuously advertised the headphone products with the sued trademarks on the website, as well as on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Tencent, using the name of the Hong Kong company "". Since 2017, when the plaintiff became aware of the infringement by LUO X and other defendants, the plaintiff has continuously taken proactive measures to protect its rights through administrative procedures such as trademark objection, trademark invalidation declaration, and trademark cancellation due to non-use in three consecutive years. In November 2022, after the administrative review procedure for the cancellation of the trademark "" took effect, the plaintiff sued the four defendants for jointly infringing on the exclusive right to use a well-known trademark in the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court.

Case Analysis

The difficulties in the case not only lie in how to overcome the conflict of rights and obtain cross-class protection through the stronger protection scope of the well-known trademark but also in the complex characteristics of the infringement behaviors in the case, which are manifested in the long duration of the infringement chain, the diversity of infringement manners, and the infringement occurring both domestically and internationally. In response to this, the team members of Unitalen Law Firm extensively gathered clues, exhausted various means of evidence collection, and effectively communicated with the parties to comprehensively sort out the evidence clues of the well-known trademark. Ultimately, they laid a solid foundation for overcoming the difficulties of the case by nailing down the other party's multi-faceted malicious intentions and non-standard use of the registered trademark, solidifying the evidence of the well-known trademark, and overcoming the other party's obstruction of adducing evidence.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical example of a combined civil infringement and administrative confirmation approach to combat malicious registration and trademark infringement. On one hand, the plaintiff first conducted a detailed investigation into the defendant's hundreds of instances of "click farming and related-party transactions" and other uses in the administrative case of trademark cancellation due to non-use in three consecutive years, and successfully revoked the other party's registered trademark through subjective usage intent and "symbolic actions during the three-year period"; on the other hand, in the civil lawsuit, the plaintiff further adduced sufficient evidence of the well-known facts and effectively responded to the defendant's defense of "properly using its own registered trademark." Ultimately, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court adopted the opinion of the attorney, taking into account the fact that the trademark is strongly distinctive and well-known, the defendant's apparent subjective malice, the diversified infringement manners, the high similarity of the sued logo, and the obstruction of adducing evidence and other factors, the court included both the "malicious" situation in the administrative procedure and the "malice" in the use of the trademark into the infringement case for comprehensive consideration. It is the combination of the "malicious" intent in the administrative procedure and the "malice" in using the trademark that effectively prohibited the continued infringing use of the maliciously registered trademarks and further jointly consolidated the determination of the case nature and the amount of compensation for damages.

Recently, in a case of trademark infringement and unfair competition through false publicity between LIQUI-MOLY GESELLSCHAFT MIT BESCHRANKTER HAFTUNG (hereinafter referred to as "LIQUI MOLY company") represented by Unitalen Law Firm and Liquid Power Lubricant (Zhuhai) Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "LIQUID POWER Company"), the Second People's Court of Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province heard and ruled the following: the behavior of using the logos "", "", and "" by LIQUID POWER company on products such as "lubricating oil" and "engine oils" infringed on the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks "", "", and "LIQUI MOLY"(力魔) of the LIQUI MOLY company. The LIQUID POWER company's claim that the sued lubricating oils and engine oils are from Germany and its use of the German national flag and the expression "GERMAN TECHNOLOGY" on the package constituted unfair competition through false publicity. The court ordered the LIQUID POWER company to pay 700,000 yuan in compensation.

Case Brief

The LIQUI MOLY company, founded in 1957 and headquartered in Ulm, Germany, is a globally renowned manufacturer of premium lubricating oils, engine oils, additives, automotive care products, etc. Its products are sold in over 130 countries and regions worldwide and are certified by renowned automakers such as Porsche, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi, Volkswagen, and Opel. It entered the Chinese mainland market in 2005, sponsoring auto rallies and other sports events for a long time. It has also won influential industry awards such as "Annual Leading Brand of Auto Bild," "CARTEC Cup Automotive Service Golden Merit Awards," and "Brands Recommended by ASWorld." The trademarks "", "", and "LIQUI MOLY" enjoy high popularity and reputation in the industry.

The defendant, LIQUID POWER Company, produces and sells lubricating oils, engine oils, and other products with the logos "", "" and "", and markets them through WeChat Mini Programs, offline partner stores, and other channels (as shown in the following images).

Judgment viewpoint

With regard to the determination of trademark infringement, the Second People's Court of Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province determined through its trial that the trademarks "", "" and "LIQUI MOLY" enjoy high popularity, the sued logos "", "" and "" are similar to the plaintiff's trademarks in terms of arrangement structure, letter composition, pronunciation, background color, visual effect, and Chinese meaning, such that when used on the same goods of lubricating oils, they may easily mislead the relevant public into believing that the products of both parties come from a series of trademarks of the same entity or have a specific connection, causing confusion and misidentification, thus constituting trademark infringement. The court ordered the LIQUID POWER company and others to stop the sued infringing behaviors immediately.

Regarding the unfair competition behavior through false publicity, the court held that the LIQUID POWER company's claim that the sued lubricating oils and engine oils are from Germany and its use of the German national flag and the expression "GERMAN TECHNOLOGY" on the package may easily mislead the general public to believe that the brand or technology of the engine oil and lubricating oils produced and sold by the LIQUID POWER company are originated from Germany, which is not true or objective, sufficient to create a false impression among the general relevant public about the advertised goods or services, leading to misunderstanding, and thus constituting unfair competition behaviors through false publicity.

Regarding the amount of compensation, the court comprehensively considered the nature of the infringement, the degree of subjective fault, the duration and consequences of the infringement, as well as factors such as the high market influence and popularity of the LIQUI MOLY company's German trademarks, and determined the total economic loss and reasonable expenses to be 700,000 yuan.

Case Significance

Through this case, Unitalen assisted the LIQUI MOLY company in tackling counterfeit lubricating oil products on the market. The company successfully defended its intellectual property rights in the Chinese market and prevented consumers from suffering economic losses caused by purchasing counterfeit products. This also reflects the Chinese government's commitment and efforts in intellectual property protection, creating a more stable and transparent legal environment for international companies investing in China.

On the morning of April 22, the Supreme People's Court held a press conference for Intellectual Property Rights Promotion Week. At the conference, the Supreme People's Court introduced the overall situation of judicial protection of intellectual property rights in Chinese courts in 2023 and the relevant situation of the film short video solicitation event for intellectual property rights protection. It released the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases of Chinese Courts and 50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases in 2023.

The case "Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between Lafite X Winery and Nanjing JIN X Wine Industry Co., Ltd." (Civil Judgment of Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 313) in which Unitalen represented Chateau Lafite Rothschild is selected as one of the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases. This case is one of the 12 key intellectual property promotion cases. In this case, the People's Court protected the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties equally under the law, effectively combating the behavior of thumbing a lift and free riding, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders by the law, and promptly responding to the concerns of foreign investors regarding intellectual property protection. The case reflects the important characteristics of judicial protection in strengthening equal protection and actively creating a market-oriented, law-based, and international business environment.

Meanwhile, the case "Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between LI X fan, Da'an City's YU X Grain Trade Co., Ltd. and Qianguo County XU X Rice Industry Co., Ltd." (Civil Judgment of High People's Court of Jilin Province (2023) Ji Min Zhong No. 127) in which Unitalen represented XU SHI Rice Industry Co., Ltd. and others is selected as one of the 50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases concerning copyright ownership, copyright infringement, and disputes over confirmation of non-infringement of copyright. The judgment of the case clarifies the differences between the protection intentions and protection boundaries of copyrights in artworks and the packaging and decoration with certain influence. It defines the different elements that need to be considered in judging substantial similarity and confusing similarity, which is of great significance as a reference for judicial judgments on copyright infringement and imitation of packaging and decoration.

1. A Case of "小米之光"(Xiaomi Light) Electric Vehicle Infringing the Exclusive Right to a Well-Known Registered Trademark

2. A Right Protection Case of "樂心"(LIFESENSE) Smart Bracelets Recognized as an Unregistered Well-Known Trademark

3. An Invalidation Case of "港記周六福" (GANGJI ZHOU LIU FU)

4. A Trademark Infringement Case of "金沙古醬"

5. A Unfair Competition Dispute Case between Tencent and Yunxi Company over the "快客管家" Software

6. Hainan Miaoyou and Others in response to the Lawsuit of Bitman on Game Promotional Video Infringement Case

7. An Administrative Dispute Case of HUANG Hanbin's Lawsuit against CNIPA on Patent Invalidation

8. Li-Ning Company's Response to Patent Infringement Lawsuit and Its Request for Invalidation of "Shoe Upper Fabric" Patent

9. A Case of Malicious Litigation and Compensation Rejected in the Second Instance and Retrial involving Raytron

10. An Administrative Litigation Case of an American Well-known Company vs. CNIPA on the Rejection and Reexamination of a Patent Application for Invention

Recently, the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai announced the Top 10 Cases of Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection, and the case "Trademark Infringement Dispute between a Group Company, an Eyewear Company of the Group, and an E-commerce Company" represented by Unitalen Shanghai branch was selected.

As a typical case of protecting the intellectual property rights of "time-honored brands," the case has attracted the attention and coverage of the People's Court Daily and the Legal News program of Shanghai TV. In particular, the difficulty for "time-honored brand" companies to defend their rights against continuous infringement by e-commerce platforms has aroused great concern in society.

On April 23, the High People's Court of Shanxi Province announced 10 typical cases in 2023 where Shanxi courts strengthened intellectual property trials and promoted the development of "four economies", among which the "Trademark Infringement Dispute Case between a Technology Company as an Appellant and a Trading Company, JIA X Song, LIU X, and LIN X Yan as Respondents" represented by Unitalen is selected.

The High Court of Shanxi Province commented that in the case, the court of second instance clarified the relationship between defensive trademarks and the recognition of well-known trademarks in individual cases, thoroughly analyzed the fact that the right holder has a defensive trademark should not become a legal obstacle for them to request recognition of a well-known trademark in an individual case to protect their legitimate business interests, and fully respected the strenuous efforts made by market entities in accumulating enterprise brands and goodwill, providing strong judicial protection to encourage enterprises to operate with integrity and build strong national brands.

On April 23, the High People's Court of Jilin Province held a press conference to release the status of intellectual property judicial protection and typical cases of Jilin courts to the public. The "Intellectual Property and Competition Dispute Case between Qian Guo County's Grain Co., Ltd., Qian Guo County's Cooperative, Xichang City's Grain and Oil Business Department, Butuo County's Grain and Oil Shop, and Li XX, Da'an City's Grain and Trade Co., Ltd." represented by Unitalen is selected as a typical case. This case was also selected as one of the 50 Typical Cases of Chinese Courts in 2023, newly released by the Supreme People's Court.

Recently, the international authoritative intellectual property media "Asia IP" released the list of winners of the 2024 China IP Awards. With outstanding performance, industry reputation, and market evaluation in the field of intellectual property business, Unitalen has been listed on the four recommendation lists of "Trademark Prosecution," "Patent Prosecution," "Patent Litigation," and "Enforcement Firms of the Year," and won the award "Regional Firms of the Year (Beijing)" consecutively!