The Supreme Court also released Supreme People's Court Provisions on Several Issues of Cases by the Circuit Court, which states that the Circuit Court is a permanent judicial branch of the Supreme Court. Judgments, rulings and decisions by the Circuit court are the judgments, rulings and decisions by the Supreme Court.

The provisions show that the second circuit court of Supreme Court is established in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, covering Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang. The provisions shall be implemented from February 1, 2015, and the Supreme Circuit Court will begin to accept and hear cases.

The Circuit Court hears or handles eleven categories of cases in the region which shall be accepted by the Supreme Court, including: first instance of important and complicate administrative cases in the nation; first instance of civil and commercial cases with significant impact in the nation; appeal cases opposing the first instance administrative or civil and commercial judgments and ruling made by the high courts; cases applied for retrial of administrative or civil and commercial judgment, ruling and conciliation with legal effect made by the high courts; criminal retrial cases; retrial cases brought up in line with legal duty; cases applied for reconsideration of fine and detention decisions by the high courts; cases submitted to the Supreme Court for judgment or decision by the high courts; cases submitted for approval of extending the jurisdiction limits by the high courts; civil and commercial cases and cases of judicial assistance involved Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan; other cases that the Supreme Court deems fit to be heard or handled by the Circuit Court.

Cases involving intellectual property, foreign commercial and maritime affairs, death penalty review, state compensation, enforcement and the Supreme People's Procuratorate protest case shall be temporarily heard or handled by the headquarter of the Supreme People's Court.

The tribunal chief of the Supreme First Circuit Court is Liu Guixiang who is a vice-ministerial level full-time member of the Supreme Judicial Committee, and Level II judge, while the tribunal chief of the Second Circuit Court is Hu Yunteng who is a vice-ministerial level full-time member of the Supreme Judicial Committee, and Level II judge.

Shen Changyu reviewed that in the first half of 2014, due to the economic downward pressure and policy changes in patent application subsidy, there are new changes in the growth of Chinese patent volume, the invention patent changed to moderate-speed growth from high-speed growth, while the design and utility model patent application once saw serious decline. But this is precisely the result that China Intellectual Property has implemented measures of "layout by quantity and win by quality".

But the ultimate fact shows that the related adjustment does not hinder the rebounding of patent volume. Data show that in 2014, the accepted volume of PCT international patent application grew by 14.2%, as for Chinese patent application, invention patent application grew by 12.5%, ranking first in the world.　　

Shen Changyu said that, in 2015 we will continue to focus on the principle of "moving forward with better quantity and quality”, to promote the development of intellectual property, support companies in effective layout of intellectual property, explore the establishment of management system for application quality, promote the creation of high value patents with rich scientific content and good market efficiency, broaden channels for capitalization and industrialization of intellectual property, and promote social capital to establish funds for patent operation; at the same time, we will try to include intellectual property into the newly revised national economic accounting system, reform the examination systems and methods for patent agent qualification, actively promote the early introduction of Service invention ordinance, speed up the revision of Regulations on Patent Commissioning, and make efforts to resolve the outstanding issues of "difficult evidence collection, long period, high cost, low compensation and inefficiency" for patent protection.

[Lawyer’s Comment] Power Dekor had been recognized as well-known trademark in the retrial of administrative proceeding for trademark rights by the Supreme Court in 2013, which was represented by Unitalen (The case was selected as one of the top ten Intellectual Property cases by the Supreme Court in 2013), and this judgment was the second one received by Power Dekor, recognizing Power Dekor as well-known trademark in the retrial by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and the court of first instance did not recognize the cited trademark as well-known before the date of application; and although the court of second instance accepted that the cited trademark has been well-known before the application date of the opposition trademark, it upheld the conclusion of the first instance and review stage on the grounds that there are some differences between the two trademarks and the product classification differs much from each other, so registration of the opposed mark will not mislead the public. In the retrial, the Supreme Court clarified the determination of similar trademarks shall take into account the significance and popularity of the prior trademark, and further clarified that the cited trademark with distinctiveness and popularity of well-known level, shall be granted relatively broader protection. The highlight of this judgment is that, combining the identified facts of the case, the Supreme Court cited the provisions of Article IX of "Supreme People's Court Interpretation of Issues on Applicable Laws for Civil Dispute Cases Involving the Protection of Well-known Trademarks" (i.e.: the relevant public are made to believe that the sued trademark has considerable connection with the well-known trademarks, which weakens the significance of well-known trademarks, deteriorates the market reputation of well-known trademarks or take unfair advantage of the market reputation of well-known trademarks, complying with the situation of the second paragraph of Article 13 of Trademark Law -"Misleading the public, which results in that the interests of the well-known trademark holder could be compromised"), and identified that although the commodity class designated by the opposed trademark applied by a third person was not similar to the cited trademark, the application for registration in the commodity class of "clothes" by such third person still constituted imitation of the cited trademark in the commodity of "floor", with subjective intent for improper use of its goodwill, and the approval of registration would further detriment the legitimate interests of Power Dekor.

Over the years, Ferrari company has consistently defended its Intellectual Property in China, continuing to fight against infringement of its Intellectual Property. In this case, a company in Beijing applied for No. 1213129 trademark of “法拉利FALALI” in the commodity class of "glasses" on June 18, 1997, which was approved for registration on October 7, 1998. Since the application for registration of the trademark objectively clung to the awareness Ferrari’s top brands- "FERRARI" and "FALALI", which infringed the prior legitimate interests of the Ferrari company, Ferrari decided to file a dispute revocation of the above registered trademark. But in fact to cancel the registered trademark, they must cross two thresholds of law: (1) As of the time of proposing dispute revocation of the No. 1213129 trademark "法拉利FALALI ", the above-mentioned trademark has been registered for five years. According to the third paragraph of Article 41 of the 2001 edition of "Trademark Law", the dispute revocation shall be filed within five years from the date of registration of the disputed trademark. Only with evidence to prove that the disputed trademark holder has subjective bad faith can this legal obstacle be crossed, otherwise the dispute will not be supported due to expiration; (2) "Ferrari" and other trademarks of the Ferrari company have been registered for commodity Class 12 of "car" and so on, but the commodity of the disputed trademark in this case was for Class 9 of “glasses”, unless the Ferrari company can provide evidence, according to Article 14 of the 2001 edition of "Trademark Law", to prove that the trademark of “FALALI” has constituted a well-known trademark before the application date of the disputed trademark, that is, before June 18, 1997, the disputed trademark cannot be revoked.

On July 24, 2009, commissioned by Ferrari, Unitalen filed a dispute against the disputed trademark to the State Administration for Industry & Commerce Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred to as TRAB). In the above procedure, Unitalen collated and submitted a lot of evidence that "FERRARI" and "Ferrari" is well-known to the public in the PRC territory, and explained in detail the particularity for the fame of Ferrari’s trademarks of "Ferrari", "FALALI" and "FERRARI" distinct from general well-known brands, namely: as committed in handmade luxury sports car brand, Ferrari not only represents a good car, but also represents the passion of speed, advanced scientific achievements, outstanding sense of design, exclusivity and specificity. Meanwhile Unitalen lawyers also gave full reasoning and evidence of the bad faith of the registrant and the likelihood of confusion among consumers, but unfortunately TRAB has ruled that: (1) The dispute filed by Ferrari has exceeded five years; (2) Before the filing date of the disputed trademark on June 18, 1997, Ferrari could not be identified as a well-known trademark; (3) The commodity of "car" approved for the trademark of "FALALI" of Ferrari company was far from the commodity of “glasses” approved for the disputed trademark "FALALI", with different function, use and sales channels, so TRAB considered that the registration of disputed trademark has not infringed any prior rights of Ferrari, with a decision to maintain its registration.

Then Unitalen filed an administrative proceeding on behalf of the Ferrari company to Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, requesting to revoke the decision by TRAB and the disputed trademark. Beijing First Intermediate People's Court considered, after hearing, that the documented evidence could prove that Ferrari’s trademark “FALALI” had been well-known before the application date of the disputed trademark, and based on this recognition, the disabling range of the registered trademark "Ferrari" can be extended to commodity Class 9 of "glasses" and other commodities. Ultimately it identified to revoke the disputed trademark, thus revoking the above-said decision by TRAB.

[Lawyer’s Comment] For most well-known brands owners, if the same or similar trademarks are registered in the associated or non-associated categories, it will not only cause confusion among consumers, but may even hinder diversified development of their own business operations. This is especially true for the foreign brands already well-known abroad to enter the Chinese market. To reduce and avoid such disputes, on one hand, the trademark holders may need to make a reasonable assessment of their business and market; on the other hand, it also requires Intellectual Property lawyers to have strategic full analysis and control of all associated cases for the right-holder, so that the trademark administrative and judicial departments can make judgment complying with the factual situation, to achieve case balance between trademark management order and good faith protection.