KENWOOD claimed that it registered the design patent of two models of communicators in 2000. In March, 2006, KENWOOD found out that the design of KW-5118 communicators made by the defendants is almost identical to that of KENWOOD products. Although there are slight differences on some minor parts of the products, they don't affect the whole visual effects given similar general structures and shapes. Therefore, the consumers can hardly tell the differences between the products of KENWOOD and that of the three Chinese companies.

Actually, it is not the first IP lawsuit lodged by KENWOOD in China. In 2005, it sued a Shenzhen company over design patent infringement and won the case.

SIPO granted Viagra with the patent certificate in September, 2001. Meanwhile, Mr. Pan Huaping, and later 12 Chinese companies jointly appealed to the Patent Review Committee under SIPO to announce the patent invalid, holding that the Viagra Patent is not in line with the Article 26(3) of Chinese Patent Law. After nearly 3 years of reviewing, the Patent Review Committee withdrew the patent, and its owner Pfizer appealed to Beijing Municipal People’s Intermediate Court. Last October, the court made the verdict in the first instance in favor of Viagra, and then the Chinese companies appealed to the Beijing Municipal People’s High Court again.

At present, the high court still upholds the intermediate court's verdict, and the committee will soon review the Viagra Patent again.

The plaintiff, TSUBURAYA PRODUCTIONS Co.,Ltd. Of Japan, claimed that it sued a Taizhou-based Chinese shoe maker over the copyright and trademark right infringement of its brand ULTRAMAN and 奥特曼 (Ultraman in Chinese) in March this year, and the two sides signed an agreement after negotiations.

However, the plaintiff found out four months later that some children’s shoes made by the defendant carrying the Ultraman brand were still sold in a small goods market in Hangzhou, Zhejiang. The plaintiff brought the defendant to court again, asking the shoe maker to stop producing and selling the shoes and pay 220,000 yuan (29,769 U.S. dollars) in compensation.

The defendant said that it stopped the production and sales of the shoes after signing the agreement with the plaintiff. The shoes bearing the logo of Ultraman found in the market were made in November and December, 2006, before the agreement was signed. Therefore, the defendant appealed to the court to turn down the plaintiff’s request.

Presided by the court, the two parties reached an agreement as follows: the defendant shall make compensation of 40,000 yuan (5,412 U.S. dollars) for the plaintiff’s economic losses, and the plaintiff shall allow the defendant to continue selling the remaining part of the finished children shoes bearing the trademark of ULTRMAN, 奥特曼 or its logo in one year since this agreement takes effect.

During the first three quarters, China Customs organized a series of activities in the main regions, channels and air and sea routes in an effort to crack down on importing and exporting infringements. The campaigns effectively stopped the trend of importing and exporting infringing commodities. For instance, in order to avoid the inspection of customs, some infringing parties changed their usual channels and began exporting infringing goods through mails, express, etc.

China Customs also improved the contact and cooperation with the obligees, jointly organizing activities such as seminars on legislation, trainings of law enforcement and information notification. For example, after talks with American Nick Co., China Customs learnt that there were a great number of fake “Nike” (owned by Nike Co.) goods in the Chinese market. They subsequently strengthened monitoring of the related exporting goods, and finally cracked down upon more than 190 cases of fake Nike products in 2005, nearly 17% of the total infringing cases in the year.

SAIC always put emphases on cracking down illegal activities of producing or selling fake goods of other companies’ registered trademark, copying the names, packages or decorations of well-known commodities, and illegally using names of other companies, said Li Wenzhang, deputy director of Fair Trade Bureau of SAIC General Office.

In the first half of the year, SAIC intercepted 2,526 cases of infringing trademarks worth 25.42 million yuan (3.4 million U.S. dollars), confiscating 14.71 million yuan (1.99 million U.S. dollars). It also cracked down on 1,104 cases of copying names, packages or decorations of well-known commodities worth 15.99 million yuan (2.16 million U.S. dollars), confiscating 6.66 million yuan. It also seized 782 cases of illegally using other companies or persons’ names worth 32.76 million yuan (4.4 million U.S. dollars), taking 11.70 million yuan (1.58 million U.S. dollars) in penalty, according to Li.

Over the recent years, Industry and Commerce authorities took measures to protect the intellectual property of Estee Lauder Co., Coco-cola (China) Co., Anheuser-Busch Co. and many other world-famous brands. In 2004, SAIC General Office handled the cases over many companies infringing Estee Lauder’s registered trademark. The efforts have won widespread acknowledgements both at home and from abroad, especially from the United States.

Eighteen Chinese and 13 foreign experts and scholars attended the seminar, which was hosted by the Education, Science, Culture and Public Health Department of Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council, and co-organized by Quality Brands Protection Committee of China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment at Prime Hotel.

Participants to the seminar held discussions on various topics, including conditions of conferring patent for inventions based on biogenetic resources, related attribution and implementation of the patent, protection of the design rights, perfection of the lawsuit procedures, the way of calculating the infringement compensation, and limits for the patent rights.

Experts reached an agreement on a number of issues, and also made fervent debates and exchanged views over some issues of which they have divergence of opinions.

The participants highly praised the seminar and the openness and transparency of legislation of China. The results of this seminar are plentiful and substantial, which, they believe, will play an active role in the upcoming revision of the patent law of China.

Many well-known brand owners have suffered from these common unfair competition behaviors. Power Dekor, a leading laminate floor provider in China, also encountered such embarrassment. However, the recent ruling from Hong Kong High Court dispelled Power Dekor’s worry over this issue.

In early 2006, based on complaints from consumers and Power Dekor’s investigation, it was found out that Jiangxi Yanjiang Industry Co., Ltd. (Yanjiang Industry) distributed “德尔菲 (Derfei in English)” floor in the name of authorized product supervisor of so-called SAINT SHINE INT’L (HK) LIMITED (whose Chinese pronunciation and translation is identical to that of Power Dekor) and told consumers that 德尔菲 is one of Power Dekor floor series. Power Dekor subsequently entrusted Beijing Unitalen Attorney at Law to take an in-depth investigation to the alleged infringement.

In July 2006, authorized by Power Dekor Group, Beijing Unitalen Attorney at Law appointed lawyer Gui QingKai to file the case to Nanchang Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. At the same time, Power Dekor took the lawyer’s advise to institute an action against Saint Shine Int’l (HK) Limited at Hong Kong High Court, asking the defendant to withdraw the registration of Saint Shine Int’l (HK) Limited and圣象国际（香港）有限公司as corporate name or trade name at Companies Registry, and to stop using 圣象国际（香港）有限公司 (including both Chinese and English name) and/or any trademark identical or similar to “圣象地板 (Power Dekor in Chinese Simplified)” and “聖象地板(Power Dekor in Chinese Traditional)” , which were registered by the plaintiff in Hong Kong, to stop producing and/or selling constructional materials, or assisting, causing or authorizing others’ foresaid activities.

Recently, Hong Kong High Court has formally concluded a decision in favor of Power Dekor.

(For more details, please do not hesitate to contact us.)

The lawsuit has lasted for two years. The Court concluded a final decision to uphold the first instance judgment ruled by Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, which orders TMO to recall the two concrete administrative acts on the approval of trademark assignments.

In this lawsuit, Hua Mao is a Taiwan enterprise, whose legal representative set up Huan Mao and Huan Bang in the Chinese mainland. Since the establishment of the two companies were conducted by an authorized party on behalf of Hua Mao, the Taiwan firm is not able to exercise any actual business management rights in the two subsidiaries.

Huan Bang transferred the trademark to its own proprietary and then to Huan Mao in 2002 and 2005, respectively, without getting permission from Hua Mao.

Hua Mao did not discover the illegal assignment until it intended to renew the trademark in 2005. In February 2006, Hua Mao entrusted Beijing Unitalen Attorney at Law to sue TMO in Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court, demanding recalling the two TMO administrative acts over the approval of trademark assignments. TMO, Huan Bang and Huan Mao then appealed to Beijing People’s High Court. On November 16 this year, the High Court turned down the appeal and upheld the first instance ruling.

(For more details, please do not hesitate to contact us.)