Foreign trademark applications in China have also risen sharply. Foreign trademark applications have reached 103,000, which marks an increase of 15,000 applications or 6.1% over 2006.

The WIPO statistics reveal that newly registered trademarks in the Madrid System added up to 38,471 last year, including 1,444 from China, representing an increase of 8.7% over 2006.

He added: “We have scheduled a series of combined actions with Chinese Customs and strengthened our exchange of information, and we also sent our IP experts to UN Mission in Beijing.” As China is paying more and more attention to the IP protection today, Mr. Barroso expressed that he is satisfied in the cooperation with China.

Last year, under the support of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, the Ministry of Public Security of China and the U.S. FBI carried out cooperative action to crackdown on infringing goods. The joint effort successfully nabbed two transitional infringement cases of producing and selling fake Microsoft products in China. “It takes only one year for us to nab these fake goods, and we received lots of help from Shenzhen Municipal Government and relative departments during this time,” said the principal of Microsoft. In recognition of the successful initiative, Microsoft prepared a plaque honoring “Protecting IP rights to construct a harmonious society,” in order to praise IP protection in China.

Established in 2000, the QBPC chooses the best examples of IPR protection in China based on public appraisal. In doing so since 2002, the QBPC has sought to promote and strengthen the enforcement of IPR in China. The QBPC is organized by 177 foreign entities in China, with a total investment of over 70 billion US dollars.

In recent years, industrial design of commodity has become an increasingly important competition strategy of enterprises in the Chinese market, aiding in the development of technical abilities of Chinese enterprise. The number of applications for industrial design in China in 2007 was 267,400. Domestic applications accounted for 253,400, overseas applications accounted for 14,000, and Japanese applications accounted for 4,966. Meanwhile, the imitation of industrial design patent has risen continuously, making the defense of imitation of vital importance to both Chinese and Japanese enterprises.

Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport is a stock company registered under German law which mainly engages in the manufacturing and distribution of a variety of sports equipment, including shoes and apparel.

Over a span of 50 years, PUMA has been ranked among the Top-Ten sports brands in the world. On 28 December 1999, Puma AG registered the figurative mark of a puma device in China, covering clothes, shoes and headgear. At the end of 2006, Puma AG found that infringing sports shoes, which bore logos similar to its figurative mark, were sold in several supermarkets, including Darunfa and TESCO. On December 22, 2006, Puma AG bought, under notarization of Shanghai Notary, a pair of such infringing sports shoes in TESCO Xinzhuang Store at the price of RMB79. On January 30, 2007, it bought another pair of sports shoes in the price of RMB89 in TESCO, which is also thought to be infringing on PUMA’s trademark right.

The court held that, since the brand "PUMA" is well-known in China, the defendant should know of the plaintiff's registered trademark. The defendant should have noticed that the relevant shoes bore design similar to the plaintiff's figurative mark, but were sold at much lower prices. Therefore, the defendant should bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement, eliminating the ill effects and providing compensation

On February 19, 2008, the high court held an open court to hear this case. During the court hearing, both parties debated whether the "ABRO" trademark in Class 16 was of prior use and certain influence. Acting as Attorney of the plaintiff, Ms. Gui Qingkai did comprehensive research for this case. On March 18, the high court refused Hunan Magic Power's appeal request and upheld the previous decision.

A settlement Agreement has been concluded in Court. The defendant must cease use of “under supervision of Huiyuan Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd” and similar wording on any beverage label or in any commercial activity. The defendant further agrees to pay Plaintiff RMB 100,000 for damages.

As a large-scale beverage enterprise in China, the Plaintiff enjoys a positive reputation and holds strong influence on the local beverage industry. Since establishment in 1994, Huiyuan has been using Huiyuan as a trademark as well as trade name in the beverage business. Until now, Huiyuan has registered a series of HUIYUAN trademarks.

It is aware that the beverage produced by the Defendant uses the wording of “under supervision of Huiyuan Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd” on on a prominent part of the product’s label. The Defendant’s use of “Huiyuan Group” without authorization from the Plaintiff has constituted unfair competition. In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the Plaintiff, as well as consumers, Huiyuan authorized Unitalen to institute civil action against Xinfa.

(For details, please contact us)