Up to now, the CTMO has received over 40 applications with respect to foreign appellations of origin and geographical indications, covering traditional western food such as cheese, wine, ham, whiskey, and etc, among which 20 applications are from member states of European Union like Italy, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark.

Vice President Xi said that, subject to the profundity of economic globalization, trade protectionism and others factors, IPR protection has been ascended to the level of national interests. IPR is an important tool of trade protectionism for some countries, and a powerful weapon for multinational enterprises to participate in global competition and conquer global market. Meanwhile, the globalization tendency of IPR protection challenges Chinese IPR trials severely.

From January to October, 2008, courts in China accepted and heard over 20, 000 first-instance civil cases concerning IPR, raised 36.9% compared with the previous year, and over 3, 200 second-instance civil cases concerning IPR, raised 49.51% compared with the previous year.

Vice President Xi said that there are 71, 38 and 43 intermediate courts in China that has the jurisdiction over cases concerning patents, new plant varieties and integrated circuit layout designs respectively. There are 61 grass-root courts that have jurisdiction over certain IPR related civil cases upon authorization.

While reinforcing the construction of adjudication organization, the Supreme People’s Court further definitudes and expands the scope of cases heard at IP courts to civil cases involving franchising, special symbol, domain name, company name, IP agency, monopoly, etc.

If no appeal petition is filed or the appellant court upholds the initial trial judgment, this precedent will give a reference on resolving of a controversial issue, namely whether it is reasonable that TRAB may reject an application for trademark dispute on the grounds that the applicant is no longer the right owner of the cited mark when the mark is assigned and the assignee does not take the initiative in applying for participating in the ongoing dispute proceedings. The judgment of this case will lend a preliminary solution on the above problem. It is confirmed by the court that it lacks legal grounds that the TRAB ended the proceeding of review procedure by making a refusal notification under the condition that the TRAB did not receive any confirmation from the assignee that it would not participate the outstanding procedures.

This decision will put the TRAB under obligation of informing the assignee of the cited mark to participate in the ongoing procedures in similar cases. This is the first and typical case with great significance that an administrative authority shall render sufficient procedural remedy to the private party in course of making any administrative decisions. The definition and regulations on the applicant’s procedural rights in a review case stipulated in Trademark Review and Adjudication Rules is vague without any reference on how could the parties that have close relationship with the disputed trademark participate in the review procedures. The court held that it would be more favorable for protecting the private party’s rights if the TRAB takes the responsibility of informing the parties that has close relationship with the ongoing review case.

Established in 1976, OKBABY S.R.L. has been engaged in the design, manufacture and distribution of baby commodities. The brand “OKBABY” has enjoyed high reputation internationally. The design of the involved products, namely, spidy potty, ducka water closet seat and buddy bath seat were completed in 1998, 2000 and 2001, and applications for design protection thereto were filed before WIPO. Those products had been put into Mainland market since 2001.

In March 2005, the parties entered into a license agreement, granting defendant to produce and sell a series of baby commodities including the above three types of products, under the consideration that the defendant pays 2% of the net sales as royalty fee. The defendant did not pay any royalty fee to the plaintiff after the year of 2007. Therefore, the plaintiff brought the defendant into court seeking injunction and damages in May 2008.

Success of this case stands for an advancement of copyright litigation in Unitalen. Compared to work of fine art, work of applied art illustrates more “industrial” features, and therefore the protection over the same will become more complicated. In addition, it is often the case that a right could be protected by claiming either work of applied art or design patent. It appears that the plaintiff in this case could have asserted its claims based on design patent. However, because OKBABY S.R.L. does not enjoy any design patent in China, the assertion could not rely on the same. Assuming that the plaintiff owned a design patent over the disputed products, there would leave a question on which approach could maximize the protection on the client’s rights and interests. Analysis on the two approaches of actions reveals that copyright action is a preferable solution for this case. This is because that the defendant would usually initiate an invalidation action against the plaintiff’s design patent to fight against litigation and the court would suspend the trial to wait for the decision on the review of invalidation, in which case the case would become more complicated. On the other hand, the approach of copyright action makes the proceeding streamlined, as all rebutment is made within court, without having any third party involved. In course of representation of this case, Unitalen lawyers reflected on all the above factors and made this case a success by asserting the defendant’s infringement on the plaintiff’s work of applied art.

The purposes of the lecture are to help the association members have a better understanding on IP protection and to encourage Chinese enterprises to take up the weapon of IP laws and regulations to enhance their competitiveness in the global market.

By the recession of the global economy, the influence of the financial crisis is getting spread and challenging Chinese governments as well as Chinese enterprises. The purposes of the forum are to help the Chinese enterprises better understand the current economic situation and lessen the impact of the global economic crisis by developing self innovated IP rights and reducing dependence on export-oriented economy.

The manual which is of loose leaf and updated four times every year, will serve as a handbook and an authentic guidance for legal professionals. The book clearly illustrates the procedures for obtaining various IP rights in China, covering not only patent, trademark, copyright, but also many related issues like unfair competition, company name, domain name, new plant varieties, IC design, customs protection.

(For details, please contact us)