According to the person in charge of IP Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court of China, since the revision of the Trademark Law in 2001 incorporating the decision on review of the rejected trademark, decision on review of opposition against trademark, decision on disputed trademark and decision on cancellation of review issued by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board into the scope of judicial review, the people’s court has heard around 4,000 administrative intellectual property cases of trademark authorization and ownership determination, including many major and complicated cases which have caused great social influence and drawn wide public attention.

Consisting of twenty articles, the "Opinion" provide guidance to the judicial policy orientation, the examination standards for the distinctiveness of trademark, well-known trademark protection, trademark preemptive registration by agent or representative, similarities of goods and trademarks, protection of prior rights, registered trademarks that have not been used for three consecutive years and other notable problems on trademark authorization and determination. It also specifies the application boundaries of laws and unifies the judicial review standards and will have great significance for the court’s duty performance in judicial review and trademark authorization and determination.

It is disclosed that IPR cases accepted and heard by the court before the mid 90s of last century are mainly technology contract cases; from mid 90s to 2002, patent cases occupies the most among the various types of IP cases; since 2002, copyright cases rises up to No.1. Among them, the newly accepted copyright cases reached 15,302 in 2009, resulting in an increase of 39.73 percent. Traditional types of copyright, patent, trademark, unfair competition and technology contract cases maintain at a rapid growth pace. The IPR judicial protection has been expanded to the fields of internet copyright, computer software copyright, new plant varieties, integrated circuit layout design, civil literature and art, geographical indications, special marks, corporate names, Internet domain names, well-known trademarks judicial determination, non-material cultural heritage, franchising and application for interim measures before litigation, infringement confirmation, antitrust and other new fields. Judicial approach is increasingly becoming the main method of resolving intellectual property disputes.

In recent years, with the strengthened IPR judicial protection of China, conclusion rates of first instance cases climbed to 85.35 percent in 2009, compared to 75.35 percent in 2003, appeal rate fell from 59.38 percent in 2003 to 48.82 percent in 2009, the reversal rate of second instance has fallen to 6 percent in 2009 compared to 15.19 percent in 2003, the retrial rate has fallen to 0.33 percent in 2009 compared to 0.80 percent in 2003.

In recent years, Unitalen’s strength in intellectual property litigation has been reflected in many important cases and widely acknowledged in IP industry and enterprises. The trademark cases of Montagut, BMW and Kou Zi Wine represented by Unitalen are respectively chosen as＂Ten Best Practices＂in intellectual property protection of Shanghai, ＂Ten Best Practices＂ in Intellectual Property Protection by the Supreme People’s Court＂and＂Ten Best Practices in Intellectual Property Protection of Quality Brands Protection Committee of the Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment as well as ＂Ten Best Practices＂ in Intellectual Property Protection of Anhui province, etc.

Case Brief:
Plaintiff: (Japan) Spring Co., Ltd.
Defendant: Guangzhou Meishi Jingying Screen Co., Ltd. and Beijing Renhe Century Technology Co., Ltd.

(Japan) Spring Co., Ltd. is the patentee of the patent of utility model of "movable screen devices", which includes 32 claims. (Japan) Spring Co., Ltd. claimed in the first instance that its patent claims in the case are claim 5 and claim 12. The court of first instance recognized that Meishi Jingying Screen Co., Ltd. infringed upon claim 5 and claim 12 by manufacturing and selling infringing products, and recognized Renhe Century Technology Co., Ltd. the same by selling infringing products. Therefore, Meishi Jingying Screen Co., Ltd. was ordered to stop manufacturing and selling infringing products and make a compensation of 120,000 Yuan including damages caused to Spring Co., Ltd. and reasonable litigation expenses, Renhe Century Technology Co., Ltd. was ordered to stop selling the infringing products. In the second instance, the Patent Re-examination Board of State Intellectual Property Office made a decision on examining the request for invalidation and upheld the patent validity after Spring Co., Ltd. submitted revised patent claims which deleted the original claims 1-6.

Comments:
It is a typical case that reflects the court’s equal protection inclination for foreign IPR holders. In this case, the patentee alleged in the first instance that the infringing products infringed upon two of its patent claims, the court affirmed the infringement nature and ordered the defendant to make a compensation of 120,000 Yuan. During the trial of second instance, although the patentee deleted some patent claims, the court upheld initial compensation amount. The significance of the case indicates that the compensation amount is not determined by quantity of claims, no matter how many patent claims the infringing products infringe upon, the compensation amount shall not be affected.

After the disaster, Unitalen called for all the staff to make donations to those people in the disaster-affecting area. Initiation immediately receiving a positive response, many employees made donations to express their concerns for the people in the disaster areas, some were even entrusted by their families to make contributions and deliver blessings to Yushu. Within two days, Unitalen donations for quake-hit Yushu reached 159,160 yuan.

On May 4, the donations were delivered by the Unitalen staff representative to the China Charity Federation for Yushu relief action.

Disaster is merciless but the world is full of love. With loving hearts and best wishes, the Unitalen staff have shown their noble and warmhearted spirit for helping the disaster-stricken area.

In view of this, Gu Ping, the senior attorney from Unitalen and expert on 337 investigation, was interviewed by the Business Channel of Xinhua News Network organized by the Xinhua News Agency.

As a senior partner with Unitalen, Visiting Professor of law school of City University of Hong Kong, as well as a member of American Intellectual Property Law Association and JD graduated from the United States, Gu Ping is experienced in 337 litigations and has successfully represented many cases on ITC cases and federal court patent cases.

In this interview, Gu Ping made an in-depth analysis on definition and characteristics of 337 investigation as well as the nature of 337 investigation filed by the United States against China and countermeasures taken by Chinese enterprises. She also provided concrete guidance and practical suggestions to enterprises as to how to avoid and cope with 337 investigation.