LONGAN LAW FIRMContents
Long An IP News
The Quan Xianzhi IP Scholarship Awarding Ceremony 2022 was successfully held
Long An Co-hosted ALB China Debt Restructuring Forum 2022
Long An (Hohhot) Law Firm organized the Long An 30th Anniversary Healthy Running Activity with the theme of “Aiming for health and running with partners”
China IP News
CNIPA: Understanding and Application of “Trademark Infringement Judgment Criteria” (IX)
Beijing intellectual property data in the first half of 2022 was released
Long An Top 10 IP Cases in 2021 (Cases 7-8)
Case 7: The Appeal Case on Intellectual Property Contract Disputes between Zhow Pay Fook and Jianfu Cai
Case 8: The Patent Infringement Litigation Case between Anshan Lifu Electric Appliance Factory and Zhihui Li (a Korean individual)
Long An IP News
The Quan Xianzhi IP Scholarship Awarding Ceremony 2022 was successfully held
The Quan Xianzhi Intellectual Property Scholarship Awarding Ceremony 2022 was held on August 24, 2022 online. Ms. Cindy Xianzhi Quan, senior partner of Long An, presented certificates to the award-winning students of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and explained the newly implemented Measures for Security Assessment of Data Exports in simple terms with the title of “Introduction and Discussion of the New Regulations on Data and Personal Information Exports”. Finally, Ms. Quan gave detailed answers to the questions raised by the students based on her personal experience.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/OUJjNjtOkZjgfo6t1-sTTA
Long An Co-hosted ALB China Debt Restructuring Forum 2022
On August 25, 2022, the ALB China Debt Restructuring Forum 2022 co-hosted by Long An was successfully held at the JW Marriott Hotels & Resorts in Beijing.
A lawyer from Long An shared with the guests on the topic of “Restructuring Investment Opportunities and Legal Risks of Real Estate Enterprises”, and received unanimous praise from more than 100 professionals from enterprises and law firms.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/hyXtTghLN_UyIMF8OGSqyQ
Long An (Hohhot) Law Firm organized the Long An 30th Anniversary Healthy Running Activity with the theme of “Aiming for health and running with partners”
To celebrate the 30th anniversary of Long An, Beijing Long An (Hohhot) Law Firm invited partners from Inner Mongolia Liye Accounting Co., Ltd. to participate in the healthy running activity with the theme of “Aiming for health and running with partners” in Chilechuan Park on the morning of August 19, 2022.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8h9YiN-PiNQR9oEQfERTSQ
China IP News
CNIPA: Understanding and Application of “Trademark Infringement Judgment Criteria” (IX)
The CNIPA wrote the Understanding and Application of “Trademark Infringement Judgment Criteria” and released in batches on the official WeChat account of the CNIPA.
E.g.:
Article 35 The following cases that are being heard by the CNIPA or a people’s court may be subject to the provisions on “suspension” in the third paragraph of Article 62 of the Trademark Law:
(1) The registered trademark is in the process of invalidation;
(2) The registered trademark is in the renewal and extension period;
(3) There are other disputes over the ownership of the registered trademark.
Article 36 In the process of examining and dealing with a trademark infringement case, the competent trademark enforcement may request the trademark owner to issue a written identification opinion on whether the commodities involved are produced by the trademark owner or produced under the its license. The trademark owner shall take corresponding legal responsibility for its identification opinion.
The competent trademark enforcement shall examine the qualifications of trademark owner and authenticity of the identification opinion. If the suspected infringer has no contrary evidence to refute the identification opinion, the trademark enforcement shall adopt the identification opinion as evidence.
While this article makes detailed provisions on the identification by trademark owners, the CNIPA gives the following two points for attention:
(1) The competent trademark enforcement “may” require the trademark owner to issue a written identification opinion, but it is not “must”. As long as there is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the infringement, it can also be punished qualitatively without the identification by the trademark owner.
(2) The trademark owner may also “actively” provide a written identification opinion.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/OtwJMIoPHGl5vo79n1p-fg
Beijing intellectual property data in the first half of 2022 was released
On August 17, 2022, the CNIPA released Beijing intellectual property data for the first half of 2022.
From January to June 2022, the number of patents granted in Beijing was 101,428, a year-on-year increase of 9.83%, of which the number of inventions granted was 42,774, a year-on-year increase of 6.61%. As of the end of June 2022, the number of valid invention patents in Beijing was 441,656, a year-on-year increase of 18.92%. The number of invention patents per 10,000 population reached 201.8, a year-on-year increase of 18.99%.
From January to June 2022, the number of trademarks registered in Beijing was 231,000, a year-on-year increase of 18.46%. As of the end of June 2022, the number of valid trademarks registered was 2.781 million, a year-on-year increase of 17.09%.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/wle3QgJThfO557WzyBEh5w
Long An Top 10 IP Cases in 2021 (Cases 7-8)
Case 7: The Appeal Case on Intellectual Property Contract Disputes between Zhow Pay Fook and Jianfu Cai
In July 2019, Jianfu Cai sued Zhow Pay Fook to the Intermediate People’s Court of Maoming City, Guangdong Province based on a Settlement Agreement signed with Zhow Pay Fook on January 8, 2014, claiming that Zhow Pay Fook violated the Agreement and licensed others to open Zhow Pay Fook jewelery stores within 15 kilometers of its affiliated stores. Jianfu Cai asked the court to order Zhow Pay Fook to pay him CNY 1 million as liquidated damages and revoke licenses for the operation of Zhow Pay Fook jewelery stores by Jinxinfu Jewelery within 15 kilometers of its affiliated stores.
According to the Settlement Agreement, Jianfu Cai can set up (including self-operation, shareholding, cooperation, etc.) 80 Zhow Pay Fook jewelery stores free of charge, use all registered trademarks of Zhow Pay Fook for free, and he is not interfered by Zhow Pay Fook Co., Ltd, not subject to the franchising regulations of Zhow Pay Fook Co., Ltd, or not bound by the management of Zhow Pay Fook Co., Ltd. In addition, Zhow Pay Fook Co., Ltd. is forbidden to operate or license others to open stores within 15 kilometers of any of 80 affiliated stores of Jianfu Cai. The liquidated damages are as high as CNY 1 million each time.
The court of first instance upheld the above-mentioned claims of Jianfu Cai, and Zhow Pay Fook Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed to the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province. The High People’s Court of Guangdong Province made a final judgment on December 14, 2021, revoking the first-instance judgment and rejecting all claims of Jianfu Cai.
During the second trial, Zhow Pay Fook Co., Ltd. entrusted lawyers from Long An Law Firm. After our attorneys intervened the case, we successively submitted two supplementary grounds for appeal, organized the collection of more than 20 new evidence, and took advantage of the opportunity to appear in court to fully expound and prove that the Settlement Agreement submitted by Jianfu Cai was untrue and invalid, which provided factual basis, evidence support and legal basis for the court of second instance to revoke the judgment of first instance. Finally, the second instance court revoked the judgment of first instance and refused all claims of Cai Jianfu.
Case 8: The Patent Infringement Litigation Case between Anshan Lifu Electric Appliance Factory and Zhihui Li (a Korean individual)
Zhihui Li (a Korean individual) is the inventor of a famous South Korean juicer company. The juicers manufactured by the company has been sold in the North American market for decades, and the patent involved has been granted in China, the United States, South Korea and other countries and regions. At the end of 2018, Zhihui Li filed a lawsuit against Anshan Lifu Electric Appliance Factory for infringing her invention patent to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. She requested the defendant to cease the infringement, destroy the infringing products and molds, offer an apology, compensate the plaintiff CNY 1.2 million, and bear the litigation cost of this case.
Under the circumstance that the outcome of the case is not optimistic, our firm, as the attorney of Anshan Lifu Electric Appliance Factory, quickly formulated a litigation strategy after accepting the entrustment. Through the patent invalidation procedure, the patentee was successfully forced to limit the protection scope of the patent involved, which laid a good foundation for the infringement lawsuit. In the lawsuit, we put forward non-infringement defense and prior art defense based on the facts of the case.
In the first instance, we submitted the defendant’s evidence, “Comparative Analysis of Infringement”, “Key Statement of the Trial”, “Application for Evidence Acquisition”, “Opinions on Appraisal”, “Interrogation Opinions”, and “Defense Opinions” with more than 30,000 words, and others. During the trial, our attorney made a statement to the collegiate panel based on the technical solution of the patent involved, the technical solution of the alleged infringing product, the results of the investigation, the technical principle of the juicer, the appraisal scheme, and the provisions of the current patent-related laws and regulations in China. In the end, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted our opinion and rejected all the plaintiff’s claims, and we won the case in an all-round way.
After we won the first instance, the plaintiff filed a second instance. Our attorney cross-examined the new evidence submitted by Zhihui Li, and at the same time argued the factual and legal basis for the non-infringement of Anshan Lifu Electric Appliance Factory in the second trial. After the trial, our attorney, adhering to the diligent and prudent work style, submitted supplementary materials and the second-instance attorney’s opinion with more than 30,000 words to the Supreme People’s Court. The opinion further demonstrated the non-infringement basis of the alleged infringing product from the four dimensions of the first-instance investigation experiment results and our supplementary experimental results, technical principles, the protection scope of the patent involved, and relevant legal basis. In the second instance, the Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal of the plaintiff, Zhihui Li, and upheld the first-instance judgment.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/73wBL5YigRee830jrx0GCQ
For more details, please follow us on: