LONGAN LAW FIRMContents
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn News
Cindy Quan from Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn attended LES Japan 2023 Annual Conference with her team
Seminar on the SWEET PUMA Trademark Administrative Litigation (Top 10 Cases of QBPC 2022-2023) was successfully held
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Notable Cases
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn assisted an internationally renowned sports brand in invalidating 6 design patents
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn assisted a client in winniđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn administrative dispute for utility model patent invalidation
China IP News
State Council Information Office (P.R.C.) held a press conference on intellectual property work for the first half of 2023
CNIPA Launched 2023 Demonstration for Buildiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn IPR Powerhouse
Conference on Intellectual Property Data Preservation and Notarization was held in Beijing
Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office held a meeting on diversified mediation of intellectual property disputes
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Top 10 IP Cases in 2022
The administrative litigation dispute over the invalidation điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe trademark for Hubei Daohuaxiang Liquor Industry Co., Ltd.
“Haagen-Dazs” brand anti-unfair competition dispute
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn News
Cindy Quan from Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn attended LES Japan 2023 Annual Conference with her team
From July 14 – 15, 2023, the Licensing Executives Society Japan (LES Japan) held its annual conference in Hamamatsu, Japan, with a theme of “Challenges of Diversity and Harmony”. A total of 210 participants, including members điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Japan Intellectual Property Association, professionals from various intellectual property sectors, and some international licensing professionals from LES USA, LES China, and LES South Korea, attended the conference. Cindy Quan, a senior partner of Long An Law Firm, and Xiaoqing Yang, a trademark attorney, were invited to attend this event. They engaged in extensive and in-depth exchanges and discussions with international licensing professionals from various countries.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/uFWFFUufRqKdNLFqGnCssw
Seminar on the SWEET PUMA Trademark Administrative Litigation (Top 10 Cases of QBPC 2022-2023) successfully held
Recently, lawyer Chengyan Alice Zhao conducted a case sharing of “SWEET PUMA Trademark Administrative Litigation (Top 10 Cases of QBPC 2022-2023)”, which attracted over a hundred attendees.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/IKHtWzgEVw47cp6vqsPFww
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Notable Cases
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn assisted an internationally renowned sports brand in invalidating 6 design patents
Recently, Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn lawyers, Mr. Jianjun Fu, Mr. Yuan Piao, Mr. Lei Wen and Mr. Xi Chen assisted an internationally renowned sports brand in successfully invalidating 6 design patents.
In this case, according to the client’s claim, the Long An team filed a patent invalidation request for a series of design patents that were suspected of imitating the client’s famous trademark, on the grounds that they violated Article 23, paragraph 3 điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Patent Law điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe People’s Republic of China. Long An team successfully made the collegiate panel uphold their claim. Finally, the CNIPA invalidated all 6 designs involved.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/NSi0vjoBfpG-I_-KtYCnxA
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn assisted a client in winniđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn administrative dispute for utility model patent invalidation
Recently, Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn lawyers, Ms. Cindy Quan, Mr. Jianjun Fu and Mr. Xiaojun Zheng, won an administrative dispute over the invalidation request for a utility model patent titled “Intelligent Dry Selector Integrated with Dust Removal Device”.
Tianjin XX Technology Co., Ltd. is the patentee điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe utility model patent “Intelligent Dry Selector Integrated with Dust Removal Device”. Previously, a third party, Mr. Sun, filed an invalidation request against this patent, and the CNIPA issued Decision No. 57503 (the “accused decision”), invalidating the patent. The patentee refused to accept the accused decision and entrusted Long An Law Firm to file an administrative lawsuit.
Long An lawyers carefully analyzed the accused decision and believed that the determination điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe content disclosed in Exhibit 2 by the accused decision was incorrect, leading to an false conclusion, and filed an administrative lawsuit. In the end, the first-instance court upheld our claims, determining that the accused decision lacked factual basis for its determination regarding Exhibit 2. As a result, the court ruled to revoke the accused decision and to make a new decision.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/gubNf6DmO8DPPt0FK39o9Q
China IP News
State Council Information Office (P.R.C.) held a press conference on intellectual property work for the first half of 2023
Recently, the CNIPA released the intellectual property data for the first half of 2023.
Patents: In the first half điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe year, 433,000 invention patents, 1.104 million utility model patents and 344,000 design patents were granted. 35,000 PCT applications were accepted. 33,000 patent reexamination cases were concluded, and 4,433 cases of invalidation were closed. Chinese applicants submitted 957 international design patent applications via the Hague system. As điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe end of June 2023, the valid number of invention patents in China reached 4,568,000, a year-on-year increase of 16.9%.
Trademarks: 2,018,000 trademarks were registered in the first half điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe year. 87,000 cases điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetrademark opposition were reviewed, and 182,000 cases of various trademark examination were processed. 3,024 international trademark registration applications were received from domestic applicants via the Madrid Protocol. As điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe end of June this year, the valid number of registered trademarks in China reached 44,235,000, a year-on-year increase of 9.1%.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Ma9Rqf0uZZ9Y6_-8sEbhjw
CNIPA Launched 2023 Demonstration for Building IPR Powerhouse
Recently, the CNIPA has issued the Circular on Launching 2023 Demonstration Among Enterprises for the Building of an Intellectual Property Rights Powerhouse (referred to as the “Circular”).
The Circular touches upon the application, assessment, and review of national intellectual property rights (IPR) advantageous enterprises and national IPR demonstration enterprises in 2023, clarifying their scope, work procedures, organization, and guarantee measures. According to the Circular, enterprises applying for becoming national IPR advantageous enterprises shall be those haviđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbet certain influence and a prominent IPR strength in a certain region; enterprises applying for becoming demonstration enterprises shall be those advantageous enterprises completiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbet three-year cultivation term. The Circular specifies that, advantageous enterprises within their cultivation term and demonstration enterprises shall be subject to annual assessment each year. The scope of assessment in 2023 covers the advantageous enterprises and demonstration enterprises that have been identified and have passed the review in 2022. The annual assessment result will serve as an important reference in the review. Those failing to participate in the assessment for two consecutive years will no longer be eligible for review.
http://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/7/19/art_75_186396.html
Conference on Intellectual Property Data Preservation and Notarization was held in Beijing
Recently, the Conference on Intellectual Property Data Preservation and Notarization was held in Beijing. Representatives from Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office, Beijing Municipal Justice Bureau, Beijing Intellectual Property Protection Center, Beijing Notary Association, and Fangyuan Notary Public Office attended the event.
During the conference, Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office presented an overview điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe data intellectual property protection. Beijing Intellectual Property Protection Center reported on the progress of data intellectual property registration. Beijing Notary Association and Fangyuan Notary Public Office discussed the practice of electronic evidence preservation. Participants conducted in-depth discussions on topics such as virtual data custody, electronic evidence preservation, preservation and notarization of data intellectual property, etc.
In accordance with Article 5 điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Interim Measures for the Registration and Management of Data Intellectual Property in Beijing, applicants are required to complete trustworthy data preservation or notarization before submittiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetpplications for data intellectual property registration, ensuring data integrity, trustworthiness, and traceability.
https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/7/26/art_57_186554.html
Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office held a meeting on diversified mediation of intellectual property disputes
Recently, the Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office held a meeting on the diversified mediation of intellectual property disputes. The Beijing Intellectual Property Protection Center and representatives from 19 people’s mediation committees for intellectual property disputes, along with 12 mediation studios, reported on their work progress and plans. They also discussed the current challenges and difficulties in their daily work, as well as strategies for leveraging industry expertise, improving the coordination mechanism between litigation and mediation, and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of mediation.
It is reported that in the first half of 2023, the people’s mediation organizations for intellectual property disputes in Beijiđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetccepted a total of 4,927 cases, 2,634 cases were concluded. The number of cases accepted and concluded increased by over 30% year on year. There were 1,865 successful mediations, achieviđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbet success rate of 70.8%, which hit a new high over the years.
https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2023/7/17/art_57_186330.html
Lođiều kiện rút tiền 8xbetn Top 10 IP Cases in 2022
The administrative litigation dispute over the invalidation điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe trademark for Hubei Daohuaxiang Liquor Industry Co., Ltd.
SUMMARY
In December 2011, an Oil Company in Nanchang (hereinafter referred to as “Nanchang Oil Company”) applied to the Trademark Office điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe former State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the registration điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe class 29 trademark “故園稻花香” (food protein, edible oil, canned fruit, shrimp sauce, etc.); in November 2015, another application was made for the registration điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe class 29 trademark “娇子稻花香” (edible oil, meat, lard, etc.). Both trademarks were opposed by Hubei Daohuaxiang Liquor Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Daohuaxiang Company”) after the preliminary examination announcement, and the Trademark Office made a decision to approve registration điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe disputed trademarks. In March 2019, Daohuaxiang Company submitted an administrative request to the CNIPA for the invalidation điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe trademarks. After review, the CNIPA believed that the two disputed trademarks did not violate Article 13, paragraph 3, Article 30 and other relevant provisions điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe 2013 Trademark Law, ruling that the validity điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetrademarks in dispute shall be maintained.
Daohuaxiang Company refused to accept the ruling điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe CNIPA and entrusted Long An (Wuhan) Law Firm to file a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Long An believed that the “稻花香” liquor series cited trademark in class 33 have gained a high reputation after a large amount of publicity and use by Daohuaxiang Company before the date of application for registration điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe disputed trademarks, and should be protected as a well-known trademark according to law. After the hearing, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld our claim on the following grounds: Firstly, the cited trademark has gained high popularity and has been known to the relevant Chinese public. Secondly, the disputed trademarks “故園稻花香” and “娇子稻花香” completely include the cited trademark “稻花香”, which are similar in terms điều kiện rút tiền 8xbetext composition and meaning, and the disputed trademarks as a whole do not form a different meaning from the cited trademark, which constitutes copying and imitation điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe plaintiff’s well-known trademark. Thirdly, although the commodities such as “shrimp sauce, canned fruit, edible oil, and meat” in the approved scope điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe use điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe trademarks in dispute belong to different groups in the Similar Services and Classification Table from the commodity “liquor” in the approved scope điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe use điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe cited trademark, they do not belong to the same or similar commodity, both belong to common food or drink, and there is a certain degree of overlap in terms of sales channels and target consumers. On this basis, the registration and use điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe trademarks in dispute may easily cause the relevant public to confuse and misidentify the source điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe goods, or believe that the goods with the trademarks in dispute are related to the plaintiff, which will weaken the distinctiveness điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe plaintiff’s well-known trademark and damage the plaintiff’s legal interest. Therefore, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made the first-instance judgment: 1. The sued ruling was revoked; 2. The CNIPA shall make a new ruling.
After the first-instance judgment became effective, the CNIPA made a new ruling on the invalidation điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe two disputed trademarks in January 2022. Nanchang Oil Company filed an application for retrial with the Beijing High People’s Court, requesting to revoke the first-instance judgment điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Long An (Wuhan) Law Firm continued to accept the entrustment to serve as the attorney for the two retrial cases điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe respondent Daohuaxiang Company. After the trial, the Beijing High People’s Court issued (2022) Jingxingshen No. 1478 and No. 1479 administrative orders, ruling to reject the retrial application of Nanchang Oil Company.
TYPICALITY
- In this case, through the effective efforts of Long An, the unfavorable situation was successfully reversed when Daohuaxiang Company applied for two administrative procedures but was not upheld. After judicial procedures, Daohuaxiang Company’s liquor cited trademark in class 33 has obtained cross-class protection for well-known trademarks in Class 29 edible oil and other commodities, and the registration and use điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe disputed trademarks are prohibited according to law, maximizing the protection điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe trademark’s exclusive right and prohibition right.
- In the retrial administrative ruling, the Beijing High People’s Court held that the retrial procedure is a special remedy granted to the parties for material errors that may occur inaneffective judgment. If the parties still believe that the effective judgment is wrong after exhausting conventional remedies, they may apply to the people’s court for retrial. For parties who fail to appeal in accordance with the law without justifiable reasons, generally no special remedy mechanism should be available for them. Otherwise, the parties will be encouraged to abuse the retrial procedure, thus alienating the special procedure into an ordinary procedure, which also violates the basic principle điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe two tiered system (i.e. the second instance being the final judgment). The retrial ruling điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Beijing High People’s Court fully embodies the procedure value of administrative litigation, and also provides guidance for the parties on how to properly exercise their litigation rights.
“Haagen-Dazs” brand anti-unfair competition dispute
SUMMARY
General Mills is responsible for the operation điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Haagen-Dazs brand in China. Since 1997, it has launched ice cream mooncakes and designed gift coupons for a great deal of publicity. In 2019, General Mills found that the gift coupons sold by the infringers through their websites and WeChat official accounts were consistent with the content and design of its ice cream mooncake gift coupons, but among the many participating products, only one product was Haagen-Dazs ice cream mooncake and others had nothing to do with Haagen-Dazs. In addition, the infringers reminded consumers to choose their “Shounong” and “COFCO” products during the process and give up the Haagen-Dazs ice cream mooncakes.
As Haagen-Dazs is widely known to relevant consumers in the ice cream industry, General Mills has certain competitive advantages and competitive interests. After seeing the gift coupons with the name of Haagen-Dazs and the promotional content that is suspected to be Haagen-Dazs ice cream mooncake delivery coupons, consumers will undoubtedly think that these are the gift coupons for a series of products related to Haagen-Dazs or there is a specific relation with the operator of Haagen-Dazs brand.
Through fast and effective notarization of evidence, Long An proved that the infringers’ behaviors were not simply counterfeiting Haagen-Dazs gift coupons, but a business model consisting of a series of behaviors that using Haagen-Dazs brand awareness to attract and mislead consumers who originally intend to buy Haagen-Dazs products, and promote its own products to them, so as to achieve the purpose of actually selling its own products, thus causing General Mills to lose its potential trading opportunities. The series of behaviors điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe infringers was holistic, and the subjective maliciousness of clinging to the Haagen-Dazs brand name was obvious enough to make the relevant public mistakenly believe that the accused gift coupons are issued by the operator of Haagen-Dazs brand or there is an authorized agency or other cooperative relationship between them, which damages the competitive advantages and interests of General Mills. Over time, the Haagen-Dazs brand reputation will be diluted and weakened. It can be seen that their behaviors are obviously unfair and fall into other confusing behaviors stipulated in Article 6 (4) điều kiện rút tiền 8xbethe Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which constitutes unfair competition.
Finally, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court upheld our claims that the infringers’ use of Haagen-Dazs ice cream mooncake brochures without authorization to make gift coupons and carry out the tie-in sale of its own products constituted unfair competition and infringed the legitimate rights and interests of General Mills. The infringers should cease the infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the impact and compensate for economic losses.
TYPICALITY
The case has attracted wide attention and been widely reported by the media because of its unfair competition dispute involviđiều kiện rút tiền 8xbet new type of business model.
For more details, please follow us on:
