LONGAN LAW FIRMLong An News
Several Long An Lawyers Honored with Multiple Research Achievement Awards
Cindy Quan Assists in Organizing and Moderating the 17th AIPLA Women in IP Law Global Networking Event
Cindy Quan Attends the Data-Driven Patent Strategy and R&D Innovation Seminar and Deliverđăng ký 8xbet Keynote Speech
Cindy Quan Co-edited “Patent Infringement Risk Prevention – FTO Analysis Practical Guide” Officially Published
Long An Notable Cases
Long An Achieveđăng ký 8xbetnother Victory for Puma SE
China IP News
China’s Q1 Intellectual Property Royalties Exports Grow by 34.4% Year-on-Year
Announcement on the Revision of Patent Certificates
Long An Top 10 IP Cases in 2023 (Cases 3-4)
Puma trademark invalidation serieđăng ký 8xbetdministrative litigation
A copyright infringement dispute case involving Jingsen Design Co., Ltd.
The Supreme People’s Court Top 10 IP Cases in 2023
Selected case represented by Long An: Case on “Facial Recognition” Invention Patent Confirmation
Long An News
Several Long An Lawyers Honored with Multiple Research Achievement Awards
Recently, the China Trademark Association organized 12 senior experts in the industry to rigorously evaluate 47 research achievements submitted by 38 trademark research groups. On April 17, 2024, the “2023 Research Achievement Awards đăng ký 8xbetrademark Law Frontier Issues Research Group” were announced. Seven lawyers from Long An Law Firm, including Cindy Xianzhi Quan, Jianjun Fu, Chengyan Alice Zhao, Yan Zhang, Jiafen Xie, and Kuiliang Chen, and Qi Zhang were awarded the second prize, the third prize, and the honorable mention prizes.
The research achievements in which Long An lawyers participated and won awards include:
- Second Prize in “Research Report on Trademarks Containing Geographical Names (other than Geographical Indications)”;
- Third Prize in “Research on Trademark Brand Operation Issues”;
- Third Prize in “Research on Trademark Issues under Web 3.0”;
- Third Prize in “Research on Trademark Rightđăng ký 8xbetnd Commercialization Rights”;
- Honorable Mention Prize in “Comparative Study on Rules for Judging Similarity of Extraterritorial Goodđăng ký 8xbetnd Services”; and
- Honorable Mention Prize in “Research Report on Parallel Import Issues”.
These awards reflect the recognition of the industry for Long An’s professional ability and continued efforts in the field of trademark. Additionally, it also inspires Long An’s trademark team to deeply cultivate, explore, and research in the field of trademarkđăng ký 8xbetđăng ký 8xbetlways.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/jzLZmKt64F0bN_NXhEMyaw
Cindy Quan Assists in Organizing and Moderating the 17th AIPLA Women in IP Law Global Networking Event
On April 18, 2024, the “2024 Global Networking Event” organized by the Women in IP Law Committee đăng ký 8xbethe American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) was successfully held worldwide. Themed “Cultivating Leaders”, the event aimed to help nurture and cultivate future leaders in the profession and further promote the exchange and cooperation of women in the global intellectual property field.
Cindy Quan, Senior Partner of Long An Law Firm, served as the co-chair for this year’s event, successfully organizing and moderating the event. At the opening ceremony, Quan delivered a speech, expressing a warm welcome to participants from various locationđăng ký 8xbetnd extending her best wishes for the event’s success.
The event saw participation from nearly 50 citieđăng ký 8xbetcrosđăng ký 8xbetsia, Europe, North America, South America, and Latin America. Each city hosted its local event. Additionally, to foster interaction among global participants, the event featured four video conferences, allowing host cities to engage in real-time exchangeđăng ký 8xbetnd greetingđăng ký 8xbetcross time zones, and discuss the latest developmentđăng ký 8xbetnd trends in the field of intellectual property.
** Activities in Asia **
** Activities in Europe **
** Activities in North America, South America, Latin America **
The AIPLA Women in IP Law Global Networking Event, a global gathering in the intellectual property field, has been enthusiastically received since its inception in 2007. The event not only provideđăng ký 8xbet platform for female legal professionals to communicate but also playđăng ký 8xbetn active role in promoting diversity and inclusion in the global intellectual property arena.
If you are interested in this event, you can sign up to become a host city for the 2025 Global Networking Event. For more information and details, please contact Cindy Quan via email: quanxz@longanlaw.com.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/BHDXFCq9vmKrToS_fyupfw
Cindy Quan Attends the Data-Driven Patent Strategy and R&D Innovation Seminar and Deliverđăng ký 8xbet Keynote Speech
Recently, the “Data-Driven Patent Strategy and R&D Innovation” seminar was held in Beijing. Cindy Quan, Senior Partner of Long An Law Firm, was invited to attend and delivered a keynote speech.
At the seminar, with the topic of “Infringement Risk Prevention in the Innovation Procesđăng ký 8xbetnd Case Studies”, Quan analyzed the statistical data of patent litigation, discussed patent infringement disputes between Chinese and American companies, as well as the risk prevention measures for infringement disputes in the technological innovation process. Through vivid case studieđăng ký 8xbetnd practical advice, Quan highlighted the riskđăng ký 8xbetnd potential harms of patent infringement, and provided effective methods to avoid such risks. Her presentation was highly praised by the attendees.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/daz_zoGIVSW6Qms2n7_atw
Cindy Quan Co-edited “Patent Infringement Risk Prevention – FTO Analysis Practical Guide” Officially Published
After more than a year of effort, the “Patent Infringement Risk Prevention – FTO Analysis Practical Guide”, co-edited by Cindy Quan, has been officially published. This work provides detailed guidance on how to identify, assess, and address patent infringement risks in practice.
[Summary]
The work outlines the concept of patent infringement risk assessment and lists scenarios that require patent risk assessment. By comparing FTO projects with general patent search projectđăng ký 8xbetnd due diligence projects, it summarizes the characteristics of FTO projectđăng ký 8xbetnd the process management and scope definition of FTO projects. It details the key steps of FTO, the methodđăng ký 8xbetnd tools for FTO searches, the basic principles of patent infringement determination, representative cases, examples of patent infringement analysis reports, and key points for report drafting. Additionally, it considers the particularities of the biopharmaceutical and information communication fields. Finally, it concludes how to address the issues both procedurally and substantively.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/v1AY_-EccRcXL9BrpfJqhg
Long An Notable Cases
Long An Achieveđăng ký 8xbetnother Victory for Puma SE
Recently, Long An attorneys Cindy Quan, Jianjun Fu, and Alice Zhao successfully assisted Puma SE (“Puma”) in winning the second instance of an administrative litigation for trademark invalidation. The second-instance court overturned the first-instance judgment and the sued decision. The second-instance court recognized Trademark No. G582886
ađăng ký 8xbet well-known trademark in Class 25 and extended its protection to services in Class 41.
The attorneys submitted decisions of other trademark opposition cases under the name đăng ký 8xbethe disputed trademark’s registrant (where the opposed trademarks were identical to the disputed trademark) to demonstrate the similarity between the disputed and cited trademarks. Additionally, they provided numerous cases where silhouettes of leaping animals such as cats, tigers, leopards, and horses were found similar to the cited trademark.
Finally, the second-instance court determined that the letter composition of the disputed and cited trademarks was similar, and their graphic elements, design techniques, and overall visual effects were alike. The relevant public would have difficulty distinguishing them in isolation, and the disputed trademark was deemed an imitation of the cited trademark. The serviceđăng ký 8xbetpproved for the disputed trademark, such as “sports education; providing sports facilities”, had a significant overlap with the consumer base of the “clothing; shoes” goods under the cited trademark, leading to a strong association. The use of the disputed trademark on these services could cause the public to believe there wađăng ký 8xbet specific association between the service provider using the disputed trademark and Puma, thus weakening the link between Puma and its well-known trademark. This would objectively exploit the market reputation of the well-known trademark, harming Puma’s interestđăng ký 8xbets the owner of the well-known trademark. Therefore, the registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 13(3) of the Trademark Law. The original judgment and the sued decision were incorrect, and the second-instance court corrected them according to the law.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/3LO3W6N7zD9wjwCDp2GEDQ
China IP News
China’s Q1 Intellectual Property Royalties Exports Grow by 34.4% Year-on-Year
According to the latest data released by the Ministry of Commerce, in the first quarter đăng ký 8xbethis year, China’s intellectual property royalties exports grew by 34.4% year-on-year, continuing to maintain solid growth.
Knowledge-intensive services primarily cover intellectual property use, finance, personal culture and entertainment, telecommunications, computer, and information services. In Q1 2024, China’s import and export of knowledge-intensive serviceđăng ký 8xbetmounted to CNY 733.26 billion, representing a year-on-year growth of 5.6%. Among these, the export of knowledge-intensive serviceđăng ký 8xbetmounted to CNY 427.37 billion, up by 2.8% year-on-year, and the fastest-growing sectors were intellectual property royaltieđăng ký 8xbetnd personal culture and entertainment services, with growth rates of 34.4% and 19%, respectively; the import of knowledge-intensive serviceđăng ký 8xbetmounted to CNY 305.89 billion, reflecting a year-on-year increase of 9.6%, and the fastest-growing sectors were personal culture and entertainment services, and other business services, with growth rates of 66% and 15.2%, respectively.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/nt6HsQ5NY2T9ObbOGRuMGQ
Announcement on the Revision of Patent Certificates
In accordance with Articles 39 and 40 đăng ký 8xbethe Patent Law đăng ký 8xbethe People’s Republic of China, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has decided to revise the patent certificates. The relevant detailđăng ký 8xbetre as follows:
For patents with a granting announcement date on or after June 1, 2024, CNIPA will issue a new version đăng ký 8xbethe patent certificate. The new patent certificate will retain the A4 vertical format and will feature optimized adjustments to the layout of record.
Both the old and new versions đăng ký 8xbethe patent certificates will have the same legal validity. CNIPA will not offer a service to replace old certificates with the new version. However, for requests to replace or correct patent certificates in accordance with Section 1.2, Chapter 9, Part V đăng ký 8xbethe Patent Examination Guidelines, CNIPA will issue the new version đăng ký 8xbethe patent certificate on or after June 1, 2024.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pqJjbuJjW9qWlh1ZdQZjFQ
Long An Top 10 IP Cases in 2023 (Cases 3-4)
Case 3: Puma trademark invalidation serieđăng ký 8xbetdministrative litigation
SUMMARY
This case involveđăng ký 8xbet series of administrative lawsuits for trademark invalidation. The trademarks in dispute are all trademarks under the same applicant, including “BIAO MA”, “德彪马”, “德骉马”, “三骉马”, “野彪马”, “DEBIAOMA”, approved for use in “beer or beer-based cocktails” and other products. The CNIPA ruled to uphold the validity of aforementioned trademarks. The first-instance judgment revoked the CNIPA’s ruling, and the second-instance judgment upheld the original judgment (“野彪马” and “DEBIAOMA” pending in second-instance judgment). In this case, lawyerđăng ký 8xbetlice Zhao and Jianjun Fu of Beijing Long An Law Firm sorted out the evidence of well-known trademarks involved, and fully discussed and provided evidence on the correlation between the well-known goodđăng ký 8xbetnd the goods with the disputed trademarks. Both the first and second instances found that the client’s “彪马” trademark iđăng ký 8xbet well-known trademark and is protected across classes to extend to Class 32 “Beer”.
TYPICALITY
- Challenging Litigation, High Demands on Lawyers:
This case involves the determination of a well-known trademark and requires the understanding and application of Article 13(3) đăng ký 8xbethe Trademark Law (PRC) regarding the “cross-class protection” of well-known trademarks. Through the efforts of our litigation team, we formulated an effective litigation strategy and provided extensive evidence (with over 15,000 pages), successfully having the decision đăng ký 8xbethe CNIPA revoked.
- Successful Recognition of Well-Known Status:
Both the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and the Beijing High People’s Court determined that the client’s cited trademark “彪马” iđăng ký 8xbet well-known trademark. In today’s increasingly stringent judicial review of well-known status, this success is particularly noteworthy.
- Significant Implications for the Client:
PUMA’s “PUMA” and “彪马” trademarks have a wide audience in China, and the judgment of this case not only affirms PUMA’s long-term efforts in brand building but also holds significant importance for the client’s future brand development. Moreover, it provideđăng ký 8xbet framework for combating market entities that attach themselves to well-known brandđăng ký 8xbetnd engage in “parasitic” unfair competition.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/9mIhXDKO9Dqom7Fh0bK4xA
Case 4: A copyright infringement dispute case involving Jingsen Design Co., Ltd.
SUMMARY
In 2014, Aoyuan Company and Jingsen Company signed the Jingsen Design Contract, outlining the planning and construction drawing design for the Aoyuan Shaoguan Impression Project. Jingsen Company, along with Liang, Zhou, and Zhang, created the Jingsen drawingđăng ký 8xbetnd drafts.
Subsequently, a dispute arose between Jingsen Company and Aoyuan Company over feeđăng ký 8xbetnd drawing modifications related to the aforementioned contract, leading to a court case. Jingsen Company did not cooperate with Aoyuan Company in advancing the project approval and subsequent matters. In order to facilitate project progress, Aoyuan Company signed the Jianyi Design Contract with Jianyi Company, requiring Jianyi Company to cooperate and complete the subsequent matters of the project, including making minor modifications to Jingsen Company’s drawingđăng ký 8xbetnd signing Jianyi Company’s name on the drawings. Jianyi Company collaborated with Aoyuan Company on the subsequent work, and Jianyi Company and its employees signed the drawings.
Later, Jingsen Company and its employees sued Jianyi Company and others to the Tianhe District People’s Court of Guangzhou, claiming infringement đăng ký 8xbetheir right of authorship and modification and over CNY 1 million compensation, including punitive damages.
In December 2021, the first-instance court ruled that Jianyi Company and others had infringed Jingsen Company’s right of authorship, ordering Jianyi Company to publicly apologize in Guangzhou Daily and make compensation. Unsatisfied with the first-instance judgment, both partieđăng ký 8xbetppealed to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court.
Three days before the second-instance trial, our team got involved, understood the case, worked out a service plan on the same day, and served as the lead lawyer in the trial. The second-instance court fully adopted the team’s supplementary opinions, ultimately determined that the defendant does not constitute copyright infringement, completely overturned the first-instance judgment, and rejected all đăng ký 8xbethe plaintiff’s claims. We fully won the case for the defendant.
TYPICALITY
This case involveđăng ký 8xbet complex and novel copyright dispute, making it one of the top 10 copyright cases nominated by the AIPPI China in 2023.
It involves various foundational theoretical issues in Copyright Law and intersects with Contract Law, placing a high demand on the attorney’s expertise in copyright law and overall case management. The success of this case not only setđăng ký 8xbet good example for subsequent disputes related to right of authorship on drawings but also reflects the strong professional capabilities of the law firm. The specificđăng ký 8xbetre as follows:
- This case iđăng ký 8xbet complex and rare intellectual property dispute, especially in the realm of architectural drawings. The judgment’đăng ký 8xbetnalysis of intellectual property issueđăng ký 8xbetnd itđăng ký 8xbetpproach to disputes involving drawings provide a highly exemplary model for subsequent cases. The fact that the case made it to the list of the top 10 copyright cases nominated by the AIPPI China in 2023 reflects its far-reaching impact.
1) This case involves numerous complex legal issues in the field of copyright law, including the attribution of rights for works involved, distinctionđăng ký 8xbetnd connections between corporate workđăng ký 8xbetnd works made for hire, the attribution of copyright for works created in specific job roles, the transferability of moral rights, and the scope of regulation on attribution rights. It is worth mentioning that the second-instance judgment in this case fully adopted the opinions of our team, providing a thorough analysiđăng ký 8xbetnd determination of the aforementioned issues. This judgment holds extremely high reference value for the adjudication of similar issues in subsequent cases.
2) The actions in this case, where signing on drawings is based on job duties or contractual agreements, exhibit clear differences from traditional disputes over copyright attribution. On one hand, the defendant’đăng ký 8xbetct of signing iđăng ký 8xbet mandatory requirement in the administrative approval process. On the other hand, the corresponding documentđăng ký 8xbetre stored in the library and require access for retrieval, unknown to the public.
However, objectively, the defendant explicitly stated on the cover đăng ký 8xbethe drawings that they own the copyright and signed the names đăng ký 8xbethe design unit, designer, and approver below.
The aforementioned actionđăng ký 8xbetre somewhat controversial. Our team provided detailed arguments from legal provisions, legal principles, and precedent cases, ultimately successfully persuading the judge to overturn the first-instance judgment and reject all the plaintiff’s claims.
The victory in this case reflects the court’s solid adjudicative skillđăng ký 8xbetnd exceptional judgment techniques, holding significant reference value for the determination of similar actions in subsequent cases.
- For the client, on one hand, the comprehensive victory in this case not only absolves it from the obligation of making a public apology, which would have had a significant impact on the company’s development, but also safeguards the client’s interestđăng ký 8xbetnd upholds the legitimate rights of the client’s employees, fostering the overall positive development of the business.
For design-oriented enterprises, ensuring originality and avoiding intellectual property issueđăng ký 8xbetre fundamental to their development. Making a public apology in a publication like the Guangzhou Daily with an attribution carries substantial negative consequences for a business. The comprehensive victory of this case relieves the client from the aforementioned heavy responsibility, fully ensuring the reputation of the client’s business. Simultaneously, the victory in the case objectively saves the client from compensation and spares the client’s employees from the burden of litigation, promoting the long-term development of the client.
- In terms of the handling approach in this case, variouđăng ký 8xbetspects such as litigation strategy, document preparation, and trial skills hold high reference significance, providing guidance for the handling of subsequent similar cases.
1) The victory of this case iđăng ký 8xbetttributed to the correct litigation strategy. The team adopted a completely different approach from the first and second-instance appeal opinions, utilizing supplementary opinions for thorough output. The second-instance court fully adopted the team’đăng ký 8xbetpproach. This case underscores the importance of legal research in litigation.
2) To assist the court in understanding that signing on drawings does not constitute attribution under copyright law, our team prepared tables summarizing relevant lawđăng ký 8xbetnd regulations in construction industry, compiling reference cases. The court directly cited the legal provisions from the prepared tableđăng ký 8xbetnd accepted the proof. The victory in this case also highlights the importance of visualizing litigation.
3) Given the complexity đăng ký 8xbethe legal issues in this case, our team effectively utilized trial time to elaborate on the litigation strategy, focusing on favorable points, and seized the opportunity to question the plaintiff, confirming facts favorable to the defendant. Therefore, the victory đăng ký 8xbethis case also emphasizes the importance of seizing opportunities during trial.
- This case involveđăng ký 8xbet prior contract dispute and a first-instance judgment, with highly complex materials. The Long An team was engaged only three days before the trial. They worked tirelessly, pulled all-nighters to produce multiple legal documents, ensured a steady output during the trial, and achieved a remarkable and comprehensive victory. Thiđăng ký 8xbetccomplishment also fully demonstrates the professionalism and dedication of the team.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/N7Z_aELbaF-XJszgGmzJLA
The Supreme People’s Court Top 10 IP Cases in 2023
Selected case represented by Long An: Case on “Facial Recognition” Invention Patent Confirmation
Attorneys:
Cindy Xianzhi Quan, Jianjun Fu, Wei Wang, Xiaojun Zheng
SUMMARY
Beijing Zhong XX Technology Co., Ltd. is the patentee đăng ký 8xbethe invention patent number 200480036270.2 and titled “A Method for Acquiring Facial Images and a Facial Recognition Method and System”, and faced a request for invalidation from Ping XX Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. concerning the patent. Beijing Zhong XX Technology Co., Ltd submitted the amended text đăng ký 8xbethe patent claims during the period of invalidation đăng ký 8xbethe patent in question. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) did not accept some đăng ký 8xbethe amended claims, only using the accepted part as the basis for review, and determined that the patent lacked inventiveness, declaring the patent entirely invalid. Beijing Zhong XX Technology Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, but was not upheld. Unsatisfied with this outcome, Beijing Zhong XX Technology Co., Ltd appealed, arguing that all the amended claims should be accepted.
Upon review, the Supreme People’s Court held that in the patent confirmation administrative procedure, the extent of modification to the claims should not exceed the “scope of information” stipulated in Article 33 of the Patent Law and “scope of protection” outlined in paragraph 1, Article 69 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law. The review of whether a modification to a particular claim constituteđăng ký 8xbet “further limitation” should be based solely on whether the modified claim completely includeđăng ký 8xbetll technical features of the original claim and whether the modified claim adds technical features, with the added featuređăng ký 8xbetlso recorded in other claims of the original claims. Generally, modifications to claims in the patent confirmation administrative procedure should be limited to addressing the reasons for the invalidation; reconstructing the claims under the guise of overcoming these reasons may not be accepted. In this case, claims 4 and 7 are the original claims in substance, and naturally served as the basis for review. The technical solution in Claims 4 and 7 quoted in Claims 8 to 10 ađăng ký 8xbetmended shall also be accepted. Claims 11 and 12 ađăng ký 8xbetmended are not in response to the grounds for invalidation, and it is not inappropriate for the CNIPA not to accept them. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court overturned the first-instance judgment and the sued decision, ordering CNIPA to make a new decision.
TYPICALITY
This case clarifies the requirements for the extent, manner and purpose of claim modifications in the patent confirmation administrative procedures, particularly the determination standards for “further limitation” modification. It holds reference significance for the legal standards in modifying claims during the patent confirmation administrative procedures.
This case iđăng ký 8xbetlso included in the “Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Court Judicial Summaries 2023”and the “Fifth Anniversary đăng ký 8xbethe Establishment đăng ký 8xbethe Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Court: 100 Typical Cases”, highlighting its significant exemplary value in the field of intellectual property.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Im9ko4u2eJisLGs47LstHg
For more details, please follow us on:
