国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站丨av无码不卡在线观看免费丨国产成人综合色就色综合丨92成人午夜福利一区二区丨狼群精品一卡二卡3卡四卡网站丨久热爱精品视频在线9丨少妇性l交大片毛多丨无码人妻丰满熟妇区bbbbxxxx丨美女视频黄是免费丨波多野结衣视频网丨天堂中文最新版在线中文丨www.亚洲黄色丨国产欧美日韩小视频丨69式视频丨五月婷婷中文丨日日日网站丨欧美tv丨www色天使丨中文字幕无码日韩欧毛丨国产黄色激情视频

The State Administration for Market Regulation of China recently issued the "Antitrust Guidelines for Standard Essential Patents" to the public.

The "Guidelines" consists of six chapters and 22 articles, defining the concepts related to standard essential patents, proposing analysis principles for antitrust behaviors involving standard essential patents and relevant market definition ideas, establishing pre- and in-process regulatory rules, and strengthening guidance on information disclosure, licensing commitments, good faith negotiations and other behaviors, and prevention of high-risk behaviors.

Standard essential patents licensing covers various fields, including wireless communications, audio and video, and the Internet of Things. The issue of fair competition in the field of standard essential patents involves both domestic and international markets and is closely related to the innovative development of numerous industries. Formulating and issuing the Guidelines is conducive to actively complying with international governance trends and the overall trend of industrial development, thereby promoting the creation of a unified, standardized, and orderly market environment that encourages innovative development. It is also beneficial for better participating in global fair competition governance, serving high-level opening up to the outside world, and enhancing the international competitiveness of industries.

Full text attached: Antitrust Guidelines for Standard Essential Patents

(Source: Xinhua Net)

From November 11 to 22, the Diplomatic Conference on Design Law Treaty, organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), was held in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. The conference successfully approved the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.

The negotiations for the Design Law Treaty spanned nearly two decades. The treaty aims to harmonize and standardize the procedures and formalities for design applications across countries, covering provisions relating to application documents, representation, determination of filing dates, grace periods, amendments or division of applications, publication, renewals, relief in respect of time limits, and reinstatement of rights. These measures will enable designers to protect their designs in domestic and international markets more conveniently, quickly, and affordably.

(Source: website of the CNIPA)

Case Brief

The third party in the original trial, Jishou City Jingguo Technology Promotion Station, applied for the registration of trademark No. 15887938 "湘西黃金茶" (hereinafter referred to as the "disputed trademark"). The plaintiff in the original trial, Baojing County Tiancheng Huang Jin Cha Production and Marketing Professional Cooperation Association (hereinafter referred to as "Tiancheng Association"), as the authorized licensee of the cited trademark No. 8532976 "保靖黃金茶 BAO JING HUANG JIN CHA and device" (hereinafter referred to as the "cited trademark"), considered that the disputed trademark and the cited trademark overlapped in terms of trademark marks, approved goods for use, scope of origin, etc., and that the application for registration of the disputed trademark violated the registration standard of "geographical indication certification trademark" in Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013. As one of the petitioners for invalidation, Tiancheng Association was not satisfied with Shang Ping Zi [2019] No. 267403 restating Regarding No. 1480 Ruling on the Request for Invalidation of Trademark No. 15887938 "湘西黃金茶" issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration, and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

During the first instance trial, the right holder of the cited trademark, Baojing County Tea Industry Development Office, canceled the trademark usage authorization license for Tiancheng Association.

After the trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, although the establishment time of the core evidence on record was later than the application date of the disputed trademark, the facts as studied can prove that the quality of the series of Huang Jin Cha trial products has been recognized in all counties and cities in Xiangxi in addition to Baojing County. Meanwhile, the Jishou Jingguo Promotion Station submitted the "湘西黃金茶" geographical indication certification trademark usage management rules during the trademark application for registration and invalidation stages, as well as the relevant evidence that it was authorized by the Xiangxi Prefecture government to apply for registration of the disputed trademark and act as the quality standard supervision and management agency to entrust the Xiangxi Prefecture Quality Supervision and Management Bureau as the product testing unit for the disputed trademark. Combined with the facts stated in other papers on record, it can be determined that the application materials of the Jishou Jingguo Promotion Station regarding the delineation production area and quality management of the disputed trademark meet the relevant requirements and quality control standards of the geographical indication certification trademark. Although there is an overlap in the coverage of production areas between the disputed trademark and the cited trademark, both geographical indication certification trademarks have their own usage management rules and quality control systems. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate the provision of Paragraph 2, Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013.

Tiancheng Association was also dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Beijing High People's Court.

Review of the Second Instance Situation

The Beijing High People's Court found in the second instance that the Baojing County Tea Industry Development Office, as the right holder of the cited trademark, had requested invalidating the disputed trademark in 2018 based on Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013 and other legal provisions. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has issued an Administrative Judgment (2019) Jing 73 Xing Chu No. 6928, stating that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove that the application for registration of the disputed trademark violates the relevant legal provisions and has upheld the registration of the disputed trademark. The Judgment has now come into effect. In the aforementioned Administrative Judgment No. 6928, it is clearly recorded that there are evidence contents and related historical situations regarding the Jishou Yearbook, and Journal of Tea Communication, etc.

Beijing High People's Court held, according to historical records, as follows: Firstly, although the "Huang Jin Cha" in this case originated in present-day Baojing County, there are many ancient tea gardens along the Huang Jin Cha ancient road, which passes through many counties and cities in the Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture.

Secondly, the evidence on record can prove that since 2009, the Huang Jin Cha species have been introduced to Jishou City by exporting tree species and other means. Furthermore, evidence and explanations such as the Jishou Yearbook corroborate this, with entries in the Jishou Yearbook from 2012 to 2014 describing the Huang Jin Cha as "湘西黃金茶(Xiangxi Huang Jin Cha)". Since 2009, the cultivation of Huang Jin Cha has gradually expanded from Baojing County to counties and cities such as Jishou and Longshan under the jurisdiction of Xiangxi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture.

Thirdly, the Huang Jin Cha products produced under the name "湘西黃金茶" can meet the prescribed quality standards, and after continuous cultivation and development through modern science and technology, they have formed their own characteristics and quality management system. The application for registration of the disputed trademark does not violate the provision of Paragraph 2, Article 16 of the Trademark Law 2013.

In summary, the second instance judgment upheld the original judgment of the first instance and rejected the appeal request of Tiancheng Association.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical one involving the recognition of geographical indication certification trademarks under Article 16 of the Trademark Law, and it provides certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases in judicial practice.

Case Brief

In 1807, WU X Cai transformed the "Chengmingzhai Jewelry and Jade Shop" established in Shanghai in 1719, which also operated an eyeglasses business, into WU X Cai Eyeglasses Store specializing in the eyeglasses business. In 1926, the store was renamed WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company, and in October 1998, it was renamed Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd. WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai WU X Cai Company). In 1947, the WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company Nanjing Branch was registered and established. However, due to historical reasons, Shanghai WU X Cai Company and Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nanjing WU X Cai Company) are no longer affiliated. Since 1989, the X Lian Group and Shanghai WU X Cai Company have successively registered multiple "吳良材" word trademarks, which have gained high market recognition after long-term use and were recognized as well-known trademarks in 2004. In 2015, X Lian Group and Shanghai WU X Cai Company discovered that Nanjing WU X Cai Company and its branches, authorized franchisees used the enterprise name and logo containing the words "吳良材" in their registration and operation and claimed that "Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses was developed from the Nanjing branch of Shanghai WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company", and they conducted group buying on Dianping.com. The X Lian Group and Shanghai WU X Cai Company believe that Nanjing WU X Cai Company constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition, and therefore request the court to order the cessation of infringement, elimination of impact, and compensation for losses and reasonable expenses.

Result of Ruling

The first instance court ruled that Nanjing WU X Cai Company shall cease trademark infringement and unfair competition, immediately cease using logos containing the words "吳良材" by authorizing franchisees in the franchise operations, immediately cease registering and using enterprise names containing the words "吳良材" outside of Nanjing, Jiangsu Province by its branches, eliminate the impact, and compensate for economic losses of RMB 2.6 million. With dissatisfaction, Nanjing WU X Cai Company appealed against the first instance judgment.

Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, taking into account factors such as history, current situation, and fairness, believes: Firstly, Nanjing WU X Cai Company has a particular historical connection with the historical WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company. Nanjing WU X Cai Company registered and used an enterprise name containing the words "吳良材" before the registration time of the involved trademark, so it does not constitute unfair competition. However, although Nanjing WU X Cai Company and Shanghai WU X Cai Company have a particular historical connection with the historical WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company, they have no affiliation with each other. In the case where the trademark "吳良材" of Shanghai WU X Cai Company has already gained high reputation and has been recognized as a well-known trademark, whereas Nanjing WU X Cai Company has no nationwide recognition, Nanjing WU X Cai Company extensively developed franchised stores nationwide from 2004 to 2015, authorized these franchise stores to use enterprise names containing the words "吳良材", claimed in external promotions that it was a "century-old store", concealed the fact that it was not associated with Shanghai WU X Cai Company, and falsely claimed to be the Nanjing branch of Shanghai WU X Cai Company. These behaviors intended to take advantage of the goodwill of Shanghai WU X Cai Company and mislead consumers. Without appropriate restrictions on the scope of use of its enterprise name, it would be difficult to prevent market confusion and insufficient to protect the interests of trademark owners. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the geographical scope of Nanjing WU X Cai Company's branches registered with enterprise names containing the words "吳良材" to within the Nanjing area. Secondly, although Nanjing WU X Cai Company, as the prior user of the enterprise name, has the right to continue using its enterprise name itself, the corresponding scope of the subject should also be limited; that is, it should not permit others to register or use enterprise names and logos containing the words "吳良材". Therefore, Nanjing WU X Cai Company's authorization to franchisees to use enterprise names and logos containing the phrase "吳良材" constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition; the use of the words "吳良材" by Nanjing WU X Cai Company, its branches, and franchisees also constitutes trademark infringement. Thirdly, by presenting a partial and incomplete narrative of being a "century-old store," Nanjing WU X Cai Company misled the relevant public through concealment and false statements into believing that it has an association with Shanghai WU X Cai Company, maliciously taking advantage of the goodwill of Shanghai WU X Cai Company. This behavior constitutes false advertising. In summary, the second instance judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

Typical Significance

The ruling in this case has appropriately addressed the issue of commercial identification conflicts left over by history. It provides specific ruling and guiding significance for regulating the use of "time-honored brands," promoting honest business practices among market entities, preventing market confusion, and safeguarding the legitimate interests of consumers.

On the morning of November 26, 2024, Mr. Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of the International Trademark Association (INTA), visited Unitalen. SU Hong, Chief Representative of the INTA China Representative Office, accompanied the visit. YU Zehui, President of Unitalen and Chairman of partners meeting of Unitalen, and ZHAO Lei, partner and attorney at Unitalen, warmly welcomed the guests and held a discussion.

The 14th China International Trademark and Brand Festival was held grandly in Xi'an, Shaanxi Province, from November 22 to 25, 2024.

Unitalen actively participated and won multiple honors

In the evening of November 22, at the grand welcome reception and award ceremony held at the Xi'an International Convention and Exhibition Center, Unitalen Attorneys at Law once again won the honors of "Excellent Trademark Agency" for 2023 and the "Outstanding Contribution to Brand and Trademark Construction" for 2024, and was listed on the "2024 Trademark Agency Service Capability Data Statistics 600" as a 5A level agency.

On the afternoon of November 23, 2024, Unitalen partner and attorney ZHAO Lei was invited to serve as the host of this INTA Forum. Mr. Etienne Sanz de Acedo, CEO of INTA, has released a series of reports titled "INTA's Guide for Chinese Enterprises in Overseas Intellectual Property Rights Practices".

On the afternoon of November 24, 2024, at the analysis session of trademark typical cases, one of the classic forums of the Trademark Festival, the defense case of invalidation of trademark rights for "金沙(Jinsha)" represented by Beijing Unitalen Law Firm was selected as one of the "Trademark Agency Typical Cases for 2022-2023".

2024 Unitalen Salon successfully held, exploring the definition and regulation of intellectual property commercial rights protection

On November 24, the theme event "Unitalen Salon-Definition and Regulation of Intellectual Property Commercial Rights Protection", hosted by the China Trademark Association and co-organized by Unitalen Attorneys at Law and Zhongguancun Vision Intellectual Property Innovation Institute, was successfully held at the Xi'an International Convention and Exhibition Center.

On November 26, 2024, Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court (Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, Shanghai Railway Transport Intermediate Court) released the status and typical cases of intellectual property judicial protection over the past decade. Two cases represented by Unitalen were selected as typical cases!

The case of "Dispute over Infringement of Trademark Rights between a winery vs. a certain Shanghai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and a certain (Shanghai) Supply Chains Management P.L.C.", where Unitalen represented the winery, was selected due to its significance in the "recognition and protection of unregistered well-known trademarks". This case was previously selected as one of the "50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases in 2017" by the Supreme People's Court and later selected as one of the "Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases in Shanghai in 2017". (Related Reading: Chinese “Lafite” Mark Recognized as an Unregistered Well-known Mark by Shanghai IP Court)

The case of "Unfair Competition Dispute between a Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd., a Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd. WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company vs. Nanjing WU X Cai Eyeglasses Company", where Unitalen represented said Shanghai X Lian (Group) Co., Ltd., was selected due to its significance in demonstrating the importance of "observing reasonable boundaries in the use of time-honored brands with special origins". This case was previously selected as one of the "Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases in Shanghai in 2017".