Brief Introduction of the Top 10 Typical Cases Concerning Judicial Protection of
Intellectual Property in 2011 by Chinese Courts
I. Intellectual property civil cases (seven pieces)
1. Taobao Net trademark infringement dispute
Appeal of trademark infringement dispute of Eland (Shanghai) Fashion Trade Co., Ltd.
VS. Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. and Du Guofa 【Shanghai No.1 Intermediate
Court (2011) Hu No.1 Intermediate Court (IP) Final No.40
CivilJudgment】
【Summary of the case】 Eland (Shanghai) Fashion Trade Co., Ltd. (Eland Corporation in
short) is the holder of registered trademarks “
” and “
” designated on
clothing. The bear device on the clothing sold by Du Guofa on Taobao net is closely similar
to the registered trademarks of Eland Corporation. Eland Corporation concluded the above
act of Du Guofa infringed upon its exclusive rights of registered trademarks. The plaintiff
then sent seven letters, the first of which was sent in September 2009,
to Zhejiang Taobao
Network Co., Ltd. (Taobao corporation in short), requesting the corporation delete the
infringing goods information released by Du Guofa. Taobao Corporation deleted the
information as requested by Eland Corporation but did not take further measures to stop the
infringing acts. Eland Corporation believed Taobao Corporation provided facilities with
these acts which infringed the exclusive rights of a registered trademark of another person
on purpose, and indulged and helped Du Guofa to commit acts of infringement. Thus, Eland
Corporation requested the court order Du Guofa and Taobao Corporation to pay a total of
CNY 84,900 as joint compensation for economic loss and reasonable fees.
Corporation also wanted the defendants to apologize in the newspaper.
Eland
Ultimately, the
court of first instance ruled that Du Guofa and Taobao Corporation should pay CNY 10,000
to Eland Corporation as joint compensation for economic loss and reasonable fees.
The court of second instance held that Taobao Corporation knew Du Guofa committed acts of
1
trademark infringement, taking advantage of its network service. However, it only passively
deleted the links which was a measure without effect, according to the notification of the
right holder. Furthermore, it did not take the necessary measures to prevent the infringing
acts, thereby indulging the infringing act. Taobao net had fault subjectively, and objectively
helped Du Guofa to commit acts of infringement, which constituted joint tort and shall
assume joint liability. The court rejected the appeal and maintained the judgment of first
instance.
【Typical significance】 In the situation that a net user sells goods which infringe upon
trademark rights by taking advantage of the network trade platform, how to determine the
liability of the provider of the network platform is a relatively new and controversial issue in
the field of intellectual property. This case established the standard of fault judgment for a
network trade service platform provider in undertaking liability due to its assistance in the
infringement. Generally, the network service provider does not have the ability to anticipate
the infringement and avoid such acts by net users, nor does it necessarily undertake the
liability for infringement and compensation. However, if the network service provider is
aware or should be aware of the infringement committed by its net users and still provides
network service for them without taking any proper measures to prevent the infringing acts,
it must assume joint liability with the net users for infringement.
2. “拉菲” trademark dispute
Appeal of trademark infringement and unfair competition, CHATEAU LAFITE
ROTHSCHILD VS. Shenzhen Jinhongde Trade Co., Ltd. and Hunan Biological Medicine
Group Health Industry Development Co., Ltd., 【Hunan Higher Court (2011) Xiang Higher
Court Civil San Final No.55 Civil Judgment】
【Summary of the case】 CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD (“CHATEAU Corporation” in
short) is the registrant of the trademark “LAFITE” No.1122916 approved on “alcoholic
beverages (except beer)” in Class 33 and trademark “
2
” No. G764270 approved on
“wines of guaranteed label of origin” in Class 33.
Shenzhen Jinhongde Trade Co., Ltd.
(“Jinhongde Corporation” in short) used the logos “Lafite Family”, “拉菲世族 (Lafite
Family in Chinese)” and “
” on its wine products, website and brochures, and its
introduction of historical origin is identical to that of CHATEAU Corporation. Hunan
Biological Medicine Group Health Industry Development Co., Ltd. (“Biological Medicine
Corporation” in short) sold the alleged infringing products. CHATEAU Corporation filed a
lawsuit for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Changsha Intermediate People’s
Court held in the first instance Jinhongde Corporation and Biological Medicine Corporation
constituted infringement upon trademark exclusive rights and unfair competition and ordered
Jinhongde Corporation to stop using the logos “Lafite Family”, “拉菲世族 (Lafite Family in
Chinese)” and “
” on its wine products, website and brochures.
The court also
stipulated the defendants stop false propaganda, cancel the domain name “lafitefamily.com”,
compensate the loss of CNY300,000 and publish a statement to eliminate influence on China
Industry and Commerce News. Finally, the court required the Biological Medicine
Corporation immediately stop selling the infringing products and using the propaganda
materials. Jinhongde Corporation was not satisfied with the decision and appealed the case.
Hunan Higher People’s Court held in the second instance that the word “LAFITE FAMILY”,
the sign “
” and the domain name “lafitefamily.com” infringed upon the exclusive
trademark rights of CHATEAU Corporation. “拉菲” should be deemed as the unique name of
“LAFIT” wines. The Court also maintained that the noticeable use of “拉菲世族” on
Jinghongde Corporation’s wine products, as well as its false propaganda, constituted unfair
competition for CHATEAU Corporation. The court thus maintained the judgment of first
instance.
【Typical significance】 Society is widely concerned by counterfeit products.
This case
reflected the efforts made by the court against counterfeiting acts as well as the strength of the
judicial protection of intellectual property. LAFITE wine, manufactured by the French
CHATEAU Corporation, enjoys an excellent reputation all over the world, and “拉菲” has
3
been used in China to identify its source.
However, “拉菲” is not a registered trademark.
Hunan Higher People’s Court held in the second instance that LAFITE wine, manufactured
by CHATEAU Corporation, is of relatively high popularity in the wine market in China and
should be determined as famous goods as prescribed by the Anti Unfair Competition Law of
People’s Republic of China. “拉菲” is the only name corresponding to LAFITE wine, and it is
distinctive to distinguish the source of the goods. According to the relevant provisions of the
Anti Unfair Competition Law of People’s Republic of China, “拉菲” should be determined as
the unique name of famous goods LAFITE wine so as to protect the Chinese indication “拉
菲” which effectively prevents the unfair competition of “free-riding”. This case confirmed
the awareness of the product among the relevant public within Chinese territory is a necessary
condition to grant protection to the unique name of foreign famous goods. The awareness is
established because of the manufacturing, sales or other business activities conducted within
Chinese territory, but the fact that the product is well-known in foreign countries can be a
reference in the determination of its awareness within Chinese territory.
3.
“大运” VS. “江淮” Auto trademark dispute
Re-trial of confirmation of non-infringement of trademark right, Guangzhou Hongtaiyang
Vehicle Parts Co., Ltd. VS. Anhui JAC Auto Group Co., Ltd. and Anhui JAC Atuo Stock Co.,
Ltd.【Supreme Court (2011) Civil Retrial No.223 Civil Verdict】
【Summary of the case】 “
” has been used on the cars manufactured by Anhui
JAC Auto Group Co., Ltd. (JAC Group in short) and Anhui JAC Atuo Stock Co., Ltd. (JAC
Stock in short) since 2005 and was publicized extensively and continuously and of certain
popularity. This sign was filed for registration in 2005 but was not approved and it is an
unregistered trademark. Guangzhou Hongtaiyang Vehicle Parts Co., Ltd. (Hongtaiyang
Corporation in short) was granted for registration of trademarks “
“
” and
” approved on vehicles in Class 12 in 2007. Since 2010, Hongtaiyang
Corporation and the affiliated companies started to publicize the registered trademarks on
media. On March 26, 2010, Hongtaiyang Corporation sent a Lawyer’s Letter to JAC Stock
4
and urged it to respect intellectual property of Hongtaiyang Corporation and not to infringe its
exclusive right of registered trademarks. Upon receipt of the Lawyer’s Letter, JAC Group
filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance requesting to confirm non-infringement of the
registered trademarks on April 15, 2010. The court of first instance ruled that JAC Group and
JAC Stock did not infringe the exclusive rights of registered trademarks of Hongtaiyang
Corporation based on that the trademarks are not similar. Hongtaiyang Corporation was not
satisfied with the judgment and appealed. The court of second instance maintained the
judgment of first instance. Hongtaiyang Corporation was still not satisfied with the judgment
and requested the Supreme People’s Court for retrial. Since a number of relevant civil and
administrative dispute cases were involved in this case, the Supreme Court organized the
involved parties for a settlement three times and specially went to Taiyuan of Shanxi Province
to coordinate the mediation among the involved parties together with the local government
and court. Through continuous efforts of more than half a year, the involved two parties
finally reached a settlement package and withdrew the two retrial applications from the
Supreme Court respectively, one lawsuit from Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court and a number
of disputes from the Trademark Office and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and
made an agreement on the subsequent registration and use of the trademarks. Finally, a
number of lawsuits and disputes between the two parties were successfully solved.
【Typical significance】 This case reflected the goal “case closed and dispute solved” of the
court. This case is mainly in relation to the determination of trademark similarity. The case
per se is not complex. However, the case was influential due to the involvement of two large
scale auto manufacturers and a number of related cases of civil and administrative disputes
between the two parties. The close of the case by a judgment could not thoroughly resolve the
dispute between the involved parties. A settlement between the two parties was favorable to
the development and cooperation of each enterprise. Based on such understanding and a full
explanation, the Supreme Court facilitated such settlement between the two parties and
withdrawal of a number of lawsuits by the parties respectively. The judicial review and
treatment of this case indicated that, as for cases of which a number of related lawsuits and
disputes are involved and of great social influence, the concept of justice for people should be
persisted and the principles for handling cases “priority to the mediation, integration of
5
judgment and mediation” should be applied correctly and properly solve the dispute, so as to
completely resolve the contradiction among the parties and to achieve the integration of social
and legal effect.
4. Patent infringement dispute of “comfortable sleep mode” of air-conditioner
Appeal of infringement dispute of patent of invention, Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliances, Inc.
VS. Guangdong Midea Refrigeration Facilities Co., Ltd. and Zhuhai Taifeng Electronics Co.,
Ltd. 【Guangdong Higher Court (2011) Yue Higher Court Civil San Final No.326 Civil
Judgment】
【Summary of the case】Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. (Gree Corporation in short)
filed a lawsuit with Guangdong Zhuhai Intermediate Court based on that “Midea split type air
conditioner” infringed its patent of invention “method to control air conditioner to move
according to user-defined curve”, requesting to order the two defendants to stop the
infringement, compensate the loss and reasonable expense incurred for investigation and
stopping the infringement. The courts of first instance held that the technical scheme of
“comfortable
sleep
mode
3”
of
four
models
for
air
conditioners,
including
KFR-26GW/DY-V2 (E2), fall into the scope of protection of the involved patent of invention.
As for the amount of damages, Midea Corporation only provided relevant data of air
conditioner with model number KFR-26GW/DY-V2 (E2), for which the profits can be
determined as CNY477,000. Midea Corporation still declined to provide the relevant data of
air conditioners with other model numbers after the explanation of relevant legal consequence
by the court of first instance. According to Article 75 of Several Regulation of the Supreme
People’s Court on Evidence of Civil Lawsuit, it was presumed the profits of each of the air
conditioners with the other three model numbers manufactured by Midea Corporation are not
less than CNY477,000. The benefits obtained by Midea Corporation obviously exceeded the
maximum amount of compensation. Considering the situation of evidence of the whole case
integrally by the court of first instance, it was determined that Midea Corporation should
compensate Gree Corporation CNY2,000,000 for economic loss. Midea Corporation appealed
the case after the judgment of first instance.
Through second instance, Guangdong Higher Court held the involved patent stored the
parameter in a nonvolatile memory chip while the allegedly infringing “comfortable sleep
6
mode 3” stored the parameter in the RAM of a volatile control chip, which are different two
methods. However, usually, the battery would not be taken out in using the air conditioner
remote control, that is, the effects of the two methods are basically the same. Moreover, for
the technologist in the same field, the replacement of memory chip by the RAM of a control
chip can be thought out without creative work. Therefore, the two methods belong to
equivalent technical features and the allegedly infringing technical scheme fell into the scope
of protection of the patent and it constituted infringement. Secondly, the instruction for
installation of the air conditioner with model number KFR-26GW/DY-V2 (E2) stated clearly
the function of “comfortable sleep mode 3” and stated that the instruction can also be applied
to the other three models of air conditioners, which can be presumed that the other three
models of air conditioners also were equipped with “comfortable sleep mode 3”. The four
models of allegedly infringing products belong to the same series, with only difference in
power, but they are same in function which complies with the convention of industry. Without
proof to the contrary, it can be presumed that the other three models of air conditioners also
have the same “comfortable sleep mode 3” from the existing evidence, which fell into the
scope of protection of the patent and constituted infringement. As for the standard of damages
and amount, if it is hard to prove the loss incurred due to the infringement or profits obtained
from the infringement and there is evidence to prove that the aforesaid amount clearly
exceeds the statutory maximum limit, the amount should be determined properly above the
statutory maximum limit based on the situation of evidence of the case as a whole. The court
of first instance integrally considered the factors such as the type of involved patent, market
value, the extent of subjective fault of infringement, circumstance of the infringement, profits
for reference, costs for safeguarding right based on which the amount judged was lawful and
reasonable and proper and should be maintained. Therefore the appeal was rejected and the
judgment of first instance was maintained.
【Typical significance】 The two involved parties are both famous electric appliance
enterprises in China and the case was difficult and complex with great social influence. The
court of second instance provided deep analysis in respect of the difficult issues such as the
determination of equivalent technical features, damages of infringement, the relationship
between the amount of compensation and statutory maximum limit, correctly applying the
7
relevant laws and judicial interpretations, properly applying the rules of burden of proof and
presumption of fact, and on the basis of correctly finding the case facts. The analysis was
clear and sufficient, and it has relatively strong meaning in reference to the trial of similar
cases.
5. Baidu MP3 Copyright Dispute Copyright Case
Appeal Record Producer Dispute of Universal Music Group, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc,
Sony Music Entertainment (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. VS. Beijing Baidu Wangxun Technology
Co., Ltd. [Beijing High Court Administrative Judgment (2010) High Civil Final Instance
Mediation Decision Nos. 1694, 1700, 1699]
【Summary of the case】Universal Music Group (hereafter referred to as Universal Music),
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc, (hereafter referred to as Warner Bros.), Sony Music
Entertainment (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. (hereafter referred to as Sony) found that 128 songs
which they enjoyed record producing rights are provided with links and online audition and
download services through the modes of search box, ranks, etc. in MP3 column of Baidu
Website. Universal Music, Warner Bro. and Sony claimed the acts of Baidu infringed their
rights of communication of information on networks to the above music record products and
requested the court to make judgment and demanded a compensation in amount of 63,500,000
RMB.
Beijing First Intermediate Court found that the search results of Baidu are based on the
instruction of users and Baidu only provided temporary links. Based on the technology and
the nature of automation and passiveness of this services, even if Baidu paid enough attention,
it was difficult for Baidu to know whether the access to its services constituted infringements.
Therefore, the acts of setting up search boxes for users to enter key words to search music as
well as setting up ranks and other modes cannot prove it was aware or should be aware of
infringements of linked record products. The three record companies were dissatisfied with
the judgment and filed an appeal.
In the examination of the second instance, after two public hearings and clearly finding the
facts, the collegiate bench mediated several times and finally ordered the involved parties to
make mediation decisions based on the copyright license agreements. The agreements
affirmed the involved parties will make joint commitment to create new operating modes of
internet music works and internet music copyright protection modes. The involved parties
cooperated comprehensively ever since. In the meantime, the involved parties made
agreements on concrete means of cooperation and anti-pirate agreement. In addition, Baidu
made agreements with the three record producers that Baidu would pay copyright royalty,
8
three record companies would license Baidu to upload full catalog of songs and their to-be
launched songs. Internet users can directly download or play online music from Baidu
website. Finally, the disputes between Baidu and top three record companies are thoroughly
settled. Hundreds of millions of netizens can obtain more genuine songs.
【Typical significance】 Along with the swift development of internet technology and
internet industry, online auditioning and downloading music works have become the main
method of enjoying music. But there are a lot of phenomenon of transmitting unauthorized
music on the internet The successful mediation of this case not only properly settled the
disputes but also brought long time cooperation between the right owners and users which
effectively suppressed the transmission of internet piracy, fundamentally, safeguarded the
right owners’ legal rights and stimulated their innovation. In the meantime, the mediations
enabled netizens to enjoy genuine music works, which realizes balance of right owners and
the interests of the society, which promoted the innovation of cultural sectors and innovation
of internet business modes.
6. Unfair competition dispute case concerning “3Q”
Unfair Competition Appeal case of Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen
Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., Beijing San Ji Wu Xian Network Technology Co., Ltd.
Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. [Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court (2011) Civil
Final Judgments No. 12237]
【Typical significance】QQ software is instant messenger software widely used in the internet
in China. It owns a large number of user groups and Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
(hereafter referred to as Tencent Technology) is the copyright owner of QQ software. The
operation and exclusive use of QQ software was licensed to Shenzhen Tencent Computer
System Co., Ltd. in 2010 (hereafter referred to as Tencent Computer System). The involved
software “360 privacy protector” was developed by Qizhi Software Technology (hereafter
referred to as Qizhi Software Company) and launched through “360 website”. The internet
host is registered as “Beijing San ji Wu Xian Internet Technology Co., Ltd.” “360 privacy
protector” is only used to supervise QQ software. “360 website” published in its “360 safety
center”, “360 forum” and other websites articles entitled “360 safety safeguard launches
privacy protector”, “360 privacy protector launches new version adding supervision against
9
MSN, Tencent TM, A LI WANG WANG”, etc. Tencent Technology and Tencent Computer
filed unfair competition litigation before Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court and
claimed that the three defendants made up facts, damaged its business reputation which
constituted business discrediting.
In the first instance, Beijing Chaoyang People’s Court found that Tencent Technology,
Tencent Computer had the competition relations with Qizhi Company, Qihu Company and
San Ji Company in terms of internet services, user and advertisement. Although the law does
not prohibit the monitor of “360 privacy protector” against QQ2010 software, the monitor
should be fair and the evaluation should be objective which should be in line with the
business principles of faith and honesty. The monitor result of “360 privacy protector “is
devoid of objectiveness and fairness. The evaluation articles published in the “360 website”
were sufficient to lead to improper association, which will damage the business reputation and
credit of QQ software. Therefore, Beijing Chaoyang People’s Court made the judgment of the
first instance and ordered Qizhi Company, Qihu Company, Sanji Company to cease the
infringement, eliminate the ill effects and pay an compensation of 400, 000. Beijing Second
Intermediate People’s Court upheld the judgment of the first instance.
【Typical significance】 The judgment of this case concerns interests of hundreds of millions
of netizens and has a great social influence. The case is referred to as “3Q conflict”. The
judgments fully revealed the important influences of intellectual protection to the social
development and people’s lives. The case involves the definition of competition relation of
different internet service providers in competition law as well as the findings of discrediting
in the premature internet environment. Through the judgment, the People’s Court explained
unfair competition acts in the internet environment, which set up guidance to the competition
of the industry in the internet environment and facilitated the healthy and ordered
development of internet industry. .
7. “Kai Xin net” Unfair competition dispute case
Unfair Competition Appeal case of Beijing Kai Xin Ren Information Technology Co., Ltd.
VS. Beijing Qian Xiang Interaction Technology Development Co., Ltd., Beijing Qian Xiang
10
Wang Jing Technology Co., Ltd. [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2011) Civil Final Judgments
No. 846]
【Typical significance】 Beijing Kai Xnn Ren Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as Kai Xin Ren company) owned registered trademark “Kai Xin in Chinese
characters” on the services “Computer rental”, “Escort”, “Match making”, etc. Since March,
2008, it started to operate a social service website “Kai Xin Net” (kaixin001.com). On
October 16, 2008, Beijing Qian Xiang Interaction Technology Development Co., Ltd.,
(hereinafter referred to as Qianxiang Interaction Company) obtained the domain name
“kaixin.com” through transfer. Qian Xiang Interaction Company and Beijing Qian Xiang
Wang Jing Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qian Xiang Wang
Jing Company) launched a social service website “Kai Xin Net” (kaixin.com). Kai Xin Ren
Company claimed that its “Kai Xin Net” (kaixin001.com) is a famous website, Qian Xiang
Interaction Company and Qian Xiang Wang Jing Company used “Kai Xin” as the name of the
website and used the domain name “kaixin.com”, which infringed its trademark rights. In the
meantime, the imitation of its name “Kai Xin Net” constitutes unfair competition. The use of
the word “Kai Xin Net” in the front page of the website and the use of the combination of
“Apple smile face device” and the word “Kai Xin Net” constitutes an imitation of the
Star-shaped smile device and the word “Kai Xin net” in the front page of the website
(kaixin001.com) which is the special decoration of famous services and constituted unfair
competition. Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court made the judgment of the first
instance and ruled that Qian Xiang Interaction Company, Qian Xiang Wang Jing Company
should not use “Kai Xin Net” or similar wordings on the services of “social networks” and the
defendant should pay a compensation of 400,000RMB. Kai Xin Ren Company was
dissatisfied with the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal. Beijing Higher
People’s Court found that although Qian Xiang Interaction Company and Qian Xiang Wang
Jing Company used the word “Kai Xin Net” and the domain name “kaixin.com”, they do not
infringe the trademark rights of Kai Xin Ren company in light of the fact their services are
different from the approved services and the marks are also not similar. The services of Kai
Xin Ren Company became famous services shortly after March, 2008 through the social
11
network services provided in the website “kaixin001.com”. As the most important unique
channel to recognize the services, the name of the website “Kai Xin Net” became special
names of famous services. It should be protected by unfair competition law. Qian Xiang
Interaction company was aware of famous services provide by Kai Xin Ren company in the
website (kaixin001.com) but still used special name “Kai Xin Net” as the name of the website
and provided similar services to the public in the same industry and domain, which confused
the public on the resources of the designated goods and constituted unfair competition.
Therefore, the court of the second instance upheld the judgment.
【 Typical significance】 Social network is a new internet business mode. It provided
conveniences to internet users and, at the same time, caused a lot of problems to the
competition order of internet industry. This case is referred to as “the first case about social
networking website competition”, which drew wide attention from internet operators, users
and media. In this case, the court affirmed the principle that social networking services
constitute famous services and the names of websites can be protected by unfair competition
law as special names of famous services. The judgment of this case regulated the competition
order of social networking websites, which played a demonstration effect to the internet
operators and facilitated the effects of ordered development and legal effects of fair and
honest competition.
Ⅱ. Two Administrative Cases relating to Intellectual Property
8、The administrative case on an application for retrial filed by Castel Frères SAS in a
trademark non-use dispute
France Castel Frères SAS v. Trademark Appeal Board of the State Administration for Industry
and Commerce and Li Daozhi (administrative dispute relating to a review decision on
trademark revocation) 【The Supreme Court of China (2010) IP No. 55 Administrative
Judgment】
【Summary of the case】Li Daozhi is the trademark owner of “卡斯特” trademark covering
wine in Class 33. In July 2005, French wine producer Castel Frères SAS applied to the
12
Trademark Office for revocation of the disputed trademark registration on grounds of non-use
for three successive years. The Trademark Office decided to revoke the registration for on the
grounds that Li Daozhi did not file evidence that he has actually used the disputed trademark
within the statutory period. Li dissatisfied with the decision and appealed to the Trademark
Appeal Board, claiming that he had been using the trademark continuously. In the course of
the board's review, Li submitted a trademark licence agreement with a company, as well as
value added tax invoices issued by this company for selling 卡斯特 wine. The Trademark
Appeal Board considered the disputed trademark has been put into actual use for the purpose
of Article 3 and Article 39, Paragraph 3 of Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law,
which does not constitute the non-use of the registered trademark for three consecutive years
in Article 44 of Chinese Trademark Law. Therefore, the Trademark Appeal Board overruled
the Trademark Office's decision and issued the No. 8357 judgment to uphold the registration.
Castel did not accept the decision and appealed to the Beijing first intermediate people's court,
which upheld the judgment of Trademark Appeal Board. Castel continued to appeal to the
Beijing Higher People’s court for the second instance, which also upheld the instance
decision. Castel was unwilling to accept the decision and applied to the Supreme Court for a
retrial and claimed that the submitted evidence by Li Daozhi was not sufficient to prove the
actual use of the disputed trademark and the registered trademark should be revoked because
the business had violated the relevant import and sale regulations. During the retrial process,
Li Daozhi further submitted more than 30 pieces of invoice and related documents for sale
and import of 卡斯特 wine as evidence. The Supreme Court considered the aim of legislation
of Article 44 (4) of the Trademark Law is to activate trademark resource and to get rid of
unused trademarks. Revocation of the registration is only the means, not the end in itself.
Insofar as the trademark registrant has used its registered trademark publicly and truthfully in
the course of trade, and the trademark use itself has not violated the relevant rules provided in
the trademark laws, the trademark registrant has satisfied its obligation to use the trademark.
Here, it is inappropriate to find that the trademark use has violated Article 44(4). In this case,
the submitted evidence by Li Daozhi could prove the registered trademark has been publicly
and truthfully used in the course of trade. It is not irrelevant with Article 44(4) of Trademark
Law whether Li Daozhi’s trademark and related trade violated the relevant import and sale
13
regulations or not, so the application for retail by Castel has been rejected.
【Typical Significance】Li Daozhi v. France Castel Frères SAS trademark dispute aroused
much attention for its large amount of market and business benefit with a lot of lawsuits at
different levels. The maintenance and revocation of trademark is a basic dispute in this case,
and it also involved an important issue to determine whether a trademark has been publicly
and truthfully used for three consecutive years. In Castel the Supreme Court has clearly
redefined the legislative aim of Article 44 (4) of the Trademark Law is to activate trademark
resource and to get rid of unused trademarks. Revocation of the registration is only the means,
not the end in itself. Insofar as the trademark registrant has used its registered trademark
publicly and truthfully in the course of trade, and the trademark use itself has not violated the
relevant rules provided in the trademark laws, the registered trademark should not be revoked.
As for the actual and legitimate use of trademark, the Supreme Court specifically pointed out
that it is only based on the Trademark law, but whether a trademark and related trade violated
other regulations or not, is not what Article 44 (4) of the Trademark Law tries to regulate.
9. “Anti beta-bactamase antibiotic compound” Patent Invalidation Case
Beijing Resources Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Hubei Welman Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. and Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office
(administrative dispute over patent invalidation) 【The Supreme Court of China (2011) No. 8
Administrative Judgment】
【Summary of the case】Guangzhou Welman Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred
to as Guangzhou Welman) is the patentee of “Anti beta-bactamase antibiotic compound”
patent (the disputed patent). Beijing Resources Double-crane Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as Double-crane) filed a request for invalidating the disputed patent
with the Patent Re-examination Board. According to the request, the Patent Re-examination
Board issued No. 8113 Decision of Invalidation Request, and invalidated the disputed patent
for lack of inventiveness. Guangzhou Welman was dissatisfied with the No. 8113 decision
14
and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing first intermediate people's court which
upheld No. 8113 Decision. Guangzhou Welman did not accept the fist instance decision and
appealed to the Beijing Higher People’s court. During the second instance, the patentee of the
disputed patent, Guangzhou Welman changed its company name to Hubei Welman. In the
second instance, the Beijing Higher People’s court supported disclosed technology on the
combinations of drugs in the reference document and the disputed compound are essentially
different, which is not obviously clear to one skilled in art, so canceled the first instance
decision and No. 8113 decision, and ordered the Patent Re-examination Board to issue a new
decision on the invalidation request. Double-crane was dissatisfied with the second instance
decision and appealed to the Supreme People’s Court for the retrial. The Supreme Court
decided to review this case.
During the retrial, the Supreme Court believed that although clinical combinations of drugs
and compound preparation belong to different technology field and are different in nature,
they are closely related with each other. Given sufficient disclosed technology information
relating to the clinical combinations of drugs, one skilled in the art could get revelation on
other related technology. With the sufficient and informative disclosed technology in the
reference documents, it is enough for one skilled in the art to understand the technology and
get revelation to obtain the technology of the disputed patent. Secondly, because the patent
law is substantively different with other regulations relating to drug in legislative aim, subject
matter, and specific standards, so for the invention of drugs, the patent could be granted
whereas it conforms to Chinese patent law and there is no need to further consider other
regulations relating to research and production of drugs. Thirdly, the undisclosed technology
solutions and technology effects in the description usually cannot be considered as the basis
for evaluating the grant of patent. So even Hubei Welman claimed they proceeded with a
series of research and experiments to solve the problems of the safety, effectiveness and
stability of the disputed drug, but such technology is undisclosed in the description, it can not
prove the innovative development over the prior art on safety, effectiveness and stability.
Therefore, the research and experiments can not used to determine the disputed patent
possesses novelty. For the final decision, the Supreme Court revoked the second instance
15
decision and followed the judgment of Patent Appeal Board and first instance judgment.
【Typical Significance】This case is a very influential administrative patent dispute in
pharmaceuticals covering typical legal issues and arousing much attention in the related field.
The retail gave important instructive opinions on the determination of novelty of patent for
compound preparation products, interpretation of claims, the relations between the grant
standard based on Chinese patent law and other administrative regulations concerning
research and production of drugs, draft of description. This case gave valuable instructions on
patent prosecution, patent examination and protection in pharmaceuticals.
III. One Criminal Case involving Intellectual Property Infringement
10、Copyright Infringement Case relating to Piracy and Illegal Sale of Computer
Software
The copyright infrigement case of Ju Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi (Jiangsu Wuxi
intermediate people's court（2011）Xi IP Final No. 1 Criminal Judgment）
【Summary of the case】During the tenure at Wuxi Xinje Electronic Co. Ltd (Xinje in short),
the defendant Ju Wenming downloaded the OP series V3.0 Human Machine Inspector and
other software of the company without permission, and in August 2008, together with partners
Xu Lulu and Hua Yi jointly invested to set up Wuxi Yunchuan Industrial Control Co., Ltd to
gain profit by producing the same type of terminal panels with Xinje by the illegally obtained
OP series V3.0 Human Machine Inspector. From December 2008 to October 2010, Ju
Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi produced and sold the TD 100 terminal panels and TD 307
terminal panels to many companies and individuals and the sales reached 448,465RMB. The
three defendants were arrested on October 21, 2010. During the guaranteed pending trial in
latter part of November 2010, Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu and other partners produced and sold
114 terminal panels and sale reached 25,200RMB under Wuxi Yunchuan Electronic
Technology Co. Ltd.
16
Comparing the accused infringing software with the right owner’s software and considering
the fact that the defendants downloaded the right owner’s software without authorization,
concluded it is obvious enough to determine the illegal act of the defendant Ju Wenming, Xu
Lulu and Hua Yi the accused infringing software, for the first instance and second instance,
the court both believed that the evidence was sufficient to determine the defendants Ju
Wenming, Xu Lulu and Hua Yi copied and issued the copyright owner’s software without
authorization and gained profit from such illegal acts with vicious influence and bad
consequences. Their acts constituted copyright infringement. In the Article 12 of
Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the
Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of
Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, it clearly interprets calculation method of illegal
operational proceeds. Illegal operational proceeds refer to the value of production, storage,
transportation and sale of the infringing products generated during the tortfeasor’s infringing
acts. The value of sold infringing products should be calculated by the actual selling prices. In
this case, the value of the disputed terminal panel lies in its software which supports products’
function not hardware. The main value depends on the disputed copyright value, so it is
reasonable to determine the illegal operational proceeds by its overall selling prices. Ju
Wenming was the main criminal for his leading role during the crime, while Xu Lulu and Hua
Yi played secondary roles and were determined to be accessories and could get a lighter or
mitigated punishment. During the guaranteed pending trial, Ju Wenming and Xu Lulu
continued producing and selling the infringing terminal panels, which formed viciously
subjective behavior and caused great harmfulness to public society. Hua Yi conducted faithful
confession and voluntarily pleaded guilty with good attitude, which could be element for
being lenient towards the criminal. Thus, according to the final judgment, Ju Wenming was
sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and fined 120,000RMB, Xu Lulu one and a half years’
imprisonment and 80,000RMB, Hua Yi one and a half years’ imprisonment and 50,000RMB
for copyright infringement. All the illegal income and instruments of crime were confiscated.
【Typical Significance】This case is very complicated and difficult copyright infringement
17
cases with a lot of facts. In this case, through the comparison of the accused infringing
software and right owner’s software, and also considering the illegal act of the defendants
who downloaded the copyright owner’s software without permission, the court determined
the crime of the defendants according to the related laws and calculated the illegal
operational proceed by the overall selling prices of infringing products which lie in the value
of software. This case gave a good example on the standard of conviction and sentence,
which strongly attacked hidden intellectual property infringement, and acquired good social
influence.
2011 Top 50 Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Protection in Chinese Courts
I. Intellectual property civil cases
1. Cases in relation to infringement of patent right
(1) Retrial of infringement dispute of utility model patent, Zhang Zhen (a natural person) VS.
Yangzhou Jinhao Shoes Co., Ltd. and Baotou Tongshengxiang Shoes Shop (Supreme Court
〔2011〕Civil Appeal No.630 Civil Verdict)
(2) Retrial of infringement dispute of design patent, Zhongshan Junhao Furniture Co., Ltd. VS.
Zhongshan South District Jiayi Craftwork Furniture Factory
(Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil
Appeal No.1406 Civil Verdict)
(3) Retrial of infringement dispute of patent for invention, Jiangxi Yinyao Pharmaceutical
Industry Co., Ltd. VS. Shaanxi Hanwang Chinese Medicine Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Bio-Sep
Medicine Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil Appeal No.1490 Civil Verdict)
18
(4) Retrial of infringement dispute of design patent, Bridgestone Corporation VS. Zhejiang
Tingdun Bull Rubber Co., Ltd. and Beijing Libang Tires Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2010〕
Civil Appeal No.189 Civil Judgment)
(5) Retrial of infringement dispute of patent for invention, Xu Yongwei VS. Ningbo Huatuo
Solar Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil Arraignment No.64 Civil
Judgment)
(6) Retrial of infringement dispute of patent for invention, Shenzhen Kengzi Tap Water Co.,
Ltd. VS. Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemical Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tailan Water Treatment
Equipment Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil Arraignment No.259 Civil Judgment)
(7) Appeal of infringement dispute of patent for invention, Qingdao Huadun Paper Products
Co., Ltd. and Ruian Yingshi Mechanics Co., Ltd. VS. Qingdao Zhonghe Hengye Honeycomb
Paperboard Co., Ltd. (Shangdong Higher Court〔2011〕Lu Civil San Final No.117 Civil
Judgment)
(8) Appeal of infringement dispute of patent for invention, Foshan Jiajun Ceramic Co., Ltd.
VS. Guangdong Dongpeng Ceramic Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Tianhe Jiayuan Building Materials
Co., Ltd. and Ma Jiehua (a natural person) (Guangdong Higher Court〔2011〕Yue Civil San
Final No.373 Civil Judgment)
(9) Appeal of infringement dispute of patent for invention, Xinjiang Tianyuan Construction
Co., Ltd. VS. Xinjiang Yuelu Juxing Building Material Co., Ltd. (Xinjiang Higher Court
〔2011〕Civil San Final No.26 Civil Judgment)
2. Cases in relation to copyright ownership and infringement
(10) Infringement dispute of copyright, State Stadium Co., Ltd. VS. Panda Fireworks Group
19
Co., Ltd., Liuyang Pandan Fireworks Co., Ltd., Beijing Panda Fireworks Co., Ltd. and
Beijing Xunda Motor Parts Shop (Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court〔2009〕No.1 Civil First
No.4476 Civil Judgment)
(11) Dispute of ownership and infringement of copyright, Tan Xiaojing (a natural person) VS.
Beijing Xinhua Wangfujing Book Store and Zhuhai Polishing House (Beijing Dongcheng
District People’s Court〔2011〕Dong Civil First No.05321 Civil Judgment)
(12) Appeal of infringement dispute of copyright, Shanxi Jinyu Pump Industry Co., Ltd. VS.
Shanxi Linlong Pump Industry Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Higher Court〔2011〕Jin Civil Final No.70
Civil Judgment)
(13) Appeal of dispute of infringement against the information network transmission right of
works, Zhuang Zedong and Sasaki VS. Shanghai VeryCD Network Technology Co., Ltd.
(Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court〔2011〕Hu First Intermediate Civil Wu (IP) Final No.33
Civil Judgment)
(14) Appeal of infringement dispute of computer software copyright, Nanjing Intelligent
Apparatus Co., Ltd. VS. Xi’an Yuanzheng Technology Co., Ltd., Xi’an Yuanzheng
Intelligence Software Co., Ltd. and Nanjing Youcheng Electricity Engineering Co., Ltd.
(Jiangsu Higher Court〔2008〕Su Civil san Final No.0079 Civil Judgment)
(15) Appeal of infringement dispute of copyright, Ye Genyou (a natural person) VS. Wuxi
KFC Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Branch of Beijing Dentsu Advertising Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Higher
Court〔2011〕Su Civil San Final No.0018 Civil Judgment)
(16) Appeal of dispute of ownership and infringement of copyright, Heji (a natural person)
VS. Hangzhou Tianchan Culture Transmission Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Hangzhou Intermediate
Court〔2011〕Zhe Hang IP Final No.54 Civil Judgment)
20
(17) Dispute of infringement against the information network transmission right of works,
Guangdong Creative Power Entertaining Co., Ltd. VS. Shaanxi Jiuyou Digital Technology
Co., Ltd. (Shaanxi Xian Intermediate Court〔2011〕Xi Civil Si First No.00336 Civil Judgment)
3. Cases in relation to trademark infringement
(18) Retrial of trademark infringement dispute, Foshan Heji Pastry Industry Co., Ltd. VS.
Zhuhai Hongkee Foods Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil Arraignment No.55 Civil
Judgment)
(19) Appeal of dispute of trademark infringement and unfair competition,
Cartier
International N.V. VS. Foshan Sanshui Mingkun Ceramic Co., Ltd., Foshan Jinsiyuma
Decorative Material Co., Ltd. and Zhang Yunshu (a natural person) (Shanghai Higher Court
〔2011〕Hu Higher San (IP) Final No.93 Civil Judgment)
(20) Appeal of trademark infringement dispute, Shanghai Masteck Ecology Science &
Technology Co., Ltd. VS. Wuxi Acous Building Technology Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Higher Court
〔2011〕Su IP Civil Final No.0033 Civil Judgment)
(21) Appeal of dispute of trademark infringement and unfair competition, Hangzhou Aupu
Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. VS. Zhejiang Lingpu Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., Zhejiang
Alinsipu Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Wang Wenhua (a natural person), Lin Zhu (a natural
person) and Hangzhou Hongjing Decorative Material Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Higher Court
〔2011〕Zhe IP Final No.200 Civil Judgment)
(22) Trademark infringement dispute, Hangzhou Pangu Automation System Co., Ltd. VS.
Hangzhou Mengkong Instrument Co., Ltd. and Beijing Baidu Net Technology Co., Ltd.
(Zhejiang Hangzhou Binjiang District Court〔2011〕Hang Bin First No.11 Civil Judgment)
21
(23) Dispute of trademark infringement and unfair competition, Shandong Xinhua
Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. VS. Qingzhou Xinhua Package Products Co., Ltd. (Shandong
Weifang Intermediate Court〔2010〕Wei IP First No.336 Civil Judgment)
(24) Appeal of dispute of trademark infringement and unfair competition, Hubei Zhouheiya
Foods Co., Ltd. VS. Hubei Hanwei Zhouheiya Cooking Culture Management Co., Ltd.
(Hubei Higher Court〔2011〕E Civil San Final No.25 Civil Judgment)
(25) Appeal of dispute of trademark infringement and unfair competition, Yu Jing VS.
COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN and He Lifang (a natural
person) (Guangdong Higher Court〔2011〕Yue Higher Civil San Final No.163 Civil Judgment)
(25) Dispute of trademark infringement and unfair competition, Swire Pacific Limited VS.
Huitong Guoji Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Branch of
Huitong Guoji Real
Estate Development Co., Ltd. (Shaanxi Xi’an Intermediate Court〔2011〕Xi Civil Si First
No.528 Civil Judgment)
4. Cases in relation to unfair competition dispute
(27) Retrial of infringement dispute of trade secret, Shanghai Furi Industry Co., Ltd. VS.
Huang Ziyu (a natural person) and Shanghai Safeiya Textile Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕
Civil Appeal No.122 Civil Judgment)
(28) Retrial of infringement dispute of trade secret, Beijing Yidege Ink Industry Co., Ltd. VS.
Gao Maoxing (a natural person) and Beijing Chuanren Culture & Art Co., Ltd. (Supreme
Court〔2011〕Civil Supervision No.414 Civil Judgment)
(29) Retrial of infringement dispute of authorized use of unique name, package and trade
dress of famous goods, Beijing Yushengtang Ecology Engineering Co., Ltd. VS. Xiameng
Kangshiyuan Ecology Engineering Co., Ltd., Xiameng Kangzhongyuan Healthcare Products
22
Co., Ltd. and Changchun North Eastern Pharmacy Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil
Arraignment No.60 Civil Judgment)
(30) Dispute of commercial defamation, Xuanda Industrial Group Co., Ltd. VS. MECS Inc.
and Monsanto (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court 〔2009〕Hu No.1
Intermediate Civil Wu (IP) First No.228 Civil Judgment)
(31) Appeal of dispute unfair competition, Zhenjiang Tanglao Yizhenzhai Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. VS. Jilin Yizheng Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yizheng Group Jilin Medicine Technology
Industrial Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Dadesheng Chain Pharmacy Co., Ltd. and Zhenjiang Xingainian
Pharmacy of Jiangsu Dadesheng Chain Pharmacy Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu Higher Court〔2009〕Su
Civil San Final No.91 Civil Judgment)
(32) Appeal of dispute of unfair competition and monopoly, Zou Zhijian
(a natural person)
VS. Guangxi Yunde Autotransport Group Limited Company, Chongzuo Automobile Terminal
of Guangxi Yunde Autotransport Group Limited Company and Passenger Transport Service
Center of Guangxi Yunde Autotransport Group Limited Company (Guangxi Zhuang
Autonomous Region Higher Court〔2011〕Gui Civil San Final No.9 Civil Conciliation
Statement)
5. Technical contract cases
(33) Retrial of dispute of technology transfer contract, Hainan Kangliyuan Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd. and Hainan General Kangli Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. VS. Haikou Qili
Pharmaceutical Stock Limited Company (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil Arraignment No.307
Civil Judgment)
6. New plant variety cases
(34) Retrial of dispute of ownership of new plant variety, Wafangdian Original Core Seeds
23
Field VS. Zhao Jinlin (a natural person), Tong Pingya (a natural person), Yang Yasheng (a
natural person), Zhuang Guangli (a natural person), He Dongfeng (a natural person), He
Donggang (a natural person), Wang Yeguo (a natural person) and Beijing Aorui Golden Seeds
Stock Limited Company (Supreme Court〔2011〕Civil Appeal No.10 Civil Verdict)
(35) Retrial of dispute of ownership of new plant variety, Anhui Wanken Seeds Stock Limited
Company VS. Suzhou Golden Seeds Co., Ltd. (Anhui Hefei Intermediate Court〔2011〕Civil
San First No.148 Civil Judgment)
II. Intellectual property administrative cases
1. Grant and confirmation of patent right
(36) Retrial of administrative dispute of invalidation of patent of invention, Fujian Duoleng
Steel Group Co., Ltd VS. Xiamen Jimei Liantie Steel Casting Factory, Patent Reexamination
Board of State Intellectual Property Office and Jujian Quanzhou Jinxing Steel Shot Co., Ltd.
(Supreme Court〔2010〕IP Administrative No.6 Notification of Refusal for Retrial)
(37) Retrial of administrative dispute of invalidation of patent of invention, Zhen Yali VS.
Seiko Epson Corporation and Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property
Office (Supreme Court〔2010〕IP Administrative No.53 Administrative Verdict)
(38) Retrial of administrative dispute of invalidation of patent of invention, Patent
Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office VS. Jiangsu Xiansheng Drug
Research Co., Ltd., Nanjing Xiansheng Drug Research Co., Ltd. and Li Ping (Supreme Court
〔2011〕IP Administrative No.17 Administrative Verdict)
(39) Retrial of administrative dispute of invalidation of patent of invention, Totani
Corporation VS. Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office,
Wuxi
Tiemin Printing Machine Co., Ltd., Jiangyin Huitong Packaging Machine Co., Ltd. and
24
Shanghai Gaoqing Packaging Machine Co., Ltd. (Supreme Court〔2011〕IP Administrative
No.25 Administrative Verdict)
(40) Retrial of administrative dispute of invalidation of design patent, Zhuhai Gree Electric
Appliances, Inc. VS. Guangdong Midea Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. and Patent
Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office (Supreme Court 〔 2011 〕
Administrative Arraignment No.1 Administrative Judgment)
(41)
Retrial
of
administrative
dispute
of
invalidation
of
patent
of
invention,
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON VS. Patent Reexamination Board of State
Intellectual Property Office (Beijing Higher Court〔2011〕Higher Administrative Final No.693
Administrative Judgment)
2. Grant and confirmation of trademark right
(42) Retrial of administrative dispute of trademark dispute cancellation, Beijing Huaxia
Changcheng High Grade Lubricant Co., Ltd. VS. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board
of State Administration for Industry and Commerce and
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Supreme
Court〔2011〕IP Administrative No.45 Administrative Verdict)
(43) Retrial of administrative dispute of trademark dispute cancellation, Beijing Tailiangzi
Healthcare Technology Co., Ltd. VS. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State
Administration for Industry and Commerce and
Shandong Liangzi Natural Body-Building
Research Institute Co., Ltd (Supreme Court〔2011〕IP Administrative No.50 Administrative
Verdict)
(44) Retrial of administrative dispute of trademark dispute cancellation, Changsha Weishan
Tea Co., Ltd. VS. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for
Industry and Commerce and
Hunan Ning Township Weishanxiang Weiming Tea factory
(Supreme Court〔2011〕Administrative Arraignment No.7 Administrative Judgment)
25
(45) Retrial of administrative dispute of refusal of trademark application, Jiaxuan Enterprise
Service Co., Ltd. VS. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of State Administration for
Industry and Commerce (Supreme Court 〔 2011 〕 Administrative Arraignment No.9
Administrative Judgment)
III. Intellectual property criminal cases
(46) Crime against copyright by Li Longquan (Beijing Changping District Court〔2011〕
Chang Criminal First No.390 Criminal Judgment)
(47) Appeal of crime against copyright by Han Hengdong, Xu Qinghua, Shen Siyang, Wu Qi,
Su Zhe, Yan Hong and Shen Hai (all natural persons) (Liaoning Shenyang Intermediate Court
〔2011〕Shen Criminal Er Final No.510 Criminal Verdict)
(48) Crime against copyright by Zhang Le, Huang Qian, Liang Wenyu, Ruan Xiaoxia and Liu
Yang (all natural persons) (Shanghai Pudong New Area Court〔2011〕Pu Criminal First
No.3240 Criminal Judgment)
(49) Appeal of crime of counterfeiting a registered trademark by Xiong Sichuan and Xiong
Yameng (all natural persons) (Hubei Higher Court〔2011〕E IP Criminal Final No.1 Judgment
of Criminal Suit attached with Civil Suit)
(50) Crime against copyright by Wang Xuehai, Yu Yanping, Chen Xilong, He Xinbing, Wen
Xianming and Shan Xuchun (all natural persons) (Hunan Changsha Yuhua District Court
〔2011〕Yu Criminal First No.546 Criminal Judgment)
Date: April 18, 2012
26
Source: China Court Net
27