It is reported that China Copyright Protection Center has officially authorized SRP European Legal and Tax Adviser Co., Ltd. to develop the copyright service in German-speaking countries. This is the first time for the national copyright public service organization of China to promote copyright services to the market of German-speaking countries in the form of setting up window units, which will facilitate the press and copyright industry in German-speaking countries to conduct copyright registration, copyright monitoring, copyright protection and other services in China, and will effectively promote the copyright output of outstanding works of China by way of recommendation and further enhance the influence of China’s cultural products in the German-speaking countries.

According to joint statement signed by China Pharmaceutical Industry Research and Development Association (Sino-PhIRDA) and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the parties promise to promote the continuous improvement of legal system and strengthen the protection of biopharmaceutical related IP rights of the two countries by promoting the cooperation of all relevant parties. Meanwhile, both parties promise to provide safe and effective drugs for patients and improve the health conditions of people in two countries.

The two parties further decide to regularly hold "Sino-US Pharmaceutical Industry Summit" to further strengthen bilateral dialogue and cooperation.

According to the reports, the United States has been the largest pharmaceutical trade partner of China for a long time. Statistics shows that Sino-US pharmaceutical trade volume reached a record high in 2009, which was $ 9.8 billion.

Now an applicant can make a PPH request to the SIPO in accordance with Procedure of making a PPH Request to the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) Under Sino-US Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Project, and make a PPH request to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in accordance with the requirements of Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Project of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the State Intellectual Property Office of China and Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Project of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the State Intellectual Property Office of China Based on PCT Work Result. The pilot period lasts for one year long and will expire on November 30, 2012.

The United States is the most important and the most dominant overseas patent application destination country for China. The initiation of the Sino-US PPH pilot is an important measure taken by the SIPO in order to promote national intellectual property strategy implementation and support enterprises and other innovation entities to obtain patent rights overseas as soon as possible.

By then, an applicant can make a PPH request to the SIPO in accordance with Procedure of Making a PPH Request to the State Intellectual Property Office of China (SIPO) Under Sino-South Korea Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Project, or make a PPH request to the Korean Intellectual Property (KIPO) in accordance with Procedure of making a PPH Request to the Korean Intellectual Property Office Under Sino-Korea Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Project. The pilot period is one year and will expire on February 28, 2013.

The PPH indicates that, where the Office of First Filing (OFF) with which an applicant first files a patent deems that at least one claim of the application can be patented, the applicant can request the Office of Subsequent Filing (OSF) to expedite prosecution of a relevant subsequent filing based on the work result of the OFF as long as the relevant subsequent filing meets certain requirements, including the requirements that claims of the first filing and claims of the subsequent filing fully correspond to each other and the work result of the OFF is available to the Office of Subsequent Filing (OSF), etc.

According to the report, patent filings of China in the native country of China grew rapidly, with an increase from less than 90,000 ones in 2006 to 230,000 ones in 2010. In the technical fields selected for research, the analysis result of the domestic patent filings of China between 2006 and 2010 shows growing trends in all the fields, in which electrical mechanics, equipments, energy sources, digital communication, computer technology, measuring instruments and pharmacy were ranked the top five in 2010.

The report shows that the number of civil intellectual property literature cases of China increased between 2009 and 2010, and China reached a more profound understanding of intellectual property enforcement in terms of protection and acquirement of innovation values.

It was said in the report that patent filings of China in foreign countries are still at a low level but show a steadily increasing trend.

The case of Lafite Company prosecuting Jinhongde can be traced back to September 2010, when Lafite Company entrusted Li Yongbo and Zhang Yazhou, lawyers from Unitalen Attorneys at Law, to lodge a lawsuit against Jinhongde for trademark infringement and unfair competition to the Intermediate People's Court of Changsha City (hereinafter referred to Changsha Intermediate People's Court). In February 2011, Changsha Intermediate People's Court made the first instance judgment, which affirmed that Jinhongde’s acts of using "LAFITE FAMILY" and " " logo on its wine products, company website and promotional materials, and using the domain name of "lafitefamily.com" containing registered trademark “LAFITE” of Lafite Company on its operation website had constituted trademark infringement. It also affirmed that Jinhongde conducted false propaganda to the brand "LAFITE FAMILY" to mislead the public, which had constituted unfair competition. The defendant was ordered to publish a statement, eliminate the impact, and compensate Lafite Company for 300,000 RMB Yuan. After the first instance judgment, Jinhongde appealed to the Higher Court in Hunan.

The core disputes between the parties are 1) whether "LAFITE FAMILY" and " " logo used by the Appellant are confusingly similar to the Appellee’s trademarks and hence constitute trademark infringement; 2) whether the Chinese symbol “拉菲世族” used by the Appellant constitutes unfair competition in the form of infringing the Appellee’s unique name for well-known products “拉菲”; and, 3) whether the Appellant’s description of its historical background constituted false advertisement.

But most of all, whether the Chinese characters "拉菲” can be considered as a “unique name of well-known product” prescribed in Item (b), Article V of "Anti-Unfair Competition Law", whether "拉菲世族" constitutes confusingly similar to “拉菲” and hence whether the “unfair competition” claim is tenable are the key issues in this case. According to Article I of the Supreme People's Court Interpretations on Several Issues regarding the Application of the Law When Hearing Unfair Competition Cases, the obligee requesting protection of a unique name for well-known product shall have the obligation to provide relevant evidence. And in the judicial practice, the testifying obligation of the obligee is relatively heavy.

After carefully combing the case, it can be seen that LAFITE (拉菲)’s fame in China results from the unique taste of its products on one hand and the long history of the brand on the other. The recognition and renown of the LAFITE (拉菲) brand has been spread by word of experts or through high-end wine tasting parties, other than pure commercial advertisement. Therefore, the popularity of LAFITE (拉菲) in China has been gradually expanded from a small scale of high-end consumers. Of course, due to the price of LAFITE (拉菲), it is still high-end consumer oriented now. Understanding the factor, one will understand that the propaganda and distributing channel of LAFITE (拉菲) must be different from that of common goods. Thus, when judging whether it constitutes a unique name of well-known products, one cannot mechanically apply each factor specified in Article I of Supreme People's Court Interpretations on Several Issues regarding the Application of the Law When Hearing Unfair Competition Cases, but should apply the testifying rules in a focused and flexible way based on the special nature of goods.

(For details, please contact us)