It is declared in the Measures that the patent articles shall be marked with the patent category marked in Chinese and the patent number granted by the State Intellectual Property Office. In addition to the foregoing, other texts, graphics or marks may be fixed onto the patented articles, provided that the additional texts, graphics or marks and their marketing methods shall not mislead the public.

It is also declared that in marking any product, its packaging or product manuals prior to the patent being issued, the China patent application category and patent application number shall be marked thereon in Chinese, and the expressions “patent pending” shall be indicated.

It is declared in the Measures that if any patent marking fails to comply with relevant requirements thereof, the patent administrative department shall order rectification. If any article is improperly marked as patented, which constitutes an act of passing off a patent, the competent patent administrative department shall impose sanction in accordance with Article 63 of the Patent Law.

It is reported that the Measures shall come into force as of May 1, 2012. The Regulations on Patent Marking and Patent Number Marking Methods issued by the State Intellectual Property Office as Decree No. 29 on May 30, 2003 shall be repealed simultaneously.

The Chinese Trademark Law was at first formally published and implemented in 1983, and subsequently revised respectively in 1993 and 2001. And this revise draft is under further consultation and perfection.

It is mentioned by Deputy Trademark Office Director of General Administration for Industry and Commerce Lv Zhihua that the following aspects are mainly considered in the revision process of this Trademark Law.

First, simplify and perfect trademark application process. In the submitted revise draft, certain limitation is set on the qualification and reason for objection, and it stipulates that only the prior right holder and interested party may have the right to file relative opposition.

Second, the highest amount for trademark infringement damages has been increased. The trademark types are increased in the revision draft and the concept for trademark usage is cleared. The compensation amount has raised 0.5 million yuan in the present law to 1 million yuan in the submitted draft.

Furthermore, new trademark types are also added in the new Trademark Law, and the single-colored registration is added in the revision draft. Lv Zhihua mentioned that the single-colored registration is added in light of international practices but evidence for trademark identification must be provided for single-colored registration.

The statistics data of the World Intellectual Property Organization shows that when the increased patent application amount in some traditional industrial countries is small or is slightly decreasing, the patent application amount in China and some emerging East Asian countries is increasing quickly. In 2004, 1,706 international patents are filed in China, and in 2011, the amount had reached 16,406, which is a 10 times increase in 8 years. In 2005, China ranks Top Ten for the first time with 2,503 patents filed. And since then, China ranked the sixth and fifth and fourth respectively in 2008 with 6,089 patents filed and in 2009 with 7,946 patents filed and in 2010 with 12,337 patents filed. And in 2011, China remains the fourth worldwide.

The data also shows that the PCT international patent application amount in 2011 was 181,900 with a growth rate of 10.7%.

In recent years, the trademark registration in China keeps a good increasing momentum, and the trademark registration application amount has broken through one million for two consecutive years. In 2011, the amount hit a historical high and had reached to 1,416,800, which was 32% higher than that of 2010 and a double of that of 2008. The trademark registration application amount in China has ranked first in China for ten consecutive years. In the first three months of 2012, the year on year growth of trademark registration application amount in China was 7.7%, and had reached to 288,900.

Furthermore, it is also stipulates in the amended Criminal Procedural Law that “the investigator shall keep confidential the state secrets, trade secrets and personal private information obtained in the process of technique investigation”, and “the evidences relating to state secrets, trade secrets and personal private information shall also be kept confidential”. The Criminal Procedural Law was made in 1979 and was firstly revised in 1996.

It is reported that in the “businesses of chartered lawyer” mentioned in the draft of said Regulations, the field of intellectual property legal service was raised for the first time, and international patent legal affairs as well as international intellectual property protection legal affairs are included in the field. The regulation was drafted by Ministry of Justice to implement the related regulations in Lawyers Law and to standardize the assessment of the specified professional lawyers. It is said that there is no concept of “chartered lawyer” mentioned in Chinese Lawyers Law but in the draft of this Regulation, Article 8 of Lawyers Law, which stipulates lawyer practice application by other professionals, was summarized as Chartered lawyers, and chartered lawyer is clearly defined in the draft, including its definition, requirements, assessment procedures, business scope and other aspects, etc.

1.The Supreme People's Court pointed out by representative issue analysis of the Lafite trademark infringement and unfair competition case that: counterfeit is an issue that is widely concerned by the society and this case represented the Court’s effort in counterfeit combating and in intellectual property protection. The LAFITE wine produced by French Lafite Company enjoys a high reputation worldwide and the trademark “拉菲” was used when it was sold in China, but “拉菲” was not Lafite Company’s registered trademark. In the appeal trial by Hunan High People's Court , it is held that the LAFITE wine produced by French Lafite Company has enjoyed a high reputation in Chinese wine market and it shall be regarded as well-known commodity as stipulated in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China. “拉菲” is the only corresponding Chinese name of the well-known commodity LAFITE wine and has a distinguishing character in determining the sources of commodities, so according to relavent regulations in Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, it shall be regarded as the peculiar name of the well-known commodity LAFITE wine. And thus its Chinese mark “拉菲” was protected and unfair competition such as “lifting” and “famous brand leaning” was banned effectively. Protection of the peculiar names of foreign products is explicated clearly in this case that the names shall be well known to relavant public in China. The popularity of foreign product is usually generated by the production, marketing or other operating activities in China, nevertheless the fact that the product is already well-known abroad could be regarded as a relevant consideration in evaluating its notoriety in China.

2.The Supreme People's Court pointed out by the representative issue analysis of the non-Infringement case of “Jianghuai Automotive” that: this case exemplified the pursuit and effort of People's Court in achieving the goal of “case closure with matter solution”. The case mainly involves the judgment on the issues of similar trademarks and so on. The case is not complicate in itself, however, while two giant automobile enterprises are involved and there are many associated cases involving not only civil dispute but also administrative dispute between the two parties. These disputes are of considerable social influence. A simple judgment on this case can not completely solve the disputes between the parties; a comprehensive settlement may be more beneficial for future development and cooperation of the two parties. Bearing that in mind and based on sufficient explanation, the Supreme People's Court guided the two parties to reach a settlement, and both parties have voluntarily withdrawn actions for disputes. The settlment of the case shows that as to the cases with which many associated lawsuits and disputes are involved, and which are very socially influential, the concept of “judge for People” shall be followed and case handling principle of “mediation first, judgment and settlement combined ” shall be applied wisely to achieve proper closure of the case, to try to thoroughly solve the disputes between the parties and to realize real harmony of social effect and legal effect.

The Fake Can’t trump the Real — the copycatting LV (Louis Vuireal) was ordered to pay damages of 2 million yuan The plaintiff Louis Vuitton Malletier sued the defendants Li XX and Guangzhou XX Leather Leather Products Co., Ltd for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The two defendants are accused of using “ ” (while the real trademark registered was ) for many times on their various leather products and commercial pamphlets for promotion, and they announced that the production of their leather products was under the authorization of “French Louis Vuireal International Group Co., Ltd” (which was actually registered in Hong Kong).

The Court found the two defendants committing trademark infringement and unfair competition, and held that the defendants shall pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of 2 million yuan for economic loss. This is also the intellectual property infringement case with the highest damages amount adjudicated by the Court of the city.

The two giant listed home textile companies Fuanna and Luolai encountered in the court, and a storm of link pirate and infringement was stirred up. From September to October of 2009, by using the Bidding Rank of Google, Luolai publicized some false information such as “purchase Fuanna at LOVO” and so on, by linking the information to its own e-commerce website. Meanwhile, 13 other well-known home textile brands such as Mendale and Dohia also suffered from such link pirate and infringement. Even China Home Textile Association had engaged for mediation, Luolai didn’t stop that kind of malicious competition. To promote healthy development of e-commerce competition in home textile industry, Fuanan chose to enforce its rights positively and in July 2010, Fuanna instituted lawsuit before People's Court of Beijing, Haidian District.

At the second hearing, the Unitalen attorney representing Fuanan, Jing Can, mentioned that the requests made at first court hearing would be insisted on and these requests could be summarized into the following points: first, Luolai Home Textile and Shanghai Luolai shall bear the infringement liability jointly; second, Shanghai Luolai and Luolai Home Textile shall pay the damages jointly, that is 500,000 yuan as ordered by the Court; third, Shanghai Luolai and Luolai Home Textile shall undertake the responsibility of eliminating negative social influence.

After two court hearings in three years, Luolai Home Textile lost the lawsuit finally.

For more details, please click: http://www.unitalenlaw.com/Newsletter/newsletter80.htm#9