CN NEWS 11
英国捷豹路虎有限公司无效湖南捷豹公司’捷豹’商标
湖南捷豹公司受让诉争“捷豹”商标(下称诉争商标)(核准注册使用在啤酒、水(饮料)等第32类商品上)不久后，英国捷豹路虎有限公司(下称捷豹路虎公司)对诉争商标向原商评委提出无效宣告请求，主张绝对牛公司具有明显抢注他人高知名度商标的故意，容易导致相关消费者对商品来源产生误认，扰乱了正常的商标注册秩序，有损公平竞争的市场秩序。
原商评委经审理认为，诉争商标系以其他不正当手段取得注册，并作出对诉争商标予以无效宣告的裁定。湖南捷豹公司不服原商评委所作裁定，随后向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼，一审法院认为，诉争商标的转让人和受让人存在关联关系，诉争商标与捷豹路虎公司在汽车等商品上在先注册、使用并具有一定知名度的“捷豹JIEBAO”商标在呼叫、文字构成上高度近似，难谓巧合，认定诉争商标系以其他不正当手段取得注册，一审判决驳回湖南捷豹公司的诉讼请求。湖南捷豹公司不服一审判决，继而向北京市高级人民法院提起上诉，二审法院认为湖南捷豹公司的上诉理由不能成立，驳回湖南捷豹公司上诉，维持一审判决。
历时7年，原商评委对诉争商标予以无效宣告的裁定最终得以维持。
Jaguar Land Rover succeeds in long-running dispute over ‘Jiebao’ (Jaguar) trademark
After Juedui Niu Company transferred the ‘Jiebao’ trademark (approved for registration in relation to Class 32 products such as beer and water) to Hunan Jiebao Company, Jaguar Land Rover company filed a request with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) for invalidation of the disputed trademark, claiming that Juedui Niu Company’s application was the result of intentional squatting of a well-known trademark. Use of the mark was likely to lead to confusion among relevant consumers and unfair competition. The TRAB held that the disputed trademark was invalid.
Hunan Jiebao Company then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against TRAB’s decision. The Court rejected Hunan Jiebao’s claim. It found that the assignor and the assignee of the trademark were associated; that the disputed trademark was deliberately very similar to the ‘Jaguar JIEBAO’ trademark owned by Jaguar Land Rover; and that it had been registered by improper means..
Hunan Jiebao then appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court, which upheld the first instance decision.
京东起诉天猫滥用市场支配地位，拼多多、唯品会请求以第三人身份加入诉讼
近日，北京京东世纪贸易有限公司和北京京东叁佰陆拾度电子商务有限公司(以下简称京东)，起诉浙江天猫网络有限公司、浙江天猫技术有限公司、阿里巴巴集团控股有限公司(以下简称天猫)滥用市场支配地位，索赔10亿元。拼多多、唯品会向北京高院提出申请，请求以第三人身份加入诉讼。
据京东起诉称，2013年以来，天猫不断以“签订独家协议”、“独家合作”等方式，要求在天猫商城开设店铺的服饰、家居等众多品牌商家不得在原告运营的京东商城参加618、双11等促销活动、不得在京东商城开设店铺进行经营，甚至只能在天猫商城一个平台开设店铺进行经营。最高法的裁定书显示，京东在起诉中将天猫与商家的独家合作概括为“二选一”。
该案目前已进入实体审理程序。司法如何界定互联网电商平台之间的竞争行为——“电商圈反垄断诉讼第一案”的最终审判结论对电商行业的持续良性竞争发展具有至关重要的影响。
Battle between e-commerce giants – JD.com sues Alibaba and Tmall for abuse of market power
JD.com is claiming 1 billion Yuan (approx. US$ 142 million) in an action against Tmall and its parent company, Alibaba, for abuse of market dominance. Two other major e-commerce companies, Vipshop and Pinduoduo, sought to join the lawsuit as third parties.
JD.com alleges that, since 2013, Tmall has required merchants opening stores in Tmall to sign exclusive agreements that preclude them from participating in the ‘618’ and ‘Double 11’ shopping events on JD.com.
Judgment is awaited.
This case is the first anti-monopoly case in the E-commerce industry. The result is likely to have a significant impact on the sustainable and healthy development of the industry in China.
暴雪娱乐诉两手游侵害游戏画面类电作品著作权 一审获赔350万元
暴雪娱乐有限公司(下称暴雪公司)、上海网之易网络科技发展有限公司(下称网之易公司)系游戏《守望先锋》的著作权人，因认为广州四三九九信息科技(下称四三九九公司)有限公司开发的《英雄枪战》、《枪战前线》两款游戏大量抄袭、使用《守望先锋》的游戏元素，诉请停止侵权、消除影响并赔偿397万余元。
上海浦东法院经审理后认为，《守望先锋》是主创人员付出大量劳动、团队合作的智慧结晶，符合独创性要求。游戏中英雄的移动与使用武器释放技能的过程，呈现出来的都是连续的动态画面，因而可认定为类电作品。法院认为四三九九公司的两款游戏侵害了《守望先锋》游戏整体画面的著作权，而支持了暴雪与网之易公司的请求。
Blizzard Entertainment Wins Compensation of 3.5 Million Yuan (approx. US$ 500,000) in Game Copyright Infringement Action against 4399 Network Co.
Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Netease Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. are owners of the copyright in the game ‘Overwatch’. They claim that 4399 Network Co’s two games, ‘Hero Shootout’ and ‘Frontline Shootout’, reproduce the essential elements of the ‘Overwatch’ game and infringe copyright. They sought Orders that 4399 Network Co., stop the infringement, take steps to reduce its impact, and pay compensation of more than 3.97 million yuan (approx. US$ 567,000).
The Shanghai Pudong People's Court held that Plaintiffs’ ‘Overwatch’ game is the result of significant skill and labor and qualifies as an original work pursuant to the Copyright Law. The movement of heroes in the game, and the process of using weapons to release skills, involves continuous dynamic pictures using methods similar to film making. The Court ruled that the two games of the 4399 company reproduced a substantial part of the ‘Overwatch’ game.
玄霆诉爱奇艺等不正当竞争二审胜诉
天下霸唱为《鬼吹灯》小说的作者，天下霸唱将《鬼吹灯》中除法律规定属于作者权利以外的全部权利转让给玄霆公司(包括但不限于信息网络传播权及作品改编权等)，随后天下霸唱又授权东阳向上、爱奇艺将《牧野诡事》文字作品改编成影视剧，并在《牧野诡事》作品前冠之以“鬼吹灯”标识，玄霆公司遂诉至法院。
徐州中院一审认为，《鬼吹灯》系列小说在国内具有极高的市场知名度，构成反不正当竞争法规定的知名商品，“鬼吹灯”作为小说名称亦同时与玄霆公司的《鬼吹灯》《鬼吹灯II》作品建立起了稳定的对应关系，具备了区别商品来源的显著特征，构成反不正当竞争法规定的特有名称。此外，爱奇艺宣传涉案网剧时，使用了“最正宗的鬼吹灯系列”等宣传用语的行为构成虚假宣传。徐州中院一审判决三被告停止侵权，爱奇艺需赔偿玄霆公司经济损失150万元，东阳向上及天下霸唱就其中的110万元承担连带赔偿责任。江苏高院二审维持一审判决。
Xuanting Sued IQIYI for Unfair Competition and Won the Second Trial
Zhang Muye, the author of the novel ‘Candle in the Tomb’ transferred all his rights in the novel, except moral rights, to Shanghai Xuanting Co. LTD (Xuanting company). He granted a licence to to Uppicture and online video platform iQiyi to make a series based on another of his novels: ‘Mu Ye Huiu Shi’. Because the ‘Mu Ye Gui Shi’ series included a representation of the ‘Candle in the Tomb’ logo, Xuanting Company brought an action for unfair competition against Uppicture, iQiyi and Zhang Muye.
The Xuzhou Intermediate People's Court initially held that the ‘Candle in the Tomb’ novel had achieved a high level of popularity and, as a result, constituted a well-known commodity for the purposes of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Use of the ‘Candle in the Tomb’ title and logo in relation to the ‘Mu Ye Gui Shi’ series amounted to unfair competition. Further, iQiyi ‘s promotion of the series, using promotional expressions such as ‘probably the most authentic Candle in the Tomb series,’ constituted false propaganda.
The Court ordered the three Defendants to cease the unfair competition and iQiyi to compensate Xuanting Company for economic loss in the sum of 1.5 million yuan (approx. US$ 214,000). Uppicture and Zhang Muye were held jointly liable for compensation amounting to 1.1 million yuan (approx. US$ 157,000). On appeal, the Jiangsu Higher People’s Court upheld the initial verdict of the Xuzhou Intermediate People’s Court.