Insights

Latest News

    Trending Topics

      People

      Careers

      About

      About

      • About Us
      • The Rouse Network
      • The Rouse Difference
      • Rouse Connect

      Grass Roots

      • Climate Change
      • Mitrataa
      • Rouse Cares

      News & Cases from China: September 2020

      Published on 28 Oct 2020 | 5 min read

      2019年中国知识产权发展状况评价报告》发布

      根据近日国家知识产权局知识产权发展研究中心发布的《2019年中国知识产权发展状况评价报告》显示,自国家知识产权战略实施以来,我国知识产权发展取得显著成效。从地区发展状况来看,2019年知识产权综合发展指数排在前6位的地区依次为:广东、上海、江苏、北京、浙江和山东。而根据国际比较测算结果,在四十个评价样本国家中我国知识产权发展总指数排名,从2014年的第20位快速跃升至2018年的第8位。

      评价报告中各指数的快速增长,其实也正反映了我国在相应领域取得的显著成绩。2019年我国国内的发明专利授权量是2010年的4.8倍,商标注册量达到了2010年的5.2倍,而同年我国国内著作权登记量为418.6万件,更是达到了2010年的9.5倍。此外,2019年,我国受理的PCT国际专利申请数量是2010年的4.8倍,马德里商标国际注册申请量为2010年的3.4倍。

      报告进一步显示,在知识产权创造力显著增强的同时,我国市场主体运用知识产权的能力也在逐步提高,知识产权转化和运用的实效也在日益凸显。2018年我国的专利密集型产业增加值达10.7万亿元,在GDP中占比11.6%,版权产业的行业增加值在GDP中占比7.37%,较之于2010年提升了0.8个百分点。

      然而报告在展现出我国知识产权良好发展态势的同时,也揭示了我国知识产权质量有待进一步提高的现实问题。此外,从运用规模和运用效益等方面来看,强化知识产权制度建设、改善市场环境仍将是我国知识产权未来发展的要点。

       

      CNIPA releases Evaluation Report on China's Intellectual Property Development in 2019

      According to the Evaluation Report on China's Intellectual Property Development in 2019, recently released by the Intellectual Property Development Research Department of CNIPA, China’s domestic intellectual property has developed significantly since implementation of the national intellectual property strategy.  From the perspective of regional development, the top six regions listed in the 2019 comprehensive intellectual property development index are: Guangdong, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Beijing, Zhejiang and Shandong. From an international perspective, among the forty sample countries, China’s Index for Intellectual Property Development jumped from 20th in 2014 to 8th in 2018.

      The rapid growth of the various indexes in the report actually reflects the remarkable achievements China has made in these areas. In  2019, the number of domestic invention patents granted in China was 4.8 times greater than it had been in 2010; and the number of trademark registrations 5.2 times greater. The number of domestic copyright registrations granted in 2019 was 4.186 million, 9.5 greater than it had been in 2010; the number of PCT international patent applications accepted by China, 4.8 times greater than it had been in 2010; and the number of Madrid trademark international registration applications 3.4 times greater than it had been in 2010.

      The IP creation index in the report shows that creativity has developed significantly, while other indexes note the increased ability of domestic market entities to make use of intellectual property rights, and the increases in the general level of IP utilisation and commercialisation.  In 2018, the added value of national patent-intensive industries reached CNY 10.7 trillion yuan (approx. US$ 1.6trillion), accounting for 11.6% of GDP, and the added value of the copyright industry accounted for 7.37% of GDP, an increase of 0.8% compared to 2010.

      Although the report shows a favourable development trend in terms of national intellectual property protection, it also reveals the need for further improvement. Strengthening the intellectual property system and improving the market environment will remain a focus for the future development of national intellectual property.

       

      合肥汇宾娱乐管理有限公司因使用“上海滩”侵权被罚2,000万元

      因使用“上海滩”构成商标侵权,合肥瑶海区的合肥汇宾娱乐管理有限公司(汇宾)在去年被辖区市场监管部门罚款2000万元。日前,瑶海区市场监管局对该公司下发《行政处罚决定履行催告书》,要求该公司限期内缴纳这笔罚款。

      经查明:汇宾经营的“上海滩”的娱乐夜总会于2016年6月6日正式对外开业。该公司除了在酒店裙楼三楼南侧使用“上海滩娱乐会所”的牌匾,正门门头、三楼迎宾台使用“上海滩”文字与图形外,还在其公司内部大量使用“上海滩消费明细卡”。2019年5月3日,瑶海区市场监管局执法人员调查获悉,该公司自2017年10月1日至2019年3月30日申报的增值税收入为6578156.76元。当事人未在规定的期限内向该局提供2016年4月1日至2017年9月30日各类营业(收入)明细表和具体的情况说明等相关证据材料。依据《国家工商行政管理局商标局关于保护服务商标若干问题的意见》第九条第一款“服务商标侵权的非法经营额主要是指侵权人在侵权期间因侵权行为所产生的经营额。一般情况下,擅自使用与他人服务商标相同或者近似的商标从事服务行为所产生的金额均为非法经营额。”的规定,其非法经营额为6578156.76元。

      当事人上述行为违反了《商标法》相关规定,属侵犯注册商标专用权。根据《商标法》第60条有关规定,工商行政管理部门处理时,认定侵权行为成立的,责令立即停止侵权行为,没收、销毁侵权商品和主要用于制造侵权商品、伪造注册商标标识的工具,违法经营额五万元以上的,可以处违法经营额五倍以下的罚款,没有违法经营额或者违法经营额不足五万元的,可以处二十五万元以下的罚款。对五年内实施两次以上商标侵权行为或者有其他严重情节的,应当从重处罚。销售不知道是侵犯注册商标专用权的商品,能证明该商品是自己合法取得并说明提供者的,由工商行政管理部门责令停止销售。”的规定,决定对当事人处罚如下:1、责令当事人立即停止侵权行为;2、罚款人民币2000万元。

       

      Heifei Administrative Authority Fines Entertainment Company 20 million Yuan for Infringing "Shanghai Beach" Registered Trade Mark

      Last year, Hefei Huibin Entertainment Management Co., Ltd. (Huibin), which operated the ‘Shanghai Beach’ nightclub in Yaohai District, Hefei, was fined CNY 20 million (approx. US$ 3million) by the Yaohai district market regulation administration for illegal use of the trademark ‘Shanghai Beach’. Recently, the administration issued a "Reminder for the Implementation of Administrative Penalty Decisions" requesting the company to pay the fine within the deadline.

      Pursuant to Article 60(2) of the China Trademark law, a trademark owner can commence infringement proceedings or request the relevant administrative department for industry and commerce to address an alleged infringement.  Where an administrative department holds that there is infringement, it orders the infringing party to cease the infringement and imposes a fine, calculated on the basis of illegal revenue as set out in the article. In this case, the owner of the ‘Shanghai Beach’ trademark made an appropriate request to the Yaohai district market regulation administration. 

      Huibin opened its ‘Shanghai Beach’ entertainment nightclub on 6 June 2016. In addition to using the ‘Shanghai Beach Entertainment Club’ plaque on the south side of the third floor of the hotel’s podium and the ‘Shanghai Beach’ text and graphics at the front of the hotel’s podium and at the reception on the third floor, Huibin made use of a large number of Shanghai Beach Consumption Details Cards throughout the whole company. On 3 May 2019, the officers of the administrative authority found that Huibin had infringed the trade mark and they    imposed a fine of CNY 20 million (approx. US$ 3million, based on the company's declaration that its value-added tax income for the period 1 October 2017 to 20 March 2019 was CNY 6,578,156.76  (approx. US$987,904.06). Huibin had, however, failed to provide the administration with income schedules and other relevant materials for the period 1 April 2016 to 30 September 2017, and had not paid the relevant fine within the deadline set by the authority.

       

      腾讯诉挂机刷量平台不正当竞争案一审获赔2000

      腾讯科技(深圳)有限公司因认为从事挂机刷量业务的深圳微时空信息技术有限公司及其法定代表人为微信公众号、小程序等刷阅读量、粉丝、评论、投票等行为严重破坏微信生态,构成不正当竞争,故将其诉诸法院。

      深圳市中级人民法院经审理认为,首先原被告双方皆围绕微信从事软件开发与服务,存在直接利益冲突,从而构成不正当竞争法意义上的竞争关系;同时,两被告以“微信小号轻松日赚100元”、“1元提现秒速到账”等方式进行虚假宣传,雇佣真实微信用户,租用大量的微信号码,为微信公众号和小程序提供刷阅读量、粉丝量、评论量、投票量等服务,构成“帮助他人虚假宣传”以及“妨碍、破坏网络产品或者服务正常运行”的不正当竞争行为。

      据此,深圳市中级人民法院对该不正当竞争纠纷案作出一审判决,被告公司及赵某需赔偿腾讯公司经济损失人民币2000万元,本案受理费30万元,连带赔偿原告为制止侵权行为支出的维权费20万元。

       

      Tencent Awarded CNY 20 Million Compensation (approx. US$ 3 million) in Unfair Competition Action against Click Farming Platforms

      Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (Tencent) brought an unfair competition action against a click farming company Shenzhen Weishikong Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Weishikong) and its legal representative, for inflating viewing figures on WeChat official accounts.  Tencent claimed that such behaviour seriously damaged the WeChat ecosystem, and constituted unfair competition.

      The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court held that both the Plaintiff and the Defendants are engaged in software development and services around WeChat, and are in a competitive relationship under the Anti-unfair Competition Law. Weishikong had engaged in false propaganda such as " You can easily earn 100 yuan a day with a WeChat alternative account (Alt) " and "1 yuan withdraws to the account in seconds".  It paid WeChat users to record ‘likes’ and favourable comments etc. in order to boost traffic to these particular WeChat accounts.  This constituted unfair competition by "engaging in false commercial promotion" and " hindering and disrupting the normal operation of Tencent’s cyber products and services".

      The Court ordered the Defendants to compensate Tencent for economic loss in the sum of CNY 20 million yuan (approx. US$ 3million) and other reasonable expenses amounting to CNY 500,000 yuan (approx. US$ 64,515.80). 

       

      百度在全国首例提供在线文库文档下载服务不正当竞争纠纷案中胜诉

      苏州梦西游网络科技有限公司(梦西游公司)通过提供插件等技术手段向用户提供北京百度网讯科技有限公司(百度公司)所运营的百度文库需用下载券下载的文档和付费文档的下载服务,百度公司认为此不正当竞争行为造成了百度文库的用户减少和流量降低,给其带来了严重的经济损失,故诉诸法院。 

      海淀法院经审理认为:首先,百度公司通过合法运营所积累起的百度文库文档和用户等经营资源,以及经营收益、市场份额及竞争优势皆属于反不正当竞争法所保护的合法权益。其次,梦西游公司的被诉行为破坏了百度文库的正常运营,且梦西游公司明知该行为的不正当性还采取隐蔽技术手段持续以此牟利,造成了百度公司竞争优势的削弱和增值收益的减少,因而构成不正当竞争。

      最后,鉴于尚无证据证明百度公司的实际损失或梦西游公司的非法获利情况,法院综合考虑各种涉案因素,并适用妨碍举证原则,最终判令梦西游公司向百度公司支付经济赔偿200万元及合理开支3万元。

      目前,梦西游公司已提起上诉。 

       

      Baidu Wins Unfair Competition Dispute Relating to Online Document Download Services

      Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (Baidu) operates Baidu Wenku, a portal for users to upload and share files and books, some of which can only be downloaded by paying download vouchers or fees. Suzhou Mengxiyou Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Mengxiyou) enabled users to download the material, without payment, by means of plug-in units or other technical measures. Baidu claimed that this amounted to unfair competition resulting in serious economic loss. It brought an unfair competition action against Mengxiyou in the Beijing Haidian District Court.

      The Court held that Baidu's operating resources, which included both Baidu Wenku users and the documents available for downloading, as well as its operating income, market share and competitive advantage which had been accumulated through legal operations, should be protected under the Anti-unfair Competition Law.

      Mengxiyou’s behaviour damaged the normal operation of Baidu Wenku. Mengxiyou had knowingly used illegal covert technical means to derive profits at Baidu’s expense, thereby weakening Baidu’s competitive advantage and reducing its value-added income.  Mengxiyou’s behaviour damaged Baidu Wenku’s normal operation and constituted unfair competition.

      As there was no evidence to establish Baidu’s actual loss or the illegal profit gained by Mengxiyou, the Court considered various factors and ordered Mengxiyou to pay economic compensation of CNY 2 million yuan (approx. US$ 300,000) and reasonable expenses of CNY 30,000 yuan (approx. US$ 4,507.89) to Baidu company.

      30% Complete
      Principal, Head of Shanghai Litigation Group
      +86 21 3251 9966
      Principal, Head of Shanghai Litigation Group
      +86 21 3251 9966