SPC Issues White Paper on Intellectual Property Protection in 2020
The Supreme People's Court has issued a White Paper on Intellectual Property Protection in 2020, which, among other things, reviews and summarizes intellectual property cases in 2020.
According to the White Paper, in 2020, the people's courts received 525,618 cases at first and second instance, and applications for retrial, up 9.2% from 2019, and concluded 524,387 cases, up 10.2% from 2019.
In 2020, the Supreme People's Court received 3,470 new intellectual property civil cases, up 38.58% from 2019, and concluded 3,260, up 64.98% from 2019. Local people's courts at all levels received 443,326 civil IP cases at first instance (up 11.1% from 2019), and concluded 442,722, (up 12.22% from 2019). Of these first instance cases, 28,528 were new patent cases, an increase of 28.09%; 7,815,700 were trade mark cases, an increase of 19.86%; 313,497 were copyright cases, an increase of 6.97%; 3,277 were technical contract cases, an increase of 4.53%; 4,723 were anti-unfair competitive cases, an increase of 14.41%; 15,144 were other intellectual property civil cases, an increase of 34.96%. Local people's courts at all levels received 42,975 civil IP cases at second instance, a decrease of 13.54%, and concluded 43,511 cases, a decrease of 10.67%.
In the same period, the Supreme People’s Court received 1,909 new intellectual property administrative cases, up 79.08%, and concluded 1735, up 96.27%. Local people's courts at all levels received 18,464 new intellectual property administrative cases, an increase of 14.44%, and concluded 17,942 cases, an increase of four cases over 2019. Of these local people’s court cases, 1,417 were new patent cases, a decrease of 14.69%; 17,035 were trade mark cases, up 17.83%; 12 were copyright cases, four fewer than in 2019. Local people's courts at all levels received 6,092 intellectual property administrative cases at second instance, a decrease of 16.59%, and concluded 6,183, an increase of 4.06%.
最高法发布《2020年知识产权司法保护白皮书》
发文日期：2021-04-22
最高人民法院发布《中国法院知识产权司法保护2020》白皮书（下称《白皮书》），对2020年人民法院知识产权案件审判工作进行了全面梳理和总结。《白皮书》显示，2020年人民法院新收一审、二审、申请再审等各类知识产权案件525618件，审结524387件，比2019年分别上升9.1%和10.2%。
2020年，最高人民法院新收知识产权民事案件3470件，审结3260件，比2019年分别上升38.58%和64.98%。地方各级人民法院新收知识产权民事一审案件44.3326万件，审结44.2722万件，比2019年分别上升11.1%和12.22%。其中，新收专利案件2.8528万件，同比上升28.09%；商标案件7.8157万件，同比上升19.86%；著作权案件31.3497 万件，同比上升6.97%；技术合同案件3277件，同比上升4.53%；竞争类案件4723件，同比上升14.41%；其他知识产权民事纠纷案件1.5144万件，同比上升34.96%。地方各级人民法院新收知识产权民事二审案件4.2975万件，审结4.3511万件，同比分别下降13.54%和10.67%。
2020年，最高人民法院新收知识产权行政案件1909件，审结1735件，比2019年分别上升79.08%和96.27%。地方各级人民法院新收知识产权行政一审案件1.8464 万件，比2019年上升14.44%，审结1.7942万件，比2019年增加4件。其中，新收专利案件1417件，同比下降14.69%；商标案件1.7035万件，同比上升17.83%；著作权案件12件，比2019年减少4件。地方各级人民法院新收知识产权行政二审案件6092件，审结6183件，比2019年分别下降16.59%和上升4.06%。其中，维持原判4828件，改判1214件，发回重审2件，撤诉114件，驳回起诉4件，其他21件。
资料来源：最高人民法院 2021-04-22
Third party ‘Snake Head’ Graphic Trade Mark Invalidated in Administrative Action brought by Bulgari
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has reversed a decision of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and invalidated a third-party registration of a graphic representation of Bulgari Co. Ltd’s ‘snake head’ design.
On 28 April 2019, CNIPA ruled that the evidence submitted by Bulgari Co. Ltd (Bulgari) was not sufficient to prove that it owned copyright in the ‘snake head’ graphic: registration of the trade mark in dispute had not violated Article 32 of the 2014 Trademark Law. Bulgari then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court found that Bulgari’s ‘snake head’ graphics constituted original artistic works for the purposes of China’s copyright law. Further, the evidence in the case proved that Bulgari had enjoyed copyright in the works prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark in dispute, and had publicised and used the works on commodities such as bags. The Defendant, Liu Mou, had also been involved in the business of selling bags, which meant that the business scope of the parties overlapped, and it was possible that the Defendant had been aware of the works involved. Finally, both the trade marks in dispute and the copyright works involved were similar in overall appearance, basic composition and visual effect. Liu's registration of the trade mark in dispute, therefore, violated the provisions of the first half of Article 32 of the trade mark law. The CNIPA ruling was not soundly based.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the registered trade mark in dispute infringed the copyright in Bulgari’s art works. It cancelled the ruling of the CNIPA and ordered it to make a new ruling.
宝格丽“蛇头”图形商标行政案一审胜诉
日期： 2021-04-01
近日北京知识产权法院审结了一起“蛇头”图形商标权无效行政纠纷案，北京知识产权法院支持了原告宝格丽公司的诉讼请求，撤销被诉裁定，判令国家知识产权局重新作出裁定。
2019年4月28日，国家知识产权局作出裁定，认为宝格丽公司提交的在案证据不足以证明其享有“蛇头”图形的著作权，故在案证据不足以证明诉争商标的注册违反了2014年商标法第三十二条，裁定对诉争商标予以维持。宝格丽公司不服该裁定，向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。
北京知识产权法院经审理认为，宝格丽公司所主张的涉案作品为蛇头图形，具有一定审美意义，其表现形式具备美术作品应当具备的法律意义上的独创性，属于我国著作权法保护的美术作品。其次，在案证据可以证明宝格丽公司在诉争商标申请日前已经合法享有涉案作品的著作权或为该涉案作品的利害关系人。宝格丽公司在诉争商标申请日前对涉案作品在包等商品上进行了宣传和使用，且第三人陈述其亦曾进行过包商品的经营，双方经营范围存在重合部分，故刘某具有接触涉案作品的可能性。最后，将诉争商标与涉案作品进行比较，二者均是以蛇头为原型的图形，且在整体外观轮廓、图形基本构成、视觉效果等方面的表达方式相近，独创性较低，构成实质性相似。因此，刘某对诉争商标的注册违反了商标法第三十二条前半段的规定，国家知识产权局认定有误。
北京知产法院一审认定第三人刘某注册的第15911982号图形商标（以下简称诉争商标）侵害了原告宝格丽股份有限公司（以下简称宝格丽公司）享有的美术作品著作权，因此撤销国家知识产权局作出的商评字〔2019〕第88366号关于第15911982号图形商标无效宣告请求裁定，判令其重新作出裁定。
来源：京法网事 2021-04-01
链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/v66S76gCv6Dc2oinlnx_gg
Appeal Court finds in Honda’s favour in copyright infringement action concerning use of CAD drawings to build Honda Automobile Sales Serviceshop 4S
In 2004, Wuhan Xinjianye Advertising Decoration Co., Ltd. (Wuhan Xinjianye) signed a design contract with Dongfeng Honda Automobile Co., Ltd. (Honda), for the image and architectural structure design of Dongfeng Honda Automobile Sales Servicshop 4S. The contract did not make any provision in relation to ownership of copyright in the designs. When Honda went ahead and built the Serviceshop 4S without involving Wuhan Xinjianye further, Wuhan Xinjianye sued Honda claiming infringement of its copyright and seeking compensation of 150,000 yuan (approx. US$ 23,548) for economic loss on the basis that, in building the Dongfeng Honda Automobile Sales Servicshop 4S, Honda and others had made unauthorised use of its CAD drawings (i.e. construction drawings) and other artistic works.
At first instance, the People's Court of Haidian District of Beijing held that Wuhan Xinjianye’s CAD drawings and other artistic works were original and constituted graphic and artistic works for the purposes of the Copyright Law. They did not constitute ‘architectural works’ as ‘architectural work’ refers to the building itself. Although Wuhan Xinjianye is the owner of copyright in the CAD drawings, Honda had an implied licence to use the drawings for the purpose for which they were created. It had not, therefore, infringed copyright. The court rejected all Wuhan Xinjianye’s claims.
Wuhan Xinjianye appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which recently handed down a final judgment, rejecting the appeal and upholding the decision of the People’s Court of Haidian District.
本田4S店建筑作品侵权案终审驳回上诉
日期： 2021-04-13
2004年，武汉新建业广告装饰有限公司（下称武汉新建业公司）与东风本田汽车有限公司（下称受本田公司）签订了设计合同书，约定由其接受该公司的委托，进行东风本田4S店的形象设计和建筑结构设计。该合同对所涉建筑作品的著作权归属并未进行约定，由此引发了著作权纠纷。因认为本田公司等擅自使用其享有著作权的CAD图（即建筑施工图）和效果图建设东风本田4S店，武汉新建业公司将本田公司诉至法院，要求停止侵权并赔偿经济损失15万元。
北京市海淀区人民法院一审认为，CAD图及效果图具有独创性，应属作品范畴。至于二者应归属何种作品类型，在我国著作权法规范框架下，建筑作品仅指建筑物本身，故二者并不构成建筑作品。结合我国著作权法中对于图形作品和美术作品的定义，以及CAD图和效果图的特征、用途等，CAD图应属图形作品，效果图应属美术作品。武汉新建业公司虽系CAD图的著作权人，但已授权本田公司使用该图纸建设东风本田4S店，故本田公司及从本田公司处获得CAD图纸的国机公司和德成公司均不构成侵权。最后，法院判决驳回了武汉新建业公司全部诉讼请求。
武汉新建业公司不服一审判决提起上诉，请求撤销一审判决。近日，北京知识产权法院对该案作出终审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。
来源：中国国际贸易促进委员会 2021-04-13
链接：http://www.ccpit.org/Contents/Channel_4133/2021/0419/1337896/content_1337896.htm
Tencent Wins Trade Mark Infringement and Anti-Unfair Competition Action against owner of ‘Chain Town’ app
In 2018, China tech giant Tencent launched its hugely successful video streaming website, Tencent Video. By early 2019, it had over 900 million mobile active users and 89 million VIP subscribers. The Defendant, Longyao (Tianjin) E-commerce Co., Ltd (Longyao) subsequently developed an app ‘Chain Town’ that offered pirated Tencent Video content for a very low membership fee and made use of the Tencent trade mark to attract subscribers. Three Tencent companies, Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd., Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Longyao (Tianjin) E-commerce Co., Ltd. brought a trade mark infringement and unfair competition action in the Tianjin Third Intermediate People's Court.
The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendant had, without permission, used a Tencent registered trade mark in relation to its ‘Chain Town’ app leading to confusion and misunderstanding among relevant members of the public and loss of users of the Tencent Video app, causing Tencent economic loss and other damage. Further, it had engaged in unfair competition by offering users of the ‘Chain Town’ app pirated versions of Tencent Video content for a very low price.
The Court held that Longyao had used Tencent’s registered trade mark in relation to the services for which it was registered, thereby infringing Tencent’s exclusive registered trade mark right. Further, its mode of operation, including the offering of pirated content, amounted to unfair competition which not only seriously infringed the legal interests of the Plaintiff, but also seriously disrupted market order.
The Defendant was ordered to immediately stop infringing Tencent’s registered trade mark and engaging in unfair competition, and pay compensation for economic loss and reasonable expenses in the sum of 50 million yuan (approx. US$ 8 million).
腾讯公司商标侵权及反不正当竞争纠纷案一审胜诉
日期： 2021-04-25
近日，深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司、腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司等与隆耀（天津）电子商务有限公司侵害商标权纠纷一审民事判决书公布，审理法院为天津市第三中级人民法院。原告为腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司等3家腾讯系公司，被告为隆耀（天津）电子商务有限公司。
原告诉称，被告未经许可，在其经营的“链上小镇”APP的在线视频播放服务中使用与原告注册商标相同或近似的标识；被告实施的被诉侵权行为造成“腾讯视频”相关商标的混淆误认、腾讯视频APP的用户流失、经济损失等损害，给原告造成巨大损害并产生不良影响。
法院经审理认为，隆耀公司在与涉案商标同一种服务上使用了相同的标识，侵犯了腾讯数码公司、腾讯计算机公司以及腾讯科技公司享有的注册商标专用权。同时，隆耀公司通过“链上小镇”APP盗播热门影视剧的非法手段，大量吸引用户并发展具有上下线关系的用户群，抽取用户“津贴”赚取非法利益，不仅严重侵害原告的合法利益，还严重扰乱市场秩序，严重影响互联网行业“内容”换“流量”的商业模式，应属于不正当竞争行为。
法院一审判决隆耀（天津）电子商务有限公司立即停止实施侵害腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司、腾讯数码（天津）有限公司享有的注册商标专用权的行为及不正当竞争行为；并赔偿后者经济损失及维权合理开支共计5000万元等。
来源：商法新闻 2021-04-25