Notice of CNIPA on Continuing to Severely Crack Down on Malicious Registration of Trademarks
According to the Notice of CNIPA on Continuing to Severely Crack Down on Malicious Registration of Trademarks (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice"), malicious hoarding and malicious rush registration of trademarks featured with "hoarding trademarks", "squatting celebrity names or well-known companies" and "newsjacking" should be forbidden, and typical illegal acts that violate the principle of good faith, public order and good customs and disrupt the order of trademark registration for the sake of illegitimate interests should also be zeroed.
The Notice highlights ten kinds of typical illegal acts to be cracked down on:
(I) malicious rush registration with the same or similar marks as important Party meetings, important theories, scientific assertions and political discourses;
(II) malicious rush registration with the same or similar marks as national strategies, national policies, major projects, major scientific and technological projects, important events with high popularity, important exhibitions and major archaeological discoveries;
(III) malicious rush registration with the marks specific to major sensitive events or emergencies such as major public health events;
(IV) malicious rush registration with the names of political, economic, cultural, ethnic, religious and other public figures with high reputation;
(V) where the number of trademark registration applications obviously exceeds the needs of normal business activities without real intention to use;
(VI) copying, imitating, or plagiarizing a large number of trademarks or other commercial marks with certain popularity or strong distinctiveness of multiple subjects;
(VII) a large number of applications for registration with the same or similar marks as public cultural resources, administrative division names, common names of goods or services and industry terms;
(VIII) transferring a large number of trademarks to several assignees, disrupting the order of trademark registration;
(IX) where the trademark agency knows or should know that the assigner engages in any of the above-mentioned acts, but still accepts the assignment or disrupts the order of trademark agency by other improper means;
(X) Other circumstances that may cause significant negative or adverse impacts on the order of trademark registration management, the societal public interest and public order in China.
In addition, the Notice also points out that for the purpose of strengthening crackdown on malicious trademark registration, monitoring and early warning, system governance, agency supervision, credit supervision, coordination and cooperation, system guarantees, and positive guidance should be strengthened.
The Group Standard of Guidelines for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Cross-border E-commerce Released
Recently, the CCPIT Commercial Sub-Council, together with the China (Heilongjiang) Intellectual Property Protection Center and 8 other units, compiled the group standard: Guide for Intellectual Property Protection of Cross-border Electronic Commerce. This Guide stipulates the general rules of intellectual property protection of cross-border electronic commerce, cross-border electronic commerce platform operators and consumers, cross-border electronic commerce service providers, evaluation and improvement.
As the first industry standard in the field of intellectual property, this Guide will provide guidance and foundation for the intellectual property protection of cross-border electronic commerce, help standardize transaction behaviors of various stakeholders, help small and medium-sized enterprises to enhance their intellectual property protection capabilities and further optimize the business environment. In this way, the intellectual property protection work will play a big role in advancing the high-quality development of cross-border electronic commerce.
Beijing IP Court Trialed China's First Case of Patent Linkage
Recently, the first verdict of Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Chugai Pharma") v.s. Wenzhou Haihe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Haihe Pharma) was declared. After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the generic drug in question in this case did not fall within the protection scope of the patent right in question in this case, and ruled to dismiss the plaintiff's litigation claims. This case is the first drug patent link litigation case in China since the implementation of the new Patent Law.
In this case, the plaintiff, Chugai Pharma (No. 200580009877.6), is the patentee of the ED-71 preparation, and is also the marketing authorization holder of the relevant marketed patent drug "Eldecalcitol Soft Capsules". The plaintiff registered the above-mentioned drug and the patent in question in this case on the Chinese Marketed Drug Patent Information Record Platform. The plaintiff found that the defendant, Haihe Pharma, applied to the state food and drug administration authorities for the marketing authorization of a generic drug with the registration name of "Eldecalcitol Soft Capsules", and also made a Category 4.2 statement on the Chinese Marketed Drug Patent Information Record Platform on the above-mentioned generic drug, stating that its generic drug did not fall within the protection scope of relevant patent right. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, requesting confirmation that the generic drug "Eldecalcitol Soft Capsules" applied for registration by the defendant fell within the protection scope of the patent in question in this case.
After trial, the court held that the technical solution used by the generic drug in question in this case was neither the same as nor the equal to the technical solution of claim 1 of the patent in question in this case, so the technical solution did not fall within the protection scope of claim 1 of the patent in question in this case; claims 2-6 are subordinate claims to claim 1, and where the technical solution of the generic drug in question in this case did not fall within the protection scope of claim 1, they did not fall within the protection scope of claims 2-6. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims hereby.