Date: 2022-05-23
国家知识产权局批准设立了法国利维知识产权公司广州代表处、法国诺华技术股份有限公司广州代表处、美国北维专利代理有限责任公司苏州代表处。
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has approved the establishment of the Guangzhou Representative Office of Levy Intellectual Property Company, the Guangzhou Representative Office of Novartis Technologies Ltd. and the Suzhou Representative Office of Northway Patent Agency Ltd.
Data source: CNIPA (https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/art/2022/5/23/art_75_175701.html)
Date: 2022-05-25
《意见》包括七个部分共32条内容，明确人民法院加强区块链司法应用总体要求及人民法院区块链平台建设要求，提出区块链技术在提升司法公信力、提高司法效率、增强司法协同能力、服务经济社会治理等四个方面典型场景应用方向，明确区块链应用保障措施。该意见具有以下几个特点，分别是：第一，建成互通共享的司法区块链联盟。到2025年建成人民法院与社会各行各业互通共享的区块链联盟，形成中国特色、世界领先的区块链司法领域应用模式；第二，明确人民法院区块链平台建设要求。围绕推动司法区块链技术能力，支持当事人等主体对司法数据进行真伪核验展开；第三，提出运用区块链数据防篡改技术提升司法公信力。完善区块链存证的标准与规则，提升电子证据认定的效率和质量；第四，提出应用区块链优化业务流程提高司法效率，为多元纠纷调解与五个典型应用场景提供支持；第五，提出应用区块链互通联动促进司法协同，提高协同执行工作效率；最后，提出利用区块链联盟互信服务经济社会治理，构建区块链平台跨链协同应用机制。
The Opinion made up of 32 sections in parts clarify the overall requirements for the application of blockchain application in the judicial field and requirements for building the blockchain platforms of the people's courts; chart courses for four typical application scenarios where blockchain technology facilitates the enhancement of judicial credibility, judicial efficiency, judicial collaboration, and economic and social governance; and specify safety measures for blockchain application. The has the following key points: First, building a judicial blockchain alliance featuring interconnectivity and sharing. By 2025, a blockchain alliance featuring interconnectivity and sharing between the people's courts and all social sectors will be built, fostering a world-leading model of blockchain application in the judicial field with Chinese characteristics. Second, clarifying requirements on building the blockchain platforms of the people's courts. The promotion of judicial blockchain technology capabilities to support parties and other relevant subjects to verify the authenticity of judicial data. Third, proposing to utilize data tamper-proof technology of blockchain to enhance judicial credibility. Setting sound standards and rules for blockchain-based storage and improve the efficiency and quality of electronic evidence verification. Fourth, proposing to optimize business processes with blockchain application to constantly improve judicial efficiency. Provide support for diversified dispute resolution and five typical application scenarios. Fifth, proposing to leverage blockchain interconnectivity to enhance judicial collaboration. Sixth, proposing to exploit the mutual trustworthiness of the blockchain alliance to facilitate economic and social governance. Building an interoperation collaborative mechanism with blockchain platforms.
Data source: The Supreme People’s Court (https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-360281.html
Date: 2022-05-30
戴姆勒公司发现，上海同和汽配有限公司(同和公司)、上海同致汽车配件有限 公司(同致公司)在未获得其许可的情况下，擅自生产、销售侵犯其商标权的汽 车零部件，并长期共同侵权，故将二者诉至法院，请求判令同和公司、同致公司 立即停止侵权行为，共同赔偿经济损失及合理开支共计120万元，并刊登声明消 除影响。
一审法院经审理认为，同和公司销售的汽车配件上的标识与戴姆勒公司的商标构 成相同标识，但现有证据尚不足以证明同致公司与同和公司构成共同侵权。最终 ，一审法院判决同和公司立即停止商标侵权行为，刊登声明消除影响，赔偿戴姆 勒公司经济损失和合理开支共计80万元。同和公司不服，认为赔偿额过高并提起 上诉。
上海知识产权法院经审理认为，一审法院综合考虑同和公司存在的侵权事实而作出的民事判赔金额并未畸高，维持了一审赔偿额。
Daimler discovered Shanghai Tonghe Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (Tonghe) and Shanghai Tongzhi Auto Parts Co., Ltd. (Tongzhi) had for a long period of time without its permission produced and sold auto parts that infringed its trademark and jointly infringed. Daimler sued them and requested that Tonghe and Tongzhi be ordered to immediately stop the infringement and jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.2 million Yuan.
The first instance court held that the logo on the auto parts sold by Tonghe was identical to Daimler's trademark, but the available evidence was not sufficient to prove that Tongzhi and Tonghe had jointly infringed. In the end, the first instance court ruled that Tonghe should immediately cease trademark infringement, publish a statement to eliminate the impact of its activities, and compensate Daimler for economic damages and reasonable expenses totaling 800,000 Yuan. Tonghe appealed against the judgment, arguing that the amount of compensation was too high.
After hearing the case, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the amount of civil damages awarded by the court of first instance was not abnormally high considering the facts of infringement by Tonghe and upheld the amount of damages awarded at first instance
Data source: Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/UTaNQeFUkps5nNnium1reA)
