CHINA: Bad Faith Registration Can Be Unfair Competition - International Trademark Association inta.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from inta.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Facts
New Balance was a major sport footwear manufacturer, known primarily for its high quality and high-performance sneakers with the iconic N logo. In 1983 New Balance registered the following trademark in Class 25 in China:
Figure 1: New Balance logo 1
In 2014 New Balance registered another representation of the logo (Figure 2), also in Class 25:
Figure 2: New Balance logo 2
In 2010 Hainan Qierte Investment LLC filed applications for the following two trademarks in Class 25:
Figure 3: disputed marks
In 2012 Hainan Qierte Investment LLC obtained the registration of these marks. In 2013 both marks were assigned to another company, Qierte Co Ltd.
On 7 January 2014 New Balance brought an invalidation action against the disputed marks before the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), citing the following articles of the Trademark Law 2001:
April 28 2021
Not all artificial intelligence (AI)-related innovations are suitable for patent protection. Some innovations with improved AI algorithms may not have a specific application field that can fit into the protection of patent, and some AI-related IP rights are not protected by the Patent Law, e.g. the data itself.
In these scenarios, the AI software owner may consider protecting it as a trade secret. Considering the nature of secrecy of trade secrets, the advantage of protecting AI algorithms or softwares in this form is that the ‘idea’ of products can be concealed.
On September 10 2020, the Supreme Court of China announced the judicial interpretation titled “Provisions of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Civil Cases of Infringement of Trade Secrets” (hereinafter referred to as ‘new judicial interpretation’).
Published: April 14, 2021
Anna Mae Koo Vivien Chan & Co. Beijing, China INTA Bulletins Asia Pacific Subcommittee
The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China came into effect on January 1, 2021. Among its approximately 50 new articles relating to intellectual property (IP), one significant impact is the introduction of punitive damages in a broadened scope of IP infringement cases involving “intentional” and “serious” infringements. Here’s a look at what to expect, based on analysis of existing guidelines and past cases.
Punitive Damages for All IP Infringement
Prior to the introduction of the Civil Code, punitive damages were available only with respect to “bad faith” and “serious” tr
[co-author: Stefaan Meuwissen]
The new Interpretation provides flesh to the bare bones of the provisions on punitive damages contained in China’s specific IP laws, which largely omit details on their specific application. The Interpretation clarifies particularly when the conditions for punitive damages, i.e. serious and intentional infringement, will be considered to be met; the basis on which the courts should calculate punitive damages; as well as guidelines for the specific amount at which punitive damages may be set by the courts. The Interpretation will doubtlessly have a profound impact on China’s IP practice, and the clarification it brings will encourage IP owners to make increasing use of punitive damages in China.