News and Cases from China: June 2018

“最强大脑”商标权之争

近日,北京知识产权法院受理了长江龙新媒体有限公司和恩德莫尚(北京)文化传媒有限公司分别就“最强大脑”商标提出的商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷的两起案件。20152月,长江龙公司申请的“最强大脑”的商标获得核准注册,使用类别为41类教育、培训、节目制作、电视文娱节目等服务上。恩德莫尚公司认为“最强大脑”商标经使用已成为自己在先使用并有一定知名度的商标,而长江龙公司的注册行为存在恶意,违反了诚实信用原则,20174月恩德莫尚公司对该商标提出无效宣告申请。

商评委决定认定:争议商标在广播电视节目制作、节目制作、电视文娱节目服务上的注册具有不正当利用“最强大脑”节目知名度的故意,损害了恩德莫尚公司对“最强大脑”知名商品名称所享有的在先权益。恩德莫尚公司的无效宣告理由部分成立,诉争商标在广播电视节目制作、节目制作、电视文娱节目服务上予以无效宣告,在其余服务上予以维持。恩德莫尚公司和长江龙公司均不服,并先后起诉至北京知产法院。目前,上述两案正在进一步审理中。

Trademark Dispute in relation to ‘The Brain Shows’ trademark

Recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court accepted two cases in relation to Changjiang Dragon New Media Co., Ltd’s applications to register ‘The Brain Shows’ trademark. 

The application for registration in Class 41 was accepted; other applications filed by Changjiang Dragon were refused. Changjiang Dragon has appealed the refusal. 

In relation to the Class 41 application, another company, EndemoiShine (Beijing) Co., Ltd, has filed invalidation proceedings, claiming that it had already used, and acquired a reputation in, ‘The Brain Shows’ trademark in relation to the production of radio and television programs.  It claims that Changjiang Dragon’s application was made in bad faith. The Trademark Review Board concluded that EndemoiShine had prior rights in the mark in relation to those services. Changjiang was, however, entitled to registration in relation to the other services.

 

Both parties have appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.  A decision is awaited.

 

称被擅播《虎啸龙吟》《湄公河行动》,优酷起诉索赔900

522日,优酷因北京静静科技有限公司擅自在“范特西视频”网站播《虎啸龙吟》、《湄公河行动》而提起诉讼索赔900万。优酷公司称,其在支付版权费用后依法取得了依法取得了《虎啸龙吟》和《湄公河行动》的独家信息网络传播权,对《虎啸龙吟》《湄公河行动》两部影视作品享有独播权。而“范特西视频”网站具有庞大的用户群众,影响力较大。其擅自播放行为主观上有过错,客观上给优酷公司造成损害后果, 因而要求其分别赔偿经济损失及合理支出800万、100万,两案共计索赔900万。

目前,此案正在北京市海淀区人民法院进行进一步审理。

 

Youku brings copyright infringement proceedings against broadcaster of two TV Series: Growling Tiger,Roaring Dragon and Operation Mekong

On 22 May, Youku brought copyright infringement proceedings against Beijing Jingjing Technology Co., Ltd.(Jingjing Technology) for broadcasting the TV series Growling Tiger, Roaring Dragon and Operation Mekong, on its Fantasy Video website without permission.  Youku claimed RMB 9 million (approx. US$ 1,332,000)

Youku claimed to be the exclusive licensee of information network communication rights and exclusive broadcasting rights in the two TV series and that, because the Fantasy Video website is influential with a huge user base, the unauthorized broadcasting of the series had caused huge damage. Youku claimed compensation for economic losses and reasonable costs in the sum of RMB 8,000,000 (approx. US$ 1,184,000) and RMB 1,000,000 (approx. US$ 148,000) respectively. In total, the amount claimed is RMB 9,000,000 (approx. US$ 1,332,000).

The case is currently under further consideration in the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing.

 

音乐家林海起诉海底捞侵犯其著作权,海底捞回应:愿意承担责任

61日,知名音乐家林海向北京市海淀区人民法院提起诉讼,称海底捞恶意侵犯其音乐作品著作权。林海在起诉状中称,其对包括但不限于《踏古》、《琵琶语》、《对歌》等音乐作品享有著作权。海底捞未经其许可,将其作品作为背景音乐,在其各门店不间断循环公开播放,严重侵害了其就涉案音乐作品享有的包括署名权、复制权和表演权等在内的著作权。

海底捞公司于613日作出回应,称公司之前与林海先生签订过《林海先生作品授权协议》,约定授权期限为20151119日到20171118日。在授权到期后未能完成续约是公司失误,继续使用林海作品是公司的错误。海底捞已经停止播放林海的音乐,并愿意承担相应的法律责任。此案目前仍在审理过程中。

Musician Lin Hai Sues HaiDiLao for Copyright Infringement

On1 June, the famous musician Lin Hai filed a lawsuit in the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing, claiming that HaiDiLao Company had maliciously infringed copyright in his musical works. Lin Hai claimed copyright in musical works including, but not limited to, A Journey into History, The Word of Pipa and Songs. He claimed that HaiDiLao had used his works without authorization as background music, playing them continuously in its stores.  This amounted to a serious infringement of his copyright including his rights of authorship, reproduction and performance.

HaiDiLao Company responded on 13  June, stating that it had previously signed a Licence Agreement with Lin Hai, pursuant to which it had been granted the right to use the works  from 19 November, 2015 to 18 November, 2017. It had failed to complete a renewal after expiration of the agreement, but continued using the works. It had, however, now stopped playing Lin Hai’s music and was willing to accept its legal responsibilities. The case is still in the process of trial.

 

国家知识产权局:81日起停征和调整部分专利收费

620日,国家知识产权局发布《关于停征和调整部分专利收费的公告》(下称《公告》),宣布将于201881日起停征和调整部分专利收费。

根据《公告》,停征专利收费(国内部分)中的专利登记费、公告印刷费、著录事项变更费(专利代理机构、代理人委托关系的变更),PCT(《专利合作条约》)专利申请收费(国际阶段部分)中的传送费,但缴费期限届满日在2018731日(含)之前的除外。

此外,对符合《专利收费减缴办法》(财税〔201678号)有关条件的专利申请人或者专利权人,专利年费的减缴期限由自授权当年起6年内,延长至10年内。对于2018731日(含)前已准予减缴的专利,作如下处理:处于授权当年起6年内的,年费减缴期限延长至第10年;处于授权当年起7-9年的,自下一年度起继续减缴年费直至10年;处于授权当年起10年及10年以上的,不再减缴年费。

同时,对进入实质审查阶段的发明专利申请,在第一次审查意见通知书答复期限届满前(已提交答复意见的除外)主动申请撤回的,可以请求退还50%的专利申请实质审查费。

 

SIPO Suspends and Adjusts certain Patent Fees from 1 August

On 20 June, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) issued its Announcement on the Suspended Collection and Adjustment of Some Patent Charges (Announcement), effective from 1 August, 2018.

The Announcement provides:

  1. SIPO will stop the collection of: (1) some domestic patent fees, e.g.. patent registration fees, certain alteration and printing fees; and (2) the transfer fee (international phase part) in PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) patent applications, except for charges due before 31 July, 2018 (inclusive).
  2. For patent applicants or owners who satisfy the ‘Measures for the Reduction of Patent Fees’, the period of reduced or deferred patent annuity payments will be extended from the current six years from grant to ten years from grant. Patents in relation to which an annuity fee reduction has been approved before 31 July 2018 shall be dealt with as follows: for patents that have been granted for less than six years, the period of reduced or deferred payments shall be extended to the tenth year; for patents that have been granted for seven to nine years, the reduced fees shall apply until the end of the tenth year.

3.  If an applicant for an invention patent proactively withdraws his application after it has entered the substantive examination stage, but before expiry of the period for the first notice of examination, he will, provided the examination opinion has not yet issued, be entitled to a refund of 50% of the substantive examination fee.