China IP,[Comprehensive Reports]

Chery Intended to Resist the Registration of Mercedes- Benz EQ trademark
Chery has officially submitted the objection of the registration of Mercedes-Benz EQ trademark to the Trademark Office of State Administration for Industry and Commerce. The ground is that this trademark approximates the registered "Chery eQ" trademark, which seriously infringes the priority right of Chery, as well as breaks the relevant provisions of the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China; hence, it should not be approved for registration.
The Second Instance of Miracle MU Game Plagiarism Case Pronounced a Judgment
Shanghai Intellectual Property Court issued a verdict on the second instance of “Miracle MU” case that the second instance appellant, the original trial defendants Guangzhou HugenStar Information Technology Co., Ltd., and Guangzhou Weedong Network Technology Co., Ltd. compensate the appellee Shanghai Zhuangyou Information Technology Co., Ltd. 4.1 million Yuan. Zhuangyou, the exclusive Chinese mainland operator of online game “Miracle MU” sued “Miracle Myth” for plagiarism. The court of first instance considered that the overall picture of the game could be protected by the Copyright Law as a film-like work, which is affirmed by Shanghai Intellectual Property Court in the second instance.
Taikang Life v. Online Lending Platform for Unfair Competition
Taikang Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Taikang) found that Jun’anxin (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (Jun’anxin) released relevant information about Taikang’s company name and a number of branches information on its Internet loan platform website, which caused an unfair competition. Taikang required Jun’anxin compensating for its economic losses of 500,000 Yuan. The People’s Court of Haidian District of Beijing issued a verdict of the unfair competition dispute that Jun’anxin constituted an act of unfair competition, and needs to compensate 100,000 Yuan.
Many Categories within Xiaomi’s Trademark Registrations Contain the Character of Mi
According to the trademark inquiries, Beijing Xiaomi Science and Technology Co. Ltd almost registered all the daily words with the character of “Mi”. The daily words include “rice grain” and “rice noodle” etc. After the proposal of “Mi” family concept, Miui also applied the registration including “our family” etc. Among them, there are 323 pieces of No. 9 scientific instrument trademarks, followed by 173 pieces of No. 42 web service trademarks, 160 pieces of No. 38 communications service trademarks, and 151 pieces of No. 35 advertisement sale trademarks.
Xiaomis Foldable Mobile Phone Patent Application Disclosed
On March 8, the Patent Office of State Intellectual Property Office announced the application from Beijing Xiaomi Science and Technology Co. Ltd. for the invention patent “binding mechanism for foldable mobile terminal and foldable mobile phones”. The patent application date is August 26, 2015. The patent content is similar to previously disclosed Samsung foldable devices patent. The middle of two mobile phone screens is bound by a special elastic flake, which is foldable to use.
Suning Established an Intellectual Property Protection Center
Under the guidance of the Intellectual Property Office of Jiangsu Province, Suning joined hands with Apple, Midea, Adidas and other 30 famous brands, as well as China- Britain Business Council (CBBC) and its intellectual property agency, establishing “Intellectual Property Protection Ecological Alliance” in Nanjing. Meanwhile, “Suning Intellectual Property Protection Center” also started operating. As long as the obligee or the brand party registers at Suning Intellectual Property Protection Center, they could complain or report any infringements at Suning. Once received complaints or reports, Suning will rapidly deal with it.
"Mei Tian" Seasoning Sentenced to Have Infringed Hai Tians Trademark
The Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan issued a verdict for the second trial of Foshan Hai Tian Flavoring & Food Co., Ltd. (Hai Tian) v. Jiangsu Yi Li Jia Shi Pin Co., Ltd. (Yi Li Jia), and Hohhot Mei Tian Food Co., Ltd. (Mei Tian) trademark infringement as well as unfair competition. The two defendants’ appeal was rejected, and the original judgment was affirmed. The two defendants should immediately stop the infringement of Hai Tian’s relevant registered trademark, and stop manufacturing and selling unauthorized products with “Hai Tian Soy Sauce” special decoration. Mei Tian should immediately stop using the character “Mei Tian” in its company name and compensate Hai Tian 1 million Yuan.
Huawei Defeats Samsung in Patent Battle in China
The Chinese smartphone-maker Huawei has won a patent victory over its South Korean rival Samsung. A Chinese court in Quanzhou has ordered the Galaxy S8-maker to pay 80 million Yuan to Huawei for infringing the firm’s smartphone cellular technologies. Huawei launched the legal action against Samsung last May and has subsequently followed with other claims filed in its home city of Shenzhen and California, covering more than 10 patents. It has alleged that more than 20 models of Samsung’s phones and tablets make use of its technologies without permission.
Beijing Intellectual Property Court Determined Baili Design Patent Valid
Beijing Intellectual Property Court returned a verdict of the Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (Apple) v. Patent Reexamination Board of State Intellectual Property Office (Patent Reexamination Board), and Shenzhen Baili Marketing Services Co., Ltd (Baili) administrative dispute of invalid design patent, and the court rejected Apple’s appeal. After the sentence, Apple did not make it clear whether to file an appeal or not.

Member Message

Only our members can leave a message,so please register or login.

International IP Firms
Inquiry and Assessment

Article Search


People watch

Online Survey

In your opinion, which is the most important factor that influences IP pledge loan evaluation?

Control over several core technologies for one product by different right owners
Stability of ownership of the pledge
Ownership and effectiveness of the pledge