1. 1. Non-infringement, according to Article 22, Paragraph 6 of the Copyright Law: for school classroom teaching or scientific research, translate or copy a small amount of published works for teaching or scientific research personnel Use, but not publish or distribute. This behavior should be characterized as fair use, so there is no infringement

2. Infringement. The TOEFL test questions are divided into four parts: listening, grammar, reading and writing. They are developed and designed by ETS. From the perspective of the design and creation process , each test question requires multiple people to go through multiple steps and put in creative work to complete. It is original and is a work within the meaning of my country's copyright law and should be protected by my country's laws. The entire set of test questions compiled thus should also be protected by our country's laws. New Oriental School copied and distributed the TOEFL test questions for commercial purposes without the permission of the copyright owner ETS. Its use of the works exceeded the scope of reasonable use in classroom teaching. New Oriental School copied and sold the TOEFL test questions to the public. Your behavior has infringed ETS's copyright and you should bear corresponding legal responsibility.

3. No infringement. Although ETS has legally registered the TOEFL trademark in publications and audio tapes, New Oriental School prominently uses the word "TOEFL" in the "TOEFL Series Textbooks" and "TOEFL Listening Tapes". However, New Oriental School uses "TOEFL" descriptively or narratively. Its purpose is to explain and emphasize that the content of the publication is related to the TOEFL test, and to facilitate readers to know the content of the publication, but not to indicate the source of the publication and not to cause readers to misunderstand or confuse the source of the product.

2. 1. Infringement, infringement of the manufacturing rights and sales rights of the patent; whether the liability for compensation is judged based on whether the party has subjective fault, that is, whether he knew or should have known that he was engaged in to determine the infringement. Company W used the patent of Company H without permission, which was intentional and therefore should bear the corresponding liability for compensation

2. Infringement, infringement of the right to sell in the patent; the same as the above question, the behavior was subjective and intentional , bear liability for compensation; cannot continue to sell, because its behavior is infringing, and selling it will continue to infringe, which will cause further damage to the legitimate rights and interests of h company

3. Infringement, infringement of patent rights The right to use the product; there is no subjective fault in the behavior and no liability for compensation; the product cannot continue to be sold and the infringement must be stopped for the same reason as above. (See Article 33 of the "Patent Administrative Enforcement Measures")

3. 1. To determine whether a trademark is similar,

First of all, the general attention of the relevant public should be used as the standard;

p>

Secondly, you should conduct "isolated observation and comparison", "significant part comparison" and "overall observation and comparison" of the trademarks to determine whether they are similar;

Finally, consider the distinctiveness and similarity of the trademarks. visibility.

In this case, "Huabiao" and "Huadeng", I personally think there will be no cognitive confusion, because the pronunciation and glyphs are different, so I think they are not similar

2 , the trademark decoration infringes Huadeng’s trademark rights; reason: Article 50, paragraph 1, of the "Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law": on the same or similar goods, use a mark that is the same or similar to another person’s registered trademark as a trade name or product Decorative use to mislead the public is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as described in Article 52 (5) of the Trademark Law.

3. Should bear infringement liability; reasons: 1. The act is an infringement. Article 50, paragraph 2, of the "Regulations on the Implementation of the Trademark Law": Intentionally providing warehousing, transportation, Convenient conditions such as mailing and concealment are acts of infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as described in Article 52 (5) of the Trademark Law. As long as it is an infringement, we must bear the responsibility to stop the infringement and return the infringement proceeds; 2. The Beijing winery sent a letter to the warehousing company, but it ignored it. Regardless of whether it was intentional before, from this moment on, it can be determined to be intentional. Because it is subjective and intentional, you must bear the liability for compensation (note that legal liability and liability for compensation are different)

4. You should bear the liability for infringement; reasons: 1. The behavior is infringement, and the "Trademark Law" Article 52, Paragraph 2: Selling goods that infringe upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark.

As long as it is an infringement, you must bear the responsibility to stop the infringement and return the infringement proceeds; 2. The Beijing Winery sent a letter to the mall, but it ignored it. Regardless of whether it was intentional before, from this moment on, it can be determined to be intentional. Because it is subjective and intentional, you must bear the liability for compensation.

IV. 1. First, let’s analyze student L’s behavior:

L’s translation without S’s permission infringes on S’s translation rights in copyright, that is, without the permission of the author Authorization is granted, and others may not translate the work into other languages ??at will. The right to translate an original work is a property right of the copyright holder of the original work. Translators enjoy copyright in the works they translate, but they must not infringe upon the copyright of the author of the original work when exercising their copyright. That is to say, if L publishes a translation in a magazine, he must also obtain the consent of the original author S, otherwise it will be an infringement.

2. The behavior of "Leisure": its defense is not established. 1. Among the conditions stipulated in my country's Copyright Law for foreigners' works to be protected by my country's copyright, one is that if their works are published in a country that is a party to an international treaty to which China is a party, they can be protected by my country's copyright. The United States is a party to the TRIPs Agreement, so S's articles published in American newspapers are protected by my country's copyright law. 2. Copyright not only includes personal rights, but also property rights. It is obviously unreasonable for "Leisure" to refuse to pay remuneration for using S's name on the translation.

3. The defense of "After Tea and Dinner" is not completely established. 1. The translation does fall within the scope of statutory permission, and remuneration should be paid to L. 2. L's translation is based on S's article and is a derivative work. Therefore, when reprinting the translation, it is also equivalent to reprinting S's work. Based on statutory permission, Corresponding remuneration should be paid to S.

5. Think about it yourself, it shouldn’t be a problem

I have been playing for more than an hour... I hope it can help you