2. infringement. TOEFL test questions are divided into four parts: listening, grammar, reading and writing. ETS is responsible for development and design. As far as the design and creation process is concerned, each test requires many people to go through multiple steps and pay creative labor to complete. Works that are original and belong to the meaning of China's copyright law should be protected by China's laws. The whole set of test questions compiled from this should also be protected by our laws. Without the permission of the copyright owner ETS, New Oriental School copied and distributed TOEFL test questions in the form of public sale for the purpose of commercial operation. The use of works has gone beyond the scope of reasonable use in classroom teaching. The plagiarism and public sale of TOEFL test questions by New Oriental School has infringed the copyright of ETS and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities.
3. No infringement. Although ETS legally registered the trademark of TOEFL in publications and audio tapes, New Oriental School highlighted the word "TOEFL" in "TOEFL series textbooks" and "TOEFL listening tapes", but the use of "TOEFL" in New Oriental School is descriptive or narrative. Its purpose is to explain and emphasize that the contents of the publication are related to the TOEFL test, so as to facilitate readers to understand the contents of the publication, not to indicate the source of the publication, and not to cause readers to misunderstand and confuse the source of the goods.
Second, 1, infringement, infringement of the manufacturing right and sales right in the patent right; Whether to bear the liability for compensation is judged according to whether the parties have subjective fault, that is, whether they know or should know that they have engaged in tort. W company's unauthorized use of H company's patent is of course intentional and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
2. Infringement of patent rights and sales rights; The same as the above problems, the behavior is subjective and intentional, and it is liable for compensation; Can not continue to sell, because its behavior belongs to infringement, sales belong to continuous infringement, which will further damage the legitimate rights and interests of H company.
3. Infringement and infringement of patent use rights; There is no subjective fault in behavior and no liability for compensation; If you can't continue to sell, you must stop the infringement, and the same is true. (See Article 33 of the Measures for the Administrative Enforcement of Patents)
Third, 1, judge whether the trademarks are similar,
First, it should be based on the general concern of the relevant public;
Secondly, make "isolated observation and comparison", "significant part comparison" and "overall observation and comparison" on trademarks to judge whether they are similar;
Finally, the significance and popularity of trademarks.
Personally, I don't think "Hua Biao" and "Deng Hua" in this case will be confused in cognition, because the pronunciation and font are different, so I think they are not similar.
2. The decoration of the trademark infringes the trademark right of Deng Hua; Reason: Paragraph 1 of Article 50 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law: It is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark to mislead the public by using the same or similar mark on the same or similar goods.
3, should bear tort liability; Reason: 1. This behavior violates the exclusive right of a registered trademark. Paragraph 2 of Article 50 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law: Whoever intentionally provides convenient conditions such as storage, transportation, mailing and concealment for the infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark belongs to the infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as stipulated in Item 5 of Article 52 of the Trademark Law. As long as it is infringement, it must bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement and returning the infringement income; Second, Beijing Winery sent a letter to the storage company, and the storage company ignored it, regardless of whether it was intentional before. From this moment on, it can be considered intentional. Because it is subjective and intentional, it should be liable for compensation (note that legal liability is different from liability for compensation).
4, should bear tort liability; Reason: 1. This kind of behavior is an infringement. Paragraph 2 of Article 52 of the Trademark Law stipulates that the sale of 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 infringement, it must bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement and returning the infringement income; 2. Beijing Winery sent a letter to the shopping mall, which ignored it. Whether it was intentional before or not, from this moment on, it can be regarded as intentional. Because it is subjective and intentional, it should be liable for compensation.
Fourth, 1, first analyze the behavior of student L:
L Translation without S's permission infringes S's translation right in copyright, that is, without the authorization of the author, others are not allowed to translate the work into other languages at will. The translation right of the original work is the property right of the original copyright owner. Translators enjoy copyright in their translated works, but when exercising copyright, they shall not damage the copyright of the author of the original works. In other words, the translation of L in magazines must also be approved by the original author S, otherwise it is infringement.
2. Leisure behavior: Its defense is untenable. According to the Copyright Law of China, one of the conditions that foreigners' works can enjoy copyright in China is that their works can be protected by China's copyright if they are published in the States parties to international treaties to which China is a party. The United States is a signatory to the TRIPs Agreement, so S's articles published in American newspapers are protected by China's copyright law. Second, copyright includes not only personal rights, but also property rights. It is obviously unreasonable for leisure to refuse to pay compensation on the grounds that its translation is S.
3. The defense of "after meals" is not fully established. 1. Translation is indeed within the legal permission, and L shall be paid remuneration. 2.l's translation is based on S's articles, which are derivative works. So reprinting the translation is also equivalent to reprinting S's works. Based on the legal license, S shall be paid the corresponding remuneration.
5. Think for yourself. It shouldn't be a problem.
I've been calling for over an hour ... I hope I can help you.