Intellectual property rights refer to the exclusive rights enjoyed by citizens or legal persons and other subjects in intellectual creation or innovation activities according to the law, also known as "intellectual achievement rights" and "intangible property rights", which mainly include industrial property rights composed of invention patents, trademarks and industrial designs, and copyrights composed of works in natural sciences, social sciences, literature, music, drama, painting, sculpture, photography and cinematography.
Case analysis:
On the occasion of World Intellectual Property Day on April 26th, 27, the Supreme People's Court selected ten cases of intellectual property rights in China in 26, which reflected the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China from different aspects.
case of trademark infringement dispute between France Louis Vuitton and Shanghai Lianjia Supermarket
In the first half of 26, France Louis Vuitton Maritti Company found that three women's bags sold by the defendant "Carrefour" Wuning Store of Shanghai Lianjia Supermarket Co., Ltd. in the form of special promotion used the same or similar logos as the plaintiff's five registered trademarks. He sued the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court. The court ruled that the defendant stopped the infringement and compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB3,.
comments
French Louis Vuitton ladies' bags are world-famous and expensive. Although the unit price of the women's bag marked with "LOUIS VUITTON" and other words and graphic logos sold by the defendant was only RMB 49.9, the exclusive right to use the trademark was inviolable, and the defendant failed to fulfill the duty of reasonable care that operators in the same industry should do, resulting in the sale of infringing goods, and the price of 3, yuan could not be said to be small.
Cui Jian and the record company's dispute over copyright and performer's rights
With the permission of its parent company, China Records Shenzhen Company paid a royalty of 2,8 yuan to music copyright society of china in 22, and entrusted Huayun Film and Television Disc Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huayun Company) to copy and collect the "Cui Jian-1985 Retrospect" CD with 12 tracks and publish it. Shanghai Kedu supermarket chain Zhongwei branch (hereinafter referred to as Zhongwei branch) sold the CD. Later, Cui Jian took China Record Shenzhen Company, Huayun Company and Zhongwei Branch to court.
The Intermediate People's Court of zhongwei, Ningxia tried and ruled that China Record Shenzhen Company and Huayun Company both compensated Cui Jian for economic losses of 19,2 yuan and reasonable expenses of 28,3 yuan to stop the infringement, totaling 47,5 yuan.
Comments
According to the Copyright Law, the copyright owners and performers of musical works have the right to license others to copy and distribute audio and video products with their creations and performances and receive remuneration. Cui Jian, as a singer of 12 tracks, Huayun Company and China Records Shenzhen Company should bear civil liability without Cui Jian's permission.
copyright dispute case caused by "black stick villain" and "matchstick villain"
Zhu Zhiqiang is the author of computer network animation "Lonely for Defeat" and "Little Special Police", and the characters in the above works are all "matchstick villain" images. In October, 23, Nike (USA) and Nike (Suzhou) Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. released advertisements of the image of "black stick villain" on their own websites and Sina's home page and TV station respectively to promote their new products "NIKE SHOX STATUS TB". Zhu Zhiqiang appealed to the court for this, requesting the four defendants to be ordered to jointly compensate Zhu Zhiqiang for the loss of 2 million yuan. After two trials, the Beijing Higher People's Court finally rejected Zhu Zhiqiang's claim.
Comments
The originality of Zhu Zhiqiang's image of "matchstick villain" is not high, so we can't give it too high protection. Intellectual property rights protect intellectual achievements, but not all intellectual achievements are protected.
case of unfair dispute caused by the letter "n"
In 24, New Balance Sports Shoes Company of the United States (referred to as New Balance Company) found that sports shoes with similar registered trademarks were sold in major cities in China, which were produced by Jinjiang Qiuzhi East Asia Footwear Industry Co., Ltd. (referred to as Qiuzhi Company) and authorized by Newbalance International Group Co., Ltd. (referred to as Newbalance Company) registered in Hong Kong. The new balance company also found that the product brochures of the two companies abused the word "New Balance" and imitated their propaganda style for publicity. The new balance company sued the court on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition by quality companies.
Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled through trial that the quality company immediately stopped the infringement, immediately stopped using the "N" logo and the words "New Balance International Group Co., Ltd.", and the quality company compensated the new balance company for economic losses of RMB3,.
Comments
New Balance Company takes "N" as its business logo, which is associated with specific products of specific manufacturers. Quality-seeking companies repeatedly highlight the use of other people's "N" as a logo, and claim that they are brands from the United States, and they can only shoot themselves in the foot.
dispute over unfair competition between Nippon Coatings and Kebang Coatings
In December 1992, the plaintiff Nippon Coatings (China) Co., Ltd. was incorporated. In May 24, the defendant KEBANg Company registered the trademark "Lai Shiwei Keban", and then licensed the trademark to Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.. Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. of Japan entrusts Kebang Company as the designated manufacturer to produce and sell the "Lai Shiwei" series of goods by OEM. The words "Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd." were marked on the top, middle and bottom of the outer packaging of the "Lai Shiwei" paint produced by the defendant who was sealed up by the court according to law, but there was no name and address of the manufacturer defendant Kebang Company.
After two trials, the court finally ruled that the defendant Kebang Company stopped producing, selling and destroying related infringing products; Apologize to the plaintiff in Economic Daily.
Comments
Kebang highlighted the use of the word "Nippon" on the packaging of its "Lai Shiwei" brand paint. The court considered that it was intended to borrow the name of "Nippon" in Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. and take a ride with obvious subjective malice.
Guangzhou Zhongyi v Sony of Japan
Sony of Japan applied to China Intellectual Property Office for the invention patent of "battery device and installation device for battery device" in September 1995, and was authorized in September 22. On April 16th, 24, Sony Company was notarized, and as an ordinary consumer, it bought two batteries of model QM7lD and other batteries from Zhongyi Company, and obtained the commercial invoice of "Guangzhou Top Power Electronics Co., Ltd".
Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Zhongyi Company immediately stopped manufacturing and selling patent infringement, and destroyed the infringing products and special production molds in stock; Compensation for Sony's economic loss is RMB 1,. In the second instance, the Guangdong Higher People's Court upheld the original judgment.
Comments
No matter how good other people's technology is, it is also others'. Instead of producing infringing products, it is better to make great efforts to develop your own new technology.
patent infringement dispute between Deng Guoshun et al. and Beijing Huaqi Company
On November 14th, 1999, plaintiffs Deng Guoshun and Cheng Xiaohua applied to China National Intellectual Property Administration for the invention patent of "Flash electronic external storage method and device for data processing system", which was authorized on July 24th, 22 and announced on the same day. On July 26th, 22, Deng Guoshun and Cheng Xiaohua signed an exclusive license contract with Netac. Later, the plaintiff found that the defendants Beijing Huaqi Information Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Fuguanghui Electronics Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Xingzhidao Trading Co., Ltd. produced and sold the "Patriot" mini flash memory produced by using their patented technology, thinking that the products produced and sold by the defendant fell into the protection scope of the plaintiff's patent and constituted infringement, and requested the court to order the defendant to immediately stop the infringement.
The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of first instance ruled that the defendants Huaqi Company, Fuguanghui Company and Xingzhi Guide Company immediately stopped the infringement and jointly compensated 5, yuan for the infringement loss. Both parties refused to accept the appeal. During the second trial, Huaqi Company filed an application for invalidation of the patent involved with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office. Because this dispute has a huge impact on the entire mobile storage industry, involving the development of the domestic IT industry, the infringement is related to the interests of many enterprises, and the social impact is very huge. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, with the concerted efforts of all parties, urged both parties to reach a mediation and achieved a win-win situation for both parties.
Comments
The original intention of intellectual property protection is to encourage innovation. For both parties with innovation, it may be more in line with the original intention of establishing the intellectual property system.
dispute over exclusive right to use registered trademarks of STARBUCKS and unfair competition
Xingyuan Company registered trademarks such as STARBUCKS, Starbucks characters and graphics and Starbucks in China from 1996 to 23, and licensed Shanghai Uni-President Starbucks Company (referred to as Uni-President Starbucks for short) to use the above trademarks. Shanghai Starbucks Cafe Co., Ltd. (referred to as Shanghai Starbucks for short) was established in Shanghai in 2, with the name "Starbucks" and the same or similar logo as the above trademark. Xingyuan Company and Uni-President Starbucks believed that Shanghai Starbucks' behavior constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, so they went to court. The court ruled that Shanghai Starbucks and its subsidiaries stopped trademark infringement and unfair competition, changed the enterprise name, and compensated Xingyuan Company and Uni-President Starbucks for economic losses of RMB5,.
Comments
The famous Starbucks originally came from Xingyuan Company, but it happened that another Starbucks company was born in Shanghai, and the original Starbucks logo was "transplanted". As a result, it not only cost 5 thousand yuan, but also changed the name of the enterprise. It seems that there is no way to earn your own money alongside other people's brands.
dispute over the exclusive right to use a trademark between CHANEL Company and Xiushui Market
In April 25, Chanel Company bought a wallet with the trademark "Chanel" from the stall of Huang Shanwang, a merchant in Xiushui Street, Beijing. Subsequently, a lawyer's letter was sent to Beijing Xiushui Haosen Clothing Market Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiushui Street Company), asking it to take measures to stop the infringement. On June 3rd, CHANEL bought the counterfeit "Chanel" wallet from Huang Shanwang again. On September 15th, Chanel filed a lawsuit with the court. On October 31st, CHANEL bought a fake "Chanel" wallet from Xiushui Street for the third time.
The court ruled that Huang Shanwang and Xiushui Street Company immediately stopped infringing on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark "CHANEL"; Compensate Chanel Company for economic losses of 1, yuan.
Comments
The manager Xiushui Street Company is hard to blame for selling infringing goods again and again in the market.
dispute over the right of new plant varieties between northern Shanxi and Beijing Origen
On March 1, 23, "Lin 'ao No.1" was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, and the right of new plant varieties was Beijing Origen Company (hereinafter referred to as Origen Company). On March 9, 25, Shanxi North Seed Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "North Company") and Wuwei Agricultural Science Research Institute of Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as "Agricultural Institute") signed the "corn seed production contract by appointment". On September 5, 25, Origen filed a lawsuit on the grounds of infringement by the Agricultural Research Institute, and the court of first instance added the North Company as a co-defendant according to law.
The appraisal report made by the scientific research department entrusted by the court concludes that the alleged infringing samples submitted for inspection are of the same variety as the standard "Lin 'ao No.1" samples. The court ruled that the two defendants immediately stopped the infringement; North Company compensated Origen Company for its economic loss of 864, yuan.
Comments
The right to new plant varieties is also an important part of intellectual property rights. Without the permission of the variety owner, the production and sale of propagation materials of new plant varieties for commercial purposes will not be protected by law.