The fight for IP protection goes on

This article is from the Intellectual Property chapter of the 2015 Annual Review and is available for download here.


Kai Yang and Fengbo Tao of Liu Shen & Associates describe the biggest trademark and unfair competition cases as well as developments in patent law, trade secrets, IP courts and online infringement

1. What have been some breakthrough trademark and unfair competition cases in the past year?

One landmark trademark opposition case is related to the Chinese time-honoured brand “Dao Xiang Cun”. Suzhou Dao Xiang Cun Company filed an application to register a mark composed of the characters “Dao Xiang Cun” and a fan-shaped border with Class 30 goods “Cookies; Bread; Cakes, etc.” Beijing Dao Xiang Cun Company then took the same mark with “Yuanxiao; Zongzi (rice dumpling)” – also Class 30 goods – to file an opposition. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) and the courts of first and second instance all supported Beijing Dao Xiang Cun's request and rejected the trademark filing.

Suzhou Dao Xiang Cun, dissatisfied with the second instance judgment, filed a retrial request before the Supreme People's Court (SPC). The SPC rejected Suzhou Dao Xiang Cun's request and maintained the decisions of TRAB and the lower courts. Suzhou Dao Xiang Cun's application was therefore denied.

The SPC's ruling shows that, in view of both companies having used the brand “Dao Xiang Cun” for many years and having prior registered trademarks for goods in Class 30, the history and usage of the two marks, the spread of the brands and the similarity between the opposed and cited prior marks should all be taken into consideration. The SPC held that the opposed trademark was similar to the cited mark, and Suzhou Dao Xiang Cun's registration for the mark would affect market stability and cause confusion between the two “Dao Xiang Cun” brands, thus prejudicing the consumers' interests as well as the two companies' development.

The second case is the “TEAM BEATLES” trademark opposition case. Apple Corps owns the intellectual property (IP) rights, through its Apple Records label, of the famous band The Beatles. An unrelated third party, Lian Xiaoyuan and Chen Guanhong, jointly applied for registration of the trademark “Team Beatles”. Apple Corps filed an opposition on the grounds of infringement of a well-known trademark, prior right and negative social impact.

The China Trademark Office (CTMO) and TRAB dismissed the opposition and approved the registration of the opposed trademark. Apple Corps appealed the decision to the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court, which held that although the company's “merchandising rights” are not specifically stipulated in Chinese law, there are no sufficient reasons to exclude them from legal protection. In the court's opinion, the band's name is closely and clearly related to the performers and works of the band and is of great importance to fans. Using a famous band's name or trademark on copied commodities may directly attract the band's fans as a consumer group and create greater value for the product bearing its name. The potential business opportunity is therefore the “merchandising rights and interests” of the band's name, which should be protected by law. The act of using the name as a trademark without permission of the rights owner not only impairs the business opportunity and interests of the owner, but also breaches the principle of good faith – an act forbidden by law. The court supported the claims of Apple Corps and ordered TRAB to amend its opposition review decision.

2. Have the CTMO and TRAB managed to address the backlog of trademark applications after fixing their computer problems?

Yes. The 2014 Trademark Law specifies the time period for each trademark examination, though extensions are granted in exceptional circumstances. So in order to comply with this law, the CTMO and TRAB have increased their workload in order to resolve the backlog of trademark applications ever since the IT system returned to normal at the end of 2014.

3. How useful and effective is this year's updates to patent laws? What are the weaknesses or areas that need to be further addressed?

This year, the SPC revised the judicial interpretation entitled Several Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Patent Disputes. They specify that the place of infringement of a product incorporating an invention or utility model patent includes places such as the place where the product is manufactured, used, promised to be sold, sold or imported; the place of use of a patented method includes places such as the place where the product directly derived from the method is used, promised to be sold, sold or imported; the place of infringement of a product incorporating a design patent is essentially identical to that for invention and utility model patents, but excludes the place of “use”; and the place of the infringing act of passing off a patent is the place where the result of the infringement occurs. With respect to “equivalent technical features”, the Provisions specify that they are the equivalent features at the time of the occurrence of the alleged infringement. They also provide clarity on the calculation of the measure of damages: a patentee's actual loss is the total figure by which its sales diminished or the total market sales of the infringing product multiplied by the reasonable profit on the patented product; the illegal profit of the infringer is the total market sales of the infringing product multiplied by the reasonable profit on the infringing product; in determining patent royalties, it is necessary to consider the type of patent, the nature and circumstances of the infringement, the nature, scope and term of the patent licence, etc. as well as a reasonable multiple.

No amendments were made to the Patent Law itself either last year or this year. The version of the currently proposed fourth set of amendments to the Patent Law mainly emphasises intensifying administrative patent law enforcement by local IP bureaux, granting administrative law enforcers the powers to investigate, collect evidence and determine damages; and granting the courts the power to order alleged infringers to provide relevant materials and sales records, sanction attempts to conceal/destroy evidence or divert property and render judgments imposing punitive damages of up to three times.

Currently, the validity of evidence, particularly foreign evidence, as well as the means and methods of obtaining evidence remain weaknesses in the legal protection of rights, and await the release of a more effective “evidence law”.

4. What legal developments regarding patent disputes should IP owners be aware of? What were the biggest cases in the past year?

The Several Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Patent Disputes have been revised a number of times with the amendment of the Patent Law. Increasing the damages for infringement is the trend for future patent dispute cases. The reasonable expenditures incurred in halting the infringement may be calculated separately from the measure of damages, and constitute a form of monetary compensation that the courts can separately uphold.

The Goertech v Knowles patent infringement dispute is a case with a high amount of damages. The court decided the damages were worth Rmb37 million. The plaintiff prepared the investigations and asked for the court's approval to collect the defendant's export data from customs and thus provided sufficient evidence for a higher compensation amount.

5. How effective have the specialised IP courts been in handling complex cases?

The three IP courts were established only at the end of 2014 and the number of cases concluded to date is still relatively small, so there are no precedents to demonstrate how efficient they are in handling complex cases. However, taking the Beijing Intellectual Property Court as an example, it is extremely strict in its selection of judges, the majority of them being highly experienced judges from the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court and the Beijing No 2 Intermediate People's Court. We have grounds to be confident that the Beijing Intellectual Property Court will be able to efficiently handle complex cases.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court has four types of ancillary judicial personnel: judicial assistants, technical investigators, clerks and judicial police. Judicial assistants are responsible for preparing pre-trial legal materials, evidence exchange and clarifying the focus of the dispute between the parties, conducting pre-trial mediation as authorised by the judges, giving guidance on adducing evidence, carrying out preliminary cross-examination of evidence and producing a pre-trial review report for submission to the collegiate bench. They also participate in hearings where they are given the ancillary of investigation right of referring questions to the judges and drafting certain judgments, ruling and legal documents, etc. Judicial assistants can greatly enhance trial efficiency. Technical investigators assist the judges by providing them with expert opinions after researching and studying cutting edge and abstruse technical issues and providing technical support for judgments and rulings. They can also help judges understand the complex technical issues involved in patent infringement cases.

With respect to the issues of the current low social cost of infringement and the continuing high incidence of infringement despite the efforts to halt it, Mr Su, president of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, has said, “We want to make damages sting so that infringers dare not infringe again, and allow rights holders to obtain reasonable and full compensation”. Procedurally, in terms of property preservation, evidence preservation and act preservation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court will, within the existing IP law framework, take more resolute and forceful measures to realise IP protection from the procedural source. Dedicated research also needs to be carried out on how to calculate the measure of damages, so as to accord protection to the intellectual achievements of rights holders. In addition to lawyers' fees and court costs, a certain amount of compensation will be given to the lawyers of winning rights holders based on the reasonable expenses incurred.

6. Have the regulations and protection of trade secrets improved?

To date, there have not been any specific improvements in the protection of trade secrets or relevant laws and regulations. There are no standalone regulations addressing trade secrets, with the term defined and relevant provisions found only in Article 10 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law; and Articles 23 and 24 of the Labour Law specify the confidentiality and non-compete obligations of employees respectively. In short, trade secrets are valuable information protected by the rights holder using confidentiality measures that are obtained by an infringer by improper means and are illegally disclosed or used, obtained under an undertaking of confidentiality and disclosed or used in breach of contract, or information that a third party is well aware was obtained illegally but nonetheless uses without authorisation. Accordingly, in the majority of trade secret cases, there will be an act of disclosure by an infringer who is an employee, or information that is known or ought to have been known to have been obtained illegally, but is nonetheless used by the infringer. In practice, due to the lack of effective means to gather evidence, it is difficult to obtain useful evidence to show that the information used by the infringer was indeed obtained through improper means. The principle of shifting of the burden of proof may be used with the aim of requesting the court make the alleged infringer provide the source of the “information” it used. Additionally, it is worth considering whether there is a possibility that a criminal case of trade secret infringement is constituted, and thereby take advantage of the strengths of the public security authority in investigating and handling the case.

7. How do the Provisions for the Prohibition of Acts of Abusing Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition affect large market players?

The Provisions for the Prohibition of Acts of Abusing Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition (Provisions) are under the PRC Anti-monopoly Law (AML) and specifically define what constitutes the abuse of intellectual property rights and what does not. The rules are an intersection between IP and competition and entered into effect on August 1 2015. There is no precedent case that applies the Provisions. Large market players would not be affected in terms of their usual operations. However, when it comes to licensing agreements for IP rights, they should refer to the Provisions as guidance so as to not eliminate or restrict competition under the AML.

8. Can you describe the progress of the legal battle against counterfeits, especially online? How are e-commerce platforms adapting?

Many Chinese e-commerce platforms, such as Taobao and Alibaba, have established an online complaint system for the IP holder to fight counterfeiters according to the requirements of relevant laws and regulations.

For an effective anti-counterfeit action, the IP holder should first have information about the online infringer. A thorough investigation may be needed. If the IP holder wishes to have the infringing content on the webpage deleted, he must first send a notice to the internet service providers (ISPs) and provide the trademark registration certificate, identification certificate of the complaint, the infringers' web addresses at which the counterfeits are being sold, basic information about the counterfeiters and grounds to prove the sold products are counterfeits. It is advisable to note down this information in advance. The method of notifying may be by mail, email, fax or on the specific webpage.

It is also worthwhile to keep in touch with the ISP, which will then review the complaint, contact the suspected infringer about the matter and make comments or decisions. The ISP may or may not take action to stop the infringement based on their own judgment. If an ISP fails to deal with the counterfeiter, the rights holder can file a civil litigation against the infringer and list the ISP as the co-defendant.

9. What is your advice for foreign brand owners on managing their IP portfolio in China?

First, when or before foreign companies enter the Chinese market, they should have a proper Chinese trademark and make sure they register both of their Chinese and English marks in China.

Second, the use of the Chinese trademark should be just as important as that of the English mark. It is important to ensure that both the Chinese and English trademarks are exposed to consumers at the same time and the public understands the two marks are closely related.

Third, foreign brand owners should keep an eye on the Trademark Gazette to see if there are any identical or similar trademark applications and therefore file oppositions on time.

Fourth, if they find infringing products on e-commerce platforms, foreign brand owners should file complaints in a timely manner to get the counterfeits removed. They should also record their registered trademarks with the Chinese customs to prohibit the counterfeits from being exported and imported.


Author biographies

Kai Yang
Partner

Kai Yang, attorney at law, is a partner of Liu Shen & Associates. He obtained a bachelor's degree in law from the law school of the Northeast University of Finance & Economics in 1991. He started practicing law in 1994. Kai further received extensive training on trademark-related laws and practice organised by AOTS in Japan in 2003.
Kai worked for two law firms as an attorney before joining Liu Shen & Associates in 2000. He now works in the legal department of the firm and has handled many trademark opposition and cancellation cases as well as many trademark-related administrative proceedings before the TMO, TRAB and the courts. Kai is also an expert in advising clients on various IP-related laws such as copyright, unfair competition, license contract and trade secrets.

Fengbo Tao
Partner

Fengbo (Allen) Tao is an attorney at law and patent attorney in China, and is a partner at the law firm of Liu Shen & Associates.
Fengbo specialises in patent invalidation, litigation, dispute resolution, counseling on IP strategies and patent clearance search. He also specialises in patent prosecution and has handled dozens of patent-related proceedings before the courts since 1998. Fengbo has represented a number of multinational corporations in litigation cases to defend and enforce their IPs in China.
Fengbo serves on the board of directors of the All-China Patent Attorneys Association.
He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in material science and technology from University of Electronics Science and Technology of China in 1988 and 1991. He received professional training at a law firm in Germany in 1997 and further obtained master of law degrees from the John Marshall Law School in the US in 2001 and Huazhong University of Science and Technology in 2004. Fengbo joined Liu Shen & Associates in 1995.

柳沈律师事务所的杨凯律师和陶凤波律师阐述了最大宗的商标和不公平竞争案件，以及专利法、商业秘密、知识产权法院和网上侵权的发展

1. 过去一年，发生了哪些突破性商标和不公平竞争案件？

一起标志性商标异议案件与中国老字号“稻香村”有关。苏州稻香村公司提出了一份商标注册申请。该商标由“稻香村”字样和扇形边框组成，指定用于第 30类“饼干；面包；蛋糕等”商品。北京稻香村公司随后就指定用于同属第30类商品“元宵；粽子”的同一商标提出异议。商标评审委员会及一审和二审法院均支持北京稻香村的请求并驳回了该商标的申请。

苏州稻香村不服二审判决，向最高人民法院提起了再审请求。最高人民法院驳回了苏州稻香村的请求，维持了商标评审委员会和下级法院的判决。因此，苏州稻香村的商标注册申请遭到了拒绝。

最高人民法院的判决表明，鉴于两家公司多年来都在使用品牌“稻香村”，且之前就注册了指定用于第30类商品的商标，因此，两个商标的历史和使用情况、品牌的传播以及被异议商标和引证在先商标之间的相似点都应被纳入考虑因素。最高人民法院认为，被异议商标和引证商标相似，且苏州稻香村的商标注册会影响市场稳定性并致使大众对两个“稻香村”品牌产生混淆，从而损害消费者利益和两家公司的发展。

第二起案件是“TEAM BEATLES 添·甲虫”商标异议案件。苹果公司因其Apple Records厂牌而拥有著名乐队The Beatles的知识产权。无关第三方连小元、陈冠洪共同申请注册商标“Team Beatles”。苹果公司提出异议，理由是这二人申请注册商标的行为侵犯其驰名商标、在先权利及对社会有不良影响。

商标局和商标评审委员会对此异议不予支持，并核准被异议商标的注册。苹果公司向北京市第一中级人民法院提起上诉。该院认为，虽然中国法律中未明确规定公司的“商品化权”，但没有充分理由可将这些权利排除在法律保护范围之外。在该院看来，乐队的名称与乐队的表演者和作品有着密切且明确的关系，且对粉丝而言意义重大。将著名乐队的名称或商标用在复制商品上可能会直接吸引乐队粉丝变成消费者群体，为冠有乐队名称的产品创造更大价值。因此，潜在商业机会是乐队名称的“商品化权益”，而这应该受法律保护。在未经权利所有者许可的情况下将名称用作商标的行为不仅会损害权利所有者的商业机会和利益，而且违反了诚信原则。这是法律禁止的行为。该院支持苹果公司的主张，并责令商标评审委员会更改其异议复审裁定。

2. 在解决了计算机问题之后，商标局和商标评审委员会是否已妥善处理积压的商标申请？

是的。2014年《商标法》规定了各个商标审查的期限，虽然特殊情况下允许延期。因此，为了遵守这项法律规定，自2014年年底IT系统恢复正常起，商标局和商标评审委员会便增加了工作量，以便处理积压的商标申请。

3. 今年的专利法规的修改有多大功效?有什么弱点或需要改善的地方?

今年，最高人民法院就《关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题若干规定》的司法解释进行了修改。（1）明确了对发明和实用新型专利产品侵权行为地为：制造，使用，许诺销售，销售，进口等地方；对专利方法的使用行为地为对该方法直接获得产品的使用，许诺销售，销售，进口等地方；对外观设计专利产品的侵权行为地与发明和实用新型专利产品，基本相同，但“使用”地不算；假冒专利的侵权行为地为侵权结果发生地。（2）对“等同技术特征”，规定为被控侵权发生时的等同特征。（3）对赔偿额的计算更为明确，专利权人实际损失为权利人销售量减少总数或侵权产品的市场销售总量乘以专利产品之合理利润；侵权人的非法获利为侵权产品市场销售总量乘以侵权产品的合理利润；专利许可费认定要考虑专利类型，侵权性质和情节，专利许可性质，范围，时间等，以及合理倍数。

中国专利法本身今年或去年并没有修改。目前，正在建议第四次专利法修改的版本中，主要强调的是：加强地方知识产权局对专利行政执法的力度，给予行政执法者调查取证的权力，判决赔偿的权力；以及给予法院责令被控侵权方提供相关材料和销售记录等的权力，对于有意隐藏或销毁证据，及其转移财产等行为予以制裁的权力，和判决高到三倍的惩罚性赔偿的权力。

目前，证据的有效性，尤其是国外证据，以及证据的获取途径或方式方法等，仍然是法律维权方面的弱点，有待更有效的“证据法”的出现。

4. 专利纠纷案件方面有什么新发展是知识产权权利人需要注意的？去年有什么重大的案件？

最高人民法院《关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题若干规定》的司法解释随着专利法的修改进行了多次修订。增加侵权赔偿是未来专利纠纷案件的趋势。为制止侵权行为而支付的合理开支可以在赔偿额之外另行计算，属于法院可以单独支持的一项金钱补偿。

Goertech诉Knowles专利侵权纠纷案是赔偿额高的案例。法院裁定3,700万元人民币损害赔偿金。原告为调查做了准备，并请求法院批准自己从海关处收集被告的出口数据，从而提供了充分的证据以获得更高的赔偿数额。

5. 在有效处埋复杂案件方面，专门知识产权法院表现如何？

三个知识产权法院2014年底刚刚组建，到目前为止审结的案件还比较少，因此没有案例来显示三个专门知识产权法院处理复杂案件的效率如何。但是，以北京知识产权法院为例，其在法官选任上非常严格，大都是原来北京市第一中级人民法院和北京市第二中级人民法院非常有经验的法官，我们有理由相信北京知识产权法院能够很有效率地处理复杂的知识产权案件。

北京知识产权法院设有四类司法辅助人员：法官助理、技术调查官、书记员和司法警察。法官助理负责庭前准备法律资料、证据交换、明确双方争论焦点；在法官的授权下进行庭前调解；进行举证指导和初步的举证质证，形成书面庭前审查报告提交合议庭；并参加庭审，赋予其提请审判长发问的辅助调查权利；起草一些判决、裁判文书和法律文书等。法官助理可以大大提高审判的效率。技术调查官协助法官针对对涉及前沿、艰深的专业技术问题，在调查研究后，向法官提供专业意见，为裁决提供技术支持。技术调查官有助于法官弄清专利侵权案件的复杂技术问题。

针对目前社会的侵权成本低、侵权行为屡禁不止的问题，北京知识产权法院宿院长表示：“要让侵权人赔到不敢再侵权，让权利人能够得到合理的充分的赔偿。”北京知识产权法院将在现有的知识产权法律框架之内，从程序上，在财产保全、证据保全、行为保全等方面，采取更加坚决和有力的措施，使知识产权的保护从程序源头体现出来。也要对如何计算损害赔偿的金额进行专门研究，使权利人的智力成果得到保护。除律师诉讼费外，也将对胜诉方权利人的律师在合理支出的费用方面进行一定的补偿。

6. 商业秘密的监管和保护有没有什么改进？

目前为止，商业秘密的保护及相关的法律法规没有什么具体改进。只是在“反不正当竞争法”第十条里有“商业秘密”的定义及相应规定，没有单独法规；在劳动法第23条和第24条里分别有关于雇员的保密责任和竞业禁止的规定。总之，是由权利人保密措施维护的具有价值的信息，被侵权者以不正当手段获得，并被非法披露或利用，或者承诺有保密责任情况下获得，但违反约定披露或利用获得的商业秘密，以及第三人明知是违法获得的信息，仍然拿来使用并随意披露。因此，商业秘密案件中大多会有位雇员身份的侵权者的披露行为，以及明知或应知非法获得的信息，仍然使用该信息的侵权者。实践中，由于缺乏有效的取证手段，多数商业秘密的侵权案件都不能轻易地取得有用的证据来证明侵权人使用的信息的确是通过不正当手段得到的。可以利用举证责任倒置的原则，试图请求法院让被控侵权者提供其使用的“信息”来源等等。同时可以考虑是否构成侵犯商业机密的刑事案的可能，从而借助公安的力量查处。

7. 《关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定》对大型市场参与者有何影响？

《关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定》(以下简称《规定》）以《中华人民共和国反垄断法》为依据，明确定义了构成以及不构成知识产权滥用的要件。这些规定是知识产权和竞争法之间的一个交叉点，并于2015年8月1日生效。《规定》并没有适用的判例。大型市场参与者的正常运营不会受到影响。不过，当谈到知识产权许可协议时，他们应将《规定》作为指导，以免触犯反垄断法排除、限制竞争。

8. 您能否谈谈法制方面在打假上的进展，特别是网上打假所取得的进展？电子商务平台正在如何适应这一改变？

许多电子商务平台，如淘宝和阿里巴巴，都建立了网上投诉系统，供知识产权所有者依据相关法律和法规打击造假者。

为了有效打击造假者，知识产权所有者应首先了解网上侵权人，可能需要进行彻底调查。如果知识产权所有者希望网页上的侵权内容被删掉，则必须向互联网服务供应商 (ISP) 发出通知，并提供商标注册证书、投诉鉴定证书、侵权人假冒产品销售网址、关于造假者的基本信息以及证明所售产品为假冒产品的理由。因此，最好提前记下相关信息。通知可以通过邮件、电子邮件、传真或特定网页发出。

除此之外，最好与ISP保持联系。ISP随后会审核投诉、联系涉嫌侵权人了解相关情况并作出评论或决定。ISP会根据自己的判断决定是否采取行动阻止侵权行为。如果ISP未能处置造假者，权利所有者可以民事起诉侵权人并将ISP列为共同被告人。

9. 对于那些在中国管理自己的知识产权组合的外国品牌所有者，您有何建议？

第一，外国公司若要进入中国市场，应拥有适当的中文商标，并确保在中国同时注册中文和英文商标。

第二，应同等看重中文商标与英文商标的使用。务必确保消费者能同时接独到中文和英文商标，并且让其在公众眼中是密切相关的两个商标。

第三，外国品牌所有者应留意商标公告，了解是否存在任何相同或类似商标申请，以便及时提出异议。

第四，外国品牌所有者若发现电子商务平台上存在侵权产品，应及时提出投诉，要求电子商务平台移除假冒产品。外国品牌所有者应向中国海关登记自己的注册商标，以禁止假冒产品的进出口。


作者简历

杨凯
合伙人

杨凯律师是柳沈律师事务所的合伙人之一。杨律师于1991年从东北财经大学法学院毕业，并获得法学学士学位。他从1994年开始执业。之后，杨律师于2003年在日本AOTS深入研修商标法和相关执业实践。
在于2000年加入柳沈律师事务所前，杨律师曾先后在两家律所担任律师。目前，杨律师任职于律所法律部门，成功处理了多起商标异议和取消案件，以及有关商标的商标局、商标评审委员会及法院行政程序。杨律师还擅长为代理人提供多个 IP 相关法律方面的建议，例如版权、不公平竞争、许可合同和商业秘密。

陶凤波
合伙人

陶凤波律师是律师和专利代理人，也是柳沈律师事务所的合伙人之一。
陶律师专门从事专利无效宣告、诉讼、纠纷解决、IP战略咨询和防止专利侵权检索事务。他还非常擅长专利申请工作，自1998年来参与了多起有关专利的法院诉讼。陶律师曾代表许多跨国公司在中国诉讼案件中为其进行IP辩护和执行主张。
陶律师是中华全国专利代理人协会的董事会成员。
陶律师分别于1988年和1991年获得成都电子科技大学的材料科学和工程专业学士和硕士学位。他曾于1997年在德国律师事务所进行专业研修，并于2001年获得约翰马歇尔法律学校的法学硕士学位，后于2004年获得华中科技大学的法学硕士学位。陶律师于1995年加入柳沈律师事务所。