A Rising Respect for IP Rights

On December 17, 2015, the Supreme People's Court (SPC) rendered a final judgment in the “PRETUL” foreign-related original equipment manufacturer (OEM) processing trademark infringement retrial case, finding that the relevant representations on Zhejiang Yahuan's OEM products did not constitute use of a trademark for the purposes of the Trademark Law. This was the first time that the SPC formally expressed its stance on the issue of trademark infringement in connection with foreign-related OEM processing. The specific circumstances of the OEM processing issue vary in practice—the SPC's finding is based on the particular applicable conditions and does not provide a “one size fits all” solution. As the OEM processing issue has a bearing on the state's foreign trade policies, regulations on OEM processing need to be formulated at the legislative level, and uniform values and balanced interests must be applied by judicial policy, so as to avoid conflicts in adjudication.

3.  What were the most significant patent cases in the past year?

On October 28, 2016, Baidu stated that it had formally brought suit against Sogou for infringement in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that Sogou's “Sogou pinyin input method” and “Sogou mobile input method” infringed more than ten of the technology patents in the Baidu input method and demanding that Sogou pay damages in the amount of Rmb100 million. The Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office released its findings on the 17 patents involved in the case in November 2016. It upheld seven of the patents as fully valid and five as partially valid. The patents involved in the Sogou suit include core input functions such as a super lexicon, intelligent word grouping and cloud input, and cover peripheral services, such as smart deletion and candidate display, that have an important impact on user input. This case has been called the first internet patent dispute in China, and is still pending.

4. How effective have the specialized IP courts been in handling complex cases?

The IP courts have accepted a large number of technology cases and established a relatively sound system for ascertaining technological facts. Taking the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court as an example, its “four in one” system of determining such facts consists of technology assessment, technology investigation, technology consulting and expert jurors. Among them, the investigator system is important for improving the mechanism for, and the objectivity, professionalism and neutrality of, understanding technical specifics in IP adjudication in China.

The three IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, and the courts of coastal cities and provinces such as Jiangsu and Zhejiang are relatively mature and have greater expertise in the field of IP protection.

5. How do the latest IP and competition developments affect licensing, royalties and dominant market players?

On June 24, 2016, Qualcomm instituted a rights confirmation case in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for the first time, bringing a suit against the Beijing branch and Zhuhai head office of Meizu, a Chinese mobile phone maker. Qualcomm claimed that Meizu had been using Qualcomm's patented technology without paying the royalty fees. Qualcomm requested that the court find that the patent licensing conditions it offered to Meizu complied with the PRC Anti-monopoly Law and the principles of fairness, reasonableness and non-discrimination (FRAND), and that they were on the basis of the two parties' agreement. On June 28, Meizu held a press conference stating that it would vigorously respond to the suit and was willing to negotiate with Qualcomm, but while the company acknowledged that patent royalties do need to be paid, the licensing agreement must comply with the FRAND principle. Chinese enterprises in the communications sector have begun to find their own voice.

6. What are some groundbreaking internet-related IP cases?

No IP dispute or controversy in the internet sector in 2016 was greater than the question of whether deep links on aggregation platforms constitute unfair competition or copyright infringement. In iQIYI v. Shenzhen Juwangshi, a dispute involving VST, a video aggregation software, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the deep linking by the defendant, Shenzhen Juwangshi, constituted an act of unfair competition.

In Tencent v. Yilian Weida, an infringement case involving the right of communications over an information network related to the TV series “Palace 3: the Lost Daughter”, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court's decision that a deep linking act is not an act of communications over an information network does not signify that a rights holder is out of options. The application of joint infringement regulations, Article 2 of the PRC Anti-unfair Competition Law and rules on technical measures relevant to deep linking acts all provide a rights holder with significant remedy.

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

In recent years, administrative authorities have been falling over themselves issuing measures to crack down on the counterfeit products of, and trademark and patent infringement by, online merchants; regions have been issuing measures; and enterprises have been actively revising and improving their internal rules, such that the efforts to combat online counterfeiting have led to decent results. Online trading platform service providers are required to perform “notification-deletion” obligations, promptly taking measures such as deletion, masking and removal of links containing information on using online services to engage in infringement and counterfeiting. And if the infringement is extremely obvious, and the platform provider is—or ought to be—aware that a seller is engaging in infringement, but nevertheless continues to provide services or fails to take appropriate measures to avoid the infringement, it must bear joint and several liability with the seller.

Now, large platforms such as Taobao, Tmall and JD.com are able to actively respond to counterfeit merchandise notifications and takedown requests, but a small number of business operators remain on the very fringes of the law that continue to sell counterfeit merchandise. This is not something that can be resolved by policies or the rectification of any one enterprise, but an issue that requires the full cooperation of all parties involved and their joint response.

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

We would advise foreign brand owners to pay attention to the effect of trademark use and registration under the Internet+ economy. For example, in the online environment, the flow of information is extremely rapid and business opportunities are found on a global scale, meaning that enterprises are no longer fighting local battles and must prepare to enter foreign markets at any time; the walls between numerous trademarks and classes of services have been knocked down, so that it is no longer possible to simply define the class of a trademark by looking at the classification of goods and services. This means enterprises must promptly apply for their trademarks and cover several classes, and, in particular, register them in China as soon as possible, to prevent free riding by others.

Trademark registration in China requires thoughtful consideration, as the English name of the brand and company and their official Chinese translations both need to be registered. Furthermore, defensive registration of the common Chinese translation, the Chinese abbreviation and homonyms of the trademark, as well as words that are visually similar to the trademark, should be carried out.

9. What IP developments should foreign companies look out for in 2017?

On March 3, 2016, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council published the PRC Anti-unfair Competition Law (Draft Amendments for Deliberation), seeking comments from the public. On December 2, 2015, it also published the Draft Amendments for the PRC Patent Law (Draft Sent for Deliberation). Foreign companies are advised to continue paying attention to the newest developments in the revision of the Anti-unfair Competition Law and the Patent Law in 2017.

Yuanchao Ma, Senior partner

Co-effort Law Firm

+86 21 6886 6497

[email protected]

35/F, Huaneng Union Tower

958 Lujiazui Ring Road

Shanghai, 215021 PRC

Yuanchao Ma is a senior partner at Shanghai Co-effort Law Firm. He obtained his LLM from East China University of Political Science and Law, and his EMBA from the Antai College of Economics & Management at Shanghai Jiaotong University.

His practice area focuses on IP protection, antitrust litigation and other non-contentious services. His key clients include Tencent (00700.HK), iqiyi.com, PTC (NASDAQ: PTC), Shanda (NASDAQ: GAME), Fufeng (00546.HK), Tomson Group (00258.HK), HTC (2498), Siemens PLM, Elmos, Brewster and ZAMBAITI.

Mr. Ma has represented companies in a number of invention, design and utility model patent infringement cases, as well as various copyright and trademark infringement cases involving software, books and artwork, several of which have been awarded as Top 10 IP cases by the Supreme People's Court and in Beijing, Shanghai, Shandong and Chengdu. He has also been involved in criminal, anti-unfair competition, trade secret, and domain name litigation and arbitration.

Mr. Ma also provides legal services for, and negotiates on behalf of, companies' exhibition projects and foreign cultural work imports. He is a member of the IP Committee of the National Bar Association, part-time Master's supervisor at the East China University of Political Science and Law and the general vice secretary of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Research Institute.

协力律师事务所的马远超律师讨论了2016年最具突破性的商标、专利、互联网和不正当竞争案件所带来的意义，并对在华外国品牌的知识产权管理提供意见。

1. 去年有哪些突破性的商标案件？

在商标行政案件中，2016年4月20日，北京市高级人民法院就“微信”商标注册纠纷案做出了二审判决，维持了一审判决结果，但改变了不应予以核准注册的理由。二审法院认为：在《商标法》第十条第一款第（八）项未作例外规定的情况下，任何主体均不得将具有“其他不良影响”的标志作为商标使用和注册。但是，被异议商标在核准服务项目上缺乏显着特征。创博亚太公司提交的证据不足以证明被异议商标经过使用，已经与创博亚太公司建立起稳定的关联关系，从而使被异议商标起到区分服务来源的识别作用，未能证明构成《商标法》第十一条第二款规定的可以作为商标注册的情形。因此，被异议商标不应予以核准注册。

2. 最高人民法院对商标权人的最新OEM裁定是什么？

2015年12月17日，最高人民法院就“PRETUL”涉外定牌加工(OEM) 商标侵权再审一案作出终审判决，认定浙江亚环公司OEM产品上的相关标识不属于《商标法》意义上的商标使用。这是最高人民法院对涉外定牌加工商标侵权问题的首次正式表态。定牌加工问题在实践中的具体情况不同，最高院的认定结果是建立在严格的适用条件之上的，不能“一刀切”。由于定牌加工问题涉及国家的外贸政策，需要在立法层面上对定牌加工作出规定，司法政策也应有统一的价值导向和利益衡量，避免定牌加工司法审判中的争议问题。

3. 专利争议方面，去年有什么重大的案件？

2016年10月28日，百度表示已正式向北京知识产权法院起诉搜狗侵权，诉称搜狗旗下“搜狗拼音输入法”、“搜狗手机输入法”侵犯了百度输入法多达十多项技术专利，要求搜狗赔偿金额一亿元。 2016年11月，国家知识产权局专利复审委员会对该案所涉的17项专利已全部做出审查判定。其中，7项专利维持全部有效，5项专利部分有效。搜狗诉讼所涉专利包括超级词库、智能组词、云输入等核心输入功能，涵盖了智能删除、候选展现等对用户输入行为有着重要影响的周边服务。这场纠纷被称作“中国互联网专利第一案”，目前还在进展过程中。

4. 在处理复杂案件方面，知识产权法院有多有效？

知识产权法院受理大量技术类案件，建立了较为完善的技术技术事实查明制度。以上海知产法院为例，由技术鉴定、技术调查、技术咨询和专家陪审组成的“四位一体”技术事实查明体系已基本形成。其中，技术调查官制度是我国知识产权审判健全技术事实查明机制的一个重要探索，将进一步提高技术事实查明的科学性、专业性和中立性。

北京知识产权法院、上海知识产权法院、广州知识产权法院、江苏、浙江等沿海城市、省份的法院，在保护知识产权领域方面，仍然具有较为成熟的经验。

5. 知识产权和竞争法方面的最新发展如何影响许可、许可使用费以及市场支配者？

2016年6月24日，高通公司首次向北京知识产权法院提起一起确权诉讼，起诉中国手机厂商魅族北京分公司和珠海总部。高通公司称，魅族一直使用高通拥有专利的技术，但没有支付相应的费用。高通请求法院判决，高通向魅族提供的专利许可条件符合《反垄断法》的规定，符合高通所承担的公平、合理和非歧视的许可义务，同时请求法院判决高通向魅族提供的专利许可条件，构成双方专利许可协议的基础。魅族6月28日召开发布会表示将积极应诉，愿意和高通谈判，但在承认需要缴纳专利费的前提下，专利许可协议必须符合公平、合理、非歧视的FRAND原则。中国企业在通信领域的不断积累，也已经开始寻求自己的话语权。

6. 网络有关的知识产权案有什么突破性发展？

2016年互联网领域的知识产权纠纷，争议最大的莫过于关于聚合平台深度链接属于不正当竞争还是版权侵权的问题。在爱奇艺诉深圳聚网视VST全聚合不正当竞争纠纷案中，上海知识产权法院认为被告深圳聚网视的深度链接行为属于不正当竞争行为。在腾讯公司诉易联伟达公司《宫锁连城》信息网络传播权侵权纠纷案件中，北京知识产权法院认为，深层链接行为不被认定为信息网络传播行为，并不意味着权利人无能为力。深层链接行为依然可依据共同侵权规则、反不正当竞争法第二条及有关技术措施相关规则的适用，在相当程度上使权利人获得救济。

7. 请您描述一下打击网上侵权的法律举措。商务平台如何应对？

近年来，行政机关纷纷出台举措，打击电商假冒产品和商标、专利侵权，各地出台措施，企业积极整改、完善规章制度，电商反假冒取得了不错的成效。对于网络电商即网络交易平台服务提供者，需履行“通知-删除”义务，对利用网络服务实施侵权假冒行为的网络信息，及时采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施。而如果侵权行为非常明显，网络交易平台服务提供者明知或应知网络商品经营者利用其平台实施侵权行为，仍然为其提供服务或者没有采取适当的避免侵权行为发生的措施的，则应当与网络商品经营者承担连带责任。目前，如淘宝、天猫、京东等大型电商平台已经能做到假冒商品通知的积极响应，及时撤下，但仍有少量经营者打法律擦边球，通过各种途径继续销售假冒商品。这不是某个政策出台、某个企业整顿就能解决的事，需要各方面通力配合，共同应对。

8. 您对外国品牌所有人在管理他们的知识产权组合方面有什么建议？

建议国外的品牌所有人关注“互联网+”经济形式下，对商标使用、商标注册的影响。比如在互联网环境下，信息流动速度极快，商业机会遍布全球，企业并不是“区域作战”，而要时刻做好进入他国市场的准备；许多商标、服务的类别已被打通，不能简单从商品服务分类表界定商标类别。因此，企业须尽早申请商标，多类布局，尤其是尽早在中国进行商标注册，以防止他人“搭便车”行为。中国商标注册须考虑周全，外国品牌及公司名称的英文名、中文正式翻译均要注册，此外，最好对商标的中文常译名、中文简称、同音字、形近字等进行防御注册。

9. 外企在2017年应关注哪些知识产权发展？

2016年3月3日，国务院法制办公室公布《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法(修订草案送审稿)》，向社会征求意见。 2015年12月2日，国务院法制办公室公布了《中华人民共和国专利法修订草案(送审稿)》，向社会公开征求意见。因此，建议国外公司在2017年持续关注《反不正当竞争法》、《专利法》的修订最新进展。

马远超 高级合伙人

协力律师事务所

+86 21 6886 6497

[email protected]

中国上海

陆家嘴环路958号

华能联合大厦35层

邮编:215021

马远超律师是协力律师事务所的高级合伙人。他于华东政法大学取得法律硕士，于上海交通大学安泰经济与管理学院完成了高级工商管理课程。

他的执业领域专注于知识产权保护、反垄断纠纷的诉讼与非诉讼法律服务。他的主要客户包括腾讯（00700.HK）、爱奇艺（iqiyi.com）、PTC（NASDAQ:PTC）、盛大网络（NASDAQ: GAME）、阜丰集团（00546.HK）、汤臣集团（00258 .HK）、HTC（股票代号：2498）、Siemens PLM、德国Elmos、美国Brewster、意大利展拜邸ZAMBAITI。

马律师曾为企业代理很多发明、外观设计和实用新型专利侵权案件，以及多起版权、商标侵权案件，包括软件、书本和艺术品，有几宗还获评为最高人民法院、北京、上海、山东和成都等地的十大知识产权案件。他同时也参与刑事、反不正当竞争、商业秘密和域名诉讼和仲裁。

马律师也为企业的展览项目和外国文化项目引进提供法律服务和作为商务谈判代表。他是中华全国律师协会知识产权专业委员会委员、华东政法大学兼职硕导和上海知识产权研究所副秘书长。