52 Guiding Cases: 8 on IP and Unfair Competition

Because 2011, the Supreme People’s Court of China has issued fifty two Guiding Instances (“GCs”). The courtroom did not situation any GCs on IP or unfair competitors till 2013 This fall and 2014 Q2, respectively.  Apparently triggered by its increasing self esteem in making use of GCs as a instrument to give additional steerage, the courtroom just issued another five GCs covering these two crucial areas (see Chart one).

Chart one:

The “Main Points of the Adjudication” sections for Guiding Case Nos. twenty, 29, and 30—the textual content geared up by the Supreme People’s Court to assist subsequent courts recognize the GCs and how to “refer to” them—read as follows:

Guiding Case No. twenty, Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Kengzi Drinking water Offer Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Kangtailan Drinking water Procedure Products Co., Ltd., An Invention Patent Infringement Dispute

Where by the Patent Regulation does not prohibit the manufacture, sale, and importation of an alleged patent-infringing products within just the provisional defense time period, which starts immediately after the creation patent application is revealed and ends when the patent is granted, the subsequent use, give for sale, and sale [of the products] are, in spite of the lack of a license from the patentee, not regarded as infringements of the patent.  But the patentee may, in accordance with regulation, demand that the entity or person who exploits the creation within just the provisional defense time period shell out an proper price.

Guiding Case No. 29, Tianjin China Youth Vacation Company v. Tianjin Guoqing International Vacation Company, A Dispute over an Unauthorized Use of A different Enterprise’s Identify

one. An abbreviated business name that has been widely employed externally by an business for a prolonged time period of time, that has a selected diploma of industry visibility and is recognized to the related general public, and that actually now capabilities as a trade name, may be regarded as an business name and [thus] be shielded [below regulation].

2. Where by, without the need of authorization, [a organization operator] uses another’s abbreviated business name, which actually now capabilities as a trade name, as an Online bid-for-ranking keyword in organization actions, resulting in the related general public to be confused and to misidentify [the business], [the unauthorized use of the abbreviated business name] is an act of unfair competitors.

Guiding Case No. 30, LAN Jianjun and Hangzhou Suremoov Automotive Technologies Firm Limited v. Tianjin Xiaomuzhi Auto Maintenance and Fix Products and services Co., Ltd. et al., A Trademark Infringement and Unfair Opposition Dispute

one. Irrespective of whether or not a organization operator has [carried out] an act that exceeds [its] legal organization scope and violates administrative licensing rules and restrictions does not influence its work out, in accordance with regulation, of [its] civil legal rights to prevent trademark infringement and unfair competitors.

2. The [coverage of] the anti-unfair competitors regulation is not restricted to organization operators having immediate competitive associations [among themselves] nor needs them to have interaction in the similar sector. Where by the organization operators have oblique competitive associations and the social gathering [carrying out] the act [in problem] violates the provisions of the anti-unfair competitors regulation and adversely has an effect on the legal legal rights and pursuits of the other organization operators, [the act] should really also be established to be an act of unfair competitors.

The entire-textual content translations, which include the “Main Points of the Adjudication” sections, of the other five GCs on IP and unfair competitors are currently becoming geared up by Stanford Regulation School’s China Guiding Instances Challenge.

Even though we await remaining translation, make sure you be aware the adhering to new developments:

(one) For thorough assessment of the fifty two GCs, see 

(2) The inaugural Guiding Cases Seminar, Why China’s Guiding Instances Issue?, was held with large success at Stanford Regulation School on April 22, 2015.  It highlighted an interactive panel discussion moderated by Yabo Lin, companion at Sidley Austin LLP’s Palo Alto office. Panelists included Dr. Mei Gechlik, founder and director of the CGCP, James McManis, Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and Co-Chair of its China Application, and Jason Zuocheng Hao, previous Director of the Civil Regulation Office of the Legislative Affairs Fee of the Nationwide People’s Congress in Beijing and current visiting scholar at Stanford Regulation School.  Missed the celebration? Check out out the entire video clip and celebration summary here!

(three) Pro Bono chances

Contact [email protected] if intrigued in signing up for the CGCP’s increasing and world wide professional bono community.  Opportunities are readily available for both individuals and law firms.