搜索
111INTELLECTUALPROPERTYPROTECTIONINCHINA:BestPractices知识产权的保护在中国:最佳做法PaulJonesJones&Co.钟保禄律师事务所ДжоунсиКо.简介-Introduction•ManyforeignersbelievethattheirintellectualpropertycannotbeprotectedinChina•ConsequentlytheyarereluctanttoregistertheirIPrightsinChina,•oreventodobusinessinthePRC3简介-Introduction–基本见解BasicAdvice•ChinahasIPlawsthatmeetinternationalstandards•ChinesecourtsdoenforceIPrights,andparticularlyIPrightsheldbyforeignparties•ThePRCdoeshavea“wildwest”economy•ToalargeextentthethreattoIPfromcounterfeiterscanbecostedandmanaged4简介-Introduction-假冒伪劣-Counterfeiting“…atumultuousperiodinwhichtherigidhierarchiesofcolonialtimesfinallydissolved,replacedbythemorefluidsocialorderofademocraticcommercialsociety.Self-fashioningandself-advancementslowlybecameaviablewayoflife…”StephenMihm,ANationofCounterfeiters,p.245法院及知识产权的实施Courts&IPEnforcementLegoCase-英特莱格公司（INTERLEGO．AG）v.可高（天津）玩具有限公司,Beijing2002LegowassuccessfulunderdesignpatentandcopyrightlawBeijingHigherPeople’sCourtstated:可高公司的产品确有抄袭之嫌，但同时也应看到英特莱格公司的上述玩具积木块艺术创作程度确实不是很高，与典型的实用艺术作品在艺术创作程度上尚有一定差距，一审法院出于平衡利益关系的考虑，作出上述认定是合理的，本院予以支持。(WhiletheKegaoCompany’sproductsreallyhavethesmellofplagiarism,weshouldalsoconsiderthatthelevelofartisticcreationintheEnglishInterlegoCompany’sproductsisnotreallyveryhighandthereisacertaindisparitybetweenitandtypicalpracticalworksofart.Thecourtoffirstinstancestruckareasonablebalanceoftheinterestsandwewillsupportit.)6商标案例Trade-markCases•Ferrero-Rocher–inTianjin-2005意大利费列罗公司(FERREROS.p.A.)v.蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司–Ferrero-RocherhadnotregisteredtheirChinesecharacternameandhadallowedinfringingusebyaChinesedairyforwellover15years.–Ferrero-RocherlostattrialandwononappealandattheSupremePeople’sCourt7商标案例Trade-markCases•Ferrero-Rocher–cont’d–Commencedactionin2003underAnti-UnfairCompetitionLaw-反不正当竞争法–GroundsforwininTianjinHigherPeople’sCourt:1.Indeterminingwhetheramarkiswell-knownregardtobehadtoforeignanddomesticmarket–ParisConvention2.Chineseinfringercouldnotproveindependentcreationofpackaging4.CourtcitedArticle10bis(2)oftheParisConventioninsupportofthepropositionthatArticle5(2)ofChina’sUnfairCompetitionLawshouldbereadliberally.8商标案例Trade-markCases•Ferrero-Rocher–cont’d3.根据诚实信用和公认的商业道德准则，知名商品应当是诚实经营的成果。因此，在法律上不能把使用不正当竞争手段获取的经营成果，作为产品知名度的评价依据。(Basedontheprinciplesofgoodfaithandrecognizedbusinessethics,“well-known”statusforaproductmustbeachievedthroughmanagement’sownefforts.Thereforeunfaircompetitionasspecifiedinlawcannotbeusedasamethodformanagementtoachieve“well-known”statusforaproduct.)9商标案例Trade-markCasesSonyEricssonCase-July2008–BadFaithRegistrations•SonyCorporationiswell-knowninChinaas索尼•Ericssonalsowell-knownunderthename爱立信•In2001theyformedajointventuretomanufactureandsellmobilephones•JointventureincorporatedinChinaas索尼爱立信移动通信产品（中国）有限公司10商标案例Trade-markCases•BusinessmaninGuangzhouappliedtoregisterthemark索爱onMarch19,2003–Sonyopposed,butlosttwice•BeijingNo.1IntermediatePeople’sCourtsaidthejointventurewaswidelyreportedinthepress•sobusinessmanispresumedtohaveknownaboutit•hisactions不正当性–dohaveclearlegitimacy–readconceptofgoodfaith(诚实)intoArticle31ofTrademarkLaw11中国法院的涉外纠纷ForeignersinthePeople’sCourts浙江蓝野酒业有限公司诉上海百事可乐饮料有限公司(ZhejiangBlueWildLiquorCompanyv.ShanghaiPepsiCola)May24,200712中国法院的涉外纠纷ForeignersinthePeople’sCourts•December14,2003Chineseco.appliedforthetrademark“蓝色风暴”(BLUESTORM)–registeredJanuary24,2006•July–August2005Pepsiusedthesamemarkinapromotionalcampaign•Pepsiwoninthecourtoffirstinstanceongroundsthatuseasasloganwasnotusedasatrademark•OnappealZhejiangHigherPeople’sCourtawarded3millionyuan($393,576.00USD)totheChinesecompany外观设计专利案例-DesignPatentCasesFiatPandaGreatWallPeri13外观设计专利案例-DesignPatentCasesFiatAutoS.P.Av.长城汽车股份有限公司(GreatWallMotorCompany),HebeiHigherPeople’sCourt,December29,2008FiatclaimedthatGreatWallinfringeditsdesignpatentCourtsaid:–designpatentsonlyprotecttheuniqueaspects,inthiscasethesideviews,buttheaverageconsumerwouldbemoreinterestedinthesize,shapeandtechnicalparametersthanthesideviewprotectedbythedesignpatent-differencesinthedesignofthefrontofthecarmustalsobeconsidered14外观设计专利案例-DesignPatentCasesNeoplan’sStarlinerZonda’sA915外观设计专利案例-DesignPatentCasesNeoplanGermanyv.盐城中威客车有限公司(ZhongweiBusCo,)中大工业集团公司(ZhongdaIndustrialCo.),BeijingNo.1IntermediatePeople’sCourt,January14,2009(underappeal–decisionnotavailable)-Neoplanregisteredadesignpatent,claimedinfringement-ZhongweisaidthattheycreatedthedesignindependentlyCourtsaid–thedifferencesinthedesignsweretooslighttoconstituteanotablevisibleeffectontheentiredesign16外观设计专利案例-DesignPatentCases17教条的发展-DevelopmentofDoctrine北京泰赫雅特汽车销售服务有限公司v.保时捷股份公司(PorscheAG),北京市高级人民法院民事判决书（2008）高民终字第326号-issuedDecember19,2008Canthetrademarkbeusedbyotherstodescribetheproduct?(knownas“nominativefairuse”)InChinathiscaseandotherssay–onlyifusedaslittleaspossible–PorschewonNoequivalentlineofcasesinCanada18191919INTELLECTUALPROPERTYPROTECTIONINCHINA:BestPractices知识产权的保护在中国:最佳做法PaulJonesJones&Co.钟保禄