Blogs

Year 2015 Programs

 

In 2015, the Chinese Intellectual Property Resource Center plans to organize the following programs:

1. March 18, 2018: A.M. - Commencement Exercises for January 2015 LL.M. Graduates in Beijing.

2. March 19, 2015: P.M. - The Latest Development of US Patent Law

by Professor Arthur Yuan.

 

Programs: 

2011 Whitepaper Released by Chinese Supreme People's Court

[Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]

Thanks to our JMLS LLM '10 graduate, Ms. (Fiona) Yue GAO at King & Wood Mallesons's Shanghai office, who alerted me that the Chinese Supreme People's Court released its 2011 annual report/whitepaper on April 19, 2012 on intellectual property cases before the Court.  The whitepaper is in both Chinese and English with the English version starting from page 25.

Jaguar Stopped a Jaguar Imposter in Using its Marks in China

[By Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]

[Author’s note: Key lessons for non-Chinese litigants: business name registration; trademark infringement, unfair competition, injunctive relief]

Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court

Jaguar Cars, Ltd.

(plaintiff)

v.

China Jaguar Brand Management Co.

v.

Beijing FengHengSheng Trading Co., Ltd.

v.

Beijing HengTaiShun Trading Co., Ltd.

Translated Decisions: 

No CHEMDRAW for CambridgeSoft in China

[By Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]

[Author’s note: Key lessons for non-Chinese litigants: descriptive and “distinctive features” in Chinese Trademark Law, Trademark Review and Adjudication Board]

CambridgeSoft Corporation (Petitioner, Plaintiff, Appellant)

v.

Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (Appellee)

Beijing High People’s Court

September 6, 2010.

Translated Decisions: 

Playing the winning cards in Chinese patent invalidation appeals

[By Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]

[Author’s note: Key lessons for non-Chinese litigants: Patent Reexamination Board, retroactive application of the third amendments to the Chinese patent law, standing, registered Chinese trademarks as evidence in invalidating Chinese design patents]

Translated Decisions: 
IP: 

Warner Music - Victim of a Chinese frivolous lawsuit?

[By Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]

[Author’s note: Key lessons for non-Chinese litigants: frivolous lawsuit] 

Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court

 Beijing Manjiang Tech Development Co. Ltd. (Plaintiff)

v.

Beijing Warner Music Copyright Agency (Defendant)

February 17, 2012[1]

Translated Decisions: 

Forward thinking

[Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]

After reading Judge's article on online forms, it occurred to me that as the Chinese increase E-commerce online activities, one should also focus on the basic intellectual property protection, such as copyright. The idea of combining geometric shapes with color for garnering interior decorating customers was ingenious and should certainly be protected.

Commissioned Work

[Arthur Tan-Chi Yuan]
The term used in Judge Li's article is the “commissioned work.” This term is to be understood as “work-for-hire” as used in American Copyright law.

Pages