New Trends in IP Trails at the Beijing High People’s Court in 2007 (II)

Issue 25 By Liu Xiaojun IP Division, Beijing High People’s Court,[Trademark]

II. New developments in trial of trademark cases

1. De novo review of administrative decisions involving trademarks

1) Admissibility of new evidence in administrative cases of trademark cancellation

When the Trademark Review & Adjudication Board (TRAB) renders an administrative decision, it relies on claims and evidence of the parties. For a court to review an administrative decision, such as a trademark cancellation decision, the scope is limited to whether the specific administrative action is legitimate, i.e., largely on the admission of the parties’ claims and supporting evidence by the TRAB. Facts not presented in the trademark cancellation proceeding were not contemplated by the TRAB, and generally should not be relied on by courts. It is worth noting, however, if a trademark owner, in challenging an administrative decision for cancelling its trademark registration, produces new evidence that is sufficient to negate the Board’s decision, such new evidence may be admitted where appropriate.

In the trademark cancellation case of Xiao Hongjian vs. TRAB and Beijing Xinyuanzhai Beverage Co., Ltd. (Xinyuanzhai) 1, Xinyuanzhai requested cancellation of Xiao’s trademark registration on the basis of three year non-use. The Trademark Office, finding that the disputed mark had not been in use for three years, decided to remove it from the register. Xiao appealed the decision to the TRAB with new evidence, which the Board considered as insufficient to rebut the three year non-use, and therefore upheld the initial decision. Xiao sought judicial review with new evidence, to be rejected by the court of the first instance on the same grounds as relied on by the Board. Xiao further appealed with the new evidence.

The Beijing High People’s Court found that the Trademark Office and the TRAB legitimately executed their authorities in the trademark cancellation proceeding, and properly entertained the evidence adduced by Xiao who failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the disputed mark had been used in commerce during the relevant period. It was not improper for the Office and the Board to reach their respective decisions relying on such evidence. The court below also made an appropriate decision in sustaining the agency’s decisions by finding that the additional evidence was insufficient to overturn such decisions. However, the appellant Xiao again presented new evidence on appeal, and the high court noted that such evidence, though not before the Trademark Office or the Board when the administrative decisions were made, warrants a new trial, in light of the legislative intent for the provision of cancelling a registration for three year non-use, and of the grim fact that the trademark rights would be extinguished without a remedy resulting from such a cancellation. The Beijing High Court thus vacated the decisions below, and remanded the case to the TRAB.

2) The role of the Classification of Similar Goods and Services (CSGS) in determining the similarity or identicalness of goods and services in administrative trademark cases

Similar goods are those that are likely to cause confusion because they are identical in respect of function, usage, manufacturing, sales, consuming public, or because the relevant public would generally believe that there are certain connections between them; similar services are those that are likely to cause confusion because they are identical in respect of purposes, contents, methods, recipients, or because he relevant public would generally believe that there certain connections between them. The similarity of goods or services refers to certain connections between the goods, or between the services, that are likely to cause confusion among relevant public. The CSGS is an important basis on which the trademark authorities are to judge the similarity of goods or services. But it’s not the only basis, and it is subject to frequent modification. In finding similarity of goods or services, courts may rely on the International Classification of Goods and Services and the CSGS as presumptive evidence, rebuttable if a litigant proves otherwise. A comprehensive determination has to be made taking into account of evidence produced by the parties, the inherent nature of the goods or products, as well as public recognition of the goods or services.

In the case2 of Anheuser-Busch vs. TRAB and Hunan Zhuzhou Beer Factory (Zhuzhou Beer), applicant Zhuzhou Beer applied for the mark GoldenBud on January 30, 1996 for use with “alcoholic beverages except beer.” Cited mark I was Anheuser-Busch’s registration of BUD for beer in Class 32 dated April 25, 1979, and cited mark II was its registration of BUDWEISER for beer in class 32 dated April 25, 1974, both being effective. In determining whether the underlying products under the opposed mark and those under the cited marks were similar goods, both TRAB and the court of first instance were of the opinion that “beer” under the cited marks and “alcoholic beverages (except beer)” were not similar goods. First, similarity or dissimilarity of goods has traditionally been based on the Classification of Goods which lists beer in Class 32, and other alcoholic beverages in Class 33. The Classification is molded from the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of Trademark Registration promulgated by World Intellectual Property Organiztion (WIPO), which underwent several modifications since 1988, but the classification of beer and other alcoholic beverages remains unchanged, and these two goods have always been considered as dissimilar in both trademark examining process and in trademark review and adjudicatory practice, for, any inconsistencies with the Classification in cases would result in uncertainty. Moreover, in comparison with alcoholic beverages, beer has distinctive characters in respect of function, usages, consuming public and manufacturing process. It is distinguished from other alcoholic drinks because of its low alcohol contents, and because its function and usages are more closely connected with soft drinks than alcoholic beverages. A manufacturer for alcoholic beverages generally would not make beer at the same time. For these reasons, the goods under the opposed mark, alcoholic beverages except beer, were not similar with the goods under the cited marks, i.e., beer.

The Beijing High People’s Court, however, found otherwise: although “beer” and “alcoholic beverages except beer” are listed in different classes under CSGS, they both contain alcohol; they both function and are used to satisfy the needs of drinking, and they both target primarily the same consumers, by more or less the same sales channels. Meanwhile, despite the exception of beer in the designation of goods by the opposed mark, the mark has a similar appearance with the cited marks. The applicant of the opposed mark is in the beer brewing business, and the use of similar marks on beer and alcoholic beverages would cause the relevant public to believe that these goods are from a single or an affiliated source. By the above analysis, the goods described above are found to be similar.

3) Determination of continuing use of exclusive registered trademark  on identical goods

To continue a trademark registration upon expiration, a renewal application must be filed within six months prior to the expiration date, or in the six month grace period following expiration. Upon expiration of the grace period, the registration shall be removed from the registry. Each renewal is effective for ten years, starting from the day after the previous expiration date. As long as renewal is properly filed, the exclusive right under the trademark registration shall be deemed to have been continuously held, and shall be sufficient to overcome attempts to register identical or similar marks. Judicial experience indicates, however, renewal is not the only way to maintain the exclusive right of a registered trademark; fresh application of identical or similar marks in connection with goods or services in similar classes may also contribute to recognition of the continuation of a trademark registration.

In the RONGBAOZHAI trademark dispute case of Wuhan Rongbaozhai v. TRAB et al.3, , Rongbaozhai, an old well-known Chinese brand name established in 1894, had a long history of mounting calligraphy works, pictures, publications, and collections of ancient relics. Rongbaozhai received a trademark registration under No. 565836 dated September 20, 1991 for “榮寶齋” in class 16 for Xuan paper and postcards. Registration expired September 19, 2001 and no renewal was filed. Rongbaozhai subsequently applied applications on April 26, 2001 for three trademarks (the cited trademarks) for the word mark“榮寶齋”, which matured into registration September 7, 2002 on brush cases and brushes in class 16. The above three marks were certified by the TRAB as well-known trademarks. On April 7, 2002, Wuhan Rongbaozhai obtained trademark registration for 榮寶齋& Design (the mark under dispute) for the services of mounting of artistic works and printing of drawings and paintings in class 40. On March 30, 2005, Rongbaozhai requested cancellation of the disputed trademark on the grounds that the registration was not in conformity with the provisions under Articles 13 and 31 of the Trademark Law. The TRAB decided to cancel the registration on November 6, 2006, which was affirmed by the court of first instance.

The issue of this case was whether the disputed trademark, which was secured when the word mark榮寶齋under Reg. No. 565836 had expired without renewal, may be cancelled in light of cited marks that had not been registered at the time the disputed trademark was filed for registration.

The Beijing High People’s Court says yes, by emphasizing the distinction between a business name as indicating a corporate identity and a trademark as indicating the source of goods or services. There is no denying, however, that a business name may also function in practical use to indicate such sources, wherefore leading to the confusion as to the different functions of business names and trademarks in the marketplace, which carries little weight in the purchasing decision of the relevant public. For this reason, it is hard to tell whether the acquired business reputation comes from its business name or its mark. By the same token, a corporation’s business reputation walking in front of its trademark registration does not negate the other aspect of its corporate name in reality having the source-indicating function of a trademark. In the case at bar, Rongbaozhai had been highly reputed in related business since its founding more than one hundred years ago, and the three characters of “榮寶齋” were well known to the relevant public. The successful, commercial reputation of Rongbaozhai of more than one hundred years was displayed in the No. 565836 trademark of “榮寶齋”. The company’s failure to renew the registration of the trademark upon expiry had excluded it to the exclusive right of the trademark, but it registered three similar and identical trademarks later that might be deemed as a continuation of its remarkable commercial reputation behind the marks. The Board’s decision on cited trademarks being well known was properly rendered. As the major parts of the disputed trademark were mainly from the characters, features and the displaying manner of the cited trademarks, its applicant, Wuhan Rongbaozhai’s trademark registration was not warranted and thus, must be cancelled.

4)Determination of inappropriate rejection of a trademark application for partial incompliance with Art. 28 of the Trademark Law relating to designation of goods

Article 28 of the Trademark Law stipulates that an application for trademark registration shall be rejected and shall not be published where the mark is identical with or similar to a mark already registered or preliminarily approved in connection with identical or similar goods. Article 21 of Implementation Regulations of the Trademark Law provides that when the Trademark Office, in examining a trademark application, would refuse registration if the designation of goods in not in conformity, or refuse registration for the part of designation that is not in conformity, of the Regulation, and give notice to the applicant with the reason. Therefore, it is inappropriate to reject the entire application rather than the disputed part where a mark under dispute is identical with or similar to a cited mark only in connection to part of the designated goods or services.

In the trademark rejection case4 of Liangjiefu Pharmaceutical Private Co., Ltd. vs. TRAB, the mark under opposition, “金牌” (Golden Brand), filed by Liangjiefu on June 12 2002 under No. 3208438 covering medical preparation, medical preparation for vet use, and medical sanitary preparation in class 5 was rejected April 9, 2003 by the Trademark Office, relying on two marks, the cited mark I, GOLDEN & Design, Reg. No. 1044554, of July 7, 1997, owned by Hangzhou Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs, Native Produce & Animal By-products I/E Co., Ltd covering purified preparation and animal medicine in class 5, and cited mark II, for “金” (Gold), Reg. No. 1724476 of March 7, 2002, owned by Guangxi Golden Throat Group, covering human medicine, patent medicine of Chinese traditional medicine, medipreparation,tion and chemical drug preparation in class 5, on the grounds that the mark was similar to cited mark I in respect of vet preparations, and similar to cited mark II in respect of human medicine, pursuant to Trademark Law, Art. 28. The rejection was subsequently confirmed by both TRAB and the court of first instance.

The Beijing High People’s Court held that the disputed trademark constituted similarity with the two cited trademarks. It found, in light of the function, use, producer, sales channel and consumers of the targeted products and the CSGS, the disputed trademark covered medical preparation and medical sanitary preparation that were identical or similar with the human medicine, patent medicine of Chinese traditional medicine, medical preparation and chemical drug preparation of the two compared trademarks. The part of the application concerning the above products therefore should be dismissed. Vet preparation under the disputed trademark was not similar or identical with the products under the two compared trademarks. The court decided, as the TRAB had faults in its decision on the application for all the designated products, to cancel the TRAB decision and order it to issue a new one. 

5) Registration of trademarks obtained through fraud or other improper means should be canceled even when they are used on products that are different from those of senior trademarks

Article 41, Para.1 of the Trademark Law provides that registration of trademarks obtained through fraud or other improper means shall be canceled by the Trademark Office; other units or individuals may also request the TRAB to cancel the registration. A question that arises herein is whether the part of the registered trademark covering different approved products should be canceled when the covered products of the problem trademark are not completely the same as that of the senior trademark. There has been no consensus between trademark authorities and the judiciary.
 
In the trademark cancellation case5 of Henan Lucky Date Co., Ltd. v. TRAB and Zhengzhou Shuailong Date Foodstuff Co., Ltd., Lucky Date was incorporated in 1997 for processing fresh and dried fruit. In April 2000, Lucky Date was named the “1999 Best Seller Brand in Zhengzhou Market” for its “好想你” (miss you)brand sliced dates by the Zhengzhou Business and Trade Committee. Shuailong was formed in 2000 for date products and juices of vegetables and fruits with its domicile in Zhengzhou city. The disputed trademark of Shuailong, “真的好想你”(really miss you)was applied on August 20, 2001 and approved for registration on October 7, 2002, for dried date, sliced haws and salted vegetables in class 29. On January 23, 2003, Lucky Date petitioned the TRAB for cancellation of Shuailong’s mark because of the latter’s conduct in registering the disputed trademark constitutes violations of Articles 31 and 41, Para.1 of the Trademark Law. On September 15, 2006, the TRAB found in decision No. 3112 that Shuailong’s conduct in registering the trademark of “真的好想你” for dried dates and sliced haws in class 29 fell under the circumstances regulated by Article 31 of the Trademark Law; “snatch others’ trademark that has been in use and enjoying a certain influence”. Thus, the part of the registered trademark on the above products should be canceled. As to the other products designated by the disputed trademark, salted vegetables and edible oil, were not similar goods as dried dates, the trademark was still recognized as valid concerning these products. The first instance court held that the disputed trademark should be canceled for all the involved categories of goods as the products of Lucky Date that had been covered by its trademark and the goods covered by the disputed trademark were basically the same in terms of function, use and sales channel, and the two companies in their operation might lead to consumers’ confusion.

The Beijing High People’s Court found that the “好想你”brand sliced dates of Lucky Date had become a best seller brand as early as in 1999 and thus a mark of Lucky Date’s sliced date products. Shuailong, as a corporation located in the same city and involved in the same business of date processing, should have known that “好想你”was Lucky Date’s trademark and had been in prior use. As the latter registered with malicious intent the disputed trademark that was similar with the prior trademark in class 29, which constituted a conduct of “obtain registration of a trademark through fraudulence or other improper means” provided by Article 41.1 of the Trademark Law, the disputed trademark should be cancelled for all the designated products.

6) Trademark registrations in conflict with prior rights should be canceled

Article 31 of the Trademark Law stipulates that trademark registration application shall not infringe others’ existing prior rights, i.e., copyright, patent on design and other rights, and prior rights must be valid.

In the case6 of Guangdong Gin Ho Co., Ltd. vs. TRAB and the third party Friesland Foods concerning trademark cancellation, Qiyi designed a new trademark of “Kievit Bird and the Word Kievit in Fine Art Characters”, and then retained the design in its cartoon books and displayed it at public exhibition. On Aug. 28, 1996, Gin Ho applied to the Trademark Bureau for registration of No. 1102480 combined trademark of “奇异鸟Kievit and the graphic of the Kievit Bird”, and obtained approval for Category 30 goods of coffee and candy on Sep. 14, 1997. Qiyi requested cancellation by the TEC of No. 1102480 registered trademark; however, on Jun. 28, 2002 it merged with Friesland. The TEC upon examination held that obtaining registration of the disputed trademark was an infringement of the prior copyright held by Qiyi, and thus canceled the trademark. The first instance court upheld the TEC’s decision.

The Beijing High People’s Court found that the graphics of kievit birds was a kind of depiction of the birds in Nature and keivit was a slang word. The graphics of kievit were simple but creative. Kievit was a slang word, but it contained founder’s name, Qiyi and was the trademark of Qiyi. “Kievit Bird and the Word Kievit in Fine Art Characters” in combination was a piece of work under the protection of law and Friesland had prior ownership. Gin Ho obtained registration of this combination as its trademark and hence infringed on others’ prior rights and violated Article 31 of the Trademark Law. Therefore, trademark No. 1102480 should be canceled.

7) The term “already in use” in Article 31 of the Trademark Law should be applicable beyond the Chinese mainland

Article 31 of the Trademark Law forbids snatching trademarks in prior use. Major disputes exist on whether the regulations on “prior use” are applicable in the Chinese mainland alone.

In the case7 of Shengneng Investment Co., Ltd. vs. TEC and the third party Ryohin Keikaku Co., Ltd. concerning trademark cancellation, Ryohin Keikaku previously registered and used the trademarks of “无印良品”and “无印良品MUJI”in the UK, Japan, and Hong Kong. Shengneng later applied to China’s Trademark Bureau for the registration of the trademark “无印良品” with its coverage of goods being the same as those of Ryohin Keikaku. Ryohin Keikaku requested the TEC to cancel the trademark, and the latter agreed because the disputed trademark resulted from violation of Article 31 of the Trademark Law. The first instance court upheld the TEC’s decision.

The Beijing High People’s Court held that no one may snatch with improper means others’ trademarks that have been used by others and which enjoy a certain influence. Improper means refers to the circumstances where the registrant of a disputed trademark has subjective malicious intent to take advantage of others’ trademark market reputation for unfair competition. The legislative purpose of this Article is to forbid malicious snatching of others’ trademark and the snatched trademark being used or not in the Chinese mainland is not a required premise. Ryohin Keikaku’s prior trademark had not been put into use in the Chinese mainland, but Shengneng was located in the same region as the snatched trademark, and both parties were involved in the same business. It was obvious that Shengneng had subjective malice in applying for registering the disputed trademark. Trademark No. 795636 therefore should be canceled.

8) Admission of a time standard for finding similarity between a disputed trademark and a compared trademark

Under the Trademark Law, anyone may raise an objection to a trademark awaiting approval for registration after the Notice on Initial Approval should he believe that the trademark is similar or identical with another. In practice, many disputed trademarks may be under examination after being disputed for months, years or even more than a decade. While waiting for final resolution, the disputed trademark and the compared trademark remain in use. After several years or more than one decade, both may become well known. As to the questions of whether the trademarks involved are similar or not and whether they lead to confusion for consumers, answers will naturally arise in the use of the trademarks. At such a time, major disputes may arise on whether the time of raising disputes or the time of dispute solution may prevail in determining similarity between the trademarks involved.

In the administrative case8 of LA CHEMISE LACOSTE (LACOSTE) vs. TEC and the third party Crocodile International Pte Ltd. (Crocodile)concerning trademark dispute, Crocodile applied for registration of No. 1331001 disputed trademark of “Crocodile and Graphic” under Category 25 on Dec. 24, 1993, but the Trademark Bureau dismissed its application based on the of similarity with the compared trademark. The TEC on Mar. 10, 1998 rendered its final and conclusive decision on the inexistence of similarity and allowed the disputed trademark into a Notice on Initial Approval. After the Notice was issued, LACOSTE raised its objection on Nov. 5, 1999. However, the Trademark Bureau approved the registration of the disputed trademark. LACOSTE objected and requested a review. The TEC took the time of examination as the time for determining whether the two trademarks were similar or not, and decided on Jun. 30, 2005 to approve the registration of the disputed trademark. LACOSTE further objected and filed a lawsuit. The first instance court negated the TEC’s decision.

The Beijing High People’s Court held that in determining the similarity between different trademarks the general attention of the related public should prevail. Comparison should be done on the trademarks as a whole and their major components; comparison should be conducted separately; the obviousness and reputation of the trademarks should be taken into account. In determining whether a disputed trademark and a compared trademark were similar, the time when the application for the disputed trademark was started should prevail. In this case, the general attention of the related public should be observed separately and the obviousness and reputation of the compared trademark should be taken into account. The disputed trademark and compared trademark might cause a certain link, but would not lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Twelve years passed before all the procedures including dismissal, review application dismissal, objection, objection review, and litigation were gone through. What deserved attention, however, was the time, i.e., March. 10, 1998, when the TEC rendered the final and irrefutable decision on review application dismissal and allowed the registration of the disputed trademark. This organization in fact insisted on this stance in the objection review procedure. Objectively viewed, the disputed trademark, after twelve years of use, had obtained a certain obviousness and reputation and would not lead to confusion in consumers with the compared trademark. The Beijing High People’s Court upheld the TEC’s decision in its final and conclusive decision.

2. New developments in the trial of civil cases concerning trademarks

1) Standing of a previous trademark owner to sue for infringement of an assigned mark

For a trademark owner to sue for trademark infringement, the owner must have legitimate rights in the trademark registration. Assignment means the assignee has replaced the previous owner. For infringing acts taking place after the assignment, the previous owner has no standing for a civil action. If the infringing act spanned over the assignment, the previous owner may sue for infringement taking place before the assignment, but not for an injunction; and for damages, it has to be taken into consideration as to the duration of the infringing acts and the assignment.

In the case9 of Adidas International B. V. (Adidas) vs. Ai-le Group (Fujian) (Ai-le), Beijing Jianlijia Sports Goods Store (Jianlijia) and Beijing Ruiguan Sports Goods Co., Ltd. (Ruiguan) concerning infringement upon trademark exclusive rights, Adidas obtained respectively on Dec. 14, 2000 and Mar. 14, 2001 the exclusive rights of No. 1489454 and No.1536558 graphic trademarks for Category 25 on goods of clothing and football footwear and Category 18 on goods of book bags and suitcases. On June 21, the above registered trademarks were transferred to Adidas International Management Co., Ltd., which was not involved in this case. On July 26, 2003, the Adidas agency bought a pair of sports shoes produced by Ai-le dated September. 8, 2002 in Jianlijia Store. The shoes had the above registered graphics in their eye-catching parts. The first instance court decided against Ai-le, Jianlijia Store, and Ruiguan, ordering them to cease their infringing acts immediately and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses. On appeal, Adidas claimed that the purpose of its suit was to seek remedy for the three defendants’ infringing acts during Jun. 30, 2002 and June. 20, 2003. The Beijing High People’s Court held that under the Trademark Law, Adidas was the registrant of No. 1489454 trademark and was entitled to remedies for infringements before June. 21, 2003, the transferring date of the registered trademark. This right was not transferred with the trademark and ceased after the transfer.

2) Trademark fair use

When a registered trademark includes a generic word or design which qualifies to indicate source of products or services, others may use the word or design in the generic sense which does not infringe the registered trademark. This is especially so if the mark includes a generic name, design or symbol of the products on which it is used, or if mark directly describes the quality, main material, function, usage, weight, quantity, or other aspects of the products, or if a geographic appellation is involved. In these cases, the registrant cannot exclude other from the fair use of the mark.

In the case10 of Li Fengying vs. Hu’nan Heng’an Paper Co., Ltd., Shandong Heng’an Xinxiangyin Paper Products Co., Ltd. and Beijing Shuntianfu Investment Management Co., Ltd. concerning infringement upon exclusive trademark rights, Li Fengying was the owner of the registered trademark of “薰衣草and graphic” for Category 16 of paper handkerchiefs and napkins. A deep blue ellipse mark with the characters of“薰衣草”was found being used on the paper handkerchiefs of Xinxiangyin and Shuntianfu. The first instance court decided that the mark of “薰衣草”on the accused infringing products was properly used and the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed.

The Beijing High People’s Court held that others might properly use the marks depicting the merits of goods on the goods themselves even when they were close to the registered trademarks, and registered trademark owners have no right to exclude others from doing so. In this case, the accused infringing products had the registered trademark of “心相印”in their eye-catching parts, with “薰衣草”obviously smaller than the registered trademark of “心相印” and there were colored lavender graphics besides the characters of “薰衣草”. Lavender is a kind of fragrant plant and its extraction may be used for making paper handkerchiefs. Judged from the standard of a normal consumer’s general attention, no misunderstanding might be caused between the source of these products and Li, the owner of registered trademark of “薰衣草 and graphic”. Therefore, the court found that Hu’nan Heng’an and Shandong Heng’an simply wanted to indicate the fragrance style of lavender in their use of the 薰衣草mark. Li had no right to exclude others from using the mark of 薰衣草 in his exercise of exclusive trademark rights although he had the characters of “薰衣草” that directly indicated his products’ fragrance style with his registered trademark “薰衣草and graphic”. The acts of the two “Heng’ans” did not constituted infringement on Li’s exclusive registered trademark rights. (To be continued)

Endnotes

1. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 388 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2007) Yizhongxingzi No. 138 administrative decision.
2. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 417 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2007) Yizhongxingzi No. 51 administrative decision.
3. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 295 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2007) Yizhongxingzi No. 11 administrative decision.
4. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 24 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2006) Yizhongxingzi No. 258 administrative decision.
5. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 81 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2006) Yizhongxingzi No. 1260 administrative decision.
6. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 179 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2006) Yizhongxingzi No. 138 administrative decision.
7. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 16 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2006) Yizhongxingzi No. 191 administrative decision.
8. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 178 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2005) Yizhongxingchuzi No. 191 administrative decision.
9. See Beijing High People’s Court (2006) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 781 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2004) Yizhongminchuzi No. 7239 administrative decision.
10. See Beijing High People’s Court (2007) Gaoxingzhongzi No. 968 administrative decision and Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (2006) Yizhongminchuzi No. 15269 administrative decision.


(Translated by Wang Zengsen)

Member Message


Only our members can leave a message,so please register or login.

International IP Firms
Inquiry and Assessment

Article Search

Keywords:

People watch

Online Survey

In your opinion, which is the most important factor that influences IP pledge loan evaluation?

Control over several core technologies for one product by different right owners
Stability of ownership of the pledge
Ownership and effectiveness of the pledge

-