The CNIPA’s decisions I am talking about are re-examination decisions (against a rejection decision of a patent application), and invalidation decisions (against a request for invalidation of a granted patent. The appeals against these CNIPA’s decision can only be filed in Beijing, as the CNIPA is always the defendant in such appeals. At present, only the Beijing IP Court will accept such appeals. A further appeal against the Beijing IP Court’s decision used to be filed at the Beijing High Court. However, from 1 January 2019, all appeals against the Beijing IP Court’s decisions on patent and utility model cases will be handled by the IP Tribunal of the China Supreme People’s Court (the CSPC) directly.
Such appeals had low, if not very low, reversal rate statistically. According to data kindly provided by Darts-IP:
- The reversal rate of the invalidation decisions increased every year from 2014 to 2017, from about 10% to 15%; and
- The reversal rate of the re-examination decisions increased every year from 2014 to 2017, from about 7% to 10%.
Together with the change of handling all appeals on patent and utility model cases by the IP Tribunal of the CSPC directly, the CSPC also now has a set of stipulations to handle such appeals, bring the Chinese patent re-examination/invalidation system closer to the international norm. Some major points are as below:
- More open interpretation of sufficiency (than the CNIPA).
- More open view on generalization (than the CNIPA).
- Relevant technical field should refer to the lowest level in the international patent classification.
- What a patentee says during infringement proceedings would be considered at invalidation.
This article was written by our IP Expert Toby Mak and originally published in the CIPA Journal. To access the full article, please click here.
With the development and usage of World Wide Web, mobile internet and mobile phones, the Chinese E-Commerce market got an enormous growth. According to “Chinese E-Commerce Market Data Monitoring Report 2016”, the E-Commerce transaction amount reached 22.97 trillion RMB in 2016.
For both Chinese and international enterprises, to join this market is a trend but also a necessity. As one of the mainly path for entering E-Commerce market, the meaning of domain name registration is therefore getting more and more important.
Worldwide exist 330 million registered domain names currently. In China is the number in the amount of 50 million. China is becoming the second largest domain name market in the world. This market is interesting for both domain name service providers and enterprises as domain user. The foreign providers need to know the policy and rules for running a domain name business in China. And how to register and protect domain name in China is now an important issue that the enterprises should pay attention to. Continue reading “DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION AND PROTECTION IN CHINA” »
The definition of an unfair competition is given by the article 2 of the PCR Anti-Unfair Competition Law (反不正当竞争法). According to this article, an act of unfair competition is constituted when during production or distribution activities, a business operator disrupts the market competition order or infringes the legal rights and interests of other business operators or consumers.
Some unfair competition acts can be related to intellectual property such as the Article 6 which concerns the copy and imitation of brands and the Article 9 relating to the trade secrets. These articles protect an intellectual property owner from infringing of its IP rights by a competitor. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law has the benefit of protecting unregistered trademark. Continue reading “PROTECTING YOUR IP RIGHTS WITH THE CHINESE ANTI-UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (AUCL)” »
2014 Christian Dior registered its J’adore perfume bottle as a 3D trademark and also an international registered trademark. Following the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, Dior applied a territorial extension protection in China through the international bureau of WIPO. The TRAB of the SAIC rejected the application on July 13, 2015 with the reason of lack on distinctiveness. Dior filed a application for review of the refusal, but was also rejected with the same reason. After that, Dior submitted a administrative case to the court against TRAB’s decision, but failed by first and second instance. At last Dior applied for retrial to the Supreme People’s Court. On April 26, 2018 the Supreme People’s Court of China brought in a verdict that Christian Dior won the trial in the administrative dispute with the TRAB about the review of refusal, the TRAB must re-review this trademark application.
Continue reading “DIOR: 3D TRADEMARK REGISTRATION CASE” »