COVID-19 OUTBREAK: Applying for an extension of the term to supply documents with the Beijing IP court

Quote

Author: Michele Ferrante, Founder and Managing Partner at Ferrante IP.
Source: http://www.ferrante.asia/en/details.html?81

mr-cup-fabien-barral-o6GEPQXnqMY-unsplash

 In consideration of the disruptions caused in many countries by the COVID-19 outbreak, the Beijing IP Court has opened the possibility for foreign plaintiffs to apply for an extension of the deadline to supplement notarized and legalized documents in administrative proceedings.

Under normal circumstances, the term for supplementing such documents is 3 months from the preliminary filing. Applications for an extension are open to foreign plaintiffs who are prevented from meeting the deadline by measures taken in their own jurisdiction to contain the spread of the disease.The application needs to explain the reasons for the delay and how it is caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. Solid evidence proving such delay is needed, such as a formal notice of temporary closure of authorities or relevant media coverage.

The Beijing IP Court will decide whether an extension can be granted based on the circumstances of each case.

Reach out to our litigation team for more information (legal@ferrante.asia).

What Is A Well-Known Trademark (WKTM)?

Quote

by Fabio Giacopello

 

Reading article 14 TML, we understand that a WKTM is a trademark that is extensively used and advertised, and enjoys high reputation in its field…

Chinese Trademark Law (TML) does not give a precise definition but it can be easily implied from the requirements posed for its recognition. Reading Article 14 TML, HFG Law & Intellectual Property it is understood that a WKTM is a trademark that is extensively used and advertised, and enjoys high reputation in its field[i].

Why Is Having A Well-Known Trademark Important?

From a merely legal point of view – leaving apart marketing considerations – the well-known trademark is a super hero, in the sense that it has “special powers” that “normal” trademarks don’t have. Such special powers are described in Article 13 of TML and are different, based on the fact that the WKTM is already registered or not in China. Provided below is a graphic representation to better explain the statute of rights or scope of protection granted to registered or unregistered WKTM.

Trademarks

A Well-Known Trademark That Is Not Registered In China Must Be Protected For Goods That Are Identical Or Similar To The Goods For Which The WKTM Is Famous.

Special powers consist in obtaining a protection identical to that granted to a registered trademark in the lack of registration and this is a big exception. Indeed a nonregistered and non-WKTM has almost zero rights. In any case, it is to be noted that having a non-registered WKTM is a very rare circumstance: the trademark shall be reputed, widely used and advertised, but its owner has not applied and registered it as a trademark.

More interestingly, the second part of Article art.13 takes into consideration the case of a Well-Known Trademark that is already registered. In such case, the special power granted is the so-called cross-class protection.

Continue reading “What Is A Well-Known Trademark (WKTM)?” »

Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information (2019 Draft)

Article by Daniel Albrecht

Capture

Summary: The Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China was issued on November 7, 2016, and officially put into effect June 1, 2017. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) has released supportive measures to implement provisions of the Cybersecurity Law. These draft Measures provide guidelines for cross-border transfer of data, data security assessments, and the protection of data in relation to national and public interest. In 2017, the CAC published Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information and Important Data. The draft received immense feedback, leading to a second draft released in June 2019, Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information. The new draft will affect a wide range of domestic and foreign entities in China that have cross-border transfer needs.

Separating “Personal Information” and “Important Data”

On June 13, 2019, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) released Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information. Regulations and guidelines provided in the draft pertain to network operators that export personal information data to recipients outside of China. It should be noted that the 2017 draft Measures applied to both “important data” and “personal information” data. However, the 2019 draft legislation omits the term “important data” and solely focuses on the export of “personal information.” The removal of the term implies that the CAC is now treating important data and personal information as separate categories that are subject to different requirements.[1] Therefore, the content in the new draft regulation only concerns the cross-border transfer of “personal information” collected within the territory of China.[2]

Data Localization Requirement

China’s Cybersecurity Law requires data localization for “critical information infrastructure operators” (CIIO’s) that collect and generate data within China. In other words, the provision requires that personal information and important data collected by CIIO’s within the territory of China will be stored in Chinese servers. The 2017 draft Measures attempted to bring clarification to this data localization rule. However, the draft expanded the data localization requirement to all “network operators,” causing controversy and confusion in the international community. Since “network operator” is more vaguely defined than CIIO’s, the 2017 Measures broadened the scope for the data localization requirement.

To make things more complicated, the CAC published the 2019 draft Measures without any mention of data localization requirements. Although there is no data localization provision in the new draft, it does not mean that network operators are exempt from data localization. Legal experts point out that China’s Cybersecurity Law overlaps with the new draft Measures, and CIIO’s are still obligated to follow data localization rules. However, with the cybersecurity law referring to “CIIO’s”, and the Measures only referring to “network operators,” there is room for interpretation regarding what entities will be impacted by data localization requirements.

Continue reading “Measures on Security Assessment of Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Information (2019 Draft)” »

Trademark Law Revision in China: analysis of the new provisions

On 23 April 2019 the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress issued the fourth revision of the Trademark Law, which came into force on November 1st. This has attracted much attention from the international IP community as it addresses the issue of bad-faith registrations – one of the most significant challenges to protecting international brands in China.

 registered-98574_1280

The new law provides that bad-faith applications made with no intent to use will be rejected. In addition, the absence of requisite intent to use is now included as grounds for opposition and invalidation proceedings.

Moreover, the law allows for a higher amount of damages that can be claimed for trademark infringement; likewise, the highest amount of statutory damages was increased from RMB 3 million to RMB 5 million in an attempt to deter infringements.

The revision also establishes new guidelines for the Trial of Cases on Trademark Authorisation and Affirmation, as well as new articles on the legal liability of applicants of bad-faith application without intent to use.

For the full analysis on the recent revision, read the full article by Charles Feng at Lexology.

IP Enforcement Litigation in Taiwan: Some Basics

courtToday’s blog post has been kindly shared with us by our external experts Mr. John Eastwood and Ms. Eve Chen from Eiger. In this article, Mr. Eastwood and Ms. Chen give a basic overview of IP enforcement litigation in Taiwan. You will learn more about the options you have in Taiwan to take action against the infringements of your IP rights and how to prepare to defend your rights. The article first appeared on Eiger website.  

INTRODUCTION

Rights holders looking at Asia-Pacific enforcement budgets often have to make hard decisions about where to take action. Although Taiwan’s population is small (about 22 million), it has a big role in financing massive overseas infringement in China and Southeast Asia and it is still a major manufacturer of fake optical-media products (CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs), auto parts, and high-tech products involving infringements of patents and misappropriation of trade secrets. Fortunately, the Taiwan court system offers some solid options to rights holders who want to take action.

PREPARING FOR ACTION

Rights holders need to prepare evidence and documents establishing their rights and the facts of infringement before they take action, as the Taiwan police, prosecutors and judges involved with authorizing raid actions are sticklers for details. As a preliminary matter in trademark and copyright cases, it is important to assemble copies of the Taiwan trademark certificates (front and back sides) and any supporting documentation needed to establish copyright protection. Continue reading “IP Enforcement Litigation in Taiwan: Some Basics” »