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.
In August 2018, China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) was renamed the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). It was reorganized under the new government body the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR).
SAMR was formed by the incorporation of several and currently separated administrative bodies. The following agencies or functions will be integrated under SAMR:
• the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) (to be dismantled);
• the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) (to be dismantled);
• the China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) (to be dismantled);
• the pricing regulation probe and anti-monopoly enforcement function of the National Development and Reform Commission;
• the anti-monopoly enforcement function against concentration of business operators that was originally undertaken by the Ministry of Commerce; and
• the Office of the Anti-monopoly Committee under the State Council. Continue reading “CHINESE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INSTITUTIONAL REFORM” »
The First China E-Commerce Law lightens the burden of E-commerce platforms when dealing with IPR infringements, while making it more expensive and burdensome for the holders of IP Rights!
The long awaited E-commerce Law of the PRC has been finally approved, entering into force on August 31, 2018. This is the first Law that expressly regulates the relation between IPR owners and e-commerce platforms. The Law seems to favor e-commerce platforms by shifting the whole burden to the right holders to prove infringement in case of disputed takedown notices. Compared to the established business practices, the Law appears to be more e-commerce than IP friendly.
1. An overview of the relevant provisions
Instead of providing strict rules regarding the protection of IP rights online, the new Law has simply codified the current practices on takedown notices. This will leave it to the e-commerce platforms to continue self-regulate the procedures for the takedown of IPR infringing content. In particular, the Law has neither introduced any measure or standards to lighten the burden of proof of infringement of the right holders when filing takedown notices, nor has provided a procedure of effective cross examination of the defenses filed by the alleged infringer in case of disputed takedowns. The platform retains the discretion to examine and interpret the evidence and is free from the burden of having to make a final decision in case of a disputed takedown notice. This is particularly critical in those cases in which the alleged infringer denies liability, shifting the whole burden on the right holders to overcome such refusals by filing judicial or administrative lawsuits!! As we shall see below, this will give counterfeiters a good tactical advantage and will likely increase the number of disputed takedown notices in the future.
Also, the Law does not provide any strict obligation and standards imposing on the platforms the creation of preventive IPR protection systems. Article 45 of the Law only provides a generic obligation for a platform to take appropriate protection measures if the former knows or should have known that a user has infringed others IP rights. Aside from failing to define the standard of “knowledge”, the provision refers to cases where the infringement has already taken place. No specific obligation to prevent postings of obviously infringing content has been introduced, thus freeing the platforms from the obligation and burden of having to take preventive measures. If any such measures are or will be in place, this will be the result of lobbying and self-regulation, and not a consequence of this new law.
As we mentioned above, the Law acknowledges that the IPR holders have a right to request the removal or the block of infringing content by filing a notice with the platform, which must be supported by prima facie evidence of infringement. This is nothing new. It has been the common practice of e-commerce to allow so called takedown notices supported by evidence of infringement.
Like in the consolidated business practice, the Law allows the alleged infringer to defend itself by filing a response to the notice supported by evidence. However, and unlike the text of the 3rd and last draft, the final text of the Law has added to the safe harbor rule of e-commerce platforms, a 15 days time limit for the IPR owner to file a litigation or complaint (maybe with the IP office) or drop the case. If a lawsuit/complaint is filed, the take down measures already taken by the e-commerce platform will remain in place, with the e-commerce platform’s measures becoming a de facto “preliminary injunction”. If not, the measures will be revoked. In practice, an unlike the previous drafts, the platform is taking no further responsibility in deciding who is right or wrong and the law helps her out of trouble by forcing the right holder to escalate the dispute to the judicial level. Continue reading “E-Commerce Platforms Up, Trademark Holders Down!” »
A Chinese hotel named Beijing Lafeite Castle Hotel Co., Ltd. (Lafeite Hotel) in 2007 filed for the registration of the mark “拉斐特” (pronounced as “Lafeite” in Mandarin) for use on restaurant and hotel related services under Class 43, which the China Trademark Office (CTMO) approved for registration in 2015.
Château Lafite Rothschild (Rothschild), the producer of the globally famous wine brand “LAFITE” (“拉菲” in Chinese, pronounced as “Lafei” in Mandarin), filed for the cancellation of the disputed mark before the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) claiming that, as its prior registered trademarks “LAFITE” and “拉菲” (“Lafei”) designated for use on wine products have attained well-known status, the disputed mark “拉斐特” (“Lafeite”), which is similar to the mark “拉菲” (“Lafei”), may damage Rothschild’s interests.
[Note: according to Article 13 of the Trademark Law, well-known trademarks that are registered in China are entitled to cross-class protection to the extent that no mark that is a copy, imitation or translation of said well-known mark may be registered for use in whatever class of goods, if doing so may mislead the public or otherwise damage the interest of the registrant of the well-known mark.]
The TRAB however handed an unfavorable decision holding that the evidence adduced is insufficient to prove that Rothschild’s trademarks “LAFITE” and “拉菲” (“Lafei”) had attained well-known status in China prior to the registration of the trademark; meanwhile, since the restaurant services under Class 43 and the wine products are dissimilar, the disputed mark, as applied for use on restaurant related services, is unlikely to damage Rothschild’s interests. Continue reading “Lafite succeeds in cancelling ‘Lafeite’ used on hotel services” »
Today’s second blog post takes a closer look at what SMEs should pay attention to when registering their designs in Singapore. It gives a brief overview of design protection in Singapore, followed by a case study demonstrating the importance of consulting with local experts or lawyers before filing for design registration in Singapore.
Registered Designs in Singapore
A registered design is a right granted to the owner of a design to stop others from making, importing or selling, without their permission, an article to which that design or a design not substantially different from it has been applied.
In order to obtain a registered design, the design must be ‘new’ (i.e. not yet published or disclosed to the public) at the time the application for registered design protection is filed. It is possible to claim the filing date of an earlier application filed in a country that is a member of the Paris Convention or World Trade Organisation (WTO) for protection of the same design, provided that the Singapore application is filed within six months of the earlier application. Therefore, SMEs should ensure that their design is not disclosed to others until an application has been filed.
SMEs should consider applying for a registered design as soon as possible, as Singapore has a ‘‘first-to-file system’’. That is, the first person to file an application in respect of the design will have priority over others. This means that if a third party files his/her application on the design before the design owner, any registered design obtained afterwards will be in danger of being revoked for lack of ‘novelty’.
Singapore became a Member of the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs on April 17, 2005. The Hague Agreement makes it easier for foreign businesses to obtain industrial designs in Singapore. Continue reading “What to Pay Attention to When Registering Designs in Singapore: A Case Study” »