IP English Practical Paper.doc

国国家知识产权局发布了职务发明条例草案的征求意见稿 2012年11月12日，中国国家知识产权局发布了职务发明条例草案的征求意见稿，并从即日起面向社会征求意见。该征求意见稿的主要内容包括：单位需建立知识产权管理制度的义务；发明的所有权和报告；职务发明的奖励和报酬；职务发明知识产权的运用实施、监督检查和法律责任等。金杜律师事务所的楼仙英等介绍该草案的主要内容。 2012年11月12日，中国国家知识产权局发布了职务发明条例草案的征求意见稿，并从即日起面向社会征求意见。该条例的立法意义是为了保护职务发明人和单位的合法权益，充分调动和提高创新能力。对于在中国拥有职务发明的医药企业而言，本条例对于其经营有十分重要的意义，因为它给雇主一方施加了较大的压力。 该征求意见稿的主要内容包括：单位需建立知识产权管理制度的义务；发明的所有权和报告；职务发明的奖励和报酬；职务发明知识产权的运用实施、监督检查和法律责任等。 值得特别注意的是，对于医药企业而言，一项发明可能带来无比巨大的收益，而如果雇主与雇员未就报酬达成协议，据法律计算的法定报酬可能是巨额数字（例如，发明专利的营业利润的5%），并且，公司需要向员工披露大量商业信息。因此，一份合适的职务发明奖励与报酬的协议对雇主而言十分重要，其可以避免职务发明诉讼并减少因此带来的威胁。 医药企业应当回顾检查其自身的职务发明奖励制度，确保相关协议中并不存在模糊。另外，医药企业还应该确保协议符合要求或应尽的义务，以避免可能适用法定计算方式而造成重大损失。 2012年12月14日，中国商标局发布了关于申请注册新增零售或批发服务商标有关事项的通知，通知在2013年1月1日起实施商标注册用商品和服务国际分类表第十版2013修改文本的第35类中增加“药用、兽医用、卫生用制剂和医疗用品的零售或批发服务”项目。 根据该通知，商标局规定新增服务与所销售商品原则上不类似，同时，新增服务与“替他人推销”等其他第35类服务原则上亦不类似。 在此之前，中国商标局一直拒绝接受零售服务、批发服务、以及分销服务上的商标注册申请。医药零售公司以前基本上依赖在第35类“替他人推销”服务上注册商标来尝试覆盖其公司的主营范围，但本通知否定了该种做法并放开了医药零售或批发服务商标的注册。若未能在上述服务上注册，将会导致在中国失去商标权。 商标局设立注册申请过渡期，期限为2013年1月1日至1月31日。在该期间内，在相同或类似新增服务项目上提出的注册申请，视为同一天申请。这样有利于减少抢注对合法商标注册人申请商标的损害。但该规定只适用于过渡期间。 基于上述过渡时期内的政策，所有的医药公司，特别针对在中国有医药零售或批发业务的公司，我们强烈建议在上述过渡期间内尽快在上述服务上申请商标注册，无论是出于实际使用或防御性的目的。  19-Mar-2013 SIPO Releases Consultation Draft Of Regulations On Service Inventions Cecilia Lou, Ding Xianjie, Steven Yao, King & Wood Mallesons On November 12, 2012, the Consultation Draft of Regulation on Service Inventions was released by the State Intellectual Property Office of China for public comments with immediate effect. The Draft Regulation addresses the following topics: the employers obligation to establish an internal intellectual property management system; ownership and reporting of the inventions/creations; the reward and remuneration of the service inventions/creations; the utilization and implementation, supervision and inspection, and legal liability of the intellectual property rights of the service inventions-creations. Cecilia Lou and her colleagues of King & Wood Mallesons outline the key issues in the Draft Regulation. On November 12, 2012, the Consultation Draft of Regulations on Service Inventions (“Draft Regulation”) was released by the State Intellectual Property Office of China for public comments with immediate effect. The Draft Regulation was formulated for the purpose of protecting the legal rights and interests of the inventor-employee and the employer, to stimulate and improve the ability to innovate. For those pharmaceutical companies which have Chinese service inventions in China, they should be aware of this Draft Regulation as it places additional pressures on employers. The Draft Regulation addresses the following topics: the employers obligation to establish an internal intellectual property management system; ownership and reporting of the inventions/creations; the reward and remuneration of the service inventions/creations; the utilization and implementation, supervision and inspection, and legal liability of the intellectual property rights of the service inventions-creations. It is worthy of special attention that the default rule of remuneration according to the Draft Regulation is huge (no less than 5% of the turnover for an invention patent) and companies shall also reveal extensive commercial information to its employees if the default rule applies. Moreover, pharmaceutical companies should be aware that this default only applies to the circumstance when an employer does not reach an agreement with its employees. Therefore, a proper agreement with employees is vital in mitigating service invention disputes and reducing associated risks. Pharmaceutical companies should review their agreements and ensure there are no ambiguities in their agreements. In addition, they should ensure compliance with any requirements or obligations to avoid damages due to the huge remuneration as ruled. On December 14, 2012, the China Trademark Office issued a Notice on Adding Trademark Specifications on Retail and Distribution Service Trademark. In this Notice, the CTMO specifies that “Retail and Distribution Service for pharmaceutical, veterinary, sanitary and medical goods” will be added to Class 35 of the Revision of the 10th Edition of Goods and Services Classifications in China, and the new Revision will be effective January 1, 2013. According to the Notice, the newly expanded service classification will not be deemed as similar to pharmaceutical goods. Additionally, the services are classified differently from prior “Distribution for others” in Class 35. Prior to the Notice, the CTMO rejected trademark applications on retail and distribution services. Pharmaceutical distribution companies generally relied on registering trademarks in the “distribution for others” service to try to cover their retail or distribution business in China. However, the Notice denies this practice and opens trademark registration for medicine retail and distribution services. Therefore, the failure to register such trademarks may put pharmaceutical distribution companies in danger of losing their trademarks in China. The Notice also sets out a transitional period for such registration from January 1, 2013 to January 31, 2013. Trademark applications filed during this period will be considered to be made on the same day for identical or similar newly added services. This rule will protect the real trademark owner from rush trademark registrations. However, this rule is only available during the transitional period. In light of the benefits during this transitional period, all pharmaceutical companies, especially those who have a pharmaceutical distribution business in China, are highly recommended to register their trademarks in China by adding the above mentioned services classification during the transitional period and as soon as possible, for either use or defense. Cecilia LouDing XianjieSteven Yao  King & Wood MallesonsPermission by King & Wood Mallesons. Copyright of King & Wood MallesonsiPad商标案介绍及评论 阿达姆斯律师事务所 苹果公司和唯冠科技（深圳）有限公司之间的iPad商标纠纷最终于2012年7月2日，以苹果向唯冠深圳支付6000万美元，唯冠深圳将争议商标转让给苹果的形式得以解决。本文简评此案。 苹果公司（“苹果”）和唯冠科技（深圳）有限公司（“唯冠深圳”）之间的iPad商标纠纷最终于2012年7月2日，以苹果向唯冠深圳支付6000万美元，唯冠深圳将争议商标转让给苹果的形式得以解决。该案吸引了国内外众多重视商标保护的企业的目光，而苹果的遭遇也成为了极具价值的教训和警示。 I.       案件进展 作为纠纷的一方，唯冠深圳和唯冠电子股份有限公司（“唯冠台湾”）均为唯冠国际控股有限公司（“唯冠国际”）的子公司。而纠纷另一方，英国IP申请发展有限公司（“英国IP”）是苹果在英国设立的子公司。2009年底，英国IP与唯冠台湾签订了一份商标转让协议（“协议”），约定将10个iPad商标以35,000英镑的对价转让给英国IP。2010年2月，英国IP又将这些商标以10英镑的对价转让给苹果。在这10个商标中，有8个是由唯冠台湾注册和所有的，另外2个是由唯冠深圳注册和所有的（“2个商标”）。该商标转让至诉讼前一直没有向中国商标局（“商标局”）办理登记。 2010年4月，苹果和英国IP意识到这2个商标并不是唯冠台湾所有，而试图与唯冠深圳单独订立一份商标转让协议的努力均告失败，于是苹果和英国IP向深圳市中级人民法院对唯冠深圳提起诉讼，要求确认2个商标的所有权。2011年12月，深圳市中级人民法院驳回了苹果和英国IP的所有诉求。苹果和英国IP向广东省高级人民法院提起上诉，后于2012年6月在法院宣判之前与唯冠深圳达成和解。根据和解协议，苹果向唯冠深圳支付6000万美元，而唯冠深圳将2个商标转让给苹果。 除此之外，苹果和唯冠国际及其子公司另在香港、中国大陆和加州均互相提起了诉讼。由于诉至深圳市中级人民法院和广东省高级人民法院的本案是十分典型的案例，因此我们在此仅就本案展开讨论。 II.    评论 1.        案件争议焦点 苹果认为，此次商标转让是唯冠国际及其子公司的集体交易行为，应对唯冠深圳也具有约束力，且唯冠台湾代表唯冠深圳签订协议，构成表见代理。而唯冠深圳辩称，2个商标属唯冠深圳所有，唯冠台湾无权进行转让，且表见代理之说也不成立。 深圳市中级人民法院做出了对苹果不利的判决，理由在于苹果作为有意获取2个商标的一方，在商标转让过程中应当负有更高的注意义务，且应向商标局办理登记。在协议签订过程中，唯冠深圳既没有参与谈判，也没有授权他人处分其商标或订立商标转让协议。因此表见代理之说不成立，英国IP和唯冠台湾之间签订的协议不应对唯冠深圳产生约束力，协议中有关2个商标转让的部分内容应为无效，也就是说，该2个商标仍应归属唯冠深圳，而不是苹果所有。 2.        从此次纠纷中所获得的教训 从此次沸沸扬扬的纠纷中，我们可以获得如下几点教训： (a)     商标转让过程中受让人承担更高的注意义务 深圳市中级人民法院的意见是基于一种实际和商业的考量：作为转让商标的未来所有人，受让人应当更加仔细，并事先进行细致的商标查询以了解其权属状况及其他信息。这一点可以借助于商标局的官方网站 说到商标所有权，每个商标应当只有一个所有人，除非有多方同意共享该所有权，如有此种情况，在商标查询中会得以知晓。而在iPad案中，虽然唯冠台湾和唯冠深圳都是唯冠国际的子公司，但是从法律角度来看，它们都是独立的法人，无论是其中的哪一个单独签订的合同对于其他任何一个都不具有法律效力。 (b)     向商标局进行商标转让登记是使转让生效的必要手续 进行注册商标转让时，转让人和受让人应订立商标转让协议，并向商标局申请登记。自商标局公告之日起，而非商标转让协议签订之日起，受让人正式取得商标所有权。最重要的一点是，向商标局办理登记手续是受让人的义务。 (c)     著名商标抢注的对策 考虑到抢注著名商标的情况越来越多，建议采取全球性的保护策略。例如，在申请商标注册时，按照马德里协定进行商标国际注册会是一个更好的选择，以避免在马德里协定的各个成员国取得商标权时留下任何时间间隔。值得注意的是，汉字商标在西方国家不能进行注册，所以应直接在中国进行注册。同时，对于那些商标已被他人抢注，而抢注人却在很长时间内都没有使用商标的所有人来说，还有其他的选择：如果注册人连续3年没有使用商标，即可申请撤销该商标注册。  7-Dec-2012 Introduction And Comments On The iPad Trademark Case Adamas Attorneys-at-Law The dispute over iPad Trademarks between Apple Inc. and Proview Technology Shenzhen Co., Ltd. was finally resolved on 2 July 2012 with Apple paying USD60 million to Proview Shenzhen and the trademarks in dispute being assigned to it. This article comments on this case. The dispute over iPad Trademarks between Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Proview Technology Shenzhen Co., Ltd. (“Proview Shenzhen”) was finally resolved on July 2, 2012 with Apple paying USD60 million to Proview Shenzhen and the trademarks in dispute being assigned to it. This case has attracted plenty of attention from enterprises valuing trademark protection inside and outside China, and Apples experiences have become valuable lessons and warnings. I.           Case Progress As a party to the dispute, Proview Shenzhen and Proview Electronics (Taiwan) Co., Ltd. (“Proview Taiwan”) are both subsidiaries of Proview International Holdings Limited (“Proview International”). As the other party to the dispute, UK IP Application Development Co., Ltd. (“UK IP”) is a subsidiary incorporated by Apple in UK. At the end of 2009, UK IP concluded a trademark transfer agreement (“Agreement”) with Proview Taiwan concerning the transfer of 10 trademarks of iPad to UK IP in consideration of GBP35,000. Then UK IP transferred these trademarks to Apple for a price of GBP10 in February 2010. These 10 trademarks include 8 registered and owned by Proview Taiwan, and 2 registered and owned by Proview Shenzhen (“the 2 Trademarks”). The trademarks transfer was not registered with the Trademark Office of China (“CTMO”) before the lawsuit. In April 2010, after realizing that the 2 Trademarks were not owned by Proview Taiwan and failing in the attempt to sign a separate trademark transfer agreement with Proview Shenzhen, Apple and UK IP brought a lawsuit against Proview Shenzhen at Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court to claim ownership of the 2 Trademarks. In December 2011, Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court rejected all the claims of Apple and UK IP. Apple and UK IP appealed to Guangdong Higher Peoples Court, and reached an accommodation with Proview Shenzhen in June 2012 before the courts judgment, according to which Apple would pay USD60 million to Proview Shenzhen and Proview Shenzhen would transfer the 2 Trademarks to Apple. Besides that, Apple and Proview International and its subsidiaries also brought several lawsuits against each other in Hong Kong, mainland China and California. In this article we talk about the case before Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court and Guangdong Higher Peoples Court which is sufficiently typical as an example. II.          Comments 1.         Sticking Point of the Case Apple argued that the trademarks transfer was a group transaction for Proview International and its subsidiaries which should be binding on Proview Shenzhen, and it was an apparent agency for Proview Taiwan to sign the Agreement on behalf of Proview Shenzhen, while Proview Shenzhen held that Proview Taiwan had no authorization to make the transfer of the 2 Trademarks as they were owned by Proview Shenzhen and the apparent agency was untenable. Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court made the judgment against Apple on the ground that Apple shall have a higher degree of duty of care during the trademarks transfer and properly register the same with the CTMO as it was the party which intended to acquire the 2 Trademarks. In the course of conclusion of the Agreement, Proview Shenzhen had neither participated in the negotiation nor authorized any party to dispose of its trademarks or sign any trademark transfer agreement. Therefore the argument of apparent agency shall not stand, the Agreement signed by and between UK IP and Proview Taiwan shall not be binding upon Proview Shenzhen, and the part of the content of the Agreement concerning the transfer of the 2 Trademarks shall be invalid, meaning that the 2 Trademarks shall remain owned by Proview Shenzhen instead of Apple. 2.         Lessons Learned from the Dispute From this vigorous dispute, the following lessons should be learned: (a)       The assignee bears a higher level of duty of care during a trademark transfer The opinion of Shenzhen Intermediate Peoples Court is based on a practical and business point of view: as the future owner of the trademark to be transferred, the assignee should be more careful and conduct detailed research concerning the trademark in advance to ascertain its ownership and other information, which is available with the assistance of the CTMO website: or its trademark search service. With regard to trademark ownership, there should be only one owner for each trademark unless multiple parties agree to share ownership, which should be revealed during the trademark research. Concerning the case of iPad, although Proview Taiwan and Proview Shenzhen are both subsidiaries of Proview International, each of them is an independent legal person from a legal point of view, and a contract signed by whichever of them alone has no legal effect on any of the others. (b)       Trademark transfer registration with the CTMO is necessary for the effectiveness of a transfer To transfer a registered trademark, the assigner and the assignee shall conclude a trademark transfer agreement and apply for registration with the CTMO. The assignee officially obtains the trademark as from CTMOs announcement, rather than at the conclusion of the trademark transfer agreement. Most important of all, it is the assignees responsibility to handle registration with the CTMO. (c)       Countermeasures to squatting the registration for famous trademarks Considering that there are more and more squatting of the registration for famous trademarks, a global protection strategy is recommended. For example when applying for trademark registration, it is better to handle international registration under the Madrid Agreement to avoid any interval in obtaining trademark rights among different countries as members of the Madrid Agreement. It is worth noting that trademarks of Chinese characters cannot be registered in Western countries, and therefore should be directly registered in China. Meanwhile, there is another choice for trademarks the registration of which is already owned by a third party but such registrant does not use the trademark for a long time. Cancellation of this kind of trademark registration may be applied for if the trademark is not used by the registrant for a continuous period of 3 years. 如何在中国启动知识产权诉讼战术篇以展会侵权为例 方诗龙, 国浩律师（上海）事务所 国浩律师事务所的方诗龙将在本文分析在应付展会侵权时应考虑的知识产权诉讼战术和相关事项。 案例背景： 西班牙INDAL集团是一家主要从事各类灯具设计、制造、销售的公司，在欧洲颇有知名度，产品在欧洲设计，然后委托中国公司生产（OEM），产品全部出口，