Top 10 IP Cases and 50 Typical IP Cases in Chinese Courts in 2023

General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that "a case is worth a dozen documents", vividly and profoundly explaining the important demonstration and guidance functions of cases. The top 10 intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2023 released on April 22 cover intellectual property types such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, new plant varieties, anti-unfair competition and monopoly, involving key core technological innovation, well-known brands at home and abroad, digital economy, seed industry and many other key areas and industries in the new era, reflecting the following characteristics of judicial protection:

First, the people's courts grasp the theme of high-quality development, strictly protect the achievements of scientific and technological innovation, and serve the development of new quality productive forces. The protection of intellectual property rights is the protection of innovation, and the people's courts have strengthened protection and protected innovation and creation with the power of the rule of law. In the "Danyu No. 405" new corn plant variety infringement case, punitive damages were applied in accordance with the law to enterprises that have repeatedly committed fake infringement, repeated infringement, and obvious infringement intention, effectively enhancing the confidence of agricultural researchers. The case of "lentinan mushroom polysaccharides" infringing on technical secrets explores the identification of technical secrets of traditional authentic medicinal materials and the issue of compensation for illegal use of technical secrets, which is of positive significance for the integrity and innovation of traditional Chinese medicine.

The second is to actively respond to social concerns and earnestly safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the people. In cases involving unfair competition disputes involving the "juvenile model", respond to society's concerns about the protection of juveniles, and guide network service providers to conscientiously fulfill their online obligations and social responsibilities to protect minors. The case of the "basic funeral service" refusal to trade dispute is aimed at the abuse of market dominance by public enterprises in the funeral industry, and is stopped in accordance with the law, so as to effectively protect the interests of the people and small and medium-sized enterprises.

The third is to explore adjudication rules in new technologies, new forms of business, and new fields to serve the new momentum of the new economy. Scientific and technological innovation has given birth to new industries, new models, and new kinetic energy, constantly challenging the existing rules of social life, and the people's courts are faced with the double test of new technology and new thinking in their adjudication work. In the cases announced this year, new issues such as copyright protection of navigation electronic map data, illegal capture of data and the prohibition of transaction and resale are involved, and the people's courts are actively exploring adjudication rules, clarifying the boundaries of rights and interests protection, and serving to protect the digital economy.

Fourth, strengthen equal protection and actively create a market-oriented, law-based and international business environment. In the "Siemens" trademark infringement and unfair competition case, the "Michelin" trademark infringement case, and the "Lafite" trademark infringement and unfair competition case, the people's court equally protected the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties in accordance with the law, vigorously cracked down on famous brands and free riders, safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders in accordance with the law, and responded to the concerns of foreign investors about the protection of intellectual property rights in a timely manner.

Fifth, strengthen cohesion and cooperation, strengthen the protection of the whole chain of intellectual property rights, and build a large-scale protection work pattern. Intellectual property protection is a systematic project, covering a wide range of fields and involving many aspects, from review and authorization, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection to arbitration and mediation, industry self-discipline, citizen integrity and other links, which requires continuous improvement of the protection system, strengthen coordination and cooperation, and build a large protection pattern. Among the cases released this year, there are not only cases of administrative and judicial convergence, but also cases of cooperation between legal prosecution and prosecution. The administrative dispute case involving the invalidation of the invention patent right of "face recognition" clarifies the requirements for the scope, method and purpose of amendment of claims in the administrative procedure of patent invalidation, and promotes the unification of administrative law enforcement standards and judicial adjudication standards. In the judicial punishment case involving the malicious litigation of the trademark "Changgao Dianxin", the people's court, while punishing the abuse of intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, also transferred the clues of the parties suspected of abusing intellectual property rights in the malicious litigation to the people's procuratorate, and actively promoted the people's procuratorate to exercise its supervisory functions and put forward procuratorial suggestions in accordance with the law.

In the next step, the people's courts will adhere to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, continue to deeply practice Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, focus on fairness and efficiency, continuously improve the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication in the new era, and vigorously serve and support Chinese-style modernization with the high-quality development of intellectual property adjudication.

Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2023

1. Case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Xi's joint-stock company, Xi's (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qi's electrical appliance Co., Ltd. [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 312 Civil Judgment]

2. A dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between a winery and Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 313 Civil Judgment]

3. Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. v. State Intellectual Property Office and Ping Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., an administrative dispute over the invalidation of invention patent rights [Supreme People's Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhi Xing Zhong No. 556 Administrative Judgment]

4. Liaoning Dan Industry Technology Co., Ltd. v. Linghai Agricultural Industry Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of the right to a new plant variety [Supreme People's Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 2907 Civil Judgment]

5. Beijing No. 4 Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. et al., a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute [Beijing High People's Court (2021) Jing Min Zhong No. 421 Civil Judgment]

6. Case of unfair competition dispute between Beijing Wei Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. [Guangdong Provincial High People's Court (2022) Yue Min Zhong No. 4541 Civil Judgment]

7. Case of copyright infringement by Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng [Criminal Judgment of Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court (2023) Hu 03 Xingchu No. 23]

8. Nanjing Han Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. v. Di Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of technical secrets [Civil Judgment of Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Min Chu No. 3444]

9. Case of unfair competition dispute between Xiao Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen and Shenzhen Yun Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil Judgment of Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhe 03 Min Chu No. 423]

10. Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd., Teng Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., et al., et al., Unfair Competition Dispute Case with Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd. [Tianjin Pilot Free Trade Zone People's Court (2022) Jin 0319 Min Chu No. 23977 Civil Judgment]

50 Typical Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2023

1. Intellectual Property Civil Cases

(1) Disputes over the ownership of patent rights, infringement of patent rights, and confirmation of whether they fall within the scope of patent protection

1. Zhejiang Ji Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al. v. Wei Smart Travel Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. et al., a patent application ownership dispute [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 2436 Civil Judgment]

2. Beijing Jin Security Software Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Meng Network Technology Co., Ltd., a design patent infringement dispute (Shanghai High People's Court (2022) Hu Min Zhong No. 281 Civil Judgment)

3. Sichuan Hua Lighting Technology Co., Ltd. v. Yangzhou Yu Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al., a dispute over infringement of design patent rights [Tibet Autonomous Region High People's Court (2023) Zang Zhi Min Zhong No. 1 Civil Judgment]

4. Jiangsu Jiu High-tech Co., Ltd. v. TusQing (Shanghai) New Material Technology Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of invention patent rights [Civil Judgment of Xining Intermediate People's Court of Qinghai Province (2023) Qing 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 15]

5. A dispute over whether Yan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Shi Group Ou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. confirmed whether it falls within the scope of patent protection [Supreme People's Court (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 4 Civil Judgment]

(2) Trademark infringement disputes

1. Shanghai Bi Cosmetics Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou Shimou Biological Daily Chemical Co., Ltd. et al., a trademark infringement dispute [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 238 Civil Judgment]

2. Trademark infringement dispute between Na Co., Ltd. and a shopping store in Shunping County [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 277 Civil Judgment]

3. Pan Mou Door Industry Co., Ltd. v. Sichuan Xin Mou Door Co., Ltd. et al., a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 209 Civil Judgment]

4. Trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Mi Group Corporation and Shanghai Mi Catering Management Co., Ltd. [Hubei Provincial High People's Court (2022) E Zhi Min Zhong No. 190 Civil Judgment]

5. Trademark infringement dispute between Li Co., Ltd., Si Sporting Goods (China) Co., Ltd. and Nanchang Wei Industrial Co., Ltd. [Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court (2022) Gan Min Zhong No. 127 Civil Judgment]

6. Trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Bai Co., Ltd. and Bai (Tianjin) Petrochemical Co., Ltd. [Tianjin High People's Court (2023) Jin Min Zhong No. 314 Civil Judgment]

7. Beijing Kuaimou Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v. Guizhou Kuaimou Moving Co., Ltd., a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition [Guizhou Provincial High People's Court (2023) Qianmin Zhong No. 261 Civil Judgment]

8. A trademark infringement dispute between Bei Technology Co., Ltd. and Fucheng Bo Real Estate Intermediary Service Co., Ltd. [Hebei Hengshui Intermediate People's Court (2023) Ji 11 Min Zhong No. 2075 Civil Judgment]

9. Binzhou Zhan A Winter Jujube Brand Management Co., Ltd. v. Lingwu Fu Jujube Industry Professional Cooperative, et al., a dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition [Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Yinchuan Intermediate People's Court (2023) Ning 01 Zhi Min Zhong No. 8 Civil Judgment]

(3) Cases of disputes over copyright ownership, copyright infringement and confirmation of non-infringement of copyright

1. Yunnan Yang Information Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Yun (Beijing) Catering Management Co., Ltd., et al., a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute [Beijing High People's Court (2023) Jing Min Shen No. 215 Civil Ruling]

2. Gong Mouping v. a research institute and Yang Mouming in a copyright infringement dispute [Shandong Provincial High People's Court (2022) Lu Min Zhong No. 2685 Civil Judgment]

3. Wang Mouyu v. Hainan Chain Technology Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of the right to disseminate information on the network of works [Sichuan Provincial High People's Court (2023) Chuan Zhi Min Zhong No. 253 Civil Judgment]

4. Su Sports Culture Media (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Ai TV Media (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and China Electric Co., Ltd. Heilongjiang Branch Infringement of the Right of Information Network Transmission of Works [Heilongjiang Provincial High People's Court (2023) Hei Min Zhong No. 528 Civil Judgment]

5. Heqing Yang Silver Building Co., Ltd. v. Heqing County Eight Original Handmade Silver Store Copyright Ownership and Infringement Dispute [Yunnan Provincial High People's Court (2022) Yun Min Zhong No. 2088 Civil Judgment]

6. Xinjiang Bimouya Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Xinjiang Shen Cloud Computing Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of the right to disseminate information on the network of works [Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region High People's Court (2023) Xin Min Zhong No. 127 Civil Judgment]

7. Li Moufan, Da'an Yu Grain Trade Co., Ltd. v. Qianguo County Xu Rice Industry Co., Ltd., et al., a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute [Jilin Provincial High People's Court (2023) Ji Min Zhong No. 127 Civil Judgment]

8. Case of computer software copyright infringement between Da System Co., Ltd. and a special automotive technology Co., Ltd. [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021) Jing 73 Min Chu No. 345 Civil Judgment]

9. Beijing Hong Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Haikou Longhua Department Store and Shanghai Xun Information Technology Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of the right to distribute works [Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court (2021) Qiong 73 Min Chu No. 28 Civil Judgment]

10. Zhejiang Sheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Co., Ltd. Chuan confirmed non-infringement of copyright dispute [Hangzhou Internet Court (2021) Zhe 0192 Min Chu No. 10369 Civil Judgment, Zhejiang Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court (2023) Zhe 01 Min Zhong No. 453 Civil Judgment]

(4) Cases of unfair competition and monopoly disputes

1. A dispute over infringement of technical secrets between Sheng's Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen Mougang and Yuncheng Jin Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. [Supreme People's Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 816 Civil Judgment]

2. Hubei Hui Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. v. Zhang Mouyang and Hubei Zhi Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of Technical Secrets Dispute [Wuhan Intermediate People's Court of Hubei Province (2021) E 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 334 Civil Judgment]

3. China Ping Life Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Yun, Lanshan District, Linyi City, a commercial defamation dispute [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 75 Civil Judgment]

4. An unfair competition dispute between an association in Tangshan City and an e-commerce company in Changsha Shun [Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai No. 76 Civil Judgment]

5. Shenzhen Quanmou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Mingmou (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. et al., a dispute over the unauthorized use of the same or similar logo decoration as the decoration of goods with a certain influence on others [Shandong Provincial High People's Court (2023) Lu Min Zhong No. 1035 Civil Judgment]

6. Teng Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Ai Network Technology Co., Ltd., a case of unfair competition dispute [Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court (2023) Su Min Zhong No. 280 Civil Judgment]

7. Xing XX Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Xiamen Gu Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute [Fujian Provincial High People's Court (2022) Min Min Zhong No. 1871 Civil Judgment]

8. Nanjing Yuan Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Xi'an Yuan Technology Co., Ltd. and Xi'an Re Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute [Shaanxi Provincial High People's Court (2022) Shaanxi Zhi Min Zhong No. 139 Civil Judgment]

9. Guilin Zero Software Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Communication Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Xiao Mobile Software Co., Ltd., a case of unfair competition dispute [Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region High People's Court (2023) Gui Min Zhong No. 196 Civil Judgment]

10. Shenzhen Mayor Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Tian Technology Co., Ltd. et al., Unfair Competition Dispute Case [Civil Judgment of Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court of Guangdong Province (2023) Yue 03 Min Zhong No. 4897]

11. A dispute over the unauthorized use of another person's influential enterprise name by a State Science and Technology Holdings Co., Ltd. and Guo (Dalian) Co., Ltd. [Liaoning Province Dalian Intermediate People's Court (2023) Liao 02 Min Zhong No. 6496 Civil Judgment]

12. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Damou Brand Planning Co., Ltd. and Jinan Sheng Moumou Network Technology Co., Ltd., a case of unfair competition dispute [Chongqing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court (2022) Yu 01 Min Chu No. 3538 Civil Judgment]

13. Beijing Art Technology Co., Ltd., Hunan Art Culture Technology Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Qun Technology Co., Ltd., et al. Unfair Competition Dispute Case [Civil Judgment of Kaifu District People's Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province (2023) Xiang 0105 Min Chu No. 2875]

14. Quanzhou Licheng Licheng Funeral Service Co., Ltd. v. Quanzhou Market Funeral Service Co., Ltd. Refusal to Transaction Dispute [Supreme People's Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 242 Civil Judgment]

15. Ningbo Tonga Material Co., Ltd. v. Japan Co., Ltd. Abuse of Market Dominance Dispute [Supreme People's Court (2021) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No. 1398 Civil Judgment]

(5) New plant varieties, technology contract disputes and judicial punishment cases

1. Anhui Quan's Gaoke Seed Industry Co., Ltd. v. Yuan's Agricultural High-tech Co., Ltd. et al., a dispute over infringement of the right to new plant varieties [Anhui Provincial High People's Court (2022) Wan Min Chu No. 2 Civil Ruling]

2. A dispute between a research institute in Zhengzhou and Chen Mouqun over infringement of the right to a new plant variety [Civil Judgment of Zhengzhou Intermediate People's Court of Henan Province (2023) Yu 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 865]

3. A dispute over infringement of the right to a new plant variety between a certain Dunhuang Seed Co., Ltd. and Ulanhot Feng Industry Co., Ltd. and Hao Moujun [Civil Judgment of the Intermediate People's Court of Hohhot City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2023) Nei 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 18]

4. Shandong Mouye Co., Ltd. v. Damouye Co., Ltd. et al., a dispute over infringement of the right to new plant varieties [Civil Judgment of Lanzhou Intermediate People's Court of Gansu Province (2021) Gan 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 51]

5. A new energy technology company in Wujiaqu City and a chemical engineering technology Co., Ltd. in Luoyang Di a technical service contract dispute [Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Sixth Division Intermediate People's Court (2023) Bing 06 Min Chu No. 4 Civil Judgment]

6. Judicial Punishment Case of Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute between Monkey Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Chang International Trade Co., Ltd. and Chang Technology Co., Ltd. [Decision of Changsha Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province (2023) Xiang 01 Division Punishment No. 4]

II. Intellectual Property Administrative Cases

1. Hangzhou Yuan Medical Device Co., Ltd. v. State Intellectual Property Office and Hangzhou Zhuo Medical Technology Co., Ltd. Utility Model Patent Invalidation Administrative Dispute [Supreme People's Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhi Xing Zhong No. 132 Administrative Judgment]

2. Shanghai Chongmou Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Minhang District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau, Shanghai Minhang District People's Government Fines and Administrative Reconsideration Bills [Shanghai Minhang District People's Court (2022) Hu 0112 Xingchu No. 506 Administrative Judgment]

3. Intellectual Property Criminal Cases

1. Su Mouqi's copyright infringement case [Criminal Ruling of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province (2023) Yue 03 Xingzhong No. 422]

2. Deng Mouguang and Yan Moujiao for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks and Xiao Moucheng, Liu Mouxia and Zhang Mouyan for the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks [Xi'an Intermediate People's Court of Shaanxi Province (2022) Shaanxi 01 Zhi Xing Chu No. 6 Criminal Verdict]

3. Hao Mouzhen's copyright infringement case [Criminal Verdict of Yingze District People's Court of Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province (2023) Jin 0106 Xingchu No. 116]

A brief introduction to the top 10 intellectual property cases in Chinese courts in 2023

1. Disputes involving trademark infringement and unfair competition of "Siemens".

A dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between a joint-stock company in Xi, a company in the west (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qi Electric Co., Ltd. (Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 312 Civil Judgment)

【Case Summary】A joint-stock company in the west and a company in the west (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the company in the west) are the owners of the registered trademarks of "Siemens" and "SIEMENS", and the two trademarks are registered on washing machines and other goods, and have been well-known after long-term use and vigorous promotion and publicity by the company in the west. Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and others will be widely used as a commercial logo in the name of "Shanghai Siemens Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." registered overseas as a commercial logo in the washing machine products, product packaging and related publicity activities produced and sold. A company in the west believed that the actions of Ningbo Qi Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and others infringed on its exclusive right to use a registered trademark and constituted unfair competition, so it sued the court. The court of first instance held that the alleged infringement of Ningbo Qi Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. and others did not constitute trademark infringement, but constituted unfair competition, and ordered Ningbo Qi Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. and others to immediately stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses of 100 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 163,000 yuan. Ningbo Qi Electric Co., Ltd. and others were dissatisfied and appealed. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Ningbo Qi Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. and others were well aware of the popularity of the "Siemens" and "SIEMENS" trademarks, and deliberately used "Shanghai Siemens Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd." on washing machine products, causing confusion and misidentification among consumers, which constituted trademark infringement; As for the amount of compensation, although the available evidence is difficult to determine the actual losses of the company or the infringement profits of Ningbo Qi Electric Appliance Co., Ltd., it is sufficient to determine that the infringement profits of Ningbo Qi Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. have clearly exceeded the maximum statutory compensation limit of 5 million yuan. In this case, in view of the fact that Ningbo Qi Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd.'s refusal to provide financial information related to the infringement has constituted an evidentiary obstruction, the court of first instance referred to the data in the media report that the total annual sales of Ningbo Qi Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. was 1.5 billion yuan, and based on the relevant facts of the case, calculated the sales proportion of the alleged infringing products according to one-fifteenth, and then determined that it was not improper for Ningbo Qi Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. and others to bear the amount of 100 million yuan in compensation. The Supreme People's Court ruled that the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Typical Significance: The second-instance judgment in this case strictly applies the system of obstruction of the presentation of evidence, and for the infringer who deliberately fails to provide evidence and obstructs the people's court's determination of the facts of the case, the infringer shall be disposed of unfavorably and the judgment result shall be made in accordance with law. This case fully reflects the judicial attitude of the people's court to strictly protect intellectual property rights, effectively cracks down on the malicious clinging of well-known trademarks and goodwill, and plays an important role in purifying market order and creating a good business environment.

2. A dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition involving "Lafite".

A dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between a winery and Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. (Supreme People's Court (2022) Zui Gao Fa Min Zhong No. 313 Civil Judgment)

【Summary of the Case】A winery is the owner of the trademark "LAFITE" and the trademark "CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD" (hereinafter collectively referred to as the trademarks involved in the case), and the two trademarks are registered on alcoholic beverage products. The trademark in question has a high reputation after long-term use, and "LAFITE" and "Lafite" have established a solid relationship. On April 1, 2005, Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. applied for the registration of the trademark "Lafite Manor" on wine and other goods. Since then, Nanjing Jin Wine Co., Ltd. has used logos such as "Lafei Manor" and "LAFEI MANOR" in the process of producing, importing and selling wines, and has publicized and promoted them on its website and transaction documents. On December 23, 2016, the Supreme People's Court issued a retrial judgment in favor of the trademark administrative department to revoke the trademark "Lafite Manor". A winery then sued Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. and other seven to the court. The court of first instance held that the seven defendants, including Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd., constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and ordered them to stop the infringement and apply punitive damages. Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. and others were dissatisfied and appealed. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Nanjing Jin Wine Co., Ltd. and others had malicious intent in attaching to the trademark involved in the case of Lafei Manor in the process of applying for registration and use of the trademark "Lafei Manor", and did not have a good faith trust interest, and their use of the "Lafei Manor" logo constituted trademark infringement, and exaggerating the historical heritage and popularity of the "Lafei Manor" wine in the publicity constituted false publicity. Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. and others had obvious malicious intent in infringement, and the infringement was serious, so punitive damages were applied according to the request of a winery, and Nanjing Jin Liquor Co., Ltd. and others were ordered to compensate a total of 79.17 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

Typical significance: The judgment in this case pointed out that the trademark use of a trademark registrant with the intention of clinging should not be protected, which is of positive significance for advocating market entities to participate in market competition in a good faith and bona fide manner, and demonstrates the strength and determination of the people's court to severely punish "famous brands" and "free riders".

3. Administrative dispute involving the invalidation of the invention patent right of "face recognition".

Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. v. State Intellectual Property Office and Ping Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., an administrative dispute over the invalidation of invention patent rights [Supreme People's Court (2021) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 556 Administrative Judgment]

Beijing Zhong Technology Co., Ltd. is the patentee of the invention patent with patent number 200480036270.2 and the name of "a method for obtaining face images and face recognition method and system". Beijing Zhonga Technology Co., Ltd. submitted a revised version of the patent claims during the examination of the invalidation of the patent involved in the case. The State Intellectual Property Office did not accept the partially amended claims, and only used the accepted part as the basis for examination, made an examination decision, determined that the patent involved in the case did not have an inventive step, and declared it invalid in its entirety. Dissatisfied, Beijing Zhonga Technology Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, but it was not supported. Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied and appealed on the grounds that all the amended claims should be accepted. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that in the administrative procedure for confirming patent rights, the maximum extent of amendment of claims shall not exceed the "scope of information" provided for in Article 33 of the Patent Law and the "scope of protection" provided for in the first paragraph of Article 69 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law. The examination of whether the modification method of a claim is "further qualified" shall only be based on whether the amended claim completely contains all the technical features of the amended claim, and whether the amended claim has added technical features compared with the amended claim, and whether the added technical features are recorded in the other claims in the original claim. In the administrative procedure for confirming patent rights, the amendment of claims shall generally be limited to responding to the reasons for invalidation, and if the actual claims are reconstructed in the name of overcoming the defects referred to in the reasons for invalidation, it may not be accepted. In this case, claims 4 and 7 are essentially the original claims and are the basis of examination as a matter of course, the technical solutions of claims 4 and 7 cited in amended claims 8 to 10 should also be accepted, and the amended claims 11 and 12 are not amendments in response to the grounds for invalidation, and it is not improper for the State Intellectual Property Office not to accept them. Therefore, the judgment revokes the first-instance judgment and the decision of the defendant, and the State Intellectual Property Office makes a new decision.

Typical significance: This case clarifies the requirements for the scope, method and purpose of amendment of claims in the administrative procedure of patent confirmation, especially the criteria for determining the "further restrictive" amendment, which is of reference significance for grasping the legal criteria for amending claims in the administrative procedure of patent confirmation.

4. Infringement dispute involving "Danyu No. 405" new corn plant variety

Liaoning Dan Industry Technology Co., Ltd. v. Linghai Agricultural Industry Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of the right to a new plant variety [Supreme People's Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No. 2907 Civil Judgment]

Liaoning Danyi Industry Technology Co., Ltd. is the owner of the variety right of the new corn plant variety "Danyu 405". Linghai Agricultural Industry Technology Co., Ltd. infringed the variety rights of "Danyu No. 405" under the name of "Ziguang No. 4" without authorization, and was found to constitute infringement by the effective judgment in 2015, and then continued to carry out the infringement of the production and sale of "Danyu No. 405" under the names of "Jinyu 118", "Anyu 13" and "Danyu 606" in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. was the seller of the allegedly infringing seeds. Liaoning Dan Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. then sued the court, requesting that Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. be ordered to stop the infringement and jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3 million yuan (with 1.5 million yuan as the compensation base and punitive damages calculated as 1 time). The court of first instance held that it was impossible to determine the calculation base of punitive damages, so it applied the statutory compensation judgment to Linghai Agricultural Industry Technology Co., Ltd. to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1 million yuan. Liaoning Dan Industry Technology Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied and appealed. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd.'s infringement was long-lasting, wide-ranging, large-scale, and repeatedly committed license infringement and repeated infringement, the intent of infringement was obvious, and the circumstances of infringement were heinous, and it should bear punitive damages liability. Referring to the number of "Danyu No. 405" seeds that Linghai Nongyi Industry Technology Co., Ltd. admitted that it could harvest from breeding 400 acres of infringing seeds and the gross profit from sales, it had basically met the compensation base of 1.5 million yuan claimed by Liaoning Danyi Industry Technology Co., Ltd., so according to the compensation base of 1.5 million yuan and 1 time of punitive damages, the judgment was changed to fully support the litigation claim of 3 million yuan of Liaoning Danyi Industry Technology Co., Ltd.

Typical significance: This case clarifies that the base amount of punitive damages can be determined based on the evidence in the case, and cannot simply be applied to statutory damages on the grounds that it is difficult to calculate accurately. The judgment of this case reflects the determination and judicial attitude of the people's court to fully implement the punitive damages system, reduces the difficulty of rights holders in protecting their rights in accordance with the law, effectively exerts the deterrent effect of punitive damages, and effectively makes the infringer pay a heavy price.

5. Navigation electronic map copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes

Beijing No. 4 Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. et al., a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute [Beijing High People's Court (2021) Jing Min Zhong No. 421 Civil Judgment]

Since 2002, Beijing Si X Technology Co., Ltd. has been engaged in the research and development and promotion of electronic maps, and has created and completed the 15Q4 Internet electronic map and the 16Q2 Internet electronic map (hereinafter collectively referred to as the rights map). In 2013, Beijing Si Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. signed a "Cooperation Agreement", agreeing to authorize Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and others to use the right map until the end of 2016. Beijing No. 4 Technology Co., Ltd. asserted that after the expiration of the contract, Beijing Bai Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates used navigation electronic maps that were substantially similar to the rights map in the six accused application software, including "Baidu Map", "Baidu CarLife" and "Baidu Navigation", which infringed its copyright and constituted unfair competition, so it sued the court. The court of first instance held that the navigation electronic map used by Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and others in the application software constituted copyright infringement, and ordered the company and its affiliates to stop the infringement, apologize, eliminate the impact, and jointly and severally compensate for economic losses of 64.5 million yuan and reasonable expenses of more than 920,000 yuan. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and others were dissatisfied and appealed. The Beijing Higher People's Court held in the second instance that the map of rights constituted a graphic work under the Copyright Law. For the massive map data, through the comparison of 30 secret marks, 125 internal roads, 47 maps of the administrative area of sea expansion and 44 model maps adduced by the right holder, it can be determined that Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates used navigation electronic maps that were substantially similar to the right maps in the six accused application software operated by Beijing No. 4 Technology Co., Ltd. after the expiration of the term of the Cooperation Agreement, infringing the copyright of Beijing No. 4 Technology Co., Ltd. In view of the fact that the Copyright Law has been applied to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the right holders, it is not appropriate to apply Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for duplicate protection. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

Typical significance: Data is a key element of the digital economy. This case is a typical case of navigation electronic maps protected by copyright law. This case not only provides an in-depth analysis of the elements of navigation electronic maps to constitute graphic works, but also provides a useful exploration of the substantial similarity comparison of massive map data, highlighting the important role of intellectual property judicial adjudication services in ensuring the digital economy.

VI. Cases of unfair competition disputes involving "data".

Beijing Wei Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. et al., Unfair Competition Dispute Case [Guangdong Provincial High People's Court (2022) Yue Min Zhong No. 4541 Civil Judgment]

Case Summary: Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd., the operator of Sina Weibo, accused Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. of using malicious technical means to illegally call server APIs (application programming interfaces) to capture a large amount of Weibo data, store and sell it, constituting unfair competition, and sued the court. The court of first instance held that Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition and ordered it to compensate 20 million yuan for economic losses and 272,680 yuan for reasonable expenses for rights protection. Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied and appealed. The Guangdong Provincial High People's Court held in the second instance that Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd. enjoyed the rights and interests of independent control, lawful use and economic benefits of Weibo data held in accordance with laws and regulations. Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. illegally called the Weibo server API to capture a large amount of background data for storage by changing IP (network address) and UID (user account) and other deceptive technical methods, and sold it to unspecified Internet users without processing to make a profit. This behavior significantly increases the risk of the microblogging platform being substantially replaced, and may also cause data security issues such as personal privacy and sensitive information leakage, violates the principles of fairness and good faith and business ethics, disrupts the order of competition in the data market, and seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd. and consumers, constituting an act of unfair competition as provided for in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. According to the median fee standard of Guangzhou Jian Information Technology Co., Ltd. 1 yuan/100 times, its profit is about 21.7979 million yuan, and the full support of Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd.'s compensation request is not improper, so the judgment rejects the appeal and upholds the original judgment.

Typical significance: This case is a typical case of illegally scraping data for trading and resale. Based on the balance between "strong protection" and "orderly circulation" of data, the judgment clarifies the boundaries of the protection of data rights and interests, and reflects the clear judicial attitude of judicial adjudication to guide market entities to obtain and use data in a "proper manner and in a proper manner".

7. Crimes of infringing on the copyright of medical equipment software

Case of Copyright Infringement by Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng [Criminal Verdict of Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court (2023) Hu 03 Xingchu No. 23]

Since March 2019, for the purpose of making profits, defendant Liu Mousheng has made dongles used to circumvent copyright technical protection measures without the permission of copyright owners such as Xi's Medical System Co., Ltd., provided download links such as maintenance manuals, copied software such as Nebula workstations without authorization, and sold the aforementioned dongles and pirated software through channels such as Xianyu accounts. Since July 2020, defendant Liu Mousheng instructed defendant Liu to open an account with Xianyu to sell dongles and pirated software. During this period, defendant Liu was responsible for making dongles, copying pirated software, putting goods on the shelves, sending express delivery, etc., and defendant Liu was responsible for account customer service and collection. After auditing, the sales amount of defendants Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng was more than 1.06 million yuan and more than 140,000 yuan respectively. It was determined that the dongles sold by the two defendants could evade the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner, and the pirated software sold was essentially the same as the copyright owner's work. The Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court held that the two defendants, for the purpose of making profits, reproduced and disseminated their works to the public through information networks without the permission of the copyright owner, deliberately avoiding the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner for their works, and that the circumstances of the defendant Liu were particularly serious, and the circumstances of the defendant Liu were serious, and that the acts of both constituted the crime of copyright infringement. In the joint crime, defendant Liu X is the principal offender, and defendant Liu X is an accomplice and shall be given a lighter punishment. The two defendants have confessed and may be given a lenient punishment; they voluntarily admit guilt and accept punishment, and they may be given lenient punishments if they pay fines in advance before trial. Defendant Liu was sentenced to three years and two months imprisonment and a fine of RMB 700,000 for copyright infringement, and defendant Liu was sentenced to one year imprisonment, suspended for one year, and fined RMB 80,000. After the first-instance verdict, neither defendant appealed.

Typical Significance: This case is a typical criminal case in which the act of intentionally circumventing technological measures for copyright infringement was punished in accordance with law after the implementation of Amendment (11) to the Criminal Law. The judgment of this case clarifies the relevant standards for pursuing criminal liability for the evasion or destruction of technological measures, fully protects the legitimate rights and interests of medical device software copyright holders, and demonstrates the strength and determination to strengthen the criminal judicial protection of intellectual property rights and serve the innovation and development of the digital economy.

8. Case of "Shiitake Mushroom Polysaccharides" Infringement of Technical Secrets

Nanjing Han Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. v. Di Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., a dispute over infringement of technical secrets [Civil Judgment of Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Min Chu No. 3444]

In 2004, Nanjing Han Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. signed the "Lentinan Polysaccharide Project Cooperation Contract", stipulating that the former would provide the latter with the technology for the production of lentinan polysaccharide APIs, and that the products involved would be sold to the distributors designated by the former, and that the latter should compensate the former 20 million yuan if it distributed it by itself or by entrusting others; both parties should keep the technology of the project confidential, otherwise they would be compensated according to the aforesaid agreement. Later, Nanjing Han Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. delivered technical achievements to Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. according to the contract. In 2006, Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. obtained the registration and production approval of lentinan polysaccharide API. In 2010, Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. transferred the lentinan polysaccharide technology to an outsider for 1 million yuan, and the above-mentioned drug manufacturer was changed to an outsider. In 2014, the outsider's website publicized: the production line of mushroom polysaccharide API was officially put into operation, and the annual output value will exceed 100 million yuan. Nanjing Han Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. then sued to the court. The Intermediate People's Court of Nanjing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, held that the technology involved in the case was non-public knowledge, valuable, and confidential, constituting technical secrets, and that the transfer of substantially the same technology as the aforementioned technology by Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. to an outsider was an act of disclosing technical secrets to an outsider in violation of the confidentiality agreement, constituting infringement, and in accordance with the amount of compensation agreed by both parties, it was decided that Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. should compensate Nanjing Han Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. 20 million yuan. Emperor Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. was dissatisfied and appealed. The Supreme People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment in the second-instance judgment.

Typical significance: This case involves the protection of technical secrets of traditional Chinese medicine processes such as the selection, processing, and treatment of authentic shiitake mushroom raw materials. The judgment explores issues such as the identification of technical secrets of traditional authentic medicinal materials and the compensation for illegal use of technical secrets, which is conducive to the application and development of traditional Chinese medicine technology and promotes the integrity and innovation of traditional Chinese medicine.

9. A dispute over unfair competition involving the wake word "Xiao Ai".

Case of unfair competition dispute between Xiao Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen and Shenzhen Yun Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil Judgment of Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhe 03 Min Chu No. 423]

In July 2017, Xiao Technology Co., Ltd. released the first artificial intelligence speaker with the wake-up word "Xiao Ai", and since then, it has also been equipped with an artificial intelligence voice interaction engine that uses the wake-up word "Xiao Ai" in mobile phones, TVs and other products. From August 2017 to June 2020, Chen applied for the registration of a total of 66 trademarks such as "Xiao Ai" in different product categories, and then sent a lawyer's letter to the affiliated enterprises of Xiao Technology Co., Ltd., requesting to stop infringing on his "Xiao Ai" trademark rights, and using the "Xiao Ai" trademark on sports watches, alarm clocks and other goods with Shenzhen Yun Technology Co., Ltd., and jointly publishing product promotion articles. Xiao Technology Co., Ltd. believed that the actions of Chen and Shenzhen Yun Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, so they sued the court. The Intermediate People's Court of Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, held that "Xiao Ai" can be used as an influential wake-up word, the name of an artificial intelligence voice interaction engine, and the name of a smart speaker equipped with an artificial intelligence voice interaction engine, and is protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chen preemptively registered a large number of trademarks such as "Xiao Ai" and sent a lawyer's letter of "stop infringement" to the affiliated enterprises of Xiao Technology Co., Ltd., which violated the principle of good faith, disrupted the fair market competition order, and also damaged the legitimate rights and interests of Xiao Technology Co., Ltd., which is an act of unfair competition regulated by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chen and Shenzhen Yun Technology Co., Ltd. sold goods using the "Xiao Ai" logo and published misleading commercial promotional information, which constituted confusion and false publicity and unfair competition. Therefore, the judgment was made to immediately stop the infringement, Chen compensated Xiao Technology Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1.2 million yuan, and Shenzhen Yun Technology Co., Ltd. was jointly and severally liable for 250,000 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.

Typical significance: This case is a typical case involving the protection of the rights and interests of artificial intelligence voice wake-up words. The judgment in this case not only clarifies that the use of wake words with a certain degree of influence is a legitimate interest protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, but also effectively regulates the behavior of maliciously preemptively registering other people's wake words and abusing rights, and fully protects the brand goodwill of scientific and technological innovation enterprises.

10. Cases involving unfair competition disputes involving the "juvenile model".

Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. et al. v. Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd., a case of unfair competition dispute [Tianjin Pilot Free Trade Zone People's Court (2022) Jin 0319 Min Chu No. 23977 Civil Judgment]

Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. and others have set up a "youth mode" in the "Tencent Video" and "Tencent NOW Live" apps they operate, and when they open the above-mentioned apps, a pop-up window will pop up on the home page, and the guardians of the teenagers can conveniently turn on the "youth mode", which is equipped with high-quality content suitable for teenagers, restricts social and consumption functions such as recharging, rewarding, and gift-giving, and sets up an anti-addiction mechanism. In order to ensure the normal operation of the "Youth Mode", the service agreements of the two apps stipulate that users shall not interfere with or disrupt the normal operation of the software, shall not add, delete or change the functions or operating effects of the software, and shall not carry out any acts that endanger minors. The "Advertising Weapon" APP operated by Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd. takes the "Youth Mode pop-up box automatically closed" function as a "member privilege", and guides users to open and use the function in a "limited-time free" way, resulting in users being unable to use the "Youth Mode" through the prominent pop-up window pop-up on the homepage of the product of Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. and others believed that Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, so they sued the court. The People's Court of Tianjin Pilot Free Trade Zone held that Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd.'s act of blocking the "youth mode" was essentially an act of unfair competition that hindered and undermined the normal operation of Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd.'s network products and services on the grounds of technological neutrality and obstructed and undermined the normal operation of Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd.'s network products and services, resulting in the company's functional design for the protection of minors falling short, which not only undermined the market order and industry ecology of fair competition, but also violated the relevant laws and regulations on the protection of minors, and hindered the online audio and video. The long-term healthy development of industries such as live streaming constitutes unfair competition. Comprehensively considering the factors such as the greater influence of Shenzhen Teng's computer system Co., Ltd. in the youth group, the subjective fault of Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd., the function of blocking youth mode covering a variety of application software, the wide range of influence, the number of downloads, and the long duration, Beijing Ai Technology Co., Ltd. was ordered to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3 million yuan. After the judgment was pronounced in the first instance, neither party appealed, and a pre-enforcement settlement was reached.

Typical significance: This case is a typical case of shielding the unfair competition of the "juvenile model". The adjudication affirmed the positive role of the "juvenile model" in safeguarding the rights and interests of minors online, and made a negative assessment of the blocking of the "juvenile mode" through the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, guiding network service providers to consciously fulfill their online obligations and social responsibilities to protect minors.

Source丨Information Bureau of the Supreme People's Court