ANTI-ABUSE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER THE ANTI-MONOPOLY LAW: CHINA’S APPROACHES

Even though China’s first Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) was effective on August 1, 2008, the implementation of Article 55 has been delayed until 2014 when several actions were taken. For examples, several foreign giant intellectual property holders were investigated for possible abuse of their intellectual property rights and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce released the Rules on Prohibiting Conducts of Abusing Intellectual Property Rights by Excluding or Restricting. The underlying message is obvious: China starts to pay more and more attention to the protection of intellectual property (IP) rights on the one hand, she decides to seriously deal with the abuse of intellectual property rights by intellectual property owners, especially those giant international companies. Because the issue of how to balance the tension between IP law and the AML is a new topic in China, this paper intends to outline the prevailing experiences from foreign jurisdictions especially from the United States and European Union and to propose some useful strategies and approaches, which are fit into China’s reality.     

Trade Secrecy Injunctions,Disclosure Risks,and eBay's Influence

Historically, intellectual property (IP) owners could rely on injunctive remedies to prevent continued infringement. The Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision changed this, however. After eBay, patent courts no longer apply presumptions that push the deliberative scales in favor of injunctions (or “property rule” protection). Instead, patent injunctions require a careful four‐factor analysis, where plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable injury (i.e., that money damages cannot compensate). Without question, eBay has made it harder for patent plaintiffs to secure injunctions, and has led many district courts to consider innovation policy concerns (e.g., the strategic behavior of patent “troll” plaintiffs) in the injunction calculus. By and large, courts’ more deliberative approach to patent injunctions post‐eBay has been viewed as beneficial for the patent system. Over the past decade, eBay’s influence has migrated to other areas of IP. This article offers the first account of eBay’s impact on federal trade secrecy injunctions. Important differences between trade secret law and other areas of IP—for example, the hard‐to‐quantify risk that disclosure poses to trade secret owners—has lessened eBay’s influence on trade secrecy injunctions. This article argues that disclosure risks justify a bifurcated approach to trade secrecy injunctions. That is, in cases involving the dissemination of trade secrets, courts should presume irreparable injury in the injunction calculus. However, in cases involving the unauthorized use of a trade secret—that is, where a defendant builds upon a plaintiff's trade secret but does not disseminate it—courts should not presume irreparable harm and, instead, should apply the eBay framework. As part of this assessment, courts should consider policy concerns related to cumulative innovation and employee mobility.     

Combating counterfeiting and piracy: the Commonwealth initiative

This article notes the various components of intellectual property (IP) and the traditional forms of protection for IP owners. It also explains trends in the infringement of IPR, particularly in the nature of counterfeiting and piracy, the raison d’etre and the resulting impact in Commonwealth Countries.

The article also comments on the legislative developments in Commonwealth countries designed to provide a stronger deterrence and the multi‐sector approach adopted in the implementation of the legislation. Finally, it brings attention to the collective concerns of Member Countries and the recent steps taken to develop and adopt a framework of cooperation in order to combat the menace of counterfeiting and piracy.     

电商平台知识产权保护问题研究

民事责任、行政义务、私权力控制的杂糅以及对商业利益的追逐,共同决定了电商平台在知识产权保护中的决策与行动。现实中,存在“通知—删除”规则在专利和商标侵权中难以适用、电商平台的审查义务与能力不匹配、义务面纱下的平台权力行使缺乏监督与制约等问题。应该从明确界定电商平台的知识产权保护义务与权力,完善电商平台知识产权侵权通知、移除规则,建立电商领域知识产权保护衔接机制,以及将电商领域知识产权恶意投诉纳入严重失信行为等方面促进电商平台的知识产权保护工作。     

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区内知识产权保护的价值抉择——以区内商标平行进口的司法应对为视角

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区内知识产权保护应秉持怎样的价值理念是法院在审理区中国内知识产权案件面临的首要问题。自贸区内"先行先试"的要求并不会改变法院管辖、程序法的普适性适用。知识产权实体法律、尤其是对侵权行为的实体评判尺度也应得到普适的适用。我们也不应为便利贸易的自由化而放松对知识产权的管理和保护。在维护区内外适法统一的前提下,我们应当以已经加入、待加入的多边或双边条约为目标,进一步优化知识产权保护的措施手段,在实体评判尺度上,可结合国内的政策需要谨慎做出统一的适法性安排。     

美国行政性版权小额索赔制度革新及借鉴

由于版权作品数字化侵权使用的日益泛化,且现有版权司法救济途径多存在"周期长、举证难、成本高、收益低"的弊端,使得版权人,尤其是中小版权人,很难以较低的维权成本,真正实现其权利的司法保障。鉴于此,美国率先在行政性版权小额索赔制度的革新上作出突破性的示范,于司法体制外另辟蹊径,在版权局之行政性框架内,设置版权小额索赔委员会,专门处理小额版权纠纷。在知识产权保护方面,我国亦存在司法救济效率不高、数字版权侵权泛化的问题,因此,为迎合强化知识产权保护的时代政策,有必要总结美国行政性版权小额索赔制度革新经验,以为我国版权小额索赔问题的解决提供有益的制度借鉴。     

云计算对知识产权保护的若干影响

云计算作为变革性的信息技术,已对知识产权保护和若干知识产权制度产生了重要影响.与本地计算模式相比,云计算一方面可以更有效地防止著作权侵权,另一方面需要依赖于合同、技术措施、商业方法专利等手段提供综合性的补充保护.云计算会对合理使用原则、发行权穷竭原则构成挑战.云计算环境下,用户的商业秘密保护可能因为数据迁移困难而受到妨碍.由于云计算尚处于发展初期,还不能认为知识产权制度需要进行重大修改.     

Internet domain names and the interaction with intellectual property

This is the fourth in a series of articles looking at the interaction between Internet domain names and intellectual property. It outlines the ICANN dispute resolution procedure for gTLDs whereby objectionable domain names can be transferred away from their registrants or cancelled. It also compares this to legal proceedings in the UK Courts and outlines a referral to the European Court of Justice on issues relating to a trade mark registration as the basis or legitimate interest for a .eu domain name registration.     

Trade marks plus? the role of trade marks in the global economy and the danger of over-protection

This article examines the economic role of the trade mark, both as a structuring device and as a means of adding value to products. It shows how its role as a flexible structuring device that provides a distinct focus for goodwill derives from the special meaning of the term “origin” or “trade origin” in trade mark law, this being what a trade mark is supposed to indicate. Firms can control the identity that a trade mark signifies and confers on the products with which it is used without being tied to any particular set of production arrangements. This article also considers how goodwill can be a source of economic benefit both through reducing transaction costs and, in some cases, through adding value to products. This article then examines the economic rationale for the legal protection of trade marks and shows how this is analogous to the rationale for awarding property rights over tangible resources and different from that for other forms of intellectual property right. The pressure to expand the legal protection of stronger trade marks is explored and it is accepted that there is an economic case for doing so. However, it is argued that the additional protection must be carefully calibrated through definitions that take account of its economic rationale and avoid the danger of over-extending it. In particular, this danger of over-protection arises from making a false analogy between stronger trade marks and the kind of intangible output that is the subject of the other forms of intellectual property right.     

知识产权法官造法批判

中国部分法院在知识产权领域利用民法或其它法律的原则条款扩充知识产权的保护范围,破坏了知识产权法的利益平衡机制。本文对此类司法活动进行批评,希望重新确立知识产权法定原则在中国司法活动中的统治地位。法院在司法活动中应该放弃个人本位的自然权学说,坚持社会本位的功利主义思想,坚持知识产权法的独占适用,保证立法政策得到贯彻。     

Human rights: in the real world

Legal context. The impact of human rights on intellectual property("IP"), particularly in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998and growing criticism of IP by civil society. Key points. There can be a greater legal, as well as political,role for human rights in the development of IP. The place ofhuman rights in IP litigation is established: see decisionsin Levi v Tesco, Ashdown v Telegraph and ITP v Coflexip. However,the impact of human rights has been limited to extreme peripheralcases, without challenging the central priority accorded tothe interests of IP owners. After considering practical applicationsin "non commercial", "hybrid" and "commercial" fields, thisarticle argues for a more pervasive and central role for humanrights, by greater reference to the Human Rights Act 1998, theEU Charter, international human rights instruments, TRIPS anddecisions of other jurisdictions. This should enable a morebalanced outcome to be reached in many, but not all, cases. Practical significance. IP owners, those challenging IP rights,and those advising them should all consider greater use of humanrights in IP litigation—not just in exceptional cases.Those resisting infringement may increase their prospect ofsuccess; those arguing for infringement will be better placedto counter arguments which may be raised. However, revisionof national, regional and international IP legislation wouldbe required to address all perceived social difficulties withIP.     

强化我国商号知识产权保护的法律思考

目前,我国还没有建立起专门的商号法律保护制度。在现行商标法、反不正当竞争法等现有法律体系的框架下切实保护商号,不仅要正确认识商号知识产权的性质和保护现状,更重要还是要进一步完善我国商号的知识产权法律保护体系。     

Whose trade mark rights? What the Microsoft case means for trade mark owners

Legal context. The article considers the influence of the commissionruling in the Microsoft case, forcing Microsoft to use its WINDOWS-trademark for an ‘unbundled’ version of the program inthe light of the trade mark owner's properties rights. The scopeof these rights is determined by the function of the trade markand the rights that the trade mark laws confer to the ownerin case of infringement. Key points. Trade marks are protected as property rights undercommunity law. They are the embodiment of past investments andtransform the reputation of the owner into a bankable asset.Consumers rely on trade mark owners' control over quality. Thisis mirrored by the rights of the trade mark owner to stop interferencewith quality and image, in particular in the context of resaleof altered products. Any interference that would be considereda trade mark infringement if committed by a private party shouldbe considered an interference with the protected property rightif caused by a government agency. This interference is not justifiedby the public interest because trade mark rights also embodyimportant public interests. Practical significance. If the analysis proposed in the articleis followed, intellectual property rights have to be given greaterweight in shaping antitrust remedies.     

中国-东盟知识产权保护与合作机制研究

统一、协调的知识产权保护制度是开展国际贸易的基本环境和条件之一.中国-东盟知识产权保护与合作的进程已经全面启动,但具体的合作机制或制度性安排还有待进一步完善.实现中国-东盟国家间知识产权法律协调的关键,在于建立以政治高层的战略对话为引领,以协调委员会的组织协调为核心,以特别审查机制和执法合作机制为保障的全方位、多层次的知识产权合作机制.     

Spanish court rules in 'Accessorize' trade marks case

The Barcelona Court of First Instance No. 1 found in favourof the claimants, owners of the famous registered trade mark‘Accessorize’ in their action for trade mark infringement,trade mark cancellation, unfair competition, and damages inrespect of the use by the defendants of the Accessori, Mr Accessoriand Accessori trade marks.     

Copyright ownership in university students' academic works

Legal context. The impact of human rights on intellectual property(‘IP’), particularly in the light of the Human RightsAct 1998 and growing criticism of IP by civil society. Key points. There can be a greater legal, as well as political,role for human rights in the development of IP. The place ofhuman rights in IP litigation is established: see decisionsin Levi v Tesco, Ashdown v Telegraph and ITP v Coflexip. However,the impact of human rights has been limited to extreme peripheralcases, without challenging the central priority accorded tothe interests of IP owners. After considering practical applicationsin ‘non commercial’, ‘hybrid’, and ‘commercial’fields, this article argues for a more pervasive and centralrole for human rights, by greater reference to the Human RightsAct 1998, the EU Charter, international human rights instruments,TRIPS and decisions of other jurisdictions. This should enablea more balanced outcome to be reached in many, but not all,cases. Practical significance. IP owners, those challenging IP rights,and those advising them should all consider greater use of humanrights in IP litigation—not just in exceptional cases.Those resisting infringement may increase their prospect ofsuccess; those arguing for infringement will be better placedto counter arguments which may be raised. However, revisionof national, regional and international IP legislation wouldbe required to address all perceived social difficulties withIP.     

论网络环境下知识产权侵权的认定和法律救济

随着网络的发展,知识产权侵权延伸到这一虚拟世界.网络环境下知识产权侵权具有许多不同于现实世界侵权的特征.其立法目前仍相当薄弱,在司法实践中更是有诸多疑难问题,这是知识产权侵权法制面临的一个新挑战和新课题.有鉴于此,对网络下知识产权侵权的特征、成立要件、认定疑难以及民事和行政法律救济方法的诉求和这类案件管辖权的确定等方向进行了初步探讨、思考和论述,以期促进对这个问题的深入研究,并有助于网络环境下知识产权的保护尤其是对其立法的建立、健全和司法实践中有关问题的解决有所裨益.     

外观设计专利权的扩张与限缩—以外观设计专利权与其他知识产权的边界为视角

由于知识产权客体的非物质性,外观设计专利权易与其他知识产权发生竞合与冲突,尤其是与实用艺术作品的著作权、商业外观的商标权和基于《反不正当竞争法》保护的合法权益等。伴随着我国司法实践的进展,上述权利竞合与冲突的问题日益严重。同时,外观设计专利权与其他相关知识产权之间亦存在一定差别,需要在权利客体方面有所区分。借鉴美国、英国、德国和法国的法律经验,只有法国给予完全重叠的保护,其他国家均在外观设计专利权的权利客体方面与其他知识产权加以区分。我国应当进一步明晰外观设计专利权与其他知识产权之间的边界,将纯属著作权保护的作品排除在外观设计保护客体之外,例如服装设计、书籍封面设计、动画形象设计、建筑设计、小摆设;将纯属商标权保护的标识排除在外观设计保护客体范围之外,例如在实用功能或形状结构上没有新创造的商品包装盒(包装袋、包装瓶)、店面装饰装潢;对实用功能或形状结构有新创造的设计,可选择获得外观设计专利权或者其他知识产权保护,否则不能获得外观设计专利权保护。     

Is a domain name property?

Legal context. Domain names have become increasingly valuableassets, in some respects more valuable than trade marks. A domainname may identify not only the source of the goods, services,business or information, but also the virtual location of thesource, much as an address or telephone number does. However,there is still a significant unresolved issue as to whethera domain name is a form of intangible property or merely a contractualright. Resolution of this issue is important for commercialtransactions affecting domain names and for legal proceedingsand remedies relating to them. Key points. Domain names have been analogized by courts to addresses,patents, trade marks, and even by one writer to cattle. However,in this author's view, the best way to characterize the legalstatus of a domain name is by analogy to a telephone number.Although United States appellate authority suggests that a domainname is a form of intangible intellectual property, it is submittedthat the better, but not judicially clear or consistent, viewis that a domain name is not property. This position reflectsthe practice in Canada where, in registering a .ca domain name,the registrant agrees, as a contractual condition of registration,that it acquires no property right in the domain name. Practical significance. The authorities in this area are stillnot clear. Until this issue is resolved, whether globally oron a country-by-country basis, the prevailing uncertainty willinhibit commercial transactions involving domains, such as theirtransfer and their value for the purposes of securitisation.     

知识产权制度的政策科学分析

The intellectual property (IP) system is a key part of the framework of public government policy, the function of which is to maintain a justice order of intellectual right and achieve the benefit goal of knowledge in advance. Modern UK and USA have both gained much effective experiences in terms of IP policies. Developing countries should make a reasonable arrangement with regard to intellectual property system based on the cost-benefit analysis in the framework for the international trade system. China has experienced one-hundred-year history in promoting intellectual property legislation, which suggests a transitional trend from passive transplant to active decision-making in terms of IP policy. The intellectual property policy should be rectified and improved under the overall policy of a creative country.