The General Secretary of the Supreme Leader emphasized that "one case is worth a dozen documents," vividly and profoundly explaining the important demonstration and guiding functions of cases. The 10 major intellectual property cases and 50 typical intellectual property cases released by Chinese courts in 2023 on April 22 cover intellectual property types such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, new plant varieties, anti-unfair competition and monopolies. They involve 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. They reflect the following characteristics of judicial protection:
First, the people’s court grasps the theme of high-quality development, strictly protects scientific and technological innovation achievements, and serves the development of new-quality productive forces.To protect intellectual property rights is to protect innovation, and the people’s courts will step up their efforts to protect innovation and creativity with the power of the rule of law."Danyu No. 405" Infringement Case of New Varieties of Corn Plants,For enterprises that have repeatedly committed deck infringement, repeated infringement, and intentional infringement, punitive compensation shall be applied in accordance with the law, effectively enhancing the confidence of agricultural researchers."Lentinan" Infringement of Technical SecretsThis paper explores the identification of the technical secrets of traditional authentic medicinal materials and the compensation for the illegal use of technical secrets, which has positive significance for the integrity and innovation of traditional Chinese medicine.
The second is to actively respond to social concerns and effectively safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the people.Involved in the "juvenile model" unfair competition dispute case,Responding to society’s concerns about the protection of adolescents, guiding network service providers to consciously fulfill their network obligations and social responsibilities to protect minors."Basic Funeral Services" Refusal to Trade Dispute CaseThe abuse of market dominance by public enterprises in the funeral industry shall be stopped in accordance with the law, and the interests of the people and small and medium-sized enterprises shall be effectively safeguarded.
The third is to explore the adjudication rules in new technologies, new business models, and new fields to serve the new economic drivers.Scientific and technological innovation has spawned new industries, new models, and new driving forces, constantly challenging the existing rules of social life. The people’s courts are facing the dual test of new technologies and new thinking in their trial work. The cases announced this year involve new issues such as copyright protection of navigation electronic map data, illegal data capture, and the prevention of transaction and resale. The people’s courts actively explore adjudication rules, clarify the boundaries of rights and interests protection, and serve the digital economy.
Fourth, we should strengthen equal protection and actively create a market-oriented, rule-of-law, and international business environment.exist"Siemens" trademark infringement and unfair competition case, "Michelin" trademark infringement case, "Lafite" trademark infringement and unfair competition caseThe people’s courts shall equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties in accordance with the law, vigorously crack down on the behavior of free-riding near famous brands, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign rights holders in accordance with the law, and promptly respond to foreign investors’ concerns about intellectual property protection.
The fifth is to strengthen coordination, strengthen the protection of the entire chain of intellectual property rights, and build a comprehensive protection work pattern.Intellectual property protection is a systematic project that covers a wide range of fields and involves many aspects, from review and authorization, administrative law enforcement, judicial protection to arbitration and mediation, industry self-discipline, and citizen integrity. This requires continuous improvement of the protection system, strengthening coordination and cooperation, and building a large protection pattern. Among the cases released this year, there are both cases of administrative and judicial connection, as well as cases of legal inspection cooperation.Administrative dispute involving invalidation of "facial recognition" invention patentIt clarifies the requirements for the scope, method and purpose of modification of claims in the administrative procedure of patent invalidation, and promotes the unification of administrative law enforcement standards and judicial judgment standards.Judicial punishment case involving malicious litigation of "Changgao Dianxin" trademarkIn addition to punishing the abuse of intellectual property rights in accordance with the law, the people’s courts also transfer the clues of the parties’ suspected abuse of intellectual property rights to the people’s procuratorate, and actively promote the people’s procuratorate to exercise its supervisory functions and make procuratorial suggestions in accordance with the law.
In the next step, the people’s courts will adhere to the Supreme Leader’s thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era as a guide, continue to deeply practice the Supreme Leader’s thought on the rule of law, focus on fairness and efficiency, and continuously improve the quality and efficiency of intellectual property trials in the new era.
1. A dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition between Ximou Joint Stock Company, Ximou (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 312]
Second, the case of infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition between a winery and Nanjing Jinmou Wine Industry Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 313]
Administrative dispute case between Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office and Pingmou Computer Trading (Shanghai) Company for invalid invention patent rights [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhixing End No. 556 administrative court verdict]
IV. Liaoning Danzhiye Technology joint stock company and Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. Infringement of new plant variety rights dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhiminzhuan No. 2907 civil court verdict]
V. Beijing Simou Technology joint stock company and Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2021) Jingmin End No. 421 civil court verdict]
Six, Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. and other unfair competition disputes [Guangdong Higher People’s Court (2022) Yueminjian No. 4541 civil court verdict]
Case of copyright infringement by Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng [Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Shanghai 03 Xingchu No. 23 criminal court verdict]
Eight, Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Minchu No. 3444 civil court verdict]
Case of unfair competition dispute between Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil court verdict of Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhejiang 03 Minchu No. 423]
Ten, Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd., Tengmou Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair competition dispute case [Tianjin Free Trade Zone People’s Court (2022) Jin 0319 Minchu No. 23977 civil court verdict]
Intellectual property civil cases
(1) Patent ownership, patent infringement, and confirmation of whether it falls within the scope of patent protection
1. Zhejiang Jimou Holding Group Co., Ltd. and Weimou Intelligent Travel Technology (Shanghai) joint stock company and other patent application rights dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin Zhimin Zhuan No. 2436 civil court verdict]
2. Beijing Jinmou Security Software Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Mengmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of design patent dispute case [Shanghai Higher People’s Court (2022) Shanghai Minzhuan No. 281 civil court verdict]
3. Sichuan Huamou Lighting Technology joint stock company and Yangzhou Yumou Optoelectronic Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement of design patent dispute case [Tibet Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court (2023) Zangzhi Minzhi No. 1 civil court verdict]
4. Jiangsu Jiu high-tech joint stock company and Qidi Qingmou (Shanghai) New Material Technology Co., Ltd. Infringement patent dispute case [Qinghai Province Xining City Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Qing01 Zhiminchu No. 15 civil court verdict]
5. A dispute case between Yanmou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Shimou Group Oumou Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. to confirm whether it falls within the scope of patent protection [Supreme People’s Court (2023) Supreme Court Zhimin End No. 4 civil court verdict]
(2) Cases of trademark infringement disputes
1. Shanghai Bimou Cosmetics Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Shimou Biological Daily Chemical Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil court verdict No. 238]
2. Dispute over trademark infringement between Namou Co., Ltd. and a shopping store in Shunping County [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme People’s Court Civil Court verdict No. 277]
3. Panmou Door Industry Co., Ltd. and Sichuan Xinmou Door Industry Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 209]
4. Mimou Group Headquarters and Shanghai Mimou Catering Management Co., Ltd. and other disputes over trademark infringement and unfair competition [Hubei Higher People’s Court (2022) Erzhimin End No. 190 civil court verdict]
5. Dispute over trademark infringement by Limou Co., Ltd., Simou Sporting Goods (China) Co., Ltd. and Nanchang Weimou Industrial Co., Ltd. [Jiangxi Higher People’s Court (2022) Gan Minzhuan No. 127 civil court verdict]
6. Bai a joint stock company and a (Tianjin) petrochemical joint stock company infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition dispute case [Tianjin Higher People’s Court (2023) Jinminzhuan No. 314 civil court verdict]
7. Beijing Kuaimou Technology Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Kuaimou Moving Co., Ltd. Infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition dispute case [Guizhou Higher People’s Court (2023) Qianminzhuan No. 261 civil court verdict]
8. Beimou Technology Co., Ltd. and Fucheng Bo Real Estate Intermediary Service Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes [Hebei Province Hengshui City Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Ji 11 Minzhuan No. 2075 civil court verdict]
9. Binzhou Zhanmou winter jujube brand management joint stock company and Lingwu Fumou jujube industry professional cooperative and other trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case [Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Yinchuan City Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Ning 01 Zhiminzhuan No. 8 civil court verdict]
(3) Cases of disputes over copyright ownership, copyright infringement, and confirmation of non-infringement of copyright
1. Yunnan Yangmou Information Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Yunmou (Beijing) Catering Management Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2023) Jingmin Shen No. 215 Civil Ruling]
2. Gong Mouping and a research institute, Yang Mouming copyright infringement dispute case [Shandong Higher People’s Court (2022) Lu Minzhuan No. 2685 civil court verdict]
3. Wang Mouyu and Hainan Chain Technology Co., Ltd. infringed on the right to disseminate information online [Sichuan Higher People’s Court (2023) Chuanzhimin End No. 253 civil court verdict]
4. Su Sports Culture Media (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Ai TV Media (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and a joint stock company of China Electric Heilongjiang Branch infringed on the right of information network dissemination of works [Heilongjiang Higher People’s Court (2023) Heiminzhuan No. 528 civil court verdict]
5. Heqing Yang Yinlou Co., Ltd. and Heqing County Eight Original Handmade Silver Store Copyright Ownership and Infringement Dispute Case [Yunnan Higher People’s Court (2022) Yunminzhuan No. 2088 civil court verdict]
6. Xinjiang Bimouya Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Xinjiang Shenmou Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. infringed on the right to disseminate information on the work network dispute case [Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court (2023) Xinminzhuan No. 127 civil court verdict]
7. Li Moufan, Da’an Yumou Grain Trading Co., Ltd. and Qianguo County Xumou Rice Industry Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Jilin Provincial Higher People’s Court (2023) Ji Minzhuan No. 127 civil court verdict]
8. A system joint stock company and a special automobile technology joint stock company infringement of computer software copyright dispute case [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021) Beijing 73 Minchu No. 345 civil court verdict]
9. Beijing Hongmou Technology Development Co., Ltd. and a general merchandise store in Haikou Longhua and Shanghai Xunmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. infringed on the right to distribute works [Hainan Free Trade Port Intellectual Property Court (2021) Qiong 73 Civil court verdict No. 28 in the early days of the People’s Republic of China]
10. Zhejiang Shengmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Co., Ltd. confirmed the dispute over non-infringement of copyright [Hangzhou Internet Court (2021) Zhejiang 0192 Minchu No. 10369 civil court verdict, Hangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhejiang 01 Minzhan No. 453 civil court verdict]
(4) Cases of unfair competition and monopoly disputes
1. Shengmou Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen Mougang, Yuncheng Jinmou Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin End No. 816 civil court verdict]
2. Hubei Huimou Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Zhang Mouyang, Hubei Zhimou Chemical Technology joint stock company infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Hubei Province Wuhan City Intermediate People’s Court (2021) Hubei 01 Zhiminchu No. 334 civil court verdict]
3. China Pingmou Life Insurance joint stock company and Linyi City Lanshan District Yunmou advertising design studio commercial slander dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court civil court verdict No. 75]
4. Unfair competition dispute case between an association in Tangshan City and an e-commerce company in Changsha Shun [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil court verdict No. 76]
5. Shenzhen Quanmou Technology Co., Ltd. and Mingmou (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and other unauthorized use of goods with the same or similar decoration that have a certain impact on others [Shandong Higher People’s Court (2023) Lu Minzhuan No. 1035 civil court verdict]
6. Tengmou Technology (Chengdu) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Aimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair competition dispute case [Jiangsu Higher People’s Court (2023) Su Minzhuan No. 280 civil court verdict]
7. Unfair competition dispute case between a certain information technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Gumou Technology Co., Ltd. [Fujian Higher People’s Court (2022) Minminzhan No. 1871 civil court verdict]
8. Nanjing Yuanmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Yuanmou Technology Co., Ltd. and Xi’an Remou Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Shaanxi Higher People’s Court (2022) Shaanxi Zhimin End No. 139 civil court verdict]
9. Guilin Lingmou Software Co., Ltd. and Xiaomou Communication Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Xiaomou Mobile Software Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court (2023) Guiminzhuan No. 196 civil court verdict]
10. Unfair competition dispute case between Shenzhen Mayor’s Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. and Beijing Tianmou Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil court verdict of Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Guangdong 03 Minzhi No. 4897]
11. A dispute case between Guomou Technology Holdings Co., Ltd. and Guomou (Dalian) Co., Ltd. in which the unauthorized use of others has a certain impact on the enterprise name [Liaoning Province Dalian Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Liaoning 02 Minzhuan No. 6496 civil court verdict]
12. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Damou Brand Planning Co., Ltd. and Jinan Shengmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Chongqing First Intermediate People’s Court (2022) Yu 01 Minchu No. 3538 civil court verdict]
13. Unfair competition dispute case between Beijing A Yi Technology Co., Ltd., Hunan A Yi Culture Technology Co., Ltd., and Hangzhou Qun A Technology Co., Ltd. [Civil court verdict No. 2875, Xiang0105 Minchu, Kaifu District People’s Court, Changsha City, Hunan Province (2023) ]
14. Quanzhou Licheng Li Funeral Service Co., Ltd. and Quanzhou Ji Funeral Service Co., Ltd. refused to trade dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme People’s Court Zhimin Final No. 242 civil court verdict]
15. Ningbo Tongmou Materials Co., Ltd. and Japan Corporation Abuse of Market Dominance Dispute Case [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme People’s Court Zhimin End No. 1398 civil court verdict]
(5) New plant varieties, technical contract disputes, and judicial punishment cases
1. Anhui quan a high-tech seed industry joint stock company and Yuan agricultural high-tech joint stock company and other disputes over infringement of new plant variety rights [Anhui Provincial Higher People’s Court (2022) Anhui Minchu No. 2 Civil Ruling]
2. Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between a research institute in Zhengzhou and Chen Mouqun [Civil court verdict No. 865, Zhiminchu, Henan Province, Zhengzhou Intermediate People’s Court (2023) ]
3. Dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights between Dunhuang A Good Species Co., Ltd., Ulanhot Fengzhiye Co., Ltd., and Hao Moujun [Civil court verdict No. 18, 01 Zhiminchu, Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (2023) ]
4. Dispute case of infringement of new plant variety rights by Shandong seed industry limited company and big seed industry joint stock company [Lanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Gansu Province (2021) Gan 01 Zhiminchu No. 51 civil court verdict]
5. Wujiaqu City, a new energy technology Co., Ltd. and Luoyang Di Chemical Engineering Technology Co., Ltd. technical service contract dispute case [Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps Sixth Division Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Bing 06 Minchu No. 4 civil court verdict]
6. Monkey Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Changmou International Trade Co., Ltd., and Changmou Technology Co., Ltd. Judicial Punishment Case for Infringement of Trademark Rights and Unfair Competition Disputes [Decision No. 4 of Xiang01 Division, Intermediate People’s Court of Changsha City, Hunan Province (2023) ]
II. Intellectual property administrative cases
1. Hangzhou Yuanmou medical apparatus Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office, Hangzhou Zhuomou medical technology Co., Ltd. invalid utility model patent administrative dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Law Zhixing End No. 132 administrative court verdict]
2. Shanghai Zhanmou Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Minhang District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau, Shanghai Minhang District People’s Government Fines and Administrative Reconsideration Case [Shanghai Minhang District People’s Court (2022) Shanghai 0112 Xingchu No. 506 Administrative court verdict]
III. Intellectual property criminal cases
1. Su Mouqi’s Criminal Case of Copyright Infringement [Criminal Ruling No. 422 of the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province (2023) ]
2. The crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks by Deng Mouguang and Yan Moujiao and the crime of selling counterfeit registered trademarks by Xiao Moucheng, Liu Mouxia and Zhang Mouyan [Shaanxi Province Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court (2022) Shaanxi 01 Zhixingchu No. 6 criminal court verdict]
3. Hao Mouzhen’s crime of copyright infringement [Criminal court verdict No. 116, Xingchu, Jin 0106, People’s Court of Yingze District, Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province]
I. Case involving "Siemens" trademark infringement and unfair competition
Case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between Ximou Joint Stock Company, Ximou (China) Co., Ltd. and Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 312]
[Case summary] Ximou Co., Ltd. and Ximou (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as Ximou Company) are the rights holders of the registered trademarks of "Siemens" and "SIEMENS". The two trademarks are registered on washing machines and other goods. After long-term use and vigorous promotion by Ximou Company, they have already gained a high reputation. Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. and other "Shanghai Siemens Electric Appliance Co., Ltd." names to be registered overseas are widely used as commercial logos in the washing machine products, product outer packaging and related publicity activities it produces and sells. Ximou Company believes that Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. infringes its exclusive right to use its registered trademark and constitutes unfair competition, so it sued the court. The court of first instance held that the alleged infringement of Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. did not constitute trademark infringement, but constituted unfair competition, and ruled that Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. immediately stopped the infringement and compensated 100 million yuan for economic losses and 163,000 yuan for reasonable expenses. Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and filed an appeal. The Supreme People’s Court held that Ningbo Qimou Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. knowingly knew the popularity of the "Siemens" and "SIEMENS" trademarks, and deliberately used "Shanghai Siemens Electric Appliance Co., Ltd. on washing machine products, causing confusion and misunderstanding among consumers, which constituted trademark infringement; the use of the logo in product packaging and publicity activities also constitutes unfair competition, and should be liable for compensation. Regarding the amount of compensation, although the existing evidence is difficult to determine the actual loss of Ximou Company or the infringement profit of Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd., it is sufficient to determine that the infringement profit of Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. has obviously exceeded the maximum limit of statutory compensation of 5 million yuan. In this case, considering that Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. refused to provide financial information related to the infringement, which constituted evidence obstruction, the court of first instance referred to the data in the media report that the total annual sales of Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. was 1.50 billion yuan, and based on the relevant facts of the case, calculated the sales proportion of the accused infringing products according to one-fifteenth, and then determined that it was not improper for Ningbo Qimou Electric Co., Ltd. to bear the amount of compensation of 100 million yuan. The Supreme People’s Court ruled: reject the appeal,
[Typical significance] The 2nd-round Moderation judgment in this case strictly applies the system of providing evidence and obstructing the infringer who deliberately fails to provide evidence and hinders the people’s court from determining the facts of the case, and makes an unfavorable handling method and judgment in accordance with the law. This case fully reflects the judicial attitude of the people’s court to strictly protect intellectual property rights, and has effectively cracked down on the behavior of maliciously clinging to the goodwill of well-known trademarks, which has played an important role in purifying the market order and creating a good business environment.
II. Case involving trademark infringement and unfair competition of "Lafite"
Case of infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition between Laimou Winery and Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Civil Court verdict No. 313]
[Case summary] La Winery is the owner of the "LAFITE" trademark and "CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD" trademark (hereinafter collectively referred to as the trademarks involved), and the two trademarks are registered on alcoholic beverage products. The trademarks involved in the case have a high reputation after long-term use, and "LAFITE" and "Lafite" have established a solid relationship. On April 1, 2005, Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. applied for the registration of the "Lafite Manor" trademark on wine and other products. Since then, Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and others have used logos such as "Lafite Manor" and "LAFEI MANOR" in the process of producing, importing and selling wine, and have promoted them on websites and trading 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 of "Lafite Manor". Lafite Winery then sued Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and other seven defendants to the court. The court of first instance held that Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and other seven defendants constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, ordered them to stop infringement, and applied punitive damages. Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held that in the process of applying for registration and using the "Lafite Manor" trademark, Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. had malicious intent to cling to the trademark involved in the case of Lafite Winery, and did not have a good faith interest in trust. Its use of the "Lafite Manor" "LAFEI MANOR" logo constituted trademark infringement, and exaggerating the historical heritage and popularity of "Lafite Manor" wine in the publicity constituted false propaganda. Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. and other infringement malice was obvious, and the infringement circumstances were serious. According to the request of Lafite Winery, punitive compensation was applied, and Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. was ordered to compensate Nanjing Jinmou Winery Co., Ltd. for the total economic loss and reasonable expenses of 79.17 million yuan.
The judgment in this case points out that trademark registrants who have the intention to cling to their trademarks should not be protected, which is of positive significance for advocating market players to participate in market competition in a sincere and good faith manner, and highlights the strength and determination of the people’s court to severely punish "near famous brands" and "free riders".
Administrative disputes involving the invalidation of "facial recognition" invention patents
Beijing Zhongmou Technology Co., Ltd. and the State Intellectual Property Office, Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Company Invalid Patent Administrative Dispute Case [Supreme People’s Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhixing End No. 556 administrative court verdict]
[Case summary] Beijing Zhongzhong Technology Co., Ltd. is the patentee of the invention patent with patent number 200480036270.2 and the name is "a method for obtaining face images and facial recognition method and system". Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Company filed a request for invalidation of the patent right involved in the case. Beijing Zhongzhong Technology Co., Ltd. submitted the revised text of the patent claim during the examination of the invalidation of the patent right involved in the case. The State Intellectual Property Office did not accept some of the revised claims. It only made an examination decision based on the accepted part, determined that the patent involved was not creative, and declared all of them invalid. Beijing Zhongzhong Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, but was not supported. Beijing Zhonghao Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed on the grounds that all modified claims should be accepted. The Supreme People’s Court 2nd-round Moderation held that in the administrative procedure of patent right confirmation, the maximum scope of modification of claims shall not exceed the "scope of information" stipulated in Article 33 of the Patent Law and the "scope of protection" stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 69 of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law. The review of whether the modification method of a certain claim belongs to "further limitation" shall only be based on whether the modified claim fully contains all the technical features of the modified claim, whether the modified claim adds technical features to the modified claim, and whether the added technical features are recorded in other claims in the original claims. Modifications to claims in administrative procedures for patent right confirmation should generally be limited to responding to the reasons for invalidation; those that reconstruct the reality of the claims in the name of overcoming the defects referred to in the reasons for invalidation may not be accepted. In this case, claims 4 and 7 are essentially the original claims and are the natural basis for examination; the technical solutions citing claims 4 and 7 in the revised claims 8-10 should also be accepted; the revised claims 11 and 12 are not in response to the modification of the reasons for invalidation, and it is not inappropriate for the State Intellectual Property Office not to accept them. Therefore, the judgment revokes the first-instance judgment and the decision to be sued, and the State Intellectual Property Office makes a new decision.
[Typical meaning] This case clarifies the requirements for the extent, method, and purpose of modification of claims in the administrative procedure of patent confirmation, especially the identification criteria for "further limiting" modification, which is of reference significance for the grasp of the legal standards for modifying claims in the administrative procedure of patent confirmation.
IV. Infringement dispute involving new varieties of corn plants "Danyu No. 405"
Liaoning Danye Science and Technology joint stock company and Linghai Agricultural Science and Technology Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. infringed on the right of new plant varieties dispute case [Supreme People’s Court (2022) Supreme Court Zhimin End No. 2907 civil court verdict]
[Case summary] Liaoning Danyu Industrial Technology joint stock company is the owner of the new variety of corn plant "Danyu No. 405". Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. infringed the variety rights of "Danyu No. 405" with the name "Ziguang No. 4" without authorization, and was found to be infringing by an effective judgment in 2015. After that, in 2019 and 2020, it continued to carry out the infringement of producing and selling the "Danyu No. 405" variety under the names "Jinyu 118" "Anyu 13" and "Danyu No. 606" respectively. Qingdao Lian Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. is the seller of the alleged 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. stop infringing and jointly compensate a total of 3 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses (with 1.50 million yuan as the compensation base, and 1 times the punitive compensation). The court of first instance held that the calculation base of punitive damages could not be determined, so it applied the statutory compensation judgment Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. stopped infringing and compensated a total of 1 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. Liaoning Dan Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court 2nd-round Moderation held that the infringement of Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. has a long time, a wide geographical area, and a large scale, and has repeatedly committed deck infringement and repeated infringement. The infringement is intentional and obvious, and the infringement circumstances are bad, so it should bear punitive compensation liability. Refer to the number of "Danyu No. 405" seeds that Linghai Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. believes can be harvested by breeding 400 mu of infringing seeds and the gross profit on sales, which has basically satisfied the 1.50 million yuan compensation base claimed by Liaoning Danye Industrial Technology Co., Ltd., and then according to the compensation base of 1.50 million yuan and 1 times the punitive compensation, the judgment is changed to support the full amount of Liaoning Danye Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. 3 million yuan lawsuit claim.
[Typical meaning] This case makes it clear that the base of punitive compensation can be determined based on the evidence in the case, and cannot simply apply statutory compensation because 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 compensation system, reducing the difficulty of rights holders in accordance with the law, effectively playing the deterrent effect of punitive compensation, and effectively making the infringer pay a heavy price.
V. Navigation electronic map copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes
Beijing Simou Technology joint stock company and Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes [Beijing Higher People’s Court (2021) Jingminzhuan No. 421 civil court verdict]
[Case summary] Beijing four science and technology joint stock company began to carry out electronic map research and development and promotion since 2002, and created the 15Q4 Internet electronic map and 16Q2 Internet electronic map (hereinafter collectively referred to as the rights map). In 2013, Beijing four science and technology joint stock company and Beijing hundred Technology Co., Ltd. signed a "cooperation agreement", agreeing to authorize Beijing hundred Technology Co., Ltd. to use the rights map until the end of 2016. Beijing Simou Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates claimed that after the contract expired, Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliates used navigation electronic maps that were substantially similar to the rights map in the six accused application software operated by "Baidu Map", "Baidu CarLife" and "Baidu Navigation", which infringed their copyright and constituted unfair competition, and then sued the court. The court of first instance held that the navigation electronic maps used by Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. 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 64.50 million yuan and reasonable expenses of more than 920,000 yuan. Beijing Baimou Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed. The 2nd-round Moderation of the Beijing Higher People’s Court held that the rights map constitutes a graphic work under the copyright law. For the massive map data, through the comparison of 30 secret notes, 125 internal roads, 47 sea-expanding administrative area maps and 44 model maps provided 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 rights map in the six accused applications operated after the expiration of the "Cooperation Agreement", infringing the copyright of Beijing Simou Technology joint stock company. In view of the fact that the copyright law has been applied to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the right holder, it is not appropriate to apply Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for repeated protection. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
[Typical meaning] Data is a key element of the digital economy. This case is a typical case of navigation electronic maps being protected by copyright law. The case not only conducts in-depth analysis of the elements of navigation electronic maps that constitute graphic works, but also makes useful explorations on the substantive similarity comparison of massive map data, highlighting the important role of intellectual property judicial trial services in safeguarding the digital economy.
VI. Cases involving unfair competition of "data"
Beijing Weimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. and other unfair competition disputes [Guangdong Higher People’s Court (2022) Yueminjian No. 4541 civil court verdict]
[Case summary] Beijing Jianmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. is the operator of Sina Weibo. It accused Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. of using malicious technical means to illegally call the server API (application programming interface) to capture a large amount of Weibo data, store and sell it, which constituted unfair competition, and then sued the court. The court of first instance held that Guangzhou Jianmou 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 Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. refused to accept it and appealed. The Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province held that Beijing Jianmou Network Technology Co., Ltd. enjoys the rights and interests of independent control, lawful use and economic benefits of Weibo data held in accordance with laws and regulations. Guangzhou Jianmou Information Technology Co., Ltd. illegally calls the Weibo server API to capture a large amount of background data for storage by changing IP (network address), UID (user account number) and other deceptive technical methods, and sells it to unspecified Internet users without processing to make profits. This behavior significantly increases the risk of the Weibo platform being substantially replaced, and may also cause data security issues such as personal privacy and leakage of sensitive information. It violates the principles of fairness, integrity and business ethics, disrupts the competitive order of the data market, seriously damages the legitimate rights and interests of Beijing Weimou Network Technology Co., Ltd. and consumers, and constitutes unfair competition as stipulated in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. According to the median fee standard of 1 yuan/100 times of Guangzhou Jane Information Technology Co., Ltd., its profit is about 2179.79 million yuan. Based on the long duration of the alleged infringement, the huge scale of the call data, and the serious consequences of the damage, it is not improper to fully support the compensation request of Beijing Micro Network Technology Co., Ltd., so the judgment rejects the appeal and upholds the original judgment.
[Typical meaning] This case is a typical case of illegally capturing data for trading and reselling. The judgment is based on the balanced relationship between "strong protection" of data and "orderly circulation", and clarifies the boundaries of data rights protection. It reflects the clear judicial attitude of judicial trials to guide market entities to obtain and use data "in a good way and to a certain extent."
Seventh, criminal infringement of medical equipment software copyright
Case of copyright infringement by Liu Mousheng and Liu Mousheng [Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court (2023) Shanghai 03 Xingchu No. 23 criminal court verdict]
[Summary of the case] Since March 2019, defendant Liu Mousheng, for profit purposes, without the permission of copyright holders such as Ximou Medical System Co., Ltd., made dongles to avoid copyright technical protection measures, provided download links such as maintenance manuals, copied software such as Nebula Workstation without authorization, and sold the aforementioned dongles and pirated software through Xianyu account and other channels. Since July 2020, defendant Liu Mousheng instructed defendant Liu to open a Xianyu account to sell dongles and pirated software. During this period, defendant Liu Mousheng was responsible for making dongles, copying pirated software, putting goods on the shelves, sending express deliveries, etc., and defendant Liu was responsible for account customer service, collection, etc. After audit, the sales amounts of defendants Liu Mousheng and Liu were 1.06 million yuan and 140,000 yuan respectively. After identification, it was found that the dongles sold by the two defendants could avoid 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 Third Intermediate People’s Court held that the two defendants, for the purpose of profit, copied and disseminated their works to the public through information networks without the permission of the copyright owner, and deliberately avoided the technical protection measures taken by the copyright owner for their works. Defendant Liu Mousheng’s circumstances are particularly serious. Defendant Liu’s circumstances are serious, and their actions have constituted the crime of copyright infringement. In a joint crime, the defendant Liu Mousheng is the principal offender; the defendant Liu is an accessory, and should be given a lighter punishment. Both defendants have confessed to the circumstances and can be given a lighter punishment; if they voluntarily plead guilty and accept the punishment, they can pay a fine in advance before the court, and can be given a lighter punishment. Therefore, the defendant Liu Mousheng was sentenced to three years and two months in prison and fined 700,000 yuan for the crime of copyright infringement; the defendant Liu was sentenced to one year in prison, suspended for one year, and fined 80,000 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, neither defendant appealed.
[Typical significance] This case is a typical criminal case of intentional avoidance of technical measures to infringe copyright after the implementation of the Criminal Law Amendment (XI). The judgment of this case clarified the relevant standards for criminal responsibility for avoidance or destruction of technical measures, fully protected the legitimate rights and interests of medical device software copyright owners, and demonstrated the strength and determination to strengthen the criminal judicial protection of intellectual property rights and serve the innovative development of the digital economy.
Eight, "Lentinan" infringement of technical secrets dispute case
Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. infringement of technical secrets dispute case [Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province (2019) Su 01 Minchu No. 3444 civil court verdict]
[Case summary] In 2004, Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. and Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. signed the "Lentinan Mushroom Polysaccharide Project Cooperation Contract", agreeing that the former would provide the latter with technologies such as the production of Lentinan APIs; the products involved would be sold to the distributor designated by the former; the latter would compensate the former 20 million yuan for distributing it by itself or entrusting others; both parties should keep the technology of this project confidential, otherwise they would compensate according to the above agreement. Later, Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. delivered the technical results to Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. as agreed. Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. obtained the registration and production approval of Lentinan APIs in 2006. In 2010, Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. transferred the shiitake mushroom polysaccharide technology to the outsider for 1 million yuan, and the aforementioned drug production enterprise was changed to the outsider. The outsider’s website publicized in 2014 that the shiitake mushroom polysaccharide API production line was officially put into production, and the annual output value would exceed 100 million yuan. Nanjing Hanmou Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd. then sued the court. The Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province held that the technology involved in the case was non-public, valuable, and confidential, and constituted a technical secret. Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. transferred the technology substantially the same as the aforementioned technology to the outsider, which violated the confidentiality agreement and disclosed the technical secret to the outsider, which constituted infringement. According to the amount of compensation agreed by both parties, Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. was sentenced to compensate Nanjing Hanmou Pharm Dimou Pharmaceutical (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. refused to accept and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[Typical meaning] This case involves the protection of technical secrets of traditional Chinese medicine techniques 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 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.
Nine, involving "Xiao Ai Classmate" wake-up word unfair competition dispute case
Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. and Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province (2023) Zhejiang 03 Minchu No. 423 civil court verdict]
[Case summary] Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. released the first artificial intelligence speaker with the wake-up word "Xiao Ai Classmate" in July 2017, and has since installed an artificial intelligence voice interaction engine using the wake-up word "Xiao Ai Classmate" in mobile phones, TVs and other products. From August 2017 to June 2020, Chen applied for the registration of 66 trademarks such as "Xiao Ai Classmate" in different product categories, and then sent a lawyer’s letter to the affiliated companies of Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. to request that it stop infringing its "Xiao Ai Classmate" trademark rights, and used the "Xiao Ai Classmate" trademark on sports watches, alarm clocks and other products with Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. to jointly publish product promotional articles. Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. argued that the actions of Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, so it sued the court. The Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province held that "Xiao Ai Classmate" can be widely used as an influential wake-up word, the name of the artificial intelligence voice interaction engine, and the name of the smart speaker equipped with the artificial intelligence voice interaction engine. Protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chen registered a large number of trademarks such as "Xiao Ai Classmate" and sent a lawyer’s letter to "stop infringement" to the affiliated enterprises of Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd., which violated the principle of good faith, disrupted the fair market competition order, and damaged the legitimate rights and interests of Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd., which is an act of unfair competition regulated by Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chen and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. sold goods with the logo of "Xiao Ai Classmate" and released misleading commercial publicity information, which constituted confusion and false propaganda of unfair competition. Therefore, the judgment was immediately stopped, Chen compensated Xiaomou Technology Co., Ltd. for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1.20 million yuan, and Shenzhen Yunmou Technology Co., Ltd. was jointly and severally liable for 250,000 yuan. After the first-instance judgment, none of the parties appealed.
[Typical meaning] This case is a typical case involving the protection of the rights and interests of artificial intelligence Keywords Spotting. The judgment of this case not only makes it clear that the use of wake-up words with certain influence belongs to the legitimate rights and interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, but also effectively regulates the behavior of maliciously squatting other people’s wake-up words and abusing rights, fully protecting the brand goodwill of technological innovation enterprises.
Cases involving "juvenile model" unfair competition
Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. and Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. unfair competition dispute case [Tianjin Free Trade Zone People’s Court (2022) Jin 0319 Minchu No. 23977 civil court verdict]
[Case Summary] Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. and others have set up "Youth Mode" in the "Tencent Video" and "Tencent NOW Live" APP operated by them. When opening the above APP, a pop-up window prompt will pop up on the homepage. The guardian of the teenager can conveniently open the "Youth Mode". This mode is configured with high-quality content suitable for teenagers, restricts social and consumption functions such as recharging, tipping, 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 both APPs stipulate that users shall not interfere with or destroy the normal operation of the software, shall not add, delete, or change the functions or operation effects of the software, and shall not implement any behavior that endangers minors. The "anti-advertising tool" APP operated by Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. uses the "juvenile mode pop-up box automatic closing" function as a "member exclusive privilege", and guides users to open and use the function in a "free time" way, resulting in users being unable to use "juvenile mode" through the prominent pop-up window prompt popping up on the homepage of Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. and others believed that Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. constituted unfair competition, so they sued the court. The People’s Court of Tianjin Free Trade Zone held that the blocking of "juvenile mode" by Beijing Aimou Technology Co., Ltd. was essentially an act of unfair competition that hindered and destroyed the normal operation of network products and services of Shenzhen Tengmou Computer System Co., Ltd. on the grounds of technological neutrality to obtain economic benefits, resulting in the failure of the company’s functional design to protect minors, which not only undermined the market order of fair competition and industry ecology, but also violated relevant laws and regulations for the protection of minors, hindered the long-term healthy development of online audio & video, live broadcast and other industries, and constituted unfair competition. Considering that the products of Shenzhen Teng Computer System Co., Ltd. have a greater impact on the adolescent group, Beijing Love Technology Co., Ltd. has a greater subjective fault, and the function of blocking adolescent mode covers a variety of application software. The influence range is wider, the number of downloads is more, and the duration is longer. Factors such as a long time, Beijing Love Technology Co., Ltd. was ordered to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3 million yuan. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed, and reached a pre-execution settlement.
[Typical meaning] This case is a typical case of blocking "juvenile model" unfair competition. The judge affirmed the positive role of "juvenile model" in safeguarding the rights and interests of minors online, and made a negative evaluation of the blocking of "juvenile model" through the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and guided network service providers to consciously fulfill their network obligations and social responsibilities to protect minors.
