FEATURE | IP firms >>
►► Rising IP litigation in China Trials in 2008 Case type: Cases handled by all Chinese courts Number of cases: 10.7 million Compared to 2007: up 11% Case type: Intellectual property right infringement cases Number of cases: 27,876 Compared to 2007: up 33%
prevent serious unfairness,” Gao says. The Schneider v Chint case – in which a France-based manufacturer of low voltage electronics and its main Chinese competitor disputed patent ownership – for example, would not have happened had the law prevented junk patents effectively.
Defying the GFC
One thing that does not seem to have had too much impact on IP practices is the global financial crisis, in fact it has created a few opportunities for IP lawyers. “It is safe to say that our IP group is the busiest within our firm and constantly growing, in
particular our IP Litigation team,” Xu says. “The economic downturn has certainly made companies more eager to assert their IP rights. They want to make sure that although the current situation is good, their IP is protected for when things pick up again.” Xu believes that, generally, IP work should not be too closely linked to the financial crisis. The IP industry always provides opportunities and furthermore the industry is constantly rising, regardless of the crisis.” It an opinion supported by Gao, who says the GFC has only affected some aspects of his firm’s Gordon Gao, Fangda business and even then only to a small degree. Gao also notes that Fangda’s IP litigation practice was the fastest growth area of the firm over 2008, telling ALB “owners tended to use litigation to protect patents and trademarks more eagerly, and we have
seen the volume of cases go up across a broad range of industries”. Meanwhile, He Jing, senior associate of Baker & McKenzie’s Hong Kongbased IP practice group, says IP practices tend to be “much more stable” than other areas of practice rather than riding the boom and bust cycle. “If you look at the big picture, the Chinese Government has a big incentive to keep the economy going strong – especially since the current global crisis has impacted so significantly on exports,” He says. “Some of the local authorities have a tendency to take a step back in enforcement. This actually requires multinational to put more effort into lobbying harder with local governments to accomplish the same kinds of results. The message is that it requires more work.” So while the ups and downs of many practice areas might not often apply to IP lawyers it is safe to assume that, as a result of the Third Amendment and recent Judicial Opinions, an “up” may not be too far away. ALB
Firm Profile
Longan Law Firm
驰名商标的法律意义 — 对最近最高法院关于 驰名商标司法解释的评议
驰
名商标具有巨大的商业价值，对 法律适用有着重大影响。最高法 院关于驰名商标的司法解释对司 法实践具有重大的指导意义。现 就驰名商标的法律意义谈一下三个方面： 第一，诉讼管辖。将涉及驰名商标的案件 集中在省会市、计划单列市和经最高法院批 准的中级法院及中级以上法院管辖，对克服 当前发生的驰名商标异化问题非常有意义。 但是，这种安排应该是临时的。在适当的时 候，应当调整管辖权。 第二，未注册驰名商标的保护。我国实行商 标注册制度，未注册商标受到反不正当竞争法 的保护。对未注册驰名商标的保护程度止于相 关公众对争讼的商标“容易导致混淆”。混淆不 限于商品来源误认，还包括足以使相关公众认 为商品经营者之间具有许可使用、关联企业关 系等特定联系的情形。对未注册驰名商标的保 护强于普通商标，但弱于注册驰名商标。这种 保护程度有待提高。驰名商标的保护强度不应
www.asianlegalonline.com
因为商标是否注册而有所不同。 第三，注册驰名商标的跨类保护。司法解释 首次正式引入了商标淡化理论和联想理论。在 存在驰名商标弱化、丑化从而损害了其显著性 时，驰名商标所有人有权得到救济，这是对淡 化理论的认可。攀附驰名商标商誉的行为也被 禁止，凡不正当利用驰名商标商誉的行为，权 利人有权获得救济，这体现了对联想理论的部 分承认。但何谓不正当利用驰名商标商誉仍需 要进一步明确。就此而言，对驰名商标的保护 侧重于反不正当竞争。 Jiali Xu Managing Partner Email: jialixu@longanlaw.com Longan Law Firm | www.longanlaw.com Room188, Beijing International Club, 21Jianguomenwai Street, Beijing 100020 Tel:8610 65325588 Fax:8610 65323768 Mob:86 13601011122
41