沒(méi)收到驗(yàn)證郵件？請(qǐng)確認(rèn)郵箱是否正確或 重新發(fā)送郵件
#本文僅代表作者觀點(diǎn)，不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#
為深入貫徹落實(shí)黨中央、國(guó)務(wù)院關(guān)于全面加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)工作的決策部署，根據(jù)《知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)強(qiáng)國(guó)建設(shè)綱要（2021-2035年）》和《“十四五”國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)和運(yùn)用規(guī)劃》的明確要求，2023年，北京市各級(jí)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政監(jiān)管部門(mén)積極創(chuàng)新工作機(jī)制，完善協(xié)同配合體系，不斷提升行政執(zhí)法案件的處理質(zhì)量和效率，對(duì)強(qiáng)化知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)力度、持續(xù)增強(qiáng)全社會(huì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)意識(shí)發(fā)揮了重要作用。
值此世界知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)日來(lái)臨之際，北京市知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局正式發(fā)布了2023年知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政保護(hù)的典型案例（中英版），案例涵蓋北京“兩區(qū)”建設(shè)多個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)領(lǐng)域，具有一定代表性和影響力，對(duì)今后類似案件的辦理具有很強(qiáng)指導(dǎo)意義，展示北京在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)方面的決心和成效。
附2023年北京市知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政保護(hù)典型案例（中英版）：
案例一
案件名稱：發(fā)明專利默示許可案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：某公司就其擴(kuò)底樁類專利與京津兩個(gè)工程實(shí)施單位的發(fā)明專利侵權(quán)糾紛，向行政機(jī)關(guān)提出裁決請(qǐng)求。行政機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)為，某公司在先同意發(fā)包方、設(shè)計(jì)單位在施工圖紙上采用專利技術(shù)，后同意與設(shè)計(jì)單位共有專利權(quán)，兩被請(qǐng)求人作為施工單位中標(biāo)后，必然按照?qǐng)D紙進(jìn)行施工，對(duì)此該公司應(yīng)當(dāng)能夠合理預(yù)見(jiàn)。因此對(duì)于兩被請(qǐng)求人實(shí)施涉案專利技術(shù)的行為構(gòu)成默示許可，其主張兩被請(qǐng)求人侵犯其專利權(quán)不予支持。
典型意義：根據(jù)請(qǐng)求人前有作為專利權(quán)人允許工程發(fā)包方采用其專利技術(shù)的意思表示，后有承包部分工程，發(fā)現(xiàn)施工圖紙采用其專利技術(shù)未提出異議，且仍將專利權(quán)從單獨(dú)所有變更為與工程設(shè)計(jì)單位共有的具體行為，行政機(jī)關(guān)綜合考量推斷其存在默示許可，為類似案件審理判定提供了重要參考。
案例二
案件名稱：當(dāng)庭裁決“調(diào)色劑盒及圖像形成裝置”專利侵權(quán)糾紛
案情簡(jiǎn)介：請(qǐng)求人某膠片公司就其“調(diào)色劑盒及圖像形成裝置”發(fā)明專利與兩家北京公司和中山某公司的專利侵權(quán)糾紛，向行政機(jī)關(guān)提出裁決請(qǐng)求，主張北京某品優(yōu)公司未經(jīng)許可許諾銷售、銷售由北京某維公司和中山某公司制造、銷售的粉盒產(chǎn)品落入涉案專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍，構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。
典型意義：本案請(qǐng)求人為涉外知名企業(yè)，合議組依法缺席審理并當(dāng)庭裁決，快速處理專利糾紛，合理保護(hù)外商權(quán)益，對(duì)于構(gòu)建法治化、國(guó)際化的營(yíng)商環(huán)境具有積極意義。
案例三
案件名稱：違法銷售“冬奧尊”同時(shí)侵犯奧標(biāo)和商標(biāo)權(quán)案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：2023年8月，執(zhí)法人員在另案調(diào)查中獲得線索，某公司曾對(duì)外銷售標(biāo)有“北京市琺瑯廠”字樣的侵權(quán)景泰藍(lán)產(chǎn)品?，F(xiàn)場(chǎng)檢查還發(fā)現(xiàn)，該公司正在銷售一件瓶底標(biāo)有“冬奧尊”字樣、瓶身上標(biāo)有北京2022年冬奧會(huì)會(huì)徽、“BEIJING 2022”字樣的景泰藍(lán)產(chǎn)品。執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)定該公司涉案行為侵犯“北京市琺瑯廠”注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)和奧林匹克標(biāo)志專有權(quán)，依法沒(méi)收“冬奧尊”，合計(jì)罰款3000元。
典型意義：本案系“后冬奧時(shí)代”奧林匹克標(biāo)志專有權(quán)保護(hù)的典型案例，有效提升了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域行政執(zhí)法效能，既突出了對(duì)商標(biāo)侵權(quán)行為的全鏈條打擊，也體現(xiàn)了對(duì)奧林匹克標(biāo)志的持續(xù)保護(hù)。
案例四
案件名稱：北京郵局海關(guān)查獲侵權(quán)物品3515批次案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：北京海關(guān)所屬北京郵局海關(guān)在對(duì)出境郵件進(jìn)行查驗(yàn)時(shí)，連續(xù)查獲侵權(quán)嫌疑物品3515批次，涉及帶有“FILA”“CROCS”等標(biāo)識(shí)的鞋、衣服、包等共計(jì)3841件，涉嫌侵犯上述品牌權(quán)利人在海關(guān)總署備案的商標(biāo)專用權(quán)。北京海關(guān)依法扣留上述物品，經(jīng)調(diào)查，當(dāng)事人的行為已構(gòu)成出口侵犯他人商標(biāo)專用權(quán)貨物的行為。根據(jù)《中華人民共和國(guó)海關(guān)關(guān)于〈中華人民共和國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)海關(guān)保護(hù)條例〉的實(shí)施辦法》第三十二條之規(guī)定，對(duì)上述侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)物品予以收繳。
典型意義：北京海關(guān)嚴(yán)厲打擊“化整為零”“螞蟻搬家式”的侵權(quán)違法活動(dòng)，維護(hù)“中國(guó)制造”國(guó)際聲譽(yù)。本案是近年來(lái)北京口岸查獲批次量最大的侵權(quán)案件，對(duì)推動(dòng)首都高質(zhì)量發(fā)展，建設(shè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)強(qiáng)國(guó)示范城市具有積極意義。
案例五
案件名稱：利用區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)查處侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：2023年9月，著作權(quán)人向市文化執(zhí)法總隊(duì)舉報(bào)某公司擅自使用其《斗羅大陸》美術(shù)作品，并提交證據(jù)保全證書(shū)?？傟?duì)通過(guò)司法聯(lián)盟區(qū)塊鏈查實(shí)該公司借助作品的名氣和熱度，吸引小程序用戶參與點(diǎn)擊作品、匹配測(cè)試、觀看激勵(lì)視頻廣告進(jìn)行牟利?？傟?duì)依據(jù)《中華人民共和國(guó)著作權(quán)法》第五十三條第（一）項(xiàng)之規(guī)定，對(duì)該公司作出警告、沒(méi)收違法所得13502.72元、罰款50000元的行政處罰。
典型意義：本案系區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)首次在文化執(zhí)法領(lǐng)域的有益運(yùn)用，對(duì)于豐富版權(quán)保護(hù)模式、提高行政執(zhí)法效率、保護(hù)著作權(quán)人合法權(quán)益具有積極意義。
案例六
案件名稱：北京某商貿(mào)公司平行進(jìn)口潤(rùn)滑油案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：北京某商貿(mào)公司從德國(guó)進(jìn)口產(chǎn)自歐洲的“Mobil”潤(rùn)滑油，在我國(guó)進(jìn)行銷售，“Mobil”商標(biāo)權(quán)利人出具了鑒定報(bào)告稱涉案產(chǎn)品“不符合正品特征”。該商貿(mào)公司涉嫌銷售侵犯注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)產(chǎn)品，但其提供了合同、報(bào)關(guān)單、進(jìn)口關(guān)稅繳稅書(shū)等合法來(lái)源材料。執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)定涉案商品系合法平行進(jìn)口的正品，不構(gòu)成銷售侵犯注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)產(chǎn)品的行為，對(duì)當(dāng)事人不予行政處罰。
典型意義：現(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)對(duì)于平行進(jìn)口是否侵害商標(biāo)專用權(quán)并未有明確的界定。本案例圍繞商標(biāo)法的立法本意，以商品平行進(jìn)口是否破壞商標(biāo)識(shí)別商品來(lái)源、保證品質(zhì)等為衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，劃定了商品平行進(jìn)口在商標(biāo)法上的合法性界限，對(duì)今后類似案件的辦理具有很強(qiáng)的指導(dǎo)意義。
案例七
案件名稱：使用虛假材料申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)地理標(biāo)志證明商標(biāo)案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：某商標(biāo)代理公司受某協(xié)會(huì)委托提出地理標(biāo)志證明商標(biāo)的注冊(cè)申請(qǐng)，但其提交的證明材料中某書(shū)籍復(fù)印件與國(guó)家圖書(shū)文獻(xiàn)收藏機(jī)構(gòu)的藏本不一致。依據(jù)《中華人民共和國(guó)行政處罰法》第二十八條的規(guī)定，責(zé)令當(dāng)事人改正上述違法行為，并處罰如下：1.警告；2.罰款18750元；3.沒(méi)收違法所得6250元。
典型意義：某商標(biāo)代理公司使用虛假材料申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)地理標(biāo)志證明商標(biāo)，具有明顯主觀惡意，其行為不但違反了商標(biāo)代理秩序，也是對(duì)行政資源的極大浪費(fèi)，對(duì)此應(yīng)予嚴(yán)厲打擊。
案例八
案件名稱：“行刑銜接”打擊銷售侵權(quán)商品行為案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：加拿大“l(fā)ululemon”商標(biāo)權(quán)利人舉報(bào)某公司在1688網(wǎng)站銷售涉嫌侵犯注冊(cè)商標(biāo)專用權(quán)商品。經(jīng)昌平區(qū)市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管部門(mén)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)檢查，查扣侵權(quán)商品1187件。后期調(diào)查中，當(dāng)事人拒不配合。執(zhí)法人員向阿里巴巴（中國(guó)）有限公司協(xié)查，確定涉案商品成交量、成交額。本案違法經(jīng)營(yíng)額較大，已達(dá)立案追訴標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。經(jīng)與檢察機(jī)關(guān)溝通，將該案移送公安部門(mén)調(diào)查處理。法院判處當(dāng)事人法定代表人有期徒刑一年五個(gè)月，并處罰金七萬(wàn)元。
典型意義：本案是典型的商標(biāo)領(lǐng)域“行刑銜接”案件。行政、司法保護(hù)“雙軌”制是我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)機(jī)制的突出特點(diǎn)。行政執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)舉報(bào)進(jìn)行充分調(diào)查，及時(shí)將案件移送司法機(jī)關(guān)，追究當(dāng)事人刑事責(zé)任，精準(zhǔn)打擊了銷售侵權(quán)商品的行為，同時(shí)也有效維護(hù)了良好的市場(chǎng)秩序。
案例九
案件名稱：京冀兩地協(xié)同查辦“老板仔”海苔侵權(quán)商品案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：2023年11月13日，京冀兩地市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管執(zhí)法部門(mén)及時(shí)啟動(dòng)協(xié)同執(zhí)法機(jī)制，同時(shí)對(duì)位于豐臺(tái)區(qū)和高碑店市的兩處銷售假冒“老板仔”海苔的商戶進(jìn)行了突擊檢查。保定市市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管部門(mén)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)查扣假冒“老板仔”海苔239箱，豐臺(tái)區(qū)市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管部門(mén)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)查扣假冒“老板仔”海苔186箱。1.警告；2.沒(méi)收“老板仔”海苔186箱；3.罰款：50000元。
典型意義：本案是落實(shí)《京津冀深入推進(jìn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)同發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略合作協(xié)議》，推動(dòng)京津冀共建知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)協(xié)同發(fā)展首善先行區(qū)、示范區(qū)的有益實(shí)踐。通過(guò)跨區(qū)域同步執(zhí)法，實(shí)踐了跨區(qū)域的快速協(xié)同保護(hù)機(jī)制的落實(shí)落地；通過(guò)深化協(xié)同保護(hù)，形成了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)一體化保護(hù)格局。
案例十
案件名稱：違反誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則申請(qǐng)“神舟探夢(mèng)”商標(biāo)案
案情簡(jiǎn)介：2022年10月某公司委托代理公司向國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局申請(qǐng)“神舟探夢(mèng)”注冊(cè)商標(biāo)6件。2023年1月，被國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局認(rèn)定屬于《中華人民共和國(guó)商標(biāo)法》第十條第一款第（八）項(xiàng)情形而駁回。“神舟探夢(mèng)”商標(biāo)易使人與中國(guó)航天事業(yè)產(chǎn)生聯(lián)想，誤認(rèn)為有關(guān)聯(lián)性。執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)認(rèn)定該行為違反《規(guī)范商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)行為若干規(guī)定》第三條第（六）項(xiàng)，有其他不良影響。依據(jù)《規(guī)范商標(biāo)申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)行為若干規(guī)定》第十二條作出警告和罰款3000元的行政處罰。對(duì)代理公司行為移交屬地監(jiān)管部門(mén)查處。
典型意義：本案是一起違反誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則申請(qǐng)注冊(cè)商標(biāo)的典型案件，案件查處體現(xiàn)了我國(guó)嚴(yán)厲打擊商標(biāo)惡意注冊(cè)的高壓態(tài)勢(shì)，有助于維護(hù)市場(chǎng)環(huán)境和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序。
Typical Cases of Administrative Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Beijing
Case One
Case Name
Implied License for Invention Patent
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office
Case Overview
A company filed a request for administrative adjudication with the administrative authority regarding a patent infringement dispute over its invention patent of “Under-reamed Pile” with two engineering entities in Beijing and Tianjin. The administrative authority held that the company had previously consented to the employer and design unit using its patented technology on the construction drawings and later consented to jointly owning the patent rights with the design unit. As the two respondents, as construction units, were awarded the contract and were bound to carry out construction in accordance with the drawings, the company should have reasonably anticipated this. Therefore, the respondents' acts of exploiting the patented technology involved in the case constituted implied licenses, and the company's claim that the respondents infringed its patent rights was not supported.
Typical Significance
Based on the petitioner's previous acts as the patent holder allowing the employer to adopt its patented technology, and subsequently contracting for part of the project without raising objections when discovering that the construction drawings employed its patented technology, as well as subsequently changing the patent ownership from exclusive ownership to joint ownership with the engineering design unit, the administrative authority, after comprehensively consideration, inferred the existence of implied licenses. This provides an important reference for the adjudication of similar cases.
Case Two
Case Name
Patent Infringement Dispute Over "Toner Cartridge and Image Forming Device" Decided in Court
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office
Case Overview
A film company, the petitioner, filed a request for administrative adjudication with the administrative authority regarding a patent infringement dispute over its invention patent of "Toner Cartridge and Image Forming Device" with two Beijing-based companies and a Zhongshan-based company. The petitioner alleged that a Beijing-based company containing the Chinese character “pinyou” in its name, without permission, offered to sell and sold toner cartridges manufactured and sold by another Beijing-based company containing the Chinese character “wei” in its name and the Zhongshan-based company, which fell within the scope of protection of the patent involved and constituted infringement.
After being summoned, the three respondents failed to appear without justification, and the administrative authority heard the case in absentia in accordance with the law. Through on-site inspections and technical comparisons, it was confirmed that the alleged infringing toner cartridges fell within the scope of protection of the patent involved. The administrative authority made a decision in court, ordering the two Beijing-based companies and the Zhongshan-based company to stop the infringing activities.
Typical Significance
The petitioner in this case is a well-known foreign-related enterprise. The panel heard the case in absentia and made a decision in court in accordance with the law, thus rapidly resolving the patent dispute and reasonably protecting the rights and interests of foreign investors. This has positive significance for building a legal and international business environment.
Case Three
Case Name
Illegal Sale of "Winter Olympic Zun" with Infringement of Olympic Symbols and Trademark Rights
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
In August 2023, the law enforcement personnel obtained clues from another investigation, revealing that a company had sold infringing cloisonné products labeled with the Chinse characters "Beijing En
Typical Significance
This case serves as a typical example of protecting the exclusive right to use Olympic symbols in the "post-Winter Olympic era", effectively enhancing the efficiency of administrative law enforcement in the field of intellectual property rights. It not only highlights the whole-chain crackdown on trademark infringement, but also reflects the continuous protection of Olympic symbols.
Case Four
Case Name
Beijing Post Office Customs Seizing 3,515 Batches of Infringing Goods
Handling Department：Beijing Customs
Case Overview
During the inspection of outbound mail, the Beijing Post Office Customs, affiliated with Beijing Customs, consecutively seized 3,515 batches of suspected infringing goods, totaling 3,841 items of shoes, clothing, bags, and other items bearing the trademarks of "FILA", "CROCS", and other brands. These goods were suspected of infringing upon the exclusive right to use the trademark registered with the General Administration of Customs by the rightful owners of the aforementioned brands. Beijing Customs lawfully detained the aforementioned goods. After investigation, it was determined that the parties involved had engaged in the act of exporting goods that infringed upon the exclusive right to use the trademarks of others.In accordance with Article 32 of the "Implementation Measures of People's Republic of China (PRC) Customs on the ‘Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of People's Republic of China (PRC)’", the aforementioned infringing goods were confiscated.
Typical Significance
Beijing Customs has taken severe measures to combat the infringing and illegal activities of "breaking up bulk shipments" and "moving goods in small batches", safeguarding the international reputation of "Made in China". This case is the infringement case with the largest batch of infringing goods seized at the Beijing port in recent years, and has positive significance for promoting high-quality development in the capital
Case Five
Case Name
Using Blockchain Technology to Investigate and Handle Infringement of Information Network Transmission Rights
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Administrative Law Enforcement Unit of Cultural Market
Case Overview
In September 2023, the copyright owner reported to the Beijing Municipal Administrative Law Enforcement Unit of Cultural Market that a certain company had unauthorizedly used its artistic works titled "Soul Land" and submitted a certificate for evidence preservation. Through the judicial alliance blockchain, the Corps verified that the company had capitalized on the fame and popularity of the work to attract users of its applet to participate in clicking on the work, participate in matching tests, and watch incentive video advertisements for profit.The Corps imposed administrative penalties on the company in accordance with Article 53(1) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, including a warning, confiscation of illegal proceeds amounting to RMB 13,502.72, and a fine of RMB 50,000.
Typical Significance
This case marks the first beneficial application of blockchain technology in the field of cultural law enforcement, which holds positive significance for enriching copyright protection modes, improving the efficiency of administrative law enforcement, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of copyright owners.
Case Six
Case Name
Parallel Import of Lubricating Oil by a Beijing-based Trading Company
Handling Department：Beijing Daxing District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
A Beijing-based trading company imported "Mobil" lubricating oil produced in Europe from Germany and sold it in China. The holder of the "Mobil" trademark issued an authentication report stating that the products involved in the case "did not conform to the characteristics of genuine products." Although the trading company was suspected of selling products infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark, it provided legitimate source materials such as contracts, customs declarations, and import duty payment certificates.The law enforcement agency determined that the products involved in the case were legitimate parallel imports and did not constitute an act of selling products infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. Therefore, no administrative penalty was imposed on the party involved.
Typical Significance
Current laws and regulations do not have a clear definition of whether parallel imports infringe upon exclusive right to use the registered trademark. This case, focusing on the legislative intent of the Trademark Law, establishes the legitimacy boundary of parallel imports under the Trademark Law by measuring whether parallel imports disrupt the trademark's function of identifying the source and guaranteeing the quality of goods. This provides a clear guidance for potential parallel imports in the future.
Case Seven
Case Name
Using False Materials to Apply for Registration of a Geographical Indication Certification Trademark
Handling Department：Beijing Shunyi District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
A trademark agency company, entrusted by an association, filed an application for the registration of a geographical indication certification trademark. However, the copy of a certain book submitted as certification materials was inconsistent with the collection of the national library and documentation institution.In accordance with Article 28 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties," the party involved was ordered to correct the aforementioned illegal act and was subject to the following penalties: 1. warning; 2. a fine of RMB 18,750; 3. confiscation of illegal income amounting to RMB 6,250.
Typical Significance
The trademark agency company used false materials to apply for the registration of a geographical indication certification trademark, demonstrating clear subjective malice. Their acts not only violated the order of trademark registration management but also resulted in a significant waste of administrative resources. Such illegal acts should be severely combated.
Case Eight
Case Name
Combating the Sale of Infringing Goods through the "Connection Between Administrative Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice"
Handling Department：Beijing Changping District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
The holder of the Canadian "lululemon" trademark reported that a company was selling goods on the 1688 website that were suspected of infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks "
", " " and "". After an on-site inspection by the Changping District Administration for Market Regulation, 1,187 infringing goods were seized. During the subsequent investigation, the party involved refused to cooperate. The law enforcement personnel requested assistance from Alibaba (China) Co., Ltd. for collaborative investigation to determine the volume and transaction amount of the goods involved in the case. As the amount of illegal business operations in this case was significant, it reached the standard for criminal prosecution. After communicating with the procuratorial organ, the case was transferred to the public security department for investigation and handling.
The court sentenced the legal representative of the party involved to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and five months and imposed a fine of RMB 70,000.
Typical Significance
This case is a typical example of the "connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice" in the field of trademark protection. The dual-track system of administrative protection and judicial protection is a prominent feature of China's intellectual property protection mechanism. The administrative law enforcement organ conducted a thorough investigation into the report, promptly transferred the case to the judicial organ, and pursued criminal liability against the party involved, which precisely hit the sale of infringing goods and effectively maintained a good market order.
Case Nine
Case Name
Coordinated Investigation and Handling of Infringing "Taokaenoi" Seaweed Snacks in Beijing and Hebei
Handling Department：Beijing Fengtai District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
On November 13, 2023, the market supervision and law enforcement departments of Beijing and Hebei promptly activated the coordinated law enforcement mechanism, conducting surprise inspections simultaneously on two merchants located in Fengtai District, Beijing and Gaobeidian City, Hebei, who were selling counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks. The Baoding market supervision department confiscated 239 boxes of counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks on site, and the Fengtai District market supervision department confiscated 186 boxes of counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks on site.
1.warning; 2. confiscation of 186 boxes of counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks; 3. a fine of RMB 50,000.
Typical Significance
This case serves as a beneficial practice in the construction of the first-class demonstration area and pilot area for the coordinated development of intellectual property in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei. It also implements the specific contents of the "Strategic Cooperation Agreement on Deepening the Collaborative Development of Intellectual Property in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei". Through cross-regional synchronized law enforcement, it demonstrates the implementation of the rapid and coordinated protection mechanism across regions. By deepening collaborative protection, it has formed an integrated protection framework for intellectual property rights.
Case ten
Case Name
Applying for the Trademark "Shenzhou Tanmeng" in Violation of the Principle of Good Faith
Handling Department：Beijing Mentougou District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
In October 2022, a company entrusted an agency company to apply for six trademarks named "Shenzhou Tanmeng" to the China National Intellectual Property Administration. In January 2023, the application was rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration according to Article 10(1)(8) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China. The trademark "Shenzhou Tanmeng" is likely to associate people with China's aerospace industry, leading to a misperception of relevance. The law enforcement authority determined that this act violated Article 3(6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Application and Registration Acts", and had other adverse effects.
An administrative penalty of a warning and a fine of RMB 3,000 was imposed in accordance with Article 12 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Application and Registration Acts". The agency company's act was transferred to the local supervision department for investigation and punishment.
Typical Significance
This case is a typical example of applying for trademark registration in violation of the principle of good faith. The party involved sought to capitalize on the popularity of China's aerospace industry. The investigation and handling of this case reflect China's strict crackdown on malicious trademark registrations, contributing to the maintenance of the market environment and competition order.
來(lái)源：北京市知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局
編輯：IPRdaily辛夷 校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君
「關(guān)于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily是全球領(lǐng)先的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)綜合信息服務(wù)提供商，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)與科技創(chuàng)新人才。匯聚了來(lái)自于中國(guó)、美國(guó)、歐洲、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司及成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)的管理者及科技研發(fā)或知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)負(fù)責(zé)人，還有來(lái)自政府、律師及代理事務(wù)所、研發(fā)或服務(wù)機(jī)構(gòu)的全球近100萬(wàn)用戶（國(guó)內(nèi)70余萬(wàn)+海外近30萬(wàn)），2019年全年全網(wǎng)頁(yè)面瀏覽量已經(jīng)突破過(guò)億次傳播。
（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com 中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn）
本文來(lái)自北京日?qǐng)?bào)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com
共發(fā)表文章文章不錯(cuò)，犒勞下辛苦的作者吧
- 我也說(shuō)兩句
- 還可以輸入140個(gè)字
