Intellectual property refers to the exclusive rights enjoyed by citizens or legal persons in intellectual creation or innovation activities according to law, also known as "intellectual achievement right" and "intangible property right", which mainly includes industrial property rights composed of invention patents, trademarks and industrial designs, as well as copyrights (copyrights) composed of works such as natural science, social science, literature, music, drama, painting, sculpture, photography and movies.
Case study:
On the occasion of World Intellectual Property Day on April 26th, 2007, the Supreme People's Court selected the top ten cases of intellectual property rights in China in 2006, which reflected the judicial protection of intellectual property rights in China from different aspects.
French Louis Vuitton v Shanghai Jia Lian Supermarket.
In the first half of 2006, the French company Louis Vuitton Maritti found that three female bags sold by the defendant "Carrefour" Wuning Store of Shanghai Jia Lian Supermarket Co., Ltd. used the same or similar logos as the plaintiff's five registered trademarks. He sued the Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People's Court. The court ordered the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB300,000.
comment
French Louis Vuitton handbags are world-famous and expensive. Although the unit price of the handbag marked with the words "LOUIS VUITTON" and graphic logo sold by the defendant was only RMB 49.90, the exclusive right to use the trademark was inviolable, and the defendant failed to fulfill the reasonable care obligation of the operators in the same industry, resulting in the sale of infringing goods. The price of RMB 300,000 cannot be said to be small.
The dispute between Cui Jian and the record company about copyright and performer's rights.
In 2002, with the permission of its parent company China Record Company, China Record Shenzhen Company paid music copyright society of china a royalty of 2,800 yuan, and entrusted Huayun Film and Television Disc Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huayun Company) to copy, collect and publish two CDs1985 Review. Shanghai Kedu supermarket chain Zhongwei Store (hereinafter referred to as Zhongwei Store) sold the CD. Later, Cui Jian took China Record Shenzhen Company, Huayun Company and Zhongwei Branch to court.
After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of zhongwei, Ningxia decided that China Record Shenzhen Company and Huayun Company jointly compensated Cui Jian for economic losses of 19200 yuan, and the reasonable expenses for stopping the infringement were 28,300 yuan, totaling 47,500 yuan.
comment
According to the Copyright Law, the copyright owners and performers of musical works have the right to license others to reproduce and distribute audio-visual products with their creations and performances, and receive remuneration. Cui Jian, as the singer of 12, should bear civil liability without Cui Jian's permission.
Copyright dispute case caused by "black stick villain" and "matchstick villain"
Zhu Zhiqiang is the author of computer network animation such as "Solitary Defeat" and "Little Special Police". The characters in the above works are all "matchstick villains". On June 5438+ 10, 2003, Nike (USA) and Nike (Suzhou) Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. released the image advertisement of "Black Stick Little Man" on their websites, Sina.com homepage and TV station. Zhu Zhiqiang appealed to the court for this, requesting the four defendants to jointly compensate Zhu Zhiqiang for various losses of 2 million yuan. After two trials, the Beijing Higher People's Court finally rejected Zhu Zhiqiang's claim.
comment
Zhu Zhiqiang's image of "matchstick villain" is not original, so we can't give it too high protection. Intellectual property rights protect intellectual achievements, but not all intellectual achievements are protected.
An unfair dispute case caused by the letter "N"
In 2004, American New Balance Sports Shoes Company (hereinafter referred to as New Balance Company) found that sports shoes with similar registered trademarks were sold in major cities in China. It is produced by Jinjiang Qiuzhi Dongya Shoes and Clothing Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qiu Zhi Company), and the authorized licensor is American New Balance International Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as New Balance Company) registered in Hong Kong. New Balance Company also found that the product brochures of the two companies abused the word "New Balance" and imitated its propaganda style for publicity. New Balance Company sued the court on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition of high-quality companies.
After hearing the case, Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that the quality company immediately stopped the infringement, immediately stopped using the "N" logo and the words "New Balance International Group Co., Ltd.", and the quality company compensated the new balance company for economic losses of RMB300,000.
comment
New Balance Company takes "N" as its business logo and is associated with specific products of specific manufacturers. Companies seeking quality have repeatedly highlighted the use of other people's "N" as logo, claiming that they are brands from the United States and can only shoot themselves in the foot.
Disputes over unfair competition between Nippon Coatings and Kebang Coatings
199265438+In February, the plaintiff Nippon Coatings (China) Co., Ltd. was incorporated. In May 2004, the defendant Kebang Company registered the trademark of "Lai Shi Wei Ke Bang", and then licensed the trademark to Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. ... Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. entrusted Kebang Company as the designated manufacturer to produce and sell the "Lai Shi Wei" series of goods by OEM. The words "Nippon Paint International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd." were marked on the top, middle and bottom of the outer packaging of the "Lai Shiwei" paint produced by the defendant, which was sealed up by the court according to law, but there was no name and address of the manufacturer defendant Kebang Company.
After two trials, the court finally ruled that the defendant Kebang Company stopped producing, selling and destroying related infringing products. Apologize to the plaintiff in the Economic Daily.
comment
The court held that Kebang Company highlighted the word "Nippon" on the packaging of its "Lesway" brand coatings, aiming to take a ride on the goodwill of Nippon Company in the name of "Nippon Coatings International Group (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd.", which had obvious subjective malice.
Guangzhou Zhong Yi v Sony Corporation of Japan (case of patent infringement dispute).
1995 In September, Sony Corporation of Japan applied to China Intellectual Property Office for the invention patent of "battery device and battery device installation device", and was authorized in September, 2002. On April 16, 2004, Sony purchased two batteries of QM7lD and other models from Zhong Yi Company as an ordinary consumer after notarization, and obtained the commercial invoice of "Guangzhou Top Power Electronics Co., Ltd.".
The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Zhong Yi Company immediately stopped manufacturing and selling patent infringing products and destroyed the infringing products and special production molds in stock; Compensation for Sony's economic losses is RMB 10000 yuan. In the second instance, the Guangdong Higher People's Court upheld the original judgment.
comment
No matter how good other people's technology is, it belongs to others. Instead of producing infringing products, we should try our best to develop our own new technology.
Deng Guoshun et al. v. Beijing Huaqi Company (case of patent infringement dispute)
1999165438+1October 14. Plaintiffs Deng Guoshun and John Cheng applied to China National Intellectual Property Administration for the invention patent of "Flash electronic external storage method and device for data processing system", which was authorized on July 24th, 2002 and announced on the same day. On July 26th, 2002, Deng Guoshun and John Cheng signed an exclusive license contract with Netac. After that, the plaintiff decided that the defendants Beijing Huaqi Information Digital Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Fuguanghui Electronics Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Xingzhidao Trading Co., Ltd. produced and sold Patriot mini flash memory using their patented technology, and that the products produced and sold by the defendant belonged to the protection scope of the plaintiff's patent, which constituted infringement, and requested the court to order the defendant to immediately stop the infringement.
The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court ruled in the first instance that the defendants Huaqi Company, Fuguanghui Company and Xingzhi Guide Company immediately stopped the infringement and jointly compensated the infringement loss of 500,000 yuan. Both sides refused to accept the appeal. During the second trial, Huaqi Company filed an application for invalidation of the patent involved with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office. Because this dispute has a huge impact on the entire mobile storage industry, involving the development of the domestic IT industry, infringement is related to the interests of many enterprises, and the social impact is very huge. The Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, with the joint efforts of all parties, urged the two sides to reach mediation and achieved a win-win situation for both sides.
comment
The original intention of intellectual property protection is to encourage innovation. For innovative parties, a win-win situation may be more in line with the original intention of establishing the intellectual property system.
Starbucks registered trademark exclusive right and unfair competition dispute case
1996 to 2003, Xingyuan Company registered trademarks such as "STARBUCKS", "STARBUCKS" and "Starbucks" in China, and licensed Shanghai Uni-President Starbucks Company (hereinafter referred to as Uni-President Starbucks) to use the above trademarks. Shanghai Starbucks Coffee Co., Ltd. (referred to as Shanghai Starbucks for short) was established in Shanghai in 2000 with the name "Starbucks" and the logo is the same as or similar to the above trademark. Xingyuan Company and Uni-President Starbucks believed that Shanghai Starbucks' behavior constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, so they went to court. The court ruled that Shanghai Starbucks and its subsidiaries stopped trademark infringement and unfair competition, changed the company name, and jointly compensated Xingyuan Company and Uni-President Starbucks for economic losses of RMB500,000.
comment
The famous Starbucks was originally from Xingyuan Company, but another Starbucks company was born in Shanghai, and the original Starbucks logo was "transplanted". As a result, it not only cost 500 thousand, but also changed the name of the company. There seems to be no way to earn your own money side by side with other people's brands.
Chanel company v Xiushui market (dispute over exclusive right to use a trademark)
In April 2005, Chanel bought a wallet with the trademark "Chanel" at the stall of Huangshan Wang, a merchant in Xiushui Street, Beijing. Subsequently, a lawyer's letter was sent to Beijing Xiushui Haosen Clothing Market Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiushui Street Company), asking it to take measures to stop the infringement. On June 3rd, Chanel bought a fake "Chanel" wallet from King Huangshan again. On September 15, Chanel Company appealed to the court. 10 10/3 1 day, Chanel bought a fake Chanel wallet from Xiushui Street for the third time.
The court ruled that Huangshan Wang and Xiushui Street Company immediately stopped infringing on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Chanel; Compensation for the economic loss of Chanel Company was 654.38+10,000 yuan.
comment
Xiushui Street Company, the manager, is responsible for selling infringing goods again and again in the market.
A dispute over the right of new plant varieties between northern Shaanxi and Olkin.
On March 0, 2003, 1 "Lin 'ao 1" was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, and this variety right belongs to Beijing Olkin Company (hereinafter referred to as Olkin Company). On March 9, 2005, Shanxi North Seed Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "North Company") and Wuwei Agricultural Science Research Institute of Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as "Agricultural Institute") signed the "Maize Seed Production Contract by Appointment". On September 5, 2005, Olkin filed a lawsuit on the grounds of infringement by the Agricultural Research Institute, and the court of first instance added the North Company as a co-defendant according to law.
The appraisal report entrusted by the court to the scientific research department found that the alleged infringing samples submitted for inspection were of the same variety as the standard "Linao 1" samples. The court ruled that the two defendants immediately stopped the infringement; North Company compensated Olkin Company for its economic loss of 864,000 yuan.
comment
The right to new plant varieties is also an important part of intellectual property rights. Without the permission of the variety owner, the production and sale of propagation materials of new plant varieties for commercial purposes are not protected by law.