catalogue

1. Administrative Dispute Case of Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board and Cui Xuewei's Invalidation of Patent Rights

2. Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Saving Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Committee of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the third person Beijing Hailin Energy Saving Equipment Co., Ltd

3. Administrative Dispute Case of Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Third Party Zhang Hongbin's Request for Invalidation of Trademark Rights

4. Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board Trademark Rejection Reexamination Administrative Dispute Case

5. Qian Cheng v. Beijing Concert Hall for Infringement of Registered Trademark Exclusive Right Dispute Case

6. Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Jike Geek Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case

7. Beijing Ledong Excellence Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Kunlun Lexiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes

8. Dispute over Trademark Infringement by Bobeilei Co., Ltd. v. Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin

9. Kai De Fu International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Kuo Sheng Pipeline System (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and other parties for infringement of trademark rights and false advertising dispute appeal case

10. Shanghai Paflo Cultural Products Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yixiang Cultural Products Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement disputes appeal case

11. Applicants Otec and Adobe apply for evidence preservation before litigation

12. Chanel Co., Ltd. v. Wen Daxiang, Guangzhou Kaixuan Hotel Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes

13. Sun Lijuan v. Kuaishang Fashion (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou You'an Meizhi Fashion Co., Ltd. for copyright infringement dispute

14. Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. Apply for Behavioral Preservation Case

Case 1

Administrative Dispute Case of Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board and Cui Xuewei's Invalidation of Patent Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

Xiangyu Company filed a request for invalidation with the Patent Reexamination Board regarding the invention patent of Cui Xuewei with patent number 94119284.9 and the name "Multi functional Moxibustion Instrument". After trial, the Patent Reexamination Board made an administrative decision to maintain the validity of the patent in this case. Xiangyu Company is not satisfied with the sued decision and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the scope of protection for the patent claims in this case is clear and can be supported by the specification. The modifications made by the patentee to the patent application documents in this case did not exceed the scope recorded in the original specification and claims, and the patent in this case possesses creativity and complies with the relevant provisions of the Patent Law and Implementation Rules. The verdict upheld the defendant's decision. All parties have not filed an appeal, and the judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

Moxibustion is one of the traditional Chinese medicine treatment methods in China. The patent in this case combines traditional moxibustion treatment methods with electromagnetic technology to form an moxibustion treatment instrument that can achieve self heating and automatic temperature control functions. Due to the high application value of this patent in related traditional Chinese medicine treatment, it has received widespread attention from personnel in the field of traditional Chinese medicine medical devices. This case involves multiple reasons for invalidation requests for patent rights, including whether the scope of protection for patent claims is clear, whether the claims can be supported by the specification, whether the patent holder's modifications to the patent application documents in this case exceed the scope recorded in the original specification and claims, and whether the patent right possesses creativity. The judgment in this case is based on the claims of all parties and has made sufficient arguments one by one, protecting the interests of the inventor in accordance with the law.

Case 2

Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Saving Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board, Third Party Beijing Hailin Energy Saving Equipment Co., Ltd. and Other Administrative Disputes over Invalidation of Invention Patent Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

Beijing Hailin Company has filed a request for invalidation of the invention patent of Zhengzhou Chunquan Company, with patent number 200810231195.5 and the title of "Method and Device for Identifying Multiple Speed Motor Gears Based on Voltage Mutual Inductance Technology". The Patent Reexamination Board declares all patents in this case invalid in accordance with Article 22 (3) of the Patent Law. Zhengzhou Chunquan Company is not satisfied with the sued decision and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that all claims of the patent in this case possess creativity, and the relevant determination of the Patent Reexamination Board was incorrect. Thus, the defendant's decision was revoked and the Patent Reexamination Board was ordered to make a new decision. All parties have not filed an appeal, and the judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves invention patents in the field of electricity with complex technical issues. The trial court carefully reviewed the relevant technology and strictly applied the three-step method of creative judgment to review the creativity of the patent in this case, correcting the erroneous decision of the Patent Reexamination Board. Through the judgment in this case, an invention and creation that could bring considerable income to the enterprise was promptly saved, and the legitimate interests of the inventor were safeguarded in accordance with the law.

Case 3

Administrative Dispute Case of Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Third Party Zhang Hongbin's Request for Invalidation of Trademark Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

Kailuan Group Company has filed a request for invalidation of the trademark No. 5667073 "Kailuan" applied for registration by a third party, Zhang Hongbin, on the grounds that the disputed trademark infringes on his "Kailuan" enterprise name rights, Zhang Hongbin engaged in malicious registration behavior, and did not actually use the disputed trademark. The trademark review committee believes that the evidence provided by Kailuan Group Company does not involve beauty salons or public bathroom services, and cannot prove that before the application for registration of the disputed trademark, Kailuan Group Company used "Kailuan" as a trade name or trademark in the beauty salons, public bathroom services or similar services designated by the disputed trademark and had a certain level of popularity. Thus, the court ruled to maintain the registration of the disputed trademark. Kailuan Group Company is not satisfied with the sued ruling and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the registration of the disputed trademark "Kailuan" damaged the prior trade name rights of Kailuan Group Company. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has determined that there is an error and should correct it. The ruling revokes the ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board regarding the invalidation request for the "Kailuan" trademark No. 5667073, issued by Shang Ping Zi [2014] No. 71444, and orders the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a new ruling. After the judgment of this case was pronounced, the parties did not appeal, and this judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case is an administrative dispute over the request for invalidation of a trademark, and the basis of the right to request is "the application for trademark registration shall not harm the existing prior rights of others" as stipulated in the Trademark Law. The prior rights involved are the prior trade name rights. The judgment in this case is based on the formation time of the plaintiff's business name (the "Kailuan" brand was formed in 1912), the popularity of the plaintiff's business name (Kailuan Group Company is a Fortune 500 enterprise, and its brand name is well-known both domestically and internationally), the comparison of the plaintiff's business scope and the verification and use services of the disputed trademark, and the possibility of confusion The registrant of the disputed trademark analyzed and discussed the elements of "damaging the existing prior rights of others" in terms of their knowledge of the plaintiff's trade name and the actual use of the disputed trademark. It was determined that the registration of the disputed trademark damaged the prior trade name rights of Kailuan Group Company and should be invalidated. The judgment in this case reflects the judicial orientation of safeguarding the rights and interests of well-known brands, preventing malicious trademark registration, and maintaining market integrity competition.

Case 4

Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board Trademark Rejection Reexamination Administrative Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Tongjitang Company applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the registration of the combination trademark "Tongjitang was founded in 1888 and Tu". The Trademark Office and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejected the registration application of the disputed trademark on the grounds that it was similar to the trademark "Tongji and Tu" No. 3178271 (i.e. cited trademark 1) and the trademark "Tongji" No. 3574839 (i.e. cited trademark 2). Tongjitang Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, taking into account factors such as the popularity of Tongjitang Company's previous basic trademark No. 1093180 "Tongjitang" trademark, the actual use of the disputed trademark, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the basic trademark, and the degree of difference between the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks, it is determined that the coexistence of the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks in the market will not lead to confusion and misidentification by the relevant public, Does not constitute a similar trademark on the same or similar goods. Thus, the ruling was revoked and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was ordered to make a new ruling.

（3） Typical significance

This case clarifies that when determining trademark similarity, consideration should be given to the extended relationship between the basic trademark of the same subject and the disputed trademark under certain conditions, and explores the considerations for determining the extended relationship. The trial court comprehensively considered factors such as the popularity of the previous basic trademark of Tongjitang Company, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the basic trademark, as well as the similarity of goods, the actual use of the disputed trademark, and the differences between the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks. Finally, it was determined that the reputation of the basic trademark can be extended to the disputed trademark, so that the relevant public can distinguish the disputed trademark from the two cited trademarks. The judgment in this case is of great significance for reasonably safeguarding the interests of well-known trademark owners.

Case 5

Qian Cheng v. Beijing Concert Hall for Infringement of Registered Trademark Exclusive Right Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Beijing Concert Hall has been organizing a series of performance activities under the name of "Opening the Door to Music" for several years. Qian Cheng was the former general manager of Beijing Concert Hall, and during his tenure, he applied for the registration of the "Open the Door to Music" written trademark. After resigning, Qian Cheng filed a lawsuit claiming that the Beijing Music Hall had used the "Open Music Door" logo for related business activities without permission, infringing on his registered trademark exclusive rights. He demanded that the Beijing Music Hall stop the infringement behavior, apologize, and compensate a total of 40000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing held in the first instance that before Qian Cheng applied for trademark registration, the Beijing Music Hall had already used a trademark similar to the registered trademark and had a certain impact on the same product before the trademark registrant. Qian Cheng, as the exclusive right holder of the registered trademark, had no right to prohibit the Beijing Music Hall from continuing to use the involved trademark within the original scope of use. Qian Cheng's lawsuit has no factual or legal basis and is not supported. Thus, the court ruled to dismiss Qian Cheng's lawsuit. Qian Cheng filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that in a series of performances and promotional activities using the "Open Music Door" logo, the subject of external claims was the Beijing Music Hall, and a relatively fixed connection had been established between the logo and the Beijing Music Hall. The trademark of the Beijing Music Hall was established as a defense against prior use, and its use of the "Open Music Door" did not constitute infringement. The appeal was dismissed and the first instance judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the legal application of the defense right to prior use of trademarks under the new Trademark Law. The trial court conducted a thorough analysis of the application conditions of the new trademark law regarding the right to defense against prior use, and conducted a more in-depth discussion on issues such as prior trademark use, identification awareness, and user subjective attitude. The reasoning is sufficient. The judgment in this case legally upheld the brand "Open the Door to Music" that has been continuously used by Beijing Concert Hall for the past twelve years, and reasonably balanced the interests of prior trademark users and registered trademark rights holders.

Case 6

Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Jike Geek Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Jike Geek Company is a manufacturer and seller of "Jirouter" routers. After downloading and installing the "Block Video Advertising" plugin on the "Pole Routing" cloud platform, users of the "Pole Routing" router can block pre film advertisements of iQiyi website videos by accessing the internet through the "Pole Routing" router. IQiyi Company believes that the "JiRouter" router produced and sold by Jike Geek Company filters the pre film advertisements of the "iQiyi" website videos through the installation of the "Block Video Advertisements" plugin, which constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, it files a lawsuit and requests the court to order Jike Geek Company to stop unfair competition behavior, eliminate the impact, and compensate for losses of over 2.1 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The Haidian District People's Court of Beijing held in the first instance that in order to obtain commercial benefits, Jike Geek Company directly intervened in the business behavior of iQiyi Company by using the "blocking video advertising" plugin, which exceeded the reasonable limit of fair competition, violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, and constituted unfair competition. Jike Geek Company filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that operators providing services to online users should comply with corresponding rules and should not obtain their own interests at the cost of affecting the legitimate and legitimate business models of other competitors. Jike Geek Company provided services to users by forcibly changing the business model of iQiyi Company, which harmed the legitimate interests of iQiyi Company, It will inevitably lead to iQiyi Company being unable to sustain itself due to the difficulty in paying high copyright usage fees, and the interests of network users will ultimately be adversely affected. The behavior of Jike Geek Company is unjustified. The appeal was dismissed and the first instance judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, competition disputes in the online environment have become increasingly fierce, and new forms of unfair competition have emerged one after another, making legal characterization more difficult. The trial court determined that the sued behavior constitutes unfair competition by analyzing the subjective malice of network operators, the infringement of the sued behavior on the legitimate business model of others, and the impact on the ultimate interests of consumers. The judgment in this case has certain guiding significance for the determination of competitive relationships and the judgment of the legitimacy of competitive behavior in the network environment.

Case 7

Beijing Ledong Excellence Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Kunlun Lexiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes

（1） Basic facts of the case

Ledong Excellence Company is the copyright owner of mobile terminal games "My Name is MT on line" and "My Name is MT 2". The aforementioned game is adapted from the 3D anime series' My Name is MT '. Ledong Excellence Company enjoys exclusive license to use game names and character names, and enjoys copyright in art works for character images. Ledong Excellence believes that the use of names and characters similar to the game name, character name, and character image of "My Name is MT" by Kunlun Lexiang Company and others in the game "Super MT" without their permission infringes on their copyright; Kunlun Lexiang Company and others plagiarized the name of the game "My Name is MT" in the game "Super MT" and used promotional language related to the game in the promotion process, which constitutes unfair competition behavior. I hereby file a lawsuit in this case.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the games and characters of Ledong Excellence Company did not constitute written works protected by copyright law, and the character images in the sued games did not constitute substantial similarities to those in Ledong Excellence Company's games. The actions of Kunlun Lexiang Company and others did not infringe on the copyright of Ledong Excellence Company; The game of Ledong Excellence Company was launched earlier and has a certain level of popularity. Kunlun Lexiang Company, also a mobile game operator, not only did not reasonably avoid the above game and character names of Ledong Excellence Company, but instead used related expressions and carried out propaganda that goes against the facts, constituting unfair competition behavior of using the unique name of other well-known services and false propaganda without authorization. Thus, Kunlun Lexiang Company and others were ordered to cease unfair competition, compensate Ledong Excellence Company with an economic loss of 500000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 35000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

As an emerging cultural industry, mobile terminal games are a product of the integration of culture and technology, enjoying huge development space and good market prospects. This case is a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute involving mobile terminal games. The facts of this case are complex, involving numerous and difficult legal issues. The trial court has conducted detailed analysis and elaboration on various legal issues such as whether short phrases such as game names and character names can constitute written works, copyright protection for adapted works, whether mobile terminal game names can constitute unique names of well-known products, and the determination of false advertising behavior. In terms of civil liability, the trial court fully considered factors such as the plaintiff's market share of the game and the subjective state of the accused infringer, maximizing the protection of the interests of game rights holders, and cracking down on illegal acts of seizing the interests of others in accordance with the law. This case clarifies the ideas and directions for legal protection of intellectual property rights in mobile terminal gaming, and has a demonstrative role in promoting the healthy development of the mobile terminal gaming industry.

Case 8

Dispute over Trademark Infringement by Bobeilei Co., Ltd. v. Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin

（1） Basic facts of the case

Burberry Limited is the holder of the registered trademark for the "Burberry" 25 class clothing series. On March 20, 2012, the public security organs investigated the criminal case of Chen Kai and Lu Qiumen selling counterfeit goods with the above-mentioned registered trademark, and the next day requested the assistance of Burberry Co., Ltd. to identify the counterfeit goods involved. On August 24, 2012, the Yangpu District People's Court of Shanghai sentenced the two defendants to fixed-term imprisonment (probation) and a fine in accordance with the law. On August 15, 2014, Bobere Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order the two defendants to compensate for their economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1 million yuan. The two defendants, Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin, believe that Bobeilei Co., Ltd. was aware of the existence of infringement on March 20, 2012, and its lawsuit was filed in August 2014, which has exceeded the statute of limitations.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai held in the first instance that the lawsuit of Bobeilei Co., Ltd. did not exceed the statute of limitations, and the defendants Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin constituted infringement of the exclusive right to use the trademark of Bobeilei Co., Ltd. They should jointly compensate the plaintiff Bobeilei Co., Ltd. for economic losses of RMB 150000 and reasonable expenses of RMB 15000. Lu Qiumin appealed against the first instance verdict. The second instance judgment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the determination of the reason for the interruption of the statute of limitations. The judgment in this case clearly states the legal significance of knowing that someone else's infringement on oneself has entered the criminal prosecution process and assisting in the investigation at the request of the investigation department for the statute of limitations. The trial court believes that the above facts have dual significance for the right holder: firstly, there is a legal consequence of the statute of limitations, as the right holder already knows that their rights have been infringed; The second is the legal consequence of the interruption of the statute of limitations, as the right holder has reason to believe that criminal investigation can protect their civil rights, and the infringement of the accused behavior depends on the determination of the effective criminal judgment. This determination reasonably defines the reasons for the interruption of the statute of limitations, providing better protection for the rights holders to protect their rights in accordance with the law.

Case 9

Kai De Fu International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Kuo Sheng Pipeline System (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and other parties for infringement of trademark rights and false advertising dispute appeal case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Kaidefu Company is the trademark owner of the "Clean Water" written trademark. Prior to July 1, 2013, Kaidefu Company enjoyed the exclusive distribution rights of the water pipe products of the outsider German Akersheim Company in China. After July 1, 2013, Kaidefu Company terminated the cooperation agreement with Akasem Company, and Kuo Sheng Company became the new agent for Akasem Company's products in China. Prior to July 1, 2013, the registered "Clean Water" trademark of Kaidefu Company was only used to promote and sell Akersham Company's products. After July 1, 2013, Kaidefu Company continued to hold the "Clean Water" trademark for promoting water pipe products from other manufacturers. Kuo Sheng Company authorizes Ousu Company to exclusively sell Akesum Company's products in the Shanghai region. Kuo Sheng Company and Ou Su Company used similar promotional phrases such as "Original German Clean Water, Now German Kuo Sheng" and "German Kuo Sheng (Original German Clean Water) - Constant Quality" in their promotional articles and flyers, as well as "The original agent used German 'Clean Water' to promote in China. Starting from July 1st, the German factory officially used the Chinese logo 'Kuo Sheng' for promotion in the Chinese market" The Chinese logo 'Jieshui' originally used in China is owned by the original agent and is now unrelated to German companies such as Kuo Sheng and Akersheim and their products. Kaidefu Company believes that the use of appellate advertising language by Kuosheng Company and Ousu Company constitutes trademark infringement and false advertising, and requests that the two defendants cease their trademark infringement and false advertising behavior, and compensate a total of 5 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance judgment of the People's Court of Xuhui District in Shanghai rejected all the litigation claims of Kaidefu Company. Kaidefu Company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that, based on the fact that the "Jieshui" trademark was used to promote Akusam's products, it is necessary for Kuo Sheng Company and Ousu Company to inform consumers in their promotional activities that the products pointed to by the "Jieshui" trademark have changed. The use of the "Jieshui" trademark by the two companies is subjective and in good faith, and the use method does not exceed a reasonable limit, which will not cause confusion among consumers about the source of the products, Belonging to the legitimate use of a trademark. The promotional language used by Kuo Sheng Company and Ou Su Company is indeed inaccurate in terms of textual expression, but it has not produced misleading effects and does not constitute false propaganda in the sense of anti unfair competition law. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the first instance judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the standards for determining the legitimate use of trademarks and false advertising behavior. The trial court considers the defendant's use of the trademark to be a legitimate use of the trademark from the perspectives of its subjective intention, mode of use, and possibility of confusion. In the determination of the accused false advertising behavior, it is emphasized that the advertising slogan should be interpreted as a whole, and combined with factors such as the general attention of the relevant public and existing cognitive experience to comprehensively determine. The judgment in this case has certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases.

Case 10

Shanghai Paflo Cultural Products Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yixiang Cultural Products Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement disputes appeal case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The homepage of Pavlo's website features a dark red background, with a white starry dynamic effect, accompanied by a copper bell magic sound, and background music. Paflo Company discovered that Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company had plagiarized and imitated their websites, infringing on their copyright. Therefore, they filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for the loss of 223000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai found in the first instance that Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company had infringed on the webpage copyright of Paflo Company, and ruled that the two defendants should stop the infringement and compensate Paflo Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 30000. Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company are dissatisfied and file an appeal. The second instance judgment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Does the content arrangement of the webpage in this case constitute a work within the meaning of copyright law. The trial court held that although there are many factors in the public domain in the webpage of the website in question, the homepage of the website in question not only has the columns and structural elements commonly found on the homepage of general company websites, but also reflects a unique concept in terms of screen color, content selection, display method, and layout arrangement, presenting a certain visual artistic effect, originality, and replicability, forming a work within the meaning of copyright law. The copyright protection standards for web works determined in this case have certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases.

Case 11

Applicants Otec and Adobe apply for evidence preservation before litigation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Otec and Adobe are two American software companies that believe that Shanghai Fengyuzhu Exhibition Co., Ltd. copied, installed, and commercially used their series of computer software such as AutoCAD, Photoshop, and Acrobat without permission. Considering that all computers with illegal computer software installed are located on the premises of Fengyuzhu Company, the applicant is objectively unable to obtain relevant evidence; Meanwhile, due to the fact that the evidence involved in the case is all computer software and related data, which are intangible and easily hidden or destroyed, once the evidence is transferred, hidden or lost, it will be difficult to obtain, which poses difficulties in determining the relevant facts. Therefore, the applicant requests the Shanghai Intellectual Property Law Court to preserve the evidence before litigation.

（2） Judgment results

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has reviewed and found that the evidence applied for preservation by the applicant belongs to situations that may be lost or difficult to obtain in the future as stipulated by law, and the applicant is also unable to collect the aforementioned evidence on their own due to objective reasons, which meets the conditions for pre litigation evidence preservation. Thus, the court ruled to preserve evidence of the relevant information of the aforementioned series of software on computers and other facilities and equipment in the respondent's business premises. After the decision on evidence preservation was made, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court and relevant departments of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court worked together to fully leverage the institutional advantages of "joint office" and successfully completed the pre litigation evidence preservation work.

（3） Typical significance

This evidence preservation case is the first computer software pre litigation evidence preservation case since the establishment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. This case involves the preservation of relevant evidence from nearly 400 computers in a large workplace, and the preservation work has strong professionalism and complexity. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has hired relevant technical experts to assist in preservation and formulated a thorough plan for evidence preservation work; Establish technical expert groups, on-site inventory groups, on-site control groups, and other working groups, clarify responsibilities, and divide and collaborate; Each group operated in a standardized manner and carried out orderly preservation, successfully completing the preservation task. This case provides valuable working methods and ideas for exploring an enforcement mechanism that is in line with the characteristics of intellectual property cases, strengthening the linkage between enforcement and trial, improving the efficiency and accuracy of enforcement of preservation rulings, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders.

Case 12

Chanel Co., Ltd. v. Wen Daxiang, Guangzhou Kaixuan Hotel Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes

（1） Basic facts of the case

Chanel Company is a joint-stock company registered in France on August 27, 1954, and is one of the world-renowned luxury brands. The company is the authorized owner of the "" and "" graphic trademarks and "CHANEL" text trademarks used in Class 25 "clothing, shoes, hats, scarves, swimwear" and other goods. The subsidiary of Triumph Hotel Company, Ramada Hotel, has signed a lease agreement with Wen Daxiang to lease a store located at No. 2 West Corridor on the first floor of the Ramada Hotel for clothing, leather goods, and other purposes. The agreement guarantees that counterfeit and inferior goods will not be distributed in the store. Chanel Company believes that the shoes, wallets and other products sold by Wen Daxiang use the same logo as their registered trademark, infringing their exclusive right to use their registered trademark. Therefore, they file a lawsuit against Wen Daxiang, Triumph Hotel Company, and Huameida Hotel, requesting the court to judge the three defendants to stop the infringement and jointly compensate them for their economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 300000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou held in the first instance that Wen Daxiang had infringed on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Chanel Company and should bear civil liability for stopping the infringement and compensating for losses. The Triumph Hotel Company and its Huameida Hotel do not constitute infringement. Chanel Company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that, taking into account factors such as the well-known trademark in question, the high-end star hotel identity of Huameida Hotel, the special relationship between the hotel and the store as shown in the contract, and the long-term repeated infringement by Wen Daxiang, Huameida Hotel should have a high duty of care towards the counterfeit sales store in question. Moreover, Wen Daxiang's counterfeit behavior is obvious, and Huameida Hotel can detect it with a little attention. Huameida Hotel has turned a blind eye to Wen Daxiang's infringement of the trademark involved, allowing the infringement to occur, which constitutes aiding infringement, and should bear joint and several liability with Wen Daxiang for compensation. Thus, the judgment was revised to jointly compensate Chanel Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 50000 yuan, including Wen Daxiang, Huameida Hotel, and Triumph Hotel.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, there have been frequent occurrences of selling counterfeit goods in rental shops such as clothing markets and hotels. Trademark owners usually sue the store operator, the store lessor, and the management as defendants, demanding that they bear joint and several liability for compensation. In this situation, it is particularly important to determine the responsibilities of the lessor and manager of the store. In this case, the trial court considered factors such as the popularity of the trademark of the owner, whether the infringement of the store was sufficiently obvious, and the specific relationship between the lessor and the store operator when determining whether the lessor of the store was aware or should have been aware of the infringement of the store operator. Based on the specific situation, the court reasonably determined the duty of care of the lessor of the store. The judgment in this case explores the conditions under which the lessor and manager of the store can assist in infringement, which has guiding significance for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of well-known brands.

Case 13

Sun Lijuan v. Kuaishang Fashion (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou You'an Meizhi Fashion Co., Ltd. for copyright infringement dispute

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 12, 2011, Sun Lijuan released an art work titled "It is said that giraffes are experts in loneliness" on CNKI. com. In March 2011, Sun Lijuan's aforementioned works won the first prize in the "Red Gate Creative T-shirt Pattern Competition". Sun Lijuan believes that Kuaishang Company and Youan Meizhi Company used the involved art works on the women's mid sleeved dresses jointly produced and sold, which constitutes an infringement of their copyright rights such as authorship, reproduction, and distribution. I hereby file a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order the two defendants to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses of 250000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 20000 yuan; The two defendants made a written apology statement to eliminate the impact of infringement.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Baiyun District, Guangzhou held in the first instance that Kuaishang Company and You'an Meizhi Company used Sun Lijuan's art works without permission, constituting copyright infringement. However, due to the difficulty in identifying the author when using the works on clothing, it should not be objectively determined that the two defendants violated Sun Lijuan's right of authorship. Thus, the two defendants were sentenced to cease the infringement, destroy the inventory and infringing products on sale, and jointly compensate Sun Lijuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 30000 yuan. Sun Lijuan was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that labeling the author's name on clothing printed with well-known illustrator art works is common in the clothing design and manufacturing industry. This case does not belong to the situation where the author cannot be specified due to the characteristics of the use of the work. Kuaishang Company and You'an Meizhi Company have infringed on Sun Lijuan's right of authorship. Considering that the work involved in the case has a certain level of popularity; The compensation amount determined in the first instance judgment is significantly lower due to factors such as obvious subjective malice of You'an Meizhi Company and the large scale of Kuaishang Company's operation. Therefore, Kuaishang Company and You'an Meizhi Company apologized to Sun Lijuan and jointly compensated for economic losses of 80000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the determination of infringement of the author's right of authorship in the field of fashion design. On the basis of examining industry practices and everyday life principles in the field of fashion design, the trial court found that there are no objective restrictions on the identity of the author when using other people's art works on clothing, and it will not undermine the overall beauty of the clothing pattern. Moreover, there are frequent cases of annotating the name of an illustrator on clothing. The judgment in this case legally protects the author's right of authorship, which is of great significance for regulating the use of copyright in the field of fashion design.

Case 14

Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. Apply for Behavioral Preservation Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Blizzard Entertainment is the copyright owner of World of Warcraft series games, and Netease is the exclusive operator of the games in Chinese Mainland. The two plaintiff companies believe that the accused game "All People Warcraft" (formerly known as "Chief Sal") developed by Qiyou Company and exclusively operated by Time Broadcasting Company, and downloaded by Dynamic View Company, has infringed on its art copyright, constitutes an unfair competition behavior of unauthorized use of other people's well-known game product names, decorations, and false advertising. Blizzard Entertainment Company and NetEase Company filed an action preservation application while suing, requesting the court to immediately prohibit the three defendants from stopping the accused infringement behavior and providing an equivalent cash guarantee of 10 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After organizing a hearing for both parties, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court made a ruling prohibiting Qiyou Company from copying, distributing, and disseminating the accused game through information networks, prohibiting the Broadcasting Era Company from copying, distributing, disseminating the accused game through information networks, and engaging in unfair competition in the case, and prohibiting the Broadcasting Company from spreading the accused game through its official website. After the ruling was made, Qiyou Company and Dongjing Company automatically fulfilled the ruling, and Broadcasting Times Company also fulfilled the ruling after being urged and explained by the court.

（3） Typical significance

This case is an application for action preservation (also known as temporary injunction). Actively accepting and reviewing action preservation applications in accordance with the law, and taking appropriate and effective measures for intellectual property action preservation, are of great significance for improving the timeliness, convenience, and effectiveness of intellectual property judicial remedies. At the same time, the application for behavior preservation must pay attention to balancing the interests of the applicant and the respondent, accurately grasp the application conditions of preservation measures, standardize the review process, and not only meet the legitimate needs of the right holder to quickly protect their rights in accordance with the law, but also prevent the abuse of the behavior preservation system from damaging competitors. In this case, the trial court listened to the opinions of both parties, considered the situation where the applicant provided guarantees, and reasonably determined the measures and scope of action preservation when reviewing the application for action preservation, which effectively balanced the interests of both parties.