Page 82 - 2015_WhitePaper_web
P. 82
5 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
brand, highlighting the word “Weiji” in its advertising and held that the authenticity of the 1976 contract could not be
labels. Weiji was found to use industrial brine for its soy sauce con rmed and rejected the claims of Sampote and Chaiyo,
production creating a scandal, the result of which Haitan’s sales the latter of whom appealed to the Guangdong High Court.
were badly in uenced. Haitan alleged Weiji’s act infringed its
trademark and constituted unfair competition, commencing e court dismissed the legal impact of the decisions made by
a lawsuit in the Guangdong Foshan Intermediate Court. the Japanese court and indeed in another case that was started
in the ailand and sustained the contract and some of the
e Intermediate Court held that Weiji’s use of the word claims made by Sampote and Chaiyo. e Supreme Court
“Weiji” infringed Haitan’s exclusive right to use its registered rejected any appeals from this judgment.
trademark. Weiji’s acts caused public confusion and impaired
Haitan’s reputation and was unfair competition. Weiji was Infringement of Trade Secrets Dispute: Resin Patent
enjoined from using “Weiji” in its advertising labels and Related Information
company name and was required to make a formal apology in
the newspaper and compensate Haitan by payment of RMB SI Group and SI Group (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (“SISL”)
6.55 million. led a lawsuit in Shanghai Second Intermediate Court
claiming that technical information of the product SP-1068,
Auction of Qian Zhongshu’s Letters and Manuscripts: includes its production ow, technique, and formula, all of
Preliminary Injunction which were trade secrets of SISL. e Defendant Xu Jie, an
employee of SISL resigned from SISL and disclosed the trade
Qian Zhongshu (deceased) was the husband of Yang secrets to his new employer Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang)
Jikang, the Plainti . e family was friendly with Li Guoqiang. Chemical Co. Ltd. (“Sino Legend”), the latter of whom
Yang, his wife and children sent more than 100 private letters used this trade secret information to apply for an invention
to Li Guoqiang who kept the letters and in 2013 Sungari patent named “Improved Techniques for Production of Alkyl
International Auction Co., Ltd (“Sungari”) announced that Phenol ermoplastic Resin” SISL wanted an injunction to
a public auction was to be held on June 21st 2013 that Qian prevent further use of its trade secrets and RMB 2 million in
Zhongshu’s letters and manuscripts would be sold. e compensation for its losses. e Shanghai Intermediate Court
Plainti Yang Jikang argued that these letters were entitled held that the technical information used in the product SL-
to copyright protection, and though his wife and daughter 1801 by Sino Legend, Xu Jie’s employer, was substantially
were deceased, he had inherited their copyright rights. Yang di erent from the technical information of the Plainti ’s
Jikang further argued that the public auction by Sungari trade secrets. e Court rejected the claims. e Plainti ’s
would damage the copyright he owned by inheritance and appeal to the High Court sustained the original decision.
applied to the court to enjoin the auction proceedings. e
Court enjoined and the auction did not go forward. However, e Intermediate Court very strictly interpreted the facts and
subsequently Yang Jikang’s sued Sungari and Li Guoqiang for ordered a professional examination by a specialist to assist in
copyright infringement and breach of his right of privacy. e this decision.
Court rule of the Copyright Law protected the writer of the
letters. ese rights were inherited by the Plainti holding Standard Essential Patent Royalty Case
that their injunction will help facilitate protection of the Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”), negotiated
sender’s copyright and writer’s privacy.
with the IDC Company on the royalty rates for a certain
“Ultraman” Copyright Dispute patent belonging to the IDC Company. In the course of these
On 30th September 2005, Sampote Saengduenchai negotiations IDC requested the US International Trade Center
to initiate a “337 investigation” against Huawei’s products.
(“Sampote”) and Chaiyo Productions Co. Ltd (“Chaiyo”) sued Huawei in turn commenced a lawsuit in the Shenzhen
Tsuburaya Production Co. Ltd., Shanghai Tsuburaya Planning Intermediate Court asking the Court to order IDC to con rm
Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Book Center Co. Ltd., and Shanghai the patent royalty rate of its invention pursuant to the
Audio-Video Publishing House for copyright infringement in FRAND principles (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory).
the Guangzhou Intermediate Court requesting various levels
of compensation for infringement. is case was based on e Shenzhen Intermediate Court held that the standard
a contract executed on 4th March 1976 granting Sampote patent royalty rate shall be 0.019% pursuant to FRAND.
permanent and exclusive rights to use the 9 Ultraman IDC appealed this decision to the Guangdong High Court.
exclusive word rights including Giang V. Jambo “A”, except
for Japan. is right was con rmed by the courts of Japan. e e High Court held that the principles of FRAND required
Guangzhou Intermediate Court, the Court of First Instance, an obligation to grant licenses pursuant to the intellectual
Property policies of the European Telecommunications
82 Standards Institute and Telecommunications Industry
Association of America, plus relevant provisions of Chinese
brand, highlighting the word “Weiji” in its advertising and held that the authenticity of the 1976 contract could not be
labels. Weiji was found to use industrial brine for its soy sauce con rmed and rejected the claims of Sampote and Chaiyo,
production creating a scandal, the result of which Haitan’s sales the latter of whom appealed to the Guangdong High Court.
were badly in uenced. Haitan alleged Weiji’s act infringed its
trademark and constituted unfair competition, commencing e court dismissed the legal impact of the decisions made by
a lawsuit in the Guangdong Foshan Intermediate Court. the Japanese court and indeed in another case that was started
in the ailand and sustained the contract and some of the
e Intermediate Court held that Weiji’s use of the word claims made by Sampote and Chaiyo. e Supreme Court
“Weiji” infringed Haitan’s exclusive right to use its registered rejected any appeals from this judgment.
trademark. Weiji’s acts caused public confusion and impaired
Haitan’s reputation and was unfair competition. Weiji was Infringement of Trade Secrets Dispute: Resin Patent
enjoined from using “Weiji” in its advertising labels and Related Information
company name and was required to make a formal apology in
the newspaper and compensate Haitan by payment of RMB SI Group and SI Group (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (“SISL”)
6.55 million. led a lawsuit in Shanghai Second Intermediate Court
claiming that technical information of the product SP-1068,
Auction of Qian Zhongshu’s Letters and Manuscripts: includes its production ow, technique, and formula, all of
Preliminary Injunction which were trade secrets of SISL. e Defendant Xu Jie, an
employee of SISL resigned from SISL and disclosed the trade
Qian Zhongshu (deceased) was the husband of Yang secrets to his new employer Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang)
Jikang, the Plainti . e family was friendly with Li Guoqiang. Chemical Co. Ltd. (“Sino Legend”), the latter of whom
Yang, his wife and children sent more than 100 private letters used this trade secret information to apply for an invention
to Li Guoqiang who kept the letters and in 2013 Sungari patent named “Improved Techniques for Production of Alkyl
International Auction Co., Ltd (“Sungari”) announced that Phenol ermoplastic Resin” SISL wanted an injunction to
a public auction was to be held on June 21st 2013 that Qian prevent further use of its trade secrets and RMB 2 million in
Zhongshu’s letters and manuscripts would be sold. e compensation for its losses. e Shanghai Intermediate Court
Plainti Yang Jikang argued that these letters were entitled held that the technical information used in the product SL-
to copyright protection, and though his wife and daughter 1801 by Sino Legend, Xu Jie’s employer, was substantially
were deceased, he had inherited their copyright rights. Yang di erent from the technical information of the Plainti ’s
Jikang further argued that the public auction by Sungari trade secrets. e Court rejected the claims. e Plainti ’s
would damage the copyright he owned by inheritance and appeal to the High Court sustained the original decision.
applied to the court to enjoin the auction proceedings. e
Court enjoined and the auction did not go forward. However, e Intermediate Court very strictly interpreted the facts and
subsequently Yang Jikang’s sued Sungari and Li Guoqiang for ordered a professional examination by a specialist to assist in
copyright infringement and breach of his right of privacy. e this decision.
Court rule of the Copyright Law protected the writer of the
letters. ese rights were inherited by the Plainti holding Standard Essential Patent Royalty Case
that their injunction will help facilitate protection of the Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Huawei”), negotiated
sender’s copyright and writer’s privacy.
with the IDC Company on the royalty rates for a certain
“Ultraman” Copyright Dispute patent belonging to the IDC Company. In the course of these
On 30th September 2005, Sampote Saengduenchai negotiations IDC requested the US International Trade Center
to initiate a “337 investigation” against Huawei’s products.
(“Sampote”) and Chaiyo Productions Co. Ltd (“Chaiyo”) sued Huawei in turn commenced a lawsuit in the Shenzhen
Tsuburaya Production Co. Ltd., Shanghai Tsuburaya Planning Intermediate Court asking the Court to order IDC to con rm
Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Book Center Co. Ltd., and Shanghai the patent royalty rate of its invention pursuant to the
Audio-Video Publishing House for copyright infringement in FRAND principles (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory).
the Guangzhou Intermediate Court requesting various levels
of compensation for infringement. is case was based on e Shenzhen Intermediate Court held that the standard
a contract executed on 4th March 1976 granting Sampote patent royalty rate shall be 0.019% pursuant to FRAND.
permanent and exclusive rights to use the 9 Ultraman IDC appealed this decision to the Guangdong High Court.
exclusive word rights including Giang V. Jambo “A”, except
for Japan. is right was con rmed by the courts of Japan. e e High Court held that the principles of FRAND required
Guangzhou Intermediate Court, the Court of First Instance, an obligation to grant licenses pursuant to the intellectual
Property policies of the European Telecommunications
82 Standards Institute and Telecommunications Industry
Association of America, plus relevant provisions of Chinese
