Search

The role of trademark use in finding infringement liability has always been on a hot debate, among which most scholars held that trademark use should serve as the gatekeeper of liability determination, but such debate lacks a proper grounding of empirical research. This article undertakes to fill this gap by adopting descriptive analysis, regression analyses and chi-square tests to review 1263 trademark infringement decisions in China. This study demonstrates that it is not the trademark use but the likelihood of confusion that lies at the core in deciding infringement liability. Additionally, the examination of the main factors considered by courts in deciding trademark use and likelihood of confusion reveals that the trademark use has been covered by the likelihood of confusion test. Based on these findings, this article suggests that there is no need to separately set up trademark use as the precondition to impose infringement liability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past decade, Si Xiao, Xianglong Zhang, Xiangcheng Sun and others have proposed a Confucian Philosophy of Family (CPF) movement as a response to issues in contemporary China. These issues include high divorce rates, low birth rates, caring for seniors, and other related issues. This proposal is an attempt to modernize traditional Confucianism and to make it relevant in contemporary China. In this paper I argue that this attempt faces external and internal challenges. The external challenges to CPF include the trademarks of contemporary philosophy, such as the methodological naturalism, epistemic pluralism and ethical individualism. Furthermore, there are three competing readings of CPF, which poses its own internal challenge to CPF. CPF scholars have failed to clarify if they are engaged in a project of interpretation, which is to elaborate the idea of family in the Confucian tradition, or as a project of justification, which is to justify Confucian understanding of family as a universal and objective value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Punitive damages were introduced into the intellectual property field in China by legislation permitting their imposition for malicious and serious infringements. This paper offers a comprehensive legal framework of punitive damages regarding trademark infringement and a critical analysis of the application of punitive damages in trademark infringement disputes in Chinese judicial practice. My research reveals that punitive damages have rarely been imposed since the punitive damages provision, Article 63 of the Trademark Law, took effect in 2014, whereas statutory damages have been applied extensively. The reason for this is that there are few guidelines for the application of this provision. The challenges to the application include undefined statutory requirements, difficulties in not only assessing compensation but also providing evidence and determining the multiple of compensation, and an unclear relationship between statutory damages and punitive damages. The 2019 Amendment of the Trademark Law retains these problems. Fortunately, the recently released Judicial Interpretation and typical cases concerning punitive damages contribute to resolving them. Moreover, those cases in which punitive damages have been applied have gradually revealed some basic principles for their application. Reform suggestions are offered in order to stimulate the development of a more thorough and uniform application of the punitive damages provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has an important modification of the trademark infringement compensation system in China's trademark law (2013). Yet through the big data retrieval and analysis software like Citespace, the study found that such difficult problems as generalization of statutory compensation, being difficult to determine the base of punitive damage, lower average compensation in trademark infringement case still exist. Simultaneously, researching on the evaluation of the compensation system for trademark infringement is not completely. This study has constructed the influence index of calculating the statutory compensation amount for trademark infringement through analyzed the judgment on trademark infringement cases in China in the past decade and previous research. Based on these indexes, researchers used fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) to analyze the effective judgment of trademark infringement compensation case of Beijing Intellectual Property Court in 2018. Results point that the Court makes better use of statutory compensation in the trademark infringement case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Should a trade mark owner have the right to prevent third parties from affixing a trade mark to products intended for export? This problem has attracted less attention in the EU and US than it deserves. In comparison, Chinese courts have had to stand on this issue in the last decades when adjudicating on the cross-border OEM cases. Since the judicial opinion of the Chinese Supreme People's Court has always been in flux with the change of the presiding judge of the IP tribunal, this remains an open question in China. In practice, most Chinese courts are inclined to accept the export exemption rule and deny that OEM activities constitute trade mark infringement. This article questions the export exemption rule and calls for a return to the strong-protection approach. It is proposed that affixing a trade mark to products per se constitutes trade mark infringement irrespective of where the products are to be sold, which is more dogmatically coherent with the legal materials and also in line with the existing policy objectives in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2017, two US sport brand companies, Under Armour and New Balance, won trademark infringement cases in China. These victories demonstrated a potential turning point in Chinese trademark law and the protection of foreign company marks. The country has long been plagued with rampant counterfeiting and trademark squatting issues, but since China's acceptance into the World Trade Organization in 2001, the country has made moves to improve its trademark laws through two amendments. China's first amendment occurred in 2001. However, this amendment suffered from multiple vulnerabilities, providing loopholes for foreign trademarks to be infringed upon. The most recent amendment, which was enacted in 2014, provides stronger protections and resolves the vulnerabilities of its predecessor. This article discusses the limitations of the 2001 amendment and the opportunities afforded to foreign brands for trademark protection under the 2014 amendment. The Under Armour and New Balance cases are discussed as examples of a new trademark enforcement paradigm in China. Recommendations for foreign brands seeking to expand and protect their trademarks are also provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article introduces the concept of the soundalike hotel to the hospitality and tourism disciplines. More specifically, this article explores the legal implications surrounding the Haiyatt and Marvelot hotel brands in China, which sound like the Hyatt and Marriott brands, respectively. Soundalike hotels would be perceived by courts around the world as trademark infringement. However, China's legal system accepts the existence of soundalike hotels and overlooks the illegality of their existence. This article clarifies, from a legal perspective, why soundalike hotels are accepted in China and offers insights into how hotel organizations may lessen their chances of experiencing trademark infringement in China. The article uses TripAdvisor data to show that most Haiyatt and Marvelot guests do not realize that these hotels are engaging in deceptive practices by using soundalike brands. Thus, neither Hyatt nor Marriott have legal precedence to show that guests are confused by the existence of soundalike hotels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The restrictions on ambush marketing frequently contradict the basic legal principles of intellectual property right. Special legislation is not applicable to the majority of cultural and sports events for the protection of their rights and interests. This paper attempts to scientifically understanding the meaning of ambush marketing, de- fine the relationship of legal interests behind the ambush marketing and find the solutions for the predicament of ambush marketing with respect to the existing trademark regulations, with a view to offering some intellectual support for the Chinese government in fulfilling its bidding commitments for the 2022 Olympic Winter Games. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A consumer survey, as an instrument used to gather data on the beliefs and attitudes of consumers towards trademarks or products, is considered to have vital influence in trademark litigation. In recent years, courts have come to rely increasingly on the results of surveys conducted by one or both litigants in trademark lawsuits. The practical issue for trademark litigants is determining whether, when and how to develop survey evidence, given the cost, time, and other constraints. To shed light on this specific issue, we undertook a statistical analysis of trademark infringement cases in China. By examining 17 836 cases decided by China's courts over a 16-year period from 2001 through 2016, this article presents an empirical study assessing the statistical relationship between the presentation of survey evidence and case outcomes. The goal of our study is to help trademark litigants to determine the importance and value of presenting consumer surveys in trademark infringement case and make more informed decisions about their litigation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These days, most courts in China tend to immunize online auction sites from secondary trademark liability by putting them directly into a mode known as 'safe harbour' (a mode similar to that used in Tiffany v eBay in the USA). However, safe harbour is criticized for diminishing the incentive for the online auction sites and trademark holders to co-operate in dealing with online counterfeit goods. As an exception, in Yinian v Taobao, the courts moved beyond the safe harbour and sought to strengthen the liability of online auction sites by focusing on the operator's state of mind and the necessity of the anti-counterfeit measures. In the sense that the courts were more speculative on the application of safe harbour to the online auction sites, Yinian v Taobao resembles the EU case of L'Oreal v eBay. The more demanding line of reasoning in this case seems to be in accordance with the 'Internet+' Action Plan, which was launched by the Chinese government in 2015 to encourage a healthy e-commerce environment. However, for practical reasons, until now the line of reasoning in Yinian v Taobao has not been well accepted in China. Moreover, because this case could not be reconciled with contributory infringement theory, it might cause debates about the foundation of secondary trademark liability of online auction sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the application of secondary liability principles to trademark law in the U.S. for interpreting China's amended Trademark Law. Topics discussed include examination of pervasiveness of infringing goods and the impact of online marketplaces on the global counterfeit epidemic; analysis of application of secondary liability principles to trademark infringement suits in the U.S.; and Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc. court case on same.

Purpose - For this study, the Jordan case provided the context for investigating Chinese trademark law with the purpose of answering how and why Jordan lost the legal rights to the Chinese version of his name in China. The results from that investigation were used to better explain the phenomena of transliteration and trademark squatting in relation to sport brands and athletes. The purpose of this paper is to formulate suggestions for protecting sport brands and athletes from trademark squatting in China. Design/methodology/approach - The authors used traditional legal methodology to investigate the influence of transliteration on trademark squatting in China based on the real-life context provided by the facts in Jordan. First, all reported materials from Chinese courts on the Jordan case were collected and analyzed by the research team, which included an investigator who is fluent in Chinese. Second, the authors conducted a collection, review, and analysis of China's trademark law, the international trademark law that controls court decisions in China, and the literature on trademark squatting in China. The results from the investigations were used to formulate a description of Jordan that details how the process of transliteration facilitates trademark squatting in China. Findings - The findings revealed a loophole within the Chinese administration of trademark regulation through which trademark squatters use the process of transliteration to infringe on trademark rights belonging to senior, foreign brands. Furthermore, the findings lead us to suggest that sport brands are particularly vulnerable to this type of trademark squatting in China. In Jordan, Qiaodan Sports exploited the transliteration loophole to obtain trademark ownership of Qiaodan to the detriment of Brand Jordan and, to a lesser extent, Chinese consumers. Research limitations/implications - This study contributes to the literature by conceptualizing a "transliteration loophole" that facilitates trademark squatting in China. Further, this is the first study to focus on how the concepts of transliteration and trademark squatting influence celebrity athletes and sport brands. Practical implications - For foreign celebrity athletes and sport brands, the case should alert them of their vulnerability to trademark squatting of transliterations assigned to them by sport broadcasters or sport consumers in China. For instructors of sport law and sport marketing courses, the Jordan case provides teachable lessons on the value of trademark, the process of trademark squatting, and the process of transliteration and its relation to trademark squatting in China. Social implications - Socially, studies in trademark squatting and Chinese trademark law are needed as China continues to expand its intellectual property regulations. The People's Republic of China started regulating trademarks in the 1980s and since then, there have been three major modifications. Still, controversies exist in terms of trademark squatting of foreign brands and research is needed to better understand why this happens, and how it can be avoided. Originality/value - The focus on sport as well as the suggestions offered for sport brands and celebrity athletes makes this study the first of its kind within the literature on trademark squatting in China. The importance and impact of the Jordan case is one that attracts attention and should result in significant impact in the literature and practical impact for the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An essay is presented on the rise of Shanzhai culture, which refers to imitation and trademark infringing brands and goods, particularly electronics, in China. Topics covered include the inter active character of its new media landscape, especially after the country's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the representation of shanzhai by state media, and examinations of the state's operation amid the growing contradictions of globalization.

The article focuses on factors playing a crucial role in electronic commerce in China and on the main issues and developments in the fight against online sale of counterfeits. It mentions growth in the business of the electronic commerce company Alibaba Group in China as of 2014, and further discusses laws in China related to trade mark infringement by online stores, including the Tort Law and the Trade Mark Law. Also mentioned are efforts by companies to deal with Internet Counterfeiting.

The article focuses on the limitations of Marks Doctrine to cope up with the challenges of trademark squatting in China-based multinational companies (MNCs). Topics discussed include importance of territoriality principle in extending trademark protection, laws regulating the process of trademark registration, and the obligations of World Trade Organization (WTO) related to trademark squatting under the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The article presents an overview of the changes made to trademark law in China in 2014. Topics include the adoption of the Trademark Law of China on August 30, 2013, the bona fide principle, and efforts to prevent trademark confusion. Information is provided on trademark infringement and the protection of well-known trademarks.

The article discusses trademark counterfeiting in China, focusing on international intellectual property rights, child labor in China, and the costs associated with counterfeiting. Criminal activity and a scandal involving fake toothpaste are mentioned. According to the article, China is the largest producer of counterfeit consumer goods. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency and China's Trademark Law are examined, along with American companies and trademark infringement in China.

The article offers information on the case In-N-Out Burgers Inc. v. Caliburger, a trademark-related dispute between two restaurants CaliBurger and In-N-Out Burger under the intellectual property law in China. Topics discussed include intellectual property rights (IPR's) in the U.S., trademark protections regimes, and Lanham Act. It discusses the historical development of the concept of trademark and its infringement in China.

The article focuses on various aspects of the Chinese patent system for copyright-like features, and reflects on the implications of a copyrights-tinted patent system. It discusses concerns related to copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting in the intellectual property (IP) regime of China. It presents information on several court cases, including the U.S. federal Court case Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, involving patentability claims.

Matthew J. Elsmore is Associate Professor of Law, Aarhus University, Denmark. Aaron D. Hurvitz is partner at the law firm Kangxin Partners, P.C. Beijing, China.This article describes, analyses and evaluates the role and likely impact of using China trade mark and customs law and procedure in the fight against global trade in counterfeited trade mark goods.A fresh look at the geographical source of the global counterfeit industry is well timed amid legislative and judicial developments in the EU; though China is not legally obligated under public international law to provide for control of potentially illegal exports–like trade mark infringing goods, it does so anyway; China Customs oversee the exports of the country with the largest base of manufacturers of infringing goods in the world.By outlining the pros and cons of what we call a source-strategy and drawing in the experience of IP lawyers working in China, this article which has an audience of European trade mark owners in mind, offers a practical alternative tool for anti-counterfeit efforts, and as a cost-effective way to stem the free and global circulation of counterfeit goods. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on the changes made to intellectual property law in Asia as of June 1, 2012. Topics include the renewed protections awarded by the Shanghai Municipal Government on local trademarks, protections for non-Chinese trademark owners, and trademark infringement. Information is provided on intellectual property and trademark-related court cases.

The article reports about the attempts to draw up a law on Chinese trademarks as of 1923. Topics reviewed include the collaboration between the Chinese, Japanese and British governments in constructing the law draft, cases of infringement of British trademarks in China and Japan, and instances of lawsuits related to trademark infringements by Chinese and Japanese companies. Some aspects of commercial relations between China and Japan are analyzed as well.

The article presents a court case on the trademark infringement of businesses' brand name symbols. The Court of Justice in China has analyzed the figures of brand name symbols, which show similar characteristics. The Court has reviewed the details on the status of the trademark law, which states that it does not affect the brand competition of businesses even if the products are similar and the requirement for infringement is not accomplished.

The article presents court cases related to trademark and copyright infringements in Asia including China, Singapore, and Japan. The Tianhe District People's Court in Guangzhou found Guangzhou Second Haven Pharmacy Chain Co. Ltd. liable for copyright infringement. The High Court of Singapore ruled trademark infringement for the case of Clinique laboratories LLC against Clinique Suisse Pte. Ltd. The Tokyo District Court held that Rakuten was not liable for trademark infringement.

Copyright of Socio-Economic History / Shakai-Keizai Shigaku is the property of Socio-Economic History Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

With the enlargement of the European Union (EU) and the economic expansion of China, bilateral trade between the EU Member States and China has experienced noticeable growth. With the increasing number of EU small and medium enterprises entering the Chinese market, their inexperience in trademark protection may hamper their business development in China. Despite China's effort to strengthen its legal framework and enforcement power for trademark protection, its record remains less than fully satisfactory in the opinion of much of the international community. In this article, we present some common forms of trademark infringement in China and discuss some of the complexities of legal and institutional conditions and linguistic factors. We also provide recommendations to tackle these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on China's trade mark law including trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and custom control. It provides a brief explanation of China's trademark law and recognition of its well known marks. It presents the governmental and judicial system that protects well-known marks in the country. It discusses how foreign mark holders can protect their marks through civil lawsuits. It summarizes the apprehension of the U.S. government on the issue of China's weak social control and inadequate measures for discouraging trademark infringement.

The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiff is alleging trademark infringement claim against Shanghai Xingbake. Probability of customer confusion high is noted. The trial court has found out that the company has maliciously used the well known mark of the plaintiff's logo. The court reviewed the issue and the implementation of the trademark laws.

The article discusses the lawsuits filed by Starbucks Corp. to protect the value of its brand from the cutrate simulacra before the Qingdao and Shanghai Courts in China. The company claims loss on three grounds such as infringement of its registered trademarks, infringement of its mark's status as well-known trademarks and unfair competition in violation of the People's Republic of China Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Starbucks has won and the defendants are ordered to cease infringement.

Looks at the illegal piracy of intellectual property (IP), including trademark, patent and copyright infringement in China. Nature and effects of the counterfeiting problem and changes in national IP laws in China; Predictions on the effects of China's World Trade Organization accession; Changes needed to mitigate the counterfeiting menace.

The article focuses on the implementation of China's system of trademark administration considering the amendment of the trademark legislation and promulgation of the supplementary provisions. It discusses the characteristics of the protection of exclusive trademark rights, the trademark infringement and its identification. It looks at the administrative measures for trademark infringing acts and outlines the measures to be taken by administrative once trademark infringement is confirmed.