>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Fourteen Model Cases Concluded by Intellectual Property Courts of Beijing Municipality, Shanghai Municipality, and Guangzhou City Published by the Supreme People's Court [Effective]
最高人民法院发布14起北京、上海、广州知识产权法院审结的典型案例 [现行有效]
【法宝引证码】

Fourteen Model Cases Concluded by Intellectual Property Courts of Beijing Municipality, Shanghai Municipality, and Guangzhou City Published by the Supreme People's Court 

最高人民法院发布14起北京、上海、广州知识产权法院审结的典型案例

(September 9, 2015) (2015年9月9日)

Table of Contents 目录
1. Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Patent Re-examination Board and Cui Xuewei (administrative dispute over declaration of the invalidity of patent right) 1、安阳翔宇医疗设备有限公司诉专利复审委员会、崔学伟专利权无效宣告行政纠纷案
2. Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Conservation Co., Ltd. v. Patent Re-examination Board and Third Person Beijing Hailin Energy-Efficient Equipment Co., Ltd. (administrative dispute over invalidity of a utility patent) 2、郑州春泉节能股份有限公司诉国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人北京海林节能设备股份有限公司等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
3. Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Third Person Zhang Hongbin (administrative dispute over claim for declaring the invalidation of trademark right) 3、开滦(集团)有限责任公司诉商标评审委员会、第三人张宏彬商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案
4. Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (administrative dispute over rejection of retrial) 4、贵州同济堂制药有限公司诉商标评审委员会商标驳回复审行政纠纷案
5. Qian Cheng v. Beijing Concert Hall (dispute over infringement upon exclusive right of a registered trademark) 5、钱程诉北京音乐厅侵害注册商标专用权纠纷案
6. Beijing iQIYI Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Hiwifi Technology Co., Ltd. (dispute over unfair competition) 6、北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉北京极科极客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案
7. Beijing LOCOJOY Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Kunlun Joy Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. (dispute over infringement upon copyright and unfair competition) 7、北京乐动卓越科技有限公司诉北京昆仑乐享网络技术有限公司等侵犯著作权及不正当竞争纠纷案
8. BURBERRY Limited v. Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin (dispute over infringement upon trademark right) 8、勃贝雷有限公司诉陈凯、鲁秋敏侵害商标权纠纷案
9. KDF Distribution (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Aquatherm Pipe System (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. et al. (appellate case regarding dispute over infringement upon trademark right and false publicity) 9、开德阜国际贸易(上海)有限公司诉阔盛管道系统(上海)有限公司等侵害商标权、虚假宣传纠纷上诉案
10. Shanghai Picasso Stationary Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Picassopen Stationary Co., Ltd. et al. (appellate case regarding dispute over infringement upon copyright) 10、上海帕弗洛文化用品有限公司诉上海艺想文化用品有限公司等侵害著作权纠纷上诉案
11. Case regarding Application of Applicants Autodesk Company and Adobe Company for Pretrial Evidence Preservation 11、申请人欧特克公司、奥多比公司申请诉前证据保全案
12. CHANEL Co., Ltd. v. Wen Daxiang, Guangzhou Pearl Hotel Co., Ltd. et al. (dispute over infringement upon trademark right) 12、香奈儿股份有限公司诉文大香、广州凯旋大酒店有限公司等侵害商标权纠纷案
13. Sun Lijuan v. URBAN REVIVO Fashion (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou URBAN RENEWAL Fashion Co., Ltd. (dispute over infringement upon copyright) 13、孙利娟诉快尚时装(广州)有限公司、广州优岸美致时装有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷案
14. Case regarding Application of Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Netease Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. for Behavior Preservation 14、暴雪娱乐有限公司、上海网之易网络科技发展有限公司申请行为保全案
Case No. 1 案例1
Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Patent Re-examination Board and Cui Xuewei (administrative dispute over declaration of the invalidity of patent right) 安阳翔宇医疗设备有限公司诉专利复审委员会、崔学伟专利权无效宣告行政纠纷案
(1) Basic Facts (一) 基本案情
Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xiangyu Company”) raised a claim for declaring the invalidity of a utility patent (No. 94119284.9, titled “multi-function moxibustion therapeutic instrument”) owned by Cui Xuewei and upon examination, the Patent Re-examination Board made an administrative decision on affirming the validity of the patent in this case. Xiangyu Company refused to accept the alleged decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality. 翔宇公司针对崔学伟拥有的专利号为94119284.9、名称为“多功能艾灸仪”的发明专利,向专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求,专利复审委员会经审理作出维持本案专利有效的行政决定。翔宇公司不服被诉决定,向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。
(2) Adjudication (二) 裁判结果
After a trial, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality held that: The protection scope of the patent right involved was clear, which could be supported by the instructions, the modification of application materials of the patent involved by the patentee did not exceed the scope recorded in the original instructions and claims, and the patent involved was creative and conformed to the relevant provisions of the Patent Law and the Detailed Rules for the Implementation thereof. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality affirmed the alleged decision. No party appealed and this judgment has come into force. 北京知识产权法院审理认为,本案专利权利要求保护范围清楚,能够得到说明书的支持,专利权人对本案专利申请文件的修改未超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围,且本案专利具备创造性,符合专利法及实施细则的相关规定。遂判决维持被诉决定。各方当事人均未提起上诉,判决已生效。
(3) Significance (三) 典型意义
Moxibustion is one of Traditional Chinese Medicine (“TCM”) treatment methods. The patent involved combines traditional moxibustion treatment methods and electromagnetic techniques, based on which a type of moxibustion therapeutic instrument capable of realizing functions of self-heating and automatic temperature control is formed. Since the patent involved is of high application value in the relevant TCM therapies, it has attracted widespread concerns of personnel in the field of TCM medical instruments. This case involves several grounds for declaration of the invalidity of patent right, including whether the protection scope of patent claims is clear, whether the claims can be supported by the instructions, whether the modification of application materials of the patent involved by the patentee exceeds the scope of the original instructions and claims, and whether the patent right is creative. The court has fully demonstrated each claim of both parties and the judgment of this case has legally protected the interests of the inventor. 艾灸是我国传统中医治疗方法之一,本案专利是将传统艾灸治疗方法与电磁技术相结合,形成一种能够实现自加热、自动控制温度功能的艾灸治疗仪。由于本案专利在相关中医治疗中具有较高的应用价值,受到了中医医疗器械领域人员的广泛关注。本案涉及多项专利权无效宣告请求的理由,包括专利权利要求保护范围是否清楚、权利要求能否能够得到说明书的支持、专利权人对本案专利申请文件的修改是否超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围、专利权是否具备创造性等问题。本案判决根据各方当事人的主张,逐条进行了充分的论理,依法保护了发明人的利益。
Case No. 2 案例2
Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Conservation Co., Ltd. v. Patent Re-examination Board and Third Person Beijing Hailin Energy-Efficient Equipment Co., Ltd. (administrative dispute over invalidity of a utility patent) 郑州春泉节能股份有限公司诉专利复审委员会、第三人北京海林节能设备股份有限公司等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案
(1) Basic Facts (一) 基本案情
Beijing Hailin Energy-Efficient Equipment Co., Ltd. raised a claim for declaring the invalidity of a utility patent of Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Conservation Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhengzhou Chunquan Company”) (No. 200810231195.5 and titled “methods and devices for identification of multiple-speed electric motor gears based on voltage transforming techniques” ). In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law, the Patent Re-examination Board declared that the patent involved was wholly invalid. Zhengzhou Chunquan Company refused to accept the alleged decision and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality. 北京海林公司针对郑州春泉公司的专利号200810231195.5、名称为“基于电压互感技术的多档速电机档位识别方法及装置”的发明专利,提出无效宣告请求。专利复审委员会依据专利法二十二条第三款的规定,宣告本案专利全部无效。郑州春泉公司不服被诉决定,向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。
(2) Adjudication (二) 裁判结果
After a trial, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality held that: The claims of the patent involved were creative and the relevant determination of the Patent Re-examination Board was erroneous. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality revoked the alleged decision and ordered the Patent Re-examination Board to make a new decision. No party appealed and this judgment has come into force. 北京知识产权法院审理认为,本案专利各权利要求均具备创造性,专利复审委员会相关认定错误。遂判决撤销被诉决定,责令专利复审委员会重新作出决定。各方当事人均未提起上诉,判决已生效。
(3) Significance (三) 典型意义
This case involves a utility patent in the field of electricity with complicated technical issues. The trial court has conscientiously conducted examination on the corresponding techniques, tried the creativity of the patent involved by strictly applying the three-step approach for judgment of creativity, and corrected the erroneous decision of the Patent Re-examination Board. The judgment of this case has saved an invention-creation that may bring considerable income to enterprises and legally safeguarded the legitimate interests of the inventor. 本案涉及技术问题复杂的电学领域发明专利。审理法院对相关技术进行了认真审查,严格适用创造性判断三步法对本案专利的创造性进行了审理,纠正了专利复审委会的错误决定。通过本案判决,及时挽救了一项可以为企业带来可观收入的发明创造,依法维护了发明人的正当利益。
Case No. 3 案例3
Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Third Person Zhang Hongbin (administrative dispute over claim for declaring the invalidation of trademark right) 开滦(集团)有限责任公司诉商标评审委员会、第三人张宏彬商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案
(1) Basic Facts (一) 基本案情
Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Kailuan Group Company”) raised a claim for declaring the invalidation of trademark “Kailuan” (No. 5667073) the third person Zhang Hongbin applied for registration on the grounds that the disputed trademark infringed upon the trade name right of “Kailuan” and Zhang Hongbin had an act of malicious registration and he did not actually use such disputed trademark. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that: Evidence submitted by Kailuan Group Company did not involve services of beauty salons and public baths. It failed to prove that before the application for registration of the disputed trademark, Kailuan Group Company has used “Kailuan” as a trade name or trademark in the designated services of the disputed trademark in beauty salons and public baths or similar services and “Kailuan” enjoyed certain popularity. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality rendered a ruling to maintain the registration of the disputed trademark. Kailuan Group Company refused to accept the alleged ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality. 开滦集团公司针对第三人张宏彬申请注册的第5667073号“开滦”商标,以诉争商标侵犯其“开滦”企业字号权、张宏彬具有恶意抢注行为且未实际使用诉争商标为由,提出无效宣告请求。商标评审委员认为,开滦集团公司提供的证据未涉及美容院、公共卫生浴服务,不能证明在诉争商标申请注册之前,开滦集团公司将“开滦”作为商号或商标使用在诉争商标指定的美容院、公共卫生浴服务或与之类似的服务上并具有一定知名度。遂裁定维持争议商标的注册。开滦集团公司不服被诉裁定,向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。
(2) Adjudication (二) 裁判结果
After a trial, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality held that: The registration of the disputed trademark “Kailuan” impaired the prior trade name right of Kailuan Group Company. The recognition of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was erroneous and should be corrected. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality revoked the ruling on the claim for declaring the invalidation of trademark “Kailuan” (No. 5667073) rendered by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (No. 71444 [2014], Trademark Review and Adjudication Board) and ordered the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to render a new ruling. After the judgment of this case was pronounced, no party appealed and the judgment has come into force. 北京知识产权法院审理认为,诉争商标“开滦”的注册损害了开滦集团公司的在先商号权。商标评审委员会对此认定有误,应予以纠正。遂判决撤销商标评审委员会作出的商评字〔2014〕第71444号关于第5667073号“开滦”商标无效宣告请求裁定,责令商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。本案宣判后,当事人未提出上诉,本判决已生效。
(3) Significance (三) 典型意义
This case is regarding administrative disputes over claim for declaring invalidation of trademark, the basis of the claim is the provision in the Trademark Law that “no application for trademark registration may infringe upon the existing prior rights of others,” and the prior right involved is the prior trade name right. In the judgment of this case, the essential conditions of “infringement upon the existing prior rights of others” were analyzed and expounded item by item from such perspectives as the formation time of plaintiff's trade name (the trade name “Kailuan” was formed in 1912), the popularity of plaintiff's trade name (Kailuan Group Company is one of global top 500 enterprises and its trade name enjoys enormous popularity around the world), comparison between plaintiff's business scope and the verified use services of the disputed trademark and the possibility in confusion, the knowledge of the disputed trademark registrant on plaintiff's trade name, and the actual use of the disputed trademark. It was determined that the registration of the disputed trademark infringed upon Kailuan Group Company's prior trade name right and should be invalid. The judgment of this case has reflected the judicial orientations of safeguarding the rights and interests of famous brands, stopping malicious registration of trademarks, and maintaining honest competition in the market. 本案系商标无效宣告请求行政纠纷,请求权基础为商标法规定的“申请商标注册不得损害他人现有的在先权利”,涉及的在先权利为在先商号权。本案判决从原告商号的形成时间(“开滦”字号形成于1912年)、原告商号的知名度(开滦集团公司系世界500强企业,其字号享誉中外)、原告经营范围与诉争商标核定使用服务比较、混淆可能性、诉争商标注册人对原告商号的知晓情况和诉争商标的实际使用情况等方面对“损害他人现有的在先权利”的要件进行了逐条分析论述,认定诉争商标的注册损害了开滦集团公司的在先商号权,应予无效。本案判决体现了维护知名品牌权益,制止恶意抢注商标,维护市场诚信竞争的司法导向。
Case No. 4 案例4
Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (administrative dispute over rejection of retrial) 贵州同济堂制药有限公司诉商标评审委员会商标驳回复审行政纠纷案
(1) Basic Facts (一) 基本案情
Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tongjitang Company”) filed an application with the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for registration of the associated mark of “Tongjitang Founded in 1888 and Device.” The Trademark Office and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejected the registration application of the disputed trademark on the ground that the disputed trademark was similar to the trademark “Tongji and Device” (No. 3178271) (cited trademark No. 1) and the trademark “Tongji” (No. 3574839) (cited trademark No. 2). Tongjitang Company refused to accept the alleged rejection and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality. 同济堂公司向国家工商行政管理总局商标局申请注册“同濟堂始创于1888及图”组合商标,商标局及商标评审委员会先后以诉争商标与第3178271号“同濟及图”商标(即引证商标一)及第3574839号“同济”商标(即引证商标二)近似为由,驳回了诉争商标的注册申请。同济堂公司不服,向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。
(2) Adjudication (二) 裁判结果
After a trial, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality held that: By taking into full account of such factors as the popularity of Tongjitang Company's prior underlying trademark “Tongjitang” (No. 1093180), the actual use of the disputed trademark, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the underlying trademark as well as the difference between the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks, it was determined that the co-existence of the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks in the market would not cause the relevant public's confusion and false recognition and they did not constitute similar trademarks for the same or similar commodities. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality revoked the alleged ruling and ordered the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to render a new ruling. 北京知识产权法院审理认为,综合考虑同济堂公司在先基础商标第1093180号“同濟堂”商标的知名度、诉争商标的实际使用情况、诉争商标与基础商标的近似程度以及与两引证商标的差异程度等因素,认定诉争商标与两引证商标共存于市场不致导致相关公众的混淆误认,未构成同一种或类似商品上的近似商标。遂判决撤销被诉裁定,责令商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。
(3) Significance (三) 典型意义
In this case, it is specified that the extension relationship between the same entity's underlying trademark and disputed trademark under certain conditions should be taken into consideration when checking whether they constitute similar trademarks. In addition, consideration factors in the determination of the extension relationship are also discussed. The trial court has taken into full account of such factors as the popularity of Tongjitang Company's prior underlying trademark, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the underlying trademark and the likeness of commodities, the actual use of the disputed trademark, and the difference between the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks and finally determined that the business reputation of the underlying trademark may be extended to the disputed trademark. Therefore, the relevant public may differentiate the disputed trademark from the two cited trademarks. The judgment of this case is of significance in properly safeguarding the interests of famous trademark obligees. 本案明确了在判定商标近似时应考虑同一主体的基础商标与诉争商标在一定条件下的延伸关系,并探讨了认定延伸关系的考虑因素。审理法院综合考虑了同济堂公司在先基础商标的知名程度、诉争商标与基础商标近似及商品类似情况、诉争商标的实际使用情况及诉争商标与两引证商标的差异性等因素,最终认定基础商标的商誉可以延伸至诉争商标,因而相关公众可以将诉争商标与两引证商标相区分。本案判决对于合理维护知名商标权利人的利益具有重要意义。
Case No. 5 案例5
Qian Cheng v. Beijing Concert Hall (dispute over infringement upon exclusive right of a registered trademark) 钱程诉北京音乐厅侵害注册商标专用权纠纷案
(1) Basic Facts (一) 基本案情
For years, Beijing Concert Hall has organized a series of performance activities in the name of “Open the Door to Music.” Qian Cheng was the original general manager of Beijing Concert Hall and during his term of office, he applied for the registration of the word trademark “Open the Door to Music.” After he left Beijing Concert Hall, Qian Cheng filed a lawsuit against Beijing Concert Hall on the ground that without his permission, Beijing Concert Hall used the logo “Open the Door to Music” in the relevant business activities and infringed upon his exclusive right of the registered trademark. He required Beijing Concert Hall to cease the acts of infringement, make an apology, and compensate a total of 40,000 yuan for his economic losses and reasonable costs. 北京音乐厅数年来一直以“打开音乐之门”为名义举办了一系列演出活动。钱程系北京音乐厅原总经理,其在任职期间申请注册了“打开音乐之门”文字商标。离职后,钱程以北京音乐厅未经许可,将“打开音乐之门”标识用于相关经营活动,侵犯其注册商标专用权为由,提起诉讼,要求北京音乐厅停止侵权行为,赔礼道歉,并赔偿经济损失及合理支出共计4万元。
(2) Adjudication (二) 裁判结果
After a trial of first instance, the People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing Municipality held that: Before Qian Cheng's application for the registration of the trademark, Beijing Concert Hall has used a trademark that was similar to the registered trademark on the same commodity before the trademark registrant and had some influence. As the exclusive user of the registered trademark, Qian Cheng had no right to prohibit Beijing Concert Hall from continuing to use the trademark involved within the original scope of use. The claims of Qian Cheng had no factual and legal basis and should not be supported. Therefore, the People's Court of Xicheng District rendered a judgment to dismiss Qian Cheng's claims. Qian Cheng refused to accept the judgment of first instance and appealed. After a trial of second instance, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality held that: In a series of performance and publicity activities using the logo “Open the Door to Music,” the entity was Beijing Concert Hall and a stable connection between this logo and Beijing Concert Hall has been set up. The right of defense for the prior use of the trademark of Beijing Concern Hall was established and the use of the logo “Open the Door to Music” by Beijing Concert Hall did not constitute infringement. Therefore, the Intellectual Property Court of Beijing Municipality rendered a judgment to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of first instance. 北京市西城区人民法院一审认为,北京音乐厅在钱程申请商标注册之前,已在同一种商品上先于商标注册人使用与注册商标近似并有一定影响的商标,钱程作为注册商标专用权人,无权禁止北京音乐厅在原使用范围内继续使用涉案商标,钱程的诉讼请求没有事实和法律依据,不予支持。遂判决驳回钱程的诉讼请求。钱程不服一审判决,提起上诉。北京知识产权法院二审认为,在使用“打开音乐之门”标识的一系列演出及宣传活动中,对外宣称的主体均为北京音乐厅,该标识与北京音乐厅之间已经建立起了较为固定的联系,北京音乐厅的商标在先使用抗辩权成立,其对“打开音乐之门”的使用不构成侵权。遂判决驳回上诉,维持一审判决。
(3) Significance (三) 典型意义
This case involves the application of law in the right of defense for the prior use of a trademark as prescribed in the new Trademark Law. The trial court has thoroughly analyzed the application conditions for the right of defense for the prior use of a trademark in the new Trademark Law and made in-depth discussions on such problems as the use of a prior trademark, the popularity of a logo, and the subjective attitude of the user. The reasoning of the trial court is sufficient. The judgment of this case has legally safeguarded the brand “Open the Door to Music” which has been continuously used by Beijing Concert Hall for 12 years and reasonably balanced the interests of the prior trademark users and the obligee of the registered trademark.
......
 本案涉及新商标法规定的商标在先使用抗辩权的法律适用问题。审理法院深入分析了新商标法有关在先使用抗辩权的适用条件,对在先商标性使用、标识知名度、使用者主观态度等问题进行了较为深入的探讨,说理充分。本案判决依法维护了北京音乐厅近十二年来持续使用的“打开音乐之门”这一品牌,合理平衡了商标在先使用者与注册商标权利人的利益。
......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥1100.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese