| Notice of the General Office of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases and Fifty Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by the Chinese Courts in 2018 | | 最高人民法院办公厅关于印发2018年中国法院10大知识产权案件和50件典型知识产权案例的通知 |
| (No. 113 [2019] of the General Office of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法办〔2019〕113号） |
| The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| In 2018, under the firm leadership of the CPC Central Committee with comrade Xi Jinping as the core, the people's courts adhered to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in a New Era, fully implemented the spirit of the 19th CPC National Congress and the Second and Third Plenary Sessions of the 19th CPC Central Committee, conscientiously implemented the spirit of the National Political and Legal Work Conference, studied the spirit of a series of important speeches delivered by General Secretary Xi Jinping in an in-depth manner, highlighted the “awareness of maintaining political integrity, thinking in big-picture terms, keeping the CPC as the core of leadership, and acting consistently with the policies of the CPC Central Committee,” had confidence in “our path, guiding theories, political system, and culture,” resolutely “defended the status of General Secretary Xi Jinping as the core of the CPC Central Committee and the whole Party and defended the authority and leadership of the CPC Central Committee,” followed the general principle of making progress while working to keep performance stable, stayed true to our founding mission, faithfully performed the adjudication duties conferred by the Constitution and the law, took the lead and shouldered responsibilities, closely centered on the objective of “enabling the people to see in every judicial case that justice is served,” deepened the reform in the field of intellectual property adjudication, intensified supervision and guidance over adjudication, proactively maximized the leading role of judicial protection of intellectual property, and provided effective judicial guarantee for striving to achieve the two centenary goals and realizing the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation. | | 2018年，人民法院在以习近平同志为核心的党中央坚强领导下，坚持以习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想为指导，全面贯彻落实党的十九大和十九届二中、三中全会精神，认真贯彻落实中央政法工作会议精神，深入学习贯彻习近平总书记系列重要讲话精神，增强“四个意识”，坚定“四个自信”，做到“两个维护”，坚持稳中求进工作总基调，不忘初心、牢记使命，忠实履行宪法和法律赋予的审判职责，勇于担当作为，紧紧围绕“努力让人民群众在每一个司法案件中感受到公平正义”的目标，深化知识产权审判领域改革，强化审判监督指导，积极发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用，为实现“两个一百年”奋斗目标、实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦提供有效司法保障。 |
| For the purposes of demonstrating the achievements of people's courts in judicial protection of intellectual property in a concentrated manner and maximizing the demonstrating and guiding role of model cases, at the recommendation of all higher people's courts, based on the circumstances of the intellectual property cases tried by the Supreme People's Court in 2018, the Supreme People's Court selected top ten intellectual property cases and fifty model intellectual property cases tried by the Chinese courts in 2018. The lists of these cases and model cases are hereby issued as the reference point for people's courts at all levels in intellectual property trials. | | 为集中展示人民法院知识产权司法保护工作的成就，充分发挥典型案例的示范引导作用，经各高级人民法院推荐，结合2018年最高人民法院审理的知识产权案件情况，我院选定了2018年中国法院10大知识产权案件和50件典型知识产权案例。现将案件和典型案例名单予以印发，供各级人民法院在知识产权审判工作中参考借鉴。 |
| General Office of the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院办公厅 |
| April 17, 2019 | | 2019年4月17日 |
| Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2018 | | 2018年中国法院10大知识产权案件 |
| 1. Parfums Christian Dior v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (Case of administrative dispute over review of trademark application rejection) (Administrative Judgment No. 26 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 1.克里斯蒂昂迪奥尔香料公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法行再26号行政判决书〕 |
| 2. Wuxi Guowei Ceramic Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. and Jiang Guoping v. Changshu Linzhi Electric Heating Components Co., Ltd. and Suning.com Group Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a utility model patent) (Civil Judgment No. 111 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 2.无锡国威陶瓷电器有限公司、蒋国屏与常熟市林芝电热器件有限公司、苏宁易购集团股份有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法民再111号民事判决书〕 |
| 3. UNIQLO Commercial and Trading Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Compass Exhibition Service Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Zhongwei Enterprise Management Consulting Service Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Global Harbour Store of UNIQLO Commercial and Trading Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (No. 396 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 3.优衣库商贸有限公司与广州市指南针会展服务有限公司、广州中唯企业管理咨询服务有限公司、优衣库商贸有限公司上海月星环球港店侵害商标权纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法民再396号民事判决书〕 |
| 4. Jiangling Motors Holding Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of the National Intellectual Property Administration, Jaguar Land Rover Public Ltd. C and Gerard Gabriel McGovern (Case of administrative dispute over invalidity of a design patent) (Administrative Judgment No. 4169 [2018], Final, Administrative Division, Beijing, of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality) | | 4.江铃控股有限公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、捷豹路虎有限公司、杰拉德·加布里埃尔·麦戈文外观设计专利权无效行政纠纷案〔北京市高级人民法院（2018）京行终4169号行政判决书〕 |
| 5. Beijing Microlive Vision Technology Co., Ltd. v. Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Baidu Net News Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon right to communicate works over information networks (Civil Judgment No. 1 [2018], First, Civil Division, 0491, Beijing, of the Beijing Internet Court) | | 5.北京微播视界科技有限公司与百度在线网络技术（北京）有限公司、百度网讯科技有限公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案〔北京互联网法院（2018）京0491民初1号民事判决书〕 |
| 6. Beijing Doneed Seed Co., Ltd. and Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences v. Henan Goldoctor Seeds Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a new plant variety (Civil Judgment No. 00356 [2015], Final, Civil Division, Intellectual Property, Henan, of the Higher People's Court of Henan Province) | | 6.北京德农种业有限公司、河南省农业科学院与河南金博士种业股份有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案〔河南省高级人民法院（2015）豫法知民终字第00356号民事判决书〕 |
| 7. Beijing Cheetah Network Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing Cheetah Mobile Technology Co., Ltd., and Beijing Kingsoft Security Software Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai 2345 Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over unfair competition) (Civil Judgment No. 5 [2018], Final, Civil Division, 73, Shanghai, of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court) | | 7.北京猎豹网络科技有限公司、北京猎豹移动科技有限公司、北京金山安全软件有限公司与上海二三四五网络科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案〔上海知识产权法院（2018）沪73民终5号民事判决书〕 |
| 8. Shenzhen QVOD Technology Co., Ltd. v. Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Shenzhen City and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over administrative penalty related to copyright) (Criminal Judgment No. 492 [2016], Final, Administrative Division, Guangdong, of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province) | | 8.深圳市快播科技有限公司与深圳市市场监督管理局、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司著作权行政处罚纠纷案〔广东省高级人民法院（2016）粤行终492号行政判决书〕 |
| 9. Case of Judicial Sanctions of Statutory Upper Limits on Jinjiang Qingyang Xin New BaiLun Shoes Factory, Zheng Chaozhong and Bostak Trading Co., Ltd. in Licheng District, Putian City for Refusal to Satisfy a Ruling on Interim Act Preservation due to Disputes over Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition between New Balance Trade (China) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen New Balance Sporting Goods Co., Ltd. (Reconsideration Decision No. 19 [2017], Judicial Punishment, Jiangsu, of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province) (Reconsideration Decision No. 4 [2018], Judicial Punishment, Jiangsu, of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province) | | 9.晋江市青阳新钮佰伦鞋厂、郑朝忠；莆田市荔城区搏斯达克贸易有限公司因新百伦贸易（中国）有限公司与深圳市新平衡运动体育用品有限公司等侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷拒不履行诉中行为保全裁定被处法定最高限额司法制裁案〔江苏省高级人民法院（2017）苏司惩复19号复议决定书；（2018）苏司惩复4号复议决定书〕 |
| 10. Case of a Crime of Illegal manufacturing of Registered Trademark Logos by Defendants Li Gongzhi and Wu Qin (Criminal Judgment No. 655 [2018], Final, Criminal Division, 03, Guangdong, of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province) | | 10.被告人李功志、巫琴非法制造注册商标标识罪案〔广东省深圳市中级人民法院（2018）粤03刑终655号刑事判决书〕 |
| Fifty Model Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2018 | | 2018年中国法院50件典型知识产权案例 |
| I. Civil Cases Relating to Intellectual Property | | 一、知识产权民事案件 |
| 1. Cases of dispute over patent infringement | | （一）侵犯专利权纠纷案件 |
| (1) Linhai Linong Machinery Factory v. Lu Jie, Wu Maofa, Li Chengren, and Zhang Tianhai (Case of dispute over infringement upon a utility model patent) (Civil Ruling No. 1804 [2017], Petition, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 1.临海市利农机械厂与陆杰、吴茂法、李成任、张天海侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2017）最高法民申1804号民事裁定书〕 |
| (2) Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Sihuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Ruling No. 4107 [2017], Petition, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 2.齐鲁制药有限公司与北京四环制药有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2017）最高法民申4107号民事裁定书〕 |
| (3) Ningbo AUX Air Conditioners Co., Ltd. v. Zhuhai Gree Electric Appliances Inc. and Guangzhou Jingdong Trading Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a utility model patent) (Civil Judgment No. 93 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Jurisdiction, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 3.宁波奥克斯空调有限公司与珠海格力电器股份有限公司、广州晶东贸易有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷管辖异议案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法民辖终93号民事裁定书〕 |
| (4) Beijing Baidu Net News Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd. and Beijing Sogou Information Service Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Judgment No. 498 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Beijing, of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality) | | 4.北京百度网讯科技有限公司与北京搜狗科技发展有限公司、北京搜狗信息服务有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔北京市高级人民法院（2018）京民终498号民事判决书〕 |
| (5) Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Shanghai Yuanjia Plastics Co., Ltd., Shanghai Yushuaiwei Industrial Co., Ltd., Luo Wenjing, and Luo Xianwei (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Judgment No. 459 [2016], Final, Civil Division, Shanghai, of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality) | | 5.3M公司与上海源嘉塑胶有限公司、上海誉帅维实业有限公司、罗雯晶、罗贤威侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔上海市高级人民法院（2016）沪民终459号民事判决书〕 |
| (6) Hu Tao v. Mobike (Beijing) Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Judgment No. 369 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Shanghai, of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality) | | 6.胡涛与摩拜（北京）信息技术有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔上海市高级人民法院（2017）沪民终369号民事判决书〕 |
| (7) Canon Inc. v. Shanghai Muming Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Judgment No. 596 [2017], First, Civil Division, 73, Shanghai, of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court) | | 7.佳能株式会社与上海慕名电子科技有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔上海知识产权法院（2017）沪73民初596号民事判决书〕 |
| (8) Wenzhou Sorbo Technology Co., Ltd. and Wenzhou Shengbo Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ningbo Dayang Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a utility model patent) (Civil Judgment No. 139 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Zhejiang, of the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province) | | 8.温州硕而博科技有限公司、温州市盛博科技有限公司与宁波大央工贸有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案〔浙江省高级人民法院（2018）浙民终139号民事判决书〕 |
| (9) Jiangsu Odin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Tibet Odin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., and Nanjing Odin Technology Co., Ltd. v. Suzhou UC Nano Technologies Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a utility model patent) (Civil Judgment No. 171 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Fujian, of the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province) | | 9.江苏欧帝电子科技有限公司、西藏欧帝电子科技有限公司、南京欧帝科技股份有限公司与苏州泛普科技股份有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案〔福建省高级人民法院（2018）闽民终171号民事判决书〕 |
| (10) Hu Xiaoqun and Zhu Jiangrong v. Shandong Huinuo Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Judgment No. 870 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Shandong, of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province) | | 10.胡小泉、朱江蓉与山东省惠诺药业有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔山东省高级人民法院（2018）鲁民终870号民事判决书〕 |
| (11) Xuchang Ruishi Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tsinghua University and Tongfang NUCTECH Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent for invention) (Civil Judgment No. 1183 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Henan, of the Higher People's Court of Henan Province) | | 11.许昌瑞示电子科技有限公司与清华大学、同方威视技术股份有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〔河南省高级人民法院（2017）豫民终1183号民事判决书〕 |
| (12) Shenzhen Purcotton Technology Co., Ltd. v. Yichang Xinlong Hygienic Materials Co., Ltd. and Xinlong Holding (Group) Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a patent) (Civil Judgment No. 2796 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Hubei, of the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province) | | 12.深圳全棉时代科技有限公司与宜昌市欣龙卫生材料有限公司、欣龙控股（集团）股份有限公司侵害专利权纠纷案〔湖北省高级人民法院（2017）鄂民终2796号民事判决书〕 |
| (13) Romney Photoelectrical Systems Technology (Guangdong) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Jinglu Trading Co., Ltd. v. Guangdong PAK Corporation Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a design patent) (Civil Judgment No. 2900 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Guangdong, of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province) | | 13.罗姆尼光电系统技术（广东）有限公司、广州旌露贸易有限公司与广东三雄极光照明股份有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案〔广东省高级人民法院（2017）粤民终2900号民事判决书〕 |
| (14) Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Jiedian Technology Co., Ltd. and Aeon Mall (Guangdong) Commercial Management Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a utility model patent) (Civil Rulings No. 1851-1852 [2018], First, Civil Division, 73, Guangdong, of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court) | | 14.深圳来电科技有限公司与深圳街电科技有限公司、永旺梦乐城（广东）商业管理有限公司侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案〔广州知识产权法院（2018）粤73民初1851-1852号之一民事裁定书〕 |
| 2. Cases of disputes over trademark infringement and contracts | | （二）商标权侵权、合同等纠纷案件 |
| (15) Shenyang Tangshi Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Guangzhou Fangfan Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Xinzhizun Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Baicao Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 525 [2016], First, Civil Division, 01, Liaoning, of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenyang City, Liaoning Province) | | 15.沈阳唐氏生物科技有限公司与广州方凡生物科技有限公司、深圳市新至尊科技有限公司、深圳市百草生物科技有限公司、浙江天猫网络有限公司、浙江淘宝网络有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案〔辽宁省沈阳市中级人民法院（2016）辽01民初525号民事判决书〕 |
| (16) Activision Publishing Inc. v. Huaxia Film Distribution Co., Ltd. and Shanghai PPTV Media Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over copyright infringement, trademark infringement, use of the unique name of a well-known commodity without approval, and false publicity) (Civil Judgment No. 222 [2018], Final, Civil Division, 73, Shanghai, of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court) | | 16.动视出版公司与华夏电影发行有限责任公司、上海聚力传媒技术有限公司侵害著作权、侵害商标权、擅自使用知名商品特有名称及虚假宣传纠纷案〔上海知识产权法院（2018）沪73民终222号民事判决书〕 |
| (17) Bright Diary Co., Ltd. v. Gourmet Master Co., Ltd. and Shanghai E-MartSupercenter Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 289 [2018], Final, Civil Division, 73, Shanghai, of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court) | | 17.光明乳业股份有限公司与美食达人股份有限公司、上海易买得超市有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案〔上海知识产权法院（2018）沪73民终289号民事判决书〕 |
| (18) Zhejiang Elegant Living Baroque Flooring Co., Ltd. v. Baroque Wood (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd., Mendini Flooring Commercial House in Chengxiang Township, Taicang City, and Fujian Shixiang Furnishing Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 1297 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Jiangsu, of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province) | | 18.浙江生活家巴洛克地板有限公司与巴洛克木业（中山）有限公司、太仓市城厢镇门迪尼地板商行、福建世象家居有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案〔江苏省高级人民法院（2017）苏民终1297号民事判决书〕 |
| (19) Hangzhou Robam Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Robam Industrial Group Co., Ltd. v. Boss Electric Equipment HK Int'l (China) Share Limited, Xiamen Roband Electric Equipment Technology Co., Ltd., Shengzhou Roband Electric Equipment Co., Ltd., Zhuanghe Roband Kitchen Electric Equipment Sales Center, and Shengzhou Sandu Electric Appliances Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition) (Civil Judgment No. 20 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Zhejiang, of the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province) | | 19.杭州老板电器股份有限公司、杭州老板实业集团有限公司与老板电器香港国际（中国）股份有限公司、厦门市乐保德电器科技有限公司、嵊州市乐保德电器有限公司、庄河市乐保德厨电销售中心、嵊州市三都电器有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案〔浙江省高级人民法院（2018）浙民终20号民事判决书〕 |
| (20) Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Anhui Weixin Health Care Products Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 526 [2017], First, Civil Division, 01, Anhui, of the Intermediate People's Court of Hefei City, Anhui Province) | | 20.腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司与安徽微信保健品有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案〔安徽省合肥市中级人民法院（2017）皖01民初526号民事判决书〕 |
| (21) Alibaba (Global) Industrial Investment Holding Group Co., Ltd. v. Jiangxi Xingshuo Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 15 [2017], First, Civil Division, 71, Jiangxi, of the Nanchang Intermediate Court of Railway Transportation) | | 21.阿里巴巴（全球）实业投资控股集团有限公司与江西星烁信息技术有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案〔南昌铁路运输中级法院（2017）赣71民初 15号民事判决书〕 |
| (22) Heineken Brewery Co., Ltd. v. Shandong Jinfulong Beer Co., Ltd., and Changle Xili Brewery Co., Ltd., and Zhang Guohua (Case of dispute over trademark infringement and unfair competition) (Civil Judgment No. 590 [2017], First, Civil Division, 07, Shandong, of the Intermediate People's Court of Weifang City, Shandong Province) | | 22.喜力酿酒厂有限公司与山东金孚龙啤酒有限公司、昌乐喜力酒业有限公司、张国华侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案〔山东省潍坊市中级人民法院（2017）鲁07民初590号民事判决书〕 |
| (23) Guangzhou Docod Precision Machinery Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Xinke Industrial Design Co., Ltd. v. Domino Printing Sciences PLC (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 2659 [2017], Final, Civil Division, Guangdong, of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province) | | 23.广州市杜高精密机电有限公司、广州心可工业设计有限公司与多米诺印刷科学有限公司侵害商标权纠纷案〔广东省高级人民法院（2017）粤民终2659号民事判决书〕 |
| (24) Yunnan Baotian Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd. v. Nayong Minzheng Agricultural Planting Farmers' Specialized Cooperative (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 135 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Yunnan, of the Higher People's Court of Yunnan Province) | | 24.云南宝田农业科技有限公司与纳雍民正种植农民专业合作社侵害商标权纠纷案〔云南省高级人民法院（2018）云民终135号民事判决书〕 |
| (25) Chen Shilong v. Mu Siqiong, Chen Shengyun, and Chen Yang (Case of dispute over trademark infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 74 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Tibet, of the Higher People's Court of Tibet Autonomous Region) | | 25.陈世龙与穆思琼、陈胜云、陈阳侵害商标权纠纷案〔西藏自治区高级人民法院（2018）藏民终74号民事判决书〕 |
| 3. Cases of disputes over copyright infringement and ownership | | （三）著作权侵权、权属纠纷案件 |
| (26) Ge Huaisheng v. Li Zicheng (Case of dispute over copyright infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 175 [2016], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 26.葛怀圣与李子成侵害著作权纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2016）最高法民再175号民事判决书〕 |
| (27) Future Television Limited (NewTV) v. Galaxy Internet Television Co., Ltd., Henan Daxiang Merged Media Group Co., Ltd., CMCC Henan Co., Ltd., and Inspur Software Group Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon the right to communicate works over information networks (Civil Judgment No. 1592 [2017], First, Civil Division, 0116, Tianjin, of the People's Court of Binhai New District, Tianjin Municipality) | | 27.未来电视有限公司与银河互联网电视有限公司、河南大象融媒体集团有限公司、中国移动通信集团河南有限公司、浪潮软件集团有限公司侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案〔天津市滨海新区人民法院（2017）津0116民初1592号民事判决书〕 |
| (28) Shanghai Zhidou Electric Vehicle Co., Ltd. v. Dassault Systemes (Case of dispute over infringement upon computer software copyright) (Civil Judgment No. 429 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Shanghai, of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality) | | 28.上海知豆电动车技术有限公司与达索系统股份有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案〔上海市高级人民法院（2018）沪民终429号民事判决书〕 |
| (29) Beijing ByteDance Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jiangsu Modern Express Media Co., Ltd., Wuxi Branch of Jiangsu Modern Express Media Co., Ltd., and Beijing ByteDance Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over copyright infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 588 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Jiangsu, of the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province) | | 29.北京字节跳动科技有限公司与江苏现代快报传媒有限公司、江苏现代快报传媒有限公司无锡分公司及北京字节跳动网络技术有限公司侵害著作权纠纷案〔江苏省高级人民法院（2018）苏民终588号民事判决书〕 |
| (30) Li Huiqing and Chen Wencan v. Fuzhou University (Case of dispute over copyright ownership and infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 1515 [2018], Final, Civil Division, 02, Fujian, of the Intermediate People's Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province) | | 30.李惠卿、陈文灿与福州大学著作权权属、侵权纠纷案〔福建省厦门市中级人民法院（2018）闽02民终1515号民事判决书〕 |
| (31) Guangzhou Qiuzhi Education Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing SINA Internet Information Service Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon computer software copyright) (Civil Judgment No. 1387 [2016], First, Civil Division, 73, Guangdong, of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court) | | 31.广州求知教育科技有限公司与北京新浪互联信息服务有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案〔广州知识产权法院（2016）粤73民初1387号民事判决书〕 |
| (32) Chongqing Architectural Design Institute v. Tsinghua Tongfang Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over copyright infringement) (Civil Judgment No. 234 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Chongqing, of the Higher People's Court of Chongqing Municipality) | | 32.重庆市设计院与同方股份有限公司侵害著作权纠纷案〔重庆市高级人民法院（2018）渝民终234号民事判决书〕 |
| 4. Cases of disputes over unfair competition, monopoly, new plant varieties, and intellectual property contracts | | （四）不正当竞争、垄断、植物新品种、知识产权合同纠纷案件 |
| (33) Hebei Expressway Hengshui-Daming Administrative Office v. Hebei Farun Forestry Technology Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over infringement upon a new plant variety) (Civil Judgment No. 247 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 33.河北省高速公路衡大管理处与河北法润林业科技有限责任公司侵害植物新品种纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法民再247号民事判决书〕 |
| (34) Karamay Jintuo Transport Service Co., Ltd. v. Karamay Kailong Oil Field Technical Services Co., Ltd. and Tan Yong (Case of dispute over unfair competition) (No. 389 [2018], Retrial, Civil Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 34.克拉玛依金驼运输服务有限公司与克拉玛依市凯隆油田技术服务有限公司、谭勇不正当竞争纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法民再389号民事判决书〕 |
| (35) Anhui Meijing Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over unfair competition) (Civil Judgment No. 7312 [2018], Final, Civil Division, 01, Zhejiang, of the Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province) | | 35.安徽美景信息科技有限公司与淘宝（中国）软件有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案〔浙江省杭州市中级人民法院（2018）浙01民终7312号民事判决书〕 |
| (36) Linwu No. 1 Jintaifu Jewelry Store v. Linwu Jinjiali Jewelry Store, Linwu Jinjiafu Jewelry Store, Zhou Jifen, Li Gaopeng, Tang Yuefeng, Li Lu, Wang Chiying, and Kuang Wenxia (Case of dispute over commercial defamation) (Civil Judgment No. 360 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Hunan, of the Higher People's Court of Hunan Province) | | 36.临武县金泰福珠宝一店与临武县金嘉利珠宝店、临武县金嘉福珠宝店、周继芬、李高鹏、唐月凤、李露、王尺英、邝文霞商业诋毁纠纷案〔湖南省高级人民法院（2018）湘民终360号民事判决书〕 |
| (37) Shenzhen Weiyuanma Software Development Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over monopoly) (Civil Judgment No. 250 [2017], First, Civil Division, 03, Guangdong, of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province) | | 37.深圳微源码软件开发有限公司与腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司垄断纠纷案〔广东省深圳市中级人民法院（2017）粤03民初250号民事判决书〕 |
| (38) Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Guangyuan Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Shao Lingshuang, Chen Mao, Liu Jianghong, Liu Kunpeng, and Zhang Xiang (Case of dispute over unfair competition) (Civil Judgment No. 822 [2017], First, Civil Division, 03, Guangdong, of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province) | | 38.深圳市谷米科技有限公司与武汉元光科技有限公司、邵凌霜、陈昴、刘江红、刘坤朋、张翔不正当竞争纠纷案〔广东省深圳市中级人民法院（2017）粤03民初822号民事判决书〕 |
| (39) Hainan Huluwa Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd. v. Guangxi Kelun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over confirmation of contract validity) (Civil Judgment No. 134 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Guangxi, of the Higher People's Court of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region) | | 39.海南葫芦娃药业集团股份有限公司与广西科伦制药有限公司确认合同效力纠纷案〔广西壮族自治区高级人民法院（2018）桂民终134号民事判决书〕 |
| (40) Chengdu Tianchu Gourmet Powder Co., Ltd. and Shuangjiao Food Department in Jiangbei District, and Liu Qiong v. Chongqing Tianchu Tian Yan Food Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over unfair competition) (Civil Judgment No. 3926 [2017], Final, Civil Division, 01, Chongqing, of the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Chongqing Municipality) | | 40.成都天厨味精有限公司、江北区双骄食品经营部、刘琼与重庆天厨天雁食品有限责任公司不正当竞争纠纷案〔重庆市第一中级人民法院（2017）渝01民终3926号民事判决书〕 |
| (41) TUB Pipe (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. DBEN Pipe Fitting (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Guizhou DBEN Pipe Co., Ltd. (Case of dispute over commercial defamation) (Civil Judgment No. 665 [2018], Final, Civil Division, Guizhou, of the Higher People's Court of Guizhou Province) | | 41.德标管业（深圳）有限公司与德标管业（上海）有限公司、贵州德标管业有限公司商业诋毁纠纷案〔贵州省高级人民法院（2018）黔民终665号民事判决书〕 |
| II. Administrative Cases Relating to Intellectual Property | | 二、知识产权行政案件 |
| 1. Administrative cases relating to patents | | （一）专利行政案件 |
| (42) IEE (Langfang) Electronic Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Wang He, Yao Peng, and Patent Reexamination Board of the National Intellectual Property Administration (Case of administrative dispute over invalidity of a utility model patent) (Administrative Judgment No. 33 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 42.埃意（廊坊）电子工程有限公司与王贺、姚鹏、国家知识产权局专利复审委员会实用新型专利权无效行政纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法行再33号行政判决书〕 |
| (43) AstraZeneca (Sweden) Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board of the National Intellectual Property Administration and Shenzhen Salubris Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Case of administrative dispute over invalidity of a patent for invention) (Administrative Judgment No. 6345 [2018], Final, Administrative Division, Beijing, of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality) | | 43.阿斯利康（瑞典）有限公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、深圳信立泰药业股份有限公司发明专利权无效行政纠纷案〔北京市高级人民法院（2018）京行终6345号行政判决书〕 |
| 2. Administrative cases relating to trademarks | | （二）商标行政案件 |
| (44) Guangzhou Sealy Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. and Jinan Qianbei Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Poker City Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (Case of administrative dispute over trademark objection review) (Administrative Judgment No. 96 [2016], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 44.广州市希力电子科技有限公司、济南千贝信息科技有限公司与上海波克城市网络科技股份有限公司、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标异议复审行政纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2016）最高法行再96号行政判决书〕 |
| (45) DSM IP Assets B.V. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, Lou Yuebin, Lou Yuequn, Lou Zhaofa, and Lai Junzhe (Case of administrative dispute over trademark objection review) (Administrative Judgment No. 76 [2017], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 45.帝斯曼公司知识产权资产有限公司、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、楼跃斌、楼跃群、楼照法、赖俊哲商标异议复审行政纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2017）最高法行再76号行政判决书〕 |
| (46) Lacoste Co., Ltd. v. Cartelo Crocodile Pte Ltd. and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (Case of administrative dispute over a trademark) (Administrative Judgment No. 134 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 46.拉科斯特股份有限公司与卡帝乐鳄鱼私人有限公司、国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标争议行政纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法行再134号行政判决书〕 |
| (47) Trademark Office of State Administration for Industry and Commerce v. Anhui Huayuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Yixintang Pharmacy Chain Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Jianyiwang Pharmacy Chain Operation Co., Ltd. (Case of administrative dispute over a trademark) (Administrative Judgment No. 2345 [2016], Final, Administrative Division, Beijing, of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality) | | 47.国家工商行政管理总局商标局与安徽华源医药股份有限公司、易心堂大药房连锁股份有限公司、上海健一网大药房连锁经营有限公司商标行政纠纷案〔北京市高级人民法院（2016）京行终2345号行政判决书〕 |
| (48) Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (Case of administrative dispute over review of trademark application rejection) (Administrative Judgment No. 3673 [2018], Final, Administrative Division, Beijing, of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality) | | 48.国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会与腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷案〔北京市高级人民法院（2018）京行终3673号行政判决书〕 |
| (49) Hong Kong Zhou Liu Fu Jewelry International Group Co., Ltd. v. Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Panzhou City (Case of dispute over industrial and commercial administration) (Administrative Judgment No. 1590 [2018], Final, Administrative Division, Guizhou, of the Higher People's Court of Guizhou Province) | | 49.香港周六福珠宝国际集团有限公司与盘州市市场监督管理局工商行政管理纠纷案〔贵州省高级人民法院（2018）黔行终1590号行政判决书〕 |
| 3. Criminal case relating to intellectual property | | 三、知识产权刑事案件 |
| (50) Case involving Jushi Online (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. and Huang Ming for the crime of infringement upon copyright (Criminal Judgment No. 1932 [2018], First, Criminal Division, Beijing, of the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality) | | 50.巨石在线（北京）科技有限公司、黄明侵犯著作权罪案〔北京市海淀区人民法院（2018）京0108刑初1932号刑事判决书〕 |
| Brief Introductions to the Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2018 | | 2018年中国法院10大知识产权案件简介 |
| I. Case of Administrative Dispute over International Registration of a Three-Dimensional Trademark by Parfums Christian Dior | | 一、迪奥尔公司立体商标国际注册行政纠纷案 |
| Parfums Christian Dior v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (Case of administrative dispute over review of trademark application rejection) (Administrative Judgment No. 26 [2018], Retrial, Administrative Division, SPC, of the Supreme People's Court) | | 克里斯蒂昂迪奥尔香料公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会商标申请驳回复审行政纠纷案〔最高人民法院（2018）最高法行再26号行政判决书〕 |
| [Case Summary] The trademark invovled in the case was an internationally registered trademark (No.1221382) with Parfums Christian Dior (hereinafter referred to as “Dior Company”) as the applicant. The country of origin of the trademark in question was France, the date of approved registration was April 16, 2014, the date of international registration was August 8, 2014, the international registration owner was Dior Company, and the commodities on which the trademark in question was designated to be used included perfumes and eau de parfums. | | 【案情摘要】涉案申请商标为国际注册第1221382号商标，申请人为克里斯蒂昂迪奥尔香料公司（简称迪奥尔公司）。申请商标的原属国为法国，核准注册时间为2014年4月16日，国际注册日期为2014年8月8日，国际注册所有人为迪奥尔公司，指定使用商品为香水、浓香水等。 |
After the international registration of the trademark in question, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks and the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (hereinafter referred to as the “Madrid Agreement and the Protocol”), through the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereinafter referred to as the “International Bureau”), Dior Company filed applications for territorial extension protection with Australia, Denmark, Finland, the U.K., and China. On July 13, 2015, the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Office”) issued a notice of rejecting the trademark in question to the International Bureau on the ground that the trademark in question lacked distinctiveness, and it rejected applications for territorial extension protection of all designated commodities in China. During the statutory period, Dior Company filed a review application with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the “Trademark Review and Adjudication Board”). The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board held that it was difficult for the trademark in question to play a role of differentiating commodities and the trademark lacked due distinctiveness of a trademark. Therefore, in the decision (No. 13584), it rejected the application for territorial extension protection of the trademark in China. Dior Company refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit. Dior Company alleged that: First, the trademark in question was a three-dimensional trademark with designated colors. Dior Company has submitted to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board the views of three sides of the trademark, but the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board reviewed the trademark as an ordinary one. Therefore, the factual basis for making the aforesaid decision was erroneous. Second, the trademark had a unique design and upon long-term publicity and popularization by Dior Company, it had strong distinctiveness. The application for its territorial extension protection should be supported.
．．．．．． | | 申请商标经国际注册后，根据《商标国际注册马德里协定》《商标国际注册马德里协定有关议定书》的相关规定，迪奥尔公司通过世界知识产权组织国际局（简称国际局），向澳大利亚、丹麦、芬兰、英国、中国等提出领土延伸保护申请。2015年7月13日，国家工商行政管理总局商标局（简称商标局）向国际局发出申请商标的驳回通知书，以申请商标缺乏显著性为由，驳回全部指定商品在中国的领土延伸保护申请。在法定期限内，迪奥尔公司向国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会（简称商标评审委员会）提出复审申请。商标评审委员会认为，申请商标难以起到区别商品来源的作用，缺乏商标应有的显著性，遂以第13584号决定，驳回申请商标在中国的领土延伸保护申请。迪奥尔公司不服，提起行政诉讼。迪奥尔公司认为，首先，申请商标为指定颜色的三维立体商标，迪奥尔公司已经向商标评审委员会提交了申请商标的三面视图，但商标评审委员会却将申请商标作为普通商标进行审查，决定作出的事实基础有误。其次，申请商标设计独特，并通过迪奥尔公司长期的宣传推广，具有了较强的显著性，其领土延伸保护申请应当获得支持。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1800.00】 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
|
| | | |
| | | |