Weekly China Trademark News Updates

October 25, 2023

1. A trademark containing deceptive elements cannot be registered by giving up some of its constituent elements and limiting the scope of goods

Disputed Mark	Designated Goods
No. G1563666	Class 22: Carbon fibers for textiles; nonwoven polymer fibers for textiles; textile fibers; plastic fibers for textiles; chemical fibers for textiles; polyimide fibers for textiles; all the above goods are related to polyimide (PI) in the field of new materials.

In an administrative dispute between PI Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. (“PAM”) and CNIPA, the Beijing Intellectual Property Office ruled to reject the PAM’s claim.

The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the extended territorial protection of the Disputed Mark for use in Class 22 in China violates the provisions of Article 10(1)(vii) of the Chinese Trademark Law.

The court found that although the goods designated for use by PAM’s Disputed Mark have been limited to “all the above-mentioned goods that are related to polyimide (PI) in the field of new materials”, however, this limitation is PAM’s own limitation on Class 22 related goods. This specific limitation came from its UK-specific basic trademark application. PAM did not submit evidence to prove that the above restrictions had a substantial impact on the goods designated for use for the Disputed Mark. For international registrations that designated China, the CNIPA exams in accordance with the China Trademark Law and relevant regulations. If the application satisfies the Trademark Law or relevant regulations or the trademark used on partial designated goods satisfies the Trademark Law or regulations, it will be preliminarily approved and published for opposition.  The Disputed Mark consisted of the English words “PI” “Advanced Materials” and a design. The English part has the meaning of “polyimide” “advanced materials or new materials” and is designated for use in Class 22 for “carbon fiber for textiles” and other goods. However, the said goods do not necessarily use polyimide in the field of new materials. Based on the general understandings and daily life experience, the public would easily associate the said goods’ characteristics with the attributes of the goods designated by the Disputed Mark, which would cause the public to misunderstand the composition, quality and other characteristics of the goods “carbon fiber for textiles” in Class 22.

In addition, although PAM claimed that it had abandoned the exclusive right to use the English words “PI” and “Advanced Materials” in the Disputed Mark, the relevant public did not naturally know the relevant circumstances of the abandonment of the exclusive rights in the Disputed Mark and would still use the English “PI” and “Advanced Materials” as constituent elements and distinctive part of the trademark. Article 10(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law is an absolute factor in prohibiting the registration of a trademark, and a sign that violate this provision shall not be used as trademarks. Where a mark itself lacks the said characteristic it cannot be overcome by adding other elements or through subsequent use. PAM’s claim that the design part of the Disputed Mark was identifiable and has a high reputation after use does not affect the judgment of whether the Disputed Mark violates Article 10(1)(vii) of the Trademark Law. In addition, trademark right authorization and confirmation cases follow the principle of case-by-case review, and the application, examination, and approval status of other trademarks do not necessarily have relevance to this case. Therefore, the CNIPA’s conclusion that the Disputed Mark violates Article 10(1)(vii) was correct and shall be affirmed.

2. The use of a registered mark in the title of an online store product link constitutes trademark infringement

The Zhejiang High Court recently concluded a trademark infringement dispute between the appellant Chongqing Jinlingyang E-commerce Co., Ltd. (“Jinlingyang”), the appellant Hubei Liangpinpuzi E-commerce Co., Ltd. (“Liangpinpuzi”), and the appellee Zhejiang Tmall Network Co., Ltd. (“Tmall”). The court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Jinlingyang is the registered trademark owner of the “Zihaiguo in Chinese” trademark with reg. no. 28149844 and claimed that Liangpinpuzi uses of the word “Zihaiguo” in the product link title of its online store constituted a trademark infringement of its said registered trademark. The first instance court found that Liangpinpuzi’s action constituted trademark infringement of Jinlingyang’s registered trademark and ordered Liangpinpuzi to compensate Jinlingyang for economic losses and reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement totaling RMB 60,000 (USD8,200). Both parties appealed the first instance judgment.

The key issues of the dispute in the second instance court are: 1. Whether Liangpinpuzi’s action constituted trademark infringement. 2. If there is an infringement, whether the amount of compensation determined by the first instance judgment is reasonable.

Regarding the first issue, the Zhejiang High Court found that the word “Zihaiguo” was used in the product link title of Liangpinpuzi’s subsidiary’s online store to promote the product played a role in identifying the source of the product, and it was a trademark use. The accused infringing product is a self-heating hot pot, which is similar to instant rice, lunch boxes, instant vermicelli and other products approved for use by Jinlingyang’s registered trademark “Zihaiguo” with reg. no. 28149844. “Zihaiguo” is a fanciful word with strong distinctiveness. Liangpinpuzi argued that “Zihaiguo” is a descriptive term but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim. Comparing the accused infringement mark “Zihaiguo” with Jinlingyang’s registered trademark, the text composition, pronunciation, and meaning are all the same. Only the fonts are different. The two constitute similar trademarks. Liangpinpuzi used the word “Zihaiguo” in the title of a product sales link similar to Jinlingyang’s registered trademark, which could easily cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of the product or believe that its source is specifically related to the product with Jinlingyang’s registered trademark, which would cause confusion and mistaken beliefs. Therefore, the accused action of Liangpinpuzi constituted a trademark infringement of Jinlingyang.

Regarding the second issue, the Zhejiang High Court found that Liangpinpuzi had infringed upon Jinlingyang’s registered trademark rights and should bear legal responsibilities such as stopping the infringement and compensating for losses. Regarding the amount of compensation, in the second instance, Jinlingyang claimed a compensation amount of RMB 1.5 million (USD205,007) based on the sales volume of the infringing products of Liangpinpuzi. The Zhejiang High Court held that the first-instance court obtained the transaction data of the accused infringing products from Tmall. The sales volume of the infringing links with the words “Zihaiguo” were 8,220 and 11,469 items, respectively, of which 1,794 were duplicate orders. Although Jinlingyang disputed the data, it did not provide contrary evidence. Under such circumstances, it was not inappropriate for the first instance court to adopt the sales data and use it as a consideration in determining the amount of compensation. Since Jinlingyang’s losses due to the infringement or Liangpinpuzi’s profits from infringement could not be completely ascertained, the first instance court comprehensively considered the nature, manifestation, circumstances and consequences of the infringement of Liangpinpuzi, the price, sales of the infringing products data, the reasonable expenses paid by Jinlingyang to stop the infringement and other factors. The court determined that Liangpinpuzi should compensate Jinlingyang for economic losses of RMB 60,000 (including reasonable rights protection expenses) in the form of statutory compensation, which was within the discretion of the court and was not inappropriate. In summary, the appeals from both parties shall be rejected.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Trademark News Updates

October 12, 2023

1. The CNIPA issues “Guidelines on Same-Day Trademark Applications Procedures”

On September 27, 2023, the CNIPA issued the “Guidelines on Same-Day Trademark Applications Procedures,” which further clarified the examination procedures and precautions for the trademark applications filed on the same day and clarified the exceptions on same-day trademark applications procedures. According to the Guidelines, in principle, the same-day trademark   applications procedure should first determine the ownership of the trademark application rights and followed by a comprehensive substantive examination of the trademark application. However, if there are valid prior trademarks, and/or that the new application violated Article 19(4) and/or Article 4 of the China Trademark Law, such application shall be rejected. The Guidelines listed some specific exceptions, including the “Leishenshan (Thunder God Mountain)” trademark squatting case, the “Bing Dwen Dwen” trademark squatting case, and deliberate same day filings of “Morphy in Chinese” marks, etc.

2. Online submission of trademark oppositions will be fully implemented

On October 7, 2023, the CNIPA issued a notice that starting from December 1, 2023, trademark agencies handling oppositions should, in principle, submit electronic applications through the trademark online service system and no longer submit paper applications.

3. Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd. wins a trademark invalidation case

Cited Marks	Disputed Mark

Gastongerin Electric (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Gastongerin”) applied for registration of the “Gastongerin” trademark with reg. no. 21978816 (“Disputed Mark”) on November 21, 2016. The Disputed Mark was approved for registration on January 7, 2018. Schneider Electric (China) Co., Ltd. (“Schneider”) filed an invalidation based on its Cited Marks. After trial, the CNIPA decided that the Disputed Mark should be invalidated. Gastongerin appealed the CNIPA’s decision to the court. After trial, the court found that the “coaxial cables, power supply materials (wires, cables), telephone lines; etc.” approved under the Disputed Mark and the “wires, batteries, circuit breakers; etc.”  approved under the Cited Marks 1 to 3 fall into the same subclasses based on the CNIPA Classification. The said goods were also similar in functions, uses, production departments, sales channels, consumer objects, etc., and constituted identical or similar goods. The Disputed Mark “Gastongerin” is in English, the Cited Mark 1 is “MERLIN GERIN and Design,” and the Cited Marks 2-3 are both “MERLIN GERIN” in English. Comparing the Disputed Mark with the Cited Marks 1 to 3, the English composition and arrangement of the second half of the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks 1 to 3 were identical. Only the capitalization of the letters was different, hence, these marks shall constitute similar marks. The submitted evidence shows that Gastongerin had previously applied the “MELINGERIN” and “MG” design marks that were similar to Schneider’s “MERLINGERIN” logo, but both were invalidated or refused by the CNIPA. On this basis, if the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks coexist in the market, it will easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, or make the public to believe that there was some connection between the source of the goods. Therefore, the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks constituted similar marks used on identical or similar goods, which violated Article 30 of the 2013 China Trademark Law. Accordingly, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court and the Beijing High Court upheld the CNIPA’s decision.

4. Overseas trademarks use and promotions can be deemed to have been used in China and have a certain degree of fame

Guangzhou Hanhuijiaoren Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (“Hanhuijiaoren”) applied to register the “V7 Toning Light” mark with reg. no. 17769144 (“Disputed Mark”) on August 27, 2015. The Disputed Mark was approved on December 21, 2017. HAVE & BE CO.，LTD (“HAVE & BE”) filed an invalidation against the Disputed Mark. After trial, the CNIPA invalidated the Disputed Mark. Hanhuijiaoren dissatisfied with the decision and appealed to the court. After trial, the court found that the Disputed Mark’s application date was only a few months apart from the time when HAVE & BE launched and promoted the “V7 Toning Light” brand, and that HAVE & BE used and promoted the “V7 Toning Light” mark. The evidence, however, was mostly formed outside China, but in the Internet age, consumers learned about new overseas brands in real time through overseas websites, and purchase hot-selling overseas brand products through new marketing models such as purchasing agents, overseas purchases, and outbound travel duty-free shopping. HAVE & BE also provided evidence showing beauty bloggers’ Weibo posts, purchasing agents’ articles and comments related to “V7 Toning Light” facial cream and other products, which can prove that relevant consumers in China knew of HAVE & BE’s “V7 Toning Light” before the Disputed Mark’s application date, and has a certain degree of understanding and awareness. Comprehensively considered the following circumstances: 1. Hanhuijiaoren and HAVE & BE were operators in the same industry; 2. The “V7 Toning Light” trademark was a made-up word. Hanhuijiaoren applied for registration of an identical mark previously used by HAVE & BE  and Hanhuijiaoren had given no reasonable explanations; 3. Hanhuijiaoren has subjective bad faith in taking advantage of HAVE & BE’s products, which can be determined that before the Disputed Mark’s application date, HAVE & BE’s “V7 Toning Light” mark has been used on “cosmetics” products in China and has a certain degree of fame. Products such as “facial cleanser, cosmetics, toothpaste” used under the Disputed Mrak highly overlapped with “cosmetics” products previously used by HAVE & BE ’s “V7 Toning Light” unregistered mark in terms of production departments, sales channels, consumer groups, etc. These goods constituted as identical or similar goods. The Disputed Mark was identical with the “V7 Toning Light” mark previously used by HAVE & BE. Therefore, the Disputed Mark’s approved goods constituted the situation under the 2013 Trademark Law where “a trademark that is already used by others and has a certain influence shall not be preemptively registered by unfair means” and should be invalidated.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

China’s new punitive damages system bolsters protection against trademark infringement

Weekly China Trademark News Updates

September 20, 2023

1. Legislative Plans of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress involve trademark law, anti-unfair competition law, etc.

The 14th National People’s Congress Standing Committee has recently released its legislative plan, covering a total of 130 cases divided into three categories: the first category is 79 relatively mature draft laws for review, including the Draft Anti-unfair Competition Law, etc. The second category is 51 draft laws that need to be worked on quickly and should be reviewed when conditions are met, including the Draft Trademark Law, etc. The third category is those that have not yet met legislative conditions, and continued research and demonstration such as data ownership and network governance.

2. Capcom’s application for the Chinese name of Street Fighter in class 41 was refused again

The video game company Capcom used “街头霸王”/“街霸” as the Chinese name for its game “Street Fighter.”

CAPCOM U.S.A., INC. (“Capcom”) has successively applied for “街霸 (JIE BA in Chinese)” on online games, amusement arcade services, entertainment, and other services in Class 41 in November 2017, December 2019, and April 2021, but all of them have been refused by the CNIPA based on Article 10.1.8 for unhealthy social influence.

For its third attempt, Capcom had decided to appeal the CNIPA decision to the Beijing IP Court. The Court rejected its claims by affirming Article 10.1.8, and Capcom further pursued the case to the next level, the Beijing High Court, arguing that:

1. The State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television has determined that “JIE BA in Chinese” does not contain objectionable content and complies with national regulations and has approved its publication and operation. The “JIE BA in Chinese” game has never been punished for containing objectionable content since its release in the mainland Chinese market.
2. The Disputed Mark has a positive meaning and does not violate Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law.
3. The Disputed Mark has gained extremely high popularity and reputation through extensive use without causing any adverse effects.
4. A mark containing the word “JIE BA in Chinese” has been approved for registration, which proves that the meaning of ” JIE BA in Chinese” is positive and will not cause any adverse effects.
5. Several prior cases have pointed out that when the CNIPA determines whether a trademark constitutes the circumstances of Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law, it should be based on objective facts and avoid subjective assumptions.

The Beijing High Court has just rendered the second instance judgment. In its opinion, the court held that: in this case, the Disputed Mark consisted of the Chinese characters “街霸.” According to the general understanding of the Chinese public, “街霸” has meanings such as “bully in the street” and “bullying.” If used as a trademark on ” amusement arcade services; entertainment information” and other services, they will likely have a negative impact on China’s culture, which fell under the circumstances stipulated in Article 10.1.8 of the Trademark Law. In addition, the opinion of the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television about the absence of objectionable content in the game “Street Fighter 5” was not necessarily related to the determination whether the Disputed Mark in this case should be approved for registration. The application, review, and approval status of other trademarks are not relevant to this case and cannot be the basis for concluding this case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was affirmed.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Trademark News Updates

September 13, 2023

1. Corporate name conflicted with a prior trademark

The Beijing IP Court concluded a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between the appellant Guangzhou Xuetu Education Consulting Co., Ltd. (“Xuetu”) and the appellee Xiaoyuantong (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xiaoyuantong”). The court made a final judgment that dismissed the appeal and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

The Beijing IP Court found that: here, the Xuetu.com screen recording files and credible timestamp authentication certificates submitted by Xiaoyuantong, and multiple contracts and corresponding invoices signed by Xiaoyuantong and other third parties clearly showed that Xiaoyuantong has promoted its own education, study tours, and other contents to a certain extent, and cooperated with third parties on education, study tours, training, and other businesses, or authorized third parties to use the “Xuetu in Chinese” mark to carry out education, training, and related promotion activities. The “Xuetu in Chinese” logo was displayed or marked on relevant websites and transaction documents, which played a role in distinguishing the source of services. In terms of service content, purpose, object, and method, these services fall into Class 41 for education, organizational education, and Class 39 for tourism. The occurrence or duration of the relevant transactions was three years before the first instance of this case. Accordingly, the first instance court found that the Xiaoyuantong had used the cited mark on a certain scale and had a certain degree of popularity, which was legally justified and was not inappropriate. The Beijing IP Court affirmed the first instance court’s said finding.

In this case, Xuetu promoted the research services it provided as an experiential learning method for students. Compared with the education, organizational education, and travel companionship approved for use of the cited mark, the two are highly related or overlapped in terms of service objects, content, methods, nature, etc., and are similar services. The evidence in the case was insufficient to prove that before Xuetu applied for registration of the trademark “Xuetuyanxue in Chinese” with app. no. 3223265, it used the “Xuetuyanxue in Chinese” logo on a certain scale and had a certain influence.

Xuetu’s use of the “Xuetu in Chinese” logo and the prominent part of the cited mark both contained “Xuetu in Chinese,” and the characters were identical, which constituted as similar marks. The use of the disputed mark on services similar to the approved use of the cited mark was enough to cause confusion to the general public about the source of the service, or tricked to believed that there was a trademark licensing or associated relationship between the two, which violated Article 57(2) of the Chinese Trademark Law. The first instance court’s determination was correct, and this court upheld it.

2. “Mao in Chinese” of “Maotai in Chinese” is a registered trademark of Moutai! The “Zhamao in Chinese” mark application was rejected based on its similarity with “Mao”

The Beijing High Court made a final decision on an administrative dispute case that affirmed the rejection of the “Zhamao in Chinese” trademark application.

The Beijing High Court found that, in this case, the distinctive Chinese character for the disputed trademark is “Zhamao in Chinese,” and the distinctive Chinese characters for each cited trademark were “Mao in Chinese.” If the disputed mark and the cited marks were used in the same or similar class, the relevant public paid general attention is likely to believe that the goods were from the same entity or they have a specific association, which will lead to confusion and misunderstanding, thus, the marks constituted similar trademarks. In addition, the evidence on record submitted by Xiaolin Jiang was insufficient to prove that the disputed mark has gained a certain degree of popularity through use and produced distinctive features that can distinguish it from the cited marks. The findings of the first instance court that the disputed mark violated Article 30 of the Chinese Trademark Law was appropriate, and this court affirmed.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Weekly China Trademark News Updates

September 5, 2023

1. The China Supreme Court fully supports Siemens’ trademark infringement and unfair competition claims of RMB 100 million

Recently, the China Supreme Court (“SPC”) concluded a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit between the appellant Ningbo Qishui Electric Co., Ltd. (“Qishuai”) and the appellees Siemens AG (“Siemens”) and Siemens (China) Co., Ltd. (“Siemens China”). The appeal petition was rejected and the first instance’s decision that Qishuai shall immediately cease infringement and unfair competition acts, and that Qishuai shall compensate Siemens and Siemens China for RMB100 million (USD13.72 million) in economic loss and RMB163,000 (USD22,356) in reasonable expenses was affirmed.

One of the issues in this case was Qishuai’s use of the “Shanghai Siemens Electronics Co., Ltd. in Chinese” logo on a laundry machine’s body. The SPC found that first, Qishuai used the label in a prominent position on the laundry machine. The relevant public was likely to use it to distinguish the source of goods, which shall constitute trademark use. Although Qishuai argued that such logo is the business name of a third party, and it was legally authorized to use such business name, generally, it isn’t common for companies using another company’s name on its product’s prominent position. Second, the product that Qishuai used the logo was the same type of product as those approved for use in class 7 for laundry machine related goods under Siemens’ Cited Mark “Siemens in Chinese.” Third, the “Siemens” consisted in the “Shanghai Siemens Electronics Co., Ltd. in Chinese” logo was the distinctive part of the logo and identical with the Cited Mark. It shall constitute similar mark with the Cited Mark. Accordingly, Qishuai used the “Shanghai Siemens Electronics Co., Ltd. in Chinese” logo on its laundry machine as a trademark, which constituted similar to the Cited Mark “Siemens in Chinese” and was likely to cause confusion among the relevant public. Such use also infringed upon Siemens and Siemens China’s trademark right. Another issue in this case was regarding Qishuai’s use of the business name of “Shanghai Siemens Electronics Co., Ltd. in Chinese” on the package of the infringing product and promotional activities. The “Siemens in Chinese” in said business name was identical with the trade name and registered trademark of Siemens and Siemens China, which was likely to cause relevant public to believe that such product was from Siemens and Siemens China, or mistakenly believe that there were associations with Siemens and Siemens China. Qishuai’s use of other’s business name that has certain influence and other’s registered trademark as trade name constituted unfair competition.

Regarding the amount of compensation, the SPC found that 1) part of the promotional documents submitted by Siemens and Siemens China showed that Qishuai’s scale of production and sales was enormous. Numerous news reported that its annual sales towards RMB1.5 billion. 2) Investigations from various Administration for Market Regulations showed that Qishuai used the “Shanghai Siemens Electronics Co., Ltd. in Chinese” logo in a wide range of laundry machine models for sale that reached most municipalities and provinces nationwide. Meanwhile, Qishuai claimed that it operates more than 1,500 national distributors and has more than 58,000 retailers, which proved the wide range of its products sales. 3) From the numbers of models shown on Qishuai’s 3C certification certificates, it can be assumed that there were numerous infringing products models, and the productions scale was large. Combined with the said fact findings and the profit percentage in the laundry machine industry, it can be found that Qishuai’s production and sale of the infringing products far exceeded the maximum statutory damages in the Anti-unfair Competition Law. Comprehensively consider the relatively high fame of Siemens and Siemens China, objective bad faith of Qishuai, a large scale of infringement, and a long duration, the compensation amount shall be above the maximum statutory number. Given that Qishuai failed to produce its financial data as evidence, the first instance court did not err when it calculated the compensation amount based the total sales found in the submitted new reports evidence, using 1/15 of the percentage of the infringing products’ sales in reaching its decision.

2. The Jiangsu High Court cited the Anti-unfair Competition Law to protect foreign geographical indications across industries

The Suzhou Intermediate Court concluded a first instance unfair competition dispute between the plaintiff, the French National Cognac Industry Office (“Cognac Industry Office”), and the defendants Ford Motor (China) Co., Ltd. (“Ford China”), Changan Ford Motor Co., Ltd. (“Changan Ford”), and Suzhou Tianchi Xinjia Automobile Sales & Service Co., Ltd. (“Tianchi”).  The Suzhou Intermediate Court found that Ford China, Changan Ford shall immediately stop using “Cognac in Chinese” and “COGNAC,” geographical indications, as the name of color of its cars. Changan Ford shall immediately stop sales said cars. The defendants shall compensate the plaintiff for RMB2 million (USD 274,145) in economic loss and reasonable expenses. The Jiangsu High Court recently concluded the second instance trial that rejected the appeal and affirmed the Suzhou Intermediate Court’s decision.

The Court found that Ford China, Changan Ford named four models of its cars in three styles as “Special COGNAC version” that used “CONGAC” prominently and has cognac brown interiors. Moreover, large amount of promotional materials used various explanations and comparisons to highlight the differences in these special version cars compared to regular version in order to enhance the style and taste of the cars involved in the case.

In China’s color regulations, “COGNAC” is not included and cognac brown is also not a generic name that’s commonly used. Under the circumstances that Cognac, as a geographical indicator, is highly famous, Ford China and Changan Ford, as a worldwide car manufacturer, could not possibly be unaware of its fame. Multinational companies like Ford China and Changan Ford shall bear higher intellectual property awareness than other regular businesses. It shall apply stringent considerations when naming its car models and avoid infringing other’s legal interests. However, instead of fulfilling its reasonable duty of care, Ford China and Changan Ford established a specific relationship with the Cognac geographical indication through various improper methods, which caused confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public.

The relevant public of Cognac includes high-end consumers, which has certain overlap with car consumers of Ford China and Changan Ford. Their actions were enough to mislead the relevant public and make the relevant public mistakenly believe that the four models of cars in three styles have some specific connection with the Cognac Industry Office and were launched in cooperation with the Cognac Industry Office. Although Cognac as a geographical indication mainly refers to a type of wine, under the trend of diversified development of modern industries, cross-border cooperation and mixed operations are becoming more and more common, Ford China and Changan Ford’s use of “Cognac in Chinese” and “COGNAC” can easily cause confusion among the relevant public. Their behavior was clearly an act of improper use of the goodwill of “Cognac” that was confusing enough to cause people to mistake it for Cognac related goods or has a specific connection with Cognac, the location, and constituted unfair competition.

In particular, it should be pointed out that the reason why Ford China and Changan Ford’s involvement in the case constituted unfair competition is that there is another important interest balance to prevent the risk of generalization of the “Cognac” geographical indication. Even if the acts of Ford China and Changan Ford would not cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, since Ford China and Changan Ford are part of a worldwide automobile manufacturer that has a large number of consumer groups. Their use of the “Cognac” geographical indication in the naming of automobile products and interior colors would cause the relevant public include additional meanings to the original understanding of “Cognac” as the geographical indication of the special origin of a type of brandy wine. Such use by Ford China and Changan Ford will definitely weaken its original meaning as the special origin of a type of brandy wine, and exposed “Cognac” to become a generic name. Ford China and Changan Ford’s acts enhanced the possibility of revocation of Cognac as a geographic indicator, which undoubtedly damage the long term promotion, marketing, and operating of “Cognac” as a geographic indicator by the Cognac Industry Office. Consider the above, the court made a negative evaluation of the behaviors of Ford China and Changan Ford in order to provide legal guidance to the behavior of other market players.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China

Recently, BEIJING EAST IP LTD assisted a Chinese sports equipment company to successfully solve the problem that its products sold on Amazon in Japan were complained by competitors for infringing Japanese design patent, and quickly lifted the delisting punishment.

China IP News
 Takeaway Tips for IP Practice in China

Introduction

In 2018, under the strong leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCP) with Xi Jinping as the leadership’s core and guided by the underlying precepts of Chinese socialism for the new era, the People’s Courts have applied the principles and implemented instructions decided at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (“Party Congress”)，the second and third plena of the 19th CCP Central Committee and the Central Political and Legal Work Conference. They studied and applied the ideals of General-Secretary Xi Jinping’s key addresses, and fostered

the “four aspects of consciousness”—consciousness in political correctness, in serving the broader interests, in following the core leadership, and in staying aligned with the central party leadership; the “four matters of confidence”一confidence in the path of Chinese socialism, in the theoretical foundation of the path, in the system of Chinese socialism and in the Chinese culture; and the “two pillars to safeguard”—safeguarding the core status of General Secretary Xi Jinping, and the central and unified leadership of the CCP Central Committee. The People’s Courts adopted a steady and progressive approach to work, keeping in mind their earliest aspirations and the current mission, and discharging adjudicatory responsibilities as conferred by the Constitution and the law. Our judges have been our trusted achievers, as they endeavoured to deliver for the people a sense of equality and justice in every case handled by the judiciary. Reforms in intellectual property adjudication have deepened, and supervision and guidance for adjudicatory operations have increased. And as the courts strive to make the courtroom the principal forum for intellectual property protection, they are also providing effective judicial safeguards, in the process of working tenaciously toward the “two centennial goals”, and toward achieving the China dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

1. Buttressing judicial protection and leveraging
   the judicial process

In a speech delivered at the conference celebrating the 40th anniversary of China’s reform and opening-up, General-Secretary Xi Jinping emphasised the importance of following through the innovation-driven development strategy by creating a more enabling eco-system for innovation and accelerating proprietary innovation of key technologies to forge new socio-economic growth engines., Given China’s strategic thrust of elevating technological innovation capabilities and promoting high-quality economic development, strengthening protection of intellectual property is a natural and necessary option. Last year was marked by soaring case-load, with massive increase in new types of cases and cases of gravity and complexity. Adjudication was thus more challenging. Law enforcement and adjudication is and will always be the people’s courts’ top priority, where civil adjudication is the primary focus of the courts’ adjudication practice, followed by administrative and criminal adjudication, both of which being equally important. The fact-finding process is rigorous, law-application prudent and judicial policies elucidated to ensure lawful and efficient adjudication of intellectual property disputes.

Last year; the People’s Courts accepted a total of 334,951 intellectual property cases, including first instance and second instance cases and applications for extraordinary legal remedy to reopen cases, and concluded 319,651cases (including carried forward cases), representing a respective year-on-year increase of 41.19% and 41.64%.

• More effective adjudication of civil disputes to ensure sustained and sound socio-economic development

Throughout the past year; the People’s Courts have directed efforts to meeting the new goals and new demands on the intellectual property judicial protection under the comprehensive deepening of reform agenda, delivered fair justice, and strengthened civil adjudication to better protect intellectual property rights and the full interests of the rights holders.

In 2018, the local people’s courts accepted 283,414 and concluded 273,945 civil intellectual property cases of first instance, and the respective year-on-year increases were 40.97% and 41.99%. Among the newly accepted cases, 21,699 were patent cases, an increase of 35.53% from last year; 51,998 trademark cases, a 37.03% increase; 195,408 copyright cases, a 42,36% increase; 2,680 technology contract-related cases, a 27.74% increase; 4,146 unfair competition cases (including 66 monopoly cases), a 63.04% increase. Other intellectual property disputes constitute 7,483 cases, 44.60% increase from last year.

The local people’s courts accepted 27,621 (26.60% year-on-year increase) and concluded 26,288 (28.08% year-on-year increase) civil intellectual property cases of second instance. For extraordinary legal remedies to reopen cases terminated by a final judgement (zaishen), the local people’s courts accepted 223 cases and concluded 221 cases, representing a increase of 189.61% and 301.82% respectively.

In the same year; the Supreme People’s Court accepted 913 new civil intellectual property dispute cases (81.51% year-on-year increase) and concluded 859 (74.24% year-on-year increase). The number of newly accepted and concluded second instance cases were 24 and 21, and the number of newly accepted and concluded reopened cases were 798 and 759, representing year-on-year increases of 76.55% and 71.72% respectively; among the certiorari (tishen) cases, 77 were newly accepted cases and 65 concluded cases.

High profile civil disputes involving intellectual property heard and concluded by the people’s courts during the year include:

Wuxi Guowei Ceramic Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd (plaintiff/ appellant/ petitioner), Jiang Guoping (plaintiff/appellant/petitioner) vs. Changshu Linzhi Electrothermal Devices Co., Ltd (defendant/ appellant/petitionee), Suning.com Co., Ltd (defendant/appellee/

petitionee) involving a dispute on utility patent infringement; Guangzhou Compass Conference and Exhibition Service Co., Ltd (plaintiff/appellant,) vs. Fast Retailing Trading Co., Ltd. (UNIQLO) (defendant/ appellant) involving trademark infringement dispute; Beijing Baidu Network Technology Co., Ltd (defendant, appellant) vs. Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd (plaintiff, appellee) involving an invention patent dispute; Beijing Microvision Horizon Technology Co., Ltd (plaintiff) vs. Baidu Online Network Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd (defendant) et al. involving infringement of the right of dissemination via the information network; Beijing Dehong Seed Industry Co., Ltd (defendant/appellant/petitioner) and Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (defendant/appellant/petitioner) vs. Henan Goldoctor Seed Co.,Ltd (plaintiff/appellee/petitionee) involving infringement in new plant variety; Canon Inc. (plaintiff) vs. Shanghai MUMING Electronic Technology Co., Ltd (defendant) involving an invention patent dispute; 3M Company (plaintiff/ appellee) vs. Shanghai Yuanjia Plastic Co., Ltd (defendant/appellee) and Shanghai Yushuaiwei Industrial Co., Ltd (defendant/appellee) et al. involving invention patent infringement; Activision Publishing, Inc. (plaintiff/appellant) vs. Huaxia Film Distribution Co., Ltd (defendant/ appellant) involving infringements of copyright and trademark, unauthorised use of the unique names of well-known goods, and false advertising; and Crosplus Home Furnishings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (plaintiff/appellant) vs. Beijing Zhongrong Hengsheng Wood Co., Ltd et al (defendant/appellee) involving copyright infringement.

• More effective adjudication of administrative disputes to promote and supervise law enforcement by administrative agencies with regard to intellectual property

The newly amended Administrative Litigation Law and its judicial interpretations were rigorously applied during the past year. By stepping-up judicial review for cases involving the granting and validation of intellectual property rights, and exercising stronger oversight to support the administrative authorities to administer according to law, administrative law enforcement is further regulated.

In 2018, the local people’s courts accepted 13,545 administrative intellectual property cases of first instance, 53.57% more than last year. Specifically, 1,536 were patent cases (76.15% year-on-year increase), 11,992 were trademark cases (51.20% year-on-year increase) and 17 were copyright cases (no change from last year). 9,786 first instance cases were concluded, 53.15% more than last year. 3,565 administrative intellectual property cases of second instance were accepted by the local people’s courts (304.20% year- on-year increase), and the number of concluded cases totalled 3,217 (180.72% year-on-year increase), of which, the courts upheld the decisions of 2,708 cases, amended the first instance judgement for 446 cases, remanded 9 cases for retrial, dismissed 45 cases, overruled the decision in 1 case, and disposed of 8 cases through other methods.

The Supreme People’s Court accepted 642 and concluded 581 administrative intellectual property cases, representing an increase of 64.19% and 41.02% respectively. Specifically, 537 cases were reopened (55.20% year-on-year increase) and 484 concluded (32.24% year-on-year increase); 99 certiorari cases were newly accepted during the year and 89 concluded.

High profile administrative disputes involving intellectual property heard and concluded by the people’s courts during the year include:

Christian Dior Perfumes LLC (plaintiff/ appellant/ petitioner) us. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) (defendant/ appellee/ petitionee) involving the rejection of a trademark application; Shenzhen QVOD Technology Co,, Ltd (plaintiff/ appellant) vs, Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration (defendant/ appellee) and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co,, Ltd (third party in original instance) involving a dispute on copyright administration penalty; E Italian (Langfang) Electronic Engineering Co,, Ltd (petitioner/ third party in original instance) vs, Wang He (plaintiff/appellant/ petitionee), Yao Peng (plaintiff/ appellant/ petitionee) and Patent Re­

examination Board (PRB) of the State Intellectual Property Office of the PRC (defendant/ appellee/ petitionee) involving an administrative dispute over the invalidation of an invention patent; Guangzhou Sealy Electronic Technology Co., Ltd (petitioner/ third party in original instance), Jinan Qianbei Information Technology Co, Ltd (petitioner/ third party in original instance) vs. Poker City Network Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (plaintiff/ appellant/ petitionee) and Trademark Appeals Board of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (defendant/appellee) involving an administrative dispute on trademark opposition review; Andis Company (plaintiff/ appellant/ petitioner) vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (defendant/ appellee/ petitionee) and Ningbo Brofa Hairdressing Appliance Co.,Ltd (defendant/appellee/petitionee) involving an administrative dispute on trademark opposition review; Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (defendant/ appellant) vs. Anhui Huayuan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (plaintiff/ appellee) involving a trademark administrative dispute; Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (defendant/ appellant) vs. Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd (plaintiff/ appellee) involving an administrative dispute over the review of a rejected trademark application.

• More effective adjudication of criminal offences to sanction intellectual property infringement

The People’s Courts exercised their official powers of criminal adjudication as a powerful lever to deter criminal infringement of intellectual property rights and to maintain a positive legal environment that protects intellectual property.

In 2018, the local people’s courts accepted 4,319 intellectual property-related criminal cases of first instance, 19.28% higher than last year. Among the accepted cases, 4,117 were related to criminal infringement of registered trademarks (20.20% year-on- year increase), and 156 were criminal copyright infringement (7.69% year-on-year decrease).

The local peoples’ courts concluded 4,064 intellectual property- related criminal cases of first instance in total, 11.59% higher than last year. 1,434 cases involved manufacturing and selling counterfeit or substandard goods, 30.36% higher than last year. Of the concluded first instance cases, 1,852 cases were related to the counterfeiting of registered trademarks, 9.78% higher than last year; 1,724 cases involved selling goods bearing counterfeit registered trademarks, 15.39% higher than last year; 305 were cases of illegal manufacturing or sale of goods bearing illegally produced registered trademarks, 17.31% higher than last year; 2 cases involved counterfeiting patents;

136 cases were related to the criminal infringement of copyright, 20% lower than last year; 6 cases involved selling infringing reproductions, 50% higher than last year; and 39 cases involved

① crimes of trade secret infringement, 50% higher than last year. a

For intellectual property-related criminal cases of second instance, the local people’s courts accepted 683 cases, 28.17% higher than last year; 668 cases were concluded, representing an increase of 23.70%.

High profile criminal cases involving intellectual property heard and concluded by the people’s courts during the year include:

Li Gongzhi and Wu Qin’s illegal production of registered marks; Jushi Online (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd and Huang Ming, who were involved in a copyright infringement crime.

In 2018, intellectual property protection by the judiciary exhibits five

key features.

Considerable increase in case numbers： In 2018, the number of civil, administrative and criminal intellectual property cases newly accepted by the People’s Courts was 334,951, 97,709 cases and

41.19% more than last year. First instance administrative and civil

a The above publicised figures exclude the total number of first-instance intellectual property-related criminal cases, the number of cases involving the manufacturing and sale of counterfeit and substandard goods, the number of cases relating to illegal business operations involving infringement of intellectual property rights, and the number of other intellectual property infringement cases.

disputes increased substantially, by 53.57% and 40.97% respectively. Most notably, Guangdong Province’s first instance administrative cases went up by 77.78% year-on-year; and Beijing accepted 52,463 new cases, 47.40% more than last year. Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Guangdong continued to operate under a heavy case­load, having accepted 185,337 civil cases of first instance and accounting for 65.39% of the national total for the same category, with Shanghai increasing by 49.77% and Jiangsu Province by 45.48% year-on-year. Zhejiang Province’s new first instance patent cases grew by 79.53%.

Many other provinces also witnessed an explosive year-on-year increase. For example, the case-load for Gansu Province grew by 290%, Guizhou Province by 157.22%, Qinghai Province by 155%, Shaanxi Province by 89.4%, Tianjin Municipality by 82.3%, Sichuan by 67.57%, Guangxi autonomous region by 40.05%, and Hainan Province by 156.16%. Also, Hebei Province’s newly accepted first instance cases grew by 156.44% and Heilongjiang Province’s newly accepted first instance civil cases increased by 130.71%. Shanxi Province’s newly accepted first instance cases grew by 65.6%, of which cases involving copyright disputes increased by 199%, and second instance cases increased by 155%

Significantly greater case impact: By hearing different types of cases fairly and efficiently, a digest of cases with significant impact has been created, and intellectual property adjudication by the People’s Courts have received increasing attention from home and abroad. For example, for Christian Dior Perfumes LLC vs. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), an administrative dispute concerning the refusal of TRAB to accept a trademark application by the plaintiff, the Supreme People’s Court conducted open hearing and pronounced the verdict immediately after submissions. The outcome of the case reflects the principle of equal protection for local and foreign rightsholders, and features prominently the value orientation of complying with international conventions and strengthening international cooperation. Through the case, the court also reinforces the demand for due administrative processes and embodies the values of prompt relief and comprehensive protection. This is of exemplary significance in terms of making known China’s accomplishments in intellectual property protection, and for making Chinese courts a “preferred forum” for resolving international disputes.

The courts have also adjudicated disputes involving trademark disputes, where famous companies sought to protect their brand interests and market share, and copyright disputes involving the

transmission of cinematograph films and television works through the Internet. These cases involved large claims and attracted wide social attention. For example, in Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co Ltd us, WM Motor heard by the Shanghai High People’s Court, the claim was CNY 2.1 billion; in Shenzhen QVOD Technology Co,, Ltd us, Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration, the Guangdong High People’s Court ordered an “astronomical fine” of CNY 260 million, which received much public attention. Shanghai Pudong Court heard the Liu Santian v, Zhou Meisen copyright infringement case, which was also a highly publicised case involving In the Name of the People (Renmin de Mingyi) a renowned anti-corruption TV drama.

Adjudication becoming increasingly challenging: As China presses ahead with the development of a market economy and the implementation of the innovation-driven development strategy, technology-based disputes involving finding of complex technology facts or other new types of disputes are increasingly emerging, and new adjudication challenges for intellectual property disputes confront the courts. For example, the Beijing courts heard and concluded the case of Xi’an Xidian Jietong Wireless Network Communication Co,, Ltd vs, Sony Mobile Communications (China) involving standard essential patents, Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC vs, Jiangling Motors Group Co,, Ltd, an administrative case involving the invalidation of a design patent, and the first administrative lawsuit involving the rejected application of “DiDiDiDiDiDi” sound trademark.

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court concluded the case of Wuhan Han yang Guangming us, Shanghai Hankook Tire Sales, where the defendant is accused of entering into vertical monopoly agreements and of abusing its market dominance. This was the first vertical monopoly dispute that the court has heard. The same court also adjudicated several cases involving genetic technology or genetic data, such as the DNA Genotek Inc, us, Chinese National Human Genome Center (Shanghai), an invention patent dispute involving the infringement of a patented genetic testing technology for human genes; Huashan Hospital (a teaching hospital affiliated to Fudan University) us, Jonathan Flint, a case of infringement of the exclusive ownership of information of human genetic resources, which involves the attribution of ownership of human genetic data. The Shanghai Pudong Court also concluded Youku Information Technology (Beijing) Co,, Ltd us, Shanghai Qianshan Network Technology Deuelopment Co,, Ltd, which involved the issuance of a cease and desist order before an unfair competition trial, targeting at the defendant’s video aggregation platform.

Adjudication quality progressively improved: First, significant increase in the number of concluded cases. On a year-on-year basis,

the percentage of cases concluded by the Hainan courts in 2018 grew by 161.76%; first instance cases concluded by the Hebei courts was 2,608, representing a 156.44% increase; in Hunan, 9,545 cases were concluded, 69.08% more than last year. In Beijing, 49,596 first instance cases were concluded, 56% more than last year; for Tianjin, the figure was 4.410, with a year-on-year increase of 68.3%; for Sichuan Province, 7,331 cases were concluded, representing an increase of 67.34%.

Second, the percentage of cases accepting the courts’ decision as final continued to be encouraging. In Shanghai, with significant increase in new acceptances and disposals, 94.13% of the cases accepted the first instance decision. In Xinjiang with zero petition and complaints through the Xinfang (“Letters and Visits”)channel.

Third, significant increase in rate of post-mediation discontinuance. Ningxia courts achieved a post-mediation discontinuance rate of 92%. In Liaoning, 74.87% of the cases were discontinued after mediation; the figure for Jiangxi was 69.81%. In Shandong, 68.7% of first instance intellectual property cases were discontinued after mediation; Heilongjiang’s figure was 66.2%. In Anhui Province, post­mediation discontinuance rate was 61.86%. The high post-mediation discontinuance rate and high rate of acceptance of the courts’ decision have generated good social outcomes.

Protection continued to strengthen： The People’s Courts have continued to award damages based on market value to increase the severity of punishment for intellectual property infringement. This will also raise the cost of breaching the law and keep the damages quantum on par with the market value of intellectual property to effectively protect the interests of rightsholders. In an unfair competition case involving the “Laoban ‘老板brand of electrical appliances, the Zhejiang High People’s Court which heard the appeal referred to the sales figures submitted as evidence in another case, the selling prices showed in the infringing website and the operating profits indicated in the annual financial statements of the rightsholder’s listed company. The court determined that the gains from infringement had exceeded the rightsholder’s claim of damages, and went on to award the entire claim of CNY 10 million, which the demonstrated the value orientation of stepping up intellectual property protection. While civil adjudication is the predominant means of resolving intellectual property disputes, the People’s courts have continued to focus on using criminal sanctions as deterrence. In the case of He Wei et al. heard by the Hubei High People’s Court, where six people were involved in counterfeiting registered trademarks and selling goods with counterfeit marks and where the criminal proceeds was almost CNY 16 million, the Ministry of Public Security gave the case priority focus to supervising the

investigation phase. The case, which attracted much public attention, was difficult in the application of law. The court eventually sentenced He Wei, the principal offender, to seven years in prison on the charge of counterfeiting registered trademarks and three years in prison on the charge of selling goods with a counterfeit mark, thus, totalling 10 years, and a fine of CNY 3.71 million. The punishment meted out to the offender clearly demonstrates the capabilities and level of criminal protection for intellectual property.

1. Enhancing the robustness of the adjudication system and
   pursuing innovative approaches to judicial reform

2018 marks the first year when we put into action the values and precepts of the 19th Party Congress and the 40th year of China’s reform and opening-up. Increasingly, intellectual property is becoming the most important intangible asset in the world, a critical component of national interests, and an essential tool when great powers collide. The world is undergoing a period of change, with major development, major transformation and major adjustments, and the international regime governing intellectual property rights is also progressing and evolving. Determined to change and innovate, the People’s Courts are pushing ahead with reforms of the intellectual property judicial regime to recalibrate systems and mechanisms and rebuild capacities for the modern age.

• Establishing an Intellectual Property Tribunal under the Supreme People’s Court

Creating an intellectual property tribunal within the Supreme People’s Court is part of the efforts to developing a sound and China­specific judicial protection regime for intellectual property. In February 2018, the Central Commission for Deepening Overall Reform decided that the setting up of an intellectual property tribunal would a key reform focus for 2018. The Supreme People’s Court’s Party organisation regarded the development of the intellectual property tribunal as a key priority, and Chief Justice Zhou Qing chaired a special meeting to study the feasibility of the project, demanding that the intellectual property tribunal meet the criteria being of “high starting point, high standard, high level and international in nature”. On 26 October; the Sixth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress approved the “Decision of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee on Several Issues Concerning Litigation Procedures for Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases”. On 3 December 2018, at the 1756th meeting of the Supreme People’s Court Judicial Committee, the “Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Intellectual Property Tribunal” was adopted. The provisions clarified issues such

as the scope of cases to be heard by the tribunal and the alignment of procedures. Being a permanent adjudication entity that is part of the Supreme People’s Court, the intellectual property tribunal is an appellate-level tribunal having centralise jurisdiction over appeals of patent infringement and antitrust or other technology-related intellectual property disputes. Within a short time, the tribunal has accomplished a suite of tasks, including site selection, recruitment, upgrading of case-operations system and back-end support, and officially began accepting cases on 1 January 2019.

Establishing the intellectual property tribunal is an important decision and resource deployment that stems from the strategic thinking of the CCP Central Committee with Xi Jinping as the core leader, which is to develop China into a global powerhouse in intellectual property and in science and technology. It is also an important reform measure for our comprehensive deepening of judicial reform and promoting fair justice, an important symbol of the intensification of reform and opening-up in the new era, an important outcome of 40 years of continued reform and opening- up, and an important institutional innovation that provides rigorous protection for intellectual property, that serves the innovation-driven development strategy, and that helps cultivate a world-class business environment. Thus, the intellectual property tribunal is of enormous significance to China’s rule-of-law development and its history of advancing the cause of people’s justice.

• Progressive deepening of the structural and operational development of intellectual property courts

The intellectual property courts have followed through the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s deliberations and opinions on Chief Justice Zhou Qiang’s report on the work of the intellectual property courts. Increased guidance was provided for the Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou intellectual property courts to elevate the standard of their operations. The three courts have made solid and smooth progress, and have achieved significant outcomes. By hearing high profile cases that draw considerable public attention, the courts establish the rules for deciding cases and promote unification of adjudication criteria, providing essential guidance for development of the adjudication sector. The courts’ efforts at significantly increasing compensation awards and encouraging litigation integrity have won them worthy praises from the society at large.

Having implemented a host of measures, the intellectual property courts are also the ground-breakers and trail-blazers of judicial reform: in terms of human resource management, they put in place the judicial accountability system, the professional judges headcount system, and a flat management structure; in terms of mode of adjudication, they developed a collaborative judge-led model with

categorised personnel, and clear accountability and responsibilities; in terms of de-bureaucratisation, they attempted hearing conducted directly by the adjudication committee, and having presidents and chief judges hear cases on a regular basis; in terms of case operations, they explored the case diversion system to separate simple cases from complex ones, and reform of written judgements, and established the technical investigation system to accumulate replicable and scalable experiences. The intellectual property courts also organised symposiums focusing on the development of a system for intellectual property courts, reviewed the lessons and experiences of the intellectual property courts and tribunals, and studied the ways to improve on the system.

• Improving the organisational development of specialised intellectual property adjudication institutions with cross-regional jurisdiction

To carry out the national intellectual property strategy, optimise intellectual property case management, and integrate intellectual property adjudication resources, the Supreme People’s Court approved in 2017 the setting up specialised intellectual property adjudication institutions with cross-regional jurisdiction in 11 cities, including Nanjing and Suzhou. In 2018, it approved the establishment of intellectual property tribunals in another 8 cities, namely Tianjin,

Zhengzhou, Changsha, Xi’an, Nanchang, Changchun, Lanzhou and Urumqi. Except for Lanzhou and Urumqi, which will commence operations in 2019, the other 6 intellectual property tribunals have commenced operations. Establishing these tribunals are important for unifying the yardsticks for decision-making, improve adjudication quality, and maintaining market order. They are also instrumental in terms of protecting the lawful interests of market players and in implementing China’s innovation-driven development strategy. More effort will be committed to provide professional guidance for cases handled by the specialised intellectual property adjudication entities with cross-regional jurisdiction, and the resource allocation for intellectual property adjudication will be continually optimised to improve on the overall jurisdiction structure.

• Continuing with “three-in-one” reform

In 2018, the Supreme People’s Court buttressed the results of the “three-in-one” reform by performing field studies in multiple provinces and cities. It also convened in Zhengzhou and Chongqing national symposiums for selected courts on topics relating to advancing the “three-in-one” initiative and investigative studies of intellectual property criminal adjudication. Participants at the symposiums carried out in-depth study of the problems in intellectual property criminal adjudication, and completed the “Research Report on Promoting Nation-wide ‘Three-in-One’ Adjudication of Intellectual Property Cases” and “Nation-wide Research Report on Criminal Adjudication in Chinese Courts”.

The above reports emphasised the need for the intellectual property tribunals of the different levels of courts to fully comprehend the inherent nature of the “three-in-one” mechanism for intellectual property adjudication, that the scope of intellectual property protection stems from a single intellectual property right, and that civil adjudication constitutes the core of the “three-in-one” model and the basis of administrative and criminal adjudication. In intellectual property disputes, civil adjudication determines the jurisdiction structure of “three-in-one” adjudication, in that the jurisdiction of civil cases must be the focal point, around which jurisdiction for administrative and criminal disputes aggregate. The reform of the “three-in-one” mechanism is the chokepoint but also the opening for the People’s Courts to become the main channel for protecting intellectual property in the new era. Therefore, full effort should be devoted to the implementing the “three-in-one” model, as decided by the Central Committee and as arranged by the Supreme People’s Court.

Currently, 17 high courts, 113 intermediate courts and 129 basic- level courts have implemented the “three-in-one” model. At the same

time, the Supreme People’s Court continues to give important priority to fighting infringement and counterfeiting to protect intellectual properties, and has been diligent and committed to this priority, having collaborated with the various authorities to follow through the decisions and arrangement of the CCP Central Committee and the State Council. Led by the office of the National Leading Group on the Fight against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting, the Supreme People’s Court has participated in the drafting of various documents, compiling materials, jointly endorsing documents, supervising case operations and on-site appraisal. Its excellent performance of the various tasks has won it the accolade of “Outstanding Group Award for Combating Infringement and Counterfeiting”.

The Hunan courts developed comprehensive intellectual property protection regime comprising civil protection, administrative oversight on law enforcement and criminal sanctions. In the appeal by the Tianyuan People’s Procuratorate of Zhuzhou City, where defendants Xiang Fangxiang and Shangguan Zongshang were accused of illegally manufacturing and selling illegally produced registered trademarks and marks, the Hunan Zhuzhou Intermediate People’s Court amended the principal penalty from suspended prison sentence to prison sentence to effectively deter intellectual property crimes.

At the national symposium on fighting infringement and counterfeiting, the Shanghai Pudong Court shared its progress in driving the “three-in-one” adjudication model and was duly recognised. In the “three-in-one” reform initiative for intellectual property adjudication which all Chinese courts are pushing ahead, it is the “replicable and scalable” “Pudong experience” for general emulation.

• Unifying adjudication criteria and strengthening
  judicial supervision and guidance

Having unified adjudication criteria and ensuring a uniform approach to law-application for consistency and predictability is necessary for developing the intellectual property legal regime. In 2018, the People’s Courts have devoted much effort to unifying adjudication criteria and supervision of adjudicatory operations, and were able to correctly discern and manage the peculiarities and nature of intellectual property adjudication and align adjudication operations between the different levels of courts to improve adjudication quality and efficiency.

• Convening national adjudication work meetings to review and organise all aspects of the current operations

In July 2018, the Supreme People’s Court convened in Qingdao its 4th National Work Meeting on Intellectual Property Adjudication, for which Chief Justice Zhou Qiang gave important instructions. At the meeting, groups and individuals with outstanding performance were recognised and commended. Ten representatives from different courts shared their experiences. Vice President Tao Kaiyuan reviewed in depth the courts’ work for the past five years and the current situation and tasks, and organised intellectual property adjudication work for the near future. The meeting established the “three-step” development goal for intellectual property adjudication and specified the direction for the next five years. It also set forth nine major areas of increased emphasis, which are: establishing the courts as the key dispute resolution channel for intellectual property disputes to elevate the courts’ authority in the intellectual property legal regime; strict protection to increase the intellectual property rightsholders’ sense of gain; encouraging innovation to cultivate an innovative legal environment; maintaining competition to preserve an effective and healthy competition mechanism; values-driven to promote the core values of socialism; international perspective to continue elevating the international impact of judicial protection of intellectual property; reform and innovation to continue to modernise the intellectual

property adjudication system and adjudication capabilities; supervision and guidance to improve the quality and efficiency of intellectual property adjudication; capacity-building to develop a team of world-class judges. The principles established at the meeting were pertinently instructive for intellectual property adjudication in China for the near future.

• Greater focus on studying and publishing judicial interpretations

The Supreme People’s Court issued the “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Intellectual Property Tribunal” to expound details such as the nature of the organisation, scope of case acceptance, litigation procedures, working mechanism of adjudicatory powers and linking of procedures. Another judicial interpretation issued was the “Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Examining Cases Involving Taking Preservation Measures against Infringing Acts in Intellectual Property Disputes’： which provided clarity on matters such as the applicants of preservation cases, review procedure, necessity of preservation, jurisdiction relating to the determination of erroneous applications and initiation of compensation action to redress an erroneous application, removal of preservation measures, application charges. It also drafted a judicial interpretation concerning the participation of technical investigators

in litigation, which was submitted to the adjudication committee for deliberation. Judicial interpretations concerning adjudication of administrative cases relating to the granting and validation of patent rights are continuously studied, and new problems that emerged are widely discussed.

By working on and publishing the above judicial interpretations, the Supreme People’s Court has put into effect the “Opinions on Several Issues concerning Strengthening Reform and Innovation in Intellectual Property Adjudication” issued by the CPC Central Committee, to ensure that the “Pilot Programme on Establishing Intellectual Property Tribunal” approved by the Central Committee and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s “Decision on Several Issues Concerning the Litigation Procedures in Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases” are implemented and the desired results achieved, thereby helping to enrich and further develop the China-specific intellectual property litigation system. These efforts are critical for increasing the robustness of a specialised intellectual property adjudication system, elevating the quality and efficiency of adjudication, unifying adjudication criteria, and serving China’s innovation-driven development strategy and intellectual property strategy. The Supreme Court has also worked on the drafting of judicial interpretations concerning the application of the unfair competition law and protection of trade secrets to address

international concerns. Two legal seminars on the judicial protection of trade secrets were convened separately in Nanjing and Shanghai to clarify the legal thinking with regard to adjudicating trade secrets disputes, so as to prepare for the eventual promulgation of the judicial interpretation on trade secrets.

• Enhancing judicial policies to accomplish tasks assigned by the National People’s Congress

The Supreme People’s Court issued the “Notice on Strengthening Judicial Protection of ‘Red Classics’ and the Lawful Rights of Heroes and Martyrs to Promote the Core Values of Socialism”； drafted the “Letter from the Supreme Court’s General Office on Incorporating Content Relating to ‘Strengthening Judicial Protection of Red Classics and the Lawful Rights of Heroes and Martyrs to Promote the Core Values of Socialism* upon the Amendment of the Copyright Law” and the “Report on Matters Relating to the Strengthening Judicial Protection of Red Classics” to underline the importance of protecting the legacy of red classics and the lawful rights of heroes and martyrs according to law. The above documents also advocate the importance of paying attention to taste, style and responsibility, with the aim of educating and guiding the general public, especially the youth, to consciously resist being “lowly, crude and tawdry”； warn against historical nihilism, and regulate broadcasting activities to protect

social and public interests.

The Supreme People’s Court also submitted the “Report on the Study and Implementation of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee’s Report on the Audit of Copyright Law Enforcement and its Deliberations and Opinions” as assigned by the National People’s Congress’ law enforcement audit. Based on the problems as identified from the law enforcement audit and the judicial practice, the report proposed practical corrective measures and opinions pertaining to matters such as substantive reduction of the cost of defending rights, reducing the long litigation period, increasing the amount of infringement damages.

• Actively participating in the revision, compilation research and drafting of laws

The courts have been active participants of in revision of laws and regulations, such as the Civil Code, Patent Law, Copyright Law, Law Against Unfair Competition, Trademark Law, and the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law and Regulations on the Protection of New Plants Varieties. Judicial policies developed and experiences accumulated from adjudication practice were promptly and specifically studied and assessed, and recommendations for amendments proposed.

A national symposium for selected courts was convened in Beijing

to discuss the amendment of the Copyright Law. Extensive and in­depth discussion were carried out, focusing on the classification of works, the rights included in copyright, copyright agreements, collective management, provisions on related rights, legal liability and coordination and alignment with international treaties and other laws. After thorough discussion, the “Supreme People’s Court’s Opinions on the Amendments to the Copyright Law” was submitted to the Ministry of Justice, and the document was highly commended, and the opinions contained within were well-received.

• Strengthening adjudication research and case guidance

Thematic forums on current and hot intellectual property issues. In November 2018, the Supreme People’s Court convened in Hangzhou, a symposium to solicit opinions and recommendations for the “Several Provisions on Evidence for Civil Procedure for Intellectual Property Disputes (Draft)”. The meeting participants conducted an investigative study on judicial interpretation of evidence in intellectual property civil litigation and studied the use of special procedure in intellectual property litigation.

Several other research studies were also initiated. The research study on malicious trademark registration was a response to the problem that has attracted international attention and serious social displeasure. Another research was conducted jointly with the State

Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) Trademark Office to provide recommendations on the possible measures to deal with trademark squatting. To develop a better civil justice system to deal with monopoly matters, a research study on civil procedural issues relating to anti-monopoly disputes was initiated, so that the Anti-Monopoly Law could be better leveraged to curb monopolistic behaviour expeditiously. To commemorate the 10th year of promulgation of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the Supreme People’s Court organised a symposium to review the experiences relating to the adjudication of civil cases involving monopoly disputes, so as to pave the way for the revision of the Anti-Monopoly Law and the drafting of judicial interpretations, and that a fair and effective mechanism that conduces to market competition can be maintained.

Other areas of research include the study of the conflicts between industrial design and copyright, for which seminars were held in Beijing and Kunming, and the “Study Report on the Conflicts between Industrial Design and Copyright” was drafted to elucidate the similarities and differences and the conflict of rights, and from which practical adjudication guiding opinions could be generated. The study on the judicial protection of outcomes from innovative business models was another interesting attempt. On April 2018, the Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Research Centre convened an assessment conference to deliberate and evaluate

the outcomes of the “Study on the Judicial Protection of the Outcomes of Innovative Business Models”. Leaders from the relevant agencies and experts and academics attended the conference to deliberate and assess the research project’s outcomes, and provided feedback, adjustments and revisions for the report.

The local courts also actively carried out research studies in different areas. On 20 April 2018, the Beijing High People’s Court issued the “Beijing High People’s Court Bench Book on Adjudicating Copyright Infringement Cases’： which specifically sets forth that when adjudicating copyright cases, judges should adhere to the basic adjudication principles of providing greater protection, of encouraging creation, of promoting dissemination and of balancing interests. By summing up the thinking behind the hearing of cases involving copyright infringement, the bench book provides useful guidance for the hearing of internet-related copyright disputes by the Beijing Internet Court and the adjudication of copyright disputes by other Beijing courts. The bench book is a valuable contribution to advancing development and innovation in Beijing’s cultural sector. Again, on 20 September 2018, the court published the “Opinions on Providing Judicial Protection for Strengthening the Development of a National Technological Innovation Centre in Beijing”： which sets forth adjudication rules and requirements for disputes involving innovation-based technologies and relevant cases, and lays out specific measures for overcoming obstacles stemming from institutions and mechanisms that hamper development of intellectual property adjudication.

In April 2018, the Guangdong High People’s Court published the “Operational Guidelines on Adjudicating Standard Essential Patent Disputes’； which looked in to the adjudication thinking and methodology behind disputes involving standard essential patents. “China Intellectual Property (English Edition)’ and world-renowned specialised intellectual property media reported on the publication in great detail, providing penetrating interpretations of the Guidelines. It was encouraging to see Qualcomm Technologies and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd selecting Guangdong Province as the choice jurisdiction for standard essential patent disputes.

The Shanghai High People’s Court issued the “Several Opinions on Strengthening Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property’ to implement measures that make production of evidence convenient for the parties, that increase the amount of compensation, and that shorten the adjudication cycle, which was highly regarded by the society at large.

The Sichuan High People’s Court published the “Guidelines on Adjudicating Disputes Relating to the Infringement of the Right of Information Transmission in Networks’ and the “Bench Book on Adjudicating Trademark Infringement Disputes” unify the adjudication criteria for all courts in the province.

To address the inconsistent standards used in determining electronic evidence submitted during intellectual property litigation, the Zhejiang courts developed a manual entitled “Examination and Determination of Electronic Evidence Relating to Intellectual Property Rights”.

The Shandong High People’s Court was highly productive, having completed the Supreme People’s Court’s major research project entitled “Research on the Intellectual Property Protection of New Forms of Innovation”，the “Research on Strengthening Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property。the “Research Report on the Anti­Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China’” and the research study on “Standard of Proof for Trademark Infringement Cases”

The Tianjin High People’s Court completed the Supreme People’s Court’s major research project entitled “Research on the Judicial Protection Strategy of Intellectual Property in China” and the judicial practice-based thematic research project entitled “Case Study on the Legal Regulation of New Types of Unfair Competition on the Internet”.

Leveraging the role of research bases and bolstering case guidance and case studies: After years of searching and learning, the People’s Courts have developed a unique “four-in-one” intellectual property case guidance system underpinned by typical cases, guiding cases, annual case reports and case-guidance research bases.

In April 2018, Tao Kaiyuan, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court convened and chaired the Work Symposium of the Supreme People’s Court’s Intellectual Property Judicial Protection Research Centre cum Seminar on Theories of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection. In his speech, Justice Tao stressed the need to unify thinking and forge synergies in promoting the continued innovation and practical application of intellectual property theories and research methods, research perspectives and outcomes. Representatives from different theoretical study bases and research bases spoke at the symposium. This enabled the research centre to contribute to theoretical research in the judicial protection of intellectual property in the new era, and to leverage its theoretical research capabilities to contribute advice and suggestions.

The Supreme People’s Court reviewed the classic cases relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property, and compiled and published the Chinese and English versions of the “Collection of Classic Cases on the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in China” to make known the court’s achievements. The work has attracted broad interest. Also publishing soon is the “Supreme People’s Court Guiding Cases for Intellectual Property Adjudication

(Volume 10)”. Other publications include the “Analysis of New Challenges in Intellectual Property Judicial Practice: Hot Issues on Patents, Trademarks and Copyright。”Analysis of New Challenges in Intellectual Property Judicial Practice: Intellectual Property Judicial Protection and Industrial Development, “Interpretations and Applications of Intellectual Property Judicial Interpretations (Updated Edition)”. Through its monthly publication “Trends in Intellectual Property Adjudication” and work reporting, the Supreme People’s Court has developed a regular guidance and communication mechanism with lower level courts.

In December 2018, the Chongqing High People’s Court edited and published the 7 th edition of its “Research on Intellectual Property Adjudication in China’； comprising 52 articles and totalling 650,000 words. As a continuous publication by the Judicial Theory Committee and an important series under the Chinese Judicial Theory series, this is a highly influential publication. The Chongqing High People’s Court also jointly organised with the Southwest University of Political Science & Law the “China Intellectual Property Judges’ Forum”. Four forums were held in 2018.

In March 2018, the Guangxi High People’s Court published the “Collection of Written Judgments on Typical Intellectual Property Cases by Guangxi High Court (2011 to 2016)” targeting at intellectual property judges, and developed the “Guidelines on Adjudicating Design Patent Infringement Disputes” to provide standard yardsticks for deciding disputes involving the infringement of design patents.

1. Increasing judicial transparency and promoting fair and
   efficient justice

In 2018, intellectual property adjudication for the People’s Courts implemented the CCP Central Committee’s decisions and plans to deepen reforms comprehensively and to govern according to law comprehensively, and to fulfil the important tasks of promoting open justice and developing an open, dynamic, transparent and convenient sunshine justice mechanism. The courts’ efforts produced positive results.

• Intensifying publicity for greater judicial impact

In conjunction with the World Intellectual Property Day’s theme of “Powering Change: Women in Innovation and Creativity” to celebrate the brilliance of the women who are shaping the world’s intellectual property landscape, the Supreme People’s Court organised the “Symposium on Intellectual Property for Women” on 27 April, which aimed to reflect on how women in the intellectual property sector of the new era could transform their intelligence and

sense of responsibility into the power of innovation. Discussions at the symposium revolved around Xi Jinping’s thoughts on Chinese socialism for the new era and the tenets of the Party’s 19th Congress, where NPC deputies, representatives from the All China’s Women’s Federation and Women’s Judges Association, women in technological innovation within intellectual property sector, women academics, female journalists and women judges from different courts gathered at the symposium to share insights and their aspirations and missions for their intellectual property careers of the new era. Vice President Tao Kaiyuan gave a key note speech entitled “Inner and Outer Cultivation, with gentle justice and judicial wisdom, give every passion and affection to the great journey of reform and innovation”. An MV of the “Intellectual Property Song” was played at the symposium. Written by Vice President Tao, the lyrics express the voice, mission and noble sentiments of the intellectual property fraternity and are deeply moving.

The Jiangsu courts continued to maintain and operate their WeChat official account, the “Jiangsu Intellectual Property Perspective (Jiangsu Zhichan Shiye^f)^ff to increase their influence within and outside the intellectual property adjudication sector. Special columns in professional intellectual property media, such as the Jiangsu High People’s Court’s Sina Weibo and WeChat official accounts were run, publishing regularly information on complex and difficult cases

heard and concluded by the different courts within the province for prompt dissemination of the latest news on intellectual property judicial protection and increase the courts’ impact in intellectual property adjudication within and outside the Jiangsu Province. Since establishing the “Jiangsu IP Vision (Jiangsu Zhichan Shiye)” on WeChat, more than 170 typical cases and nearly 10 articles were published in 182 editions, and the results were encouraging.

• Elaborating reports presented at the National People’s Congress (NPC) and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) (“two conferences”)and live telecast of interviews by all media

During the period of the “two conferences’； to respond to the people’s interest and concern in intellectual property adjudication, the Supreme People’s Court participated in an interview which were telecasted live on all media on 16 March 2018, focusing on the key points noted in the “Supreme People’s Court Work Report”. The invited guests were chief judge Song Xiaoming and deputy chief judges Wang Chuang and Lin Guanghai, who spoke about issues relating to “leveraging the courts as the main channel for protecting intellectual property”. Another invited guest was Justice Song Yushui, Vice President of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, who was interviewed via online video-conferencing.

The interview focused on Chief Justice Zhou Qiang’s work report, revolving around five main points: the People’s Courts leveraging their intellectual property adjudicatory functions to serve and secure the national strategy of innovation-driven development; increasing oversight and guidance and ensuring consistency in law-application; deepening judicial reform of the intellectual property regime to build a more robust system of adjudication; increase judicial transparency and exchange to elevate China’s international influence in the judicial arena; strengthening development of the intellectual property adjudication team to raise their adjudication capabilities and standard. Detailed figures were quoted, and the observations of the guest commenters were enlightening. The comprehensive sharing of the progress of intellectual adjudication during the past five years and the extensive, multi-dimensional and thorough elaboration of what “leveraging the courts as the main channel for protecting intellectual property” indicated in the “Supreme People’s Court Work Report” means was telecasted live by more than 30 media, and generated positive and enthusiastic public response and social effect.

• Organising thematic activities for “26 April” World Intellectual Property Day and bringing the publicity campaign to a climax

The Supreme People’s Court has celebrated the “26 April” World

Intellectual Property Day since 2009. Its focus has always been on the theme of open justice, as it continues to draw attention to the latest topics and highlights of judicial protection of intellectual property. This is also an excellent opportunity to review and improve on the means and methods of doing publicity on the judicial protection of intellectual property. During the past nine years, our courts have learned and evolved in the way they organise intellectual property outreach programmes, which are now increasingly systematic and up-scaled, creating an excellent brand effect.

Vice President Tao Kaiyuan shared at the press conference of the 2018 Intellectual Property Outreach Week, the overall results achieved by the People’s Courts in 2017 in terms of intellectual property protection and the highlights of their innovative outcomes. Several publications were also released during this time, including the “Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2016” (Chinese and English versions), “Ten Major Intellectual Property Cases and Fifty Typical Cases Adjudicated by China’s Courts in 2016。and the “Supreme People’s Court Annual Report of Intellectual Property Cases (2017)” More than 20 media attended and reported the press conference, and enthusiastic responses and comments generated. The local courts also organised various “26 April” outreach activities based on local circumstances and needs.

• Enhancing open justice to ensure impartial justice

The courts have made significant efforts to publish written judgements, where they actively explored new avenues on the mobile internet environment to promote open justice, and have used extensively platforms such as China Judgements Online (wenshu. court.gov.cn), China Judicial Process Information Online (https:// splcgk.court.gov.cn/gzfwww/) and China Court Hearing Online (tingshen.court.gov.cn/) to build an information-based, data-driven and detail-oriented intellectual property open justice system and to increase the transparency of adjudication. Written judgements appropriate for public access are uploaded on the websites promptly and fully, and updates on their online availability announced regularly. Over time, the scope of such public access will increase and the efficiency of providing accessibility will improve. The written judgements of the Supreme People’s Court Intellectual Property Division are 100% available online.

Advancing public access of the hearing process and online case operations is another area of focus. The courts have improved their management of the adjudication process for intellectual property cases and furthered the development of technology courts to promote adoption of contemporaneous audio- and video-recording and live streaming of the hearing process. New and innovative ways

of open hearing are created, and the scope of open hearing expanded to ensure that the parties can exercise their right to know and right to supervise. Promoting greater use of smart technology has empowered open justice and improved adjudication and efficiency.

The Anhui courts have leveraged the three major open justice platforms to enable online access of written judgements and live streaming of court hearings as much as possible, where appropriate. The Haozhou Intermediate People’s Court have organised open hearings for ten thousand citizens, where people from different sectors were invited to observe the court proceedings when intellectual property cases were heard. For cases suitable for circuit court hearing, the Tongling Intermediate People’s Court would deploy judges to the location of the defendant’s principal establishment, shopping mall or places as such to conduct hearings and face-to-face legal outreach and education.

1. Organising exchanges and cooperation and serving
   broader national and international interests

The intellectual property legal regime draws strength from international commonalities and responses to interactive effects from different regimes. The People’s Courts must actively engage in

international and regional intellectual exchanges and cooperation, and must establish and improve its communication and exchange mechanisms for sharing information on judicial protection of intellectual property to facilitate deeper and objective understanding of the complete set-up of China’s intellectual property judicial protection regime by the different countries. China works to elevate its participation, discourse power and the flexibility to respond to its advantage to changes and challenges, and gives priority to building an environment conducive to trade and investment and creating the image of a responsible power.

• Strengthening international and regional collaboration and exchange

Strengthening international judicial cooperation and exchange: The People’s Courts attaches great importance to strengthening exchanges with international organisations and countries around the world, and to showcasing the results of judicial protection of intellectual property in China and the abilities and accomplishments of Chinese intellectual property judges.

In November 2018, at the invitation of WIPO Director-General Francis Gurry, Vice President Tao Kaiyuan led a delegation for WIPO’s inaugural Intellectual Property Judges Forum in Geneva and her first meeting of with the WIPO Advisory Board of Judges. Delivering the

only key note address at the forum, Justice Tao spoke on the topic “Steadfast in providing judicial protection of intellectual property; working together to create a great future for intellectual property”. Her inspiring address received a positive and enthusiastic response from the audience, and key excerpts of her speech is quoted on WIPO’s website. WIPO and Director-General Gurry expressed their strong support and great recognition for China’s work on intellectual property. The visit provided opportunity for China to share its historical achievements in the judicial protection of intellectual property and to respond to respond to issues of concern, and in doing so, garner maximum understanding and receptiveness of China’s specificities in intellectual property protection from the international community. It was also an excellent platform which China used to make itself heard, contribute the Chinese wisdom and Chinese formula.

The EU-China Anti-Monopoly Judicial Seminar convened in Beijing. Co-organised by the Supreme People’s Court and European anti­monopoly agencies, the seminar was attended by President of the General Court (EGC) of the Court of Justice of the European Union Marc Jaeger, Judge Schwarcz, European anti-monopoly agencies, and China representatives from the EU Commission. During this period, Vice President Tao Kaiyuan and Chief Judge Song Xiaoming met with EGC President Jaeger and his delegation. In addition, the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China today released its “European Business in China-Position Paper”； which highly commended China for establishing intellectual property courts.

The Supreme People’s Court also send representatives to participate in the Inaugural U.S.-China Digital Economy Forum, 140th Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association, Symposium on Intellectual Property Advanced Seminar for ASEAN+3 2018, the 8th OECD/KPC Competition Workshop for Asia-Pacific Judges, 8th OECD/KPC Competition Workshop for Asia-Pacific Judges and the ICC Commission on Intellectual Property (Fall Conference). It also continued to participate in the negotiations of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, and was involved in the 4th Special Commission meeting.

Cooperation with Europe continued to be very close, as the court also sent representatives to participate in the 21th meeting of the EU- China IP Working Group. Both China and Europe agreed to strengthen their intellectual property dialogue and to deepen cooperation in intellectual property protection. In November, under the China-EU IP Cooperation Project “IP Key China””, a delegation of intellectual property judges from China went on study visits to Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg. This was a programme aimed at fostering

exchanges with the intellectual property-related policy-makers and judiciaries of European authorities to help them understand the level of judicial protection given to intellectual property in China and China’s position of giving equal protection to local and foreign rightsholders, which will give China greater international influence. It will also help us learn and adapt advanced legislative and judicial experiences to further strengthen our intellectual property adjudication system and develop more robust intellectual property protection systems and mechanisms, which will elevate our professional competence in intellectual property adjudication.

Strengthening inter-judicial cooperation and exchange: First, mutual visits and exchange with Hong Kong and Macao. In October 2018, Vice President Tao Kaiyuan led a delegation of eight to visit the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal and the Court of Final Appeal of Macau at their invitation. This was the first time that mainland and Hong Kong judges held a seminar on the topic of adjudication in Hong Kong. The discussions have enabled the judges from both sides to resonate in many areas as men of the law. The delegation also visited judiciaries in Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR to confirm the mutual visit mechanism for their judges, as well as participated in intellectual property adjudication seminars in Hong Kong and Macao. The “Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the

Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” signed with Hong Kong’s Legislative Council provides for the recognition and enforcement of intellectual property-related civil judgements and serves the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.

Second, mutual visits and exchange with Taiwan. Between 15 and 21 May, Chief Judge Song Xiaoming visited Taiwan in the capacity of executive director of the China Association of Judges under the invitation of the Taiwan Law Society. The 12-person delegation visited the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court to study the set-up and operations of the specialised court, and other systems relating to the judicial protection of intellectual property, such as “three-in-one” adjudication and technology investigators. With the joint efforts of all members of the delegation, the study visits and exchanges yielded positive results and met the objectives of the trip. On 13 December; Justice Song met with Justice Sung-Mei Hsiung from the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court, who was invited to visit by the China Association of Judges. Both sides discussed intensively on issues such as punitive damages, patent litigation agent, and the source and makeup of technology investigators.

• Organised master class on intellectual property adjudication to strengthen cooperation with WIPO

Organised as a collaborative effort between the Supreme People’s Court and WIPO, the inaugural “Master Class on IP Adjudication” was held on 21-23 August 2018 at the National Judges College in Beijing. This judicial training was the most important and the highest level, and where the discussion topics of which were the most in-depth. Chief Justice and President of the Supreme People’s Court Zhou Qiang specially met with Deputy Director-General of WIPO Wang Binying, Legal Counsel and head of the WIPO legal team Frits Bontekoe, and representative of the students and instructors of the master class. The class consisted of 7 lectures, 24 formal students and 15 observers from China, the United States, Germany, Australia, Belgium, Korea, Singapore, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Moldova, Brazil, Latvia, Malaysia and South Africa. More than 40 judges from 15 countries gathered here to learn and share, using English as the only language of communication.

Chief Justice Zhou noted that China’s courts engage closely with WIPO and collaboration between them has been fruitful. The success of this master class is a major outcome of this collaboration, and is instrumental in encouraging the judges from different countries to engage with each other more, and in facilitating judicial protection

of intellectual property in different countries. This success also marks the advancement of the cooperation between the Supreme People’s Court and WIPO to new heights, and opens up avenues for making known to the world China’s achievements in the judicial protection of intellectual property, and with widened international exposure, China’s intellectual property judges will truly become more international in their legal knowledge and perspectives.

1. Enhancing judicial capabilities and strengthening
   character-building for judges

Solid and sound training has always been the cornerstone of intellectual property adjudication for the People’s Court. The intellectual adjudication team of the courts of every level must have the initiative to adopt a higher political stance and to elevate their professional qualities and competence. The courts must also apply themselves to building an intellectual property adjudication team that is steadfast in political belief, that has the sense of totality, that is well-versed with the law and technically-skilled, and that possess an international perspective, so as to provide strong organisational underpinnings for the adjudication of intellectual property in the new era.

(1) Intensifying development of ideological and political thoughts to elevate the level of thinking and political calibre

The Party’s political development is a fundamental development. Intellectual property judges must appreciate the full importance of the Party’s political development to the People’s Courts’ development, uphold the absolute leadership of the party, and stay determined and unwavering in their political belief. They must develop greater political awareness, improve on their political qualities and capabilities, and strengthen their political conviction, and they must adhere strictly to political discipline and political rules.

In early 2018, a talkfest whose theme was “Glory and Dream, Mission and Responsibility” was held at the Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Vice President Tao Kaiyuan shared her emotion affinity, ideal and pursuit with regard to intellectual property rights, and elicited strong resonance among the cadre police officers.

In June 2018, a Party Day activity under the theme “In pursuit of Yan’an’s footprint, uphold the Yan’an Spirit” was held in the old revolutionary base of Yan’an. The party members felt deeply enlightened. Between October and December, the “Photography Exhibition Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of Reform and Opening- up” was held, where brilliant photo images gave vivid expression to the work of intellectual property judicial protection, the devotion of the adjudication team, and the inspiring ethos and energy.

(2) Strengthening training on adjudication operations to improve on the judicial capabilities of in adjudication

The “Opinions on Several Issues concerning Strengthening Reform and Innovation in Intellectual Property Adjudication” specifies the need to devote great effort to develop the intellectual property adjudication team into a “formalised, specialised, professionalised and internationally savvy” team. A high-calibre team of judges is essential for sustaining the development of intellectual property judicial operations. In 2018, the Supreme People’s Court organised more than thirty sessions of intellectual property training at the National Judges* College and the local courts. The court also organised three sessions of the “Expert Lecture Series for the Party Branch of the Intellectual Property Divisions’； focusing on topics such as the application of law in patent examination, criminal adjudication of intellectual property infringement, trademark protection in a digital environment, legal liability of network service operators, which was very well-received by the participants.

The local courts also conducted training. To improve the professional capabilities of intellectual property judges, for example, the Fujian High People’s Court, organised a training on adjudication skills for sixty trainees between 14 to 23 August 2018 at the East China University of Political Science and Law.

• Strengthening party ethics and government integrity to ensure that the team is clean and honest

In 2018, the intellectual property divisions of all the courts have followed through with the requirement to enforce strict governance on the party, the court, the division and in management, and has dedicated much effort to developing good conduct and discipline within the intellectual property adjudication teams, focusing on correcting the “four problematic habits (sifeng)^,f: formalism, bureaucratism, hedonism and extravagance, and on striking problems that elicit strong public reaction. Checks and corrective actions are taken promptly, regularly and persistently.

The different levels of adjudication divisions are also committed to educating and guiding cadre police officers on judicial conscience and to enforcing rigorous discipline on judicial behaviour as part of a continuous process to improve judicial conduct. Greater prevention and control measures have also been instituted to guard against the risks of judicial dishonesty. Another area that has been given urgent attention is the development and improvement of management and supervision mechanisms that accommodate the new mechanism for exercising adjudication powers, and that support the judicial accountability system. Finally, the courts also take rigorous action in investigating and punishing fraudulent and adjudication-for-gain behaviour. Strict and determined measures are imposed to eradicate rotten apples to ensure that the action and stringency are indeed genuine, undeterred and sustained.

Conclusion

In 2019, we celebrate the 70th year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. But 2019 is also the critical year for achieving the building of a “complete xiaokang” society and the first Centenary Goal, and the first year of the People’s courts’ fifth Five-Year Reform Programme. As we usher in a new chapter in history, the People’s Courts face an exciting future with higher demands and a people with higher expectations. Enabling the courts to serve the larger good, and enabling justice to be done for the people and done impartially are tasks that are increasingly laborious and onerous.

The new era is for go-getters. And the answers are for us to give. Judicial protection of intellectual property by the People’s Courts will adhere to the path of Chinese socialism for the new era as propounded by President Xi Jinping. The courts will discern and manage the key social contradictions and changes in the new era,

and concentrate efforts on enhancing the judicial abilities and performance in intellectual property. They will reinforce the sense of crisis and of responsibility, and take effective precautions against risks and challenges. All are determined to transform and innovate, and to fulfil their undertakings to scale greater heights in the building of a law-based China, and to give rightsholders a greater sense of gain, of happiness and of security. These efforts will contribute to making China a global powerhouse in intellectual property and in science and technology, to providing effective judicial safeguards for the continued robust development of the economy, and to achieving notable results for the celebration of the 70th year of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

Introduction

General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that innovation is the primary force propelling development, that protecting intellectual property rights (IPRs) protects innovation, and that the rule of law for intellectual property (IP) protection should be strengthened. In September 2021, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the State Council released The Outline for Building an Intellectual Property Powerhouse (2021-2035) for the purposes of advancing the building of an IP powerhouse in an overall manner, comprehensively improving IP creation, use, protection, management and services, and maximizing the critical role of the IP system in the socialist modernization.

In 2021, people’s courts adhered to the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era and thoroughly implemented Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. The courts earnestly implemented General secretary Xi Jinping’s important elaboration of enhancing the IPRs protection, acquired a deep understanding of the decisive significance of the two establishments of both Comrade Xi Jinping core position on the Party Central Committee and in the Party as a whole and the guiding role of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; boosted four consciousnesses of the need to maintain political integrity, think in big-picture terms, follow the leadership core, and keep in alignment with the central Party leadership; stayed four self-confidence in the path, the theory, the system, and the culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics; upheld General Secretary Xi Jinping’s position as the core of the CPC Central Committee and the whole Party, as well as the authority of the CPC Central Committee and its centralized, unified leadership. People’s courts were relentlessly in their pursuit of “Striving to Make People Perceive Fairness and Justice in Every Judicial Case”： accurately grasped the overall requirements for strengthening the IP adjudication in the new era. The professional adjudication system was largely established, the capacity for professional adjudication was significantly increased, and the level of judicial IP protection was substantially enhanced. People’s courts have provided strong judicial service in coordinating pandemic prevention and economic society development. Satisfaction with IP trials has increased in recent years, the entire society gradually strengthened an awareness of the importance of respecting and protecting IPRs. The global reach of China’s IP adjudication has continued to expand.

1. Significant Increase of Cases and Continuous
   Improvement in Trial Quality and Efficiency

In 2021, people’s courts adjudicated all types of IP cases in an impartial and efficient way in accordance with the law. A total of 642,968 IP-related cases were accepted by people’s courts, including first and second instance cases and as well as apply-for-retrial cases, and 601,544 cases were concluded (including carried over cases, ditto hereinafter) representing a respective year-on-year increase of 22.33% and 14.7%.

• Quantity of Each Type of Cases

The Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) accepted 4,243 IP cases and concluded 3,557, up by 22.28% and 9.11% respectively on a year-on-year basis. Local people’s courts at all levels accepted 550,263 cases in the first instance and concluded 515,861, up by 24.12% and 16.52% respectively from 2020. Among them, 31,618 patent cases were accepted, with a year-on-year increase of 10.98%, 124,716 trademark cases, up by 59.62%, 360,489 copyright cases, up by 14.99%, 4,015 technology contract cases, up by 22.52%, 8,419 competition-related cases, up by 78.26%, and 21,006 other civil disputes over IPRs with a year-on-year increase of 38.01%. Local people’s courts at all levels accepted 49,084 cases of the second instance and concluded 45,468, up by 14.22% and 4.5% respectively on a year-on-year basis.

The SPC accepted 2,852 administrative cases on IPRs and concluded 2,487, up by 49.4% and 43.34% compared with those of 2020. Local people’s courts at all levels accepted 20,563 administrative cases of first instance on IPRs, and concluded 19,342, up by 11.37% and 7.80% compared with 2020 respectively. Among them, 1,810 administrative cases on patent were accepted, with a year-on-year increase of 27.73%; 18,734 administrative cases on trademark, up by 9.97%; and 19 on copyright cases with an increase of 7 cases. Local people’s courts at all levels accepted 8,215 administrative IP cases of second instance and concluded 7,418, up by 34.85% and 19.97% respectively from 2020. Among them, 5,636 cases were sustained, judgments of 1,597 cases were reversed, 1 case remanded for retrial, 145 cases withdrawn, 11 cases dismissed, and 28 cases resolved in other means.

Local people’s courts at all levels accepted 6,276 first-instance criminal cases of IPRs infringement and concluded 6,046, up by 13.2% and 9.53% respectively on a year-on-year basis. Among them, 5,869 trademark infringement and 333 copyright infringement cases were accepted, an increase of 12.8% and 9.54% respectively. Among these first-instance criminal cases, there were 2,558 cases of counterfeiting registered trademarks, up by 13.19%; 2,623 cases of selling goods with counterfeited registered trademarks (up by 3.76%); 476 illegally manufacturing or selling illegally manufactured logos of registered trademarks (up by 20.51%); 313 criminal cases of copyright infringement (up by 14.65%); 15 criminal cases of selling infringing copies (increase by 2); and 61 criminal cases of trade secret infringement (increase by 16). Local people’s courts at all levels accepted 1,050 second-instance criminal cases of IP infringement and concluded 997, up by 20.83% and 16.74% respectively.

• Features of Cases

The following are the primary characteristics of IP cases received by people’s courts.

Internet-related cases on a continuous rise. China’s Internet industry has developed rapidly. Internet has become one of the most predominant areas that IP infringement occurs, and therefore IP infringement violations on the Internet has become the focal point of the IP judiciary gradually. In 2021, the three Internet courts in Hangzhou, Beijing and Guangzhou accepted a total of 66,148 new cases involving various types of Internet IPRs, an increase of 6.64% over the previous year. The number of Internet cases has steadily increasing year by year, and more legal issues involved are novel, complex, and perplexing. In the Internet environment, infringements are easier to commit, which are more concealed and complicated. While the impact is greater; gathering and fixing evidence is harder. Consequently, the difficulty of right holders’ ability to defend their rights is also rising. Strengthening the rule of law in cyberspace and ensuring the protection of innovation and creativity on the Internet is critical for the judicial protection of IPRs for people’s courts.

New types of disputes in proliferation. Innovation is critical to China’s overall modernization development. In recent years, the booming new technologies, new business forms and models have injected new momentum into the economic and social development, brought new legal issues as well. The number of new- type cases involving core Internet technologies, gene technologies, communications, integrated circuits, artificial intelligence, Internet platform economy, etc., continues to grow, complicating the determination of complex technical facts and the application of laws, poses new challenges to judicial decisions on the boundary of rights and the determination of liability for the IPRs infringement in these new business fields and forms. However; people’s courts have actively responded to judicial demand for IPR protection in new technologies, new industries, new business forms and models, and proactively explored ways to strengthen the judicial IPR protection rules in relevant fields. In 2021, people’s courts have adjudicated a batch of new-type IP cases involving biomedicine, online gaming, live webcast, “Big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers’： sharing economy, artificial intelligence, etc., and all of which sparked widespread public concern.

Cases Involving Public Interests Increased. The interests involved in IPRs are complicated and often closely related to the social and public interests. The trial of cases needs to balance the protection of individual rights and public interests, to accurately grasp differentiated value orientation and to properly handle the relationship between development and security even better. In 2021, in the areas such as administrative granting and reviewing, civil infringement and competition order maintenance, people’s courts heard a number of cases involving malicious trademark registration, the application of “Notice-and-Delete” Rule, fan works, etc. in order to keep the balance between private and public interests.

Expanding protection in criminal cases. In recent years, interlocked civil and criminal cases have brought up many problems in application of law, such as IP infringement crimes using technologies such as deep linking and game plug-ins are constantly emerging. The Criminal Law’s Amendment (XI), effective as of March 1, 2021, has made major revisions for the crime of IP infringement and strongly supported further judicial IP protection improvement. By following the requirement of “improving criminal laws and judicial interpretations, intensifying criminal crackdown” put forward by General Secretary Xi Jinping, people’s courts adhered to the principles of “No Penalty without A Law” and “Strict Protection。punished crimes such as counterfeiting registered trademarks, copyright infringement, trade secrets infringement, as well as producing and selling fake seeds in accordance with the law. By strongly protected the legitimate rights and interests of right holders and consumers, a sound market order is effectively maintained. In 2021, the number of criminal cases of IP infringement accepted and concluded by local people’s courts at all levels rose rapidly, and the deterrent and preventive functions of criminal penalties in punishing IP infringement and counterfeiting became increasingly prominent.

1. Enhancing the Protection of Science and
   Technology Innovation to Serve the Innovation-driven
   Development

Innovation is the primary driving force for development and the essential condition for implementing new development concepts, establishing new development patterns and promoting high-quality growth. People’s courts have emphasized the role of IP adjudication in stimulating scientific and technological innovation, and stove to ensure that the protection of IPRs is proportional to the extent of its technological contribution. People’s courts are constantly synthesizing and refining rules governing the judicial protection of scientific and technological innovation in order to foster continuous innovation of technology and industrial upgrading.

• Improving Quality and Efficiency of Adjudication

People’s courts hearing numerous IP cases in accordance with the law. By formulating judicial interpretations and judicial policies, and issued guiding cases, gazetted cases and annual cases, the courts effectively strengthened trial guidance, standardized the criteria for adjuration, facilitated the unification of administrative law enforcement and adjudication standards, and maintained a consistently high level of trial competence. The SPC promulgated the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in Civil Cases of Patent Rights Relating to Pharmaceutical Products Applied for Registration, focusing on the procedural issues that must be resolved following the implementation of the patent linkage system for pharmaceutical products, particularly the interaction and cooperation between litigation procedures and administrative procedures of pharmaceutical products evaluation or approval, as well as the procedure of administrative decision. It established clear guidelines for the timely and impartial trial of relevant cases, as well as institutional incentives and judicial guarantees for the pharmaceutical industry’s independent innovation and high- quality development. The SPC also issued the Several Provisions on the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Cases Involving Disputes over Infringement upon Rights of New Plant Varieties (II), and released the first series of typical cases of judicial IP protection in the seed industry tried by people’ s courts. The SPC summarized recent judicial practices in recent years, effectively implemented the Seed Law, strengthened the protection of plant variety rights, stimulated innovation in breeding and safeguarded the scientific and technological self-reliance of the seed industry. These initiatives have enhanced the judicial protection of IPRs in China’s seed industry, and created a sound legal environment for the revitalization of the seed

industry.

After three years of pilot operation, the SPC’s IP Court accepted 9,368 technical cases and concluded 7,625, which involving patent, new plant variety and layout design of integrated circuit. 4,335 were accepted and 3,460 were concluded in 2021. Among them, over a quarter of cases involved strategic emerging industries such as new generation information technology, biomedicine, high-end equipment manufacturing, and energy conservation and environmental protection. In January 2022, the China Association for Science and Technology, the China Society of Law, respectively completed the third-party assessments of the SPC’s IP Court pilot program. Each assessment concluded that the pilot program was properly focused and effective in achieving the CPC’s stated objectives of its establishment, further improving the appellate trial mechanism for IP cases at the national level, and vigorously promoting unification of adjudication standards and improvement of trial quality and efficiency of technology-related cases. On 27 February, 2022, Justice Zhou Qiang, President of the SPC, briefed the Standing Committee of the 13 ^th National People’s Congress on the implementation of the Decision on Several Issues concerning Judicial Procedures for Patent and Other Intellectual Property Cases, which got the full affirmation by the Standing Committee after deliberation.

• Reinforcing the Protection of Original Innovation

People’s courts strengthened the review of legality of administrative acts over patent grant and confirmation in order to improve the quality. People’s courts correctly adjudicated IP cases of high-tech fields such as 5G technology, biomedicine, high-end equipment manufacturing, new materials and new energy, and thereby sparked scientific and technological innovation. Additionally, the courts strengthened IP protection in emerging fields, fairly adjudicated cases involving the sharing economy, artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing and other new-type IP cases, clarifying protection rules and rights boundaries, guiding the healthy and orderly development of new technologies, new forms and models of business along the rule of law’s path. The SPC, in the invalidity cases of invention patent involving “magnetic resonance imaging” and “traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) sorting machine”, interpreted the claims in a scientific and reasonable manner, upheld the validity of the patent, serving and safeguarding the fight against COVID-19 according to the law; in patent ownership cases involving “high-temperature microwave expanding furnace’： “fingerprint identification’： the criteria for determining disputes over the ownership of on-duty inventions were clarified to stimulate innovation and creativity among scientific researchers and protected the legitimate rights and interests of scientific and technological innovation subjects in accordance with the law; in the variety rights cases involving rice “Jinjing 818” and corn “Longping 206’； the SPC strengthened the IPR protection and promoted self­reliance and self-improvement of the seed industry; the SPC also studied and formulated the guiding opinions on strengthening the criminal trial involving seeds, punishing seed-related crimes in conformity with the law, and accelerating the revitalization of the seed industry. Furthermore, the SPC hosted a symposium on the judicial protection of IPRs in TCM in terms of preserving rightfulness, innovation and inheritance. Jiangsu High People’s Court and five provincial authorities jointly selected top 34 enterprises from key development industry chains, and provided help to them in the technology research. Henan High People’s Court issued 20 measures aimed at comprehensive strengthening the judicial protection of IPRs, particularly in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence and biomedicine. Fujian Fuzhou Intermediate People’s Court issued the Implementing Opinions on Strengthening the Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of Key Enterprises in Technology-Intensive Industries (for Trial Implementation), responding actively to the judicial demand for IPRs of high-tech enterprises.

• Strengthening Registered Trademark Protection to
  Assist the Construction of Brand Power

People’s courts have strove to improve the quality of the administrative cases of trademark granting and reviewing, resolutely crack down on malicious trademark registration not for the purpose of trademark use, and promote a normal and regulated trademark application and registration order. People’s courts also have strengthened the protection of well-known trademarks, and severely punished trademark attachment, counterfeiting and other “free­riding^ activities. The courts scientifically and reasonably defined the boundary of trademark rights and the scope of protection, enhanced the role of trademark usage in determining the protective scope of trademark rights, and actively guided the right holder to consistently and practically use the trademark to bring into play the identification function of the trademark and protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.

• Safeguarding the Trademark Registration

The SPC and several local people’s courts collaborated with the National Intellectual Property Administration to hold seminars on trademark registration and reviewing cases to exchange views with the goal of quality improvement. The SPC resolved a number of administrative trademark cases according to the law, and further consummated the recognition standards for “distinctiveness” in trademark registration applications. Based on the actual circumstances, Beijing IP Court formulated the Implementing Plan for Promoting the Reform of Split-flowing Simple and Complex Administrative Proceedings (for Trial Implementation), which made an attempt to improve the rules on the application of simplified procedures for trademark administrative proceedings and the application of electronic litigation to split-flow the trademark administration cases in respect of the complexity, significance and duration of trial. Jiangsu Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court advocated for the establishment of a whole-process mechanism to combat malicious trademark registration in trademark infringement cases.

• Regulating the Use of Registered Trademarks

People’s courts continued to intensify the punishment on trademark infringement and strengthen the judicial protection for well-known trademarks, traditional brands and time-honored brands. Zhejiang High People’s Court organized special campaigns and released typical cases on brand protection. Xinjiang Tacheng Intermediate People’s Court coordinated the Municipal Administration for Market Regulation to strengthen inspection and regulation to fundamentally curb the highly frequent trademark counterfeiting crimes from the source. Sichuan Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court transferred relevant trademark infringement clues to administrative authorities, and promoted the practice of determining the administrative penalties in trademark infringement cases by referring to the civil infringement case standards to reduce the quantity of similar IP disputes. Local people’s courts of different jurisdictions also emphasized the deterrent effect of punitive damages and criminal sanctions on trademark infringement. Courts in Guangdong Province awarded treble punitive damages in 2 trademark infringement cases, with damages of RMB 10 million and RMB 30 million respectively; and a court in Guizhou Province and a court in Heilongjiang Province imposed a fine of RMB 21 million and RMB 21.25 million respectively in two trademark counterfeiting cases.

• Actively Responding to Social Concerns

With the increasing judicial protection of registered trademarks, in particular the increasing amount of damages awarded the abuse of trademark rights, in a malicious or fraudulent manner, often occurred. These incidents have caused serious disturbances to the normal production and operation of micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and self-employed individuals which have aroused great social concern. The SPC timely held a question-and- answer session on the judicial protection of geographical indications of Tongguan Roujiamo (the brand of the steamed meat roll named after Tongguan) and Xiaoyao Town Hulatang (the brand of the spicy soup originally made in Xiaoyao Town), and resolving ambiguities to guide judicial practice, protect geographical indications, and severely punish malicious litigation, thereby achieving positive social effects. The Sichuan courts handled the “Green Pepper” trademark disputes expeditiously and in accordance with the law, preserving the order of trademark usage, clarifying the boundary of trademark rights, and ensuring legitimate use and honest operation.

1. Improving Copyright Protection to Accelerate the
   Construction of Strong Cultural Power

Based on judicial function, people’s courts have vigorously promoted core socialist values while fully executing the leading and guiding function of copyright adjudication for outstanding culture. The courts have strengthened the protection for culture creators* rights and interests, safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of those who distribute their works legally, and continuously improved the copyright protection in respect of traditional culture and traditional knowledge to boost the healthy development of cultural industry.

• Carrying forward Socialist Core Values

People’s courts at all levels protected the inheritance of red classics and the legitimate rights and interests of heroes and martyrs, regulating the order of cultural dissemination, guiding the public to consciously resist historical nihilism, incivilization, vulgarity and kitsch, strengthening IPRs protection such as genetic resources, traditional culture, traditional knowledge and folk literature, and promoting the collation and utilization of intangible cultural heritage and the creative transformation and innovative development of Chinese excellent traditional culture. Beijing IP Court concluded the copyright infringement dispute over acrobatic works to strengthen the protection of traditional acrobatic works. Shijingshan Primary People’s Court in Beijing conducted a special research on 4 types of disputes over IPRs which involved the infringement of the Winter Olympic Games logos to contribute to the success of Winter Olympic Games and the Winter Paralympic Games in Beijing. A court of Quanzhou in Fujian province promulgated the Implementing Opinions on Strengthening the Judicial Protection of World Heritage Properties, which established a circuit court for the protection of Maritime Silk Road Historical Sites to strengthen the protection of intangible cultural heritage and promote the protection and utilization of historical relics as well as the protection and inheritance of cultural heritage. Jiangxi Jingdezhen Intermediate People’s Court established an IP division to provide judicial guarantee for the construction of the National Ceramic Culture Inheritance and Innovation Pilot Zone.

• Improving the Regulated Development of Emerging Business Forms

In recent years, copyright infringement cases increased in the domains of online games, sports events and live webcasts, and relevant judicial decisions have continued to improve the rules for the practical recognition and protection of works. In 2021, the amended Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China came into force. People’s courts at all levels conducted researches on the amendment to ensure that copyright cases were heard in accordance with the law and to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the cultural industry. The SPC held a series of symposiums to conduct in-depth discussions on legal issues about the copyright protection of game live-streaming footage and the audio-visual work clips, and concluded a series of cases on the latter one. Courts in Tianjin convened deliberate discussion on issues such as ICP filing, application market, short videos, IPTV infringement and the amount of compensation involved in the Internet copyright cases, and formulated the Answers to Issues Concerning the Trial of Internet Copyright Cases to guide the resolution of complicated issues in judicial practice.

• Regulating Adjudication of Rights Protection Cases

With the rapid development of cultural industry and the increased awareness of copyright holders, the copyright protection litigation has continued to grow. Protecting creators* rights and interests in conformity with legal provisions, keeping a balance between encouraging creativity and safeguarding people’s cultural rights and interests, and promoting the creation and dissemination of intellectual works are all critical issues that must be addressed in copyright protection. In a series of cases involving copyright infringement by KTV operators, the SPC clarified the issues of electronic evidence determination, lowering the burden of proof for the parties, and effectively protected the legitimate rights of right holders. Chongqing High People’s Court and Sichuan High People’s Court researched and drafted the Minutes of the Judges’ Meeting on Determining the Compensation Amount for Cases Involving Copyright Infringement of Audio-visual Works by KTV Operators, in response to the issues including heavy caseload of copyright infringement in audio-visual works and the ambiguous standards for determining the amount of compensation awarded in their jurisdictions, guided the healthy development of relevant industries according to law.

1. Strengthening the Protection of Fair Competition
   and Protecting a Law-based Market

The IPR protection and the promotion of fair competition are the necessary preconditions for establishing a market-oriented and law-based international business environment, as well as for constructing a modern economic system and improving the socialist market economic system. In 2021, people’s courts intensified the crackdown on unfair competition activities such as infringement of trade secrets, strengthened on judicial regulation for monopolies by Internet platform enterprises. Acts that disrupted fair competition or market order such as “Either-Or Choice” of the Internet platform or “Big data-enabled price discrimination against existing customers” have been severely punished, so as to effectively protect the lawful rights of consumers and the interests of public. By maintaining and promoting fair market competition, the disorderly capital expansion was prevented.

(I) Strengthening Anti-monopoly and Anti-unfair competition Adjudication

People’s courts have properly adjudicated anti-monopoly and unfair competition cases. Judicial decisions fulfilled the functions of rule guidance and value orientation in maintaining fair competition in the market, increasing enterprise awareness of fair competition, and guiding the creation of a market environment that respects, protects and promotes fair competition. In the horizontal monopoly agreement case of “joint operation of driving schools”, the joint venture agreement and self-discipline convention were declared null and void, putting an end to monopolistic practice at their sources. People’s courts also actively explored and improved the standards for defining the monopolistic acts of Internet platforms. The practices of excessively collecting and using personal information, the use of algorithms to commit price discrimination and fraud were also severely punished, which regulated the market competition order. The courts heard cases including data rights, transactions, services and privacy protection, explored and improved the rules for data right protection, and promoted the development of an open, healthy and safe digital environment. The unfair competition practices such as imitating, confusion, false publicity, and commercial defamation were forbidden through the judiciary’s efforts to purify the market environment, and guide business operators to join in positive competitions through technological innovation. The protection of trade secrets was further tightened. Efforts have also been made to deal with the relationship between the protection of trade secrets and freedom of employment, as well as the relationship between the non-compete restraints and the flow of talents to promote the reasonable mobility of talented personnel. The specific measures for protecting trade secrets in litigation were clarified, assuaging right holders’ misgivings about “secondary disclosure” and encouraging them to defend their rights in accordance with the law. To address the issues including inadequate compensation and high costs, the court effectively increased the support for damages and reasonable expenses for rights maintenance, awarding RMB 159 million in the “Shannon” technical secrets infringement case.

(II) Vigorously Promoting the Unification of Adjudication Criteria

The SPC reported to the NPC Standing Committee on the study and implementation of the Report on the Law Enforcement Inspection of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and its Deliberations. The SPC issued the Interpretations on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China after research, which, in accordance with the newly amended Anti-Unfair Competition Law, focused on refining the provisions of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, as well as counterfeiting and confusion, false publicity and unfair competition on the Internet, etc.. The Interpretation is a timely response to the judicial needs of emerging fields and new business forms which is critical in strengthening the adjudication of anti-unfair competition cases, consolidating the fundamental position of competition policy, and promoting the formation of a domestic unified market that is efficient, well- regulated and fully open. The SPC published 20 model cases on Internet IPRs protection, anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition, indicating the judiciary’s unwavering commitment to fostering a fair and competitive law-based environment.

1. Deepening the Adjudication Reform and
   Promoting Comprehensive Protection

In 2021, people’s courts emphasized the importance of resolving difficult problems through reform thinking and protecting innovation in novel ways. The Plan for Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property by People’s Courts (2021-2025) and the Opinions on Strengthening the Trial of Cases Involving Intellectual Property Rights in the New Era to Provide Effective Judicial Services and Support for Building China into an Intellectual Property Rights Power were issued, which promoted the judicial protection capability and standard in IPR protection steadily. It has made significant strides towards improving the professional trial system and promoting litigation standards. Simultaneously, people’s courts have actively strengthened the mechanism for judicial adjudication and administrative enforcement, improved coordination and cooperation with IPRs administrative departments, promoted the unification of administrative enforcement and judicial adjudication standards, and made efforts to promote a sound pattern of IPRs protection.

(I) Optimizing the Specialized IP Trial System with Chinese Characteristics

China has established a specialized IP adjudication system, with the SPC’s IP judicial departments serving as the anchor, 4 IP courts serving as the model, 27 IP divisions in local intermediate people’s courts serving as the focal points, and IP divisions of the local courts at all levels serving as the support. The appellate trial mechanism for IP cases at the national level was advanced, the building of specialized IP organs was reinforced, and the function of the Internet courts and IP divisions in local courts at various levels were under improvement. The SPC formulated the Several Provisions on Jurisdiction over Intellectual Property Civil and Administrative Cases of First Instance, which strengthened the judicial protection system through scientific jurisdiction, rationally positioned the trial functions of courts at all four levels, further optimized trial resource allocation, facilitated parties in litigations, effectively resolved disputes, and resolved current inconsistency problems in the standards, systems and inconvenience of IP cases jurisdiction of first instance. The SPC has continued to improve mechanism for the “3-in-T integrated trial of civil, criminal and administrative IP cases, and effectively guide the promotion of reform. Tibet High People’s Court issued the Implementing Plan for Integrated 3-in-1 Trial of Intellectual Property Cases to ensure consistent and unified adjudication. Hainan High People’s Court’s Opinions on Several Issues of Designated Jurisdiction over Criminal Cases Involving Intellectual Property Rights clarified the scope of IP-related criminal cases.

Diversified technical facts investigation mechanism has been improved. “The National Court Technical Investigator Talent Database” included a list of over 450 technology experts covering more than 30 technology fields, effectively alleviating the difficulties of fact-finding in technical cases by dispatching experts on demand nationwide. Shanghai IP Court initiated a mechanism of entrusting technical fact investigation to other professional agencies, which could meet the technical investigation demands on IP adjudication for courts at various levels in Shanghai. Based on the part-time technical investigators, Shenyang Intermediate People’s Court explored the establishment of a full-time technical investigators system on the basis of the improvement in the selection of part-time technical investigators.

(II) Improving the Litigation System Compatible with IP Adjudication

The SPC actively conducted researches and studies on litigation rules consistent with IP practice, and promoted the improvement of the IP litigation system. The SPC issued the Interpretation on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Intellectual Property Infringement Civil Cases, which improves the regulations on punitive damages that were compatible with the provisions of the Civil Code. Guided by the principle of Comprehensive and Equal Protection, the interpretation clarified the applicable conditions, improved the operability of the judicial application of punitive damages, ensured unified criteria for punitive damages application, punished serious infringement upon IPRs, and worked to resolve the difficult problem of “low compensation and high costs”. The SPC issued 6 model cases on punitive damages for infringements of IPRs. Approximately 895 cases in 2021 resulted in punitive damages being awarded to infringers. The SPC issued the Official Reply on Issues concerning the Defendants’ Request for Reasonable Expenses in Intellectual Property Infringement Litigation on the Ground of Plaintiff’s Abuses of Rights to uphold the bona fide doctrine, fully exploit the role of reasonable expenses such as attorneys* fees in regulating parties’ litigation behaviour; support claims for reasonable expenses from abusive litigants, guide parties in exercising their rights in good faith, and prevent right abusement in the meantime. The SPC also summarized the judicial practices, and in collaboration with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, examined the formulation of supporting judicial interpretations to ensure the effective implementation of the Criminal Law’s Amendment (XI). The amended eighteen judicial interpretations on IPRs entered into force on January 1, 2021, concurrently with the Civil Code, promoting greater uniformity in the scale of adjudication of IP cases.

Local people’s courts at all levels also carried out pilot programs in small claims IP litigation and single-judge trials, classifying cases based on their complexity, significance, and duration of trial. They actively used modern technologies such as 5G, Augmented Reality, and Artificial Intelligence to conduct online litigation, consolidate and enhance smart court construction achievements to overcome the impact of COVID-19 pandemic, and comprehensively promote the modernization of the adjudication system and expertise. Beijing High People’s Court formulated the Guidelines on the Evidence Rules for Intellectual Property Civil Litigation in an attempt to address issue of the difficulty in adducing evidence. Zhejiang High People’s Court promoted the application of copyright examination by AI to check image duplicate, identifying the innovative points and evaluate similarities. The AI assistant has been put into practice in 173 cases, with an effective duplicate check rate of 43%. Hulunbuir Intermediate People’s Court in Inner Mongolia piloted the use of the judicial block-chain platform to provide efficient and convenient technical support for IP protection before and during the trial. Ningxia Yinchuan Intermediate People’s Court formulated the Guidelines for the Fast Trial Mechanism for Typed Intellectual Property Cases, which effectively reduced the average term of IP case trial.

• Actively Participating in Establishing an Overall Protection Framework for IPRs

Protecting IP rights is a systematic endeavour. People’s courts have always laid stress on coordination and cooperation, actively participating in the development of a comprehensive protection system and bolstering systemic protection capacity. The SPC was a positive participant in the work to crack down IP infringement and counterfeiting, as well as the formulation of significant IP protection documents. It established communication and liaison mechanisms with the State Intellectual Property Office and the State Anti-Monopoly Bureau to facilitate an effective interface between administrative enforcement and the judiciary. It signed a memorandum of cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and jointly hosted a symposium on IPRs protection in the seed industry, established an expert consultation mechanism for judicial protection of IPRs in seed industry, actively promoted the revitalization of the seed industry. Additionally, the SPC bolstered coordination with the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine and the State Intellectual Property Office in order to promote the establishment of special rules and protection mechanisms in patent granting for TCM. The SPC continued to advise courts in the Yangtze River Delta and other regions to establish cross-regional and inter-departmental collaboration mechanisms with administrative authorities in order to foster regional collaborative innovation. As a furtherance to the Notice of Establishing an Online Litigation and Mediation Connecting Mechanism for Intellectual Property Disputes jointly issued by the SPC and the National Intellectual Property Administration, an online platform that connects litigation and mediation by incorporating mediators and mediating organizations at all levels was established to enable the whole-process online IP dispute mediation. There were 289 mediation organizations and 1,635 mediators in the platform, and over 20,000 IP cases were assigned to this platform by local courts for pre-litigation mediation. Qinghai High People’s Court and the Qinghai Administration for Market Regulation signed the Memorandum of Cooperation on Joint Punishment of Seriously Dishonest Entities in Intellectual Property (Patents) Domain which was intended to jointly punish the dishonest entities in respect of IP infringement. Xinjiang High People’s Court and the Xinjiang Administration for Market Regulation signed the Framework Agreement on Intellectual Property Protection Cooperation to promote cross-departmental coordination. Courts in Hebei Province have actively participated in special actions such as the campaign against counterfeiting agricultural materials and the joint action of IP protection in e-commerce by providing legal services and judicial support. Anhui Huaibei Intermediate People’s Court, on the basis of the Framework Agreement for Coordinated Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in Huaihai Economic Zone, built itself into a model for inter-provincial coordinated IP protection. Liaoning High People’s Court, Liaoning Provincial People’s Procuratorate and Liaoning Provincial Public Security Department jointly issued the Minutes of the Conference on Several Issues concerning the Handling of Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement Cases, which standardized law enforcement and adjudication, comprehensively enhanced the crackdown of IP crimes. Shandong Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court and Qingdao Municipal People’s Procuratorate signed the Framework Agreement on the Connection and Cooperation between the Court and Procuratorate on Intellectual Property Protection to resolve jurisdiction issues and advance coordination. Courts in Shanxi, Jilin, Hunan, Guangxi, Yunnan and other regions and provinces were actively organized the delivery of laws to enterprises and communities, conducted public court hearings and law enforcement activities, implemented “whoever enforces the law is responsible for promoting the law”： enhanced judicial disclosure, and raised the general public’s awareness of the importance of respecting and protecting IP rights.

• Impartial Trial of Foreign-related Cases and
  Actively Engaged in International Cooperation

People’s courts have adhered to coordinate efforts to advance domestic and international rule of law, equally safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties and all types of market entities in accordance with the law, maintaining the market order of fair competition, and serving the new development paradigm featuring dual circulation, in which domestic and overseas markets reinforce each other with the domestic market as the mainstay. The courts actively engaged in international cooperation in IPRs protection, and contributed China’s judicial wisdom to global IP governance.

(I) Equally Protecting the Legitimate Rights and Interests of Chinese and Foreign litigants

By fairly adjudicating foreign-related IP cases and properly resolving major IP disputes relating to international trade, people’s courts implemented the TRIPs Agreement, the Madrid Agreement, the Berne Convention and other international treaties ratified and acceded to by China. The courts actively promoted an open, fair; just and non-discriminatory environment for science and technology development, as well as a market-oriented, law-based and international business environment, which demonstrates China’s confidence and determination of protection innovation, openness and inclusiveness. The SPC ruled in favour of the full amount of RMB 20 million in damages claimed by the foreign right holder in the case of patent infringement for the “locking intramedullary nail” invention based on the refusal of submitting account books from the infringer. Therefore, the legitimate rights and interests of the foreign litigants were fully protected. China has increasingly become a reliable and trustworthy choice for international IP litigation.

(II) Participating in International Cooperation in IPRs Protection

People’s courts maintained a high level of international judicial exchanges and cooperation, actively participated in global IP governance through the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and promoted the development of a more just and rational global IP governance system. The SPC hosted the Sino-European Forum on the Comparison of Intellectual Property Litigation Systems, participated in international conferences such as the 7 ^th BRICS International Competition Conference, the 18^th Shanghai International Intellectual Property Forum, the 2 ^nd International Symposium on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, the 2021 WIPO Intellectual Property Judges Forum, the China-EU Judicial Forum Seminar on Standard Essential Patents, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) China Youth IP Seminar. The SPC also held an online exchange with the UK IPR Enterprise Court and co-wrote the WIPO Global Judicial Guide to Patent Case Management. Chinese courts have actively promoted China’s voice, told the story of China’s legal protection of IPRs, and contributed Chinese wisdom to the global IP governance system. Shanghai High People’s Court established the IP Innovation Award after signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre.

• Strengthening Capacity Building for Judges to
  Serve and Guarantee Fairness

In 2021, people’s courts concentrated their efforts on developing an IP trial team capable of meeting the demands of a new era. The courts conducted an in-depth research and education on the Party’s history, as well as team education and rectification, adhered to Party Building in order to promote team building and trials, strengthened political construction, developed political loyalty, and increased the IP trial team’s awareness and ability to serve the overall situation. Professional training and judge selection were strengthened, and the mechanism for IP judge reservation and selection was also improved. The courts sought to develop an IP trial team that was politically committed, cognizant of the broader context, well-versed in the law, knowledgeable about technology, and with an international perspective.

(I) Carrying out the In-depth Education of CPC’s History

The year 2021 marks the 100^th anniversary of the founding of the CPC. People’s courts diligently implemented the Party Central Committee’s major decisions, conducted an in-depth research and implementation of the spirits of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important speeches on the Mobilization meeting of the study and education of the Party’s history and delivered on July 1, 2021, and continuously strengthened their understanding of the spirit of the 19^th CPC Central Committee’s Sixth Plenary Session, focusing on promoting Party history learning through the education with high standards and high quality, with the core of learning history to understand the reasoning, boost self-confidence, respect morality, and promote practice. At all levels, people’s courts used the “I do practical work for the public” campaign as a powerful tool to exercise their judicial functions fully and to meet the public’s judicial needs for IP protection. The SPC organized seminars on issues concerning the copyright infringement in the use of other people’s works on university campus networks, with the goal of establishing a communication channel and promoting consensus among education authorities, video companies, and research universities to resolve disputes.

(II) Carrying out Education and Rectification

By resolutely implementing the spirits of important instructions on the education and rectification of political and legal team elaborated by General Secretary Xi Jinping as well as the decision-making and deployment of the Party Central Committee, people’s courts have educated and corrected their teams, resolutely completing the “four tasks” of building political loyalty, eliminating vicious members, resolving persistent and chronic problems, and promoting the spirit of heroism, in order to develop a reliable team with firm belief, responsibility, incorruptibility and people-centered awareness. People’s courts at all levels have worked to achieve the unification of delivering one-time judgment and ensuring long-lasting peace, and in consideration of practice of IP trials, improved the mechanism for the exercise and supervision of judicial power; and taken the achievements of rectification education to push forward high-quality development of IP trial in the new era.

• Improving Talent Training Model

People’s courts at all levels endeavored to enhance the professionalism of IP talents in handling new, complex and highly technical cases by cultivating their comprehensive trial abilities. The SPC actively coordinated the training of specialized IP talents nationwide by convening professional meetings and seminars, organizing professional training, improving judicial databases, publishing trial guidelines, carrying out human resource exchanges and other methods, the capability and quality of IP trial team were well promoted. Meantime, the court continued to increase support for the construction of court talent teams to the primary courts as well as the courts in the western region. Shaanxi High People’s Court, taking advantage of the abundant resources in scientific and technology education, signed a comprehensive strategic cooperation agreement with Northwest University and Xi’an Jiaotong University, and built court-university cooperation platforms such as the Intellectual Property Case Study Center. High People’s Courts in Jiangxi, Hubei, Gansu and other regions and provinces gave professional training courses on IP trial for the judges, judge assistants and clerks specialized in IP adjudication.

Closing Remarks

The year of 2022 is of great significance for starting the new journey to build China into a modern socialist country in all respects and achieve the Second Centenary Goal. Facing new developments and tasks, people’s courts at all levels must follow the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era and implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law. The courts should fully act on the guiding principles from the Party’s 19th National Congress and the plenary sessions of the 19th Party Central Committee. The courts should acquire a deep understanding of the decisive significance of the establishment of both Comrade Xi Jinping’s core position on the Party Central Committee and in the Party as a whole and the guiding role of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and boost our consciousness of the need to maintain political integrity, think in big-picture terms, follow the leadership core, and keep in alignment with the central Party leadership. The courts should stay confident in the path, the theory, the system, and the culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The courts should firmly uphold Comrade Xi Jinping’s core position on the Party Central Committee and in the Party as a whole and uphold the Central Committee’s authority and its centralized, unified leadership. The courts should carry forward the great founding spirit of the Party, remaining true to our original aspiration and keeping our mission firmly in mind. The courts will closely follow the requirements of “standing grounded in the new development stage, applying the new development philosophy in full, creating a new pattern of development, and promoting high- quality development”. The courts should firmly establish the concept of IP protection as a means of protecting innervation, and comprehensively deepen the reform and innovation in the field of IP adjudication. What the courts have gained from the initiatives to study the history of the CPC and the team education and rectification will be consolidated. All of us in the Courts will strengthen our role in IP trials, enhancing their quality, efficiency, and judicial credibility, and optimizing the rule of law environment conducive to innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Efforts will be taken to increase the international influence of China’s IPR judiciary, as well as provide judicial services and a guarantee for China to become a major player in IPRs. These efforts will enable the courts to pave the way for a successful 20 th National Party Congress.