Weekly China Brand Protection News

March 21, 2024

1. The Guangdong High Court reversed a trademark infringement dispute in a retrial regarding the use of trademarks in foreign OEM

On February 22, the Guangdong High Court reversed a trademark infringement dispute in a retrial between Fila Sports Co., Ltd. (“Fila”) and Hunan Jiahui Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jiahui”). The court upheld the first-instance judgment that ordered Jiahui to immediately stop infringing on Fila’s following trademark rights “Fila Company in Chinese &   ,” “,” “,” and “,” and to stop producing and selling infringing products. Jiahui should compensate for economic losses (including reasonable expenses to stop the infringement) for RMB 200,000 (USD27,780).

In this case, courts at all levels confirmed that Jiahui’s processing and production activities were foreign-related OEM activities. Courts at all levels, however, have differed on whether Jiahui’s act of affixing the allegedly infringing logos on its goods is considered trademark use within the meaning of trademark law. On retrial, the Guangdong High Court found that: trademark use is an objective behavior, which usually includes many processes, such as physical affixing in the production process, marketing, and sales in the circulation, etc. When a trademark logo is physically affixed to a manufactured or processed product, if the logo has the likelihood of distinguishing the source of the goods and can play a role in distinguishing the source of the goods, such use should be deemed to be “trademark use” as stipulated in the Trademark Law. In this case, Jiahui, as an OEM, affixed the allegedly infringing logos on the garments it processed, which obviously had the purpose of identifying the source of goods. The logos can also have the actual effect of identifying the source of the goods and should be recognized as trademark use. Affixing a trademark is an objective act, and the identification function of the trademark is an objective result. Jiahui was fulfilling the obligations of the foreign-related OEM processing contract. This is only the reason for the act of affixing the trademark, and it will not affect the qualitative nature of such trademark use. In addition, with the development of e-commerce and the Internet, even if the allegedly infringing goods are exported goods, there is still the possibility of being returned to China. In summary, the second instance court found that Jiahui’s affixing a trademark did not constitute trademark use on the grounds that the allegedly infringing goods had not entered the mainland China market for circulation and sale, and the alleged infringing logo did not have the function of identifying the source of the goods in the mainland Chinese market was wrong and this court corrects it.

Jiahui claimed that it obtained the production authorization from Shengrui LIU, the owner of the “Feidisi in Chinese & FTSS” trademark, and directly exported products to the clients after OEM processing, so it did not infringe. According to the Trademark Law on the determination of trademark infringement, the principle of liability for trademark infringement shall be the principle of no-fault liability. Moreover, trademark rights are territorial. The trademark of the third-party in the case is only registered in the Taiwan region, and has no trademark rights in mainland China. Moreover, the trademark application of the third-party in the case was registered in 2019, which was later than the registration date of the Cited Marks of Fila. Fila has submitted evidence to prove that its series of trademarks involved in the case had a high reputation in the domestic market before the third-party trademark application was filed. As an operator in the same industry, Jiahui should have known about this fact. There is a clear difference between the “Feidisi in Chinese & FTSS” trademark and the accused infringing logos. The accused infringing logos have the upper and lower color distinction of the initial letters, which is completely consistent with the design of the initial letters of Fila’s trademark, making it more similar to Fila’s trademark. Under this premise, Jiahui still affixed the alleged infringing logo that is obviously different in appearance from its authorized logo on the clothing it processed. It was at least negligent and difficult to believe that it fulfilled its duty of reasonable review and care. In summary, Jiahui’s non-infringement defense cannot be established.

2. The defendants improperly took advantage of the market reputation of Liuzhou Hotel’s well-known trademark. Considered the infringing hotel was used as a quarantine hotel during the epidemic, the defendants were ordered to pay RMB 1 million.

On December 20, 2023, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court concluded a first-instance trademark infringement dispute between the plaintiff Liuzhou Hotel Group (“Liuzhou”) and the defendants Guiyang Yunlu Hotel Management Co., Ltd. (“Guiyang Yunlu”), Fujian Yunlu Hotel Management Co., Ltd. (“Fujian Yunlu”). The court ordered the defendant Guiyang Yunlu and Fujian Yunlu to immediately stop using the “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” logo. The two defendants were ordered to compensate the Liuzhou for economic losses of RMB 1 million (USD138,900) and reasonable expenses of RMB250,000 (USD34,725).

Regarding whether the alleged infringement behavior of the Guiyang Yunlu infringed on Liuzhou’s trademark rights, in this case, comprehensive consideration was given to the multiple notarial certificates submitted by the Liuzhou proving that it promoted and used the cited trademarks, printouts of relevant online reports, court judgments and administrative agency rulings that Liuzhou’s trademark was deemed to be relatively well-known or had reached a well-known status. In this case, it can be determined that the “Crown Plaza Hotel” mark with reg. no. 2021114 approved for use in providing accommodation services has a high reputation in China and has reached well-known status.

The “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” used by Guiyang Yunlu is similar in text composition and pronunciation to Liuzhou’s cited mark, which constituted an imitation and translation of Liuzhou’s well-known trademark. The defendant’s use of “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” for the same services as Liuzhou’s well-known trademark was enough to make the relevant public associate that the trademark used by the defendants was closely related to Liuzhou’s well-known trademark, thus unfairly taking advantage of Liuzhou’s well-known mark market reputation and harmed its interests. Therefore, the defendant’s use of “Yulu Crowne Plaza Hotel” has constituted an infringement of Liuzhou’s well-known trademark.

Regarding compensation for losses. The court fully considered factors such as the alleged infringing hotel’s operating autonomy during the period when it was used as an quarantine hotel and the limited role of its logo as a trademark, as well as the overall situation of the hotel industry during COVID. The amount of compensation in this case should be limited to the statutory compensation amount in accordance with the law. Considering the close relationship between the first and second defendants such as shareholder relationship and trademark licensing, the two defendants in this case should bear joint and several liability.

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 Brand Protection News

March 13, 2024

1. The use of the right holder’s trademark on a mobile map is a trademark use

Recently, the Guang’an Intermediate Court concluded a trademark infringement dispute between Sichuan Jibang Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jibang”) and Yuechi County Yumin Gas Station (“Yumin Gas Station”). The court determined that Yumin Gas Station’s use of the “Zhongchuan Petroleum in Chinese” logo on the mobile map constituted a trademark infringement of “Zhongchuan Petroleum and Design” with reg. no. 21415831 of Jibang. The use should be stopped, and Yumin Gas Station should compensate Jibang for economic losses and reasonable expenses paid to stop the infringement totaled RMB50,000 (USD7,000).

Cited Mark

The court found that: First, Yumin Gas Station used the name “Zhongchuan Petroleum Yumin Agricultural Machinery Gas Station” in the mobile phone map to attract customers through the mobile phone map. Car owners often use mobile phone maps for navigation when driving, and passing vehicles can know where to refuel through the mobile phone map. At the same time, when refueling, car owners often want to have guaranteed oil quality and choose branded gas stations to refuel. The prominent use of the words “Zhongchuan Petroleum in Chinese” in the name plays a role in indicating the source of goods or services. Therefore, the use of “Yumin Gas Station” is a trademark use.

Second, the “Zhongchuan Petroleum in Chinese” used by Yumin Gas Station on the mobile map and the registered trademark of Jibang have the same composition and arrangement order, and can be regarded as the same trademark. Yumin Gas Station did not provide the time when it applied for trademark registration and the time when it used the registered trademark at the beginning of its establishment or earlier than Jibang. It used the “Zhongzhou Petroleum in Chinese” or “Zhongchuan Petroleum in Chinese” logo and had a certain impact, which was not in compliance with the requirements. It did not fulfill the elements of prior use defense. Yumin Gas Station used the same trademark as the registered trademark on the same goods without the permission of the trademark registrant, which infringed the trademark right of Jibang, and it should bear corresponding legal liability.

2. Bosch prevailed in a trademark infringement and unfair competition lawsuit

Recently, the Sichuan High Court concluded a second instance lawsuit for trademark infringement and unfair competition against Robert Bosch Co., Ltd. (“Bosch”), Bosch (China) Investment Co., Ltd. (“Bosch China”), Sichuan Bosch New Ventures Trading Co., Ltd. (“Sichuan Bosch”), Chengdu Yiluxing Petrochemical Co., Ltd. (“Yiluxing”), an individual Zheng, an individual Sun, Chengdu Maxto New Energy Lubricating Materials Co., Ltd. (“Maxto”). The court found that the defendants’ behaviors constituted an infringement of Bosch’s and Bosch China’s trademarks “BOSCH”, the design “”  and “Bosch in Chinese.” The court ordered that Sichuan Bosch, Yiluxing, and individuals Zheng and Suns should immediately stop infringement and jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB3 million (USD417,000). As a co-manufacturer of the accused infringing products, Maxto should be jointly and severally liable for RMB 150,000 (USD20, 870).

Cited Marks

The court found that: First, Sun and Zheng, as natural persons, implemented the use of “Bosch Xinchuang”, “” and “Bosch Zhenyu” by establishing Sichuan Bosch, Yiluxing, Yongxing Business Department, and Yuanji Business Department. The act of using the accused infringing marks and producing and selling the accused infringing products has combined to form an intrinsically linked joint infringement. Maxto, together with Sun and Zheng, Yiluxing, and Sichuan Boschs jointly produced and sold some of the accused infringing products. The above acts all have the function of identifying the source of goods and are trademark uses.

Second, compared the allegedly infringing mark “” with the cited mark “,” both are circular graphic with the same structure. Only the direction of the graphic within the circle is different. They constituted similar. “Bosch Xinchuang in Chinese” and “Bosch Zhenyu in Chinese” are similar to the trademark “Bosch.” The Cited marks has formed a corresponding relationship with “Bosch in Chinese” through its use and promotion in China. Therefore, the use of “Bosch Xinchuang in Chinese” and “Bosch Zhenyu in Chinese” will also cause confusion among the relevant public about the source of the goods.

Third, the goods approved for use by the plaintiff’s trademark and the accused infringing products are both in motor vehicles and are related in terms of consumer targets, sales channels, etc. The relevant public generally believes that they have a specific connection and could easily cause confusion. They constitute similar goods. The defendants’ behaviors constitute trademark infringement.

In addition, the word trademarks “Bosch in Chinese” and “BOSCH” have a high reputation in their fields through the long-term operation of Bosch and Bosch China. Bosch Xinchuang was registered in 2016. As a competitor in the same field, it registered “Bosch in Chinese” as part of its corporate name and used it in its business activities. Its registration was enough to confuse the relevant public and to lead the public to mistakenly believe that the allegedly infringing products it produced and sold originated from Bosch or Bosch China, or believe that there was a specific connection with Bosch or Bosch China. Their acts constitutes unfair competition.

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 Brand Protection News

March 7, 2024

1. Parallel imports that do not cause confusion or damage to goodwill do not constitute infringement

The Chongqing First Intermediate Court recently made a decision regarding a dispute over trademark infringement between the plaintiff Guangzhou Aotiwa Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (“Aotiwa”) and the defendant Chongqing Beigou Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Beigou”). The court found that the Beigou did not infringe and dismissed Aotiwa’s lawsuit.

Aotiwa registered the “” mark with reg. no. 25792637 in Class 5, the “Niuruiyou in Chinese” mark with reg. no. 25797592 in Class 5, the “” mark with reg. no. 61116472 in Class 29, the “Niuruiyou in Chinese” mark with reg. no. 61114540 in Class 29. Aotiwa discovered that Beigou was selling lactoferrin products with the ” Niuruiyou in Chinese” and “NEURIO” through the Taobao store “Zhengyige Overseas Direct Mail Store” and believed that Beigou was importing and selling without authorization and sued based on its registered trademarks for RMB 10 million in compensation and RMB 500,000 in reasonable costs in stopping the infringement. Beigou challenged Aotiwa’s right to sue and argued that both the accused infringing goods and the goods of Aotiwa and its subsidiary “Niurui Trading Company” were imported from SUNNYA in Australia. Beigou claimed that its products did not cause confusion and its selling of these products did not constitute infringement.

The court found that Aotiwa and Niurui Trading Company signed a “Trademark Exclusive Use Agreement” in 2017, agreeing that Aotiwa would authorize Niurui Trading Company to exclusively use its NEURIO-related trademarks registered in China from August 1, 2017 to July 30, 2027. SUNNYA is the owner of the “Niuruiyou in Chinese” mark and the “NEURIO” series marks in Australia and New Zealand. SUNNYA and Niurui Trading Company signed the “Product Agency Agreement” and “Agency Supplementary Agreement” successively in 2019, stipulating that Niurui Trading Company will be the general agent and import company of SUNNYA’s Neurio products in China and be responsible for the sales in China. For sales and promotion in China, the cooperation period is from March 29, 2019 to March 28, 2024. It was also found that SUNNYA filed an application for invalidation of the above-mentioned marks on April 24, 2023.

Based on the pleadings of both parties, the court commented on the key issues in dispute in the case as follows:

1. Whether Aotiwa is a qualified plaintiff in this case. In this case, the registered marks with reg. nos. 25792637, 25797592, 61116472, and 61114540 are still valid. As the exclusive owner of the said marks, Aotiwa has obtained the right to sue for trademark infringement. Although Aotiwa authorized NEURIO-related trademarks registered in China to be used exclusively by Niurui Trading Company in China, Niurui Trading Company did not file a lawsuit against the infringement. Aotiwa as the owner of the registered trademark has the right to sue.

2. Whether Beigou infringes upon Aotiwa’s registered trademark. First, the accused infringing goods falls into the approved use scope of the Aotiwa’s registered trademarks. The accused infringing logo constituted identical marks with Aotiwa’s. However, according to the traceability results of scanning codes, the accused infringing products were genuine. Second, SUNNYA is the overseas trademark owner of the “NEURIO” trademarks. The accused infringing goods sold by Beigou were authorized by SUNNYA. The accused infringing goods were purchased through cross-border e-commerce by Beigou from SUNNYA. The source of its goods was the same as that of Aotiwa. The acquisition method was legal. The evidence on record was sufficient to prove that the source of Beigou’s goods was legal. Third, the evidence in the case proves that Beigou has reviewed the source and authorization status of the goods, which had fulfilled its reasonable duty of care and has no subjective intention to infringe. Therefore, the accused infringing products were genuine goods obtained through parallel imports. Beigou’s store also clearly stated that the products had an official authorization letter from SUNNYA. The manufacturer, traceability code, and other information on the goods were also clearly stated. These goods will not cause consumers to confuse the source of the goods, nor will it impair the identification function of the trademark. The existing evidence was not sufficient to prove that the alleged infringement has affected Aotiwa’s trademark’s function of ensuring product quality or has the consequences of abusing or diluting the goodwill of Aotiwa’s registered trademarks. Aotiwa’s evidence was insufficient to prove Beigou’s infringement. Accordingly, Aotiwa’s claims cannot be established.

2. An AI company generated Ultraman pictures were found liable of copyright infringement – the world’s first AIGC platform copyright infringement case

The Guangzhou Internet Court recently decided a first instance decision involving the plaintiff Shanghai Xinchuanghua Cultural Development Co., Ltd. (“Xinchuanghua”) and the defendant an AI Company regarding internet infringement (which has been changed to a copyright infringement dispute). The court ordered the AI company to compensate Xinchuanghua for economic losses of RMB 10,000 (USD1,400) (including reasonable expenses). This is the world’s first effective judgment recognizing an AIGC platform infringes the copyright of others.

Tsuburaya Production Co., Ltd., the copyright owner of the “Ultraman” series of works, signed a “Certificate of Licensing” with Xinchuanghua, and exclusively authorize the copyright of the Ultraman series images to Xinchuanghua and granting Xinchuanghua the right to defend its rights. The defendant operates the Tab (pseudonym) website, which has AI conversation and AI-generated drawing functions. Xinchuanghua found that when the Tab website was asked to generate Ultraman-related pictures (such as inputting “generate an Ultraman Dyna”), Tab could generate Ultraman pictures that were substantially similar to the plaintiff’s Ultraman image. Tab’s AI painting function needs to be recharged to use. Xinchuanghua believed that the defendant’s action had caused serious damage to it, so it sued the defendant to stop the infringement and claimed compensation of RMB 300,000.

The issues of the case are:

1. Whether the defendant infringed the Xinchuanghua’s right of reproduction, adaptation and information network dissemination

The court held that the Ultraman works involved in the case enjoy a high reputation and can be accessed, queried and downloaded on major video websites. In the absence of contrary evidence by the defendant, there is a possibility that the defendant has access to the Ultraman works involved in the case. The pictures involved in the case provided by Xinchuanghua and generated by the Tab website partially or completely reproduced the original expression of the artistic image of “Ultraman” Therefore, the defendant copied the Ultraman work involved in the case without authorization, infringing Xinchuanghua’s right to copy. In addition, some of the generated pictures involved in the case formed new features while retaining the original expression of the “Ultraman Tiga Composite” work. The defendant’s action constituted an adaptation of the Ultraman work involved in the case, which infringed Xinchuanghu’s right to adaptation of Ultraman.

Considering that this case is a new situation of infringement in the context of the development of generative artificial intelligence, and the court has supported Xinchuanghua’s claim of infringement of reproduction rights and adaptation rights, the same alleged infringement has been included in the control scope of reproduction rights and adaptation rights, Xinchuanghua’s claim that the defendant infringed the right to disseminate information through information networks will not be examined.

2. What civil liability should the defendant bear?

On the issue of stopping the infringement. The court held that the defendant, as a service provider, had infringed Xinchuanghua’s copyright in the Ultraman works, and should bear the responsibility to stop the infringement, that is, to stop generating infringing pictures. The defendant should take measures to prevent its service from continuing to generate pictures that are substantially similar to the Ultraman works involved in the case. The prevention measures should be such that users normally use prompt words related to Ultraman will not generate pictures that are substantially similar to the Ultraman works involved in the case. As for Xinchuanghua’s request that the defendant delete the Ultraman materials involved in the case from the training data, the defendant did not actually conduct model training, so the request is not supported.

On the issue of compensation for losses. The court held that the Tab website operated by the defendant did not establish a relevant complaint and reporting mechanism, lacked potential risk warnings to users, and did not clearly mark the products it provided. Therefore, the defendant, as an AIGC service provider, failed to fulfill its reasonable duty of care and has  subjective fault, should bear the corresponding liability for compensation. After comprehensive consideration of factors such as the high market popularity of the Ultraman works involved in the case, the defendant’s active adoption of technical preventive measures after responding to the lawsuit, which had a certain effect, the limited scope of the infringement, and the reasonable necessity of Xinchuanghua’s cost to protect its rights, the court used its discretion and ordered the defendant to compensate Xinchuanghua for economic losses of RMB 10,000 (including reasonable expenses).

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

March 1, 2024

1. The People’s Court case database is open to the public

On February 27, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference to announce that the People’s Court case database is officially launched and open to the public (http://rmfyalk.court.gov.cn).

The People’s Court case database contains authoritative cases, including guiding cases and reference cases, that have been reviewed by the Supreme People’s Court and deemed to have reference and demonstrative value for similar cases. Currently, there are 3,711 cases in the database, including 1,453 criminal cases (39.15%), 1,643 civil cases (44.27%), 405 administrative cases (10.91%), 23 state compensation cases (0.62%), 187 execution cases (5.04%).

The Supreme People’s Court requires that when hearing a case, judges must search the case database and make decisions with reference to similar cases in the database. This is of great significance in promoting the unification of adjudication rules and standards and avoiding “different adjudication of the same facts.”

2. Repeatedly bad faith registering marks similar to prior marks and using them beyond the scope of registration was found to constitute unfair competition and trademark infringement

Santak Electronics (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Santak”) is the registrant of the “SANTAK” mark with reg. no. 619938 and the “San Te in Chinese” mark with reg. no. 512383 in Class 9 for “uninterruptible power supplies; precision power supplies; regulated power supplies” and other goods.

Guangdong Taiqifeng Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Taiqifeng”) operates www.vsasvntek.net, techfine.net. In these websites’ company profile, product inspection reports uploaded on the website, downloaded color pages and other locations used the “VSASVNTEK” mark, and the company’s brochure also used words such as “Produced by American International SUNTEK Power Supply Company” and “American International USASVNTEK Power Supply Co., Ltd.” At the same time, in the “Foshan Nanshan Taiqifeng Electronics Co., Ltd.” store on the Marco Polo website, the words “San Te in Chinese” and “American San Te in Chinese” were used in the company profile and product introduction. In the WeChat public account ” Taiqifeng Electronics” operated by Taiqifeng, the “VSASVNTEK” mark was used on the promotional image. In the manufacture factories of Taiqifeng, there were also many packaging boxes with the “VSASVNTEK” trademark stored, and its products labeled with the “VSASVNTEK” mark are also sold on the market. The UPS power supply products sold by Chengdu Aipeisi Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Aipeisi”) through its website were marked with the “VSASVNTEK” mark on the packaging and physical objects. In addition, Zhou is the operator of the Kemei Computer Accessories Business Department in Chancheng District, Foshan City. Zhou registered the “VSASVNTEK” mark with reg. no. 8059881 in 2010 for “inverters, batteries,” etc., and authorized Taiqifeng to use. Santak filed an application for trademark cancellation and invalidation against this mark. After trial, the mark was declared invalid in 2019. In 2018, Zhou applied again to register the “VSASVNTEK” mark with. reg. no. 2250837 for “inverters, batteries,” etc. Later, this later filed trademark was declared invalid through an invalidation action.

After trial, the People’s Court found that the accused infringing marks “VSASVNTEK” and “USASUNTEK” and Santak’s “SANTAK” were both composed of English letters, and the main part of the accused infringing mark “SVNTEK” and “SUNTEK” were similar to Santak’s “SANTAK” in visual effects, fonts, etc. Since Santak’s “SANTAK” mark has a high reputation on uninterruptible power supply products, using “VSASVNTEK” and “USASUNTEK” on uninterruptible power supplies will easily confuse the relevant public. Therefore, Taiqifeng’s and Aipeisi’s production and selling of the accused infringing product infringed on Santak’s trademark right.

Zhou registered a trademark on identical or similar goods with Santak’s registered trademark and licensed that trademark to other entities such as Taiqifeng for use on uninterruptible power supplies, batteries and other products.  There is a competing relationship between Zhou and Santak. In this case, Zhou successively registered several trademarks that were similar to Santak’s trademarks. Zhou’s trademarks were declared invalid by the CNIPA, and the CNIPA had determined that Zhou knew Santak’s registered trademarks, and his registration was “taking advantage of others, and his action has gone beyond normal production and operation needs, with obvious intentions to copy, plagiarize and imitate other people’s prior trademarks.” After long-term operation and extensive publicity, Santak and its registered trademarks gained a high reputation. As an operator of similar products in the same region as Santak, Zhou should be aware of this and reasonably avoid it. However, Zhou has repeatedly registered marks that were similar to Santak’s registered trademark on similar goods and failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove source of creation to design the trademark. To sum up, Zhou’s accused behavior violated the principle of good faith and generally accepted business ethics and was unfair. At the same time, Zhou’s behavior exceeded the needs of normal production and operation, causing Santak to file trademark oppositions, invalidations, administrative lawsuits, and this civil lawsuit many times to safeguard its rights and interests, which to a certain extent interfered with Santak’s normal production and operation, and caused actual damage to Santak. Therefore, Zhou’s behavior constituted unfair competition.

As for the legal source defense of Aipeisi, the court found that the trademark involved in this case was relatively well-known. As a market operator “specialized in UPS uninterruptible power supplies,” Aipeisi had to decide whether the goods it sold infringed on a registered trademark. Aipeisi failed to fulfill its reasonable duty of review, and there was some subjective fault. Therefore, Aipeisi’s defense was dismissed.

In the end, the court decided that Taiqifeng should compensate Santak for economic losses and reasonable expenses for RMB 5 million (USD694,753). Zhou was jointly and severally liable for RMB 1 million (USD138,950). Aipeisi should compensate RMB 1.005 million (USD139,645).

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

February 22, 2024

1. Schneider Electric sued Schneider Elevator and won RMB 40 million in compensation

On February 7, 2024, the Jiangsu High Court issued a second-instance judgment in the case of Schneider Electric v. Schneider Elevator, upholding the first-instance judgment of the Suzhou Intermediate Court that found Schneider Elevator infringed Schneider Electric’s trademark and unfairly competed and awarded compensation of RMB 40 million (USD5.5 million).

The Suzhou Intermediate Court found that the “” and “Schneider in Chinese” trademarks registered by Schneider Electric for use on Class 9 circuit breakers, switches, contactors and other commodities constituted well-known marks. Schneider Elevator prominently used the “Schneider in Chinese” and “SCHNEiDER” logos constituted trademark infringement. Schneider Elevator used “Schneider in Chinese” in its corporate name and used “www.schneider-elevator.cn” and “www.schneider-elevator.com” domain names constituted unfair competition. Based on the operating income of Schneider Elevator, the profit margin of the elevator industry, taking into account the brand contribution, and applying punitive damages based on Schneider Elevator’s bad faith in taking advantage of Schneider Electric, the court decided that the amount of compensation that Schneider Elevator should pay was RMB 40 million.

Both parties appealed to the Jiangsu High Court.

The Jiangsu High Court found that considering the market share of Schneider Electric’s products, relevant publicity reports, companies established in China with the brand name “Schneider in Chinese,” operating income and tax payments, industry rankings, trademark protection records, etc., there were sound factual and legal basis in recognizing the “” and “Schneider in Chinese” marks as well-known marks.

Before the establishment of Schneider Elevator in 2010, Schneider Electric had invested in and established a number of companies with the name “Schneider in Chinese” across China. The audit reports, tax-related certificates, invoices and other evidence submitted by Schneider Electric can prove its large sales scale from its business and the high operating income. And the continuous and large-scale publicity of the company in newspapers and magazines were enough to show that its corporate name “Schneider in Chinese” has a high reputation. Although Schneider Electric does not directly produce elevator products, it produces components for elevator products which are all electromechanical products. The first instance judgment correctly found that Schneider Electric had a certain relationship and market competition with Schneider Elevator. Schneider Elevator should have known about the popularity and influence of Schneider Electric’s corporate name “Schneider in Chinese,” but instead of taking any steps to avoid the word, Schneider Elevator used “Schneider in Chinese” as its corporate name without authorization. Its subjectivity cannot be described as good faith, and the corresponding behavior constituted unfair competition.

Regarding the amount of compensation, Schneider Electric, when filing the lawsuit, clearly requested that the amount of compensation be determined based on the benefits obtained by the infringement, and it did not make a request for punitive damages before the conclusion of the debate before the first-instance court. Therefore, the first-instance court’s application of punitive damages was incorrect. However, given Schneider Elevator’s main business income, elevator industry gross profit margin, profit margin and other evidence, it can be proved that Schneider Elevator’s infringement profits exceed the maximum statutory compensation of RMB5 million. If statutory compensation is simply used to determine the amount of compensation in this case, it will undoubtedly be too low and the right holder will not be able to obtain sufficient compensation. This will not only be extremely unfair to the right holder, but will also objectively indulge the infringement. Therefore, the court found that the discretionary compensation method could be used to determine the amount of compensation in this case. Therefore, after comprehensively considering factors such as the popularity and market value of the rights and trademarks involved, the subjective bad faith of Schneider Elevator, the time and scale of the infringement, and brand contribution, the first instance judgment’s determination of RMB40 million in compensation not was correct.

2. Shenzhen Intermediate Court determined that sales of goods after scratching the codes did not constitute unfair competition

Opple, a well-known lighting manufacturer, purchased several products from Dingfeng through an agent. It was found that the barcodes on the outer packaging boxes of the products had been torn off, but the barcodes on the inner packaging boxes were not. The product packaging used “OPPLE, Opple Lighting in Chinese, OPPLE Opple Electric in Chinese,” and other words. On the bathroom heater product, the “Opple” product label was pasted on the side, but the QR code on the product label was scratched off. The QR code on the back of the ceiling lamp and the QR code on the flat lamp have all been scratched off, and the three codes on the packaging box were scratched off.

Opple filed an unfair competition lawsuit against Dingfeng for scrapping codes to sell goods. The first instance court found that:

As a seller, Dingfeng should know that any alteration or scratching on the product packaging will affect the integrity of the product outer packaging, even affect the traceability and quality assurance functions of the goods sold, and also destroy the order of fair competition among all dealers that sell the brand’s goods, increase the cost of communication between consumers and brands when they encounter quality problems, harm consumer’s rights and interests, and may also cause derogation of the brand value of the right holder. Dingfeng’s sales of code-scratch products undermined the rights holder’s product management system, disrupted the normal order of market competition, harmed the legitimate rights and interests of other operators and consumers, and constituted unfair competition.

Regarding the amount of compensation, since Opple did not provide evidence to prove the benefits gained by Dingfeng from the infringement or the losses it suffered due to the infringement, the first instance court comprehensively considered the popularity of Opple’s brand and trademark, Dingfeng’s subjective fault and the nature and consequences of its infringement behavior, as well as Opple’s reasonable expenses to stop the infringement, and determined that Dingfeng should compensate in the amount of RMB 60,000 (USD8,346).

Dingfeng Company appealed. After the trial, the court of second instance found:

Regarding the products sold by Dingfeng, the logistics outer packaging and the QR codes on the products were scratched, but the QR codes on the outer packaging of the products, as well as all packaging, instructions, trademarks and manufacturer information on the products were completely retained. And according to Opple’s statement, the products involved are indeed products manufactured and sold by Opple. Consumers can also verify the authenticity and apply for after-sales service through the QR code on the product packaging. Therefore, Dingfeng’s sales behavior will not cause consumers to confuse or misunderstand the origin of the products involved.

(1) Regarding consumer interests. What consumers buy are genuine products produced and sold by Opple. They can verify the authenticity and apply for after-sales service by scanning the QR code on the packaging box of the product involved. Although Dingfeng did not inform consumers in advance about the code scratching, consumers were able to determine the source of the products involved by relying on trademarks and authenticity verification, and could still enjoy the product quality and after-sales services provided by Opple, and their interests were not harmed. Moreover, ordinary consumers can freely choose and determine goods or services through information such as trademarks, manufacturers, and after-sales services. The distribution management system within the manufacturer will not have an impact on the free decision-making of ordinary consumers. The source of the goods is authentic, and the after-sales service is guaranteed. Under the circumstances, Dingfeng’s scratching will not affect consumers’ rational judgment on free decision-making.

(2) Regarding the interests of operators. Dingfeng sold genuine products produced and sold by Opple at normal market prices. This behavior had no adverse impact on Opple’s product market share, product sales profits, products and corporate reputation. Dingfeng’s code scratching behavior made it impossible for Opple to internally trace the information of authorized dealers, but it only damaged Opple’s internal management system to a certain extent. Opple’s external operations, external trading opportunities, and external market competitive advantages were all undamaged.

(3) Regarding social and public interests. In this case, the goods trading behavior was open and free, and the transaction price was fair. There was no behavior that restricted competition or harmed the interests of other competitors of Opple. It did not have a negative impact on the legitimate and orderly market competition order, and social and public interests were not harmed.

In summary, this court believes that although Dingfeng’s code scratching hindered Opple’s internal management and caused certain damage its interests, according to the principle of proportionality and the principle of interest measurement, this behavior did not harm consumers. The interests have not reached the level of adversely affecting the competitive environment and order of competition, and there is no need to apply the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The first instance court made an error in its determination, resulting in an erroneous judgment. This court corrected it and ruled that the original judgment should be revoked and all of Opple’s claims should be dismissed.

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

February 6, 2024

1. RMB 22.14 million damages was ordered against the defendant taking advantage of “Belle in Chinese” and “BELLE” without authorization

Recently, the Zhejiang High Court concluded a trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition lawsuit against the appellant Baoyang Liu for his involvement with the appellees New Belle Shoes (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“New Belle”), Lirong Shoes (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“Lirong”), the defendant in the first instance, Wenzhou Guangyuan E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Guangyuan”).  The court held that Liu is liable for trademark infringement and should stop the infringement and compensation to Lirong for economic losses and reasonable rights protection expenses of RMB22.14 million (USD3.11 million).

The court found that the Cited Marks have accumulated high goodwill nationwide through its continuous use and publicity by the trademark owner and its authorized parties. The “Belle in Chinese” and “BELLE” marks were once recognized as well-known marks and have been widely used in footwear products. They enjoy a high level of fame and popularity. Liu used the Disputed Mark in his Chinese TikTok store name, account, product links, product labels, hangtags, video promotions, and product introductions, which could be used to identify the source of the goods and constituted trademark use. The Disputed Marks “Australia Belle in Chinese” and “Australia Belle in Chinese + AOZHOUBELLE” completely include the Cited Marks. Although “Australia in Chinese” and the pinyin “AOZHOU” are included, they are only used to refer to the location in the minds of the general public. The identifying part of the Disputed Mark is still “Belle in Chinese” and “BELLE.” The Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks are used in the same class of goods, which is enough to confuse the relevant public as to the source of the goods. The two marks constituted similar marks. Liu used trademarks similar to the Cited marks on similar goods, which could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public and constituted trademark infringement.

To apply punitive damages, the test is “intentional infringement” and “serious circumstances.” First, the Cited Marks should have high distinctiveness and fame through continuous use and publicity. Lirong has opened a number of “Belle in Chinese/BELLE” brand TikTok accounts and stores. As a footwear business operator, Liu should have known that and make reasonable avoidance. Liu, however, actively sought to acquire the “” trademark that was similar to the Cited Marks in order to use it illegally. His use highlighted “Australia Belle in Chinese,” and replaced “AOZHOUBAILI” with “AOZHOUBELLE,” which fully included the Cited Marks in seeking of confusion. Liu actively used the Disputed Marks in TikTok stores, accounts, product tags, product links, video promotions to confuse consumers. Its intention to take advantage of the Cited Marks was obvious. Liu registered and established “Wenzhou Lucheng District Huibu Shoes Store” and opened a TikTok store “Australia Belle Shoes in Chinese” store that corresponds with his TikTok account “Australia Belle Official Flagship Store in Chinese.” Subsequently, Liu registered four individual companies and opened four TikTok stores respectively. Liu began to use the Disputed Marks on infringing goods and selling them on a large scale. The series of infringements carried out by Liu showed his strong intention, planning and organization, which met the first test of “intentional infringements.”

Second, Liu mainly sold infringing products through TikTok live broadcasts and TikTok stores that was not limited by time and place and can quickly accumulate a large number of customer groups in a short period of time, thereby achieving sales conversion. According to the facts found, its TikTok store “Australia Belle Shoes in Chinese” was opened on February 25, 2021, and by May 7, 2022 the number of fans has reached 936,000, and 519,000+ products have been sold. As of June 10, 2022, the number of fans has increased to 1.02 million, and 550,000+ products have been sold. The number of followers of his other TikTok accounts and online stores “Abao Selected Women’s Shoes in Chinese” and “Oucai Women’s Shoes Store in Chinese” also reached 315,000 and 69,000 respectively. Judging from the sales volume, the total transaction volume of only the five TikTok stores involved in the case has reached RMB 44.08 million. It was also found on Pinduoduo and Taobao that Liu was selling shoes using the Disputed Mark during the same period. It can be seen that compared with the traditional sales model, infringement in this case was carried out through online live broadcasting and other methods. The scope of infringement was wider and the profits from infringement were higher. At the same time, it also caused greater losses of trademark goodwill and losses to New Belle and Lirong. Economic losses are considered “serious infringement.” Therefore, Liu’s infringement met the statutory requirements for punitive damages, and the first instance court did not err in applying punitive damages.

Regarding the calculation of punitive damages, New Belle and Lirong agreed to calculate Liu’s infringement profits based on the total transaction volume of RMB 44.08 million of the five TikTok stores involved in the case obtained by the first instance court. Lirong issued the “Special Audit Report on Belle Brand Sales and Operations” stating that the net profit margin of Belle brand sales was 30.73%, of which the net profit margin of offline physical stores was 28.97% and the net profit margin of online e-commerce stores was 35.42%. This court found that the first instance court referred to the profit rate data provided by Lirong, combined with the time when Liu’s online stores stopped infringing, the damage caused, the possible existence of some non-infringing product sales links, the commission of live broadcast sales on TikTok, and Taobao, Pinduoduo and other platforms that infringing shoes were being sold. It was reasonable to determine that the profit margin of the online store involved in selling infringing goods was 25%. Based on this, this court determined that Liu’s infringement profits were RMB 11.02 million and applied one-time punitive damages based on this calculation base. It also determined that the reasonable expenses of New Belle and Lirong were RMB 100,000. The final amount of compensation is RMB 22. 14 million.

2. The decoration of “Crocs” has lost its distinctive features and cannot protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law

The Fujian High Court concluded a trademark infringement lawsuit between the appellant Crocs Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Crocs Company”) and the appellants Pan Zhiming, Quanzhou Fengze District Zhongkuo Trading Co., Ltd. (“Zhongkuo”), Quanzhou Fengze Chaoyi E-Commerce Co., Ltd. (“Chaoyi”), Quanzhou Jixuan Trading Co., Ltd. (“Jixuan”), and an individual Huang. The defendants were ordered to immediately stop the trademark infringement and compensate Crocs Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 1 million (USD140,480).

Here, Crocs Company is the owner of the “CROCS” mark (“Cited Mark”). Through Crocs Company and its affiliated companies’ continuous use and publicity, the Cited Mark has obtained relatively high fame in its approved class. The Disputed Mark is “CROSS,” which was used on the same class of goods as the Cited Mark. The Disputed Mark was used on the shoe product itself, product packaging boxes, and the sales page of the e-commerce platform. Such uses were clearly trademark uses. Using the general attention of the relevant public as the standard, when comparing the Disputed Mark and the Cited Mark in isolation, the distinctive part of the two marks constituted similar. Under the circumstances that the Cited Mark is relatively famous, the Disputed Mark is likely to cause confusion. The first instance court did not err in finding that the Disputed Mark constituted an infringement of the Cited Mark.

In this case, Crocs Company claimed that the product decoration of its CROCS brand “Classic Crocs in Chinese,” “Crocband Kaluoban in Chinese,” and “Bayaband Clog Beiyakaluobankelulu in Chinese” series of shoes falls within the scope of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law because of its decoration has a certain influence. Judging from the evidence provided by Crocs Company, although the “CROCS” brand series of shoes have gained a certain degree of popularity through continued use and publicity, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the relevant public has regarded the construction upholstery of this series of shoes to be associated with Crocs Company. Although there was a previous judgment that protected the decoration claimed by Crocs Company, that judgment was in 2015, which was a long time before the litigation in this case occurred. The uniqueness of a mark’s decoration should be combined with the public perception at the time of the dispute. Knowledge and whether the decorative mark also have distinctive features that distinguish the source of the goods shall be used as the criterion for judgment. Whether the decorative log has been protected is only one of the factors to be considered. Judging from the supplementary evidence submitted by the defendants, “crocs design shoes” products are relatively common in the market and have different functions. Third parties outside of this case have successfully registered for design patents based on improvements to such features. Even if the decoration claimed by Crocs Company had certain uniqueness in the early stage, there is no evidence to prove that Crocs Company actively defended its rights when a large number of footwear products with the same or similar features appeared on the market, which made such decoration more general and losing its inherent distinctiveness. Based on the above analysis, the decoration claimed by Crocs Company does not meet the requirements for decoration with certain influence stipulated in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and should not be protected.

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

February 1, 2024

1. “Château Lafite in Chinese” took a free ride on the “LAFITE” mark’s fame and the China Supreme Court applied punitive damages and sentenced RMB 79.17 million in damages

Recently, the China Supreme Court (“SPC”) concluded a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute between the appellants Nanjing Golden Hope Wine Co., Ltd. (“Golden Hope”), Nanjing Manor Lafei Wine Co., Ltd. (“Manor Lafei”), Nanjing Huaxia Grape Winery Co., Ltd. (Huaxia), Shenzhen Junteng Wine Co., Ltd. (“Junteng”) and the respondent Chateau Lafite Rothschild (“Rothchild”). The SPC held that the appellants should stop their trademark infringement and unfair competition, and that Rothschild should receive a total of RMB 79.17 million (USD 17.97 million) in economic losses and reasonable expenses to stop the infringement.

Issue I – Whether the appellants’ use of the accused marks constitutes trademark infringements

1. The Disputed Mark is “Manor Lafei in Chinese,” in which “Manor in Chinese” indicates a location or an organizational format and lacks distinctive features when used on wine and other goods. Thus, “Lafei in Chinese” is the main identifying part of the mark. The Cited Marks in this case are “LAFITE” and “CHATEAU LAFITEROTHSCHILD,” with “LAFITE” being the distinctive identifying part. Regarding whether “Lafei in Chinese” can form a stable corresponding relationship with “LAFITE,” this court’s previous judgment on April 1, 2005, found that before the application date of the “Manor Lafei in Chinese” mark, Rothschild had already used the name “Lafei in Chinese” on relevant sales flyers in mainland China. “Lafei in Chinese” refers to “LAFITE,” and “Lafite in Chinese” also appears in publicity reports related to “LAFITE.” Rothschild has objectively established a solid connection between “Lafei in Chinese” and “LAFITE” through many years of business operations. Therefore, the distinctive part of the accused infringing mark “Manor Lafei in Chinese” is the same as the Chinese translation of the Cited marks or identical to the distinctive part of the Cited Marks. The two marks constitute similar marks.

Appellants used the “Manor Lafei in Chinese” logo that was similar to the Cited Marks in the allegedly infringing products and transaction documents produced or sold, which constituted trademark use. Manor Lafei and others also published articles on their websites to introduce Bordeaux wineries represented by “Lafite in Chinese.” In their advertisements, they introduced that their wines are produced in Bordeaux and have historical heritage in an attempt to increase the popularity of “LAFTTE” wines. Considering the fact that the Cited Marks have a high degree of popularity due to continuous use when the alleged infringement occurred, as well as the actual use by Manor Lafei and other appellants, it can be determined that the alleged infringement could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public.

2. The “MANOR” in the accused infringing mark “LAFEIMANOR” is a French word, and its Chinese meaning is “manor.” It lacks distinctive feature when used on wine and other goods. Therefore, “LAFEI” is the distinctive feature of the mark. Comparing the distinctive part of the Disputed Mark “LAFEI” with “LAFITE,” they have the same initial letters and are similar in letter composition, arrangement order, pronunciation, etc. Therefore, the Disputed Mark “LAFEIMANOR” and “LAFITE” constitute similar marks with the Cited Marks “LAFITE” and “CHATEAU LAFITE ROTHSCHILD.” Golden Hope and other appellants used “LAFEI MANOR” on wine goods, which constitute as a similar mark on identical or similar goods with the Cited Marks owned by Rothschild, which could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public.

Issue II – Whether Manor Lafei’s use of “Lafei Mano in Chinese” as its trade name constitutes trademark infringement

Manor Lafei was registered on August 11, 2006, using “Manor Lafei in Chinese” as its corporate name. Since then, Manor Lafei’s official website and its “Specialty Store Investment Manual” have separately used “Manor Lafei” to refer to Chateau Lafite. Manor Lafei prominently used its “Manor Lafei” brand name in its business activities. As mentioned, “Manor Lafei” is similar to “LAFITE,” and “LAFITE” wine had already entered China before the establishment of Manor Lafei and was known to the relevant public. Therefore, Manor Lafei’s registration of “Manor Lafei in Chinese” as a trade name and prominent use of it on goods that are identical or similar to the goods approved for use of the “LAFITE” mark could easily cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public.

Issue III – Whether Manor Lafei’s promotional activities constituted unfair competition

Manor Lafei uses slogans such as “Manor Lafei – the focus of the world’s attention, God’s favorite wine has finally come to China” in its “Specialty Store Investment Manual” to promote and introduce its “Manor Lafei” wine. The semantics of the said advertising slogan are vague and exaggerate the historical heritage and popularity of the Chateau Lafite wine. Based on the popularity of Rothschild and “LAFITE” wines, as well as the corresponding relationship formed between the “Lafei in Chinese” and “LAFITE” marks, such advertising slogan may easily cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the wine of “Manor Lafei in Chinese” is the wine of a world-renowned winery, thereby misunderstanding the quality and reputation of the product, which constituted misleading false promotion, and damaging the interest of Rothschild.

Issu IV –The amount of damages

First, according to the evidence submitted by Golden Hope, there were a total of 757 dealers and agents of “Manor Lafei in Chinese” wine across the country, and “Manor Lafei in Chinese” wine has been stationed in nearly 2,000 supermarket systems. The cost ranges from RMB 4 – 5 to more than RMB 10, but the sales price ranges from more than RMB 60s to over 1000. The illegal profits are as high as ten times or even hundreds of times. This shows that the illegal profits obtained by the seven appellants including Golden Hope as a result of the infringement far exceeded RMB 100 million. Second, the court rechecked and counted the sales data and payment letters of each appellant to calculate the sales volume and single bottle sales price of the accused infringing goods. The cost price of a single bottle is calculated based on the purchase situation of each appellant. Finally, the court adopted the calculation method of (single bottle sales price – single bottle cost price)/single bottle sales price to calculate the profit margins of each appellant. According to the recalculated sales price and cost price data, the profit margin of Manor Lafei is 67%, the profit margin of Huaxia is 68%, and the profit margin of Junteng and Perun is both 31%.

On this basis, the court comprehensively considered the nature of each appellant’s infringement, degree of subjective fault, duration of infringement, profits from infringement and other factors, and awarded Rothchild a damage of RMB 79.17 million (USD 17.97 million) for its economic losses and reasonable expenses paid to stop the infringement.

2. “Huawei” trademark infringement case – four times punitive damages – RMB 10 million

Recently, the Shanghai Jinshan District Court concluded a first-instance trademark infringement lawsuit between the plaintiff Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”) and an anonymous cosmetic company, Jishe Clothing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Jishe”), an individual Li. The court ordered the defendants to immediately stop the trademark infringement and jointly compensate Huawei for economic losses of RMB 10 million (USD 2.27 million).

The court found that Huawei legally obtained the right to register the “Huawei in Chinese” mark. The creative titles of 27 products in the Tmall store “Kubaluo Flagship Store” prominently use the words “Huawei in Chinese,” “Huawei Genuine Product in Chinese,” “Suitable for Huawei mobile phone in Chinese,” “Suitable for Huawei genuine mobile phone in Chinese” and other words in prominent positions. It did not display its own product brand and the operating entity of the Tmall store “Kubaluo Flagship Store” infringes Huawei’s trademark right. The operating entities of the Tmall store “Kubaluo Flagship Store” are the two defendants. Jishe and the anonymous cosmetic company have the same controlling shareholder or the same actual controller, and the control relationship lasts for 6 months or more. Therefore, Jishe and the anonymous cosmetic company jointly committed infringing acts.

Defendant Li’s personal bank account is mixed with defendant Jishe. Li’s personal Alipay account is related to Jishe and the anonymous cosmetic company, and the anonymous cosmetic company’s invoice is defendant Li. Taking the above circumstances into consideration, Li is the actual controller of Jishe and the anonymous cosmetic company. Although the infringement in this case was ostensibly carried out by the business entities of the Tmall store “Kubaluo Flagship Store,” namely the defendants Jishe and the anonymous cosmetic company. The defendant Li, as the actual controller, had complete control over Jishe and the anonymous cosmetic company. Li was aware of the infringements carried out by the two entities from the beginning and participated in it using personal bank accounts and personal Alipay accounts. Therefore, Li is a joint infringer and should bear joint and several liability.

Regarding the benefits gained by the Tmall store “Kubaluo Flagship Store” due to infringement, according to the identified facts, the sales volume of 27 infringing products was RMB 19.99 million. Regarding the profit rate, the Huawei claimed that the profit rate of the 27 infringing products can be calculated based on the facts found in the administrative penalty decision, which was 39.15%. This court believes that the data did not include warehousing, transportation, and other costs, but the data is verified by the market supervision and management department in accordance with the law. Therefore, this court refers to the said data and determines the profit rate to be 30%. In summary, the benefits obtained by the anonymous cosmetic company and Jishe due to infringement were RMB 5.99 million. The court held that the defendants, the two entities intentionally infringed upon Huawei’s trademark right with deep subjective malice, long infringement time, and large scale of infringement, which was a serious situation. The base number should be RMB 5.99 million and four times punitive damages should be applied to the defendants, which resulted in RMB 23.98 million. Huawei claims a total economic loss and punitive damages of RMB 10 million, which did not exceed the scope that the court can support according to law, therefore the court will fully support its claim.

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

January 23, 2024

1. The Court Finds Geographical Indication Collective Mark “Champagne” Constitutes a Well-Known Mark

Recently, the Beijing High Court concluded a second instance trademark infringement dispute between the French Champagne Industry Commission (the “Champagne Commission”), Guangzhou Xuelei Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (“Guangzhou Xuelei”), and Beijing Yalishadi Cosmetics Co., Ltd. (“Beijing Yalishadi”). The court held that the “Champagne” mark with reg. no.  11127266 and the “Champagne in Chinese” mark with reg. no. 11127267 constituted well-known marks on wine and other goods. Guangzhou Xuelei and Beijing Yalishadi should immediately stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 220,000 (USD 30,980).

Cited Marks

The court found that: First, based on the sales scope, sales volume and sales price of Champagne wine in the Chinese market, and the facts such as the advertising, honors and protected records of the registered “Champagne” and “Champagne in Chinese” marks in mainland China, it was sufficient to conclude that before the infringement occurred on July 5, 2019, the Champagne Commission’s “Champagne” and “Champagne in Chinese” marks have gained high visibility and influence on wine products, and were widely known to the relevant public and constituted well-known marks.

Second, although the packaging boxes and bottles of the accused infringing products were still marked with the words “MeiDun” and “Mei Dun in Chinese,” there are many cases in the market where two or more commercial logos are used on the same product at the same time. The existence of a commercial logo does not necessarily affect the role of other logos in distinguishing the source of goods. The allegedly infringing goods prominently use the “Champagne Life” and “Champagne Life in Chinese” logos on the bottle and packaging box in a more eye-catching manner. The said acts obviously have the purpose of indicating the source of the goods to enable the relevant public to distinguish different product providers, which constituted as trademark use under the Trademark Law.

Third, although the perfume product used by the accused logo and the wine product for which the “Champagne” mark is approved and famous for use are not classified as the same or similar goods according to the CNIPA Classification of Goods and Services, there are relatively large overlap among the relevant public. The “Champagne” and “Champagne in Chinese” marks have been widely known to the public, when the accused logos “Champagne Life” and “Champagne Life in Chinese” were used on the accused infringing goods, it was enough to cause the relevant public’s misunderstanding of the source of goods with the said well-known marks, which constituted an infringement of the Champagne Commission’s well-known trademark rights, and it should bear corresponding legal liability.

2. The Court Recognized “AO Smith in Chinese” as a Well-known Mark

Recently, the Jiangsu High Court concluded a second instance trademark infringement and anti-unfair competition dispute between A.O. Smith Corporation (“A.O. Smith”), A.O. Smith (China) Water Heater Co., Ltd. (“A.O. Smith China”), and Guangdong Simaisi Electric Co., Ltd. (“Guangdong Simaisi”), Taizhou Qingfeng Decoration Co., Ltd. (“Taizhou Qingfeng”). The court held that the “AO Smith in Chinese” mark with reg. no. 1114992 and “AOSmith” mark with reg. no. 2017196 constitute well-known marks on water heaters and other goods. The defendants infringed upon A.O. Smith and A.O. Smith China’s trademark right and should immediately stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses of RMB 1.5 million (USD211,400).

Cited Marks

The court found that: First, despite the administrative rulings found that when a third party used the “AO Smith in Chinese” mark on laundry machine goods in June 2003, the Cited mark “AO Smith in Chinese” with reg. no. 1114992 has not yet constituted as a well-known mar. According to the case-by-case principle followed by courts in recognizing well-known marks, such finding may not necessarily affect this court’s rulings of this case based on the evidence at hand. Therefore, whether the Cited Marks can be recognized as well-known marks shall be determined based on the evidence and facts of this case.

Second, if there is a slight difference between the actually used trademark and the registered trademark, but its distinctive features does not change, it can be regarded as the use of a registered trademark. Before October 2003, the plaintiff used the words “A.O. Smith” and “A.O. Smith in Chinese” in commercial activities, and a stable corresponding relationship between the two marks had been established. The plaintiff’s actual use of the two marks did not change the distinctive features of the trademark involved and can be regarded as trademark use. In addition, for trademarks that have been actually used before registration is approved, such use can be considered as a continuation of use. Therefore, it can be concluded that the plaintiff continued to use its Cited Marks before October 2003.

Third, comprehensive consideration of the sales contracts, advertising, promotion activities, media reports, audit reports involved, market survey reports, search reports, etc. provided by the plaintiff was sufficient to determine that before October 2003, the Cited Marks had been widely known to the relevant public in China and reached a well-known level, and is still well-known today.

In addition, in this case, the Cited marks mainly contains elements such as “Smith in Chinese” and “SMITH.” Through the publicity and use of the right holder, “Smith in Chinese” and “SMITH” have become the core elements for identifying the source of goods. The accused infringing logo is similar to the Cited Marks in text, pronunciation, and overall appearance, which constituted similar marks. When the alleged infringing trademark was used, the Cited Marks had already gained a high reputation across the country. The use of the accused infringing mark on the same or similar goods can easily cause confusion to the relevant public, and the accused acts constituted trademark infringement.

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

January 17, 2024

1. The “Freshfragrance” mark  was invalidated by the “fresh” mark

In an administrative trademark invalidation dispute between the plaintiff Fresh Company and the defendant CNIPA and the third party Qiong Luo, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the Disputed Mark violated Article 30, Article 31 and Article 32 of the 2013 Trademark Law. The CNIPA’s decision shall be revoked and the CNIPA shall make a new ruling.

Disputed Mark

No.13450891 Subclass 4402

Cited Mark 1	Cited Mark 2	Cited Mark 3	Cited Mark 4	Cited Mark 5
No. 13450891 Subclass 0306	No. 10838741 Subclasses 0301, 0305-0306	No. 8690350 Subclasses 0301, 0305-0306	No. 25228002 Subclass 4405	No. 22753556A Subclasses 4401, 4403, 4405

The first issue is whether the Disputed Mark filed by the third party violates Articles 30 and 31 of the 2013 Trademark Law. The court found that the Disputed Mark consists of the English letters “Freshfragrance”. according to the general English cognition level of Chinese consumers, it is easy to read it as two parts: “Fresh” and “fragrance” of which the “Fresh” part is the same as the Cited Marks 1 and 4 in letter composition. It is also identical with the distinctive part of Cited Marks 2 and 3. It is similar in pronunciation to the Cited Mark 5. The Disputed Mark constitute as an identical mark with all five Cited Marks.  Although all approved services such as “beauty services, massages, and manicures” for use under the Disputed Mark and the approved goods and services for use under the Cited Marks 1 to 5 are in different classes, when considering the following factors, they constitute similar marks. First, the “beauty services, makeup artist services, waxing and hair removal” and other services approved for use by the Disputed Mark are identical to the Cited Marks 1 to 5. The consumer groups of the goods and services approved for use such as “cosmetics and sanitary equipment rental” basically overlap, and are often used in combination, so they are highly related. Second, the Disputed Mark completely contains the distinctive parts of the Cited Marks 1 to 4. They are highly similar. Third, the plaintiff’s “fresh/fuleishi in Chinese” series of trademarks have gained a certain reputation on “cosmetics” products through continuous publicity and use. The coexistence of the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks may easily cause confusion and misunderstanding the relevant public. In summary, the Disputed Mark and the Cited Marks 1 to 5 constitute similar marks on similar goods and services which violated Articles 30 and 31 of the 2013 Trademark Law.

The second issue is whether the Disputed Mark violates Paragraph 3, Article 13 of the 2013 Trademark Law. The court found that the sales evidence, publicity news, comment articles, etc. submitted by the plaintiff could prove that the plaintiff’s “fresh” and “Fuleishi in Chinese” trademarks had a certain degree of popularity on “cosmetics” products through use and promotion. However, after considering the scope of influence and scale of the popularity, the Cited Marks have not yet reached the level of well-known. Therefore, the filing of the Disputed Mark does not violate Paragraph 3, Article 13 of the 2013 Trademark Law.

The third issue is whether the Disputed Mark violates Paragraph 1(vii), Article 10 and Paragraph 1(ii), Article 11 of the 2013 Trademark Law. The plaintiff claimed that the word “fragrance” in the Disputed Mark means “perfume, fragrance” and its use in services such as Class 44 “beauty services and makeup artist services” can easily lead to consumers misunderstanding the content of the services. It is also a direct expression of the designated service. After hearing, the court held that the use of the word “fragrance” in services such as “beauty services and makeup artist services” can easily cause consumers to associate and believe that the services related to the use of the Disputed Mark denotes wonderful enjoyment, but such associations have not yet reach the extent of being deceptive, it does not violate Paragraph 1(vii), Article 10  of the 2013 Trademark Law. In addition, although the Disputed Mark may cause consumers’ associations and imaginations, it is not a direct description of its service, so it does not violate Paragraph 1(ii), Article 11 of the 2013 Trademark Law.

The fourth issue is whether the Disputed Mark damages the plaintiff’s prior trade name rights. The court found that the plaintiff had been selling “fresh/fuleishi in Chinese” brand cosmetics in China since 2012 at the latest. Through continuous publicity and use, its English trade name “fresh” has gained a certain reputation in cosmetic products. The third-party should have known that the Disputed Mark “Freshfragrance” completely includes the plaintiff’s English trade name “fresh” and the two are similar in overall appearance and text composition. The approved services under the Disputed Mark such as “beauty service and make-up artist service” basically overlap with the consumer groups of the “cosmetics” goods for which the plaintiff’s trade name is famous. Thus, the two mark constitute similar goods and services. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark damaged the prior right of the plaintiff and violated Article 32 of the 2013 Trademark Law.

Finally, the court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to prove that the filing of the Disputed Mark violated Article 4 and Paragraph 1, Article 44 of the 2013 Trademark Law.

2. Infringement of Dyson’s trademarks and unfairly competed with Dyson  was ordered to pay RMB 800,000 in damages

The Sichuan High Court dismissed a trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute brough by the appellant Dyson Technology Chengdu Co., Ltd. (“Dyson Chengdu”) against the appellees Dyson Technology Co., Ltd. (“Dyson”) and Dyson Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“Dyson Shanghai”) and upheld the lower court’s judgment.

The first instance court found that: 1. Dyson Chengdu has posted on its website www.hvlsfan.cn, www.daisencd.com, WeChat applet “Sichuan Industrial Ceiling Fan,” and the 1688 platform “Dyson Technology Chengdu Co., Ltd.” store , “Dyson Technology Chengdu Company” (TikTok account xc516) and “Dyson Technology Chengdu Co., Ltd.” (Tiktok account Daisenkejich) and third-party websites the accused infringement marks “Dyson in Chinese” and “Dyson Technology in Chinese” and “DAISEN” for the purpose of selling and promoting its industrial fans. The use of the said logos had played the role of identifying the source of the product and constituted trademark use. The specific products used by Dyson Chengdu were mainly large industrial ceiling fans, which is identical to the ceiling fans approved for use under the “Dyson in Chinese” and “DYSON” trademarks with reg. nos. 6369537 and 6334841 (“Cited Marks”) claimed by Dyson and Dyson Shanghai in Class 11. The “Dyson in Chinese” and “Dyson” logos used by Dyson Chengdu were identical or similar to the Cited Marks. The “DAISEN” mark used by Dyson Chengdu had identical pronunciation as the “DYSON” mark owned by Dyson with only some letters being different. Since the Cited Marks had a high reputation in the relevant industries in China, based on the general attention of the relevant public, the two marks were similar. To sum up, Dyson Chengdu used logos similar to the Cited Marks in identical or similar goods without the permission of Dyson and Dyson Shanghai, which could easily cause confusion among the relevant public and infringed upon the trademark rights of Dyson and Dyson Shanghai. In addition, the first instance court held that the “DS and Design” used by Dyson Chengdu were neither identical nor similar to the Cited Marks, so it did not support the trademark infringement claim based on it. 2. The main part of the www.daisencd.com domain name registered and used by Dyson Chengdu in March 2021 is similar in pronunciation and spelling to the Cited Marks, which was enough to cause misunderstanding among the relevant public, and Dyson Chengdu has the bad faith intent to deliberately mislead users into accessing its website. Therefore, its actions infringed upon the trademark rights of Dyson and Dyson Shanghai. 3. Dyson Chengdu was registered and established in 2017. As a company that also produces and sells fan products, it should be aware of the popularity of the Cited Marks and the names of Dyson and Dyson Shanghai. However, it still used “Dyson in Chinese” as its company name, which is the same as the Cited Marks. Such actions showed subjective intent to take advantage of the goodwill of others, which may easily cause the relevant public to mistakenly believe that it was related to Dyson and Dyson Shanghai, or there was a specific connection that creates confusion. Therefore, Dyson Chengdu’s use of “Dyson in Chinese” as a corporate name and used words including “Dyson Technology” and “DAISENTECHNOLOGY” in recruitment, bidding and other business activities constituted unfair competition. Accordingly, the first instance court held that Dyson Chengdu should immediately stop the infringing behavior (including stopping using the infringing logo, stopping using and canceling the www.daisencd.com domain name, stopping using the company name with the same or similar words as “Dyson”, and change its company name), post apologies on newspaper to eliminate the impact, and compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling RMB800,000 (USD112,000).

Dyson Chengdu appealed. The Sichuan High Court found that the key issues in the second instance were 1. Whether Dyson Shanghai has the right to initiate litigation in this case. 2. Whether the accused actions of Dyson Chengdu constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition. 3. Whether the amount of compensation determined by the first instance judgment is appropriate.

Regarding issue 1, the court found that Dyson Shanghai was authorized by Dyson, the trademark owner, to use the Cited Marks within China, and had the right to file lawsuits for infringement of trademark rights, corporate names, etc. According to relevant legal provisions, Dyson Shanghai has the right to initiate litigation in this case.

Regarding issue 2, the Sichuan High Court found that the approved goods for use under the Cited Marks in Class 11, including air conditioning devices, ceiling fans, self-operated fans, etc., are the same as the large industrial fan used by Dyson Chengdu with the infringing logo. They constituted the same goods. Combined with the fact that the Cited Marks enjoys a high reputation in China, Dyson Chengdu used a logo similar to the Cited Marks on the same product, which was enough to confuse the relevant public and constituted trademark infringement. Regarding Dyson Chengdu’s appeal that its use of a legally registered corporate name does not constitute unfair competition, the court found that the evidence on record could prove that Dyson Shanghai has a certain market reputation in its industry and that the “Dyson” brand name is a company name with certain influence. Dyson Chengdu, as a later registered commercial entity that sells fan products like Dyson Shanghai, should be aware of Dyson Shanghai’s well-known status and reasonably avoid it based on the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics. However, Dyson Chengdu did not make any reasonable circumvention when registering its company name, and still used “Dyson in Chinese” in its company name, which could easily cause people to mistakenly believe that it has a specific connection with Dyson Shanghai and has the ability to take advantage of Dyson Shanghai’s good will which constituted unfair competition.

Regarding focus issue 3, Dyson and Dyson Shanghai did not provide evidence to prove the actual losses they suffered due to the infringement, nor the benefits gained by Dyson Chengdu from the infringement. There is no trademark license fee, etc. for reference in this case. The first instance court comprehensively considered the popularity and influence of the Cited Marks, the nature, duration, scope of influence and subjective state of the infringement committed by Dyson Chengdu, as well as the fact that a lawyer appeared in court in this case and the difficulty of the case. The court also considered the evidence collection process, lawyer’s work attitude and workload and other factors. The court finally determined that Dyson Chengdu should compensate Dyson and Dyson Shanghai for a total of RMB800,000 (USD112,000) in economic losses and reasonable expenses, which was not inappropriate.

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

How to Assess Patent Eligibility of AI Inventions in China

by Xiuqin ZHAO, Qiang Lin and Xiaobin Zong

In summary

In China, patent eligibility of AI inventions is assessed by examining in sequence whether the AI inventions fall under the rules and methods for mental activities and whether they constitute a technical solution. An AI invention claim can pass the examination as to mental activities as long as it contains at least a technical feature. The ‘three elements of technology’ test is then applied to examine whether the claim constitutes a technical solution, requiring the claim to contain some technical means applying the laws of nature to solve a certain technical problem, with some technical effects achieved.

Discussion points

• AI invention
• Patent eligibility
• Algorithmic features
• Technical features
• Mental activities
• Technical solutions

Referenced in this article

• Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China
• Article 25, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China
• Part II, Chapter 9, section 6 of the revised ‘Guidelines for Patent Examination’ (2010)
• China National Intellectual Property Administration

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology is currently undergoing revolutionary development. Generally, ‘artificial intelligence’ can be defined as ‘theories, methods, technologies and application systems that utilize digital computers or machines controlled by digital computers to simulate, extend and expand human intelligence, perceive the environment, acquire knowledge, and use the knowledge to obtain optimal results’^[1]. Since AI technology is centred around the simulation of how humans perceive and process information, like hearing and vision, it has been innovatively applied to fields such as voiceprint recognition, facial recognition, driverless cars, intelligent customer service chatbots, machine translation and medical image processing.

The essence of AI technology is algorithms. As a result, most, if not all AI inventions are solutions involving algorithms, although algorithms per se are explicitly excluded, as rules and methods for mental activities, from patent-eligible subject matters under Chinese patent law.^[2] With patent applications relating to new AI technologies surging, the question of how to assess the patent eligibility of AI inventions has become an important issue of concern to the Chinese patent industry as well as to innovation subjects.

Rules for examining patent eligibility of AI inventions

In the revised ‘Guidelines for Patent Examination’, which were issued by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) on 31 December 2019 and entered into force on 1 February 2020, a new section titled ‘Provisions on the examination of patent applications for invention containing algorithmic features or features of business rules and methods’ was added for patent applications for inventions relating to AI, Internet Plus, big data and blockchain.^[3] This new section provides detailed rules for examining patent applications for inventions relating to these topics and aims to standardise the examination criteria of such applications.

According to this new section of the revised ‘Guidelines for Patent Examination’, the patentability examination of patent applications for AI inventions will be conducted in order as follows:

• examination of patent eligibility; and
• examination of novelty and inventiveness.

Specifically, for the examination of patent eligibility, whether a claim of a patent application falls under the rules and methods for mental activities as stipulated in article 25, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Chinese Patent Law (article 25.1 (2)) will first be examined. If the claim, considered as a whole, does not fall under the rules and methods for mental activities, then the examination will proceed to determine whether it constitutes a technical solution as referred to in article 2, paragraph 2 of the Chinese Patent Law (article 2.2).

The CNIPA emphasises that the eligibility examination of patent applications for AI inventions shall follow such criteria that the examination shall be carried out on the solution for which the patent protection is sought, meaning the solution defined by the claim. The examination of such solution shall be conducted in a way that ensures all of the contents recorded in the claim are taken as a whole to analyse the technical means involved, the technical problems solved and the technical effects obtained, instead of simply breaking the claim down into technical features and algorithmic features or features of business rules and method (BM features), which are then evaluated separately.

In particular, in the examination under article 25.1(2), if a claim contains one or more technical features in addition to algorithmic features or BM features, the claim, viewed as a whole, is deemed not to fall under the rules and methods for mental activities as stipulated in article 25.1(2), and should not be excluded from patent-eligible subject matters. The claim is considered to fall under the rules or methods for mental activities only if it is drawn to just an abstract algorithm, or simply BM features, and does not contain any technical features. For example, a mathematical modelling method based on an abstract algorithm that does not contain any technical features falls into the rules and methods for mental activities, and is thus ineligible for patent protection.

In the examination under article 2.2, it is necessary to consider all the features recited in the claim as a whole and apply the ‘three elements of technology’ test. According to this test, if the claim contains some technical means that apply the laws of nature to solve a technical problem and thereby achieves some technical effects in compliance with the laws of nature, then the claimed solution constitutes a technical solution as referred to in article 2.2. In practice, a claim on an AI invention can pass the examination under article 2.2, provided that the AI algorithm recited in the claim is applied in a specific technical field to solve a technical problem with some technical effects obtained. Illustratively, the AI invention will be deemed as a technical solution if the steps concerning the algorithm recited in the claim are each closely related to the technical problem to be solved (eg, the data processed by the algorithm is data with a concrete technical meaning in the technical field), if the execution of the algorithm can directly reflect the process of applying the laws of nature to solve a certain technical problem and if some technical effects can be achieved.

Examples of patent eligibility examination of AI inventions

Example 1

A claim drawn to a model training method reads as follows.

A method for training a model comprising a first sub-model, a second sub-model and a third sub-model, the method comprising:

• obtaining training samples comprising a labelled sample set and an unlabelled sample set; and
• training the first sub-model, the second sub-model and the third sub-model using the training samples to obtain the trained model.

For the examination of the patent eligibility of the claim, firstly it will be examined to check whether the claimed subject matter falls under the rules and methods for mental activities as stipulated in article 25.1(2), and if it does not, then it will be examined to check if it constitutes a technical solution as referred to in article 2.2.

In this example, the claim contains only algorithmic features, so it would be rejected as falling under the rules and methods for mental activities as stipulated in article 25.1(2).

Example 2

The claim of Example 1 is redrafted to read as follows.

A method applied to a computer for training a model comprising a first sub-model, a second sub-model and a third sub-model, the method comprising:

• obtaining training samples from a labelled sample set and an unlabelled sample set stored in a storage space; and
• training the first sub-model, the second sub-model and the third sub-model using the training samples to obtain the trained model.

In this example, the claim contains some technical features like ‘a computer’ and ‘a storage space’ in addition to the algorithmic features, so it shall not be rejected as falling under rules and methods for mental activities as stipulated in article 25.1(2).

However, the claim of Example 2 fails to be applied in a specific technical field to solve a technical problem. In particular, the objects processed by the algorithmic steps – ‘a labelled sample set’, ‘an unlabelled sample set’, ‘training samples’ and ‘model’ – are all abstract mathematical concepts rather than data with a concrete technical meaning in the technical field, and the execution of the algorithm fails to directly reflect the process of applying the laws of nature to solve a certain technical problem with any technical effects obtained. Therefore, it would fail to meet the ‘three elements of technology’ test, so the claimed method in Example 2 is not a technical solution as referred to in article 2.2.

Example 3

The claim of Example 1 is then redrafted to read as follows.

A method applied to a computer for training a model adapted for detecting internet abnormal access behaviour and comprising a first sub-model, a second sub-model and a third sub-model, the method comprising:

• obtaining training samples from a sample set labelled as abnormal access data or as normal access data and an unlabelled sample set that are stored in a storage space; and
• training the first sub-model, the second sub-model and the third sub-model using the training samples to obtain the model for detecting internet abnormal access behaviour.

The claimed method of Example 3 is directed to solve a technical problem of how to detect internet abnormal access behaviour in the technical field of the internet. The objects processed by the algorithmic steps, such as ‘a sample set labelled as abnormal access data or as normal access data’ and ‘the model for detecting Internet abnormal access behaviour’, are data with a concrete technical meaning in the relevant technical field, and the execution of the algorithm directly reflects the process of applying mathematics that belongs to the laws of nature to solve the technical problem of how to detect internet abnormal access behaviour with certain technical effects obtained. Therefore, the claimed method of Example 3 passes the ‘three elements of technology’ test as it constitutes a patent-eligible technical solution, as referred to in article 2.2.

Conclusion

From the above examples, it can be understood that according to the current practice of examining the patent eligibility of AI inventions in China, a relatively low-threshold criterion is used in the examination of whether a claim falls under the rules and methods for mental activities as stipulated in article 25.1(2). As long as the claim contains a technical feature or technical features, it can usually pass the examination. However, the “three elements of technology” test, which is a relatively high-threshold criterion, is also applied to examine whether a claim constitutes a technical solution as referred to in article 2.2. This test requires the claim to contain some technical means applying the laws of nature to solve a certain technical problem, with some technical effects in compliance with the laws of nature achieved thereby.

Footnotes

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