一、知识产权民事案件

1.“360扣扣保镖”软件商业诋毁纠纷案

腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司与北京奇虎科技有限公司、奇智软件（北京）有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案〔最高人民法院（2013）民三终字第5号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】北京奇虎科技有限公司、奇智软件（北京）有限公司（合称奇虎公司等）针对腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司（合称腾讯公司等）的QQ软件专门开发了“360扣扣保镖”软件，在相关网站上宣传扣扣保镖软件全面保护QQ软件用户安全，并提供下载。在安装了扣扣保镖软件后，该软件会自动对QQ软件进行体检，以红色字体警示用户QQ存在严重的健康问题，以绿色字体提供一键修复帮助，同时将“没有安装360安全卫士，电脑处于危险之中；升级QQ安全中心；阻止QQ扫描我的文件”列为危险项目；查杀QQ木马时，显示“如果您不安装360安全卫士，将无法使用木马查杀功能”，并以绿色功能键提供360安全卫士的安装及下载服务；经过一键修复，扣扣保镖将QQ软件的安全沟通界面替换成扣扣保镖界面。腾讯公司等以上述行为构成不正当竞争为由，提起诉讼。广东省高级人民法院一审认为，奇虎公司等前述行为构成不正当竞争行为；其针对腾讯公司等的经营，故意捏造、散布虚伪事实，损害了该公司的商业信誉和商品声誉，构成商业诋毁。遂判决奇虎公司等公开赔礼道歉、消除影响，并连带赔偿经济损失及合理维权费用共计500万元。奇虎公司等不服，提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，在市场竞争中，经营者通常可以根据市场需要和消费者需求自由选择商业模式，这是市场经济的必然要求。腾讯公司等使用的免费平台与广告或增值服务相结合的商业模式是本案争议发生时互联网行业惯常的经营方式，也符合我国互联网市场发展的阶段性特征。这种商业模式并不违反反不正当竞争法的原则精神和禁止性规定，腾讯公司等以此谋求商业利益的行为应受保护，他人不得以不正当干扰方式损害其正当权益。奇虎公司等前述行为破坏QQ软件及其服务的安全性、完整性，干扰了其正当经营活动，损害了其合法权益。奇虎公司等前述行为根本目的在于依附QQ软件强大用户群，通过对QQ软件及其服务进行贬损的手段来推销、推广360安全卫士，从而增加奇虎公司等的市场交易机会并获取市场竞争优势，此行为本质上属于不正当地利用他人市场成果、为自己谋取商业机会从而获取竞争优势的行为，违反了诚实信用和公平竞争原则，构成不正当竞争。最高人民法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

【典型意义】本案中，最高人民法院明确了互联网市场领域中商业诋毁行为的认定规则，其根本要件是相关经营者的行为是否以误导方式对竞争对手的商业信誉或者商品声誉造成了损害。最高人民法院指出，经营者为竞争目的对他人进行商业评论或者批评，尤其要善尽谨慎注意义务；互联网的健康发展需要有序的市场环境和明确的市场竞争规则作为保障，竞争自由和创新自由必须以不侵犯他人合法权益为边界。最高人民法院在本案中明确了互联网市场领域技术创新、自由竞争和不正当竞争的关系，本案对相关互联网企业之间开展有序竞争、促进市场资源优化配置具有里程碑的意义。

2.互联网领域滥用市场支配地位垄断纠纷案

北京奇虎科技有限公司与腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司滥用市场支配地位纠纷上诉案〔最高人民法院（2013）民三终字第4号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】北京奇虎科技有限公司向广东省高级人民法院起诉称，腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司（合称腾讯公司等）在即时通讯软件及服务相关市场具有市场支配地位，并指控腾讯公司滥用该支配地位，无正当理由限制交易和捆绑销售。请求判令腾讯公司立即停止滥用市场支配地位的垄断行为，连带赔偿奇虎公司经济损失1.5亿元。广东省高级人民法院一审认为，本案相关商品市场远远超出综合性即时通信服务市场，相关地域市场应为全球市场。腾讯公司在该相关市场不具有支配地位。由于奇虎公司对本案相关商品市场界定错误，其所提供的证据不足以证明腾讯公司等在相关商品市场上具有垄断地位，故奇虎公司的诉讼请求缺乏事实和法律依据，不能成立。该院判决驳回奇虎公司的全部诉讼请求。奇虎公司不服，提出上诉。最高人民法院利用经济分析方法重新界定了本案相关市场范围，通过考察被诉垄断行为的实际或者可能的竞争效果，认为基于本案现有证据，不足以认定腾讯公司等实施了为反垄断法所禁止的限制交易和搭售行为。故判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

【典型意义】本案是最高人民法院审理的第一起垄断案件。在长达7.4万字的判决书中，最高人民法院详细阐述了互联网领域反垄断法意义上相关市场界定标准、市场支配地位认定标准以及滥用市场支配地位行为的分析原则与方法等一系列具有重要意义的法律问题，明确了反垄断法律适用的多个重要裁判标准。在滥用行为的分析思路上，本案判决在国际上创造性地采用了“行为-竞争效果评估”的分析范式；在互联网领域相关市场界定方面，判决不仅运用了国际上通行的经济分析方法，还综合运用了社会学、心理学等多学科的知识作为支撑，并深刻阐述了相关市场界定的作用及价值，澄清了相关市场界定并非必经步骤；在互联网领域经营者的市场支配力认定尤其是双边市场的影响方面，判决对双边市场对经营者市场支配力的影响进行了深入阐述，并提出了根据具体案情决定双边市场分析的起点，不需要也不存在固定的分析范式的思路。本案判决在国内外产生了广泛影响。业界和学界对该判决给予高度评价，认为判决展现了最高人民法院在明确法律标准、指引互联网产业发展方面确立了典范和标杆。有评论指出，最高人民法院的判决是“真正懂得互联网的判决”；“中国最高审判机关在判决中阐述的法律适用标准为世界范围内的互联网反垄断的裁判树立了一个标杆，将在国际上产生重要影响”。

3.“宝庆”商标特许经营合同纠纷案

南京宝庆银楼连锁发展有限公司、江苏创煜工贸有限公司与南京宝庆银楼首饰有限责任公司、南京宝庆首饰总公司特许经营合同纠纷上诉案〔江苏省高级人民法院（2012）苏知民终字第0154号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】南京宝庆银楼首饰有限责任公司(简称宝庆首饰公司)、南京宝庆首饰总公司(简称宝庆总公司)系“宝庆”系列注册商标的权利人。南京宝庆银楼连锁发展有限公司(简称连锁公司)、江苏创煜工贸有限公司(简称创煜公司)自2005年开始与宝庆首饰公司、宝庆总公司签署了一系列合作协议，以特许经营的方式进行合作。在双方合作期间，“宝庆”品牌获得了巨大发展，年销售额达数十亿元，但双方后因协商合资失败而最终导致合作关系破裂。宝庆总公司、宝庆首饰公司遂以连锁公司存在多种违约行为且构成根本违约为由，发函要求解除双方的合作协议，并同时在江苏多地法院提起商标侵权系列诉讼。而连锁公司、创煜公司亦诉至法院，要求确认解除协议通知无效。江苏省南京市中级人民法院就双方争议的特许经营合同纠纷案作出一审判决，确认宝庆首饰公司、宝庆总公司提出的解除涉案协议无效，并驳回连锁公司其他诉讼请求。双方均不服，提起上诉。江苏省高级人民法院在充分衡量双方发生纠纷的原因、连锁公司多种违约行为的性质及程度、连锁公司违约擅自开店的数量、双方对宝庆品牌的贡献等因素的基础上，合理平衡双方利益，通过判决明确界定了双方合作关系的性质以及宝庆总公司、宝庆首饰公司的权利边界和连锁公司合法经营行为的法律边界，在对一审裁判理由中所确定的连锁公司对宝庆商标合理使用范围予以纠正的基础上，维持了一审确认解除协议无效的判决。根据在特许经营合同纠纷案中所确定的裁判规则，即凡是未经许可，连锁公司擅自使用宝庆商标开店经营的，构成商标侵权，判令停止侵权、赔偿损失；凡是已经过许可的，连锁公司可以继续经营，二审法院对双方之间系列商标侵权纠纷作出相应的终审判决。

【典型意义】对于此类双方以特许经营为基础的合作纠纷，特别是合作已久、品牌声誉及市场获得巨大增长、裁判结果涉及双方重大利益的案件，法院并没有采取简单的裁判方式，而是充分运用司法智慧，以利益平衡为指引，探索了一种更加理性的纠纷解决思路，即在判决不予解除合同、要求双方继续合作的同时，通过判决进一步划清双方权利义务关系的边界：一方面，确保特许人对特许经营资源特别是商标等知识产权的绝对控制，明确被特许人应当依约诚信经营，不能突破被特许人的权利范围，试图攫取特许人的知识产权利益；另一方面，则要求对于被特许人依约诚信经营的，特许人亦应当按合同约定继续允许并正常审批，无正当理由不得拒绝许可，不得不当损害被特许人的合法权益。根据特许经营合同纠纷判决中确立的上述裁判规则，双方之间系列商标侵权纠纷亦得到妥善处理。案件裁判结果对“宝庆”品牌未产生重大市场波动，也没有造成双方市场利益的重大失衡。双方对终审判决都没有申请再审。

4.“quna.com”在先注册域名不正当竞争纠纷案

北京趣拿信息技术有限公司与广州市去哪信息技术有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案〔广东省高级人民法院（2013）粤高法民三终字第565号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】2005年5月9日，庄辰超注册了“qunar.com”域名并创建了“去哪儿”网。北京趣拿信息技术有限公司（简称趣拿公司）于2006年3月17日成立后，“qunar.com”域名由庄辰超转让给该公司。经过多年使用，“去哪儿”、“去哪儿网”、“qunar.com”等服务标识成为知名服务的特有名称。广州市去哪信息技术有限公司（简称去哪公司）的前身成立于2003年12月10日，后于2009年5月26日变更为现名，经营范围与趣拿公司相近。2003年6月6日，“quna.com”域名登记注册，后于2009年5月转让给去哪公司。去哪公司随后注册了“123quna.com”、“mquna.com”域名，并使用“去哪”、“去哪儿”、“去哪网”、“quna.com”名义对外宣传和经营。趣拿公司以去哪公司上述行为构成不正当竞争为由，请求判令去哪公司停止不正当竞争行为并赔偿损失300万元等。广州市中级人民法院一审认为，去哪公司使用“去哪”、“去哪儿”、“去哪网”、“quna.com”服务标记的行为构成对趣拿公司知名服务特有名称的侵害，去哪公司在其企业字号中使用“去哪”字样的行为构成不正当竞争，去哪公司使用“quna.com”、“123quna.com”、“mquna.com”域名的行为构成对趣拿公司域名权益的侵害。遂判决去哪公司停止使用上述企业字号、服务标记、域名，并限期将上述域名移转给趣拿公司；去哪公司赔偿趣拿公司经济损失35万元。去哪公司不服一审判决提出上诉。广东省高级人民法院二审认为，去哪公司使用“去哪”企业字号和“去哪”标识等构成不正当竞争行为。去哪公司对域名“quna.com”享有合法权益，使用该域名有正当理由，根据《最高人民法院关于审理涉及计算机网络域名民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》第四条规定，不构成不正当竞争，去哪公司随后注册“123quna.com”、“mquna.com”域名也应当允许注册和使用。双方均享有来源合法的域名权益，需要彼此容忍、互相尊重、长期共存，一方不能因为在经营过程中知名度提升，就剥夺另一方的生存空间；另一方也不能恶意攀附知名度较高一方的商誉，以谋取不正当的商业利益。据此，去哪公司虽然有权继续使用“quna.com”等域名，但是也有义务在与域名相关的搜索链接及网站上加注区别性标识，以使消费者将上述域名与趣拿公司“去哪儿”、“去哪儿网”、“qunar.com”等知名服务特有名称相区分。二审法院维持了一审判决关于去哪公司停止使用“去哪”企业字号及“去哪”等标识的判项；撤销了去哪公司停止使用“quna.com”等域名并限期将上述域名移转给趣拿公司的判项，并把赔偿数额相应调整为25万元。

【典型意义】本案区分了域名近似与商标近似判断标准的不同，以及权利冲突处理原则。去哪公司使用了在先注册的域名“quna.com”，趣拿公司经营的“去哪网”属于知名服务的特有名称，并注册了域名“qunar.com”。两个域名仅相差一个字母“r”，构成相近似的域名，但法院认为可以长期共存，依据在于：一是域名具有全球唯一性，由于域名有长度限制，全球域名注册的最大容量不超过43亿，如果规定近似域名不得注册，从经济学角度是没有效益的。二是域名由计算机系统识别，计算机对非常相似的域名也可以精确地区分开来，绝不会出现混淆情况。电子技术手段和感觉感官在精确性上的巨大差异是造成域名近似与商标近似判断标准不同的主要原因。

5.“ATT7021AU”集成电路布图设计专有权侵权纠纷案

钜泉光电科技（上海）股份有限公司与深圳市锐能微科技有限公司、上海雅创电子零件有限公司侵害集成电路布图设计专有权纠纷上诉案〔上海市高级人民法院（2014）沪高民三（知）终字第12号民事判决书〕

【案情摘要】钜泉光电科技（上海）股份有限公司（简称钜泉公司）完成了集成电路布图设计ATT7021AU的设计（简称钜泉布图设计），并获得布图设计登记证书。钜泉公司发现，深圳市锐能微科技有限公司（简称锐能微公司）未经其许可复制其布图设计并制造含有该布图设计的集成电路芯片RN8209、RN8209G（简称被诉侵权芯片），且与上海雅创电子零件有限公司（简称雅创公司）销售被诉侵权芯片。钜泉公司诉至法院，请求判令两被告承担侵权责任。锐能微公司和雅创公司共同辩称，被诉侵权芯片的布图设计系锐能微公司自主开发，并获得了登记证书；被诉侵权芯片的布图设计与钜泉布图设计不同；钜泉布图设计不具有独创性，属于常规设计，请求驳回钜泉公司诉讼请求。上海市第一中级人民法院一审判决钜泉公司停止侵权、赔偿损失及合理费用合计320万元。钜泉公司、锐能微公司均不服，提起上诉。上海市高级人民法院经审理认为：第一，由于集成电路布图设计的创新空间有限，在布图设计侵权判定中对于两个布图设计构成相同或者实质性相似的认定应采用较为严格的标准，然而被诉侵权芯片的相应布图设计仍与钜泉布图设计中的“数字地轨与模拟地轨衔接的布图”和“独立升压器电路布图”构成实质性相似。第二，锐能微公司在本案中提交的证据材料不足以证明钜泉布图设计中的“数字地轨与模拟地轨衔接的布图”和“独立升压器电路布图”是常规设计。第三，受保护的布图设计中任何具有独创性的部分均受法律保护，而不论其在整个布图设计中的大小或者所起的作用；锐能微公司对钜泉布图设计进行部分复制，既不是为个人目的，亦不是单纯为评价、分析、研究、教学等目的，而是为了研制新的集成电路以进行商业利用；锐能微公司认可其接触了钜泉布图设计，而非通过反向工程获得，故无论被诉侵权芯片的布图设计是否具有独创性，锐能微公司的行为均不适用《集成电路布图设计保护条例》第二十三条第（二）项的规定，已经侵犯了钜泉布图设计专有权。第四，考虑被确认侵权的两部分布图设计在被诉侵权芯片中所起的作用确非核心和主要作用且所占的布图面积确实较小，以及锐能微公司通过直接复制钜泉公司相应布图设计所节约的研发投入和缩短的研发时间，一审酌情判决锐能微公司赔偿钜泉公司包括合理支出在内的经济损失320万元，并无不当。故二审法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

【典型意义】本案是一起十分典型的集成电路布图设计侵权纠纷。本案被告主张，集成电路布图设计侵权判断标准应有相似度的概念，一项集成电路布图设计在没有自身独创设计的前提下，完全抄袭他人布图设计或与他人布图设计构成实质性相似的，才构成对他人集成电路布图设计专有权的侵害。二审法院认为，根据《集成电路布图设计保护条例》的规定，未经权利人许可，复制权利人受保护的布图设计的任何具有独创性的部分，均构成侵权。该侵权判断标准强化了对于集成电路布图设计创新的激励。同时，本案对于侵权判断中“实质性相似”采用严格的认定标准。本案判决意在平衡权利人与竞争者之间的利益，促进集成电路布图设计行业健康发展。

6.“网易云音乐”侵犯信息网络传播权诉前禁令纠纷案

深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司与广州网易计算机系统有限公司等侵害音乐作品信息网络传播权纠纷诉前禁令案〔湖北省武汉市中级人民法院（2014）鄂武汉中知禁字第5号、5-1号、5-2号民事裁定书〕

【案情摘要】深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司（简称腾讯公司）向武汉市中级人民法院申请诉前禁令，请求：1.责令广州网易计算机系统有限公司（简称广州网易）、网易（杭州）网络有限公司（简称杭州网易）、杭州网易雷火科技有限公司（简称网易雷火）停止通过“网易云音乐”平台（music.163.com及其PC端、移动客户端）向公众传播申请人享有专有著作权的《时间都去哪了》、《爱的供养》、《画心》等623首歌曲；2.责令中国联合网络通信有限公司湖北省分公司（简称湖北联通）停止提供“网易云音乐”畅听流量包服务；3.责令广东欧珀移动通信有限公司（简称广东欧珀）停止在其OPPO品牌手机中内置“网易云音乐”行为。腾讯公司提交了证明其享有涉案音乐作品著作权及遭受侵权损害事实的证据，并提供了担保。武汉市中级人民法院认为，腾讯公司对上述623首音乐作品依法享有信息网络传播权，五被申请人以互联网络、移动手机“网易云音乐”畅听流量包、内置“网易云音乐”移动手机客户端等方式，向公众大量提供涉案音乐作品，该行为涉嫌侵犯腾讯公司对涉案音乐作品依法享有的信息网络传播权，且被申请人向公众提供的音乐作品数量较大，造成了腾讯公司巨大的经济损失。在网络环境下，该行为如不及时禁止，将会使广州网易不当利用他人权利获得的市场份额进一步快速增长，损害了腾讯公司的利益，且这种损害将难以弥补，理应禁止各被申请人通过网络传播623首音乐作品涉嫌侵权部分的行为。遂裁定发布如下诉前禁令措施：1.广州网易、杭州网易、网易雷火于裁定生效之日起立即停止通过“网易云音乐”平台向公众提供涉案623首音乐作品的行为；2.湖北联通于裁定生效之日起立即停止向其移动手机客户提供“网易云音乐”畅听流量包中的涉案623首音乐作品的移动网络服务行为；3.广东欧珀于裁定生效次日起十日内停止通过其品牌为OPPO R830S型号（合约机）移动手机中内置的“网易云音乐”客户端向移动手机客户传播涉案623首音乐作品的行为。禁令发布后，湖北联通、广东欧珀立即停止了被诉行为。广州网易、杭州网易、网易雷火不服该禁令，申请复议，武汉市中级人民法院予以驳回。复议中，腾讯公司发现被诉行为仍在继续，书面申请对违反禁令行为予以处罚。法院作出相应的处罚措施。至复议决定书发出后，被诉行为已经按照禁令要求全面停止。

【典型意义】近年来网络产业与音乐产业结合形成新生网络文化传播媒介，可以使音乐作品被无限传递、下载，不受限制地被反复欣赏，在方便社会公众欣赏音乐的同时，盗版网络音乐也对著作权人造成了难以弥补的损害。本案中，法院及时发布诉前禁令，并对违反禁令的行为予以处罚，为打击网络音乐盗版、规范网络音乐市场、整治网络环境提供了一种可行的保护模式，充分体现了知识产权司法保护的主导作用。

二、知识产权行政案件

7.“稻香村”商标异议复审行政纠纷案

苏州稻香村食品工业有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、北京稻香村食品有限责任公司商标异议复审行政纠纷上诉案〔北京市高级人民法院（2014）高行终字第1103号行政判决书〕

【案情摘要】北京稻香村食品集团于1996年1月提出“稻香村”商标（简称引证商标）的注册申请，并于1997年5月获准注册，核定使用商品为第30类的馅饼、饺子、年糕、粽子、元宵等。经核准，该商标注册人名义变更为北京稻香村食品有限责任公司（简称北京稻香村公司）。2006年7月，苏州稻香村食品工业有限公司（简称苏州稻香村公司）提出“稻香村及图”商标（简称被异议商标）的注册申请，指定使用商品为第30类的饼干、面包、糕点等。被异议商标初步审定公告后，北京稻香村公司提出异议申请。国家工商行政管理总局商标局裁定被异议商标准予注册。北京稻香村公司申请复审。商标评审委员会认为，被异议商标与引证商标属于近似商标，被异议商标指定使用的商品与引证商标核定使用的商品属于类似商品。苏州稻香村公司虽在饼干、糕点等商品上经受让在先取得由“稻香村”文字、“DXC”字母及图形外框组合而成的两个商标（简称在先取得商标），但该两商标与被异议商标在表现形式上差异较大，而与北京稻香村公司长期使用并有较高知名度的引证商标“稻香村”更为接近，如允许其注册，将打破业已形成的市场秩序，增加市场及相关公众混淆的可能性，因此，被异议商标与引证商标构成《商标法》第二十八条所指使用在类似商品上的近似商标，裁定对被异议商标不予核准注册。苏州稻香村公司不服，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院一审判决维持了商标评审委员会的裁定。苏州稻香村公司不服，提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院二审认为：北京稻香村公司的“稻香村”商标经过长期使用具有了较高的知名度，其与苏州稻香村公司在先取得商标之间已经存在能够区分的市场实际和稳定的市场秩序。被异议商标标识与其在先取得的商标差异较大，反而与北京稻香村公司的引证商标非常接近，因此苏州稻香村公司申请注册被异议商标，不能认定为对其在先已受让的稻香村商标声誉的延续，而是侵入到了北京稻香村公司商标的排他权范围内，打破了能够区分的市场实际和已经形成的稳定市场秩序，将导致消费者对商品来源的混淆误认，遂判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

【典型意义】因历史原因，不同的企业长期使用相近似的商标，在已客观形成市场格局的情况下，如其中一方另行申请构成要素相近似的商标，在适用商标法第二十八条进行商标近似判断时，除考虑标志本身的近似程度以外，还应根据商标实际使用状况、使用历史、相关公众的认知状态、使用者的主观状态等因素，以混淆误认可能性为标准综合判定，注重维护已经形成和稳定的市场秩序，防止简单地把商标构成要素近似等同于商标近似。

8.“竹家庄避风塘及图”商标争议行政纠纷案

上海避风塘美食有限公司与国家工商行政管理总局商标评审委员会、上海磐石意舟餐饮管理有限公司商标争议行政纠纷提审案〔最高人民法院（2013）行提字第8号行政判决书〕

【案情摘要】上海竹家庄美食有限公司（简称竹家庄公司）于1999年申请注册“竹家庄避风塘及图”商标（即争议商标），国家工商行政管理总局商标局于2000年7月28日予以核准注册，指定使用在国际分类第42类“餐馆；酒吧；餐厅”等服务上。争议商标由竹子图案及汉字“竹家庄避风塘”组成。2010年12月27日，上海磐石意舟餐饮管理有限公司受让争议商标。2003年11月11日，上海避风塘美食有限公司（简称上海避风塘公司）提出针对争议商标的撤销申请，其理由主要为：1.竹家庄公司曾于1999年8月1日以“避风塘”一词是“菜肴名称”为由，申请撤销第1055861号“避风塘BFT”商标，经两次评审第1055861号商标被撤销。竹家庄公司既然认为“避风塘”不能作为商标注册，却又将“避风塘”作为争议商标的一部分申请注册，其撤销第1055861号商标的目的是恶意清除争议商标的注册障碍。2.上海避风塘公司成立于1998年9月15日，经过努力已成为上海餐饮业的知名品牌，曾被许可使用并受让第1055861号“避风塘BFT”商标。竹家庄公司撤销第1055861号商标并注册争议商标的目的，都是为搭上海避风塘公司的顺风车。商标评审委员会作出商评字〔2008〕第30896号商标争议裁定，对争议商标予以维持。上海避风塘公司不服该裁定，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院一审判决维持第30896号商标争议裁定。上海避风塘公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。二审期间，上海避风塘公司向法院提交了最高人民法院（2007）民三监字第21-1号民事裁定书。北京市高级人民法院经审理认为，（2007）民三监字第21-1号民事裁定书并没有明确“避风塘”成为上海避风塘公司已经使用并具有一定影响的商标的具体时间，不足以证明争议商标的注册属于以不正当手段抢先注册上海避风塘公司已经使用并有一定影响的商标。二审判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。上海避风塘公司不服该判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院提审后认为：第1055861号“避风塘BFT”商标的撤销与争议商标的注册不具有关联性；上海避风塘公司在商标争议行政程序中并未提出争议商标侵害其企业名称权的主张,并且，“避风塘”一词不仅仅是上海避风塘公司的字号，还具有“躲避台风的港湾”和“一种风味料理或者菜肴烹饪方法”的涵义，因此，上海避风塘公司不能以其企业名称权禁止他人在上述涵义上正当使用“避风塘”一词，争议商标中的“竹家庄”文字与竹子图案更具有标识商品或服务来源的作用，故争议商标的注册、使用不会造成相关公众的混淆、误认，未侵害上海避风塘公司的企业名称权。遂判决维持二审判决，驳回上海避风塘公司的再审请求。

【典型意义】本案涉及知识产权案件审理中如何处理好保护知识产权权利人的利益与维护社会公众利益的关系的问题。本案中，撤销申请人主张争议商标的注册侵害其企业名称权，但由于撤销申请人的字号作为文字符号同时还具有为公众所普遍认知的其他涵义，故撤销申请人无权禁止他人在其他涵义上使用这一文字符号。并且，本案争议商标中还加入了具有显著识别特征的其他符号，进一步避免了消费者发生混淆误认的可能。本案对于界定知识产权权利人与社会公众的权利界限，防止标识性知识产权权利人利用“符号圈地”侵占公有领域具有积极意义。

9.“治疗乳腺增生性疾病的药物组合物及其制备方法”发明专利权无效行政纠纷案

北京亚东生物制药有限公司与国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、山东华洋制药有限公司专利行政纠纷申请再审案〔最高人民法院（2013)知行字第77号行政裁定书〕

【案情摘要】北京亚东生物制药有限公司（简称亚东制药公司）是名称为“治疗乳腺增生性疾病的药物组合物及其制备方法”发明专利（简称本专利）的专利权人。山东华洋制药有限公司针对本专利提出无效宣告请求，其提交的证据1、证据3分别为《药典》公开的“乳块消片”的功能主治、处方以及颗粒剂的相关制法。专利复审委员会作出第15409号决定认定本专利不具有创造性，宣告全部无效。亚东制药公司不服，提起行政诉讼。北京市第一中级人民法院认为，根据证明证据1的临床有效率低于本专利的公证书即反证4，本专利颗粒剂的总有效率为95.70％，证据1中片剂的总有效率为89.32％，本专利权利要求1具有显著的进步。遂判决撤销第15409号决定。专利复审委员会不服，提起上诉。北京市高级人民法院二审判决撤销一审判决、维持第15409号决定。亚东制药公司不服，申请再审。最高人民法院认为，在反证4没有公开总有效率的具体测定方法的情况下，无法认定反证4与本专利的总有效率是在等效等量情况下，以同一种测定方法做出的，上述对比数据不能证明本专利是否具有临床疗效上的显著进步；即便认可上述对比数据，由于本专利制备颗粒剂时省去了减压干燥步骤，对药物活性成分的影响也相应减少，本领域技术人员能够合理预期，省略减压干燥步骤将会使药物的整体有效率有所提高，专利权人并未举证证明其超出了本领域技术人员的合理预期。遂裁定驳回亚东制药公司的再审申请。

【典型意义】最高人民法院在本案中明确了未记载在说明书中的技术贡献不能作为要求获得专利权保护的基础，以及判断发明是否存在预料不到的技术效果时，应当综合考虑发明所述技术领域的特点，尤其是技术效果的可预见性、现有技术中存在的技术启示等因素。此外，还明确了区别技术特征的认定应当以记载在权利要求中的技术特征为基础。本案裁判对于审理药物专利授权确权行政纠纷具有重要指导意义。

三、知识产权刑事案件

10.周志全等7人经营思路网侵犯著作权罪案

被告人周志全等7人侵犯著作权罪案〔北京市第一中级人民法院（2014）一中刑终字第2516号刑事裁定书〕

【案情摘要】被告人周志全于2008年8月注册成立北京心田一品科技有限公司，经营思路网站。思路网站下设门户网（网址www.siluhd.com）、思路论坛（网址bbs.siluhd.com），并以HDstar论坛（网址www.hdstar.org）作为思路网站的内站。2009年1月至2013年4月间，被告人周志全雇佣被告人苏立源、曹军、贾晶洋、李赋然等人，未经著作权人许可，以会员制方式，将他人享有著作权的大量影视、音乐等作品以种子形式上传至HDstar论坛，供2.6万余注册会员下载，在思路网站投放广告，并通过销售网站注册邀请码和VIP会员资格营利。被告人寇宇杰于2012年5月至2013年4月间，雇佣被告人崔兵等人，未经著作权人许可，复制他人享有著作权的电影至4000余份硬盘中，并通过淘宝网店予以销售。北京市海淀区人民法院一审认为，被告人周志全雇佣被告人苏立源、曹军、李赋然、贾晶洋以营利为目的，未经著作权人许可，通过信息网络传播他人作品，情节特别严重；被告人寇宇杰雇佣被告人崔兵以营利为目的，未经著作权人许可，复制发行他人作品，情节特别严重，上述被告人的行为均已构成侵犯著作权罪，应予惩处。法院根据各被告人在共同犯罪中的作用和认罪态度依法予以减轻、从轻处罚或者适用缓刑，分别判处各被告人有期徒刑一年至五年，并处罚金等。一审宣判后，被告人苏立源、寇宇杰提起上诉。北京市第一中级人民法院二审驳回上诉、维持原判。

【典型意义】思路网号称“中国最大的数字高清门户网站”、国内最“顶尖”的蓝光高清网站。思路网管理层汇聚了多名IT精英，在案被告人均为大学文化程度。该网站刊载高清资讯和高清电影，表面上看是一个介绍蓝光技术的普通网站，但其链接到的“HDstar论坛”却存有大量蓝光高清格式的盗版电影和电视剧资源可供付费下载，网络上的很多盗版高清影片片源均来自思路网。通过这种方式，思路网积累了大量的注册用户，成为国内最“著名”的盗版高清电影网站。该案判决对于打击互联网环境下著作权犯罪、保护知识产权具有重要作用。

1、 Intellectual Property Civil Cases

1. The commercial defamation dispute case of the "360 Detaining Bodyguard" software

The appeal case of Unfair competition dispute between Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. and Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd., Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. [the Supreme People's Court (2013) Min San Zhong Zi No. 5 Civil Judgment]

【 Summary of Case 】 Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd. and Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (collectively referred to as Qihu Company) have developed the "360 Detention Bodyguard" software specifically for QQ software of Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (collectively referred to as Tencent Company). They have promoted the Detention Bodyguard software on relevant websites to comprehensively protect the safety of QQ software users and provided downloads. After installing the buckle bodyguard software, the software will automatically perform a physical examination of the QQ software, warning users of serious health problems in red font, providing one click repair help in green font, and listing "the computer is in danger if 360 security guards are not installed; upgrading the QQ security center; preventing QQ from scanning my files" as a dangerous item; When killing QQ Trojans, it displays "If you do not install 360 Security Guard, you will not be able to use the Trojan killing function", and provides installation and download services for 360 Security Guard with green function keys; After a one click repair, the security communication interface of the QQ software was replaced with the security communication interface of the security guard. Tencent and others filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the above acts constituted Unfair competition. The High people's court of Guangdong Province held in the first instance that Qihoo and other aforementioned acts constituted Unfair competition; It deliberately fabricated and spread false facts against Tencent's operations, which damaged the company's commercial reputation and product reputation, and constituted commercial defamation. Thus, Qihu Company and others were sentenced to publicly apologize, eliminate the impact, and jointly compensate for economic losses and reasonable rights protection costs totaling 5 million yuan. Qihu Company and others are dissatisfied and file an appeal. The Supreme People's Court held in the second instance that in market competition, operators can usually freely choose their business models based on market needs and consumer demands, which is an inevitable requirement of the market economy. The business model of combining the free platform used by Tencent and other companies with advertising or value-added services was the usual mode of operation in the internet industry at the time of the dispute in this case, and it also conforms to the phased characteristics of the development of China's internet market. This business model does not violate the spirit of the principles and prohibitions of the Anti Unfair competition Law. Tencent and other companies seeking commercial interests in this way should be protected, and others should not damage their legitimate rights and interests by unfair interference. The aforementioned actions of Qihu Company undermine the security and integrity of QQ software and its services, interfere with its legitimate business activities, and harm its legitimate rights and interests. The fundamental purpose of the aforementioned actions of Qihu Company and others is to rely on the strong user base of QQ software, promote and promote 360 Security Guard through derogatory means of QQ software and its services, thereby increasing market trading opportunities and gaining market competitive advantages for Qihu Company and others. This behavior essentially belongs to the behavior of illegally utilizing other people's market achievements, seeking business opportunities for oneself, and obtaining competitive advantages, It violates the principles of good faith and fair competition and constitutes Unfair competition. The Supreme People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

In this case, the Supreme People's Court clarified the rules for determining commercial defamation behavior in the internet market. The fundamental requirement is whether the actions of relevant operators have caused damage to the commercial reputation or product reputation of competitors in a misleading manner. The Supreme People's Court pointed out that when operators make commercial comments or criticisms towards others for competitive purposes, they should especially fulfill their duty of caution and attention; The healthy development of the Internet requires an orderly market environment and clear market competition rules as guarantees, and freedom of competition and innovation must be bounded by not infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of others. In this case, the Supreme People's Court has clarified the relationship between technological innovation, free competition and Unfair competition in the Internet market. This case is a milestone for related Internet enterprises to carry out orderly competition and promote the optimal allocation of market resources.

2. Cases of Monopoly Disputes over the Abuse of Market Dominance in the Internet Field

Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd., Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. Abuse of Market Dominant Position Dispute Appeal Case [Supreme People's Court (2013) Min San Zhong Zi No. 4 Civil Judgment]

[Abstract] Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. sued to the High people's court of Guangdong Province, claiming that Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (collectively referred to as Tencent, etc.) have market supporting positions in Relevant market of instant messaging software and services, and accused Tencent of abusing this dominant position and restricting transactions and Product bundling without justified reasons. Requesting a decree to immediately stop Tencent's monopolistic behavior of abusing its dominant market position, and jointly compensating Qihu Company for economic losses of 150 million yuan. The High people's court of Guangdong Province held in the first instance that the relevant commodity market in this case far exceeds the comprehensive instant messaging service market, and the relevant regional market should be the global market. Tencent does not have a dominant position in the Relevant market. Due to Qihu Company's incorrect definition of the relevant commodity market in this case, the evidence provided by Qihu Company is insufficient to prove that Tencent and others have a monopoly position in the relevant commodity market. Therefore, Qihu Company's lawsuit lacks factual and legal basis and cannot be established. The court ruled to dismiss all the litigation claims of Qihu Company. Qihu Company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Supreme People's Court redefined the scope of the Relevant market of the case by using economic analysis methods, and through investigating the actual or possible competitive effects of the sued monopoly behavior, it believed that based on the existing evidence of the case, it was not enough to determine that Tencent and other companies had implemented restricted transactions and tying arrangements prohibited by the anti-monopoly law. Therefore, the judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Typical significance: This case is the first monopoly case tried by the Supreme People's Court. In the 74000 word judgment, the Supreme People's Court elaborated on a series of legal issues of great significance, such as the criteria for defining Relevant market, the criteria for determining market dominance, and the principles and methods for analyzing acts of abusing market dominance in the sense of anti-monopoly law in the Internet field, and clarified several important judgment standards for the application of anti-monopoly law. In terms of the analysis of abusive behavior, the judgment in this case creatively adopts the analytical paradigm of "behavior competition effect evaluation" internationally; In terms of the definition of Relevant market in the Internet field, the judgment not only uses the internationally accepted economic analysis methods, but also comprehensively uses the knowledge of sociology, psychology and other disciplines as support, and deeply expounds the role and value of the definition of Relevant market, clarifying that the definition of Relevant market is not a necessary step; In terms of the determination of the market dominance of operators in the Internet field, especially the influence of the Two-sided market, the judgment deeply elaborates the influence of the Two-sided market on the market dominance of operators, and puts forward the idea that the starting point of Two-sided market analysis should be determined according to the specific case, and there is no need or fixed analysis paradigm. The verdict in this case has had a wide impact both domestically and internationally. The industry and academia highly praised the judgment, believing that it demonstrated that the Supreme People's Court has established a model and benchmark in clarifying legal standards and guiding the development of the internet industry. Some comments point out that the judgment of the Supreme People's Court is "a judgment that truly understands the Internet"; The legal application standards elaborated by the highest judicial authority in China in its judgments have set a benchmark for worldwide internet antitrust judgments and will have a significant impact internationally.

3. Dispute over the "Baoqing" Trademark Franchise Contract

The appeal case of franchise contract dispute between Nanjing Baoqing Silver House Chain Development Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Chuangyu Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., Nanjing Baoqing Silver House Jewelry Co., Ltd., and Nanjing Baoqing Jewelry Head Office [Jiangsu High People's Court (2012) Su Zhimin Zhong Zi No. 0154 Civil Judgment]

Summary of Case: Nanjing Baoqing Yinlou Jewelry Co., Ltd. (referred to as Baoqing Jewelry Company) and Nanjing Baoqing Jewelry General Company (referred to as Baoqing General Company) are the rights holders of the "Baoqing" series of registered trademarks. Nanjing Baoqing Yinlou Chain Development Co., Ltd. (referred to as Chain Company) and Jiangsu Chuangyu Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. (referred to as Chuangyu Company) have signed a series of cooperation agreements with Baoqing Jewelry Company and Baoqing Head Office since 2005, to cooperate through franchise. During the cooperation period between the two parties, the "Baoqing" brand achieved tremendous development, with annual sales reaching billions of yuan. However, due to the failure of the joint venture negotiation, the cooperation relationship ultimately broke down. Baoqing Head Office and Baoqing Jewelry Company have sent a letter requesting the termination of the cooperation agreement between the two parties on the grounds that the chain company has engaged in multiple breach behaviors and constitutes a fundamental breach of contract. At the same time, they have filed a series of trademark infringement lawsuits in multiple courts in Jiangsu. Chain companies and Chuangyu Company also filed a lawsuit in court, requesting confirmation that the notice of termination of the agreement was invalid. The Intermediate people's court of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province, made a first instance judgment on the case of franchise contract dispute between the two parties, confirmed that the agreement for rescission of the case proposed by Baoqing Jewelry Company and Baoqing Head Office was invalid, and rejected other litigation claims of the chain company. Both parties are dissatisfied and file an appeal. The Jiangsu High People's Court, on the basis of fully weighing the reasons for the disputes between the two parties, the nature and extent of various violations of the chain companies, the number of unauthorized stores opened by the chain companies in violation of the contract, and the contributions of both parties to the Baoqing brand, reasonably balanced the interests of both parties, and clearly defined the nature of the cooperation relationship between the two parties and the Baoqing head office On the basis of correcting the reasonable scope of use of the Baoqing trademark by the chain company as determined in the reasons for the first instance judgment, the legal boundaries of the rights of Baoqing Jewelry Company and the legitimate business operations of the chain company have been upheld, and the first instance judgment has confirmed the invalidity of the termination agreement. According to the arbitration rules established in the franchise contract dispute case, any unauthorized use of the Baoqing trademark by chain companies for store operation constitutes trademark infringement, and the infringement is ordered to cease and compensation for losses is made; Any chain company that has already been licensed can continue to operate, and the second instance court will make corresponding final judgments on a series of trademark infringement disputes between the two parties.

[Typical Significance] For such cooperation disputes based on franchising between both parties, especially cases where the cooperation has been long-standing, brand reputation and market have achieved significant growth, and the judgment results involve significant interests of both parties, the court did not adopt a simple judgment method. Instead, it fully utilized judicial wisdom, guided by the balance of interests, and explored a more rational dispute resolution approach, that is, in cases where the judgment does not terminate the contract While requiring both parties to continue their cooperation, the boundaries of their rights and obligations should be further clarified through judgments: on the one hand, to ensure the franchisor's absolute control over the franchising resources, especially the intellectual property rights such as trademarks, and to clarify that the franchisor should operate in good faith according to the agreement and not break through the scope of the franchisor's rights, attempting to seize the franchisor's intellectual property interests; On the other hand, it is required that for the franchisee to operate in good faith according to the contract, the franchisor should also continue to allow and approve normally according to the contract agreement. Without justifiable reasons, the license cannot be refused, and the legitimate rights and interests of the franchisee must be harmed. According to the above judgment rules established in the franchise contract dispute judgment, a series of trademark infringement disputes between the two parties have also been properly handled. The verdict of the case did not cause significant market fluctuations for the "Baoqing" brand, nor did it cause a significant imbalance in the market interests of both parties. Neither party has applied for a retrial of the final judgment.

4. Disputes over Unfair competition of the domain name registered earlier by "quna. com"

The appeal case of Unfair competition dispute between Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. [Guangdong High people's court (2013) YGFMSZZ No. 565 Civil Judgment]

On May 9, 2005, Zhuang Chenchao registered the "qunar.com" domain name and created the "Qunar.com" website. After the establishment of Beijing Quna Information Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Quna Company) on March 17, 2006, the domain name "qunar.com" was transferred by Zhuang Chenchao to the company. After years of use, "Qunar", "Qunar", "qunar.com" and other service logos have become the unique names of well-known services. The predecessor of Guangzhou Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Qunar Company) was established on December 10, 2003, and later changed to its current name on May 26, 2009. Its business scope is similar to Qunar Company. On June 6, 2003, the domain name "quna. com" was registered and transferred to Quna Company in May 2009. The company then registered domain names such as "123quna. com" and "mquna. com", and used the names of "Qunar", "Qunar", "Qunar website", and "quna. com" to promote and operate externally. Qunar requested Qunar to stop Unfair competition and compensate the loss of 3 million yuan on the ground that Qunar's above behaviors constituted Unfair competition. The Intermediate people's court of Guangzhou held in the first instance that Qunar's use of "Qunar", "Qunar", "Qunar.com" and "quna.com" service marks constituted an infringement on the unique name of Qunar's well-known services, Qunar's use of "Qunar" in its corporate name constituted Unfair competition, and Qunar's use of "quna.com", "123quna.com" The act of using the "mquna.com" domain name constitutes an infringement of Quna's domain name rights. Thus, it was decided that Qunar Company should stop using the aforementioned enterprise name, service mark, and domain name, and transfer the aforementioned domain name to Qunar Company within a specified period of time; Which company will compensate Quna Company for economic losses of 350000 yuan. Which company appeals against the first instance judgment. The second instance of the High people's court of Guangdong Province held that Qunar Company's use of "Qunar" enterprise name and "Qunar" logo constituted Unfair competition. Qunar enjoys legal rights and interests in the domain name "quna. com", and there are legitimate reasons for using the domain name. According to Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes involving Computer Network Domain Names, it does not constitute Unfair competition. Qunar's subsequent registration of "123quna. com" and "mquna. com" domain names should also be allowed to be registered and used. Both parties enjoy the rights and interests of domain names of legitimate origin, and need to tolerate, respect and coexist with each other for a long time. One party cannot deprive the other party of Lebensraum because of the promotion of popularity in the business process; The other party should not maliciously cling to the goodwill of the well-known party in order to seek illegitimate commercial benefits. Accordingly, Qunar has the right to continue to use domain names such as "quna. com", but also has the obligation to add distinctive marks on search links and websites related to domain names, so that consumers can distinguish the above domain names from Qunar's "Qunar", "Qunar. com" and other well-known service unique names. The second instance court upheld the judgment of the first instance on which company to stop using the "go where" enterprise name and "go where" signs; The decision to stop using domain names such as "quna. com" and transfer the aforementioned domain names to Quna Company within a specified period has been revoked, and the compensation amount has been adjusted accordingly to 250000 yuan.

Typical significance: This case distinguishes between the criteria for determining domain name similarity and trademark similarity, as well as the principles for handling rights conflicts. Qunar Company used the previously registered domain name "quna. com", and Qunar Company's "Qunar Network" is a unique name for well-known services, and registered the domain name "qunar. com". The difference between two domain names is only one letter "r", forming a similar domain name. However, the court believes that they can coexist for a long time based on: firstly, the domain name has global uniqueness. Due to the length limit of the domain name, the maximum capacity for global domain registration does not exceed 4.3 billion. If it is stipulated that similar domain names cannot be registered, it is not cost-effective from an economic perspective. Second, domain names are recognized by the computer System identification, and computers can accurately distinguish very similar domain names, without confusion. The significant difference in accuracy between electronic technology and sensory senses is the main reason for the difference in judgment standards between domain name approximation and trademark approximation.

5. "ATT7021AU" Integrated Circuit Layout Design Exclusive Rights Infringement Dispute Case

The appeal case of Juquan Optoelectronic Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Ruineng Micro Technology Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Yachuang Electronic Parts Co., Ltd. for infringement of the exclusive right of integrated circuit layout design [Shanghai High people's court (2014) HGMS (Zhi) Zhong Zi No. 12 Civil Judgment]

Summary of Case: Juquan Optoelectronics Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (referred to as Juquan Company) has completed the design of integrated circuit layout design ATT7021AU (referred to as Juquan Layout Design) and obtained a layout design registration certificate. Juquan Company discovered that Shenzhen Ruineng Micro Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as Ruineng Micro Company) copied its layout design and manufactured integrated circuit chips RN8209 and RN8209G containing the layout design without its permission, and sold the accused infringing chips with Shanghai Yachuang Electronic Parts Co., Ltd. (referred to as Yachuang Company). Juquan Company filed a lawsuit in court, requesting that the two defendants be held liable for infringement. Ruineng Micro Company and Yachuang Company jointly argue that the layout design of the accused infringing chip was independently developed by Ruineng Micro Company and obtained a registration certificate; The layout design of the accused infringing chip is different from that of Juquan; Juquan's layout design does not have originality and belongs to conventional design. We request the rejection of Juquan Company's litigation request. The first instance of the First Intermediate people's court of Shanghai decided Juquan Company to stop infringement, compensate for losses and reasonable expenses totaling 3.2 million yuan. Juquan Company and Ruineng Micro Company are both dissatisfied and have filed an appeal. After hearing, the High people's court held that: first, due to the limited space for innovation in the layout design of integrated circuits, a stricter standard should be adopted in the determination of layout design infringement for the determination of two layout designs that constitute the same or are substantially similar, However, the corresponding layout design of the accused infringing chip is still substantially similar to the "layout of the connection between digital and analog ground rails" and "layout of the independent booster circuit" in Juquan's layout design. Secondly, the evidence materials submitted by Ruineng Micro Company in this case are insufficient to prove that the "layout of the connection between digital and analog ground rails" and "independent booster circuit layout" in Juquan's layout design are conventional designs. Thirdly, any original part of a protected layout-design is protected by law, regardless of its size or role in the entire layout-design; Ruineng Micro Company partially copied the layout design of Juquan, not for personal purposes or solely for evaluation, analysis, research, teaching, etc., but for the purpose of developing new integrated circuits for commercial use; Ruineng Micro Company acknowledges that it was exposed to Juquan layout-design rather than obtained through reverse engineering. Therefore, regardless of whether the layout-design of the accused infringing chip is original or not, Ruineng Micro Company's actions are not applicable to Article 23 (2) of the Integrated Circuit layout-design Protection Regulations, which has infringed on Juquan layout-design exclusive rights. Fourthly, considering the non core and main role played by the confirmed infringing two parts of the layout design in the accused infringing chip, and the relatively small layout area occupied, as well as the R&D investment and shortened R&D time saved by Ruineng Micro Company by directly copying the corresponding layout design of Juquan Company, the first instance discretionary judgment awarded Ruineng Micro Company compensation for Juquan Company's economic losses, including reasonable expenses, of 3.2 million yuan, which is not inappropriate. Therefore, the second instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

【 Typical Significance 】 This case is a very typical infringement dispute on integrated circuit layout design. The defendant in this case claims that the criteria for determining infringement of integrated circuit layout design should have the concept of similarity. Only when an integrated circuit layout design completely plagiarizes or substantially resembles another person's layout design without its own original design, can it constitute infringement of the exclusive rights of another person's integrated circuit layout design. The court of second instance held that, according to the Regulations on the Protection of Integrated Circuit Layout Designs, copying any original part of the layout design protected by the right holder without the permission of the right holder constitutes infringement. This infringement judgment standard strengthens the incentive for innovation in integrated circuit layout design. At the same time, this case adopts strict identification standards for "substantial similarity" in infringement judgment. The judgment in this case aims to balance the interests of the rights holders and competitors, and promote the healthy development of the integrated circuit layout design industry.

6. Case of "NetEase Cloud Music" infringing on the right to information network dissemination through pre litigation injunction dispute

Prelitigation injunction case of a dispute between Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou NetEase Computer System Co., Ltd. on infringement of the right of information network dissemination of music works [Wuhan Intermediate people's court of Hubei Province (2014) EWHZBZ No. 5, 5-1, 5-2 civil rulings]

[Abstract] Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Tencent) applied to the Intermediate people's court of Wuhan for a pre litigation injunction, requesting that: 1. Guangzhou NetEase Computer System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou NetEase), NetEase (Hangzhou) Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hangzhou NetEase) Hangzhou NetEase Thunderfire Technology Co., Ltd. (referred to as NetEase Thunderfire) has stopped disseminating 623 songs, including "Where Has Time Gone", "Love's Support", and "Picture Heart", that the applicant enjoys exclusive copyright to the public through the "NetEase Cloud Music" platform (music.163.com and its PC and mobile clients); 2. Order China United Network Communications Co., Ltd. Hubei Branch (referred to as Hubei Unicom) to stop providing "NetEase Cloud Music" Chang Ting traffic package service; 3. Order Guangdong Oper Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. (referred to as Guangdong Oper) to stop incorporating "NetEase Cloud Music" into its OPPO brand phones. Tencent has submitted evidence to prove its ownership of the copyright of the music works involved and the fact that it has suffered infringement damages, and has provided guarantees. The Intermediate people's court of Wuhan held that Tencent enjoyed the right of information network communication for the above 623 music works in accordance with the law, and the fifth respondent provided a large number of music works involved in the case to the public by means of the Internet, mobile phone "Netease Cloud Music" flow package, built-in "Netease Cloud Music" mobile phone client, etc., which was suspected of infringing Tencent's right of information network communication for the music works involved in the case in accordance with the law, And the respondent provided a large number of music works to the public, causing huge economic losses to Tencent. In the online environment, if this behavior is not prohibited in a timely manner, it will further rapidly increase the market share obtained by Guangzhou NetEase through improper use of others' rights, damaging Tencent's interests, and this damage will be difficult to compensate. Therefore, it is reasonable to prohibit each respondent from spreading 623 music works suspected of infringement through the internet. Therefore, the ruling issued the following pre litigation injunction measures: 1. Guangzhou NetEase, Hangzhou NetEase, and NetEase Thunderfire immediately ceased providing 623 music works related to the case to the public through the "NetEase Cloud Music" platform from the effective date of the ruling; 2. Hubei Unicom immediately ceased providing mobile network services to its mobile phone customers for the 623 music works involved in the case in the "NetEase Cloud Music" Chang Ting traffic package from the effective date of the ruling; 3. Within ten days from the day following the effective date of the ruling, Guangdong Oper shall cease the dissemination of 623 music works related to the case to mobile phone customers through the "NetEase Cloud Music" client built-in in its OPPO R830S model (contract machine) mobile phone. After the ban was issued, Hubei Unicom and Guangdong Oper immediately stopped the accused behavior. Guangzhou NetEase, Hangzhou NetEase and NetEase Thunder refused to accept the ban and applied for reconsideration, which was rejected by the Intermediate people's court of Wuhan City. During the review, Tencent found that the accused behavior was still ongoing and applied in writing for punishment for violating the ban. The court shall take corresponding punitive measures. After the issuance of the reconsideration decision, the accused behavior has been completely stopped in accordance with the injunction requirements.

[Typical significance] In recent years, the combination of the network industry and the music industry has formed a new media of Internet culture, which can enable music works to be transmitted, downloaded and repeatedly appreciated without restrictions. While it is convenient for the public to enjoy music, pirated network music has also caused irreparable damage to copyright owners. In this case, the court issued the pre litigation injunction in a timely manner and punished the violations of the injunction, which provided a feasible Protected mode for combating online music piracy, regulating the online music market, and regulating the network environment, fully reflecting the leading role of judicial protection of intellectual property rights.

2、 Intellectual Property Administrative Cases

7. Administrative Dispute Case of "Daoxiangcun" Trademark Objection Reexamination

Suzhou Daoxiangcun Food Industry Co., Ltd., Trademark Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and Beijing Daoxiangcun Food Co., Ltd. Trademark Objection Review Administrative Dispute Appeal Case [Beijing High People's Court (2014) Gao Xing Zhong Zi No. 1103 Administrative Judgment]

[Abstract] Beijing Daoxiangcun Food Group filed an application for the registration of the "Daoxiangcun" trademark (referred to as the citation trademark) in January 1996, and was approved to register in May 1997. The approved products are pies, dumplings, rice cakes, Zongzi, Yuanxiao (Filled round balls made of glutinous rice-flour for Lantern Festival), etc. of category 30. After approval, the name of the trademark registrant has been changed to Beijing Daoxiangcun Food Co., Ltd. (referred to as Beijing Daoxiangcun Company). In July 2006, Suzhou Daoxiangcun Food Industry Co., Ltd. (referred to as Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company) filed an application for the registration of the "Daoxiangcun and Tu" trademark (referred to as the disputed trademark), specifying the use of Class 30 biscuits, bread, pastries, etc. After the preliminary approval announcement of the disputed trademark, Beijing Daoxiangcun Company filed an objection application. The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce has ruled that the opposed trademark is allowed to be registered. Beijing Daoxiangcun Company applies for review. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board believes that the opposed trademark and the cited trademark are similar trademarks, and the goods designated for use by the opposed trademark and the goods approved for use by the cited trademark are similar goods. Although Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company has experienced prior acquisition of two trademarks (referred to as "prior acquisition trademarks") consisting of "Daoxiangcun" text, "DXC" letters, and graphic frames in biscuits, pastries, and other goods, these two trademarks differ significantly from the disputed trademark in terms of expression, and are closer to the well-known cited trademark "Daoxiangcun" used by Beijing Daoxiangcun Company for a long time. If allowed to register, It will break the established market order and increase the possibility of confusion between the market and the relevant public. Therefore, the disputed trademark and the cited trademark constitute similar trademarks used on similar goods as referred to in Article 28 of the Trademark Law, and it is decided not to approve the registration of the disputed trademark. Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company is dissatisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit. The first instance decision of the First Intermediate people's court of Beijing upheld the ruling of the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board. Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The second instance of the Beijing High People's Court held that the "Daoxiangcun" trademark of Beijing Daoxiangcun Company has gained high popularity after long-term use, and there has been a real and stable market order that can be distinguished from the trademark obtained by Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company earlier. The disputed trademark has a significant difference from the previously obtained trademark, and is actually very similar to the cited trademark of Beijing Daoxiangcun Company. Therefore, the application for registration of the disputed trademark by Suzhou Daoxiangcun Company cannot be considered as a continuation of its previously acquired Daoxiangcun trademark reputation, but rather an invasion of the exclusive rights of Beijing Daoxiangcun Company's trademark, breaking the market reality that can be distinguished and the stable market order that has already been formed, This will lead to confusion and misunderstanding among consumers regarding the origin of the goods, and therefore the appeal will be rejected and the first instance judgment will be upheld.

[Typical Significance] Due to historical reasons, different enterprises have used similar trademarks for a long time. If one party separately applies for a trademark with similar constituent elements, and the market pattern has been objectively formed, in the application of Article 28 of the Trademark Law for trademark similarity judgment, in addition to considering the degree of similarity of the trademark itself, the actual use status, use history, and relevant public awareness of the trademark should also be considered The subjective state of the user and other factors are comprehensively judged based on the possibility of confusion and misidentification, and attention is paid to maintaining the established and stable market order, to prevent simply equating the constituent elements of a trademark with that of a trademark.

8. "Zhujiazhuang Typhoon shelter and its figure" trademark dispute administrative dispute case

Administrative dispute on trademark dispute between Typhoon shelter Food Co., Ltd. and the Trademark Review Committee of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, and Shanghai Panshi Yizhou Catering Management Co., Ltd

[Abstract] Shanghai Zhujiazhuang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhujiazhuang Company") applied for the registration of the trademark "Zhujiazhuang Typhoon shelter and Figure" (i.e. the disputed trademark) in 1999. The Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce approved the registration on July 28, 2000, and designated it to be used in services such as "restaurants, bars, restaurants" in category 42 of the international classification. The trademark in dispute is composed of the bamboo pattern and the Chinese character "Zhujiazhuang Typhoon shelter". On December 27, 2010, Shanghai Panshi Yizhou Catering Management Co., Ltd. was granted the disputed trademark. On November 11, 2003, Shanghai Typhoon shelter Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Typhoon shelter Company) filed an application for the revocation of the disputed trademark, mainly for the following reasons: 1. Zhujiazhuang Company applied for the revocation of No. 1055861 "Typhoon shelter BFT" trademark on August 1, 1999, on the ground that the word "Typhoon shelter" was a "dish name". After two reviews, No. 1055861 trademark was revoked. Since Zhujiazhuang Company believed that "Typhoon shelter" could not be registered as a trademark, it applied for registration of "Typhoon shelter" as a part of the disputed trademark. The purpose of revoking the No. 1055861 trademark was to remove the registration obstacles of the disputed trademark maliciously. 2. Shanghai Typhoon shelter Co., Ltd. was established on September 15, 1998, and has become a well-known brand in the catering industry in Shanghai through efforts. It has been licensed to use and accept the trademark No. 1055861 "Typhoon shelter BFT". The purpose of the cancellation of No. 1055861 trademark and the registration of the disputed trademark by Zhujiazhuang Company is to take the Hitchhiking of Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board made a trademark dispute ruling No. 30896 [2008], which upheld the disputed trademark. Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company refused to accept the ruling and filed an administrative lawsuit. The first instance decision of the First Intermediate people's court of Beijing upheld the No. 30896 trademark dispute ruling. Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company appealed against the judgment of first instance. During the second instance, Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company submitted the Civil Ruling of the Supreme People's Court (2007) MSJZ No. 21-1 to the court. After hearing, the Beijing High People's Court held that the civil ruling (2007) MSJZ No. 21-1 did not specify the specific time when "Typhoon shelter" became a trademark used by Typhoon shelter Company and had certain influence, which was not sufficient to prove that the registration of the disputed trademark was a trademark used by Typhoon shelter Company and had certain influence by unfair means. The second instance decision rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance decision. Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company refused to accept the judgment and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. The Supreme People's Court held that the revocation of No. 1055861 "Typhoon shelter BFT" trademark was not related to the registration of the disputed trademark; In the trademark dispute administrative procedure, Typhoon shelter Company did not claim that the disputed trademark infringed its enterprise name right. Moreover, the word "Typhoon shelter" is not only the name of Typhoon shelter Company, but also has the meaning of "shelter from typhoon" and "a kind of flavor cuisine or cuisine cooking method". Therefore, Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company cannot prohibit others from using the word "Typhoon shelter" in the above meaning with its corporate name right. The "Zhujiazhuang" words and bamboo patterns in the disputed trademark have more functions of identifying the source of goods or services. Therefore, the registration and use of the disputed trademark will not cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, and will not infringe the corporate name right of Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company. Therefore, the judgment of second instance was upheld and the retrial request of Shanghai Typhoon shelter Company was rejected.

Typical significance: This case involves the issue of how to handle the relationship between protecting the interests of intellectual property rights holders and maintaining the public interest in the trial of intellectual property cases. In this case, the revocation applicant claims that the registration of the disputed trademark infringes on their corporate name rights. However, since the revocation applicant's trade name serves as a written symbol and also has other meanings widely recognized by the public, the revocation applicant has no right to prohibit others from using this written symbol in other meanings. Moreover, other symbols with significant identification features were added to the disputed trademark in this case, further avoiding the possibility of confusion and misidentification among consumers. This case has positive significance in defining the boundary between intellectual property rights holders and the public, and preventing symbolic intellectual property rights holders from using "symbol enclosure" to encroach on the public domain.

9. Administrative Dispute on Invalidation of Invention Patent Rights for "Drug Compositions and Their Preparation Methods for Treating Breast Hyperplasia Diseases"

Application for retrial of patent administrative dispute between Beijing Yadong Biological Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and the Patent Reexamination Committee of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, Shandong Huayang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. [Supreme People's Court (2013) Zhi Xing Zi No. 77 Administrative Ruling]

Summary of Case: Beijing Yadong Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (referred to as Yadong Pharmaceutical Company) is the patentee of the invention patent (referred to as this patent) titled "Drug composition and preparation method for treating breast hyperplasia diseases". Shandong Huayang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. has filed a request for invalidation of this patent, and the submitted evidence 1 and evidence 3 are the functional indications, prescriptions, and related preparation methods of the "Rukuai Xiaopian" disclosed in the Pharmacopoeia. The Patent Reexamination Board has made Decision No. 15409, determining that this patent does not possess creativity and declaring it invalid in its entirety. Yadong Pharmaceutical Company is dissatisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit. The First Intermediate people's court of Beijing held that according to the notarial certificate proving that the clinical efficiency of Evidence 1 is lower than that of the patent, namely, the counter evidence 4, the total efficiency of the granules in the patent is 95.70%, and the total efficiency of the tablets in Evidence 1 is 89.32%. Claim 1 of the patent has made remarkable progress. The decision No. 15409 was subsequently revoked. The Patent Reexamination Board is dissatisfied and files an appeal. The second instance judgment of the Beijing High People's Court annuls the first instance judgment and upholds decision No. 15409. Yadong Pharmaceutical Company is dissatisfied and applies for a retrial. The Supreme People's Court believes that in the absence of a specific measurement method for the total effective rate disclosed in Evidence 4, it cannot be determined that the total effective rate of Evidence 4 and this patent was determined using the same measurement method under equivalent conditions. The above comparative data cannot prove whether this patent has significant progress in clinical efficacy; Even if the above comparative data is recognized, due to the omission of the vacuum drying step in the preparation of granules in this patent, the impact on the active ingredients of the drug is correspondingly reduced. Those skilled in the art can reasonably expect that omitting the vacuum drying step will improve the overall efficiency of the drug. The patent holder has not provided evidence to prove that it exceeds the reasonable expectations of those skilled in the art. Therefore, the ruling rejected the retrial application of Yadong Pharmaceutical Company.

In this case, the Supreme People's Court clarified that technical contributions not recorded in the specification cannot be used as the basis for requesting patent protection, and when determining whether an invention has unexpected technical effects, comprehensive consideration should be given to the characteristics of the technical field described in the invention, especially factors such as the predictability of the technical effects and the technical inspirations existing in the existing technology. In addition, it is also clarified that the identification of distinguishing technical features should be based on the technical features recorded in the claims. The judgment in this case has important guiding significance for the trial of administrative disputes over drug patent authorization and confirmation.

3、 Intellectual Property Criminal Cases

10. Crime of Copyright Infringement by Zhou Zhiquan and 7 Others in the Business Ideas Network

The case of 7 defendants, including Zhou Zhiquan, infringing upon copyright [The First Intermediate people's court of Beijing (2014) YZXZZ No. 2516 Criminal Ruling]

Summary of the Case: The defendant Zhou Zhiquan registered and established Beijing Xintian Yipin Technology Co., Ltd. in August 2008, operating a website for business ideas. The Ideas website consists of a portal website (www.siluhd. com) and a Ideas forum (bbs. siluhd. com), with the HDstar forum (www.hdstar. org) as the internal website of the Ideas website. From January 2009 to April 2013, the defendant Zhou Zhiquan hired defendants Su Liyuan, Cao Jun, Jia Jingyang, Li Furan, and others to upload a large number of films, music, and other works that others enjoyed copyright in seed form to the HDstar forum without the permission of the copyright owner, for more than 26000 registered members to download, advertise on the Ideas website, and profit from registering invitation codes and VIP membership through sales websites. Defendant Kou Yujie hired Defendant Cui Bing and others from May 2012 to April 2013 to copy films owned by others into over 4000 hard drives without permission from the copyright owner, and sold them through Taobao online stores. The first instance of the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing held that the defendant Zhou Zhiquan employed the defendants Su Liyuan, Cao Jun, Li Furan, and Jia Jingyang for profit, without the permission of the copyright owner, to disseminate the works of others through information networks, and the circumstances were particularly serious; The defendant Kou Yujie hired the defendant Cui Bing for profit, without the permission of the copyright owner, to reproduce and distribute the works of others. The circumstances are particularly serious, and the above-mentioned actions of the defendant have constituted a crime of copyright infringement and should be punished. The court shall, in accordance with the role of each defendant in the joint crime and their attitude of confession, impose a mitigated or lenient punishment or apply a suspended sentence in accordance with the law. Each defendant shall be sentenced to one to five years in prison, and shall also be fined. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendants Su Liyuan and Kou Yujie filed an appeal. The second instance of the First Intermediate people's court of Beijing rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

【 Typical Significance 】 The idea website is known as the "largest digital high-definition portal website in China" and the "top" Blu ray high-definition website in China. The management team of Thinking Network has gathered multiple IT elites, and the defendants in the case all have a university education level. The website publishes high-definition information and movies, and appears to be a regular website introducing Blu ray technology. However, the "HDstar Forum" it links to contains a large number of pirated movies and TV series resources in Blu ray high-definition format that can be downloaded for payment. Many pirated high-definition film sources on the network come from Think Network. Through this approach, ThinkNet has accumulated a large number of registered users and become the most "famous" pirated high-definition movie website in China. The judgment in this case plays an important role in combating copyright crimes and protecting intellectual property rights in the internet environment.