目录

1、安阳翔宇医疗设备有限公司诉专利复审委员会、崔学伟专利权无效宣告行政纠纷案

2、郑州春泉节能股份有限公司诉国家知识产权局专利复审委员会、第三人北京海林节能设备股份有限公司等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案

3、开滦（集团）有限责任公司诉商标评审委员会、第三人张宏彬商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案

4、贵州同济堂制药有限公司诉商标评审委员会商标驳回复审行政纠纷案

5、钱程诉北京音乐厅侵害注册商标专用权纠纷案

6、北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉北京极科极客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

7、北京乐动卓越科技有限公司诉北京昆仑乐享网络技术有限公司等侵犯著作权及不正当竞争纠纷案

8、勃贝雷有限公司诉陈凯、鲁秋敏侵害商标权纠纷案

9、开德阜国际贸易（上海）有限公司诉阔盛管道系统（上海）有限公司等侵害商标权、虚假宣传纠纷上诉案

10、上海帕弗洛文化用品有限公司诉上海艺想文化用品有限公司等侵害著作权纠纷上诉案

11、申请人欧特克公司、奥多比公司申请诉前证据保全案

12、香奈儿股份有限公司诉文大香、广州凯旋大酒店有限公司等侵害商标权纠纷案

13、孙利娟诉快尚时装（广州）有限公司、广州优岸美致时装有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷案

14、暴雪娱乐有限公司、上海网之易网络科技发展有限公司申请行为保全案

案例1

安阳翔宇医疗设备有限公司诉专利复审委员会、崔学伟专利权无效宣告行政纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

翔宇公司针对崔学伟拥有的专利号为94119284.9、名称为“多功能艾灸仪”的发明专利，向专利复审委员会提出无效宣告请求，专利复审委员会经审理作出维持本案专利有效的行政决定。翔宇公司不服被诉决定，向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。

（二） 裁判结果

北京知识产权法院审理认为，本案专利权利要求保护范围清楚，能够得到说明书的支持，专利权人对本案专利申请文件的修改未超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围，且本案专利具备创造性，符合专利法及实施细则的相关规定。遂判决维持被诉决定。各方当事人均未提起上诉，判决已生效。

（三） 典型意义

艾灸是我国传统中医治疗方法之一，本案专利是将传统艾灸治疗方法与电磁技术相结合，形成一种能够实现自加热、自动控制温度功能的艾灸治疗仪。由于本案专利在相关中医治疗中具有较高的应用价值，受到了中医医疗器械领域人员的广泛关注。本案涉及多项专利权无效宣告请求的理由，包括专利权利要求保护范围是否清楚、权利要求能否能够得到说明书的支持、专利权人对本案专利申请文件的修改是否超出原说明书和权利要求书记载的范围、专利权是否具备创造性等问题。本案判决根据各方当事人的主张，逐条进行了充分的论理，依法保护了发明人的利益。

案例2

郑州春泉节能股份有限公司诉专利复审委员会、第三人北京海林节能设备股份有限公司等发明专利权无效行政纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

北京海林公司针对郑州春泉公司的专利号200810231195.5、名称为“基于电压互感技术的多档速电机档位识别方法及装置”的发明专利，提出无效宣告请求。专利复审委员会依据专利法第二十二条第三款的规定，宣告本案专利全部无效。郑州春泉公司不服被诉决定，向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。

（二） 裁判结果

北京知识产权法院审理认为，本案专利各权利要求均具备创造性，专利复审委员会相关认定错误。遂判决撤销被诉决定，责令专利复审委员会重新作出决定。各方当事人均未提起上诉，判决已生效。

（三） 典型意义

本案涉及技术问题复杂的电学领域发明专利。审理法院对相关技术进行了认真审查，严格适用创造性判断三步法对本案专利的创造性进行了审理，纠正了专利复审委会的错误决定。通过本案判决，及时挽救了一项可以为企业带来可观收入的发明创造，依法维护了发明人的正当利益。

案例3

开滦（集团）有限责任公司诉商标评审委员会、第三人张宏彬商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

开滦集团公司针对第三人张宏彬申请注册的第5667073号“开滦”商标，以诉争商标侵犯其“开滦”企业字号权、张宏彬具有恶意抢注行为且未实际使用诉争商标为由，提出无效宣告请求。商标评审委员认为，开滦集团公司提供的证据未涉及美容院、公共卫生浴服务，不能证明在诉争商标申请注册之前，开滦集团公司将“开滦”作为商号或商标使用在诉争商标指定的美容院、公共卫生浴服务或与之类似的服务上并具有一定知名度。遂裁定维持争议商标的注册。开滦集团公司不服被诉裁定，向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。

（二） 裁判结果

北京知识产权法院审理认为，诉争商标“开滦”的注册损害了开滦集团公司的在先商号权。商标评审委员会对此认定有误，应予以纠正。遂判决撤销商标评审委员会作出的商评字〔2014〕第71444号关于第5667073号“开滦”商标无效宣告请求裁定，责令商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。本案宣判后，当事人未提出上诉，本判决已生效。

（三） 典型意义

本案系商标无效宣告请求行政纠纷，请求权基础为商标法规定的“申请商标注册不得损害他人现有的在先权利”，涉及的在先权利为在先商号权。本案判决从原告商号的形成时间（“开滦”字号形成于1912年）、原告商号的知名度（开滦集团公司系世界500强企业，其字号享誉中外）、原告经营范围与诉争商标核定使用服务比较、混淆可能性、诉争商标注册人对原告商号的知晓情况和诉争商标的实际使用情况等方面对“损害他人现有的在先权利”的要件进行了逐条分析论述，认定诉争商标的注册损害了开滦集团公司的在先商号权，应予无效。本案判决体现了维护知名品牌权益，制止恶意抢注商标，维护市场诚信竞争的司法导向。

案例4

贵州同济堂制药有限公司诉商标评审委员会商标驳回复审行政纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

同济堂公司向国家工商行政管理总局商标局申请注册“同濟堂始创于1888及图”组合商标，商标局及商标评审委员会先后以诉争商标与第3178271号“同濟及图”商标（即引证商标一）及第3574839号“同济”商标（即引证商标二）近似为由，驳回了诉争商标的注册申请。同济堂公司不服，向北京知识产权法院提起行政诉讼。

（二） 裁判结果

北京知识产权法院审理认为，综合考虑同济堂公司在先基础商标第1093180号“同濟堂”商标的知名度、诉争商标的实际使用情况、诉争商标与基础商标的近似程度以及与两引证商标的差异程度等因素，认定诉争商标与两引证商标共存于市场不致导致相关公众的混淆误认，未构成同一种或类似商品上的近似商标。遂判决撤销被诉裁定，责令商标评审委员会重新作出裁定。

（三） 典型意义

本案明确了在判定商标近似时应考虑同一主体的基础商标与诉争商标在一定条件下的延伸关系，并探讨了认定延伸关系的考虑因素。审理法院综合考虑了同济堂公司在先基础商标的知名程度、诉争商标与基础商标近似及商品类似情况、诉争商标的实际使用情况及诉争商标与两引证商标的差异性等因素，最终认定基础商标的商誉可以延伸至诉争商标，因而相关公众可以将诉争商标与两引证商标相区分。本案判决对于合理维护知名商标权利人的利益具有重要意义。

案例5

钱程诉北京音乐厅侵害注册商标专用权纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

北京音乐厅数年来一直以“打开音乐之门”为名义举办了一系列演出活动。钱程系北京音乐厅原总经理，其在任职期间申请注册了“打开音乐之门”文字商标。离职后，钱程以北京音乐厅未经许可，将“打开音乐之门”标识用于相关经营活动，侵犯其注册商标专用权为由，提起诉讼，要求北京音乐厅停止侵权行为，赔礼道歉，并赔偿经济损失及合理支出共计4万元。

（二） 裁判结果

北京市西城区人民法院一审认为，北京音乐厅在钱程申请商标注册之前，已在同一种商品上先于商标注册人使用与注册商标近似并有一定影响的商标，钱程作为注册商标专用权人，无权禁止北京音乐厅在原使用范围内继续使用涉案商标，钱程的诉讼请求没有事实和法律依据，不予支持。遂判决驳回钱程的诉讼请求。钱程不服一审判决，提起上诉。北京知识产权法院二审认为，在使用“打开音乐之门”标识的一系列演出及宣传活动中，对外宣称的主体均为北京音乐厅，该标识与北京音乐厅之间已经建立起了较为固定的联系，北京音乐厅的商标在先使用抗辩权成立，其对“打开音乐之门”的使用不构成侵权。遂判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三） 典型意义

本案涉及新商标法规定的商标在先使用抗辩权的法律适用问题。审理法院深入分析了新商标法有关在先使用抗辩权的适用条件，对在先商标性使用、标识知名度、使用者主观态度等问题进行了较为深入的探讨，说理充分。本案判决依法维护了北京音乐厅近十二年来持续使用的“打开音乐之门”这一品牌，合理平衡了商标在先使用者与注册商标权利人的利益。

案例6

北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉北京极科极客科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

极科极客公司是“极路由”路由器的生产者和销售者。“极路由”路由器用户在极路由云平台下载安装“屏蔽视频广告”插件后，通过“极路由”路由器上网，可屏蔽爱奇艺网站视频的片前广告。爱奇艺公司认为，极科极客公司生产销售的“极路由”路由器通过安装“屏蔽视频广告”插件过滤了“爱奇艺”网站视频的片前广告，构成不正当竞争，遂提起诉讼，请求法院判令极科极客公司停止不正当竞争行为、消除影响、赔偿损失210万余元。

（二） 裁判结果

北京市海淀区人民法院一审认为，极科极客公司为获取商业利益，利用“屏蔽视频广告”插件直接干预爱奇艺公司的经营行为，超出正当竞争合理限度，违反诚信原则和公认的商业道德，构成不正当竞争。极科极客公司不服一审判决，提起上诉。北京知识产权法院二审认为，经营者向网络用户提供服务应当遵守相应的规则，不应当以影响其他竞争者正当合法的经营模式为代价获取自身利益，极科极客公司以强行改变爱奇艺公司经营模式的方式向用户提供服务，损害了爱奇艺公司的正当利益，必将导致爱奇艺公司因难以支付高额的版权使用费而难以为继，网络用户的利益最终将受到不利影响，极科极客公司的行为具有不正当性。遂判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三） 典型意义

近年来，网络环境下竞争纠纷日趋激烈，新型不正当竞争行为层出不穷，法律定性较为困难。审理法院通过分析网络经营者的主观恶意、被诉行为对他人合法经营模式的侵害、消费者最终利益的影响等，认定被诉行为构成不正当竞争。本案判决对于网络环境下竞争关系的认定和竞争行为正当性的判断等均具有一定指导意义。

案例7

北京乐动卓越科技有限公司诉北京昆仑乐享网络技术有限公司等侵犯著作权及不正当竞争纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

乐动卓越公司是移动终端游戏《我叫MT on line》、《我叫MT 2》的著作权人。前述游戏改编自系列3D动漫《我叫MT》。乐动卓越公司对游戏名称、人物名称享有独占被许可使用权，对人物形象享有美术作品著作权。乐动卓越公司认为昆仑乐享公司等未经其许可，在《超级MT》游戏中使用与《我叫MT》游戏名称、人物名称、人物形象相近的名称和人物，侵犯了其著作权；昆仑乐享公司等在《超级MT》游戏中抄袭了《我叫MT》游戏的名称，在游戏的宣传过程中使用与《我叫MT》游戏相关的宣传用语，构成不正当竞争行为。遂提起本案诉讼。

（二） 裁判结果

北京知识产权法院审理认为，乐动卓越公司的游戏及其人物未构成著作权法保护的文字作品，被诉游戏中人物形象与乐动卓越公司游戏中的形象不构成实质性相似，昆仑乐享公司等的行为未侵犯乐动卓越公司的著作权；乐动卓越公司的游戏在先上线并具有一定知名度，同为手机游戏经营者的昆仑乐享公司等对乐动卓越公司的上述游戏和人物名称不但未合理避让，反而采用相关联的表述方式，并进行了违背事实的宣传，构成擅自使用他人知名服务特有名称及虚假宣传的不正当竞争行为。遂判决昆仑乐享公司等停止不正当竞争行为，赔偿乐动卓越公司经济损失50万元以及合理支出3.5万元。

（三） 典型意义

作为新兴文化产业，移动终端游戏是文化与科技融合的产物，享有巨大的发展空间和良好的市场前景。本案是一起涉及移动终端游戏的著作权侵权及不正当竞争纠纷。本案事实复杂，涉及的法律问题繁多且疑难。审理法院对游戏名称及人物名称等简短词组能否构成文字作品、改编作品的著作权保护、移动终端游戏名称是否能够构成知名商品特有名称、虚假宣传行为的认定等诸多法律问题，均作了细致的分析阐述。在民事责任承担方面，审理法院充分考虑了原告游戏的市场份额、被诉侵权人的主观状态等因素，最大限度的保护游戏权利人的利益，依法打击了不正当攫取他人利益的行为。本案明确了对移动终端游戏知识产权法律保护的思路和方向，对推动移动终端游戏产业的健康发展具有示范作用。

案例8

勃贝雷有限公司诉陈凯、鲁秋敏侵害商标权纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

勃贝雷有限公司系“BURBERRY”25类服装系列注册商标的持有人。2012年3月20日，公安机关侦破了陈凯、鲁秋敏销售假冒上述注册商标商品的刑事案件，并于次日要求勃贝雷有限公司协助对涉案假冒商品进行了辨认。2012年8月24日，上海市杨浦区人民法院依法判处两被告人有期徒刑（缓刑）和罚金。2014年8月15日，勃贝雷有限公司提起本案诉讼，请求法院判令两被告赔偿其经济损失及合理支出100万元。两被告陈凯、鲁秋敏认为, 勃贝雷有限公司2012年3月20日已知晓侵权行为存在，其2014年8月才起诉已超过诉讼时效。

（二） 裁判结果

上海市杨浦区人民法院一审认为，勃贝雷有限公司的起诉未超过诉讼时效，被告陈凯、鲁秋敏构成侵犯勃贝雷有限公司商标专用权，应连带赔偿原告勃贝雷有限公司经济损失人民币15万元及合理费用1.5万元。鲁秋敏不服一审判决，提起上诉。上海知识产权法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三） 典型意义

本案涉及诉讼时效中断事由的认定。本案判决明确了知道他人对自己的侵权行为已进入刑事追诉程序，并应侦查部门要求协助调查这一事实对诉讼时效的法律意义。审理法院认为，上述事实对权利人来说具有双重意义：一是产生诉讼时效起算的法律后果，因权利人已知道其权利被侵害；二是产生诉讼时效中断的法律后果，因为权利人有理由信赖刑事侦查可使其民事权利得到保护，且被诉行为构成侵权依赖于生效刑事判决的认定。这一认定合理界定了诉讼时效中断的事由，为权利人依法维权提供了更好保障。

案例9

开德阜国际贸易（上海）有限公司诉阔盛管道系统（上海）有限公司等侵害商标权、虚假宣传纠纷上诉案

（一） 基本案情

开德阜公司系“洁水”文字商标的商标权人，2013年7月1日之前，开德阜公司享有案外人德国阿垮瑟姆公司水管类产品的在华独家经销权。2013年7月1日后，开德阜公司与阿垮瑟姆公司终止合作协议，阔盛公司成为阿垮瑟姆公司产品在华新代理商。开德阜公司在2013年7月1日之前，其注册的“洁水”商标仅用于推广销售阿垮瑟姆公司的产品。2013年7月1日之后，开德阜公司继续持有“洁水”商标，用于推广其他生产商的水管产品。阔盛公司授权欧苏公司在上海区域独家销售阿垮瑟姆公司产品。阔盛公司和欧苏公司在宣传文章及宣传单上使用了“原德国洁水、现德国阔盛”、“德国阔盛（原德国洁水）——不变的品质”等类似宣传用语，同时还有“原代理商曾以德国‘洁水’在华推广，从7月1日起德国厂方正式启用中文标识‘阔盛’，用于中国市场推广”、“原在华使用的中文标识‘洁水’系原代理商所持有，现已和德国阔盛、阿垮瑟姆公司及其产品无任何关联”等表述。开德阜公司认为阔盛公司、欧苏公司使用上诉宣传用语的行为构成商标侵权和虚假宣传，请求判令两被告停止侵犯商标权行为和虚假宣传行为，赔偿经济损失及合理费用共计500万元。

（二） 裁判结果

上海徐汇区人民法院一审判决驳回开德阜公司的全部诉讼请求。开德阜公司不服，提起上诉。上海知识产权法院二审认为，基于“洁水”商标曾被用于推广阿垮瑟姆公司产品的事实，阔盛公司、欧苏公司在宣传活动中有必要向消费者告知“洁水”商标所指向的产品已经发生变化，两公司使用“洁水”商标主观上是善意的，且使用方式没有超出合理的限度，不会造成消费者对产品的来源产生混淆，属于商标的正当使用。阔盛公司、欧苏公司所使用宣传用语在文字表述上确有不准确之处，但并未产生引人误解的效果，不构成反不正当竞争法意义上的虚假宣传。遂驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三） 典型意义

本案涉及商标正当使用以及虚假宣传行为的认定标准。审理法院从被告使用商标的主观意图、使用方式及混淆可能性等角度，认为被诉行为属于商标的正当使用。在被诉虚假宣传行为的认定上，强调了对广告宣传语应整体解读，并结合相关公众的一般注意力、已有的认知经验等因素综合认定。本案判决对于同类案件的审理具有一定参考意义。

案例10

上海帕弗洛文化用品有限公司诉上海艺想文化用品有限公司等侵害著作权纠纷上诉案

（一） 基本案情

帕弗洛公司的网站首页以暗红色为背景，添加白色星光动态效果，伴有铜铃魔法音，并添加背景音乐。帕弗洛公司发现艺想公司、欧鳄公司抄袭仿冒其网站，侵犯了其著作权，遂提起本案诉讼，请求法院判令艺想公司和欧鳄公司停止侵权、消除影响并赔偿损失22.3万元。

（二） 裁判结果

上海市闵行区人民法院一审认定艺想公司和欧鳄公司侵犯了帕弗洛公司的网页著作权，判决两被告停止侵权并赔偿帕弗洛公司经济损失及合理费用人民币3万元。艺想公司和欧鳄公司不服，提起上诉。上海知识产权法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三） 典型意义

本案涉及网页的内容编排是否构成著作权法意义上的作品。审理法院认为，虽然涉案网站网页中具有很多公有领域的因素，但涉案网站的首页除了具有一般公司网站首页均有的栏目和结构要素之外，在画面颜色、内容的选择、展示方式及布局编排等方面体现了独特构思，呈现出一定的视觉艺术效果，具有独创性和可复制性，构成著作权法意义上的作品。本案所确定的网页作品著作权保护标准对于同类案件的审理具有一定参考意义。

案例11

申请人欧特克公司、奥多比公司申请诉前证据保全案

（一） 基本案情

欧特克公司、奥多比公司系两家美国软件公司，其认为上海风语筑展览有限公司未经许可，擅自复制、安装并商业使用了两公司的AutoCAD、Photoshop、Acrobat等系列计算机软件。鉴于安装有非法计算机软件的计算机均在风语筑公司的经营场所内，申请人客观上无法获得相关证据；同时，由于涉案证据均为计算机软件以及相关数据，具有无形性，极易藏匿或毁灭，一旦证据被转移、隐匿或灭失，将难以取得，从而对相关事实的认定造成困难，故申请人请求上海知识产权法院进行诉前证据保全。

（二） 裁判结果

上海知识产权法院审查认为，申请人申请保全的证据属于法律规定的可能灭失或者以后难以取得的情形，且申请人亦因客观原因不能自行收集上述证据，符合诉前证据保全的条件。遂裁定对被申请人经营场所内的计算机以及其他设施设备上的上述系列软件的相关信息进行证据保全。证据保全裁定作出后，上海市第三中级人民法院与上海知识产权法院相关部门通力合作，充分发挥“合署办公”的制度优势，顺利完成了诉前证据保全工作。

（三） 典型意义

此次证据保全系上海知识产权法院成立以来的首次计算机软件诉前证据保全案件。本案涉及大型工作场所近400台电脑中的相关证据保全，保全工作具有较强的专业性和复杂性。上海知识产权法院聘请相关技术专家协助保全，制定了周密的证据保全工作预案；成立技术专家组、现场清点组、现场控制组等工作小组，明确职责，分工协作；各小组规范操作，有序保全，圆满完成了保全任务。本案为探索符合知识产权案件特点的执行机制，加强执行与审判联动，提高保全裁定执行效率和准确性，保护权利人合法权益提供了可借鉴的工作方法和思路。

案例12

香奈儿股份有限公司诉文大香、广州凯旋大酒店有限公司等侵害商标权纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

香奈儿公司是1954年8月27日在法国注册成立的股份公司，是世界范围内著名的奢侈品牌之一。该公司系核定使用于第25类“服装、鞋、帽、围巾、游泳衣”等商品的 “ ”、“ ”图形商标及“CHANEL”文字商标的权利人。凯旋酒店公司的分公司华美达酒店与文大香签订商铺租赁合约，承租位于华美达酒店首层西走廊2号铺作经营服装、皮具等使用，并约定保证不在商铺内经销假冒伪劣商品。香奈儿公司认为文大香销售的鞋、钱包等商品上使用了与其注册商标相同的标识，侵犯其注册商标专用权，遂以文大香、凯旋酒店公司及华美达酒店为被告，提起诉讼，请求法院判决三被告停止侵权，并连带赔偿其经济损失及合理支出共计30万元。

（二） 裁判结果

广州市越秀区人民法院一审认为，文大香侵犯香奈儿公司注册商标专用权，应承担停止侵害和赔偿损失的民事责任，凯旋酒店公司及其华美达酒店不构成侵权。香奈儿公司不服，提起上诉。广州知识产权法院二审认为，综合考虑涉案商标知名度、华美达酒店的高档星级酒店身份、合同显示的酒店与商铺的特殊关系以及文大香长期反复侵权等因素，华美达酒店对涉案售假商铺应具有较高注意义务，且文大香的售假行为明显，华美达酒店只要稍加注意就能发现。华美达酒店对文大香侵犯涉案商标的行为视而不见，放任侵权行为发生，构成帮助侵权，应与文大香承担连带赔偿责任。遂改判文大香、华美达酒店、凯旋酒店公司连带赔偿香奈儿公司经济损失及合理费用5万元。

（三） 典型意义

近年来，服装市场、酒店等出租商铺销售假冒商品的行为屡有发生。商标权利人通常将商铺经营者与商铺出租方、管理方一并作为被告起诉，要求其承担连带赔偿责任。此种情况下，应如何认定商铺出租方、管理方的责任显得尤为重要。本案中，审理法院在判断商铺出租方对商铺经营者侵权是否明知或应知时，考虑了权利人商标的知名度、商铺的侵权行为是否足够明显、出租方与商铺经营者的具体关系等因素，根据具体情况合理确定了商铺出租方的注意义务。本案判决探索了商铺出租方、管理方构成帮助侵权的条件，对于保护知名品牌的合法权益具有指导意义。

案例13

孙利娟诉快尚时装（广州）有限公司、广州优岸美致时装有限公司侵犯著作权纠纷案

（一） 基本案情

孙利娟于2011年1月12日在站酷网发布名为《据说——长颈鹿是寂寞专家》的美术作品。2011年3月，孙利娟的上述作品获得“红门创意T恤图案大赛”一等奖。孙利娟认为，快尚公司与优岸美致公司在共同生产和销售的女中袖连衣裙上使用了涉案美术作品，构成对其署名权、复制权、发行权等著作权的侵犯。遂提起本案诉讼，请求法院判令两被告停止侵害，赔偿经济损失25万元及合理开支2万元；两被告作出书面道歉声明，消除侵权影响。

（二） 裁判结果

广州市白云区人民法院一审认为，快尚公司、优岸美致公司未经许可使用孙利娟的美术作品，构成著作权侵权，但是由于在服装上使用作品难以指明作者，客观上不应认定两被告侵犯了孙利娟的署名权。遂判决两被告停止侵害，销毁库存及在售的侵权产品，连带赔偿孙利娟经济损失及合理费用3万元。孙利娟不服，提起上诉。广州知识产权法院二审认为，在印有知名插画师美术作品的服装上标注作者姓名，在服装设计制造行业屡见不鲜，本案不属于因作品使用方式的特性无法指明作者的情况，快尚公司和优岸美致公司侵害了孙利娟的署名权。考虑涉案作品具有一定知名度；优岸美致公司主观恶意明显、快尚公司经营规模大等因素，一审判决确定的赔偿数额明显偏低。遂改判快尚公司和优岸美致公司向孙利娟赔礼道歉并连带赔偿经济损失8万元。

（三） 典型意义

本案涉及服装设计领域侵害作者署名权的认定。审理法院在考察服装设计领域行业惯例和生活常理的基础上，认定在服装上使用他人美术作品时表明作者身份并不存在客观限制，也不会破坏服装图案的整体美感，且在服装上标注插画师姓名的事例屡见不鲜。本案判决依法保护了作者的署名权，对于规范服装设计领域著作权使用行为具有重要意义。

案例14

暴雪娱乐有限公司、上海网之易网络科技发展有限公司申请行为保全案

（一） 基本案情

暴雪娱乐公司是《魔兽世界》系列游戏的著作权人，网之易公司是该游戏在中国大陆地区的独家运营商。两原告公司认为，由七游公司开发、分播时代公司独家运营，动景公司提供下载的被诉游戏《全民魔兽》（原名《酋长萨尔》）侵害了其美术作品著作权，构成擅自使用他人知名游戏商品特有名称、装潢及虚假宣传的不正当竞争行为。暴雪娱乐公司和网之易公司在起诉的同时提出行为保全申请，请求法院立即禁止三被告停止被诉侵权行为，并提供了1000万元的等值现金担保。

（二） 裁判结果

广州知识产权法院在组织双方听证后作出裁定，禁止七游公司复制、发行及通过信息网络传播被诉游戏，禁止分播时代公司复制、发行、通过信息网络传播被诉游戏和实施涉案不正当竞争行为，禁止动景公司通过其官网传播被诉游戏。裁定作出后，七游公司和动景公司自动履行了裁定，分播时代公司在法院督促和释明后亦履行了裁定。

（三） 典型意义

本案是一起行为保全（又称临时禁令）申请案件。依法积极受理和审查行为保全申请，妥当有效采取知识产权行为保全措施，对于提高知识产权司法救济的及时性、便利性和有效性具有重要意义。同时，行为保全申请必须注意平衡申请人与被申请人利益，准确把握保全措施的适用条件，规范审查程序，既要依法满足权利人迅速保护权利的正当需求，又要防止滥用行为保全制度损害竞争对手。本案中，审理法院在审查行为保全申请时，听取了双方当事人的意见、考虑了申请人提供担保的情况，合理确定了行为保全的措施及其范围，较好地平衡了双方当事人的利益。

catalogue

1. Administrative Dispute Case of Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board and Cui Xuewei's Invalidation of Patent Rights

2. Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Saving Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Committee of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, the third person Beijing Hailin Energy Saving Equipment Co., Ltd

3. Administrative Dispute Case of Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Third Party Zhang Hongbin's Request for Invalidation of Trademark Rights

4. Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board Trademark Rejection Reexamination Administrative Dispute Case

5. Qian Cheng v. Beijing Concert Hall for Infringement of Registered Trademark Exclusive Right Dispute Case

6. Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Jike Geek Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case

7. Beijing Ledong Excellence Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Kunlun Lexiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes

8. Dispute over Trademark Infringement by Bobeilei Co., Ltd. v. Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin

9. Kai De Fu International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Kuo Sheng Pipeline System (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and other parties for infringement of trademark rights and false advertising dispute appeal case

10. Shanghai Paflo Cultural Products Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yixiang Cultural Products Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement disputes appeal case

11. Applicants Otec and Adobe apply for evidence preservation before litigation

12. Chanel Co., Ltd. v. Wen Daxiang, Guangzhou Kaixuan Hotel Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes

13. Sun Lijuan v. Kuaishang Fashion (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou You'an Meizhi Fashion Co., Ltd. for copyright infringement dispute

14. Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. Apply for Behavioral Preservation Case

Case 1

Administrative Dispute Case of Anyang Xiangyu Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board and Cui Xuewei's Invalidation of Patent Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

Xiangyu Company filed a request for invalidation with the Patent Reexamination Board regarding the invention patent of Cui Xuewei with patent number 94119284.9 and the name "Multi functional Moxibustion Instrument". After trial, the Patent Reexamination Board made an administrative decision to maintain the validity of the patent in this case. Xiangyu Company is not satisfied with the sued decision and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the scope of protection for the patent claims in this case is clear and can be supported by the specification. The modifications made by the patentee to the patent application documents in this case did not exceed the scope recorded in the original specification and claims, and the patent in this case possesses creativity and complies with the relevant provisions of the Patent Law and Implementation Rules. The verdict upheld the defendant's decision. All parties have not filed an appeal, and the judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

Moxibustion is one of the traditional Chinese medicine treatment methods in China. The patent in this case combines traditional moxibustion treatment methods with electromagnetic technology to form an moxibustion treatment instrument that can achieve self heating and automatic temperature control functions. Due to the high application value of this patent in related traditional Chinese medicine treatment, it has received widespread attention from personnel in the field of traditional Chinese medicine medical devices. This case involves multiple reasons for invalidation requests for patent rights, including whether the scope of protection for patent claims is clear, whether the claims can be supported by the specification, whether the patent holder's modifications to the patent application documents in this case exceed the scope recorded in the original specification and claims, and whether the patent right possesses creativity. The judgment in this case is based on the claims of all parties and has made sufficient arguments one by one, protecting the interests of the inventor in accordance with the law.

Case 2

Zhengzhou Chunquan Energy Saving Co., Ltd. v. Patent Reexamination Board, Third Party Beijing Hailin Energy Saving Equipment Co., Ltd. and Other Administrative Disputes over Invalidation of Invention Patent Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

Beijing Hailin Company has filed a request for invalidation of the invention patent of Zhengzhou Chunquan Company, with patent number 200810231195.5 and the title of "Method and Device for Identifying Multiple Speed Motor Gears Based on Voltage Mutual Inductance Technology". The Patent Reexamination Board declares all patents in this case invalid in accordance with Article 22 (3) of the Patent Law. Zhengzhou Chunquan Company is not satisfied with the sued decision and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that all claims of the patent in this case possess creativity, and the relevant determination of the Patent Reexamination Board was incorrect. Thus, the defendant's decision was revoked and the Patent Reexamination Board was ordered to make a new decision. All parties have not filed an appeal, and the judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves invention patents in the field of electricity with complex technical issues. The trial court carefully reviewed the relevant technology and strictly applied the three-step method of creative judgment to review the creativity of the patent in this case, correcting the erroneous decision of the Patent Reexamination Board. Through the judgment in this case, an invention and creation that could bring considerable income to the enterprise was promptly saved, and the legitimate interests of the inventor were safeguarded in accordance with the law.

Case 3

Administrative Dispute Case of Kailuan (Group) Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and Third Party Zhang Hongbin's Request for Invalidation of Trademark Rights

（1） Basic facts of the case

Kailuan Group Company has filed a request for invalidation of the trademark No. 5667073 "Kailuan" applied for registration by a third party, Zhang Hongbin, on the grounds that the disputed trademark infringes on his "Kailuan" enterprise name rights, Zhang Hongbin engaged in malicious registration behavior, and did not actually use the disputed trademark. The trademark review committee believes that the evidence provided by Kailuan Group Company does not involve beauty salons or public bathroom services, and cannot prove that before the application for registration of the disputed trademark, Kailuan Group Company used "Kailuan" as a trade name or trademark in the beauty salons, public bathroom services or similar services designated by the disputed trademark and had a certain level of popularity. Thus, the court ruled to maintain the registration of the disputed trademark. Kailuan Group Company is not satisfied with the sued ruling and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the registration of the disputed trademark "Kailuan" damaged the prior trade name rights of Kailuan Group Company. The Trademark Review and Adjudication Board has determined that there is an error and should correct it. The ruling revokes the ruling made by the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board regarding the invalidation request for the "Kailuan" trademark No. 5667073, issued by Shang Ping Zi [2014] No. 71444, and orders the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board to make a new ruling. After the judgment of this case was pronounced, the parties did not appeal, and this judgment has come into effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case is an administrative dispute over the request for invalidation of a trademark, and the basis of the right to request is "the application for trademark registration shall not harm the existing prior rights of others" as stipulated in the Trademark Law. The prior rights involved are the prior trade name rights. The judgment in this case is based on the formation time of the plaintiff's business name (the "Kailuan" brand was formed in 1912), the popularity of the plaintiff's business name (Kailuan Group Company is a Fortune 500 enterprise, and its brand name is well-known both domestically and internationally), the comparison of the plaintiff's business scope and the verification and use services of the disputed trademark, and the possibility of confusion The registrant of the disputed trademark analyzed and discussed the elements of "damaging the existing prior rights of others" in terms of their knowledge of the plaintiff's trade name and the actual use of the disputed trademark. It was determined that the registration of the disputed trademark damaged the prior trade name rights of Kailuan Group Company and should be invalidated. The judgment in this case reflects the judicial orientation of safeguarding the rights and interests of well-known brands, preventing malicious trademark registration, and maintaining market integrity competition.

Case 4

Guizhou Tongjitang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Trademark Review and Adjudication Board Trademark Rejection Reexamination Administrative Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Tongjitang Company applied to the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce for the registration of the combination trademark "Tongjitang was founded in 1888 and Tu". The Trademark Office and Trademark Review and Adjudication Board rejected the registration application of the disputed trademark on the grounds that it was similar to the trademark "Tongji and Tu" No. 3178271 (i.e. cited trademark 1) and the trademark "Tongji" No. 3574839 (i.e. cited trademark 2). Tongjitang Company is not satisfied and has filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that, taking into account factors such as the popularity of Tongjitang Company's previous basic trademark No. 1093180 "Tongjitang" trademark, the actual use of the disputed trademark, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the basic trademark, and the degree of difference between the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks, it is determined that the coexistence of the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks in the market will not lead to confusion and misidentification by the relevant public, Does not constitute a similar trademark on the same or similar goods. Thus, the ruling was revoked and the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board was ordered to make a new ruling.

（3） Typical significance

This case clarifies that when determining trademark similarity, consideration should be given to the extended relationship between the basic trademark of the same subject and the disputed trademark under certain conditions, and explores the considerations for determining the extended relationship. The trial court comprehensively considered factors such as the popularity of the previous basic trademark of Tongjitang Company, the similarity between the disputed trademark and the basic trademark, as well as the similarity of goods, the actual use of the disputed trademark, and the differences between the disputed trademark and the two cited trademarks. Finally, it was determined that the reputation of the basic trademark can be extended to the disputed trademark, so that the relevant public can distinguish the disputed trademark from the two cited trademarks. The judgment in this case is of great significance for reasonably safeguarding the interests of well-known trademark owners.

Case 5

Qian Cheng v. Beijing Concert Hall for Infringement of Registered Trademark Exclusive Right Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Beijing Concert Hall has been organizing a series of performance activities under the name of "Opening the Door to Music" for several years. Qian Cheng was the former general manager of Beijing Concert Hall, and during his tenure, he applied for the registration of the "Open the Door to Music" written trademark. After resigning, Qian Cheng filed a lawsuit claiming that the Beijing Music Hall had used the "Open Music Door" logo for related business activities without permission, infringing on his registered trademark exclusive rights. He demanded that the Beijing Music Hall stop the infringement behavior, apologize, and compensate a total of 40000 yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Xicheng District, Beijing held in the first instance that before Qian Cheng applied for trademark registration, the Beijing Music Hall had already used a trademark similar to the registered trademark and had a certain impact on the same product before the trademark registrant. Qian Cheng, as the exclusive right holder of the registered trademark, had no right to prohibit the Beijing Music Hall from continuing to use the involved trademark within the original scope of use. Qian Cheng's lawsuit has no factual or legal basis and is not supported. Thus, the court ruled to dismiss Qian Cheng's lawsuit. Qian Cheng filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that in a series of performances and promotional activities using the "Open Music Door" logo, the subject of external claims was the Beijing Music Hall, and a relatively fixed connection had been established between the logo and the Beijing Music Hall. The trademark of the Beijing Music Hall was established as a defense against prior use, and its use of the "Open Music Door" did not constitute infringement. The appeal was dismissed and the first instance judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the legal application of the defense right to prior use of trademarks under the new Trademark Law. The trial court conducted a thorough analysis of the application conditions of the new trademark law regarding the right to defense against prior use, and conducted a more in-depth discussion on issues such as prior trademark use, identification awareness, and user subjective attitude. The reasoning is sufficient. The judgment in this case legally upheld the brand "Open the Door to Music" that has been continuously used by Beijing Concert Hall for the past twelve years, and reasonably balanced the interests of prior trademark users and registered trademark rights holders.

Case 6

Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Jike Geek Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Jike Geek Company is a manufacturer and seller of "Jirouter" routers. After downloading and installing the "Block Video Advertising" plugin on the "Pole Routing" cloud platform, users of the "Pole Routing" router can block pre film advertisements of iQiyi website videos by accessing the internet through the "Pole Routing" router. IQiyi Company believes that the "JiRouter" router produced and sold by Jike Geek Company filters the pre film advertisements of the "iQiyi" website videos through the installation of the "Block Video Advertisements" plugin, which constitutes unfair competition. Therefore, it files a lawsuit and requests the court to order Jike Geek Company to stop unfair competition behavior, eliminate the impact, and compensate for losses of over 2.1 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The Haidian District People's Court of Beijing held in the first instance that in order to obtain commercial benefits, Jike Geek Company directly intervened in the business behavior of iQiyi Company by using the "blocking video advertising" plugin, which exceeded the reasonable limit of fair competition, violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, and constituted unfair competition. Jike Geek Company filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that operators providing services to online users should comply with corresponding rules and should not obtain their own interests at the cost of affecting the legitimate and legitimate business models of other competitors. Jike Geek Company provided services to users by forcibly changing the business model of iQiyi Company, which harmed the legitimate interests of iQiyi Company, It will inevitably lead to iQiyi Company being unable to sustain itself due to the difficulty in paying high copyright usage fees, and the interests of network users will ultimately be adversely affected. The behavior of Jike Geek Company is unjustified. The appeal was dismissed and the first instance judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, competition disputes in the online environment have become increasingly fierce, and new forms of unfair competition have emerged one after another, making legal characterization more difficult. The trial court determined that the sued behavior constitutes unfair competition by analyzing the subjective malice of network operators, the infringement of the sued behavior on the legitimate business model of others, and the impact on the ultimate interests of consumers. The judgment in this case has certain guiding significance for the determination of competitive relationships and the judgment of the legitimacy of competitive behavior in the network environment.

Case 7

Beijing Ledong Excellence Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Kunlun Lexiang Network Technology Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes

（1） Basic facts of the case

Ledong Excellence Company is the copyright owner of mobile terminal games "My Name is MT on line" and "My Name is MT 2". The aforementioned game is adapted from the 3D anime series' My Name is MT '. Ledong Excellence Company enjoys exclusive license to use game names and character names, and enjoys copyright in art works for character images. Ledong Excellence believes that the use of names and characters similar to the game name, character name, and character image of "My Name is MT" by Kunlun Lexiang Company and others in the game "Super MT" without their permission infringes on their copyright; Kunlun Lexiang Company and others plagiarized the name of the game "My Name is MT" in the game "Super MT" and used promotional language related to the game in the promotion process, which constitutes unfair competition behavior. I hereby file a lawsuit in this case.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the games and characters of Ledong Excellence Company did not constitute written works protected by copyright law, and the character images in the sued games did not constitute substantial similarities to those in Ledong Excellence Company's games. The actions of Kunlun Lexiang Company and others did not infringe on the copyright of Ledong Excellence Company; The game of Ledong Excellence Company was launched earlier and has a certain level of popularity. Kunlun Lexiang Company, also a mobile game operator, not only did not reasonably avoid the above game and character names of Ledong Excellence Company, but instead used related expressions and carried out propaganda that goes against the facts, constituting unfair competition behavior of using the unique name of other well-known services and false propaganda without authorization. Thus, Kunlun Lexiang Company and others were ordered to cease unfair competition, compensate Ledong Excellence Company with an economic loss of 500000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 35000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

As an emerging cultural industry, mobile terminal games are a product of the integration of culture and technology, enjoying huge development space and good market prospects. This case is a copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute involving mobile terminal games. The facts of this case are complex, involving numerous and difficult legal issues. The trial court has conducted detailed analysis and elaboration on various legal issues such as whether short phrases such as game names and character names can constitute written works, copyright protection for adapted works, whether mobile terminal game names can constitute unique names of well-known products, and the determination of false advertising behavior. In terms of civil liability, the trial court fully considered factors such as the plaintiff's market share of the game and the subjective state of the accused infringer, maximizing the protection of the interests of game rights holders, and cracking down on illegal acts of seizing the interests of others in accordance with the law. This case clarifies the ideas and directions for legal protection of intellectual property rights in mobile terminal gaming, and has a demonstrative role in promoting the healthy development of the mobile terminal gaming industry.

Case 8

Dispute over Trademark Infringement by Bobeilei Co., Ltd. v. Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin

（1） Basic facts of the case

Burberry Limited is the holder of the registered trademark for the "Burberry" 25 class clothing series. On March 20, 2012, the public security organs investigated the criminal case of Chen Kai and Lu Qiumen selling counterfeit goods with the above-mentioned registered trademark, and the next day requested the assistance of Burberry Co., Ltd. to identify the counterfeit goods involved. On August 24, 2012, the Yangpu District People's Court of Shanghai sentenced the two defendants to fixed-term imprisonment (probation) and a fine in accordance with the law. On August 15, 2014, Bobere Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order the two defendants to compensate for their economic losses and reasonable expenses of 1 million yuan. The two defendants, Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin, believe that Bobeilei Co., Ltd. was aware of the existence of infringement on March 20, 2012, and its lawsuit was filed in August 2014, which has exceeded the statute of limitations.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yangpu District, Shanghai held in the first instance that the lawsuit of Bobeilei Co., Ltd. did not exceed the statute of limitations, and the defendants Chen Kai and Lu Qiumin constituted infringement of the exclusive right to use the trademark of Bobeilei Co., Ltd. They should jointly compensate the plaintiff Bobeilei Co., Ltd. for economic losses of RMB 150000 and reasonable expenses of RMB 15000. Lu Qiumin appealed against the first instance verdict. The second instance judgment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the determination of the reason for the interruption of the statute of limitations. The judgment in this case clearly states the legal significance of knowing that someone else's infringement on oneself has entered the criminal prosecution process and assisting in the investigation at the request of the investigation department for the statute of limitations. The trial court believes that the above facts have dual significance for the right holder: firstly, there is a legal consequence of the statute of limitations, as the right holder already knows that their rights have been infringed; The second is the legal consequence of the interruption of the statute of limitations, as the right holder has reason to believe that criminal investigation can protect their civil rights, and the infringement of the accused behavior depends on the determination of the effective criminal judgment. This determination reasonably defines the reasons for the interruption of the statute of limitations, providing better protection for the rights holders to protect their rights in accordance with the law.

Case 9

Kai De Fu International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Kuo Sheng Pipeline System (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and other parties for infringement of trademark rights and false advertising dispute appeal case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Kaidefu Company is the trademark owner of the "Clean Water" written trademark. Prior to July 1, 2013, Kaidefu Company enjoyed the exclusive distribution rights of the water pipe products of the outsider German Akersheim Company in China. After July 1, 2013, Kaidefu Company terminated the cooperation agreement with Akasem Company, and Kuo Sheng Company became the new agent for Akasem Company's products in China. Prior to July 1, 2013, the registered "Clean Water" trademark of Kaidefu Company was only used to promote and sell Akersham Company's products. After July 1, 2013, Kaidefu Company continued to hold the "Clean Water" trademark for promoting water pipe products from other manufacturers. Kuo Sheng Company authorizes Ousu Company to exclusively sell Akesum Company's products in the Shanghai region. Kuo Sheng Company and Ou Su Company used similar promotional phrases such as "Original German Clean Water, Now German Kuo Sheng" and "German Kuo Sheng (Original German Clean Water) - Constant Quality" in their promotional articles and flyers, as well as "The original agent used German 'Clean Water' to promote in China. Starting from July 1st, the German factory officially used the Chinese logo 'Kuo Sheng' for promotion in the Chinese market" The Chinese logo 'Jieshui' originally used in China is owned by the original agent and is now unrelated to German companies such as Kuo Sheng and Akersheim and their products. Kaidefu Company believes that the use of appellate advertising language by Kuosheng Company and Ousu Company constitutes trademark infringement and false advertising, and requests that the two defendants cease their trademark infringement and false advertising behavior, and compensate a total of 5 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance judgment of the People's Court of Xuhui District in Shanghai rejected all the litigation claims of Kaidefu Company. Kaidefu Company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that, based on the fact that the "Jieshui" trademark was used to promote Akusam's products, it is necessary for Kuo Sheng Company and Ousu Company to inform consumers in their promotional activities that the products pointed to by the "Jieshui" trademark have changed. The use of the "Jieshui" trademark by the two companies is subjective and in good faith, and the use method does not exceed a reasonable limit, which will not cause confusion among consumers about the source of the products, Belonging to the legitimate use of a trademark. The promotional language used by Kuo Sheng Company and Ou Su Company is indeed inaccurate in terms of textual expression, but it has not produced misleading effects and does not constitute false propaganda in the sense of anti unfair competition law. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the first instance judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the standards for determining the legitimate use of trademarks and false advertising behavior. The trial court considers the defendant's use of the trademark to be a legitimate use of the trademark from the perspectives of its subjective intention, mode of use, and possibility of confusion. In the determination of the accused false advertising behavior, it is emphasized that the advertising slogan should be interpreted as a whole, and combined with factors such as the general attention of the relevant public and existing cognitive experience to comprehensively determine. The judgment in this case has certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases.

Case 10

Shanghai Paflo Cultural Products Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Yixiang Cultural Products Co., Ltd. and other copyright infringement disputes appeal case

（1） Basic facts of the case

The homepage of Pavlo's website features a dark red background, with a white starry dynamic effect, accompanied by a copper bell magic sound, and background music. Paflo Company discovered that Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company had plagiarized and imitated their websites, infringing on their copyright. Therefore, they filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company to stop the infringement, eliminate the impact, and compensate for the loss of 223000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai found in the first instance that Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company had infringed on the webpage copyright of Paflo Company, and ruled that the two defendants should stop the infringement and compensate Paflo Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 30000. Yixiang Company and Oucrocodile Company are dissatisfied and file an appeal. The second instance judgment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

Does the content arrangement of the webpage in this case constitute a work within the meaning of copyright law. The trial court held that although there are many factors in the public domain in the webpage of the website in question, the homepage of the website in question not only has the columns and structural elements commonly found on the homepage of general company websites, but also reflects a unique concept in terms of screen color, content selection, display method, and layout arrangement, presenting a certain visual artistic effect, originality, and replicability, forming a work within the meaning of copyright law. The copyright protection standards for web works determined in this case have certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases.

Case 11

Applicants Otec and Adobe apply for evidence preservation before litigation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Otec and Adobe are two American software companies that believe that Shanghai Fengyuzhu Exhibition Co., Ltd. copied, installed, and commercially used their series of computer software such as AutoCAD, Photoshop, and Acrobat without permission. Considering that all computers with illegal computer software installed are located on the premises of Fengyuzhu Company, the applicant is objectively unable to obtain relevant evidence; Meanwhile, due to the fact that the evidence involved in the case is all computer software and related data, which are intangible and easily hidden or destroyed, once the evidence is transferred, hidden or lost, it will be difficult to obtain, which poses difficulties in determining the relevant facts. Therefore, the applicant requests the Shanghai Intellectual Property Law Court to preserve the evidence before litigation.

（2） Judgment results

The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has reviewed and found that the evidence applied for preservation by the applicant belongs to situations that may be lost or difficult to obtain in the future as stipulated by law, and the applicant is also unable to collect the aforementioned evidence on their own due to objective reasons, which meets the conditions for pre litigation evidence preservation. Thus, the court ruled to preserve evidence of the relevant information of the aforementioned series of software on computers and other facilities and equipment in the respondent's business premises. After the decision on evidence preservation was made, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court and relevant departments of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court worked together to fully leverage the institutional advantages of "joint office" and successfully completed the pre litigation evidence preservation work.

（3） Typical significance

This evidence preservation case is the first computer software pre litigation evidence preservation case since the establishment of the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. This case involves the preservation of relevant evidence from nearly 400 computers in a large workplace, and the preservation work has strong professionalism and complexity. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court has hired relevant technical experts to assist in preservation and formulated a thorough plan for evidence preservation work; Establish technical expert groups, on-site inventory groups, on-site control groups, and other working groups, clarify responsibilities, and divide and collaborate; Each group operated in a standardized manner and carried out orderly preservation, successfully completing the preservation task. This case provides valuable working methods and ideas for exploring an enforcement mechanism that is in line with the characteristics of intellectual property cases, strengthening the linkage between enforcement and trial, improving the efficiency and accuracy of enforcement of preservation rulings, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders.

Case 12

Chanel Co., Ltd. v. Wen Daxiang, Guangzhou Kaixuan Hotel Co., Ltd. and other trademark infringement disputes

（1） Basic facts of the case

Chanel Company is a joint-stock company registered in France on August 27, 1954, and is one of the world-renowned luxury brands. The company is the authorized owner of the "" and "" graphic trademarks and "CHANEL" text trademarks used in Class 25 "clothing, shoes, hats, scarves, swimwear" and other goods. The subsidiary of Triumph Hotel Company, Ramada Hotel, has signed a lease agreement with Wen Daxiang to lease a store located at No. 2 West Corridor on the first floor of the Ramada Hotel for clothing, leather goods, and other purposes. The agreement guarantees that counterfeit and inferior goods will not be distributed in the store. Chanel Company believes that the shoes, wallets and other products sold by Wen Daxiang use the same logo as their registered trademark, infringing their exclusive right to use their registered trademark. Therefore, they file a lawsuit against Wen Daxiang, Triumph Hotel Company, and Huameida Hotel, requesting the court to judge the three defendants to stop the infringement and jointly compensate them for their economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 300000 yuan.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Yuexiu District, Guangzhou held in the first instance that Wen Daxiang had infringed on the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of Chanel Company and should bear civil liability for stopping the infringement and compensating for losses. The Triumph Hotel Company and its Huameida Hotel do not constitute infringement. Chanel Company is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that, taking into account factors such as the well-known trademark in question, the high-end star hotel identity of Huameida Hotel, the special relationship between the hotel and the store as shown in the contract, and the long-term repeated infringement by Wen Daxiang, Huameida Hotel should have a high duty of care towards the counterfeit sales store in question. Moreover, Wen Daxiang's counterfeit behavior is obvious, and Huameida Hotel can detect it with a little attention. Huameida Hotel has turned a blind eye to Wen Daxiang's infringement of the trademark involved, allowing the infringement to occur, which constitutes aiding infringement, and should bear joint and several liability with Wen Daxiang for compensation. Thus, the judgment was revised to jointly compensate Chanel Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 50000 yuan, including Wen Daxiang, Huameida Hotel, and Triumph Hotel.

（3） Typical significance

In recent years, there have been frequent occurrences of selling counterfeit goods in rental shops such as clothing markets and hotels. Trademark owners usually sue the store operator, the store lessor, and the management as defendants, demanding that they bear joint and several liability for compensation. In this situation, it is particularly important to determine the responsibilities of the lessor and manager of the store. In this case, the trial court considered factors such as the popularity of the trademark of the owner, whether the infringement of the store was sufficiently obvious, and the specific relationship between the lessor and the store operator when determining whether the lessor of the store was aware or should have been aware of the infringement of the store operator. Based on the specific situation, the court reasonably determined the duty of care of the lessor of the store. The judgment in this case explores the conditions under which the lessor and manager of the store can assist in infringement, which has guiding significance for protecting the legitimate rights and interests of well-known brands.

Case 13

Sun Lijuan v. Kuaishang Fashion (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou You'an Meizhi Fashion Co., Ltd. for copyright infringement dispute

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 12, 2011, Sun Lijuan released an art work titled "It is said that giraffes are experts in loneliness" on CNKI. com. In March 2011, Sun Lijuan's aforementioned works won the first prize in the "Red Gate Creative T-shirt Pattern Competition". Sun Lijuan believes that Kuaishang Company and Youan Meizhi Company used the involved art works on the women's mid sleeved dresses jointly produced and sold, which constitutes an infringement of their copyright rights such as authorship, reproduction, and distribution. I hereby file a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order the two defendants to stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses of 250000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 20000 yuan; The two defendants made a written apology statement to eliminate the impact of infringement.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Baiyun District, Guangzhou held in the first instance that Kuaishang Company and You'an Meizhi Company used Sun Lijuan's art works without permission, constituting copyright infringement. However, due to the difficulty in identifying the author when using the works on clothing, it should not be objectively determined that the two defendants violated Sun Lijuan's right of authorship. Thus, the two defendants were sentenced to cease the infringement, destroy the inventory and infringing products on sale, and jointly compensate Sun Lijuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 30000 yuan. Sun Lijuan was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held in the second instance that labeling the author's name on clothing printed with well-known illustrator art works is common in the clothing design and manufacturing industry. This case does not belong to the situation where the author cannot be specified due to the characteristics of the use of the work. Kuaishang Company and You'an Meizhi Company have infringed on Sun Lijuan's right of authorship. Considering that the work involved in the case has a certain level of popularity; The compensation amount determined in the first instance judgment is significantly lower due to factors such as obvious subjective malice of You'an Meizhi Company and the large scale of Kuaishang Company's operation. Therefore, Kuaishang Company and You'an Meizhi Company apologized to Sun Lijuan and jointly compensated for economic losses of 80000 yuan.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the determination of infringement of the author's right of authorship in the field of fashion design. On the basis of examining industry practices and everyday life principles in the field of fashion design, the trial court found that there are no objective restrictions on the identity of the author when using other people's art works on clothing, and it will not undermine the overall beauty of the clothing pattern. Moreover, there are frequent cases of annotating the name of an illustrator on clothing. The judgment in this case legally protects the author's right of authorship, which is of great significance for regulating the use of copyright in the field of fashion design.

Case 14

Blizzard Entertainment Co., Ltd. and Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Development Co., Ltd. Apply for Behavioral Preservation Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Blizzard Entertainment is the copyright owner of World of Warcraft series games, and Netease is the exclusive operator of the games in Chinese Mainland. The two plaintiff companies believe that the accused game "All People Warcraft" (formerly known as "Chief Sal") developed by Qiyou Company and exclusively operated by Time Broadcasting Company, and downloaded by Dynamic View Company, has infringed on its art copyright, constitutes an unfair competition behavior of unauthorized use of other people's well-known game product names, decorations, and false advertising. Blizzard Entertainment Company and NetEase Company filed an action preservation application while suing, requesting the court to immediately prohibit the three defendants from stopping the accused infringement behavior and providing an equivalent cash guarantee of 10 million yuan.

（2） Judgment results

After organizing a hearing for both parties, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court made a ruling prohibiting Qiyou Company from copying, distributing, and disseminating the accused game through information networks, prohibiting the Broadcasting Era Company from copying, distributing, disseminating the accused game through information networks, and engaging in unfair competition in the case, and prohibiting the Broadcasting Company from spreading the accused game through its official website. After the ruling was made, Qiyou Company and Dongjing Company automatically fulfilled the ruling, and Broadcasting Times Company also fulfilled the ruling after being urged and explained by the court.

（3） Typical significance

This case is an application for action preservation (also known as temporary injunction). Actively accepting and reviewing action preservation applications in accordance with the law, and taking appropriate and effective measures for intellectual property action preservation, are of great significance for improving the timeliness, convenience, and effectiveness of intellectual property judicial remedies. At the same time, the application for behavior preservation must pay attention to balancing the interests of the applicant and the respondent, accurately grasp the application conditions of preservation measures, standardize the review process, and not only meet the legitimate needs of the right holder to quickly protect their rights in accordance with the law, but also prevent the abuse of the behavior preservation system from damaging competitors. In this case, the trial court listened to the opinions of both parties, considered the situation where the applicant provided guarantees, and reasonably determined the measures and scope of action preservation when reviewing the application for action preservation, which effectively balanced the interests of both parties.