in china - wanhuida intellectual property

1PATENT ●

2015

IP CASE SUMMARY& STATISTICSIN CHINA

TRADEMARKChinese Court Stopped Trademark Squatting of General Mills’ “Wanchai Ferry in Chinese” in Class 42

Courts Extend Cross-category Protection over “华素” Trademark

CIVC Wins a Civil Action Against a Soft Drink Producer Using the Names “Champagne” and “香槟”(Champagne in Chinese)”

Mengniu Wins Suits Against Shanzhai Products

Two-Dimensional Trademark Helps to Protect Three-Dimensional Bottle Shape

MAPED Defeated Copycat in Trademark Infringement Suit

Joint Criminal Enforcement Action for Golf IWG in China

COPYRIGHTCRAYON SHIN-CHAN defeated copycats in China

APPENDIXPATENT

TRADEMARK

PATENTWin an Instructive Case on Claim Amendment at the Supreme People’s Court

Successfully Invalidate a Chemical Process Patent Based on Inventive Step Assessment

Successfully Defense against Patent Validity Proceedings based on a Chemical Process Patent

SPC’s Opinion on Patent Infringement on a Design Patent

Win a Patent Infringement Dispute on Temporary Protection of Patent for Invention

Successfully Defend Patent Infringement Dispute on Patent for Chemical Process

Win a Patent Infringement Case about Protection Scope of Close-ended Claim at the Supreme People’s Court

08

32

35

40

44

50

54

58

64

71

115

11

14

17

21

25

27

6 7IP CASE SUMMARY & STATISTICS IN CHINA ● PATENT ●

1PART Patent


Win an Instructive Case on Claim Amendment at the Supreme People’s Court

Key Words

Amendment, scope of protection, numerical range

Legal Rules

Article 33 of the Patent Law limits amendment of patents/applications to their original disclosure. The Patent Law Implementing Regulations, Rule 69, provides that a patentee may amend a claim but the amendment may not broaden the scope of the protection. The Guideline for Patent Examination (“GPE”) further specifies how a claim may be amended. GPE Sect. 4.6, Pt. IV, Chap 3 provides that an amendment to a claim must abide by the following principles: 1) the subject matter of the claim may not be changed; 2) the scope of protection of the amended claim may not be broader than that of the original claim; 3) the amendment shall not go beyond disclosure of the original description and claims; and 4) new technical features not present in the original claims are generally precluded. Pursuant to these principles, the GPE further specifies the manner of

amendment as limited to: 1) deletion of claims; 2) combination of claims; and 3) deletion of technical solutions within claims.

Summary of the Case

A pharmaceutical company S owns a patent on “Compound formulation of Amlodipine and Irbesartan” (Patent No. ZL03150996.7), against which an individual L filed a petition for invalidation. During the invalidation proceeding before the PRB, an amendment was made to Claim 1, narrowing its claimed numerical range of “1:10-30” to “1:30”. The PRB found that the amendment violated Article 33. Specifically, the PRB considered the numerical range “1:10-30” as one technical feature and may not be changed through deletions to narrow its range.

An administrative litigation was filed against the PRB decision. The issue is whether deleting part of a claimed numerical range constitutes deletion of technical solutions within claims as prescribed by the GPE.

The court of first instance maintained the PRB decision. But the PRB decision was overturned by the Beijing Higher People’s Court. The court accepted the argument of the patentee that the amendment was consistent with the requirement of Article 33. The court supported the patentee position particularly in the light of the fact that the amended numerical range, “1:30”, was supported by a specific example given in the description as a preferred technical solution.


The dissatisfied PRB petitioned the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) for review of error. The SPC rejected the petition by PRB and affirmed the judgment of the court below. The SPC also gives instructions on the understanding of the legal rules. The SPC agrees that amendments to claims during invalidation proceedings should comply with the Implementing Regulation and the GPE, including GPE’s prescription on the principles and manners on how a claim may be amended. Nonetheless, the SPC held that the prescribed manners should not be understood in a mechanical and narrow sense. Furthermore, the manners prescribed are not exclusive. There could be other manners of amendment which are consistent with the law and not mentioned in the GPE.

WHD Comments

There were wide complaints that Article 33 was implemented with excessive rigidity, producing unfair results. The SPC decision in this case casts new lights on the understanding of the law and may herald a more reasonable practice with regard to the requirement of Article 33.

Successfully Invalidate a Chemical Process Patent Based on Inventive Step Assessment

Key words

Assessment on inventive step, the closest prior art, prior art, the skilled in the art

Legal Rules

According to the Guidelines for Patent Examination (GPE), in order to assess inventive step of a patent for invention in an objective and predictable manner, the following “three-step approach” should be applied: 1) determining the “closest prior art”; 2) determining the distinctive features and establishing the “objective technical problem” to be solved, and 3) considering whether or not the claimed invention is obvious to the skilled person.

Case Summary

In January 2012, a pulp and paper company Mesto Paper (now renamed Valmet) filed a request for invalidation against a patent entitled “a process


of alkaline peroxide mechanical pulping” (No. 200380110473.7) owned by company A.

In the invalidation proceeding, PRB accepted the petitioner arguments that the distinctive features (as compared to the closest prior art D1) in the patent have been disclosed by the prior art D2, the claimed invention therefore is obvious to the skilled in the art. Then, PRB issued a decision declaring the patent right invalid.

The unsatisfied patentee filed an appeal to the Beijing Higher People’s Court, and argued that D2 indeed disclosed the distinctive features, but the purpose of which actually is contrary to the patent. Then the key point of this case should be whether there is a teaching in the prior art, which is able to promote the skilled to employ the distinctive features to solve the objective technical problem in the patent.

The court finally maintained the decision of PRB, and held that even the teaching in D2 was implicit by considering its different objective, the distinctive features per se functioned the same way in D2 as they did in the patent, that is sufficient to show that the skilled person is able to adapt those features to the closest prior art in order to solve the technical problem in the patent. Therefore, the claimed invention did not possess inventive step as stipulated in Article 22.3 of the Patent Law in China.

WHD represented the petitioner in this case.

WHD Comments

The combination of the teaching with the closet prior art in the above way would be difficult than simply combining various elements from prior art. That does require higher creativity to be an invention patent. The result of this case shows that the courts and PRB both intend to apply a higher criterion in assessing inventive step of an inventive patent.

(Valmet has consented to the publishing of this case)


Successfully Defense against Patent Validity Proceedings based on a Chemical Process Patent

Key Words

Claim amendment, request for invalidation, disclosure as originally filed

Legal Rules

Article 33 of the Patent Law limits amendment of patents/applications to their original disclosure. The Patent Law Implementing Regulations, Rule 69, provides that a patentee may amend a claim but the amendment may not broaden the scope of the protection.

Case Summary

Chemicals manufacturer A owned a patent No.ZL991199707, against which one of its competitors filed a request for invalidation before the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) on the ground that the amendment to claim 1 did not

comply with Article 33 of the patent law.During the substantial examination proceedings, in order to specify the

synthesis path engaged in this patent as dimethyl phosphate method, a further definition to the path was added into the permeable part of claim 1. The petitioner considered the above amendment as going beyond the scope of disclosure as originally filed.

However, PRB found that amendment complied with Article 33. Specifically, PRB agreed with the patentee that the creative part of this patent was not on the synthesis path per se, but in the addition of recovery process into the process; and making a definition to the synthesis path, on which the improvement of the present invention is based, did not involve any new information or content to the technical solution as defined in claim 1.

The unsatisfied petitioner filed an appeal to the Beijing Higher People’s Court.

The Court maintained the PRB decision and supported the patentee position, particularly in the light of the fact that those skilled in the art should have learned dimethyl phosphate method commonly used in the industrial production and are able to make the definite and exclusive choices according to the prior art and the disclosure in the patent.

WHD Comments

The legislative intent of Article 33 of the Patent Law is to ensure the


SPC’s Opinion on Patent Infringement on a Design Patent

Key Words

Design for patent protection, patent infringement, extra design element

Legal Rules

SPC confirms, in a retrial ruling, that “extra design” element has no material impact on the determination of patent infringement.

Case Summary

MAPED SAS, the world leader in school and office supplies, was founded in 1947 in France.

On February 6, 2004, MAPED filed with the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) a design patent application named ‘scissors’ (See Device 1) and was granted the said patent on September 1, 2004.

Yangjiang Bonly Industries Ltd. (Bonly) and Yangjiang Ewin Knife & Scissors Co., Ltd. (Ewin) engaged in manufacturing and distributing scissors that were

“principle of first-to-file”, and prevent any amendment to claims from introducing any information into the application, which was completed after filing date, then affecting interests of any third party.

China has been always holding a strict standard for accepting amendments to claims in patent prosecution and invalidation proceedings. Therefore, the applicant must be cautious when making any amendment to claims, which might pose a potential risk in future possible litigation or post-granting proceedings.


quite similar to MAPED’s patented product. On April 29, 2010, MAPED filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bonly and Ewin before the Guangzhou Intermediate Court, requesting Court injunction and damages of RMB 100,000 from the defendants.

On December 16, 2010, the Guangzhou Intermediate Court (the Court) rendered a judgment in favour of the defendants, finding that the accused product does not infringe MAPED’s patent. The Court decided that the infringing product, which are decorated with coloured patterns (See Device 2) present substantial differences in respect of overall visual effect from MAPED’s cited design patent, notwithstanding the fact that the shapes are similar.

Device 1 Device 2

On January 12, 2011, MAPED appealed to the Guangdong Higher Court (the Court of Appeal).

On June 17, 2011, the Court of Appeal rendered a verdict upholding the first-instance judgment.

On December 28, 2012, MAPED applied for retrial with the Supreme People’s Court (SPC).

On September 22, 2013, the SPC rendered a ruling, rejecting the retrial application. The SPC ruled that, in view of a slight difference on the size of the rivets, the non-infringement judgment was to be maintained.

Nonetheless, the SPC made a point to revise the reasoning of the Court of Appeal with regards to the impact of the “extra design” decoration.

The SPC considered that, since the accused infringing products adopt a shape that is somewhat similar to MAPED’s design patent (not enough, though, to justify a declaration of infringement), one issue that needs to be examined is whether the patterns on the blades should be deemed as an “extra design element”. The Court said that, generally, an extra design element has no material influence on the determination of patent infringement; otherwise, infringers could easily circumvent infringement liability and freely use the patents of others by simply adding patterns or colours on the original design. Such practice wanted clearly against the legislative of the Patent Law which is to encourage innovation.

By reviewing the patent documents, the SPC held that, MAPED’s design patent did not cover the elements of colour or patterns on the blades, and that


the patterns on the blades of the accused infringing product constitute an “extra design” element which has no bearing on the infringement determination.

WAN HUI DA represented MAPED in this case.

WHD Comments

Although our retrial motion was denied, SPC’s confirmation that the extra design element has no bearing on the infringement determination could be used as a precedent for design patentee in enforcing their patent rights in China.

(MAPED has consented to the publishing of this case)

Win a Patent Infringement Dispute on Temporary Protection of Patent for Invention

Key words

Patent infringement, temporary protection, patent for invention

Legal Rules

Article 13 of the Patent Law of the PRC provides that, after the publication of an invention patent application, the applicant may require the entity or individual exploiting its invention to pay reasonable fees.

Case Summary

In two patent infringement disputes, the defendants began exploiting the plaintiff’s invention after publication of the patent application. The plaintiff obtained concrete evidence, and filed civil lawsuits against them after the grant of the patent. The plaintiff not only requested the defendants to stop infringement, compensate for its loss, but also requested them to pay reasonable fees according to Article 13 of China’s Patent Law on temporary protection. The court


supported the claims. Following please find the details:In 2009, SEB S.A. applied to China Patent Office for an invention patent

titled “pressure-cooking utensil having locking/unlocking control member”. The application was published on July 21, 2010 and granted on April 17, 2013 with Patent No. ZL 200910260788.9.

In 2012, SEB S.A. found that two companies in Zhejiang Province were producing and selling pressure cookers implementing the above invention. SEB S.A. organized notarized purchase of samples as evidence. In the Canton Fair of April 23, 2013, SEB S.A. found the two companies were offering the infringing pressure cookers. After on-site notarization and complaint to the Fair for removal of the samples, SEB S.A. filed civil lawsuits before Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court with all the evidence, requested the two defendants to stop infringement, to pay damages for the infringement, and to pay reasonable fees for exploiting the invention during the publication period according to Article 13 of China’s Patent Law.

In May and June of 2014, Guangzhou Court made decisions to order one defendant to pay RMB50,000 as reasonable fees for exploiting the invention during the publication period, and to pay RMB100,000 as damages for the infringement; it ordered another defendant to pay RMB80,000 as reasonable fees, and RMB240,000 as monetary compensation due to more serious infringement.

WHD represented SEB SA in this case.

WHD Comments

In judicial application of Article 13, attention should be drawn to the following matters:

Time to claim the reasonable fee

According to Article 85 of the “Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law”, if the party concerned requests the administrative authority to mediate in the dispute caused by exploiting the technology during the publication period, the request shall be made after the grant of the patent right. In the same vein, if the plaintiff wants to request the defendant to pay “reasonable fees”, the lawsuit should also be filed after the patent is granted. Before filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff should obtain concrete evidence of the defendant’s exploitation of the invention in the publication period.

An independent claim

The patentee should make specifically request the defendant to pay reasonable fees for exploiting its invention during the publication period.


Otherwise, the court will adopt the principle of “no trial without complaint”. In the lawsuit Keng Zi v. Kang Tai Lan (court file No. Min Ti Zi No. (2011) 259), the Supreme Court pointed out that since the patentee failed to specifically claim for reasonable fees, but only claimed damages for the infringement after the patent was granted, the court would only focus on two issues, namely whether the defendant had constituted infringement, and should pay damages for such infringement.

The protection scope of the temporary protection

In practice, the claims of a patent described in the application are usually different from the claims of the granted patent. As to the protection scope of the temporary protection, Article 88 of the “Guidelines to Determine Patent Infringement” made by Beijing Higher Court provides that, if the protection scope described in the application documents is inconsistent with that described in the granted patent, the court will hold that the alleged infringer has exploited the patentee’s invention only when the accused technology falls into the protection scope of both versions. Otherwise the court will not apply Article 13 of the Patent Law.

(SEB S.A. has consented to the publishing of this case)

Successfully Defend Patent Infringement Dispute on Patent for Chemical Process

Key words

Invention patent, chemical process, new products

Legal Rules

Article 61 of the Patent Law stipulates that any infringement dispute relates to a process patent for manufacture of a new product, any entity manufacturing the identical product shall furnish proof to show the process used in the manufacture of its product is different from the patented process. That means, in this situation, the burden of proof is to be reversed, and the defendant undertakes the burden of proof.

Case Summary

In 2011, an entity A, who owned an invention patent (No.200710056829.3) for “a process for manufacture of glycidyl ester of branched carboxylic acid”, filed a legal proceeding before Suzhou Intermediate Court to claim entity B (engaged


in same business) infringed the patent. The issue of this case is whether or not the product manufactured by the

patented process is “new product”; whether or not the reversal of the burden of proof needs to be applied in this case.

The court found that, even some parameters are slightly different with those in the art, the alleged products were not new products actually, and the principle of reversal of the burden of proof therefore could not be applied in this case. The court supported the patentee position particularly in the light of the fact that the patented process was engaged to produce a kind of compounds, which structure had been known by prior art.

In that case, the court found evidences submitted by the plaintiff are not sufficient to show the alleged infringing products constitute infringement, and then rejected all claims of the plaintiff.

Wan Hui Da represented the defendant in this case.

WHD Comments

This case is a patent infringement dispute over a patent for chemical process. In order to defend successfully in this kind of dispute, it is essential to show the product obtained from the patented process has been disclosed in the prior art.

Win a Patent Infringement Case about Protection Scope of Close-ended Claim at the Supreme People’s Court

Key Words

Patent infringement, close-ended claim, the Supreme People’s Court, retrial

Legal Rules

There is no provisions stipulated in the patent law and implementing regulations on how to determine the protection scope of a close-ended claim, only the Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG) provides that close-ended claims generally shall be construed as excluding the components or steps not indicated by the claims, but may contain impurities at a normal content.

Case Summary

An individual person H owned a patent for “adenosine disodium triphosphate and magnesium chloride used for injection”. A pharmaceutical company T


produced products with the similar components as claimed in the patent. Then, H brought a lawsuit against T for patent infringement.

For the infringing products, arginine and sodium bicarbonate were added in the process of production, but these two adjuvants were not indicated in the claim concerned which was drafted as close-ended claim by using the phrase “consist of”.

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the phrase “consisting of” should be interpreted as excluding secondary components (adjuvants) from the protection scope.

The courts of first and second instances found infringement on the ground that all of the technical features of the patent had been implemented by the alleged product, and that the defendant failed to prove the adjuvants would have any influence upon the functions and effects.

The defendant filed a request for retrial with the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), claiming that the patentee had chosen a close-ended claim, which meant other components should be excluded from the protection scope of that claim. The alleged infringing products were produced with two more components besides those claimed by the patent, so the composition of the alleged infringing product differed from the patented product, and the infringement should not be established accordingly.

The SPC overturned the decisions by both courts, and affirmed the opinions of the defendant on the ground that the claim concerned was drafted as a close-

ended structure, and the alleged products contained components not indicated in the claim, therefore this case should not constitute infringement. The SPC also added that impurities in the product should not be considered as “secondary ingredients”, as it is difficult to completely eliminate impurities.

The SPC further stressed that, if patentee chose to apply for a close-ended claim, it clearly stated that other components not indicated in the claim will not be included within the protection scope of the patent. Therefore, it was not appropriate to apply the doctrine of equivalents to include those components in the scope again.

WHD Comments

The above decision was made by considering the public interest. According to the SPC, it would be harmful to the public interest to include components not indicated in a close-ended claim into the protection scope. The Applicants should have known the relevant provisions and understood the scope of claims they drafted. In order to have a broader protection scope and to enforce the patent right efficiently, the applicants should be cautious when drafting patent applications, because any loss of protection scope caused by drafting in different claim structure should possibly be borne by the patentee.

31TRADEMARK ●30IP CASE SUMMARY & STATISTICS IN CHINA ●

2PART Trademark


Chinese Court Stopped Trademark Squatting of General Mills’ “Wanchai Ferry in Chinese” in Class 42

Key Words

Cancellation based on the ground of “non-use for three consecutive years”, real intention to use, symbolic use

Highlights & Comments

It is an inspiring case where the Court of Appeal, after taking into account of the maliciousness of the registrant of the litigious trademark indicated by his filing of over 50 trademarks either identical with or similar to others’ well-known trademarks and the flawed evidence of use of the litigious trademark which the Court found untenable to prove the genuine commercial use of such mark, confirmed in its verdict that the use of the litigious trademark that is single and symbolic for the purpose of sustaining its registration cannot justify the registrant’s real intention to use such mark. The Court of Appeal therefore ruled that such use shall not shield the litigious mark from cancellation.

Facts

General Mills is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer foods sold through retail stores. It headquarters in the Minneapolis suburb of Golden Valley, Minnesota. The company markets many well-known North American brands, such as Betty Crocker, Yoplait, Colombo, Totino’s, Pillsbury, Green Giant, Old El Paso, Häagen-Dazs, Cheerios, Trix, and Lucky Charms. Its brand portfolio includes more than 89 other leading U.S. brands and numerous category leaders around the world.

On March 31, 2000, a local caterer in Zhongshan, Guangdong Province, filed an application for the registration of the trademark “ ” (Wanchai Ferry in Chinese) with the China Trademark Office (CTMO) in Class 42, covering the services of “café, cafeteria, restaurant, bar, fast-food restaurant, etc”. The trademark was approved for registration on June 21, 2001. On August 13, 2009, the trademark was assigned to a natural person named CHENG Chao.

General Mills filed on August 21, 2009, a cancellation application against the said trademark based on the ground that it has not been used for three consecutive years (Article 44.4 of the 2001 “Trademark Law”), namely for the period from August 21, 2006 to August 20, 2009.

On October 17, 2011, the CTMO issued a cancellation decision in favour of General Mills by finding CHENG Chao’s evidence of use invalid.

On December 5, 2011, CHENG Chao appealed to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB), which upheld the CTMO’s cancellation on June


24, 2013, finding that the evidence adduced by CHENG failed to prove that the mark has been put into actual commercial use in respect of the designated services.

Verdicts

CHENG appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court.On April 18, 2014, the First Instance Court overruled the TRAB decision.General Mills then appealed to the Beijing High Court.The Court of Appeal held that the evidence adduced by CHENG was flawed and

was insufficient to prove that the trademark has been put into genuine and effective commercial use in respect of the designated services during the specified three year period. The Court further found that the fact that CHENG had registered more than 50 trademarks either identical with or similar to others’ well-known trademarks indicated that it was highly unlikely that CHENG had filed those trademarks with intention of putting them into actual use. The evidence of use adduced by CHENG suggests that such use was single and symbolic use for the mere purpose of sustaining its registration. The Court of Appeal therefore ruled on December 19, 2014 to overrule the first instance decision and uphold the TRAB verdict.

WAN HUI DA represented General Mills in the administrative litigation proceedings.

General Mills has consented to the publishing of this case.

Courts Extend Cross-category Protection over “ 华素 ” Trademark

Key Words

Distinctiveness, public awareness, association, confusion


In this case, the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB) and the Courts of both instances held that the Opposed Trademark applied for “toothpaste, etc” in Class 3 is similar to the Cited Trademarks registered for “medicines for human purposes” in Class 5, and designates similar goods.

The finding of similarity is not simply based on the “Classification Table of Similar Goods and Services”. The TRAB and Courts made such ruling by taking into account of the high distinctiveness and public awareness of the Cited Trademarks, as well as market realities that daily chemical products like drugs and cosmetics are usually produced by the same manufacturer and distributed at the same store, which is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public.


Facts

The HWELLS tablets, with its generic name known as Cydiodine Buccal tablets, are manufactured by Beijing HWELLS Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Previously known as Beijing Sihuan Pharmaceutical Plant) as an OTC medication to treat pharyngitis and canker sores.

HWELLS Pharmaceutical registered the trademarks “ 华素 ”, “ 华素 & device” as well as “ 华素片 ” (Cited Mark 1, 2 & 3) in Class 5. HWELLS Pharmaceutical has been continuously using the Cited Marks for over 20 years. The Cited Mark 1 has been recognised as a “Famous Trademark in Beijing” since 1999.

A natural person named LIAN Jinhui filed with the China Trademark Office (CTMO) on November 8, 2005 an application for the registration of the trademark “ 华素 ” (Opposed Mark) on the designated goods of “toothpaste, cleansing milk, shampoo, bath foam, anti-bacterial hand wash, cosmetics, etc.” in Class 3.

The table below shows details of the Cited Marks and the Opposed Mark.

Trademark Registrant Application Date

Registration Date Class Designated

Goods

Cited Mark 1

HWELLS Pharmaceutical

October 17, 1996

October 21, 1997 5

Medicines for human purposes,

tablets, preparations for injection and capsule preparations

Cited Mark 2


September 3, 1992

October 7, 1993 5

Cydiodine Buccal tablets,

tablets

Cited Mark 3


April 8, 2002

June 21, 2003 5

Medicines for human purposes

Opposed Mark

LIAN Jinhui November 8, 2005 - 3

Toothpaste, cleansing milk, shampoo, bath

foam, anti-bacterial hand

wash, cosmetics, etc

HWELLS Pharmaceutical filed an opposition on the ground that the marks are similar trademarks used on similar goods.

This opposition was rejected by the CTMO.


HWELLS Pharmaceutical appealed to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (TRAB).

The TRAB held that despite the fact that the designated goods “toothpaste, etc.” of the Opposed Trademark fall under the category of daily cleansing products, such goods are somehow associated with the designated goods “medicines for human purposes, etc.” of the Cited Marks in terms of their functions, usages, and target consumers. Such association in addition to the high public awareness of the Cited Marks in respect of “medicines for human purposes, etc.” is likely to cause confusion among the relevant public with regards to the source of the products. The TRAB overruled the decision of the CTMO and decided that the trademark should not be registered.

Verdicts

LIAN appealed to the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court, seeking to overturn the TRAB decision.

On December 17, 2013, the Intermediate Court made a judgment, upholding the TRAB decision.

The Court confirmed that the Cited Marks have acquired a certain reputation on drugs prior to the application date of the Opposed Mark. The relevant public has made an association between the Cited Marks and the products of HWELLS Pharmaceutical. It is therefore concluded that the Cited Marks have formed an

exclusive correspondence with HWELLS Pharmaceutical.The Court further echoed the TRAB’s findings that the Opposed Mark is a

similar mark used on similar goods as the Cited Marks.On account of Cited Marks’ high distinctiveness and public awareness,

as well as the market realities that daily chemical products like drugs and cosmetics are usually produced by the same manufacturer and distributed at the same stores, the Court considered that when the Opposed Mark is used on toothpaste and other designated goods, the relevant public may be misled to believe that HWELLS Pharmaceutical is somehow associated with such goods, thus resulting in the misidentification of the source of these goods. Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the Court found that the application of the Opposed Mark is in violation of Article 28 of the “Trademark Law” (2001) and shall not be approved.

LIAN then appealed the Court decision to the Beijing High Court.The Court of Appeal ruled on April 17, 2014 to uphold the first instance

decision.WAN HUI DA represented HWELLS Pharmaceutical in the administrative

litigation proceedings.HWELLS has consented to the publishing of this case.


CIVC Wins a Civil Action Against a Soft Drink Producer Using the Names “Champagne” and “ 香槟 ”(Champagne in Chinese)”

Key Words

Unregistered GI protection, article 16 of the "Trademark Law", protection against infringement

Highlights

The Court of the first instance recognized that the geographical indication (“GI”) “Champagne” and “ 香槟 ” (Champagne in Chinese), should be protected even though it was not (yet) registered in China.

The plaintiff in this case, the COMITE INTERPROFESSIONNEL DU VIN DE CHAMPAGNE (hereinafter referred to as “CIVC”), was established in 1941, and is one of the first-ever regional wine committees created in France. It was established by statute to manage the common interests of growers (vignerons) and Champagne Houses (negociants/producteurs). The CIVC sets strict norms to define what Champagne is, and that only the sparkling wines produced in the

region of Champagne in France, using certain types of grapes and produced according to a certain process, have the right to be marked as “Champagne”.

In the second half of 2011, CIVC found that Beijing Sheng Yan Yi Mei Trading Co., Ltd. (“Sheng Yan Yi Mei”) was selling soft drinks bearing the names “ 香槟 ” (Champagne in Chinese) and “CHAMPAGNE”. CIVC sued Sheng Yan Yi Mei before Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court.

The Court took a long time to formally accept the case (in 2012) and even more to make its decision. It finally rendered its judgment on February 10, 2015, in favor of CIVC.

The Court held that, although Champagne was not registered as a trademark in China at the time the case was filed, it had already been established by the relevant administrative authorities in China that the denomination Champagne is not the generic name of an alcoholic beverage, and must be protected as an “appellation of origin”. Furthermore, CIVC had produced evidence that Champagne has gained high popularity in China and that the related public were able to recognize this word as a GI identifying the sparkling wines originating from Champagne, France. The wide promotion in China made by CIVC and the Champagne producers, as well as many articles published in the domestic media, periodicals and newspapers and detailed interpretation in a variety of authoritative reference books were added to the evidence produced before the Court. The Court also noted that, after entering the WTO and becoming a member of the TRIPS Agreement, China was committed to provide legal protection for GIs. The Court held, therefore, that obtaining trademark registration as a Collective Mark


or Certification Mark in China was not a precondition to the legal protection. The Court ordered the Defendant to cease selling the infringing products. No

appeal was filed and the Judgment is final.The CIVC was represented by WAN HUI DA during the litigation.

Comments

The main difficulty of the case was whether a name consisting in a geographical indication could be protected in China without registration of any kind.

It was the first time that such a straightforward question was raised in a civil litigation. There were some precedents (in favor of Champagne), but these were the results of specific notices issued by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, not actual infringement civil action.

In 2011, when the case as launched, the only legal ground was article 16 of the “Trademark Law”:

Where a geographical symbol of the goods exists in the trademark and the designated goods do not originate from the place indicated by the said symbol, misleading the public, such a trademark shall be refused for registration and shall be prohibited to be used.

The Court took almost three years to finally decide.To a certain extent, this case is the epitome for the protection of GI in China. Registration of GIs in China is, of course, a strongly recommended

precaution.

There are three ways to achieve this : 1) as a Certification Mark or Collective Mark at the Trademark Office, 2) as a sui generis GI, at the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) ; and 3) as an agricultural product, with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Clearly, the first method (collective or certification trademark) is the easiest (but still requires the submission of specific documentation).

The other two can be made, on a case-by-case basis, but no detailed regulations have been issued (even though announced) to explain how foreign GIs could file such applications.

A GI owner may also use the Law against Unfair Competition or the law that provides for the protection of consumers, to deal with malpractices affecting its name.

After the case was filed, the CIVC – who had a preference for the sui generis type of protection (which is the French system) filed an application with AQSIQ on January 17, 2012, and was approved on April 11, 2013. Meanwhile, the CIVC also obtained the regisration of Champagne, both in Latin letters and Chinese characters, as collective trademarks.

Filing for registration is the recommendation that could be given to all GI owners.

Yet, the Judgment in this case is an important reference for other similar cases where a GI owner has not yet registered any IP right in China and needs to rely only on article 16 of the “Trademark Law”, and on the evidence of its reputation in China.

CIVC has consented to the publishing of this case.


Mengniu Wins Suits Against Shanzhai Products

Key Words

Shanzhai products, registered trademarks, free-riding


The case, as the first intellectual property case heard by the Beijing No.3 Intermediate Court since its establishment, has attracted vast media attention. The Court of First Instance held that the prominent use of the Plaintiff’s trademark by the Defendant in its business name and on its products constitutes trademark infringement. The Court ordered the Defendant to stop its infringement acts, change its trade name, and indemnify the Plaintiff financially. The decision was later upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The case is listed as one of the “Exemplary Trademark Cases of Year 2014” by China Intellectual Property News.

Facts

In 2013, CCTV (China Central Television) Station broadcasted a television special named “Deceptive Shanzhai Products” to expose those cheap imitations made in parody of expensive famous brands. The show drew a huge public response. The Shanzhai products exposed in the show included a “Shanzhai 特仑苏 milk”.

“ 特仑苏 ” is a brand of Inner Mongolia Mengniu Dairy (Group) Co., Ltd. (“Mengniu”), a company established in 1999, famous for manufacturing and distributing dairy products and ice cream in China.

Mengniu filed with the China Trademark Office (CTMO) on June 14, 2005, an application for the trademark “ 特仑苏 ” (Figure I) designating “milk, diary products and yogurt etc.” in Class 29, and obtained registration on March 7, 2008. Mengniu filed for the registration of “ 特仑苏 & device” (Figure II) on July 6, 2005 designating “milk, diary products and yogurt etc.” in Class 29, and obtained registration on March 28, 2008. Mengniu’s “ 特仑苏 ” products are shown in Figure 3 as below.


Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3

On 16 April 2008, two natural persons surnamed ZHAO and LIU jointly established a company called Tianjin TELUNSU Dairy Co., Ltd. (“Tianjin TELUNSU”) to produce and sell “Shanzhai 特仑苏 products”, which used the marks and trade dress as shown in Figures 4 to 8 as below.

Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6

Honorary Produce of 特仑苏Greetings from 特仑苏

Figure 7 Figure 8

On 21 August 2013, Mengniu sued Tianjin TELUNSU before the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate Court, requesting the Court to order Tianjin TELUNSU to immediately stop the trademark infringement and unfair competition acts.

In order to establish the bad faith of the shareholders of Tianjin TELUNSU in registering its “ 特仑苏 ” trademark as a trade name, Mengniu adduced evidence to prove that after the application for the registration of the trade name “Tianjin 特仑苏 ” (which comprised of Mengniu’s trademark “ 特仑苏 ”) on 14 November, 2007, LIU had filed on 17 December, 2007, an application for the registration of the business name “Hulunbuir TELUNSU Diary Co., Ltd.” with the Hulunbuir AIC of Inner Mongolia. Mengniu filed on 25 January, 2008 a complaint with the local AIC of Hulunbuir, seeking injunction against the infringement behavior of Hulunbuir TELUNSU.

On 3 April, 2008, the Hulunbuir AIC notified Hulunbuir TELUNSU to change its trade name “Hulunbuir 特仑苏 ” (which also comprised of Mengniu’s trademark “ 特仑苏 ”) based on the finding that “ 特仑苏 ”, if used as trade name or product name, may lead the public to misidentify the products to which such name is associated with as originating from Mengniu, thus causing confusion in the


market.Hulunbuir TELUNSU later complained to the Inner Mongolia AIC.On 29 May, 2008, the Inner Mongolia AIC issued an administrative

reconsideration decision, upholding the decision of Hulunbuir AIC.Hulunbuir TELUNSU then lodged an administrative litigation and later an

appeal before the basic Court and the Hulunbuir Intermediate Court, which both dismissed its claim. The Courts affirmed that since it had being launched in the market, Mengniu’s “ 特仑苏 ” milk has attained a high reputation and had become a unique name of famous commodity, as defined in the “Law against Unfair Competition”.

Verdicts

Based on the evidence submitted by Mengniu, the Beijing No. 3 Intermediate Court confirmed that at the time when Tianjin TELUNSU was registered, on 16 April, 2008, Mengniu’s “ 特仑苏 ” trademark was already widely known to the relevant public and should be recognised as well-known trademark. The Court presumed the bad faith of the shareholders of Tianjin TELUNSU based on the fact that, as the players in the diary industry, they should have known about Mengniu’s “ 特仑苏 ” brand, and yet they still registered “ 特仑苏 ” as the trade name of their business for the purpose of producing and selling milk products.

The Court further held that the Defendant’s acts of using “Tianjin 特仑苏 ” as

a trade name may lead the consumers to misidentify it as the distributor of “ 特仑

苏 ” milk, which is detrimental to the Plaintiff’s right over the “ 特仑苏 ” trademark and is in violation of good faith principle and recognized business ethics.

On such ground, the Court of First Instance ordered Tianjin TELUNSU, in its decision of April 25, 2014, to immediately stop the trademark infringement, change its trade name within 30 days, and indemnify the plaintiff CNY500,000 in damages by taking into consideration the degree of reputation of the trademark “ 特仑苏 ”, the duration of the infringing behaviour, the scope of infringement, and the reasonable expenses of the Plaintiff.

Tianjin TELUNSU later appealed to Beijing High Court, which confirmed the comparatively high reputation of the Cited trademarks and rendered a decision on October 15, 2014 upholding the judgment made by the Court of First Instance.

Mengniu has consented to the publishing of this case.


Two-Dimensional Trademark Helps to Protect Three-Dimensional Bottle Shape

Key Words

Three-dimensional shape, two-dimensional trademark

Highlights

Changsha Intermediate People’s Court holds that the alleged infringing product and the Plaintiff’s registered trademark both exhibit a bottle shape with round shoulder and short neck. The bottle contours of the alleged infringing product and that of the Plaintiff are very similar visually. Although the Plaintiff’s registered trademark is two-dimensional and the alleged infringing product is in three-dimensional shape, in view of the reputation and distinctiveness of the genuine product of the Plaintiff, it is still likely that the relevant public may assume the origins of the alleged infringing product has certain association with the Plaintiff, which constitutes similarity according to the “Trademark Law”.

Facts

THE ABSOLUT COMPANY AKTIEBOLAG (hereinafter referred to as TAC) is the owner of the series of trademarks “绝对 ” (absolute in Chinese) and “Absolut”, including the two-dimensional trademarks: No. 3377850 (Figure 1) and No. 4448681 (Figure 2).

（Figure 1）（Figure 2）

TAC found in the market an infringing product named “Success Vodka”, which not only uses as similar mark of “Success Vodka”, the blue fonts and a decoration that is very similar to that of TAC, but also uses the same bottle shape as Absolut Vodka.


(Front) (Back)

Verdicts

On April 15, 2013, TAC filed a lawsuit against the infringing manufacturer and distributor on the ground of trademark infringement and unfair competition to Changsha Intermediate Court.

The Court noted multiple similarities between the infringing product and TAC’s registered trademark but more importantly, considered that the two-dimensional bottle shape trademark of TAC, was infringed by the three-dimensional product. The Court ruled that, in view of the similarity of the picture and shape, and in view of the reputation and distinctiveness of the genuine product of the Plaintiff, it is still likely that the relevant public may assume that the alleged infringing product has certain association with the Plaintiff, which constitutes similarity according to the “Trademark Law”.

On May 26, 2014, the Court rendered a judgment supporting the Plaintiff’s

claims, ordered the Defendants to stop the infringing acts and to compensate the Plaintiff’s losses.

Comments

In China, it is not easy to obtain the registration of a three-dimensional trademark. The authorities tend to apply strict criteria in reviewing the three-dimensional trademark applications. As a result, only limited number of three-dimensional trademarks can be registered.

Even if the right owner manages to obtain a three-dimensional trademark registration, it is never easy to enforce in practice. On one hand, the standards for determining the infringement of three-dimensional trademarks vary in the administrative enforcement and judicial trial; on the other hand, the three-dimensional trademark is often subject to invalidation actions from the infringers who challenge the validity of the trademark. Therefore, protecting and enforcing a three-dimensional trademark is fairly difficult in China.

In this case, it was possible to use a two-dimensional trademark registration, which represented an object (the bottle) as a three-dimensional trademark covering the shape of the bottle. This is an exemplary case, which can serve as a model for the future.

TAC has consented to the publishing of this case.


MAPED Defeated Copycat in Trademark Infringement Suit

Key Words

Ex officio trademark refusal against infringing trademark, civil lawsuit, trademark infringement, destruction of infringing products


This is an exemplary case in which MAPED successfully lobbied the China Trademark Office to reject ex officio the application of the infringing trademark filed by the infringer, followed by a civil lawsuit against the infringer. MAPED obtained a favorable Court decision in which the Court found that the infringer’s use of two registered trademarks constitutes trademark infringement, issued an injunction and ordered damages.

Facts

MAPED S.A.S. (hereinafter referred to as “MAPED”) is a France-based world

leader in school supplies and office stationary.In 2013, it was brought to MAPED’s attention that a “MABID” brand stationary

products, which imitate MAPED’s registered trademarks and trade dress, were being marketed in the name of Hong Kong YALONG Culture Products Limited in China. Further field investigation confirmed that target MABID products were manufactured and distributed by a couple surnamed CHEN in Yiwu, who is also the shareholder of the Hong Kong company. The couple owned a booth at Yiwu International Trade Mart. WAN HUI DA attorney at laws proceeded with a notary purchase of target MABID products from the said booth on July 3, 2013.

MAPED’s Registered Trademarks

Trademark Actually Used

by CHENMr. CHEN’s Trademarks

Cited Mark I

Mark I (Registered)

Mark II (Registered)

Cited Mark II Mark III


A trademark search revealed that on October 22, 2007, Mr. CHEN had filed with the China Trademark Office (CTMO) an application for the trademark “Mabid” (Mark I) designating writing instrument, stationary, paper, staple, etc. in Class 16, and obtained registration on March 7, 2010. Another trademark Mabid (Mark II) was filed on January 16, 2012 and approved for registration on March 21, 2013 in Class 16.

However, in actual use, these two trademarks were “transformed” and became almost identical to the Cited Trademark I of MAPED (as shown in the above table).

Mr. CHEN also applied for the registration of a combination trademark “ ” (Mark III) on November 14, 2012 in Class 16.

Concerning this last application, MAPED petitioned to the CTMO before it was published, and requested the Trademark Office to reject the application ex officio, citing its own Cited Mark I (Article 30 of “Trademark Law”), which had been filed on July 22, 2004 and registered on May 14, 2007, and obtained satisfaction: on November 21, 2013 the CTMO rejected the application.

With regards to the two other “transformed” trademarks, MAPED sued Mr. CHEN and Mrs. CHEN on February 11, 2014, before the Court of Yiwu, on the ground of trademark infringement, requesting an injunction, financial damages and the destruction of inventory infringing products.

Verdicts

The Court found that the trademarks actually used by the Defendants are similar with the Plaintiff’s prior Cited Trademarks in respect of font, pronunciation, layout and overall structure, which is likely to cause confusion and misidentification among relevant public, and therefore constitutes trademark infringement.

The Defendants' argued that they owned two design patent for the packaging box of color pencil filed on April 17, 2012. The Court held that this fact did not justify their trademark infringement acts upon the Plaintiff’s Cited Trademarks, which were earlier than the said patent.

On July 31, 2014, the Yiwu Court decided that Defendants' transformed use of two registered trademarks constituted trademark infringement, ordered injunction and destruction of inventory infringing products, and award damages of CNY 100,000.

Subsequently, the Defendants appealed to Jinhua Intermediate Court.MAPED and the Defendants later reached a settlement agreement on the

damages. On November 19, 2014, the Appellants withdrew their appeal and the judgment of the first instance came into effect.

WAN HUI DA represented the Plaintiff in the proceedings.MAPED has consented to the publishing of this case.


Joint Criminal Enforcement Action for Golf IWG in China

Key Words

Criminal enforcement action against upstream manufacturer and downstream distributors of fake golf products in China


WAN HUI DA coordinated the Shangrao PSB of Jiangxi Province to initiate a joint criminal enforcement action for GOLF IWG in 2014 against the upstream manufacturer at Shangrao and downstream distributors of fake golf products throughout China, with large quantity of fake golf products seized, half dozen suspects arrested for prosecution. The case has attracted extensive media attention.

Facts

The U.S. Golf Manufacturers Anti-Counterfeiting Working Group (“Golf IWG”) is an organization dedicated to stopping the production, distribution and

sale of counterfeit golf equipment across the globe. Formed in 2004, the group is comprised of five of the most well-known golf manufacturers in the world, Callaway Golf Company, Taylor Made Golf Company INC., Acushnet Company, Karsten Manufacturing Corporation and DUNLOP SPORTS Co., Ltd.

The Golf IWG works internationally with law enforcement and government agencies to identify and eliminate counterfeiting operations while simultaneously working to raise consumer awareness of the issue. The IWG has invested heavily in tackling counterfeit golf products in China. WAN HUI DA has been representing the IWG members in enforcing their IPRs through administrative and criminal enforcement actions throughout the country.

WAN HUI DA’s thorough investigation of a local family counterfeiting network in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, revealed that a major business partner of the counterfeiting network had a relative who operated an underground factory, massively manufacturing counterfeit golf clubs, in the remote village of Shangrao, Jiangxi Province.

In August 2013, upon IWG’s instruction, WAN HUI DA initiated months of close surveillance over the premises of the underground factory in Shangrao and managed to locate an informant who was willing to feed information on target factory. Extensive and continuous field investigation on the factory identified the internal operating conditions, shipping arrangements as well as major distribution channels of the target.

On June 24, 2014, WAN HUI DA attorneys cooperated with the law enforcement officers from the Economic Crime Investigation Division of Jiangxi

61COPYRIGHT ●60IP CASE SUMMARY & STATISTICS IN CHINA ●

Shangrao PSB and the Guangfeng PSB to launch a raid on target factory. During the raid, a total of 275 fake golf clubs, 58,750 pieces of fake marks, 1,385 semi-finished heads, 199 shafts, and 1,225 grips were seized.

From July to August, 2014, the law enforcement officers of Shangrao PSB followed up the lead gathered during the raid action and were able to identify half a dozen downstream distributors of target factory throughout China. Arrests were made over 5 suspects afterwards.

The case has been transferred to the local Procuratorates for prosecution.The Golf IWG has consented to the publishing of this case.


3PART Copyright


CRAYON SHIN-CHAN DefeatedCopycats in China

Key words

Crayon Shin-chan, prior copyright, prevails, latter trademark use, infringement

Facts

Crayon Shin-chan is a cartoon character created by a Japanese citizen Youshito Usui. Exclusively authorized by Yoshito Usui, Futabasha Publishers Ltd.

(“Futabasha”) enjoyed the copyright of the works of the fine arts ‘ ’and ‘ ’, the artwork and word representation of Crayon Shin-chan.

In July 2004, Futabasha detected that Shanghai ENJIA Economic and Trade Development Co., Ltd. (“ENJIA”) used its copyrighted artwork and word representation of Crayon Shin-chan on various goods, and in its promotional materials without authorization. Futabasha, through trademark search, detected that three Chinese companies, ENJIA, Guangzhou CHENGYI Spectacles Co., Ltd. (“CHENGYI”) and SHIFU Economic Development Co., Ltd. of Xiangshui County (“SHIFU”) had registered the aforementioned artwork and word

representation as trademarks in various classes. CHENGYI and SHIFU then licensed ENJIA to use their registered trademarks. Futabasha brought a lawsuit against ENJIA, CHENGYI and SHIFU before the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court, alleging the use of its copyrighted artwork and word representation of Crayon Shin-chan by three defendants infringed upon its prior copyright.

On June 16, 2005, Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court ordered the dismissal of the case on the ground that, ‘a dispute against a registered trademark should be handled by the competent administrative authority and therefore, the aforementioned dispute between Futabasha and the three defendants should be settled via administrative procedure. Moreover, Futabasha has filed a request with the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board for the cancellation of the disputed trademarks, thus, this case shall not be accepted by this court.’

Futabasha filed an appeal against this verdict afterwards. After reviewing the appeal, Shanghai Higher Court upheld the dismissal verdict made by Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court on December 8, 2005, by holding that, ‘the issue presented in this case was the conflict between prior copyright and latter registered trademarks, thus, the appellant shall turn to the competent administrative authority for remedial measures’ .

Subsequently, Futabasha submitted a retrial application to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court made a statement in its retrial verdict dated November 6, 2008, regarding the jurisdiction over the use of the registered trademark that “…


a lawsuit brought against the actual use of the disputed registered trademarks during the sales and promotional activities of the products bearing such registered trademarks, falls under the category of disputes over civil rights and interests, which when met the conditions prescribed by Article 108 of ‘Civil Procedure Law’ , shall be accepted by the People’s Court. The first and second instance courts’ ruling to reject the claim of Futabasha based on the ground that the case which involves trademark right affirmation disputes…shall fall under the jurisdiction of the administrative authority instead of being governed by the People’s Court, applied the wrong laws and regulations and shall be amended”.

Supreme Court finally upheld Futabasha’s retrial application claim and ordered Shanghai Higher Court to reopen the case.

On March 24, 2009, Shanghai Higher Court revoked its original verdict and the first-instance court verdict on the jurisdiction of the case and ordered Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court to re-try the case.

Verdicts

Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court held in its judgment dated March 23, 2012, that “…Copyright and the exclusive right to use a registered trademark, are two separate civil rights with their own boundaries. The right owner, when executing his legitimate right, shall not infringe other’s lawful rights. The defendant ENJIA, when executing his trademark license, executed without authorization,

the reproduction, distribution and the right of communication through information network (RCIN) of the plaintiff’s copyrighted artwork and word representation, which constitute the infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.”

The court ordered ENJIA to stop the infringement acts and pay the plaintiff financial damages of RMB 250,000 along with reasonable cost of RMB 50,000 incurred for stopping the infringement.

Comments

In this case, WAN HUI DA successfully persuaded the Supreme Court to order a retrial, which led to the affirmation that a civil litigation can be lodged in China by the copyright owner against the use of a registered trademark.

Supreme Court took the case to draw a line on the boundary of jurisdiction over the disputes between the registered trademark and copyright. Where the plaintiff bases his lawsuit on the ground that the defendant’s act of application for the registration of a trademark infringes on his copyright, the court has no jurisdiction over the said dispute; whereas, where the plaintiff bases his lawsuit on the ground that the defendant’s act of use of the registered trademark infringes on his copyright, the court has jurisdiction over the said dispute.

69APPENDIX ●68IP CASE SUMMARY & STATISTICS IN CHINA ●

APPENDIX


PATENT


2014 Acceptance for Patent for Invention of MajorCountries and Regions

Countries and Regions

Current Year Accumulated

NumberYear-on Year

GrowthTotal

Accumulated Number

Total 127042 5.7% 1370653Japan 40460 -1.8% 483080USA 33963 13.2% 344530

Germany 13597 -0.8% 133332South Korea 11528 6.1% 111502

France 4575 10.4% 49701Switzerland 3338 3.9% 35824Netherlands 2924 14.8% 43849

UK 2050 10.9% 26615Sweden 2020 12.5% 22679

Italy 1361 3.3% 17017Finland 1165 12.1% 13757Canada 1009 -2.7% 12172Denmark 847 0.8% 8524Austria 944 16.4% 6706Belgium 657 2.3% 6803Australia 664 3.6% 9247

Singapore 574 12.1% 4116Spain 340 -10.1% 3933

Russian Federation 130 -14.5% 1966Others 4896 39.0% 3530


2013, 2014 Domestic and Foreign Patent in Acceptance for Three Kinds of Patents

(Compared with the Same Period in 2013, 2014)

Current Year Total JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Total2013 2377061 165834 88440 156546 183952 213091 203968 212175 201941 185730 192542 255925 3169172014 2361243 177213 67885 150836 168933 186885 181092 206768 194303 203739 208983 268630 345976

Growth Rate -1% 7% -23% -4% -8% -12% -11% -3% -4% 10% 9% 5% 9%

Domestic2013 2234560 154852 78566 142712 171921 201301 191737 201316 189343 173826 181780 244898 3023082014 2210616 164169 59419 136787 156764 174595 168646 194399 180867 190242 197576 256187 330965

Growth Rate -1% 6% -24% -4% -9% -13% -12% -3% -4% 9% 9% 5% 9%

Foreign2013 142501 10982 9874 13834 12031 11790 12231 10859 12598 11904 10762 11027 146092014 150627 13044 8466 14049 12169 12290 12446 12369 13436 13497 11407 12443 15011

Growth Rate 6% 19% -14% 2% 1% 4% 2% 14% 7% 13% 6% 13% 3%

Invention2013 825136 57884 30750 51985 52950 61542 61405 63504 68774 70728 74868 98722 1320242014 928177 68300 28366 59190 60783 66754 67314 77611 72009 82791 88272 112558 144229

Growth Rate 12% 18% 8% -14% 15% 8% 10% 22% 5% 17% 18% 14% 9%

Utility Model2013 892362 70745 37883 61666 74138 80403 71713 78410 76849 68832 69332 88717 1136742014 868511 77195 27917 59708 67101 70834 64175 75234 68816 71904 68617 91992 125018

Growth Rate -3% 9% -26% -3% -9% -12% -11% -4% -10% 4% -1% 4% 10%

Design2013 659563 37205 19807 42895 56864 71146 70850 70261 56318 46170 48342 68486 712192014 564555 31718 11602 31938 41049 49297 49603 53923 53478 49044 52094 64080 76729

Growth Rate -14% -15% -41% -26% -28% -31% -30% -23% -5% 6% 8% -6% 8%


2014 Grants for Patent for Invention of MajorCountries and Regions


Current Year Accumulated

NumberYear-on Year

GrowthTotal

Accumulated Number

Total 70548 10.0% 653344Japan 26501 17.2% 265051USA 17401 4.4% 141253

Germany 7250 10.0% 60050South Korea 4627 8.3% 51039

France 2678 2.9% 24517Switzerland 1950 11.7% 17275Netherlands 1919 3.1% 20542

UK 1018 -2.8% 11261Sweden 1155 -0.3% 11557

Italy 879 5.9% 8465Finland 645 6.4% 6799Canada 576 1.1% 5105Denmark 512 18.8% 3740Austria 431 42.7% 2975Belgium 388 -5.4% 3226Australia 311 -15.0% 3915

Singapore 238 41.7% 1480Spain 195 14.7% 1380

Russian Federation 70 70.7% 681Others 1804 6.0% 13033


2013, 2014 Domestic and Foreign Grants for Three Kinds of Patents(Compared with the Same Period in 2013, 2014)

Current Year Total JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Total2013 1313000 124189 80722 136920 112291 119345 98285 126926 122029 96125 96381 107467 923202014 1302687 105802 60588 114137 100323 115320 95917 115123 106018 121588 109565 118666 139640

Growth Rate -1% -15% -25% -17% -11% -3% -2% -9% -13% 26% 14% 10% 51%

Domestic2013 1228413 116678 74016 129195 103720 111190 91390 119420 114495 89445 90213 101337 873142014 1209402 99542 55124 107238 92540 106725 88926 106012 97432 112782 101064 111178 130839

Growth Rate -2% -15% -26% -17% -11% -4% -3% -11% -15% 26% 12% 10% 50%

Foreign2013 84587 7511 6706 7725 8571 8155 6895 7506 7534 6680 6168 6130 50062014 93285 6260 5464 6899 7783 8595 6991 9111 8586 8806 8501 7488 8801

Growth Rate 10% -17% -19% -11% -9% 5% 1% 21% 14% 32% 38% 22% 76%

Invention2013 207688 16620 13014 22814 20327 20003 15655 18925 18654 17598 14722 15922 134342014 233228 16210 12488 21051 19905 21099 16889 21551 19012 21503 20433 20819 22268

Growth Rate 12% -2% -4% -8% -2% 5% 8% 14% 2% 22% 39% 31% 66%

Utility Model

2013 692845 72037 43877 69547 58541 64643 56322 71521 61248 45870 43543 56893 488032014 707883 58159 31986 60823 54645 63189 51391 60884 58354 64367 58334 65898 79853

Growth Rate 2% -19% -27% -13% -7% -2% -9% -15% -5% 40% 34% 16% 64%

Design2013 412467 35532 23831 44559 33423 34699 26308 36480 42127 32657 38116 34652 300832014 361576 31433 16114 32263 25773 31032 27637 32688 28652 35718 30798 31949 37519

Growth Rate -12% -12% -32% -28% -23% -11% 5% -10% -32% 9% -19% -8% 25%


2014 Domestic and Foreign Utility Model and DesignPatents in Acceptance

Current Year AccumulatedNumber

AccumulatedNumber

Accepted RatioYear-

on Year Growth

Accepted Ratio

Utility Model

Subtotal 868511 100.0% -2.7% 5498406 100.0%Domestic 861053 100/99.1 -2.7% 5456994 100/99.2Foreign 7458 100/0.9 4.5% 41412 100/0.8

DesignSubtotal 564555 100.0% -14.4% 4700379 100.0%Domestic 548428 100/97.1 -14.9% 4515027 100/96.1Foreign 16127 100/2.9 6.3% 185352 100/3.9


2014 Foreign Application for Three Kinds of Patents (2014.1-2014.11)

CountryInvention Utility Model Design Three Kinds in Total

Accept Application Accept Application Accept Application Accept ApplicationTotal 114253 113884 6743 6689 14620 14448 135616 135021

Austria 838 836 34 34 79 78 951 948Australia 590 587 63 63 157 154 810 804Belgium 597 597 12 12 48 47 657 656Canada 912 903 51 47 108 106 1071 1056

Switzerland 3011 3005 216 213 642 637 3869 3855Germany 12293 12265 812 808 1415 1393 14520 14466Denmark 752 749 37 37 124 124 913 910

Spain 300 299 14 14 118 117 432 430Finland 1033 1032 65 65 90 88 1188 1185France 4059 4054 214 212 588 581 4861 4847

UK 1839 1834 85 83 469 459 2393 2376Italy 1216 1215 59 59 518 512 1793 1786

Japan 36697 36614 2711 2700 3651 3628 43059 42942South Korea 9988 9946 323 322 1986 1966 12297 12234Netherlands 2611 2584 55 54 306 301 2972 2939

Russian Federation 112 112 42 42 38 35 192 189Sweden 1779 1779 48 48 228 227 2055 2054

Singapore 518 503 37 37 75 72 630 612USA 30790 30678 1558 1538 2974 2929 35322 35145

Others 4318 4292 307 301 1006 994 5631 5587


2013 Distribution of Annual Foreign Grants for PatentsCountries and

RegionsAccumulated

Number 1985-2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total 766038 358476 80206 74205 76652 91912 84587Andorra AD 5 2 1 1 0 0 1

United Arab Emirates AE 145 106 9 4 4 10 12

Afghan AF 10 0 0 7 2 0 1Antigua and

Barbuda AG 6 0 2 3 0 0 1

Anguilla AI 2 0 0 0 0 1 1Armenia AM 2 1 0 1 0 0 0

The Netherlands Antilles AN 204 143 19 11 11 10 10

Argentina AR 45 14 9 6 4 5 7Austria AT 3280 1577 294 274 342 381 412

Australia AU 5941 3025 577 604 481 670 584Azerbaijan AZ 1 0 0 0 1 0 0Barbados BB 268 34 20 44 39 67 64

Bengal BD 2 2 0 0 0 0 0Belgium BE 3400 1424 258 292 395 537 494Bulgaria BG 44 28 4 4 2 4 2Bahrain BH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Benin BJ 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Bermuda BM 451 91 17 57 83 112 91


Accumulated Number 1985-2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Brunei Darussalam BN 68 16 12 19 10 8 3

Brazil BR 768 304 80 94 77 114 99Bahamas BS 137 77 11 19 10 9 11

The Republic of Belarus BY 14 13 1 0 0 0 0

Belize BZ 42 2 14 6 4 2 14Canada CA 5930 2444 599 677 677 812 721

The Central African Republic CF 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Switzerland CH 21094 10560 1729 1932 2041 2539 2293Cook Islands CK 19 6 1 5 6 0 1

Chile CL 36 12 6 3 4 2 9Cameroon CM 1 0 0 0 0 1 0Columbia CO 31 12 8 0 3 1 7

Costa Rica CR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Czechoslovakia CS 32 32 0 0 0 0 0

Cuba CU 83 44 7 4 5 11 12Cyprus CY 137 38 16 12 32 27 12

Czech Republic CZ 675 283 81 62 59 110 80Germany DE 67718 30186 6658 6451 7098 8702 8623Denmark DK 4778 2218 423 466 468 574 629

Dominican Republic DO 4 2 0 1 0 1 0




Algeria DZ 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Ecuador EC 6 1 0 0 1 3 1Estonia EE 17 4 2 4 2 3 2Egypt EG 30 7 1 1 6 14 1Spain ES 2723 1320 232 297 307 288 279

Finland FI 7782 3770 852 752 679 939 790Fiji FJ 9 9 0 0 0 0 0

the Falkland Islands FK 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

France FR 29011 13969 3004 2690 2528 3345 3475Gabon GA 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Great Britain GB 14731 7939 1266 1164 1271 1571 1520Georgia GE 4 1 0 3 0 0 0Gibraltar GI 14 9 1 0 1 0 3Greece GR 113 45 13 18 16 15 6

Honduras HN 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Croatia HR 65 50 3 3 3 4 2

Haiti HT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Hungary HU 370 261 14 15 23 24 33

Indonesia ID 161 92 5 23 17 12 12Ireland IE 767 279 56 78 100 134 120Israel IL 2090 809 188 168 228 345 352India IN 990 494 102 77 86 113 118Iraq IQ 3 0 0 1 0 1 1



Iran IR 8 1 1 2 3 1 0Iceland IS 93 27 6 10 15 16 19

Italy IT 13226 6285 1291 1303 1342 1542 1463Jersey JE 5 4 0 0 0 1 0Jordan JO 11 4 3 1 0 3 0Japan JP 306873 147683 33804 29516 30637 35403 29830Kenya KE 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Kyrgyzstan KG 3 1 0 1 0 1 0St Kitts and

Nevis KN 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

North Koren KP 12 4 1 1 3 1 2Republic of

Korea KR 62239 27569 7950 7117 6631 6941 6031

Kuwait KW 8 6 1 1 0 0 0Cayman Islands KY 1152 217 81 161 223 223 247

Kazakhstan KZ 20 8 0 2 2 7 1Lebanon LB 13 6 0 0 2 2 3

Liechtenstein LI 1013 523 179 86 88 79 58Sri Lanka LK 29 28 0 0 1 0 0

Liberia LR 3 3 0 0 0 0 0Lesotho LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Lithuania LT 5 2 0 0 0 3 0

Luxembourg LU 852 328 69 74 62 175 144Latvia LV 28 8 1 1 7 5 6




Morocco MA 17 8 0 0 4 1 4Monaco MC 80 50 15 2 4 5 4

Madagascar MG 2 2 0 0 0 0 0Marshall Islands MH 2 0 0 0 1 1 0

Mali ML 4 1 0 0 1 2 0Mongolia MN 6 4 1 0 0 0 1

Malta MT 47 8 1 4 7 11 16Mauritius MU 110 47 11 19 8 20 5Maldives MV 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Mexico MX 236 51 45 14 31 49 46

Malaysia MY 768 307 102 124 76 96 63Namibia NA 1 0 0 1 0 0 0Nigeria NG 6 4 0 1 0 0 1

Netherlands NL 22458 10903 2523 2177 2228 2440 2187Norway NO 1572 784 163 129 146 177 173Nepal NP 3 0 0 0 0 2 1

New Zealand NZ 698 288 92 86 61 79 92Oman OM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Panama PA 255 154 17 20 19 26 19Peru PE 3 1 0 0 0 0 2

Philippines PH 50 27 9 8 5 1 0Pakistan PK 6 5 1 0 0 0 0Poland PL 233 88 22 16 36 43 28



Puerto Rico PR 4 0 2 0 0 1 1Portugal PT 112 41 14 6 17 19 15

Paraguay PY 1 0 1 0 0 0 0Qatar QA 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Romania RO 19 8 0 3 1 5 2Serbia RS 4 0 0 1 1 0 2

Russian Federation RU 911 442 84 89 86 113 97

Saudi Arabia SA 427 277 51 20 19 26 34Seychelles SC 35 3 6 8 2 7 9

Sweden SE 12752 5973 1189 1186 1250 1689 1465Singapore SG 2475 853 234 345 306 403 334Slovenia SI 133 53 12 18 18 18 14Slovakia SK 52 20 13 3 5 8 3

San Marino SM 10 4 4 0 0 0 2Senegal SN 1 0 1 0 0 0 0Salvador SV 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Syria SY 3 1 0 2 0 0 0Swaziland SZ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0Turks and

Caicos Islands TC 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Thailand TH 410 295 21 41 17 16 20Tunisia TN 3 2 0 1 0 0 0




Turkey TR 536 140 104 74 62 75 81Trinidad and

Tobago TT 4 1 0 0 0 3 0

Ukraine UA 52 28 4 6 2 4 8Uganda UG 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

The United States US 158707 71848 15273 14938 15822 20160 20666

Uruguay UY 10 7 0 1 0 2 0Uzbekistan UZ 4 3 0 0 0 1 0

St Vincent and the Grenadines VC 4 1 0 0 0 2 1

Venezuela VE 38 31 1 1 2 2 1Virgin Islands VG 2124 880 130 179 207 366 362

Vietnam VN 37 6 0 0 4 12 15Vanuatu VU 5 4 0 0 1 0 0Samoa WS 120 48 18 4 10 18 22Yemen YE 4 0 0 3 1 0 0

Yugoslavia YU 23 22 0 0 1 0 0South Africa ZA 583 274 59 43 48 84 75Zimbabwe ZW 4 3 1 0 0 0 0

2013 Distribution of Annual Applications for Three Kinds of Patents Received from Home and Abroad

Invention Utility Model Design Total

Total

1985-2008 1617744 1691169 1524596 48335092009 314573 310771 351342 9766862010 391177 409836 421273 12222862011 526412 585467 521468 16333472012 652777 740290 657582 20506492013 825136 892362 659563 2377061

Domestic Filings

1985-2008 905968 1678876 1423484 40083282009 229096 308861 339654 8776112010 293066 407238 409124 11094282011 415829 581303 507538 15046702012 535313 734437 642401 19121512013 704936 885226 644398 2234560

Foreign Filings

1985-2008 711776 12293 101112 8251812009 85477 1910 11688 990752010 98111 2598 12149 1128582011 110583 4164 13930 1286772012 117464 5853 15181 1384982013 120200 7136 15165 142501


2013 Foreign Grants for Three Kinds of Patents

Countries and RegionsAccumulated Number 2013

Invention Utility Model Design Invention Utility

Model Design

Total 582796 27727 155515 64153 6637 13797Andorra AD 4 0 1 1 0 0

United Arab Emirates AE 13 3 129 3 1 8Afghan AF 0 0 10 0 0 1

Antigua and Barbuda AG 3 0 3 1 0 0Anguilla AI 0 2 0 0 1 0Armenia AM 1 0 1 0 0 0

The Netherlands Antilles AN 195 0 9 10 0 0

Argentina AR 25 9 11 7 0 0Austria AT 2544 129 607 302 44 66

Australia AU 3604 287 2050 366 46 172Azerbaijan AZ 1 0 0 0 0 0Barbados BB 236 3 29 55 1 8

Bengal BD 0 0 2 0 0 0Belgium BE 2838 51 511 410 10 74Bulgaria BG 22 3 19 1 1 0Bahrain BH 1 0 0 0 0 0



Model Design

Benin BJ 0 0 1 0 0 0Bermuda BM 295 83 73 53 18 20

Brunei Darussalam BN 17 26 25 1 2 0Brazil BR 420 52 296 54 11 34

Bahamas BS 75 19 43 11 0 0The Republic of

Belarus BY 8 0 6 0 0 0

Belize BZ 3 29 10 0 6 8Canada CA 4529 302 1099 570 51 100

The Central African Republic CF 0 0 2 0 0 0

Switzerland CH 15325 564 5205 1745 128 420Cook Islands CK 4 0 15 1 0 0

Chile CL 28 5 3 9 0 0Cameroon CM 1 0 0 0 0 0Columbia CO 16 3 12 5 2 0

Costa Rica CR 1 0 0 0 0 0Czechoslovakia CS 23 6 3 0 0 0

Cuba CU 81 0 2 12 0 0Cyprus CY 88 6 43 7 1 4




Model Design

Czech Republic CZ 123 57 495 17 15 48Germany DE 52800 2049 12869 6589 580 1454Denmark DK 3228 131 1419 431 20 178

Dominican Republic DO 4 0 0 0 0 0Algeria DZ 0 1 0 0 0 0

Ecuador EC 2 1 3 1 0 0Estonia EE 7 2 8 0 0 2Egypt EG 3 6 21 1 0 0Spain ES 1185 148 1390 170 14 95

Finland FI 6154 216 1412 606 90 94Fiji FJ 0 8 1 0 0 0

the Falkland Islands FK 0 0 1 0 0 0France FR 21839 718 6454 2602 242 631Gabon GA 2 0 0 0 0 0

Great Britain GB 10243 541 3947 1047 122 351Georgia GE 1 0 3 0 0 0Gibraltar GI 13 0 1 3 0 0Greece GR 84 1 28 5 0 1

Honduras HN 0 0 1 0 0 0



Model Design

Croatia HR 55 5 5 0 2 0Haiti HT 0 0 1 0 0 0

Hungary HU 331 14 25 29 1 3Indonesia ID 24 18 119 4 2 6

Ireland IE 574 34 159 110 4 6Israel IL 1510 144 436 243 47 62India IN 666 23 301 99 3 16Iraq IQ 0 1 2 0 1 0Iran IR 2 3 3 0 0 0

Iceland IS 93 0 0 19 0 0Italy IT 7586 381 5259 830 57 576

Jersey JE 5 0 0 0 0 0Jordan JO 2 5 4 0 0 0Japan JP 238550 9911 58412 22609 3056 4165Kenya KE 0 0 1 0 0 0

Kyrgyzstan KG 3 0 0 0 0 0St Kitts and Nevis KN 1 0 0 1 0 0

North Koren KP 9 3 0 1 1 0Republic of Korea KR 46412 2230 13597 4271 267 1493

Kuwait KW 6 0 2 0 0 0




Model Design

Cayman Islands KY 550 187 415 149 45 53Kazakhstan KZ 12 8 0 1 0 0

Lebanon LB 2 7 4 0 2 1Liechtenstein LI 513 5 495 35 0 23

Sri Lanka LK 4 2 23 0 0 0Liberia LR 2 0 1 0 0 0

Lesotho LS 0 1 0 0 0 0Lithuania LT 1 0 4 0 0 0

Luxembourg LU 563 73 216 97 1 46Latvia LV 18 3 7 5 0 1

Morocco MA 7 2 8 2 0 2Monaco MC 54 7 19 3 0 1

Madagascar MG 2 0 0 0 0 0Marshall Islands MH 1 1 0 0 0 0

Mali ML 1 3 0 0 0 0Mongolia MN 3 2 1 1 0 0

Malta MT 44 0 3 16 0 0Mauritius MU 48 28 34 4 1 0Maldives MV 1 0 0 0 0 0Mexico MX 133 9 94 39 1 6



Model Design

Malaysia MY 202 111 455 30 8 25Namibia NA 1 0 0 0 0 0Nigeria NG 0 0 6 0 0 1

Netherlands NL 18623 243 3592 1862 61 264Norway NO 1309 10 253 153 1 19Nepal NP 0 2 1 0 1 0

New Zealand NZ 447 31 220 46 7 39Oman OM 1 0 0 0 0 0

Panama PA 220 5 30 11 0 8Peru PE 1 2 0 0 2 0

Philippines PH 10 17 23 0 0 0Pakistan PK 0 0 6 0 0 0Poland PL 106 13 114 17 4 7

Puerto Rico PR 0 1 3 0 1 0Portugal PT 64 2 46 8 0 7Paraguay PY 0 0 1 0 0 0

Qatar QA 0 0 1 0 0 1Romania RO 12 1 6 2 0 0Serbia RS 3 1 0 2 0 0

Russian Federation RU 611 153 147 41 26 30




Model Design

Saudi Arabia SA 126 8 293 32 1 1Seychelles SC 18 7 10 5 3 1

Sweden SE 10402 276 2074 1158 66 241Singapore SG 1242 269 964 168 58 108Slovenia SI 98 1 34 11 0 3Slovakia SK 20 3 29 2 0 1

San Marino SM 5 3 2 2 0 0Senegal SN 0 0 1 0 0 0Salvador SV 1 0 0 0 0 0

Syria SY 1 0 2 0 0 0Swaziland SZ 1 0 0 0 0 0

Turks and Caicos Islands TC 0 0 1 0 0 1

Thailand TH 60 69 281 4 3 13Tunisia TN 1 0 2 0 0 0Turkey TR 170 51 315 29 10 42

Trinidad and Tobago TT 3 0 1 0 0 0Ukraine UA 39 11 2 2 5 1Uganda UG 0 0 2 0 0 0

The United States US 123852 7341 27514 16674 1406 2586



Model Design

Uruguay UY 8 1 1 0 0 0Uzbekistan UZ 3 1 0 0 0 0

St Vincent and the Grenadines VC 4 0 0 1 0 0

Venezuela VE 32 0 6 1 0 0Virgin Islands VG 696 431 997 173 65 124

Vietnam VN 3 3 31 1 0 14Vanuatu VU 5 0 0 0 0 0Samoa WS 17 69 34 7 10 5Yemen YE 0 0 4 0 0 0

Yugoslavia YU 16 0 7 0 0 0South Africa ZA 483 20 80 47 2 26Zimbabwe ZW 3 0 1 0 0 0


2013 Foreign Patents in Force by Three Kinds

Countries and Regions2013

Invention Utility Model Design TotalTotal 559210 447415 19667 92128

Andorra AD 6 6 0 0United Arab

Emirates AE 53 24 4 25

Afghan AF 9 0 0 9Antigua and

Barbuda AG 7 4 0 3

Anguilla AI 3 1 2 0Armenia AM 2 1 0 1

The Netherlands Antilles AN 96 93 0 3

Argentina AR 25 21 2 2Austria AT 2456 1955 113 388

Australia AU 3652 2209 165 1278Azerbaijan AZ 1 1 0 0Bosnia and

Herzegovina BA 1 1 0 0

Barbados BB 286 259 3 24Belgium BE 2597 2254 40 303


Invention Utility Model Design TotalBulgaria BG 15 12 1 2Bahrain BH 3 3 0 0Benin BJ 1 0 0 1

Bermuda BM 424 295 63 66Brunei Darussalam BN 61 21 21 19

Brazil BR 546 311 38 197Bahamas BS 96 69 5 22

Belize BZ 30 5 15 10Canada CA 4667 3668 188 811

Switzerland CH 15022 11426 534 3062Cook Islands CK 25 5 0 20

Chile CL 27 23 3 1Cameroon CM 1 1 0 0Columbia CO 19 12 2 5

Cuba CU 66 66 0 0Cyprus CY 71 48 2 21

Czech Republic CZ 467 98 38 331Germany DE 51117 39804 1771 9542Denmark DK 3372 2437 74 861



Invention Utility Model Design TotalDominican Republic DO 3 3 0 0

Ecuador EC 6 3 0 3Estonia EE 10 6 0 4Egypt EG 25 3 2 20Spain ES 1593 794 82 717

Finland FI 5459 4450 194 815Fiji FJ 20492 16026 647 3819

Great Britain GB 8769 6412 333 2024Georgia GE 3 0 0 3Gibraltar GI 15 14 0 1Greece GR 79 54 1 24Croatia HR 11 8 2 1

Hungary HU 175 142 13 20Indonesia ID 68 14 7 47

Ireland IE 568 495 15 58Israel IL 1518 1112 133 273India IN 632 518 14 100Iraq IQ 4 0 2 2Iran IR 5 1 3 1


Invention Utility Model Design TotalIceland IS 78 78 0 0

Italy IT 8789 5338 248 3203Jersey JE 3 3 0 0Jordan JO 2 0 1 1Japan JP 230917 190007 6943 33967

Kyrgyzstan KG 2 2 0 0St Kitts and Nevis KN 2 2 0 0

North Koren KP 5 4 1 0Republic of Korea KR 44865 36372 991 7502

Kuwait KW 3 2 0 1Cayman Islands KY 1597 955 260 382

Kazakhstan KZ 14 10 4 0Lebanon LB 11 0 7 4

Saint Lucia LC 2 2 0 0Liechtenstein LI 544 349 1 194

Sri Lanka LK 2 1 1 0Lithuania LT 3 1 0 2

Luxembourg LU 1050 835 54 161Latvia LV 24 15 2 7



Invention Utility Model Design TotalMorocco MA 10 7 0 3Monaco MC 49 34 0 15

Madagascar MG 2 2 0 0Marshall Islands MH 1 1 0 0

Mali ML 2 0 2 0Mongolia MN 1 1 0 0

Malta MT 46 46 0 0Mauritius MU 67 45 11 11Mexico MX 235 163 6 66

Malaysia MY 532 184 64 284Nigeria NG 3 0 0 3

Netherlands NL 14344 12230 199 1915Norway NO 1033 863 8 162Nepal NP 3 0 2 1

New Zealand NZ 458 310 15 133Oman OM 0 0 0 0

Panama PA 189 163 3 23Peru PE 2 0 2 0

Philippines PH 56 44 1 11


Invention Utility Model Design TotalPakistan PK 1 0 0 1Poland PL 154 62 7 85

Puerto Rico PR 4 0 1 3Portugal PT 90 65 1 24

Qatar QA 1 0 0 1Romania RO 11 5 1 5Serbia RS 3 3 0 0

Russian Federation RU 502 310 91 101Saudi Arabia SA 298 110 4 184Seychelles SC 42 29 5 8

Sweden SE 9631 8043 228 1360Singapore SG 1984 1294 191 499Slovenia SI 86 68 1 17Slovakia SK 41 14 2 25

San Marino SM 6 3 0 3Senegal SN 1 0 0 1Salvador SV 1 1 0 0

Syria SY 2 0 0 2Turks and Caicos

Islands TC 1 0 0 1



Invention Utility Model Design TotalThailand TH 148 39 21 88Tunisia TN 1 1 0 0Turkey TR 410 152 37 221

Trinidad and Tobago TT 3 3 0 0Ukraine UA 24 14 8 2

The United States US 113762 92684 5314 15764Uruguay UY 4 4 0 0

Uzbekistan UZ 2 1 1 0St Vincent and the

Grenadines VC 4 4 0 0

Venezuela VE 18 17 0 1Virgin Islands VG 1653 705 317 631

Vietnam VN 32 3 3 26Samoa WS 255 167 60 28Yemen YE 4 0 0 4

Yugoslavia YU 2 2 0 0South Africa ZA 423 354 16 53Zimbabwe ZW 1 1 0 0

Patent Enforcement of the Infringement Dispute inDifferent Regions/Provinces

Regions Types Total Invention Utility Model Design Mode of Closed

H* I* J* K* L* M*

Total Entertained 4684 504 1589 2591 - - - - - -Closed 3536 351 1093 2092 241 1774 461 10 532 518

Beijing Entertained 75 14 30 31 - - - - - -Closed 43 8 22 13 9 4 19 0 0 11

Tianjin Entertained 6 2 3 1 - - - - - -Closed 6 2 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 3

Hebei Entertained 155 20 69 66 - - - - - -Closed 84 13 33 38 20 26 14 0 2 22

Shanxi Entertained 23 2 21 0 - - - - - -Closed 19 2 17 0 0 12 0 2 0 5

Inner Mongolia

Entertained 4 0 2 2 - - - - - -Closed 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0

Liaoning Entertained 15 3 9 3 - - - - - -Closed 13 3 8 2 0 7 2 0 1 3

Jilin Entertained 51 0 51 0 - - - - - -Closed 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Heilongjiang Entertained 27 0 10 17 - - - - - -Closed 19 0 6 13 1 11 2 0 2 3

Shanghai Entertained 99 24 22 53 - - - - - -Closed 96 23 22 51 12 20 51 0 1 12

Jiangsu Entertained 385 65 125 195 - - - - - -Closed 268 36 78 154 9 91 46 3 3 116



H* I* J* K* L* M*

Zhejiang Entertained 376 17 95 264 - - - - - -Closed 315 14 73 228 46 221 0 4 10 34

Anhui Entertained 101 17 41 43 - - - - - -Closed 70 10 26 34 2 47 3 0 5 13

Fujian Entertained 93 13 52 28 - - - - - -Closed 74 9 37 28 6 17 22 0 9 20

Jiangxi Entertained 54 6 0 48 - - - - - -Closed 51 6 0 45 0 44 6 0 0 1

Shandong Entertained 296 10 187 99 - - - - - -Closed 275 20 167 88 35 139 56 0 2 43

Henan Entertained 227 27 98 102 - - - - - -Closed 165 16 68 81 13 70 30 0 8 44

Hubei Entertained 220 64 101 55 - - - - - -Closed 164 23 78 63 9 66 50 0 11 28

Hunan Entertained 124 51 52 21 - - - - - -Closed 82 37 28 17 17 23 5 0 15 22

Guangdong Entertained 1851 118 395 1338 - - - - - -Closed 1399 99 283 1017 28 780 69 1 455 66

Guangxi Entertained 6 1 4 1 - - - - - -Closed 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

Hainan Entertained 2 0 2 0 - - - - - -Closed 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Chongqing Entertained 94 5 39 50 - - - - - -Closed 45 1 20 24 0 39 0 0 0 6

H: Transacting I: Intercession J: Withdrawing K: Adjudication L: Rejection M: Others


H* I* J* K* L* M*

Sichuan Entertained 104 14 40 50 - - - - - -Closed 76 11 30 35 0 45 11 0 1 19

Guizhou Entertained 8 1 5 2 - - - - - -Closed 7 1 4 2 0 5 0 0 0 2

Yunnan Entertained 27 1 12 14 - - - - - -Closed 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Tibet Entertained 0 0 0 0 - - - - - -Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shaanxi Entertained 73 7 48 18 - - - - - -Closed 85 2 27 56 0 12 41 0 0 32

Gansu Entertained 28 7 15 6 - - - - - -Closed 25 1 14 10 3 11 5 0 3 3

Qinghai Entertained 0 0 0 0 - - - - - -Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ningxia Entertained 0 0 0 0 - - - - - -Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Xinjiang Entertained 160 15 61 84 - - - - - -Closed 142 14 40 88 29 77 22 0 4 10


2013 Patent Enforcement of Punishment of Conterfeit Patents in Different Regions/Provinces

Regions Accumulated Number

Case Type① ② ③ ④ ⑤

Total 11171 2328 6341 759 83Beijing 97 43 33 1 20Tianjin 135 33 27 0 0Hebei 87 31 46 1 0Shanxi 8 1 4 3 0

Inner Mongolia 211 30 177 1 0Liaoning 390 138 51 48 1

Jilin 9 4 5 0 0Heilongjiang 142 18 84 4 2

Shanghai 22 12 1 0 0Jiangsu 1979 223 1499 99 2Zhejiang 191 71 65 38 3

Anhui 169 79 73 6 1Fujian 431 164 197 21 11Jiangxi 166 45 110 5 2

Shandong 1458 451 691 146 22Henan 698 66 363 25 6Hubei 492 177 198 66 0Hunan 2399 272 1534 43 7

Guangdong 435 101 308 18 0Guangxi 49 10 26 4 1Hainan 53 0 50 0 0

Note:① affixing patent indication on a product

or on the package of a product which has not been granted a patent, continuing to affix patent indication on a product or on the package of a product, after the related patent right has been declared invalid or is terminated, or affixing the patent number of another person on a product or on the package of a product without authorization.

② sale of the product as prescribed in subparagraph ① .

③ indicating a technology or design to which no patent right has been granted as patented technology or patented design,

indicating a patent application as patent or using the patent number of another person without authorization, in such materials as specification of product ect., which could mislead the public to regard the related technology or design as patented technology or patented design.

④ counterfeiting or transforming any patent certificate, patent document or patent application document.

⑤ any other act which might cause confusion on the part of the public, misleading them to regard a technology or design to which no patent right has been granted as patented technology or patented design.

Regions Accumulated Number

Case Type① ② ③ ④ ⑤

Chongqing 45 7 36 1 1Sichuan 424 145 172 34 3Guizhou 355 10 273 2 0Yunnan 73 3 45 25 0

Tibet 0 0 0 0 0Shaanxi 318 63 134 103 1Gansu 119 29 30 60 0Qinghai 0 0 0 0 0Ningxia 13 6 6 1 0Xinjiang 203 96 103 4 0


2013 Patent Enforcement of Other Issues inDifferent Regions/Provinces

Regions Types TotalTypes of Disputes Types of Patents

N* O* P* Q* R* Invention Utility Model Design

Total Entertained 372 346 6 4 2 14 127 232 13Closed 348 321 7 6 2 12 105 232 11

Beijing Entertained 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tianjin Entertained 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0Closed 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Hebei Entertained 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0Closed 6 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0

Shanxi Entertained 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Closed 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

Inner Mongolia

Entertained 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Liaoning Entertained 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0Closed 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0

Jilin Entertained 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heilongjiang Entertained 59 59 0 0 0 0 59 0 0Closed 58 58 0 0 0 0 58 0 0

Shanghai Entertained 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jiangsu Entertained 29 29 0 0 0 0 29 0 0Closed 16 16 0 0 0 0 16 0 0

N: Dispute over the ownership of the right to apply for patent and the patent right O: dispute over the qualification of the inventor or creator P: dispute over the award and remuneration of the inventor or creator of a service invention-creation Q: dispute over the appropriate fee to be paid for the exploitation of an invention after the publication of

the application for patent but before the grant of patent right R: Others

Regions Types TotalTypes of Disputes Types of Patents

N* O* P* Q* R* Invention Utility Model Design

Zhejiang Entertained 219 218 0 1 0 0 0 218 1Closed 219 218 0 1 0 0 0 218 1

Anhui Entertained 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0Closed 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0

Fujian Entertained 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2Closed 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Jiangxi Entertained 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shandong Entertained 17 9 1 3 2 2 7 8 2Closed 17 5 1 5 2 4 7 8 2

Henan Entertained 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0Closed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hubei Entertained 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0Closed 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Hunan Entertained 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8Closed 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Guangdong Entertained 6 3 0 0 0 3 3 3 0Closed 4 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0

TRADEMARK


Trademark Statistics Statistics of TrademarkApplications and Registrations in 2013

Domestic International Madrid Total

Applications Filed for Registration 1733361 95177 53008 1881546

Applications Filed for Renewal 99786 13528 6010 119324

Applications for Opposition 20901 13382 384 34667Modification Applications 147645 26765 2829 177239Assignment Applications 97657 13658 2049 113364Annulment Applications 6508

2278 21414Cancellation Applications 12628

Applications for Recordal of License Contracts 29438 29438

Registrations Approved 909541 59496 27687 996724

Trademark Applications Preliminarily Approved 908878 27872 936750

Domestic International Madrid Total

Trademark Applications Refused 251498 10687 262185

Trademark Applications Partly Refused 221560 4184 225744

Trademark Registration Modified 172914 9077 181991

Trademark Registration Assigned 111038 3569 114607

Trademark Registration Renewed 116621 6064 122685

Trademark Registration Annulled 110186

7502 123415Trademark Registration

Cancelled 5727

Recordal of License Contracts Handled 34998 34998

Re-issuance of Registration Certificates 10680 10680


Statistics of Domestic Trademark Applications Filed and Registrations Approved in 2013

(Breakdown by Province/Autonomous Region/Municipality) Note: Applications and registrations refer to statistics from Dec 16, 2012 to

Dec 15, 2013, others refer to accumulative data by Dec 15, 2013.

P/M/R Applications Registrations Valid Registrations Beijing 133510 68688 467259Tianjin 22127 13194 77143Hebei 43826 21084 166136Shanxi 16753 6731 52742

Inner Mongolia 13146 6899 56746Liaoning 30440 16881 134082

Jilin 14977 7330 62575Heilongjiang 19079 9719 84157

Shanghai 106374 57354 364528Jiangsu 110097 60069 459132Zhejiang 178978 105825 864161

Anhui 42981 19523 123834Fujian 96134 52367 369736Jiangxi 26862 13064 88125

P/M/R Applications Registrations Valid Registrations Shandong 92765 47202 343623

Henan 57591 29410 184866Hubei 37031 18190 132396Hunan 41362 21453 139205

Guangdong 318789 162264 1126595Guangxi 16652 8430 57656Hainan 7470 4022 28554Sichuan 63649 31125 219938Guizhou 19814 9655 41448Yunnan 28051 15637 87927

Tibet 1316 531 3667Shaanxi 40169 21209 104745Gansu 6293 2991 23887Qinghai 2963 1717 10429Ningxia 3689 2401 13411Xinjiang 16368 8767 57024

Chongqing 45751 25034 114889Hongkong 67889 29907 175097

Macao 621 321 2778Taiwan 9844 10547 104095Total 1733361 909541 6342586


Statistics of Foreign Trademark Applications Filed in 2013

Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalAlgeria 39 5 44

Afghanistan 17 0 17Argentina 185 0 185

United Arab Emirates 389 0 389Oman 3 0 3

Azerbaijan 52 48 100Egypt 57 10 67

Ethiopia 11 0 11Ireland 343 46 389Estonia 11 29 40Andorra 4 0 4Angola 16 0 16Anguilla 304 0 304

Antigua and Barbuda 1 0 1Austria 372 635 1007

Australia 2303 1238 3541Barbados 29 0 29

Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalPapua New Guinea 6 0 6

Bahamas 159 0 159Pakistan 62 0 62Paraguay 2 0 2Palestine 3 0 3Bahrain 9 0 9Panama 110 0 110

Brazil 492 0 492Belarus 0 61 61

Bermuda 126 0 126Bulgaria 26 178 204Belize 17 0 17

Republic of Benin 2 0 2Benelux 0 2394 2394Belgium 318 0 318Iceland 17 70 87

Puerto Rico 6 0 6Poland 148 267 415

Bosnia -Herzegovina 0 10 10Bolivia 9 0 9Belize 30 0 30


Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalBurkina Faso 1 0 1DPR of Korea 2 1 3

Denmark 895 583 1478Germany 4275 6490 10765

Togo 3 0 3Dominican Republic 8 0 8

Russia 503 1474 1977Ecuador 16 0 16France 4402 5227 9629

Philippines 112 37 149Fiji 2 0 2

Finland 348 229 577Congo 8 0 8

Columbia 123 3 126Costa Rica 5 0 5

Georgia 7 15 22Cuba 4 1 5

Guyana 2 0 2Kazakstan 14 37 51

Republic of Korea 7700 631 8331 Netherlands 1213 0 1213

Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalNetherlands Antilles 102 0 102

Montenegro 0 1 1Kyrgyzstan 3 7 10

Canada 1806 0 1806Ghana 4 0 4

Cambodia 5 0 5Czech Republic 83 214 297

Zimbabwe 5 0 5Cameroon 4 0 4

Qatar 69 0 69Cayman Islands 2341 0 2341

Kuwait 36 0 36Croatia 1 52 53Kenya 14 11 25

Cook Islands 16 0 16Kuraso 3 6 9Latvia 3 28 31

Lebanon 62 0 62Lithuania 4 32 36

Libya 12 0 12Liechtenstein 154 86 240


Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalLuxembourg 307 0 307

Romania 18 81 99Madagascar 2 3 5Isle of Man 175 0 175

Malta 97 0 97Malaysia 944 0 944

Mali 1 0 1Macedonia 0 8 8

Marshall 60 0 60Mauritius 59 0 59

Mauritania 3 0 3USA 25773 5102 30875

Virgin Islands of the US 10 0 10Mongolia 0 5 5

Bangladesh 11 0 11Peru 21 0 21

Myanmar 37 0 37Republic of Moldova 0 25 25

Morocco 20 27 47Monaco 39 175 214 Mexico 325 11 336

Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalNamibia 5 0 5

South Africa 318 0 318Nicaragua 4 0 4

Nepal 2 0 2Nigeria 28 0 28 Norway 103 373 476

EU 0 10252 10252Portugal 173 187 360Japan 13200 3404 16604

Sweden 777 227 1004Switzerland 1696 3789 5485

Serbia 0 24 24Sierra Leone 2 0 2

Senegal 4 0 4Cyprus 85 74 159

Seychelles 344 0 344Saudi Arabia 97 0 97

Saint Kitts and Nevis 5 0 5San Marino 8 30 38Sri Lanka 31 0 31Slovakia 63 158 221


Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalSlovenia 11 63 74Thailand 1173 0 1173Tanzania 18 0 18

The Turks and Caicos Islands 1 0 1

Tunisia 7 0 7Turkey 239 886 1125

Vanuatu 3 0 3 Guatemala 31 0 31Venezuela 36 0 36

Brunei 81 0 81Uganda 2 0 2Ukraine 65 308 373Uruguay 17 0 17

Republic of Uzbekistan 9 1 10Spain 1261 670 1931

Western Samoa 144 0 144Greece 153 76 229

Singapore 1965 312 2277New Zealand 964 186 1150

Hungary 28 61 89Syria 59 0 59

Country/Region Foreign Madrid TotalJamaica 2 0 2Armenia 6 17 23

The Republic of Yemen 23 0 23Iraq 53 0 53Iran 98 39 137

Israel 270 129 399Italy 2690 3965 6655India 702 0 702

Indonesia 113 0 113United Kingdom 6503 2124 8627Channel Islands 38 0 38British Guernsey 6 0 6

The British Virgin Islands 3069 0 3069British West Indies 60 0 60

Jordan 35 0 35Vietnam 87 60 147Zambia 1 0 1

Bailiwick of Jersey 23 0 23Gibraltar 1 0 1

Chile 235 0 235Total 95177 53008 148185


Statistics of Trademark Applications and Registrations Sorted out According to Classes of

Goods & Services in 2013

Class Applications Registrations

Domestic International Madrid Total Domestic International Madrid Total 1 26358 1772 1131 29261 16679 1343 730 187522 12966 593 364 13923 7600 436 205 82413 52881 4754 2062 59697 25745 3052 1051 298484 10317 727 371 11415 6141 496 244 68815 55222 4457 2031 61710 27340 2740 1187 312676 32447 1571 1029 35047 18906 1037 555 204987 47793 3172 1963 52928 28952 1978 1057 319878 11225 1027 615 12867 7161 661 322 81449 100869 8891 5216 114976 54092 5205 2501 61798

10 18571 1988 1295 21854 9477 1202 723 1140211 66283 2923 1527 70733 36713 1557 772 3904212 30826 2418 1146 34390 15644 1259 563 1746613 2607 159 74 2840 1973 112 49 213414 31604 1824 1272 34700 14923 1307 714 16944



Domestic International Madrid Total Domestic International Madrid Total 15 4482 290 139 4911 2741 263 83 308716 30441 2826 1678 34945 19444 1983 875 2230217 14178 957 691 15826 9127 674 445 1024618 40243 3352 1968 45563 23734 2250 994 2697819 31792 762 636 33190 18542 599 385 1952620 43609 1592 1054 46255 23513 1148 593 2525421 32563 2125 999 35687 18763 1406 534 2070322 5815 424 216 6455 3790 301 139 4230

23 4446 232 119 4797 3295 191 78 3564

24 26657 1309 873 28839 16739 1046 474 18259

25 206541 6649 3256 216446 101646 4351 1362 107359

26 8298 579 258 9135 5822 424 156 6402

27 9209 430 275 9914 5199 381 213 5793

28 23684 2152 1095 26931 14045 1644 628 16317

29 72703 2541 963 76207 38061 1518 475 40054

30 98498 3444 1275 103217 50090 2025 600 52715

31 50454 785 435 51674 26766 555 247 27568



Domestic International Madrid Total Domestic International Madrid Total

32 35280 1897 928 38105 15332 1083 441 16856

33 54464 3647 1412 59523 25781 2001 796 28578

34 4878 393 251 5522 2835 233 150 3218

35 144901 7350 3532 155783 62693 3263 1021 66977

36 26439 1314 749 28502 12957 885 473 14315

37 24614 1303 1168 27085 14490 807 731 16028

38 14574 954 954 16482 7417 699 593 8709

39 20368 1028 630 22026 11418 605 417 12440

40 13732 675 613 15020 8618 495 378 9491

41 45762 3355 2097 51214 23011 2127 1069 26207

42 45005 2891 2925 50821 24377 1881 1676 27934

43 66620 2086 659 69365 29994 1236 311 31541

44 23488 996 577 25061 12488 650 377 13515

45 9654 563 487 10704 5467 387 300 6154

Total 1733361 95177 53008 1881546 909541 59496 27687 996724


Statistics of Trademark Applications and TrademarkRegistratrions In 1979-2013

Applications Registrations Approved Year Domestic International Madrid Total Domestic International Madrid Total 1979 　　　　 27459 5130 　 325891980 　　　 26177 15348 1297 　 166451981 　　　 23004 15707 2049 　 177561982 17000 1565 　 18565 12385 4672 　 170571983 19120 1687 　 20807 4293 2278 　 65711984 26487 3077 　 29564 13252 1518 　 147701985 43445 5798 　 49243 19584 2084 　 216681986 45031 5939 　 50970 26993 5126 　 321191987 40014 4055 　 44069 27687 4454 　 321411988 41683 5866 　 47549 25448 3604 　 290521989 43202 5209 　 48411 31810 4625 　 364351990 50853 4371 2048 57272 25966 4036 1269 312711991 59124 5885 2595 67604 34501 3523 2306 403301992 79837 8367 2591 90795 42710 4198 1180 480881993 107758 21014 3551 132323 42668 3999 2059 48726


Applications Registrations Approved 1994 117186 20238 5193 142617 47482 7803 3016 583011995 144610 21442 6094 172146 59895 12591 19380 918661996 122057 22615 7132 151804 101178 15843 11407 1284281997 118577 21676 8502 148755 188047 24958 10033 2230381998 129394 18252 10037 157683 80095 14137 13478 1077101999 140620 18883 11212 170715 96139 13896 12366 1224012000 181717 24623 16837 223177 129441 16327 12807 1585752001 229775 23234 17408 270417 167563 19017 16259 2028392002 321034 37221 13681 371936 169904 23364 19265 2125332003 405620 33912 12563 452095 206070 21188 15253 2425112004 527591 44938 15396 587925 225394 25069 16156 2666192005 593382 52166 18469 664017 218731 23792 16009 2585322006 669276 56840 40203 766319 228814 25254 21573 2756412007 604952 59714 43282 707948 215161 19159 29158 2634782008 590525 60704 46890 698119 342498 31870 29101 4034692009 741763 51966 36748 830477 737228 68471 31944 8376432010 973460 67838 30889 1072187 1211428 108510 29299 13492372011 1273827 95831 47127 1416785 926330 66074 30294 10226982012 1502540 97190 48586 1648316 919951 58656 26290 10048972013 1733361 95177 53008 1881546 909541 59496 27687 996724Total 11694821 997293 500042 13241337 7546701 708068 397589 8652358


Statistics of Trademark Cases Reviewed and Adjudicated in 2013

Cases by Category Number of Cases(Piece)

Applications Accepted

Review of Rejection of Trademark Applications 58491

Review of Trademark Oppositions 17846Disputes over Registered Trademarks 4121Review of cancellation of regisrered

Trademarks 2156

Total 82614

Adjudication

Review of Rejection of Trademark Applications 108301

Review of Trademark Oppositions 30232Disputes over Registered Trademarks 5042Review of cancellation of regisrered

Trademarks 607

Total 144182

Administrative Litigation

First Instanse 1760Second Instanse 881

Retrial 57Total 2698

Administrative Recinsideration

Applications accepted 265Closed Cases 241


Statistics of General Trademark Offenses across the Country

Total Number of Cases

Among: Number of foreign-related

cases Total Value

(10,000 yuan)

Total Fines (10,000 yuan)

Number of Cases Handled Trademark

reproduction seized and

removed (pieces) Faulty

articles destroyed (pieces)Total Complaint

Case Total Complaint Case Subtotal Complaint

CaseFine between 100,000 and 1 million yuan

Fine over 1 million

yuanTotal 6896 1114 99 29 16371 5101 3772 858 116 1 256705 70785

Administration on the use

of registered trademarks

Altering the registered trademark without

approval 259 71 1 　 371 * 60 18 * * * *

Altering the name, address or other

registered matters without approval

35 11 　　 109 * 14 6 * * * *

Assigning a registered trademark without

approval 57 4 　　 151 * 37 3 * * * *

Producing shoddy goods to deceive

consumers 510 171 7 　 443 392 220 67 11 　 * *




cases Total Value

(10,000 yuan)


Number of Cases Handled Trademark

reproduction seized and

removed (pieces) Faulty

articles destroyed (pieces)Total Complaint

Case Total Complaint Case Subtotal Complaint

CaseFine between 100,000 and 1 million yuan

Fine over 1 million

yuan

Administration on the use of unregistered trademarks

Passing unregistered trademarks off as

registered trademark 3956 626 53 15 12555 3309 2162 547 77 1 * *

Producing shoddy goods to deceive

consumers 405 24 　　 428 259 134 8 6 　 * *

Violating Article 6 of Trademark Law 109 6 　　 125 111 63 5 1 　 * *

Violating Article 10 of Trademark Law 22 2 　　 164 11 3 1 　　 * *

Violating Article 40(2) of Trademark Law 227 40 20 7 300 * 128 42 * * 2161 2Violating Article 13 of Trademark Law 232 48 　　 310 * 170 38 * * 30672 2805Violating the Regulation on Trademark

Printing 1030 105 18 7 1250 921 741 117 20 　 216584 66198

Illegal use of Geographical Indications 14 1 　　 3 6 7 1 　　 210 1610Illegal use of Geographical Indications

special signs 25 　　　 2 2 24 　　　 7059 65

Illegal use of Special Signs 15 5 　　 161 92 9 5 1 　 19 105


Statistics of Trademark Infrigement and Counterfeiting Cases Across the Country (1)



cases Total Value (10,000 yuan)


Subtotal Complain Case

Number of Cases Handled (pieces、10,000 yuan)

Internet-related cases

Total Complaint Case Total Complaint

Case

punishmentNumber of Cases

TotalValue

Fine of 100,000 -

1million yuan Fine over 1 million yuan

Total 49971 13656 11636 4434 65230 46406 38438 12179 1195 20 647 1716

Couterfeiting trademark

Subtotal 7786 2438 2211 827 12731 7731 5871 2076 92 6 119 342

Using an indentical trademark on the

same goods without the consent of the

proprietor

3492 1150 1141 431 6598 4179 2549 972 61 28 213

Selling, couterfeiting or making, without

authorization, lables of a registered trademark

ofothers

816 250 135 32 1542 765 630 233 7 1 4

Selling goods that bear couterfeited registered trademark knowingly

3478 1038 935 364 4590 2788 2692 871 24 6 90 126










Case


TotalValue

Fine of 100,000 -


Trademark infringement

Subtotal 42185 11218 9425 3607 52499 38675 32567 10103 1103 14 528 1373

Using a similar trademark on the same goods,or an identical

or similar trademark on similar goods without

authorization

6068 1460 1866 496 11291 8987 4603 1285 242 4 41 87

Selling goods that infringe the exclusive right to a registered

trademark 31819 8515 7150 2978 32203 25045 24173 7647 775 9 474 944

Using identical or similar marks to a

registered trademark of others,on the same

or similar goods, as the name or decoration of the goods,misleading

the public

1311 295 167 42 4201 1806 1025 255 48 1 3 5










Case


TotalValue

Fine of 100,000 -



Facilitating theinfringement behaviors by providing storage,transportation, postal

service and concealment intentionally

1668 598 141 69 2572 1617 1651 598 22 1

Changing other's registered trademark

without authorization,and selling goods bearing a replaced trademark

109 27 7 4 597 183 106 27 2 3 311

Causing other damages to the exclusive right to aregistered trademark

of others 300 97 27 6 738 355 183 76 8 1 2

Infringing the exclusive right of Geographical

Indications 81 19 35 32 70 19

Infringing the exclusive right of Olympic Signs 38 5 2 163 103 31 5 1

Infringing the right of well-kmown trademark 791 202 65 12 699 546 725 191 5 5 26


Statistics of Trademark Infrigement and Counterfeiting Cases Across the Country (2)

Number of Infringing Articles

destructed (pieces)

Number of Infringing

Trademark Lables

Seized and Removed (pieces)

Number of tools Specially Used to Manufacture the

Infringing Goods and Couterfeit Labels

of registered Trademarks

Destructed (pieces)

Cases Transferred to Judical Organs

Number of Cases Among: Number of Foreign-related Cases

Total Number of Complaint

Number of Persons

transferred Total Number

of Complaint

Number of Persons

transferred

Total 13724110 6274103 8566 * * * * * *

Couterfeiting trademark

Subtotal 4961460 1947457 346 362 146 347 177 69 176Using an indentical

trademark on the same goods without the

consent of the proprietor

4141095 951992 165 131 72 111 65 38 48

Selling, couterfeiting or making, without

authorization, lables of a registered trademark of

others

199553 817707 50 25 6 18 5 1 5

Selling goods that bear couterfeited registered trademark knowingly

620812 177758 131 206 68 218 107 30 123



destructed (pieces)


Trademark Lables





Destructed (pieces)




Number of Persons


of Complaint

Number of Persons

transferred


Subtotal 8762650 4326646 8220 * * * * * *

Using a similar trademark on the same goods,

or anidentical or similar trademark on similar goods without

authorization

4940904 1931001 5935 * * * * * *

Selling goods that infringe the exclusive right to

aregistered trademark 3478540 1466873 1871 * * * * * *

Using identical or similar marks to a registered

trademark of others,on the same or similar goods, as the name or decoration of the

goods,misleading the public

120141 248641 347 * * * * * *



destructed (pieces)


Trademark Lables





Destructed (pieces)




Number of Persons


of Complaint Number of Persons

transferred


Facilitating theinfringement behaviorsby providing storage,

transportation,postal service and

concealment intentionally

25984 218627 50 * * * * * *

Changing other's registered trademark

without authorization,and selling goods bearing a

replaced trademark

2323 222784 0 * * * * * *

Causing other damages to the exclusive right to a registered trademark of

others

41376 197447 14 * * * * * *

Infringing the exclusive right of Geographical

Indications 1825 30290 　 * * * * * *

Infringing the exclusive right of Olympic Signs 2465 97 1 　　　　　　

Infringing the right of well-kmown trademark 149092 10886 2 * * * * * *

Add: Yiyuan Office Building, Friendship Hotel, No. 1 Zhongguancun Street South, Haidian District, Beijing,

100873 P.R.C.Tel: 86-10-6892 1000Fax: 86-10-6894 8030

email: [email protected]: Wan Hui Da Law Firm & IP Agency

Twitter: Wan Hui Da

www.wanhuida.com

in china - wanhuida intellectual property

Documents