882660 searches, 634706 cases analysis provided for free
Service Introduction: Intellectual property is the core capital of an enterprise, and intellectual property is a concentrated expression of an enterprise's comprehensive strength. With the emphasis on intellectual property rights and a series of disputes over intellectual property rights, enterprises have gradually realized the importance of intellectual property rights protection. Instead of being passive or beaten, we should set up the concept of protecting intellectual property rights and transform from passive role to active role. From the ancient to the present, development relies on innovation. With innovation, we must learn how to protect innovation and how to maintain innovation. Only by strengthening creation, management and protection of intellectual property can we improve the market competitiveness of our enterprises and the core competitiveness of our country.
Type of case:
|Objection to a trademark||Retrial of trademark||Trademark revocation application||Application for declaration of invalidation of trademark||Various kinds of trademark defense||Administrative litigation of trademark authorization|
|Trademark registration||Famous trademark (including retrial)||Certification mark||Collective trademark||Well-known trademark||Record of franchising|
|Withdraw other applications||Early termination of the record for the record of permission||Certificate of priority||General name revocation||Intellectual property lawyer letter||Legal opinions on intellectual property|
|Infringement of intellectual property rights||Infringement of intellectual property rights||Agreement formulation and revision of intellectual property rights||Anti unfair competition investigation and complaint and litigation||Trademark investigation
(Trademark usage, trademark status, subject qualification status, etc.)
|Other civil proceedings relating to trademarks|
|Trademark strategic planning||Legal advisers of enterprises and institutions||International trademark preemptive rights||Filing and safeguarding the rights of the custom||International revoking / revoking defense||International ineffective defense|
|Patent infringement lawsuit case||Patent administrative law enforcement case||Patent administrative litigation case||Patent ownership litigation case||Lawsuit case of patent contract||Patent criminal case|
|Other patent litigation cases||Public mind||Patent evasion design||Patent administrative reconsideration||Lawyer’s letter||Reply to a lawyer's letter|
|Patent complaint of e-commerce platform||E-commerce platform patent complaint reply||Patent other legal services||Patent withdrawal (patent agency)||Filing and registration of patent rights||Recordation and revocation of patent right|
|Copyright change||Transfer of copyright||Copyright reassignment||National project declaration||Increasing intangible assets||Pledge loans|
|Pledge financing||Technology invested as capital stock||Legal status retrieval||Competitor analysis||Patent layout||Analysis of technical route|
On April 19, 2011, Apple lawsuit Samsung Galaxy series products plagiarized Iphone and Ipad;
On April 29, 2011, Samsung counterattacked Apple in violation of its 10 rights.
Apple Samsung patent dispute case opened on August 1, 2012, and both sides insist on their own stand.
On 25 August 2012, the US jury sentenced Samsung to pay $1 billion 50 million to Apple.
This case is the biggest and most difficult case of copyright disputes in China so far. It involves the rights of Mr. Lu Xun, the master of our country, and is deeply concerned about at home and abroad. The cause of the case was that the People's Literature Press did not get the consent of Zhou Haiying, son of Lu Xun, and published the Japanese edition of the “Complete Works of Lu Xun” (the new edition with 16 volumes) in December 1981 with the Japanese Learning and Research Society, and did not pay remuneration to Zhou Haiying. Zhou Hai Ying brought a lawsuit to the Interediate People's Court of Beijing. After Zhou Haiying failed in the first instance, he refused to accept the case and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Beijing. After long and difficult litigation, the case ended in mediation.
In early 2001, Mr. Qiu, a Taiwanese businessman who was first licensed to operate the “Yon Ho Soybean Milk” Chinese fast food service in mainland China, was running his own "Happy Year" brand. Soon, he was complained about the use of "Yon Ho Soybean Milk" on the shop number and name of the “Happy Year” bean milk shop and the price of the commodity, and was suspected of violating the exclusive rights of trademark. He was punished by an administrative division of the Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce. Mr. Qiu refused to accept it, so he hired a professional institution to seek legal help. Through the administrative reconsideration procedure, Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce has made a decision to revoke Qiu's administrative punishment.
This case is the first intellectual property litigation of “Shaoxing—the hometown of yellow rice wine”. Soon after the plaintiff in the case was relieved of the cooperation agreement with the standard wine packaging design unit, products with the similar packaging with the plaintiff appeared in the market, which was produced by the defendant. The plaintiff took the lawsuit on the grounds of the defendant’s infringement of the packaging and upholstery of the plaintiff's products in Huangpu Court of Shanghai. At the same time, the plaintiff applied for evidence preservation. Subsequently, the plaintiff took another case in the Pudong Court to open a new battlefield of case evaluation, case entrustment, case handling, and case filing. Finally, the defendant apologized to the plaintiff and expressed his wish to mediate, and the plaintiff got a satisfactory compensation result.
This case is a case of unfair competition caused by slandered goodwill of well-known commodities. Huili Flooring Company, which is produced by Huili Flooring Company of Shanghai, has been awarded the honorary title of “Famous Brand Product of Shanghai”, “National Residential Construction Recommendation Product” and “National User Satisfaction Product” since 1996. Its brand value has reached 54 million RMB. Some floor company in Shenzhen published articles in medias like “Wenhui Newspaper”, and counted the “bad aspects” of the complex flooring, causing significant economic losses to Huili company. Hui Li complained to the Second Middle Court of Shanghai on the grounds of unfair competition and was supported by the court of final appeal.