Since 1996, the US Starbucks Corporation has registered, one after another, such trademarks as "STARBUCKS" (pronounced "xingbake" in the Chinese pinyin), "STARBUCKS (device)" and "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë" (pronounced "xingbake" in the Chinese pinyin) in China. The Qingdao Xingbake Coffee, Food and Beverage Co., Ltd. has printed the words "Qingdao Xingbake Coffee" and "US Xingbake Coffee" on the napkin paper, posters and name cards it used in its coffee houses. The Starbucks Corporation instituted an action against the latter in the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shangdong Province£¬on the ground that the latter's act had infringed it right in the trademarks of "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë", "STARBUCKS" and "STARBUCKS (device)".

 

Upon hearing the case, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court held that the plaintiff's registered trademarks, "STARBUCKS" and "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë", were well-known brands of the goods of coffee and related service. Where it should have known the repute of the plaintiff's registered trademarks, the defendant, operator of coffee houses, still used the plaintiff's trademark "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë" as its trade name. It was evidently at its subjective fault since it had usurped the good reputation of the said trademark, and the act was contrary to the principle of good faith. For these reasons, the court decided that the defendant had used, without authorization from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's registered trademark "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë" as its trade name on the goods of identical class, and that it had used, in its operation, the words and logo identical with, or similar to, those of the plaintiff's registered trademarks, which constituted an infringement of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the registered trademark. The court, therefore, made Civil Ruling No. Qingminsanchuzi 11/2005, on 10 November 2005, that the Qingdao Xingbake Coffee, Food and Beverage Co., Ltd. cease using "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë" as its trade name, stop its infringement of the plaintiff's right in the trademarks of "ÐÇ°Í¿Ë", "STARBUCKS" and "STARBUCKS (device)", and pay the plaintiff RMB 500,000 yuan in compensation of its economic losses.

 

 

The Xiushuijie Street is a famous commercial street in Beijing. On 28 November 2002, the Beijing Yelusheng Commerce & Trade Co., Ltd. (the Yelusheng Corporation) was granted registration of the word trademark "ÐãË®½Ö XIU SHUI JIE" to be used on goods in class 35 of the International Classification.

 

The Yelusheng Corporation discovered that, in the renovation construction of a comprehensive commercial building located on the Dongdaqiao Road, the Beijing Xinyashenghong Real Estate Development Corporation (the Xinyashenghong Corporation) put, without its authorisation, the words "Xiu shui jie" at a highly visible place of the building, and used the word and logo "Xiu shui jie" in its promotion material on various occasions, and that the Beijing Xiushuihaosen Clothing Market Co., Ltd (the Xiushuihaosen Corporation) used, without authorisation, the "XIU SHUI JIE" trademark in its business operation at the Xiushuihaosen Clothing Market run by the Xinyashenghong Corporation inside the building located at No. 8 East Xiushuijie Street. The Yelusheng Corporation brought an action against the two said corporations in the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court on the ground that the acts of the two corporations had infringed its exclusive right to use its registered trademark "XIU SHUI JIE", and claimed damages amounting to RMB 3,500,000 yuan.

 

Upon hearing the case, the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court held that the two defendants' acts of using the word and logo of "XIU SHUI JIE" were ones of using the market name in services dissimilar to the one in which the exclusive right to use the registered trademark had been approved, so the acts did not infringe the plaintiff's exclusive right to use its registered trademark involved in the case. The Court, therefore, made Civil Ruling No. Erzhongminchuze 06417/2005 on 8 December 2005 to have rejected the Yelusheng Corporation's claim. 

 

 

The US AGA Medical Corporation (AGA) is the world largest producer of amplatzer devices for the treatment of congenital heart disease. In 2004, the AGA brought an action in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court against the Beijing Huayishengjie Corporation (Huayishengjie) for its manufacture and sale of its patented product and requested the Court to order the defendant to stop the infringement and pay RMB 2,000,000 yuan for its damages.

 

In the first-instance hearing, the Huayishengjie admitted that it used the photographs of the AGA's patented product in its promotion activities.

 

The Court held that the act of using photographs of a patented product was an act of offer for sale under the Patent Law. The Huayishengjie's products offered for sale fall within the scope of protection for the AGA's patent, and its act constituted an infringement of the AGA's invention patent. In addition, the Court believed that there was no evidence proving that the products actually manufactured and sold by the Huayishengjie had infringed the AGA's patent. In its comparing the patented product with the alleged infringing product, the Court, adopting the estoppel doctrine, held that since the patentee made the statement to define its claims in the patent examination proceedings, it should be subject to the statement in the patent protection period. If the patentee supported its claim on the basis of equivalent infringement principle, it violated the principle of good faith. Therefore, the Court did not support the patentee.

 

The Court of first instance issued Civil Ruling No. Yizhongminchuzi 03944/2004 to order Huayishengjie to stop its act of offer for sale and pay RMB 10,000 yuan in compensation, and rejected the AGA's other claims.  

 

Dissatisfied with the ruling of first instance, the AGA appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. On 20 October 2005, the court of second instance made Civil Ruling No. Gaominzhongzi 203/2005 to have rejected the appeal and maintained the first-instance ruling.

 

 

On 16 December 2005, the Beijing Haidian District People's Court made Civil Ruling No. Haiminchuzi 17913/2005 in Zhou Guoping v. Ye Zhou and Li Shihua, a case of dispute arising from copyright infringement.

 

Zhou Guoping, the plaintiff of the present case and a famous writer, accused Ye Zhou of illegally using his name in publication, in 2004, of the two manuscripts, Pure Wisdom and Inspiration from Reading Buddhism by utilising the forged copy of Zhou Guoping' ID, and of infringement of his copyright, requesting the Court to order the defendant to stop his infringement, make apology, eliminate effect and pay damages amounting to RMB over 140,000 yuan.

 

Upon hearing the case, the Court determined that the Zhou Guoping' ID the defendant used to prove the writer's identity was forged; both Ye Zhou and Li Shihua had the intention of forging Zhou Guoping' signature. The Court held that since Zhou Guoping was a scholar of relatively high reputation, the defendants' act of illegally using his name would not only damage his reputation and cause public devaluation of him, but also have affect the evaluation of his works by the relevant organisation. Such an act had objectively infringed Zhou Guoping's economic right. The Court, therefore, ordered Ye Zhou and Li Shihua to immediately stop the infringing act, make public apology, eliminate the effect, and pay RMB over 70,000 yuan in compensation for the economic losses, mental distress consolation and other reasonable expenses. 

 

 

In 2004, the China Music Copyright Association sued the Pacific Audio and Video Corporation and the Beijing Bookstore Building for infringement of the copyright in 14 music works of its member authors, requesting the Court to order the defendants to make apology, and pay the plaintiff RMB 1,500,000 yuan in compensation for the economic losses.

 

In the court hearing, the Pacific Audio and Video Corporation argued that the plaintiff's member authors involved did not authorise the plaintiff to sue on their behalf in the valid contract, so the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the copyright involved in the present case.

 

Upon hearing the case, the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court determined that the plaintiff had established legal fiduciary relations, by concluding a series of contracts, with the proprietors of the copyright in the involved music works, and was entitled, in its own name, to bring the infringement action in relation with the copyright in the music works involved. The Pacific Audio and Video Corporation had paid royalties to reproduce and distribute the collection of the music works involved, which had, in fact, entered into, though without any licensing agreement in writing, entered into valid licensing relations. Its use was not an infringement. Since the two parties did not reach an agreement on the amount of the royalties, the relevant provision on royalties set forth by the National Copyright Administration should prevail in this regard. The Beijing Bookstore Building's sales act did not constitute an infringement of the copyrights administered by the China Music Association. Accordingly, the court of first instance made Civil Ruling No. Yizhongminchuzi 9671/2004 to order the defendant to pay the plaintiff RMB 70,000 yuan to cover the overdue royalties calculated at the rate of 3.5% of the copyright royalties, and rejected the plaintiff's other claims.

 

Dissatisfied with the ruling of first instance, the Pacific Audio and Video Corporation appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. The Court of second instance made, on 20 December 2005, Civil Ruling No. Gaominzhongzi 1260/2005 to have rejected the appeal, and upheld the first-instance ruling.