TOBU7TOBU8|哔哩哔哩大片免费观看|GIGABODY|糖心少女VLOG免费观看孤独的生日快乐|美国vs日本vs|国产精品视频网站一区|qvod影片

On April 26, 2026, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published the second edition of the WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: China, a joint publication with the Supreme People's Court (SPC) of the People's Republic of China. The new volume features representative judgments rendered by Chinese courts between 2019 and 2023, selected by the SPC, and is presented in both Chinese and English.

In 2019, WIPO and the SPC jointly published the first edition of the China volume in this series, which comprised 30 representative judgments from 2011 to 2018. The second edition advances this work to an additional 66 judgments, covering recent judicial adjudication by Chinese courts in the areas of trademark, patent, copyright, monopoly and competition, integrated circuit layout design, new plant varieties, and criminal enforcement.

Attachment: WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights People's Republic of China (2019–2023)

(Source: WIPO China)

On May 7, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) officially released the Intellectual Property Protection in China 2025 White Paper, which comprehensively presents the progress of China's intellectual property protection in 2025, systematically introduces the solid achievements in institutional construction, examination, grant and registration, cultural construction, and international cooperation, and provides an authoritative window for all sectors of society and the international community to understand China's latest practices in intellectual property protection.

Attachment of the full text: Intellectual Property Protection in China (2025)

(Source: website of the CNIPA)

On April 26, 2026, the 26th World Intellectual Property Day, the WIPO Collection of Leading Judgments on Intellectual Property Rights: People's Republic of China (2019-2023) was officially released to the public.

The trademark infringement and unfair competition case of "China Resources," represented by Unitalen (identification of similar services and determination of the use of natural persons' names as trademarks), has been selected for inclusion in the typical cases collection. The case was also selected among the 50 typical intellectual property cases of Chinese courts in 2021, as released by the Supreme People's Court.

Related reading: Unitalen Client China Resources Holdings Won a Retrial Case of Civil Infringement of Trademark and Unfair Competition

Case Brief

Since its establishment in 1991, Mindray has been committed to the R&D and manufacturing of clinical medical devices. Starting with its flagship product — the patient monitors — Mindray has been dedicated to R&D for 30 years, consistently investing approximately 10% of its revenue in R&D. The core products produced by Mindray, such as the D6 defibrillator-monitor, N-series patient monitors, and SV-series ventilators (the "rights products involved"), were successively launched onto the market over more than a decade with hundreds of millions of yuan invested in R&D. Through continuous user research and iterative functional improvements, these products have achieved exceptional brand recognition and market share both domestically and internationally.

Through investigation, Mindray found that the user interfaces of multiple models of ventilators, patient monitors, and external defibrillator-monitors manufactured and sold by Comen are highly similar to those of Mindray's rights products involved in all elements, including color scheme, parameter layout, prompt information wording and layout, and operation key layout. The contents of the product manuals are also highly similar. Mindray contended that Comen has committed systematic, pervasive plagiarism across multiple products, from the product interfaces to the manuals, and accordingly filed a lawsuit to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.

Regarding the alleged interface plagiarism behavior, the first instance court verified that the accused infringed interfaces one by one and determined that the accused infringing interfaces were highly similar to the corresponding interfaces of rights products in all elements, including color scheme, parameter layout, prompt information wording and layout, and operation key layout, constituting interfaces with basically identical designs. The court calculated the proportions of identical or similar interfaces in a way favorable to Comen: 25%, 43.8%, 48.4%, 33.7%, and 27.5%, respectively. The court ultimately determined that the similarity proportions between the accused product interfaces and the interfaces of the rights product exceeded the bounds of good faith and reasonable interface homogenization. Thus, the similar interfaces of the accused products constituted overall plagiarism of the corresponding interfaces of the rights products.

Examples:

In respect of the plagiarism behavior on the manuals involved, the court of first instance commissioned the Guangdong Intellectual Property Protection Center to conduct an appraisal. Based on the statistical data in the appraisal opinion and after verifying and comparing the original text of the manuals, the court determined that the manuals for the five accused products, including the ventilators, external defibrillator-monitors, and patient monitors, were content-rich, with identical content accounting for 36.91%, 37.3%, 15.85%, 14.14%, and 10.71%, respectively, clearly exceeding the scope of good faith and reasonableness. The court accordingly determined that the five accused descriptions contained the same parts as the rights manuals and could be deemed plagiarism.

Ultimately, both the court of first instance and the court of second instance determined that the overall plagiarism behavior involving the interfaces of the accused models of ventilators, patient monitors, and defibrillator-monitors constituted unfair competition, and that the manuals constituted copyright infringement. The courts ordered Comen to cease the infringing behavior immediately. From the date the judgment took effect, Comen was prohibited from using the infringing manuals and interfaces in the accused products, including external defibrillator-monitors, patient monitors, and ventilators manufactured thereby.

Typical Significance

1. The court applied Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to afford overall protection to the medical device interfaces involved, providing a new approach for future rights protection of product user interfaces.

2. For a long time, the rights protection of the medical device industry has mainly focused on underlying technology or appearance design, with remedies relatively limited to patent rights protection, while the product user interface (UI) has long been in a vacuum of rights protection. The judgment in this case effectively fills this judicial gap, delineates clear boundaries for imitation in the behavior of medical device user interfaces, and indicates that industry regulation and patient safety should not be used as a shield for plagiarizing excellent original designs in the same industry. The case is of typical significance for the intellectual property protection of medical devices and even for the entire high-end manufacturing industry.

On April 26, the Beijing High People's Court released the top 10 intellectual property protection cases handled by Beijing courts in 2025. A dispute case over unfair competition involving trademark squatting and abuse of administrative procedures, represented by Unitalen Law Firm, was selected as one of the top 10 typical cases.

Introduction to the Selected Case

Case 8: A Dispute Case over Unfair Competition involving Trademark Squatting and Abuse of Administrative Procedures

Information Brief

Case Numbers: (2023) Jing 0101 Civil First 3748; (2024) Jing 73 Civil Final 1803

Plaintiffs (represented by Unitalen): Party A Co., Ltd.; and a Guangdong Electrical Appliance Company

Defendants: Party B Co. Ltd.; a Shandong Electrical Appliance Company; a Shandong Instrument Company; and FAN [Redacted]

Case Brief

The Plaintiffs, Party A Co., Ltd., and a Guangdong Electrical Appliance Company are the exclusive right holders of the trademarks for small household appliance brands "MORPHY RICHARDS" and "摩飛". The Defendant, FAN [Redacted], is the actual controller of the three defendant companies: Party B Co., Ltd., a Shandong Electrical Appliance Company, and a Shandong Instrument Company (collectively referred to as the "three companies"). Since 2017, the Defendant Fan [Redacted], through three companies, has filed applications to register multiple trademarks for small household appliance-related goods, including "摩飛" and "摩飛電器," which are similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks. The majority of these applications have been declared invalid, and a prior effective judgment had already determined that the relevant trademarks were registered through "other improper means". Since 2021, Fan [Redacted], through the three companies, has repeatedly initiated proceedings, including revocation, invalidation, and opposition against the "摩飛" series of trademarks registered by the Plaintiffs. The two Plaintiffs alleged that the aforesaid conduct of the four Defendants had seriously disrupted their normal business operations and constituted unfair competition. The court of first instance held that the three companies' malicious squatting and the filing of numerous trademark administrative proceedings against the Plaintiffs' trademarks violated the principle of good faith, demonstrated clear subjective malice, and thus constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the three companies to cease the unfair competition behaviors at issue immediately, publish a statement to eliminate the effects, and compensate the Plaintiffs with RMB 900,000 for economic damages and RMB 100,000 for reasonable expenses. The three companies disagreed with the decision and filed an appeal. The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Typical Significance

This case is a typical case of determining that malicious squatting of others' trademarks and abuse of trademark administrative procedures constitute unfair competition. This case applies the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to regulate the accused conduct, effectively curbing unfair competition involving malicious squatting and abuse of trademark administrative procedures. It thus has positive significance for maintaining the normal order of trademark registration and administration and fostering a fair and competitive market environment.

On April 21, the Supreme People's Court released the Annual Report on Legal Application Issues in Intellectual Property Cases Handled by Courts Nationwide (2025), which identifies 45 legal application issues arising from intellectual property cases concluded by courts nationwide in 2025. Three cases represented by Unitalen are selected as guiding cases addressing three categories of legal application issues in trademark administrative litigation, namely:

15. Judgment of Inherent Distinctiveness of Device Trademarks — Invalidation Case on Device Trademark of C&S, (2025) SPC Admin. Retrial 318

16. Validity Judgment of the Subsequent Geographical Indication Certification Trademark with Overlapping Production Areas — A Retrial Case on Invalidation of Trademark "湘西黃金茶" (2025) SPC Admin. Retrial Application 4791

20. Overall Examination and Judgment on Trademark Use Evidence — An Administrative Dispute Case Concerning the Reexamination on Revocation of the Trademark Right of "留余" (2025) SPC Admin. Retrial 507

On April 22, the Supreme People's Court of China released the Summary of Judgment Digests of the Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People's Court of China (2025). A patent authorization and confirmation case and a technical secret case represented by Unitalen were selected for the Summary, namely:

37. Handling of Situations Where the Receiving Office of an International Patent Application Not Accepting Amended Documents on the Filing Date [PCT Invention Patent Application Case Concerning the "Container Lid"] (2025) SPC IP Admin. Final 538

113. Leasing a Production Line Cannot Be Used to Circumvent Liability for Technical Secret Infringement [Technical Secrets Infringement Case Concerning the "Long-Chain Dibasic Acid"] (2022) SPC IP Civil Final 445

In April 2026, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court released the Intellectual Property Protection and Exemplary Cases of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court (2025). In Case 7: Transforming Infringement Confrontation into Strategic Cooperation to Promote Mutual Benefit and Win-Win Outcomes in the Copyright Industry — Copyright Infringement Dispute Case between CI [Redacted] Company and DU [Redacted] Company, SHI [Redacted] Business Department [(2025) Yue 73 Civil First 5078], the plaintiff was represented by Unitalen. The case concerned the protection of the rights to the Grand Chinese Dictionary, a monumental and historic Chinese-language dictionary. The "win-win" outcome and innovative dispute-resolution model in this case not only earned the recognition of the parties but also attracted attention from authoritative media outlets.

1.Series Cases on Patent Infringement Litigation, Infringement Administrative Investigation and Invalidation Defense: Lanzhou Xinwei Company v. an Electrical Appliance Company

2.Administrative Litigation Case on the Invention Patent Reexamination: Dongguan Simplewell Electromechanical Company v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA)

3.Series Cases on Invention Patent Infringement Litigation: an NPE v. a Well-Known Foreign Internet Company

4.Case of Announcement of Invalidation Against the "Device" Trademark: a Paper Company v. China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and C&S Paper Co., Ltd.

5.Three Cases on the Exclusive Right Infringement of the Well-Known Trademark "摘要(ZHAI YAO)": Guizhou Jinsha Company v. Binzhou Yipin Tianxia Company et al.

6.Unfair Competition Case Involving Medical Device Interfaces Plagiarism: Mindray v. Comen

7.Dispute Cases over Infringement on Technical Secrets: Cathay Biotech v. HILEAD Company, CAO [Redacted], et al.

8.Case over Infringement on Software Copyright: a Beijing Image & Vision Company v. Zhongheng Company

9.Criminal Case over Infringement on Copyright involving ZHENG [Redacted] and others

10.Criminal Case with Ancillary Civil Lawsuits for Counterfeit Registered Trademark: Technogym S.p.A. (Italy) v. Nantong Dabing Company

From May 2 to 6, 2026 (local time), the top event in the global intellectual property industry — the 148th Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) — was grandly held in London, United Kingdom. This year's annual meeting centered on three major themes: "Law & Policy," "Commercialization of Intangible Assets," and "Technology Shaping the Future of IP". As an INTA member and long-standing cooperative institution, Unitalen sent a delegation comprising multiple partners and consultants to participate fully in this prestigious event. The team engaged in extensive exchanges with over 10,000 professionals worldwide across trademarks, brands, patents, law, and innovation, jointly exploring the latest hot topics and cutting-edge trends shaping the industry.