国产一级片a-亚洲综合影院-成人免费毛片app-老妇女av-亚洲色图久久-欧美日韩123-一个色的综合-不卡一区二区在线观看-九九久久九九久久-国产毛片a-欧美成人做爰猛烈床戏-粉嫩av一区二区三区免费观看-一区二区国产视频-色护士影院-日本黄色片

The latest edition of the Madrid System Yearly Review is now online, providing you with facts and figures on the use of the Madrid System in 2024. Here are the key figures at a glance:

?~65,000 Madrid international applications filed (+1.2%); ~452,889 designations in international applications (+1.1%)

?915,034 active international registrations (+2.7%)

?7,325,670 designations in active international registrations (+0.6%)

?For the fourth consecutive year, the UK received the most designations (28,877) in international trademark applications filed in 2024.

Related Reading: Madrid Yearly Review 2025

(Source: WIPO)

In accordance with the provisions of the China Patent Award Evaluation Measures (2023 Revision), after recommendations from intellectual property management institutions of relevant departments under the State Council, local intellectual property offices, relevant national industry associations, as well as academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering, evaluation by the China Patent Award Review Committee, and public scrutiny, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) awarded the China Patent Gold Award to 30 patents for invention and utility model including "Method for preparing high-voltage LDMOS device and device" and the China Design Gold Award to 10 patents for design including "Automobile"; the CNIPA awarded the China Patent Silver Award to 60 patents for invention and utility model including "Bulk Acoustic Wave Resonator" and the China Design Silver Award to 15 patents for design including "Tower Fan"; additionally, the CNIPA awarded the China Patent Excellence Award to 607 patents for invention and utility model including "Floating type photovoltaic cell module" and the China Design Excellence Award to 47 patents for design including "3D Scanner"; furthermore, the CNIPA awarded the Best Organization Award of the China Patent Award to 8 entities such as the Intellectual Property Office of Guangdong Province, the Excellent Organization Award of the China Patent Award to 19 entities including the Shanghai Intellectual Property Administration, and the Best Recommendation Award of the China Patent Award to 12 academicians including YU Jihong.

Attachment: Decision of the CNIPA on Awarding the 25th China Patent Award

(Source: website of CNIPA)

According to the provisions of Article 49 of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China and Rule 66 of the Implementing Regulations of the Trademark Law, where a registered trademark stays unused for three consecutive years without any justifiable reason, any unit or individual may apply to the CNIPA for cancellation of the registered trademark, and shall provide an explanation of the relevant circumstances when submitting the application. The Trademark Office of the CNIPA has revised the contents in the Application for Cancellation of a Registered Trademark for Non-use in Three Consecutive Years that was issued in March 2023.

Please refer to the revised content: Application for Cancellation of a Registered Trademark for Non-use in Three Consecutive Years without any Justified Reason

(Source: website of Trademark Office of CNIPA)

Case Brief

As an innovative product that integrates cutting-edge technologies (including inverse-field acoustics technology, multi-channel Deep Neural Network (DNN) call noise reduction algorithms, head-motion tracking technology, IP54 water and sweat resistance technology, and Huawei's self-developed spatial discrimination model algorithms) with pure geometric minimalist aesthetics and that was meticulously developed by Huawei through years of research and development and substantial investment, the "FreeClip" earbuds have rapidly captivated consumers with groundbreaking innovative technology and striking aesthetics since their overseas launch in December 2023, igniting a worldwide sensation and emerging as the market leader among similar products.

The defendant, a certain technology company, shortly after the global launch of Huawei's "FreeClip" earbuds, maliciously rolled out "counterfeit" earbuds that merely have an appearance highly similar to Huawei's "FreeClip" earbuds. Meanwhile, the defendant extensively and aggressively marketed the "counterfeit" earbuds across major online e-commerce platforms at abnormally low prices, while employing false advertising claims such as "budget alternatives to high-end/official products" and "fully replicated top-tier functionality", thereby deceiving consumers into believing that the "counterfeit" earbuds possess the same cutting-edge technologies, functions, and striking aesthetic design as Huawei's "FreeClip" earbuds. However, within a short period, the "counterfeit" earbuds faced numerous consumer complaints due to defects, including low quality. The proliferation of these "counterfeit" earbuds not only severely eroded the market share of Huawei's genuine "FreeClip" earbuds, causing significant economic losses to Huawei within just three to four months, but also severely damaged the reputation of Huawei's genuine "FreeClip" earbuds.

To promptly assist Huawei in eliminating counterfeit products from the market, prohibiting the large-scale distribution of "counterfeit" earbuds in the short period, and minimizing losses for both Huawei and innocent consumers, Unitalen responded swiftly, comprehensively studied the case, and ultimately recommended filing a lawsuit with the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court based on the copyright of works of applied art and the right distinctive trade dress of the "FreeClip" earbuds. Simultaneously, Unitalen filed with the court petitions for property preservation during litigation and a behavioral injunction.

Court Hearing and Case Outcome

The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court actively accepted the case, promptly and meticulously conducted a thorough review on the right basis of the case, infringement behaviors, damages, and the urgency of the case, from the perspective "for shapes or designs that may combine practicality and artistry, parties may choose to seek protection under the Copyright Law or to seek design patent protection under the Patent Law, with distinct focuses of protection... allowing works of applied art to obtain copyright and design patent protection simultaneously can compensate for the weaknesses of design patent protection in terms of acquisition conditions, procedures, protection periods, and scope of protection", and timely made a property preservation ruling, exerting significant pressure on the full-network distribution and mass sales of the "counterfeit" earbuds.

Meanwhile, Unitalen also fully leveraged its professional expertise and actively cooperated with the court and the plaintiff, successfully facilitating, within a short period, a comprehensive settlement agreement whereby the parties agreed to cease the infringement and compensate for the losses. The case was ultimately closed when Huawei withdrew its lawsuit, successfully and swiftly prohibiting the "counterfeit" earbuds from being sold in the market, and effectively safeguarding Huawei's legitimate rights and interests, as well as market order.

Significance of the case

The core significance of this case lies in the fact that the court, from the perspective of fully protecting intellectual property, clearly confirmed the adjudication rule that "(for works of applied art) right holders have the right to choose to seek protection under the Copyright Law or to seek design patent protection". Additionally, based on comprehensively considering factors such as the extremely short interval between the global launch time of "FreeClip" earbuds product and the defendant's infringement time, as well as the vast impact of infringing products on the genuine product market during the best-selling period of "FreeClip" earbuds, the court, by timely making a property preservation ruling that complies with the principle of proportionality, quickly and effectively curbed the spread of the "counterfeit" earbuds, and thus helped the right holder to firmly safeguard the market defense line and market share of the first-launch genuine products.

Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court publicly pronounced judgments in two cases of trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes filed by Xiaomi Inc. and Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. against a Chaozhou-based company and others. In both cases, the court recognized the well-known trademarks, applied punitive damages under the law, and fully upheld the rights holders' claims for economic losses, awarding damages of 30 million yuan and 5 million yuan, respectively.

Case Brief

Xiaomi Company is the trademark owner of No. 8228211 trademark "小米" (Xiaomi) and No. 8911270 trademark " ", both of which are designated for use on goods in Class 9 including mobile phones. The Chaozhou-based company and others used the accused infringing marks such as "小米零度"(Xiaomilingdu) and " " that are similar to the trademarks involved on their smart toilets and shower products produced and sold. SU X is the registrant of No. 32483813 trademark   and authorized the Chaozhou-based company to use the trademark. Additionally, the Chaozhou-based company used "Xiao Ai Xiao Ai (小愛小愛)" as a voice wake-up and operation command on its toilet products produced and sold, which is highly similar to Xiaomi Company's "Xiao Ai Tong Xue (小愛同學)" voice wake-up command.

After accepting the commission, the lawyers of Unitalen thoroughly investigated the infringement behaviors of each defendant across multiple platforms. They conducted a detailed legal analysis and argumentation regarding their joint infringement behaviors. Additionally, at the outset of the case hearing, we applied to the court for obtaining sales data from multiple platforms. The data provided by the platforms indicated that the defendants reaped substantial profits from their infringing behaviors.

Court Judgment

After hearing, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that, since the registered trademarks for right claims by Xiaomi Company were designated for use on goods in Class 9 including mobile phones, while the accused infringing marks were used on goods in Class 11 including smart toilets and shower products, and the goods in the two classes are neither identical nor similar, there is a need for determining whether the trademarks are well-known trademarks. Furthermore, when the accused infringing behaviors in the case occurred, the trademarks involved had been widely known to the relevant public in China through the use and promotion by Xiaomi Company, constituting well-known trademarks for use on goods in Class 9, including mobile phones. The accused infringing marks are likely to cause the relevant public to be misled regarding the source of the goods or to believe that their source is specifically related to the goods with Xiaomi Company's registered trademarks. Therefore, the Chaozhou-based company and SU X constitute trademark infringement. Xiaomi Company's "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" voice command has a high level of popularity and influence, falling within the scope of rights protection under Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The "Xiao Ai Xiao Ai" voice wake-up and operation command may mislead the public into believing that there may be specific connections between related toilet products and Xiaomi Company in terms of product research and development, technical support, or authorization and cooperation, or believing that the toilet products can connect to the smart home service system of Xiaomi Company. Therefore, the Chaozhou-based company constitutes unfair competition. Given that the Chaozhou-based company and SU X specialized in infringement with apparent subjective malice and severe infringement circumstances, the court applied double punitive damages calculated based on their profits from infringement and upheld the full 30 million yuan damages claim of the plaintiff.

Significance of the case

In both cases, the courts reaffirmed that "小米"(Xiaomi) and " " are well-known trademarks, effectively safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved. This outcome also encourages market participants to abide by the principle of good faith and engage in fair competition during technological innovation. The cases were publicly reported and discussed in media programs such as Shanghai News Radio's "Legal Perspective on the World" program and Shanghai Media Group's "Case Focus" program.

Brief of the Case

Shanghai Yishijie Information Technology Group Co., Ltd. (formerly known as Shanghai Yiwang Network Technology Co., Ltd.), founded in 2012, is a comprehensive online gaming company specializing in independent research and development, exclusive agency, joint operation, advertising services, and player platforms. "Coin Tycoon (《金幣大富翁》)" is a reality-themed, Q-style 2D multiplayer online simulation and management mobile game developed by Yishijie Company. The game gained extremely high popularity and recognition upon its release.

The game "Dongyou Monopoly", jointly developed and operated by Linbei Company (麟貝公司), Dongyou Company(動友公司), and Modo Company (摩多公司), plagiarized the overall game design of the mobile game "Coin Tycoon" in terms of game content, with even bug content in "Dongyou Monopoly" mirroring those found in "Coin Tycoon".

Comparison of two games

Court Determination and Case Outcome

The court held that the two games involved in the case belong to the same genre and are in direct competition with each other. Shortly after the official operation of Yishijie Company's game "Coin Tycoon", Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company completed the development and operation of the game "Dongyou Monopoly", essentially competing with Yishijie Company for business opportunities or market share in this game genre. From a comparison of the gameplay rules between the two games, it can be seen that "Dongyou Monopoly" is essentially the result of "reskinning" the art assets from "Coin Tycoon", and even exhibits obvious errors due to direct copying. The two games offer players a similar gaming experience. It can be said that, except for the difference in art assets in the game screens, "Dongyou Monopoly" is a "reproduction" of the game "Coin Tycoon" of Yishijie Company. Such a degree of imitation clearly exceeds reasonable limits, will cause the consequence of substantial substitution, goes beyond the boundary of reasonable reference and free imitation, and falls within the scope of plagiarism. The complete plagiarism of the gameplay rules of "Coin Tycoon" and the mere replacement of the art assets are the keys for Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company to complete the development and operation of the game "Dongyou Monopoly" in just a few months. If following the usual game development process, where even gameplay design and numerical systems require continuous trial and error and optimization, Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company may not have been able to launch and operate the game "Dongyou Monopoly" in a short period and compete with Yishijie Company's game "Coin Tycoon" in the market, improperly seizing relevant market share. Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company did not gain their competitive edge through their own intellectual efforts or capital investment. Instead, they resorted to plagiarism to directly appropriate the key and core personalized commercial value from others' intellectual achievements. The behaviors — using others' intellectual achievements without authorization, disregarding others' huge investments, and seizing business opportunities at the expense of others' honest operations — violate the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics, thus constituting unfair competition. The court ordered Linbei Company, Dongyou Company, and Modo Company to jointly compensate Yishijie Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 5 million yuan.

Typical Significance

The judgment in this case is based on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Copyright Law. By respecting the commercial operation rules of the gaming industry, the court analyzed and determined the relevant elements for whether the gameplay rules constitute unfair competition, regulated behaviors that disrupt the competition order of the gaming market, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of game developers.

Recently, the CNIPA announced the decision on the awarding of the 25^th China Patent Award, aiming at giving commendation to patentees, inventors (designers) who have made significant contributions in implementing innovation and promoting economic and social development and relevant organizers, wherein 18 patents represented by Unitalen have made them to the list, including 2 Chinese Patent Gold Awards, 3 Chinese Patent Silver Awards, 11 Chinese Patent Excellence Awards, and 2 Chinese Design Excellence Awards.

Annex: List of Patents Represented by Unitalen Winning the 25th China Patent Award

Recently, the international authoritative intellectual property media IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) announced the selection results of the "IAM Patent 1000" in 2025. With outstanding performance in the patent field and wide recognition from clients, Unitalen has been on the list of the annual recommended firms in the fields of "Patent Prosecution" and "Patent Litigation" for 11 consecutive years.

Meanwhile, three patent attorneys of Unitalen were recognized on the list of outstanding individuals with excellent achievements. Vice president LI Deshan was awarded as an outstanding individual in the fields of "Patent Litigation" and "Patent Prosecution", and vice president LI Yang and Dr. PAN Wei were awarded as outstanding individuals in the field of "Patent Prosecution".

Recently, the international authoritative intellectual property media "Asia IP" released the list of winners of the 2025 China IP Awards. With outstanding professional performance and excellent reputation in the field of intellectual property, Unitalen has been listed on the recommendation lists of "Trademark Prosecution", "Patent Prosecution" and "Patent Litigation", and won the award "Regional Firms of the Year (Beijing)"!

On May 19, 2025 (Pacific Time), the TRADEMARK AGENCY TOP 40 FOR FOREIGN-RELATED was released at the 147th INTA Chinese Trademark Association Forum hosted at the San Diego Convention Center in the United States. The list was jointly released by the China Trademark magazine and IPHOUSE under the guidance of China Trademark Association. By virtue of its outstanding performance and excellent reputation in the field of foreign-related trademark agency, Unitalen was selected for the TOP 40 list!

On May 15 to 16, 2025, the 18^th Unitalen IP Forum – "AI Empowered Innovation: New IP Landscape in the AI Era" was successfully held in Nanjing. This Forum was hosted by Beijing Intellectual Property Association and Zhongguancun Vision Intellectual Property Innovation Institute, and jointly hosted by Unitalen Attorneys at Law and Beijing Unitalen Law Office.

This Forum invited leading figures from judicial circles, academia, and business circles to share their valuable experiences and future perspectives on intellectual property protection in the AI era. Over 100 industry experts and business representatives gathered to conduct a multidimensional analysis of the new landscape for intellectual property protection in the AI era, exploring new ideas and approaches for intellectual property protection.