“皇冠丹麦曲奇”诉“丹麦蓝罐曲奇”不正当竞争纠纷
“皇冠丹麦曲奇”的出品方丹麦丹尼诗特色食品有限公司、经销商尤益嘉（上海）食品商贸有限公司（以下简称“原告”）因认为 “丹麦蓝罐曲奇”等产品1. 对其历史进行虚假宣传，在宣传词中出现“百年历史” “皇室经典”等词，让消费者误认为“丹麦蓝罐曲奇”百年来均属于皇室御用品牌，而事实上其于2009年才获得丹麦皇室御用认证。2. 对其质量存在虚假宣传，宣传词称其使用“百年配方”，关于保质期和净含量的宣传与产品参数存在不一致。3. 宣传中使用极限用词，在宣传中使用“顶级曲奇大师”、“送礼首选”、“聚会最佳拍档”等极限用语。4. 对曲奇产地存在虚假宣传，“丹麦蓝罐曲奇”的蓝罐礼盒装（赠送咖啡）产品正面包装上印有“原产国 丹麦”，但咖啡产地却为越南。原告遂将“丹麦蓝罐曲奇”的生产商、进口商及经销商以不正当竞争为诉至海淀法院，并索赔3000万元。
目前，此案正在进一步审理中
Danisa Sues Kjeldsens for Unfair Competition
‘Danisa Butter Cookies’ has brought an unfair competition action in the People’s Court of Haidian District, Beijing Municipality, against six related Kjeldsens Butter Cookies companies, seeking damages of 30 million yuan (approx. US$ 4,360,000).
According to a statement made by ‘Danisa Butter Cookies’ and its distributor, Kjeldsens had engaged in false promotion, and used misleading words such as “Hundred years of history” and “Royal Classics”, leading consumers to believe, mistakenly, that the product has been a royal brand for more than 100 years. In fact, Kjeldsens obtained royal certification only in 2009.
The Plaintiff further claimed that Kjeldsens had used descriptions prohibited by Advertising Law, such as “Top Cookie master” and false statements of origin. The Kjeldsens product is packaged in a blue can with an indication that coffee used in the product originates form Denmark, whereas in fact it originates from Vietnam.
The case is proceeding.
首例人工智能生成内容著作权案宣判，软件自动生成的文字内容不构成作品
北京菲林律师事务所（以下简称菲林律所）诉北京百度网讯科技有限公司（以下简称百度网讯公司）侵害署名权、保护作品完整权、信息网络传播权纠纷一案近日由北京互联网法院一审公开宣判。判决认定计算机软件智能生成的涉案文章内容不构成作品，但同时指出其相关内容亦不能自由使用，百度网讯公司未经许可使用涉案文章内容构成侵权，判令其向菲林律所赔偿经济损失及合理费用共计1560元。此案的判决是人民法院首次对涉计算机软件智能生成内容的著作权保护问题进行回应。
此案的争议焦点就在于计算机软件智能生成的内容可否构成作品的问题。对此，北京互联网法院认为，根据现行法律规定，文字作品应由自然人创作完成。因此法院认定，自然人创作完成仍应是著作权法领域文字作品的必要条件。根据现行法律，文字作品应当是作者思想、情感的独创性表达，但计算机软件智能生成内容不是作者思想、情感的独创性表达。故计算机软件智能生成内容不是著作权法意义上的作品。
虽然计算机软件智能生成内容不构成作品，但不意味着公众可以自由使用。法院指出，涉计算机软件智能生成内容凝结了软件研发者和软件使用者的投入，具备传播价值，应当赋予投入者一定的权益保护。
Beijing Internet Court Rules on First Case relating to Copyright in AI-generated Work
Beijing Film Law Firm brought a copyright infringement action against Beijing Baidu Internet News Technology Co., Ltd. (‘Baidu’) in the Beijing Internet Court, claiming that Baidu had violated its right of authorship, right to preserve the integrity of works and right of dissemination of works via information networks. The work in question was an AI generated work.
The Beijing Internet Court found at first instance that an AI generated work does not constitute a ‘work’ for the purposes of Copyright Law; however, the software used to generate the work has been created by developers and investors should be entitled to some form of protection. Further, the work in question contained written material that was not AI created; that is clearly capable of protection as a literary work.. The Court held that Baidu had infringed and ordered it to compensate the Plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable costs totaling 1560 yuan (approx. US$226.68).
This case is the first time a Chinese court has dealt with the issue of copyright protection in relation to content generated intelligently by computer software.
The main issue in the case was whether content generated intelligently by computer software can constitute a ‘work’ for the purposes of the Copyright Law. The Beijing Internet Court has held that, according to the current law, to qualify for copyright protection, a work must be created by a natural person or persons. Artificially generated content cannot satisfy that requirement, so is not capable of copyright protection.
Although the content generated by computer software does not constitute a copyright work, it does not follow that the public is free to use the content. The Court pointed out that material generated by computer software relies on the input of developers and noted that investors should receive some form of protection.
香奈儿公司图案商标案二审败诉
因叶某宗经营的珠宝商铺销售的商品涉嫌侵犯了自己持有的第G1189929号注册商标专用权（即常见的“双C”图案商标），香奈儿公司将其起诉至法院。广东省广州市海珠区人民法院一审认定叶某宗构成商标侵权，并判决其赔偿香奈儿公司经济损失等6万元。叶某宗不服向广州知识产权法院提起上诉。近日，广州知识产权法院作出二审判决，认定叶某宗未构成对香奈儿公司注册商标专用权的侵犯。据悉，在该案一审起诉前，原广东省广州市海珠区工商行政管理局对叶某宗销售被诉侵权商品的行为罚款8万元。叶某宗已经缴纳了罚款，没有对处罚决定提起复议或诉讼。
广州知识产权法院认为，首先，是否构成商标性使用应是确认商品形状是否构成商标侵权的根本。在该案中，涉案商品的购买地是叶某宗经营的首饰店，而该店又是周百福品牌的加盟店。综合该案的整体情况，香奈儿公司没有提供充分证据证明叶某宗经营的店铺在销售涉案商品时，存在着利用该商品与香奈儿公司注册商标相似而招揽顾客、推销商品等将其作为商标性使用的情形。
其次，是否构成混淆、误导公众，直接影响着商品形状能否被认定为商标侵权。在该案中，没有证据证明叶某宗经营的店铺销售涉案商品时存在误导消费者，将其宣传、标识为香奈儿公司商品，以致消费者购买时也误认为是香奈儿公司商品的情形。同时，也无证据证明具有一般认知水平的普通消费者在购买该店的涉案商品时，会产生其购买的是香奈儿公司的商品的情况。
再次，认定商品形状是否侵犯注册商标专用权应依法从严掌握，依具体情况定性处理。在该案中，在没有证据证明叶某宗经营的店铺销售涉案商品时存在将与香奈儿公司注册商标相似的商品形状作为“商标性使用”、误导消费者将涉案商品混淆为香奈儿公司商品的情形下，依法不能认定被告构成商标侵权。
Trade mark Infringement Appeal decided against Chanel
Chanel claimed that goods being sold by a jewellery store operated by the Defendant, Ye, were infringing its right to the exclusive use of registered trade mark, G1189929, (the ‘double C’ logo). It brought a trade mark infringement action in the Haizhu District People’s Court of Guangzhou, Guangdong Province.
The Court found, at first instance, that Ye had infringed the trademark and ordered him to compensate Chanel for economic loss in the sum of 60,000 yuan (approx. US$ 8718.37). Ye appealed to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court, which has recently issued a second-instance judgment, finding that the evidence provided was not sufficient to establish infringement
It has been reported that before the first instance hearing, the former Haizhu District Administration for Industry and Commerce of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, had imposed a fine of 80,000 yuan (approx. US$11624.50) on Ye for sale of the allegedly infringing goods, and that Ye has already paid the fine. He has not to date filed a review or lawsuit in relation to the fine.
《中国知识产权保护与营商环境新进展报告（2018）》发布
发布时间：2019-05-15
5月15日，全国打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品工作领导小组办公室发布《中国知识产权保护与营商环境新进展报告（2018）》（以下简称《报告》），《报告》显示，2018年行政执法更加严格，全国行政执法部门查处侵权假冒案件21.5万件，其中，查处专利侵权假冒案件7.7万件、商标违法案件3.1万件、侵权盗版案件2500余件，海关查扣进出境侵权货物4.72万批、2480万件。司法保护更加有力，公安机关破获侵权假冒案件近1.9万件，检察机关批捕涉及侵犯知识产权犯罪案件3306件5627人，全国法院审结各类知识产权案件近32万件，同比上升41.6%。
China's Intellectual Property Protection and Business Environment New Developments Report (2018) Released
On 15 May, the Office of the National Leading Group on the Fight against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting issued its “Report on the Latest Development in IPR Protection and Business Environment in China (2018)”.
Administrative law enforcement and judicial protection for IP was significantly enhanced during the year. Administrative law enforcers nationwide investigated and handled 215,000 IPR and counterfeiting cases, among which 77,000 were patent infringement cases, 31,000 trademark-related violation cases, and over 2,500 copyright infringement and piracy cases.
The Customs system investigated and confiscated a total of 47,200 batches of exported and imported IPR infringing goods in total, containing infringing goods worth 24.8 million. The public security authorities dealt successfully with over 19,000 cases of IPR infringement and counterfeiting. The procurators approved the arrest of 5,627 persons involved in 3,306 criminal cases of IPR infringement. The number of concluded cases at the courts nationwide was 320,000, up 41.6% on the previous year.