US NBA sues Guangzhou company to retake network domain name

Intermediary transaction SEO diagnosis Taobao guest Cloud host technology Hall

"Www.nba.cn" by an information technology company in Guangzhou, the United States Basketball Association assets Limited (also known as the American NBA Products Co., Ltd.) at a distance across the sea, a paper petition will be sued the company court, to require Guangzhou to protect the NBA trademark exclusive rights. Recently, the two sides to settle the case, the NBA successfully recaptured the domain name. This is one of the ten intellectual property rights cases announced by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court yesterday.

NBA, the United States that the NBA and graphics registered trademarks in the international, especially the basketball industry enjoys a higher visibility, the defendant registered the use of "nba.cn" domain name infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark exclusive rights. The NBA asked the court to decree "www.nba.cn" domain name belongs to the NBA all, and asked the defendant to pay for the infringement of the investigation of the fees and charges.

The NBA also hopes that through this lawsuit, the Court of Justice recognized it as a "well-known trademarks."

The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court believes that the case is related to a Cross-border intellectual property protection issues, in the trial process, the Court strictly in accordance with the relevant judicial interpretation provisions, to the NBA to explain the judicial recognition of well-known trademarks premise is "a need to identify", after a lot of work in the court, the two sides in this October mediation closed.

Guangzhou's information technology company finally agreed to the domain name "www.nba.cn" the title of free, unconditional transfer to the NBA, and pay investigation fees, notary fees and other costs.

5 years of 10 major intellectual property rights cases announced:

Guangzhou Court to take measures to protect intellectual property rights, the amount of infringement compensation to high

New Express News (reporter Yu Yalen correspondent Sui Fa Xuan) yesterday, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court announced the 2004-2008 Guangzhou intellectual property Trial ten cases. It is reported that, in the civil trial, 2008 1-October Guangzhou Court newly received intellectual property first instance case 1348 cases, second instance case 129. 1068 cases of the first instance of intellectual property were concluded, and 76 cases of second instance. In recent years, the maximum discretionary compensation for infringement of intellectual property rights is 500,000 yuan. In order to effectively improve the protection of intellectual property rights, Guangzhou Court has taken the following measures:

For the fuzzy area of intellectual property protection, the author tries to make the determination and treatment of the obligee. In the case of infringement and non-infringement definition is not very clear, to the infringement cognizance. Guangzhou in charge of the hospital said: "As long as there is a small change is not recognized as a tort, is now as long as it is similar, are identified as infringement." "In determining whether the two constitute similar issues, in the conclusion is not very clear circumstances, as far as possible to identify the composition of the approximate."

In accordance with the law of the infringer to compensate the amount of loss, as far as possible to consider the direction of high. To ensure that the loss of the right person is fully compensated for the infringer to play a certain deterrent effect. Especially for patents with high technology content, the discretionary amount of compensation to the maximum statutory limit. Strengthen the unification of judicial standards. If the Guangzhou court recently reached a consensus on the issue of trademark infringement cases, the judgment of infringement after the establishment of the case under the circumstances of the discretionary compensation range: individual retail stores 5000-20000 yuan, integrated retail stores (such as supermarkets, etc.) about 30000 yuan, specializing in wholesale infringement products shop 50000- 100000 yuan, infringing product manufacturers (factories, etc.) 50000-150000 yuan.

Two other cases of infringement:

Warner tells the California Red broadcast not to authorize MTV Warner to win compensation

Yesterday, the court released Warner Record v. California Hong. Warner Records sued Guangzhou Yuexiu District of California Red broadcast of unlicensed MTV belonging to the tort.

The court found that the case involved the question of whether the conduct of the unlicensed, business-screened MTV constituted a tort. As the first case of Guangzhou about the right of MTV screening, because it involves the operation of karaoke industry, in the community has a greater impact.

The defendant shall immediately stop infringing on the right to show the plaintiff's works and compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of RMB 3000 and the reasonable cost of RMB 30000 yuan. The handling of the case for the treatment of similar cases to determine the principles and standards, in the long run, more conducive to standardizing the entire karaoke industry business behavior, to straighten out the work of copyright owners and business users of the relationship between.

Puma Taobao sold fake Taobao win no responsibility

Taobao shopkeeper Chen in Taobao sell counterfeit "Puma sneakers" 60 yuan a pair, although Chen MoU said that the shoes are simulation, but Chen MoU is the defendant.

The German Puma Company believes that Taobao provides support platforms for 43,932 Puma Product Network stores all over the country, nationwide sales of Puma infringing products, not only led to the collapse of its genuine sales, but also Puma brand reputation caused a bad impact. Puma Company requested the Court decree Taobao compensation for 1 million yuan, and the decree Taobao and Chen to stop the infringement and apology.

Guangzhou city in the case after the trial that, due to the global network extension space, the network service providers can not be sold on the Internet store trademarks of the legality of face-to-face review. Network service providers are required to be responsible for the legality of the trademarks of each commodity sold by each online store, beyond their competence. Taobao did not violate the obligation of prior examination, and did not violate the obligation to remedy the ex-post, Puma accused Taobao to help Chen a sales leave, violated its registered trademark rights, lack of basis, the Court does not support. The court also held that, in view of the defendant Chen has ceased infringement, it is no longer prosecuted.

This article is provided by Www.zhengyeegroup.net Webmaster