Recently, the Chinese Institute of Applied Law of the Supreme People's Court published the "Selection of Cases of the People's Court" (the third series of 2022), and Judge Tan Haihua of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court presided over the dispute over the infringement of new plant varieties rights between Sichuan Taiwo Seed Industry Co., LTD and Qingyuan Agricultural Science and Technology Extension Service Center. Judge Shi Jinghan presided over the unfair competition dispute between Derivative Holding Group (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Wanglaoji Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. was selected.
Dispute between Sichuan Taiwo Seed Industry Co., Ltd. and Qingyuan Agricultural Science and Technology Extension Service Center over infringement of new plant variety rights
——To determine whether the parents' application for authorization and variety verification of new varieties after breeding infringes the parents' rights to the varieties
Case index：(2018) No. 707 at the beginning of the Republic of China
Judge in charge：Tan Haihua
Brief of the case
Taiwo Company is the exclusive licensor of the variety rights of "Yuehe Simiao", and has the exclusive right to produce the "Hengfeng A" combination variety approval area (except Guangdong and Guangxi regions). Qingyuan Agricultural Technology Center used Taiwo Company's rights of "Yuehe silk seedling" and "Hengfeng A" to combine a new variety "Hengfeng you Yuehe silk seedling", and applied for variety right protection to the Ministry of Agriculture Plant New Variety Protection Office, and applied for approval to the Guangdong Province Crop Variety Certification Committee. Taiwo Company believes that Qingyuan Agricultural Technology Center's collocation behavior, application for new plant variety rights, variety certification behavior and the above behavior must be repeated use of authorized varieties to produce the reproduction materials of applied varieties, which constitutes infringement, and sues for compensation.
Results of judgments and rulings
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the key to whether Qingyuan Agricultural Technology Center infringes is to determine whether the above behavior belongs to scientific research or commercial behavior. First, the act of pairing "Hengfeng Youyue He silk Miao" belongs to the category of scientific research and does not constitute infringement. Second, the new variety right of plants is not automatically obtained because of the cultivation of new varieties, and Qingyuan Agricultural Technology Center has the right to apply for the new variety right of the newly cultivated "Hengfengyou Yuehe silk seedling" after breeding. Application is the pre-procedure to obtain the new plant variety right, application itself has no commercial purpose, does not constitute infringement. Thirdly, the approval is the watershed between scientific research and breeding and commercial purposes, and Qingyuan Agricultural Technology Center's application for approval still belongs to the field of scientific research and breeding. Fourth, according to the legislative intent and interpretation of "Seed Law" and "Regulations on the Protection of New Varieties of Plants" to encourage the cultivation and promotion of better varieties, "repeated reproduction of authorized varieties with other parents as the parent" should be limited to the duplication for the purpose of marketing, that is, repeated production that is inevitable in the breeding process should be included. For example, in order to achieve a reasonable number of seeds for breeding. Therefore, the actions of Qingyuan Agricultural Technology Center do not constitute commercial purposes, and all the claims of Taiwo company are rejected according to law. Taiwo company appealed against the appeal, the second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical significance
In this case, according to the legislative purpose of the Seed Law to encourage the cultivation and promotion of better varieties, it is pioneering to find that the new plant variety "Yuehe Silk seedling" and "Hengfeng A" that the plaintiff has rights to combine "Hengfengyou Yuehe silk seedling" and apply for the approval and application of new plant variety rights do not belong to commercial use and do not constitute infringement. The boundary between breeding behavior itself and post-breeding application for approval and application for new plant variety right and post-breeding commercial use is clarified, which provides judicial guarantee for legal breeding behavior of breeders and promotes legal breeding and promotion of improved varieties. Article 11 of the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on New Varieties of Plants (II) fully absorbed the gist of the judgment of this case, which was awarded the top ten typical cases of the protection of new varieties of agricultural plants by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in 2021 and the top Ten cases of intellectual property judicial protection by Guangdong courts in 2021, and was also written into the work report of the Guangdong High Court.
Case of unfair competition dispute between Derivative Holding Group (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Guangzhou Wanglaoji Pharmaceutical Co., LTD
——Whether the administrative complaint behavior of the trade operator constitutes a judgment of commercial slander
Case index：(2019) No. 6933 Min End, Yue 73
Judge in charge：Shi Jinghan
Brief of the case
Wanglaoji Company from 2015 to 2017, many times to the food and drug administration complained about the derivative group's "derivative children seven star tea solid drink" product counterfeit drugs, but after the investigation by the food and drug administration department, the relevant complaints were found not established, did not file. The derivative group believes that Wanglaoji Company repeatedly made malicious and false complaints against the main products of the derivative group, and the food and Drug administration carried out an investigation, resulting in significant damage to the goodwill of the derivative group. In addition, the derivative group believes that Wanglao Ji Company through the official website of the product to carry out false publicity, and then sued Wanglao Ji company constitutes unfair competition. The court of first instance held that the lawful complaint supervision behavior did not belong to commercial slander, and although the publicity content of Wanglao Ji had exaggerated elements, it was not enough to make the relevant public mistake it as a drug or has a specific effect, which did not constitute false publicity, and the judgment rejected all the litigation claims. After the verdict, the derivatives group appealed.
Results of judgments and rulings
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court of second instance held that Wanglaoji's complaint about what it considered to be violations was a legitimate act of exercising the power of supervision and did not violate legal provisions. As a market entity, derivative groups should be subject to the supervision of competitors, consumers and other members of the public. In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that Wanglo Kit Company complained about false information, it is not appropriate to identify the fabrication of false information or misleading information on the grounds that the complaint is not established, and the number of complaints is not necessarily related to whether it constitutes a false complaint. As to whether competition is constituted, it is not limited to the industry or service category of the market entities, let alone whether the products or services operated by the market entities are the same, or whether there is a competitive relationship between the market entities, but from the point of view that there is a connection between the market entities in the competition or one party's behavior improperly interferes with the legitimate business activities of others and damages the relevant public interests. Determine if there is competition. Wanglaoji Company used on the relevant products of the promotional terms, although inaccurate or exaggerated, but not enough to lead to cheating, misleading consumers, the court of first instance was accurate, then rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical significance
Both parties in this case are well-known enterprises in the health food industry, and the proper resolution of the dispute is related to the healthy development of the industry competition order, which has a high social influence and attention. As we all know, administrative complaints play an irreplaceable role in safeguarding the legitimate interests of consumers and the order of market operation. Business operators with competitive relations also have the right to supervise and complain about the business activities of their competitors. However, due to the sensitivity of their identity, their complaint behavior may be mixed with commercial purposes, which is difficult to distinguish from commercial slander, and needs to be judged by the court, so as to guide enterprises to regulate market competition behavior. This case starts from the legislative intention of the commercial defamation act, and evaluates the legitimacy of the complaint act by considering the subjective intention of the complainant, the way of behavior and the consequences of the behavior. In addition, the case also clarified the judgment principle of market competition relations and accurately defined the false propaganda behavior.
Source: Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court
Related Cases
Retrial of the applicant China Resources (Group) Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Group) and China Resources Intellectual Property Management Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Intellectual Property Company) for trademark infringement and unfair competition disputes with the respondent China Resources Lighting Store (hereinafter referred to as China Resources Store) in Jinniu District, Chengdu, If you are not satisfied with the civil judgment No. 174 of Sichuan Higher People's Court (2020), apply to the court for a retrial.
2022-04-21
Us Steel and Baosteel 337 investigation
In May 2016, more than 40 Chinese steel companies, such as Baosteel and Shougang, launched a 337 investigation against carbon steel and alloy steel imported from China to the United States. From anti-monopoly, infringement of trade secrets, fictitious origin and other three aspects of the Chinese steel enterprises accused.
2021-08-31
Zhuhai Nastar Company and other responding to the case of "337 investigation" ink cartridges
On February 27, 2006, Epson filed a "337 investigation" application for several ink cartridge manufacturers, including Chinese enterprises, and then, on August 1 of the same year, when Epson's "337 investigation" case had not yet appeared, HP also filed a "337 investigation" application for three companies affiliated with Nastar Group.
2021-08-31
In January 2009, Cargill filed a "337" infringement lawsuit with the United States International Trade Commission ITC on the grounds that six defendants such as Nantong Foreign Trade Medical and Health Products Co., Ltd. infringed its patent, and applied for a general exclusion order to prohibit all the vegetarian glycosamines and products containing the substance that infringed its patent from entering the United States market, regardless of origin.
2021-08-31
Philips Lumens v. Crystal Light emitting Diodes Patent infringement case
On September 6, 2001, after confirming the validity of its US patent No. 5008,718 in the US patent litigation, Philips Lumens filed its first patent lawsuit against Crystal Optoelectronics in July 2004, and Crystal agreed to settle the case by paying a one-time patent license fee.
2021-08-12
Resmed v. ABbot medical device patent infringement case
On March 28, 2013, Resmed filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against AB and its distributor, California's Driver Medical Design & Manufacturing, for illegally importing and selling "certain systems and components for the treatment of sleep disordered breathing. sleep-disordered breathing treatment systems and components thereof) and other products infringed Resmed's seven patents related to humidity regulators and breathing masks.
2021-08-12
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
