The Regulation on Business Name Registration (Amendment) issued by the State Council recently took effect. The amendment introduces various changes – including a new name approval system, new restrictions on business names, a new dispute mechanism and revised oversight procedures for the local Administration for Market Regulation.
The Supreme People's Court recently promulgated two judicial interpretations regarding IP rights disputes that involve internet service providers (ISPs): the Reply to Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Online IP Rights Infringement Disputes, which applies to all ISPs, and the Guiding Opinions on the Trial of Civil IP Rights Cases Involving E-Commerce Platforms, which target e-commerce platforms. This article summarises the key points of these two judicial interpretations.
In March 2020 the China National Intellectual Property Administration released an exposure draft on the Guide for Determining Geographical Indications as Generic Names. The guide is considered a response to the first phase of the China-US Economic and Trade Agreement, since it completely absorbs the standards for determining generic names stipulated in the agreement.
The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) recently issued the new Administrative Measures for the Use of Special Marks Reserved for Geographical Indications (GIs) (Trial). The special mark reserved for GIs is an official mark for consumers to verify GI-protected products in China and can be used by authorised producers, members affiliated with rights holders of GI collective trademarks, licensees of a GI certification trademark and other parties subject to CNIPA recordal and publication.
The Beijing IP Court has ruled that an internet service provider which published rules stating that it had verified the legal status of vendors on its platform had to guarantee that the products sold on its platform were genuine. Despite taking measures after being officially informed of an infringement, the service provider remained jointly and severally liable for the infringement as, by publishing the rules, it had endorsed the vendor and lost its strictly neutral position. Therefore, the safe harbour principle did not apply.