Right before World intellectual property day, on April 26th, an invention patent infringement case handled by our firm, “a coin checking device” of the gashapon machine, was listed as the 2021 Top 10 Exemplary Cases of Administrative IP Enforcement by the Guangdong Administration for Market Regulation
It is known that there are two ways to protect intellectual property rights in China, namely, the judicial way and administrative ways. This case is a typical one that seeks protection through administrative means.
In this case, our firm represented the petitioner, claiming that the respondent constituted the infringement on the invention patent, and requesting the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation to order the respondent to stop manufacturing and using the alleged infringing products that infringed the petitioner's patent rights, to stop selling, offering to sell, and using the promotional materials and sales information on the Internet of the gashapon machines using the allegedly infringing products, and to destroy the special equipment and mold for manufacturing the alleged infringing products, and inventory of the alleged infringing products.
The petitioner entrusted us when noticing the respondent’s infringing act of manufacturing, selling, offering to sell and using the allegedly infringing product. We first purchased the gashapon machine from the respondent's Taobao shop and carried out the infringement appraisal. After affirming the infringement, we notarized the whole process of purchasing a gashapon machine to improve the evidence validity. Moreover, we preserved the online offer to sell of the respondent by using timestamps and other means.
After requesting the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation to handle patent infringement disputes, our attorneys kept close contact with the responsible officers. After learning that the officers would soon go to the respondent's factory for an on-site investigation, we proposed to accompany the officer for easy identification of the alleged infringing products. The Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation permitted our request after giving full consideration to the circumstances of this case. In the end, with the identification of our attorneys, a large number of alleged infringing products were discovered at the scene and the responsible officer of the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation recorded them one by one.
Shortly after the on-site investigation, the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation organized an oral hearing for both parties. During the hearing, both parties argued about whether the gashapon machine that was purchased under notarization fell into the protection scope of the petitioner’s patent.We made strong rebuttal of each statement made by the opposing party, and elaborated on the various infringing acts committed by the respondent combined with the preserved evidence. Facing our strong and rigorous evidence, with the mediation of the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation, the respondent finally was willing to reach a settlement.
Based on the settlement terms and well-prepared negotiation strategies that we discussed with the petitioner, we reached the preliminary settlement with the terms favorable to the petitioner and had the memorandum of settlement signed on the hearing site. After the signing of the memorandum, the two parties communicated several times on the specific content and details of the settlement, and finally signed the agreement in June 2021 officially. The respondent not only promises not to sell the accused infringing products anymore, destroy the inventory, promotional materials and production molds of the accused infringing products, but also agree not to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, or display other gashapon machine and products that are similar to the client’s patented products except some certain models. In addition, the respondent also agreed to transfer the trademarks and domain names owned by itself or its affiliates that are similar to the petitioner's trademark to the client for free. After the agreement was signed, our attorneys paid close attention to the respondent’s performance of the agreement and found that the respondent duly fulfilled its obligations.
We can see from this case that by seeking the right protection through administrative means, the petitioner not only achieved the basic purpose of stopping patent infringement, but also settled the disputes regarding copyright, trademark, and domain name at once, which greatly saved the cost.
It is known that there are two ways to protect intellectual property rights in China, namely, the judicial way and administrative ways. This case is a typical one that seeks protection through administrative means.
In this case, our firm represented the petitioner, claiming that the respondent constituted the infringement on the invention patent, and requesting the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation to order the respondent to stop manufacturing and using the alleged infringing products that infringed the petitioner's patent rights, to stop selling, offering to sell, and using the promotional materials and sales information on the Internet of the gashapon machines using the allegedly infringing products, and to destroy the special equipment and mold for manufacturing the alleged infringing products, and inventory of the alleged infringing products.
The petitioner entrusted us when noticing the respondent’s infringing act of manufacturing, selling, offering to sell and using the allegedly infringing product. We first purchased the gashapon machine from the respondent's Taobao shop and carried out the infringement appraisal. After affirming the infringement, we notarized the whole process of purchasing a gashapon machine to improve the evidence validity. Moreover, we preserved the online offer to sell of the respondent by using timestamps and other means.
After requesting the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation to handle patent infringement disputes, our attorneys kept close contact with the responsible officers. After learning that the officers would soon go to the respondent's factory for an on-site investigation, we proposed to accompany the officer for easy identification of the alleged infringing products. The Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation permitted our request after giving full consideration to the circumstances of this case. In the end, with the identification of our attorneys, a large number of alleged infringing products were discovered at the scene and the responsible officer of the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation recorded them one by one.
Shortly after the on-site investigation, the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation organized an oral hearing for both parties. During the hearing, both parties argued about whether the gashapon machine that was purchased under notarization fell into the protection scope of the petitioner’s patent.We made strong rebuttal of each statement made by the opposing party, and elaborated on the various infringing acts committed by the respondent combined with the preserved evidence. Facing our strong and rigorous evidence, with the mediation of the Dongguan Municipal Bureau of Market Regulation, the respondent finally was willing to reach a settlement.
Based on the settlement terms and well-prepared negotiation strategies that we discussed with the petitioner, we reached the preliminary settlement with the terms favorable to the petitioner and had the memorandum of settlement signed on the hearing site. After the signing of the memorandum, the two parties communicated several times on the specific content and details of the settlement, and finally signed the agreement in June 2021 officially. The respondent not only promises not to sell the accused infringing products anymore, destroy the inventory, promotional materials and production molds of the accused infringing products, but also agree not to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, or display other gashapon machine and products that are similar to the client’s patented products except some certain models. In addition, the respondent also agreed to transfer the trademarks and domain names owned by itself or its affiliates that are similar to the petitioner's trademark to the client for free. After the agreement was signed, our attorneys paid close attention to the respondent’s performance of the agreement and found that the respondent duly fulfilled its obligations.
We can see from this case that by seeking the right protection through administrative means, the petitioner not only achieved the basic purpose of stopping patent infringement, but also settled the disputes regarding copyright, trademark, and domain name at once, which greatly saved the cost.