Can the authors of the co-authors sue alone? Can 44 hotels take the same picture at once? Six realIntellectual property rightsIn one case, the rules for the defence of rights, the logic of sentencing and the mechanisms for pluralization were made clear。
Part of the author of the collaborative work is being prosecuted separately
Liu choi brought before a court for violation of copyright to demand that the other party cease the violation and compensate for the damage. The court found that liu was only a partial author of cooperative works and not all rights holders. In order to fully safeguard the interests of the parties, the court approached the heirs of another author to inform him of the progress of the proceedings in the case and to ensure that the right of the parties to know was not affected。
The court finally established a key rule that some authors of collaborative works may bring tort proceedings alone, without all authors having to participate. This differs from the general rule that common rights holders should be heard in ordinary civil joint rights disputes. It needs to be noted, however, that compensation obtained through separate prosecution cannot be vested in itself and should be reasonably distributed by law to other rights holders。
Toothpaste wrapping is an undue competition
Some industrial company in vi is producing a "sulphur" fermentation with a unique design, colour, text and sequencing combination, with a remarkable visual impact. After years of corporate use and considerable financial investment, the product has gained many honours and high market visibility, and the public will be able to identify the source of the commodity by seeing the packaging。
The defendant preferred the same type of toothpaste from a technology company and a united states dollar company, and the packaging made up the same substance as a "swinger". The court found that the unauthorized use by the two companies of a combination of packaging and decoupling of goods with a certain influence on others constituted an undue competition, and ordered cessation of the infringement and compensation for damages, which the consumer could easily confuse。
Irregular use of trademarks triggers a chain dispute
A company holds trademarks nos. 17421010, 58401871, which are authorized to include temporary accommodation. One day blue companies operate with the authorization of a certain company, but do not regulate the use of authorized markings in decoration, decoration and advertising. The court found that there was more than one problem。
The court added the defendant to one of the companies, and found irregularities in the authorization of its use to multiple operators. Finally, the parties reached a settlement: one day the blue company fixed the deadline, a company that paid damages and was responsible for ensuring that all authorized parties regulated its use. The conciliation in this case resolved more than 20 potential disputes in a single instance, protecting the rights of the plaintiffs and preventing other business subjects from generating new litigation。
The use of another person's trademark in a description of a commodity does not necessarily infringe
A sports company sells artificial baits on one of the treasure platforms, the akfs ekfys enterprise, with the sign "twister" on commodity titles, posters, detailed pages and physical overpacks. A trading company found that the above-mentioned acts violated its right to register trademarks, bringing together a sports company and a fishing gear company before a court for cessation of the violation and compensation for the corresponding damages。
After the trial, it was found that the two companies had marked their own trademarks as prominent in the overpacking of goods and the display of pages on the internet, and that the term "distorted" was only part of the functional description of the product, the "discussed pencil", placed on the side of the trademark and was not prominently used to identify the origin of the goods. Such use is not intended to be in keeping with the goodwill of others and does not easily lead to public confusion and is justified。
I'm gonna charge 44 people with mass photographic abuse
A cowboy video company discovered that a commercial hotel had used, without authorization, the company's copyrighted photographic work on the micro-intelligence public sign operated, thereby violating the right to information network dissemination. The company then appealed to the court for cessation of the violation and compensation. Before and after the case was opened, the company continued to prosecute a total of 44 similar violations, involving the operation of a number of different hotels。
This group of cases has become a typical success story for the multi-dimensional dispute resolution platform for intellectual property rights in municipal courts. The platform has introduced socialized forces to screen for mediation, cumulatively screening more than 1680 intellectual property cases since its inception, resolving 135 substantive disputes, and 318 rights holders who have voluntarily withdrawn from litigation for jurisdictional, service and other reasons, with about 27 per cent of cases having been substantially resolved at the source。
Multi-dimensional platform on intellectual property rights reduces the cost of defending rights
The multi-dimensional dispute resolution platform on intellectual property established by municipal courts is a bold attempt to involve social forces in the management of intellectual property disputes. Through pre-screening and mediation, the platform has blocked a large number of disputes from formal proceedings. More than 1680 screenings and a 27 per cent source defusing rate demonstrate that the mechanism effectively reduces the rights-holders ' costs and reduces the pressure on the justice system to handle cases。
For rights-holders, it was not necessary for each dispute to follow a full litigation process; for operators, early intervention in mediation avoided lengthy trial cycles and uncertainty. In the case of one company, for example, a conciliation covered more than 20 business subjects, and the time and economic cost would be several times greater if one action was taken. The platform model provides an economically efficient solution to the bulk defence of intellectual property rights。
If your business faced a similar intellectual property dispute, would you choose whether to sue one by one or to take a pluralistic platform for conciliation? You will be welcome to share your views in the comment area, and if you find them useful, please compliment the collection and forward them to your peers。
