Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 11, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 11, 2025

August 11, 2025 global, meritsip 0 Comments

Editor’s Note: Intellectual Property Highlights and Strategies for Innovation

Welcome to the MeritsIP Newsletter. We delve into critical updates in the intellectual property landscape, providing insights and strategies to help you navigate the ever-evolving world of patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Read on to stay informed and ahead in the game of innovation.

Anhui’s New Pre – examination Rules! Applications with These Classification Numbers Need to Submit Additional R & D Proof, or They May Be Rejected

Recently, the Anhui Intellectual Property Protection Center issued a notice on standardizing the submission of some patent pre – examination application materials. Since August 5th, for patent pre – examination applications under classification numbers B08B, B02C, etc., in addition to the stipulated document requirements, applicants must submit additional R & D proof materials, including those proving actual R & D activities and capabilities. If the required materials are not submitted or cannot prove the invention’s authenticity, the application will be rejected or the pre – examination service terminated. The center will implement a dynamic adjustment mechanism for relevant classification numbers based on actual business operation and provides contact information for inquiries.

Case Frequency: Transsion Sued by Huawei for Patent Infringement Again!

Recently, Huawei has filed lawsuits against Transsion at the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Europe. Transsion, founded in 2013 and listed in 2019, focuses on smart – terminal business and is known as the “King of Africa” with a high share in the African mobile – phone market. On August 4, the UPC case management system showed that Huawei sued Transsion and its affiliates at the Munich branch on June 20 for infringing a European patent (EP2725797). On August 7, it was revealed that Huawei filed another lawsuit at the Mannheim branch on July 25, involving a patent (EP3471419). Both patents are from the HEVC Advance patent pool. This is Huawei’s second lawsuit against Transsion. In 2019, they had a theme – wallpaper infringement lawsuit which was settled in 2020. Moreover, Transsion has faced multiple lawsuits recently, with Japanese and US companies suing it for patent infringement in Brazil and Europe.

State Intellectual Property Office Revokes Licenses of 8 Patent Agencies and 1 Patent Agent’s Qualification

Recently, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) publicly issued 9 administrative penalty decisions. It revoked the practice licenses of 8 patent agencies and the qualification certificate of 1 patent agent due to their serious illegal patent – agency behaviors.

Investigations revealed that these entities and the agent were involved in illegal activities like buying enterprise information from a criminal convicted of infringing personal information, fabricating patent applications, using forged electronic seals, and renting out practice licenses. Some agencies also had numerous non – normal patent applications not in line with innovation protection purposes.

The punished parties were pre – informed of the proposed penalties but didn’t make statements, defenses, or request hearings within the legal time limit. The CNIPA revoked their relevant licenses and listed them in the serious illegal and untrustworthy list from July 30, 2025, to July 29, 2028. They can apply for early removal one year after the expiration. Dissatisfied parties can apply for administrative reconsideration or file administrative lawsuits.

Unauthorized Use of Others’ VR Works? This Is How the Court Ruled

A professional photographer, Fu, posted his VR panoramic works on a platform. Company A used 25 pictures from two of his VR works in app B without permission. Fu sued for infringement and compensation. A argued that Fu couldn’t prove copyright without the original memory card and claimed its use increased the works’ popularity.

The court held that the VR works, meeting the inventiveness requirement, were protected as photographic works. Despite lacking the original memory card, Fu’s electronic negatives and web screenshots were sufficient to prove copyright. A’s unauthorized display of the works on app B infringed Fu’s right of information network dissemination and right of signature.

The court ordered A to stop the infringement, delete the works, and compensate Fu 5000 yuan. The ruling emphasized protecting the right of information network dissemination in the digital age and reminded creators to keep evidence and users to obtain authorization.

Competition | Beijing Intellectual Property Court: Used Car Inspection Agency Ordered to Stop Using “Fa Jian” and Pay Compensation

In a dispute between a vehicle appraisal company and an internet company, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a series of judgments. The internet company, competing with the appraisal company in the used – car appraisal business, had the right to sue. The appraisal company was found to have engaged in unfair competition, including baseless remarks about the internet company’s brand on platforms, false advertising, and using “Fa Jian” in its name to mislead the public into thinking it was associated with judicial organs. The court ordered the company to stop unfair competition, stop using “Fa Jian” in its name, and issue a clarification statement. The first – instance court’s decision to award 900,000 yuan in economic compensation and 200,000 yuan in reasonable expenses was upheld, and the second – instance court dismissed the appeal and maintained the original judgment.

UK and OpenAI Sign Memorandum of Understanding on AI Opportunities

On July 21, 2025, the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and OpenAI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on AI opportunities. The two parties aim to form a strategic partnership for AI – driven economic growth and improve UK citizens’ lives. AI can transform productivity, innovation, and address social challenges. Their shared vision is to use the UK’s advantages to maintain a leading global AI ecosystem and support self – developed AI.

In public and private sectors, they’ll cooperate on deploying advanced AI models for efficiency. They’ll develop solutions for justice, defense, and education. In infrastructure, OpenAI will work with DSIT to identify priorities and explore participation in AI growth areas. In technology information exchange, they’ll collaborate to understand capabilities and risks, expand cooperation with the UK’s AISI, and develop safeguards for the public and democratic values.

Trademark | Beijing High Court: Reversed in Second Instance! Zhao Yiming Wins, Malicious Trademark Attachment Ruled Invalid

In an administrative dispute over the invalidation of Yichun Zhao Yiming Trading Co., Ltd.’s trademark right, the Beijing High Court reversed the first – instance judgment. The court found that the registration of the disputed trademark violated Article 32 and Article 44(1) of the Trademark Law.

Under Article 32, the registration damaged Zhao Yiming Co., Ltd.’s prior trade – name rights as the trademark was identical to its well – known trade – name used in snack sales before the application date, and the goods covered were related to its business, which could cause consumer confusion. Also, registering it on Class 30 goods was “pre – emptively registering a trademark that others have used and have certain influence by improper means” as the applicant should have known of Zhao Yiming Co., Ltd.’s influential use.

Regarding Article 44(1), the applicant, Shanghai Dapengyou Xiaopengyou Industrial Development Co., Ltd., applied for 9 “Zhao Yiming” trademarks in multiple categories simultaneously without reasonable explanation, showing an intention to attach to others’ goodwill and disrupting the trademark registration order.

The court revoked the first – instance judgment and the CNIPA’s ruling, and ordered the CNIPA to re – make a ruling on the invalidation request of the “Zhao Yiming” trademark.

52000+ US Trademarks Officially Revoked

On August 8, 2025, the USPTO announced that on August 6, it sanctioned a foreign applicant company (Shenzhen SG and affiliates) for unauthorized document – submission, misusing lawyers’ credentials, forging signatures, etc. Over 52,000 related applications and registrations were terminated. The USPTO aims to ensure the trademark register reflects actual business use.

On July 28, the USPTO issued a reconsideration order but directly terminated the trademarks on August 6. The final over – 800 – page sanction order, with Annex A listing 52,000+ trademarks, followed multiple “show – cause orders”. Most of these trademarks were registered by Chinese Amazon merchants, and their Amazon filings are also terminated, troubling Chinese sellers.

The article offers emergency Amazon filing adjustment strategies, like temporary brand protection (Amazon Transparency Program and Project Zero), updating registration info, and switching to unregistered trademark protection.

Understanding the African Intellectual Property Organization’s Trademark Opposition System

The African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) has a single trademark registration system, with the trademark opposition system being vital for preventing potentially infringing trademarks from regional registration. This article analyzes five core elements of the OAPI trademark opposition system: 1. Accepting Institution: The OAPI headquarters in Yaoundé, Cameroon, centrally accepts and adjudicates opposition procedures. The Trademarks Department conducts a formal review, and the Opposition Committee or High Commission makes the final decision. Dissatisfied parties can appeal to the African Intellectual Property Organization Unified Court of Appeal in Lomé, Togo. 2. Timing: Oppositions must be filed within six months after the official publication of the trademark application, with this period generally non – extendable. 3. Grounds: Oppositions should be based on legal reasons in the OAPI’s Bangui Agreement Annex III and relevant regulations. 4. Procedure: The process mainly depends on written materials. The opponent submits a notice, followed by OAPI’s review and service. The opponent can submit a counter – statement, and the committee makes a decision based on written documents. 5. Period: The standard process usually takes 8 months to 2 years. Non – response by the opponent may lead to a decision in about 8 months, while an appeal will extend the period. Enterprises in the OAPI region should monitor trademark announcements, file timely oppositions, ensure material quality, hire professionals, understand the process, and explore settlement possibilities.

Professional Knowledge: Singapore’s Patent Invalidation System

This article details Singapore’s patent invalidation system, mainly implemented through revocation proceedings based on Section 80 of the Patents Act. There are two main institutions: the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) for administrative revocation of non – litigated Singapore – granted patents (fast and cost – effective, taking 9 – 12 months), and the High Court for infringement – related or independent revocation lawsuits (complex, taking 1 – 3 years).

Revocation reasons include non – patentability, lack of novelty, etc. The revocation processes for IPOS and the court differ. Third – parties can request IPOS re – examination based on novelty, etc., with low cost but limited scope. Revocation effects include retroactive invalidation, etc., and there is an appeal mechanism. Practical suggestions involve strategy selection, evidence preparation, and allowing claim modification.

USPTO has terminated more than 52,000 fraudulently filed trademark applications and registrations

On August 6, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sanctioned a foreign filing firm and terminated over 52,000 related trademark applications and registrations. The firm submitted documents without proper authority, sought cooperation from U.S.-licensed attorneys, misused their credentials, faked signatures, used others’ names, submitted fake specimens, and misused USPTO.gov accounts. The USPTO removed these records to ensure the trademark register accurately reflects trademarks in actual commercial use.

Brazil’s Trademark Practice Reform: Introduction of Prioritized Examination System and Adjustment of Fee Structure

In the competitive global business landscape, trademarks are vital for enterprises. Brazil, with a large economy, has a long average trademark review time and a backlog of over 200,000 unexamined applications. To tackle this, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (INPI) will introduce a trademark prioritized examination system on August 7, 2025. There are two types: statutory (free, no quota) for specific applicants and for strategic or public – policy reasons (with a quota, 890 reais official fee).

The fee structure will be adjusted on September 20, 2025, with non – discounted trademark application fees increasing. Local registration fees and second – phase fees for international registrations designating Brazil will end. Discounts are available for certain groups.

The reform aims to promote innovation and fair competition, but its short – term impact on review efficiency may be limited. Enterprises planning to enter the Brazilian market, especially those meeting prioritized examination criteria, should monitor policies, prepare materials, and have reasonable expectations.

About Us

MeritsIP: Your Global Intellectual Property Partner

At MeritsIP, we provide comprehensive IP services in biomedicine, medical devices, manufacturing, semiconductors, and AI. We support 200+ top clients globally with strategic, high-quality IP services.

MeritsIP

MeritsIP