Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 18, 2025

Intellectual Property Newsletter by MeritsIP, August 18, 2025

August 18, 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.

“Double Five-Star” Patents Given Priority! Latest Patent Transformation and Utilization Policies from CNIPA

Recently, the CNIPA Office called on local authorities to prioritize “Double Five-Star” patent transformation, aiming to implement relevant notices and plans, and speed up patent transformation in universities and research institutions. “Double Five-Star” patents are those self-evaluated as five-star by universities/research institutions and rated five-star by at least one enterprise. The notice requires local authorities to allocate resources to support the data mining, promotion, and transformation of these patents based on local industrial development, focusing on high-value projects in key technological fields. Specific measures involve in-depth analysis, targeted dissemination, project selection, and using AI to identify patents with good transformation prospects in local key industries.

10.5 Million Yuan! A Counterfeit “Champion” Brand Faced a Hefty Punitive Judgment

An American clothing manufacturer sued a Fujian family business for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The plaintiff’s “CHAMPION/冠军” brand, with over a century – long history, became popular in China in 2018, attracting many imitations. The defendant registered similar trademarks around the Champion brand since 2017 and used variants to cause consumer confusion.

The plaintiff took actions from 2019, including invalidation, cancellation, and opposition of the defendant’s trademarks. In 2023, it sued in the Beijing Chaoyang District People’s Court, claiming 10 million yuan in economic losses and 500,000 yuan in reasonable expenses. The court fully supported the claim, including a two – fold punitive compensation.

There were two main difficulties in the case. One was to make the core controller of the defendant’s group bear the main liability, and the other was to prove the amount of losses or profits from the infringement. The court applied punitive compensation due to the defendant’s malicious acts.

This case is a successful example of combating counterfeit trademark infringement and unfair competition, boosting foreign brand owners’ confidence in China’s IP protection. It is currently in the second – instance procedure.

The workflow failed to execute, and the error message indicates that the input data is incorrect as fields cannot be extracted from null values. Please check if the provided URL is valid and try again.

Typical Case | Jiading Court: “AI Face-Swapping” Does Not Constitute Fair Use, and Technology Application Must Adhere to Legal Boundaries

This case is a dispute over the infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works. Plaintiff Chen uploaded 13 short ancient – costume videos on Douyin. Defendant Company 1 developed a Douyin mini – program “Mouyan” that offered face – swapping technology using AI video synthesis algorithms. The videos on “Mouyan” were substantially similar to Chen’s, except for facial features, and users could swap faces by watching ads or buying memberships.

The Shanghai Jiading District People’s Court ruled in the first – instance that Chen’s videos were protected audiovisual works. Company 1 used “AI face – swapping” for profit, infringing Chen’s right of information network dissemination, which was neither original adaptation nor fair use.

During the lawsuit, Company 1 cooperated in rectification. Chen forgave the company and withdrew some claims. The court ordered Company 1 to compensate Chen 7,500 yuan, and both parties didn’t appeal. This case clarifies that “AI face – swapping” doesn’t meet the criteria of original adaptation or fair use, and AI network service providers have a duty of reasonable care, balancing innovation and rights protection.

“Mixue Bingcheng Orange” Imitates “Mixue Bingcheng” at Pixel Level

On August 16, a Sichuan netizen posted a video of a “Mixue Bingcheng Orange” store under renovation in Pingshan County. Its red – and – white signboard and “Snow King” logo were very similar to Mixue Bingcheng. The “Snow King” of “Mixue Bingcheng Orange” had over four modifications. It also had a similar slogan.

After inquiring through Mixue Bingcheng’s franchise hotline, it was confirmed the store had no relation to Mixue Bingcheng. Customer service said they couldn’t handle the many imitation stores. There are other similar names too.

The Pingshan County market supervision bureau has received reports. As the store is in the decoration stage and not open, it has been ordered to remove the infringing door – head and stop business. The store owner admitted it was not a franchise.

True Expertise! The Material Engineering Invention Examination Department of the Patent Office Achieves Remarkable Results in the Retrieval Competition

In recent years, the Material Engineering Invention Examination Department of the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has enhanced examiners’ patent retrieval capabilities via the “Three – Dimensional Drive” approach. In the 2024 Patent Examination Retrieval Competition, it won the Excellent Organization Award in the invention examination department sequence. The department focuses on retrieval quality, using the competition to “promote training and quality improvement”. In 2024, it developed the “Retrieval Specification for the Material Field” and offered training. It conducts retrieval mutual – assistance activities, focusing on difficult cases and sharing results. It also integrates internal and external resources, organizing pre – competition training and in – depth research on difficult cases. In the future, it will continue to use the “Three – Dimensional Drive” approach to improve retrieval capabilities.

Analysis of Judicial Determination of Movie “Plagiarism” in the “Old Boy” Case

This article analyzes the judicial determination of movie “plagiarism” through the “Old Boy” case. The plaintiff claimed Old Boy plagiarized Soul Broken in Beijing in multiple aspects, but both the first – and second – instance courts dismissed the claim. The case involves copyright law concepts like access possibility, inventiveness, idea – expression dichotomy, and substantial similarity. The second – instance court corrected the first – instance’s omission on access possibility. The author argues the novel shows inventiveness, yet the courts wrongly denied it. The first – instance court misinterpreted the plaintiff’s comparison paragraphs in the idea – expression dichotomy. When judging substantial similarity, the focus should be on inventive expressions and substantial similarity, not overall differences. The author emphasizes correct legal understanding and application in copyright adjudication, following previous case consensus.

Local Standards on Biological Patent Pre – examination Released

On August 10, 2025, two local standards in Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, “Specification for Writing Pre – examination Application Documents for Invention Patents in the Biological Field” and “Quality Management Specification for Patent Pre – examination”, officially took effect. Drafted by the Inner Mongolia Intellectual Property Protection Center and approved by the Inner Mongolia Market Supervision and Administration Bureau on July 10, the “Quality Management Specification for Patent Pre – examination” focuses on personnel management, pre – examination process quality control, etc., aiming to improve patent writing quality and authorization stability. The “Specification for Writing Pre – examination Application Documents for Invention Patents in the Biological Field” regulates basic elements of application documents and details regulations for certain biological inventions, providing a reference for relevant biological units.

Comprehensive Review and Judgment of Evidence for Prior Use Defense

In a trademark infringement case, Siomou Company accused Siomoude Company of infringing its registered trademarks and sought compensation. Siomoude Company claimed prior use of the “SCANTECH” trademark and argued Siomou’s bad – faith registration. The first – instance court ordered Siomoude to stop infringement and pay compensation. On appeal, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court found Siomoude had prior use with certain sales scale and influence, allowing continued use within the original scope with a distinguishing mark. The judge emphasized that in prior – use defense cases, the balance of interests principle should be followed. When judging, factors include not directly using administrative – determined facts in civil cases (except in specific situations), comprehensively judging prior – use evidence according to rules, correctly understanding “certain influence” in the Trademark Law, and realizing that prior – use defense doesn’t necessarily imply bad – faith squatting by the subsequent applicant.

Zhejiang High Court: Malicious Imitation of Rockit Apples’ “Rocket Launcher” Packaging Constitutes Unfair Competition and Trademark Infringement

In a dispute between Rockit Global Limited and Ningbo Moumou Guobao Trading Co., Ltd., the court ruled on trademark infringement and unfair competition. Moumou Company used allegedly infringing marks like “TOCKIR” and certain graphic marks on apple packaging. “TOCKIR” is likely a variation of the right – holder’s “ROCKIT” and similar, which may cause consumer confusion. Other graphic marks are also highly similar to the right – holder’s. Rockit’s packaging has been in the Chinese market since 2015, forming a stable market connection. Moumou’s similar packaging may mislead consumers, thus constituting unfair competition. The first – instance court ordered Moumou to stop the infringement and compensate Rockit 400,000 yuan. The second – instance court upheld most of the first – instance judgment and confirmed the compensation. The case involves relevant laws such as the Trademark Law and the Anti – Unfair Competition Law.

Shanghai Intellectual Property Court: Damm Beer Wins! Multiple Parties Found Guilty of Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition

In a lawsuit by Damm Sociedad Anonima against multiple defendants, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ruled. The court deemed it unnecessary to recognize Damm’s “DAMM” and “达姆” trademarks as well – known ones as the defendant’s “布鲁特达姆大星” trademark was invalidated and the infringing products were in the same category as Damm’s registered trademarks. The defendants’ use of “布鲁特达姆大星” and “BRUT DAME STAR” on beer products and packaging was similar to Damm’s trademarks, causing consumer confusion and infringing on Damm’s rights. The similar packaging of infringing products also constituted unfair competition. United Brewing, Li, and Meng jointly manufactured and sold the infringing products, while Huijin sold them. The claims against Fei and Xunmeng were dismissed for lack of evidence. The court ordered United Brewing, Meng, Li, and Huijin to stop infringement and unfair competition. United Brewing, Meng, and Li were to compensate Damm 800,000 RMB in losses, with Huijin jointly liable for 10,000 RMB. They were also to pay 80,000 RMB in reasonable expenses, with Huijin liable for 1,000 RMB. Other claims were rejected. The judgment was on July 22, 2025.

US NPE UERAN Sues Xiaomi at UPC, Potentially Involving Double Licensing Fees?

On August 18, 2025, US non – practicing entity (NPE) UERAN Technology LLC sued Xiaomi at the Munich branch of the European Unified Patent Court (UPC), claiming Xiaomi infringed two European patents transferred from Huawei in February 2025. These patents are related to communication technology standards. In February 2024, Huawei transferred 131 US patents related to communication technology standards to UERAN, which might be part of “Patent Privateering”. NPEs usually use aggressive litigation for financial returns, increasing licensing costs and exacerbating royalty stacking in Standard Essential Patents. In September 2023, Huawei and Xiaomi had a global communication technology patent cross – licensing agreement for 5G. As the patent transfers from Huawei to UERAN happened after this agreement, UERAN’s actions may face “Patent Privateering” doubts and involve double – dipping, which needs industry attention.

[Understand at a Glance] Ethiopia’s Trademark Opposition System

This article offers a comprehensive overview of Ethiopia’s trademark opposition system run by the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO). The system aims to resolve trademark rights conflicts and safeguard fair market competition. Key points include: the EIPO in Addis Ababa is the sole administrative body, oppositions must be filed within two months of trademark publication, they should be based on specific reasons in Trademark Notice No. 501/2006 with the objector bearing the burden of proof. The process involves filing, review, defense, rebuttal, and a final decision, which can be appealed. It usually takes 18 – 30 months, but may be extended. The system ensures rights through procedural justice but faces challenges like limited resources and delayed relief. International companies are advised to plan ahead, use local agents, and preserve evidence.

NSF Announces $100 Million Investment in National Artificial Intelligence Research Institutes

On July 29, 2025, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) announced a $100 – million investment in partnership with Capital One and Intel. The investment aims to support five US national AI research institutes and one central community hub, strengthening US leadership in AI, promoting innovation, cultivating talent, and enhancing global competitiveness.

This public – private investment will turn cutting – edge AI research into practical solutions via the US National AI Institutes, promoting AI applications in sectors such as healthcare and finance. The institutes also focus on building AI education and talent development infrastructure. Each of the six institutes has specific goals and initiatives, including developing next – generation materials, expanding generative AI, supporting collaborative learning, accelerating molecular discovery, promoting cross – institutional communication, and speeding up the development of next – generation AI assistants.

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