没收到验证邮件？请确认邮箱是否正确或 重新发送邮件
#本文仅代表作者观点，不代表IPRdaily立场#
为深入贯彻落实党中央、国务院关于全面加强知识产权保护工作的决策部署，根据《知识产权强国建设纲要（2021-2035年）》和《“十四五”国家知识产权保护和运用规划》的明确要求，2023年，北京市各级知识产权行政监管部门积极创新工作机制，完善协同配合体系，不断提升行政执法案件的处理质量和效率，对强化知识产权保护力度、持续增强全社会知识产权保护意识发挥了重要作用。
值此世界知识产权日来临之际，北京市知识产权局正式发布了2023年知识产权行政保护的典型案例（中英版），案例涵盖北京“两区”建设多个产业领域，具有一定代表性和影响力，对今后类似案件的办理具有很强指导意义，展示北京在知识产权保护方面的决心和成效。
附2023年北京市知识产权行政保护典型案例（中英版）：
案例一
案件名称：发明专利默示许可案
案情简介：某公司就其扩底桩类专利与京津两个工程实施单位的发明专利侵权纠纷，向行政机关提出裁决请求。行政机关认为，某公司在先同意发包方、设计单位在施工图纸上采用专利技术，后同意与设计单位共有专利权，两被请求人作为施工单位中标后，必然按照图纸进行施工，对此该公司应当能够合理预见。因此对于两被请求人实施涉案专利技术的行为构成默示许可，其主张两被请求人侵犯其专利权不予支持。
典型意义：根据请求人前有作为专利权人允许工程发包方采用其专利技术的意思表示，后有承包部分工程，发现施工图纸采用其专利技术未提出异议，且仍将专利权从单独所有变更为与工程设计单位共有的具体行为，行政机关综合考量推断其存在默示许可，为类似案件审理判定提供了重要参考。
案例二
案件名称：当庭裁决“调色剂盒及图像形成装置”专利侵权纠纷
案情简介：请求人某胶片公司就其“调色剂盒及图像形成装置”发明专利与两家北京公司和中山某公司的专利侵权纠纷，向行政机关提出裁决请求，主张北京某品优公司未经许可许诺销售、销售由北京某维公司和中山某公司制造、销售的粉盒产品落入涉案专利权保护范围，构成侵权。
典型意义：本案请求人为涉外知名企业，合议组依法缺席审理并当庭裁决，快速处理专利纠纷，合理保护外商权益，对于构建法治化、国际化的营商环境具有积极意义。
案例三
案件名称：违法销售“冬奥尊”同时侵犯奥标和商标权案
案情简介：2023年8月，执法人员在另案调查中获得线索，某公司曾对外销售标有“北京市珐瑯厂”字样的侵权景泰蓝产品。现场检查还发现，该公司正在销售一件瓶底标有“冬奥尊”字样、瓶身上标有北京2022年冬奥会会徽、“BEIJING 2022”字样的景泰蓝产品。执法机关认定该公司涉案行为侵犯“北京市珐瑯厂”注册商标专用权和奥林匹克标志专有权，依法没收“冬奥尊”，合计罚款3000元。
典型意义：本案系“后冬奥时代”奥林匹克标志专有权保护的典型案例，有效提升了知识产权领域行政执法效能，既突出了对商标侵权行为的全链条打击，也体现了对奥林匹克标志的持续保护。
案例四
案件名称：北京邮局海关查获侵权物品3515批次案
案情简介：北京海关所属北京邮局海关在对出境邮件进行查验时，连续查获侵权嫌疑物品3515批次，涉及带有“FILA”“CROCS”等标识的鞋、衣服、包等共计3841件，涉嫌侵犯上述品牌权利人在海关总署备案的商标专用权。北京海关依法扣留上述物品，经调查，当事人的行为已构成出口侵犯他人商标专用权货物的行为。根据《中华人民共和国海关关于〈中华人民共和国知识产权海关保护条例〉的实施办法》第三十二条之规定，对上述侵犯知识产权物品予以收缴。
典型意义：北京海关严厉打击“化整为零”“蚂蚁搬家式”的侵权违法活动，维护“中国制造”国际声誉。本案是近年来北京口岸查获批次量最大的侵权案件，对推动首都高质量发展，建设知识产权强国示范城市具有积极意义。
案例五
案件名称：利用区块链技术查处侵犯信息网络传播权案
案情简介：2023年9月，著作权人向市文化执法总队举报某公司擅自使用其《斗罗大陆》美术作品，并提交证据保全证书。总队通过司法联盟区块链查实该公司借助作品的名气和热度，吸引小程序用户参与点击作品、匹配测试、观看激励视频广告进行牟利。总队依据《中华人民共和国著作权法》第五十三条第（一）项之规定，对该公司作出警告、没收违法所得13502.72元、罚款50000元的行政处罚。
典型意义：本案系区块链技术首次在文化执法领域的有益运用，对于丰富版权保护模式、提高行政执法效率、保护著作权人合法权益具有积极意义。
案例六
案件名称：北京某商贸公司平行进口润滑油案
案情简介：北京某商贸公司从德国进口产自欧洲的“Mobil”润滑油，在我国进行销售，“Mobil”商标权利人出具了鉴定报告称涉案产品“不符合正品特征”。该商贸公司涉嫌销售侵犯注册商标专用权产品，但其提供了合同、报关单、进口关税缴税书等合法来源材料。执法机关认定涉案商品系合法平行进口的正品，不构成销售侵犯注册商标专用权产品的行为，对当事人不予行政处罚。
典型意义：现行法律法规对于平行进口是否侵害商标专用权并未有明确的界定。本案例围绕商标法的立法本意，以商品平行进口是否破坏商标识别商品来源、保证品质等为衡量标准，划定了商品平行进口在商标法上的合法性界限，对今后类似案件的办理具有很强的指导意义。
案例七
案件名称：使用虚假材料申请注册地理标志证明商标案
案情简介：某商标代理公司受某协会委托提出地理标志证明商标的注册申请，但其提交的证明材料中某书籍复印件与国家图书文献收藏机构的藏本不一致。依据《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第二十八条的规定，责令当事人改正上述违法行为，并处罚如下：1.警告；2.罚款18750元；3.没收违法所得6250元。
典型意义：某商标代理公司使用虚假材料申请注册地理标志证明商标，具有明显主观恶意，其行为不但违反了商标代理秩序，也是对行政资源的极大浪费，对此应予严厉打击。
案例八
案件名称：“行刑衔接”打击销售侵权商品行为案
案情简介：加拿大“lululemon”商标权利人举报某公司在1688网站销售涉嫌侵犯注册商标专用权商品。经昌平区市场监管部门现场检查，查扣侵权商品1187件。后期调查中，当事人拒不配合。执法人员向阿里巴巴（中国）有限公司协查，确定涉案商品成交量、成交额。本案违法经营额较大，已达立案追诉标准。经与检察机关沟通，将该案移送公安部门调查处理。法院判处当事人法定代表人有期徒刑一年五个月，并处罚金七万元。
典型意义：本案是典型的商标领域“行刑衔接”案件。行政、司法保护“双轨”制是我国知识产权保护机制的突出特点。行政执法机关对举报进行充分调查，及时将案件移送司法机关，追究当事人刑事责任，精准打击了销售侵权商品的行为，同时也有效维护了良好的市场秩序。
案例九
案件名称：京冀两地协同查办“老板仔”海苔侵权商品案
案情简介：2023年11月13日，京冀两地市场监管执法部门及时启动协同执法机制，同时对位于丰台区和高碑店市的两处销售假冒“老板仔”海苔的商户进行了突击检查。保定市市场监管部门现场查扣假冒“老板仔”海苔239箱，丰台区市场监管部门现场查扣假冒“老板仔”海苔186箱。1.警告；2.没收“老板仔”海苔186箱；3.罚款：50000元。
典型意义：本案是落实《京津冀深入推进知识产权协同发展战略合作协议》，推动京津冀共建知识产权协同发展首善先行区、示范区的有益实践。通过跨区域同步执法，实践了跨区域的快速协同保护机制的落实落地；通过深化协同保护，形成了知识产权一体化保护格局。
案例十
案件名称：违反诚实信用原则申请“神舟探梦”商标案
案情简介：2022年10月某公司委托代理公司向国家知识产权局申请“神舟探梦”注册商标6件。2023年1月，被国家知识产权局认定属于《中华人民共和国商标法》第十条第一款第（八）项情形而驳回。“神舟探梦”商标易使人与中国航天事业产生联想，误认为有关联性。执法机关认定该行为违反《规范商标申请注册行为若干规定》第三条第（六）项，有其他不良影响。依据《规范商标申请注册行为若干规定》第十二条作出警告和罚款3000元的行政处罚。对代理公司行为移交属地监管部门查处。
典型意义：本案是一起违反诚实信用原则申请注册商标的典型案件，案件查处体现了我国严厉打击商标恶意注册的高压态势，有助于维护市场环境和竞争秩序。
Typical Cases of Administrative Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Beijing
Case One
Case Name
Implied License for Invention Patent
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office
Case Overview
A company filed a request for administrative adjudication with the administrative authority regarding a patent infringement dispute over its invention patent of “Under-reamed Pile” with two engineering entities in Beijing and Tianjin. The administrative authority held that the company had previously consented to the employer and design unit using its patented technology on the construction drawings and later consented to jointly owning the patent rights with the design unit. As the two respondents, as construction units, were awarded the contract and were bound to carry out construction in accordance with the drawings, the company should have reasonably anticipated this. Therefore, the respondents' acts of exploiting the patented technology involved in the case constituted implied licenses, and the company's claim that the respondents infringed its patent rights was not supported.
Typical Significance
Based on the petitioner's previous acts as the patent holder allowing the employer to adopt its patented technology, and subsequently contracting for part of the project without raising objections when discovering that the construction drawings employed its patented technology, as well as subsequently changing the patent ownership from exclusive ownership to joint ownership with the engineering design unit, the administrative authority, after comprehensively consideration, inferred the existence of implied licenses. This provides an important reference for the adjudication of similar cases.
Case Two
Case Name
Patent Infringement Dispute Over "Toner Cartridge and Image Forming Device" Decided in Court
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Intellectual Property Office
Case Overview
A film company, the petitioner, filed a request for administrative adjudication with the administrative authority regarding a patent infringement dispute over its invention patent of "Toner Cartridge and Image Forming Device" with two Beijing-based companies and a Zhongshan-based company. The petitioner alleged that a Beijing-based company containing the Chinese character “pinyou” in its name, without permission, offered to sell and sold toner cartridges manufactured and sold by another Beijing-based company containing the Chinese character “wei” in its name and the Zhongshan-based company, which fell within the scope of protection of the patent involved and constituted infringement.
After being summoned, the three respondents failed to appear without justification, and the administrative authority heard the case in absentia in accordance with the law. Through on-site inspections and technical comparisons, it was confirmed that the alleged infringing toner cartridges fell within the scope of protection of the patent involved. The administrative authority made a decision in court, ordering the two Beijing-based companies and the Zhongshan-based company to stop the infringing activities.
Typical Significance
The petitioner in this case is a well-known foreign-related enterprise. The panel heard the case in absentia and made a decision in court in accordance with the law, thus rapidly resolving the patent dispute and reasonably protecting the rights and interests of foreign investors. This has positive significance for building a legal and international business environment.
Case Three
Case Name
Illegal Sale of "Winter Olympic Zun" with Infringement of Olympic Symbols and Trademark Rights
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
In August 2023, the law enforcement personnel obtained clues from another investigation, revealing that a company had sold infringing cloisonné products labeled with the Chinse characters "Beijing En
Typical Significance
This case serves as a typical example of protecting the exclusive right to use Olympic symbols in the "post-Winter Olympic era", effectively enhancing the efficiency of administrative law enforcement in the field of intellectual property rights. It not only highlights the whole-chain crackdown on trademark infringement, but also reflects the continuous protection of Olympic symbols.
Case Four
Case Name
Beijing Post Office Customs Seizing 3,515 Batches of Infringing Goods
Handling Department：Beijing Customs
Case Overview
During the inspection of outbound mail, the Beijing Post Office Customs, affiliated with Beijing Customs, consecutively seized 3,515 batches of suspected infringing goods, totaling 3,841 items of shoes, clothing, bags, and other items bearing the trademarks of "FILA", "CROCS", and other brands. These goods were suspected of infringing upon the exclusive right to use the trademark registered with the General Administration of Customs by the rightful owners of the aforementioned brands. Beijing Customs lawfully detained the aforementioned goods. After investigation, it was determined that the parties involved had engaged in the act of exporting goods that infringed upon the exclusive right to use the trademarks of others.In accordance with Article 32 of the "Implementation Measures of People's Republic of China (PRC) Customs on the ‘Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of People's Republic of China (PRC)’", the aforementioned infringing goods were confiscated.
Typical Significance
Beijing Customs has taken severe measures to combat the infringing and illegal activities of "breaking up bulk shipments" and "moving goods in small batches", safeguarding the international reputation of "Made in China". This case is the infringement case with the largest batch of infringing goods seized at the Beijing port in recent years, and has positive significance for promoting high-quality development in the capital
Case Five
Case Name
Using Blockchain Technology to Investigate and Handle Infringement of Information Network Transmission Rights
Handling Department：Beijing Municipal Administrative Law Enforcement Unit of Cultural Market
Case Overview
In September 2023, the copyright owner reported to the Beijing Municipal Administrative Law Enforcement Unit of Cultural Market that a certain company had unauthorizedly used its artistic works titled "Soul Land" and submitted a certificate for evidence preservation. Through the judicial alliance blockchain, the Corps verified that the company had capitalized on the fame and popularity of the work to attract users of its applet to participate in clicking on the work, participate in matching tests, and watch incentive video advertisements for profit.The Corps imposed administrative penalties on the company in accordance with Article 53(1) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, including a warning, confiscation of illegal proceeds amounting to RMB 13,502.72, and a fine of RMB 50,000.
Typical Significance
This case marks the first beneficial application of blockchain technology in the field of cultural law enforcement, which holds positive significance for enriching copyright protection modes, improving the efficiency of administrative law enforcement, and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of copyright owners.
Case Six
Case Name
Parallel Import of Lubricating Oil by a Beijing-based Trading Company
Handling Department：Beijing Daxing District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
A Beijing-based trading company imported "Mobil" lubricating oil produced in Europe from Germany and sold it in China. The holder of the "Mobil" trademark issued an authentication report stating that the products involved in the case "did not conform to the characteristics of genuine products." Although the trading company was suspected of selling products infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark, it provided legitimate source materials such as contracts, customs declarations, and import duty payment certificates.The law enforcement agency determined that the products involved in the case were legitimate parallel imports and did not constitute an act of selling products infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademark. Therefore, no administrative penalty was imposed on the party involved.
Typical Significance
Current laws and regulations do not have a clear definition of whether parallel imports infringe upon exclusive right to use the registered trademark. This case, focusing on the legislative intent of the Trademark Law, establishes the legitimacy boundary of parallel imports under the Trademark Law by measuring whether parallel imports disrupt the trademark's function of identifying the source and guaranteeing the quality of goods. This provides a clear guidance for potential parallel imports in the future.
Case Seven
Case Name
Using False Materials to Apply for Registration of a Geographical Indication Certification Trademark
Handling Department：Beijing Shunyi District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
A trademark agency company, entrusted by an association, filed an application for the registration of a geographical indication certification trademark. However, the copy of a certain book submitted as certification materials was inconsistent with the collection of the national library and documentation institution.In accordance with Article 28 of the "Law of the People's Republic of China on Administrative Penalties," the party involved was ordered to correct the aforementioned illegal act and was subject to the following penalties: 1. warning; 2. a fine of RMB 18,750; 3. confiscation of illegal income amounting to RMB 6,250.
Typical Significance
The trademark agency company used false materials to apply for the registration of a geographical indication certification trademark, demonstrating clear subjective malice. Their acts not only violated the order of trademark registration management but also resulted in a significant waste of administrative resources. Such illegal acts should be severely combated.
Case Eight
Case Name
Combating the Sale of Infringing Goods through the "Connection Between Administrative Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice"
Handling Department：Beijing Changping District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
The holder of the Canadian "lululemon" trademark reported that a company was selling goods on the 1688 website that were suspected of infringing upon the exclusive right to use the registered trademarks "
", " " and "". After an on-site inspection by the Changping District Administration for Market Regulation, 1,187 infringing goods were seized. During the subsequent investigation, the party involved refused to cooperate. The law enforcement personnel requested assistance from Alibaba (China) Co., Ltd. for collaborative investigation to determine the volume and transaction amount of the goods involved in the case. As the amount of illegal business operations in this case was significant, it reached the standard for criminal prosecution. After communicating with the procuratorial organ, the case was transferred to the public security department for investigation and handling.
The court sentenced the legal representative of the party involved to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and five months and imposed a fine of RMB 70,000.
Typical Significance
This case is a typical example of the "connection between administrative law enforcement and criminal justice" in the field of trademark protection. The dual-track system of administrative protection and judicial protection is a prominent feature of China's intellectual property protection mechanism. The administrative law enforcement organ conducted a thorough investigation into the report, promptly transferred the case to the judicial organ, and pursued criminal liability against the party involved, which precisely hit the sale of infringing goods and effectively maintained a good market order.
Case Nine
Case Name
Coordinated Investigation and Handling of Infringing "Taokaenoi" Seaweed Snacks in Beijing and Hebei
Handling Department：Beijing Fengtai District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
On November 13, 2023, the market supervision and law enforcement departments of Beijing and Hebei promptly activated the coordinated law enforcement mechanism, conducting surprise inspections simultaneously on two merchants located in Fengtai District, Beijing and Gaobeidian City, Hebei, who were selling counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks. The Baoding market supervision department confiscated 239 boxes of counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks on site, and the Fengtai District market supervision department confiscated 186 boxes of counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks on site.
1.warning; 2. confiscation of 186 boxes of counterfeit "Taokaenoi" seaweed snacks; 3. a fine of RMB 50,000.
Typical Significance
This case serves as a beneficial practice in the construction of the first-class demonstration area and pilot area for the coordinated development of intellectual property in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei. It also implements the specific contents of the "Strategic Cooperation Agreement on Deepening the Collaborative Development of Intellectual Property in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei". Through cross-regional synchronized law enforcement, it demonstrates the implementation of the rapid and coordinated protection mechanism across regions. By deepening collaborative protection, it has formed an integrated protection framework for intellectual property rights.
Case ten
Case Name
Applying for the Trademark "Shenzhou Tanmeng" in Violation of the Principle of Good Faith
Handling Department：Beijing Mentougou District Administration for Market Regulation
Case Overview
In October 2022, a company entrusted an agency company to apply for six trademarks named "Shenzhou Tanmeng" to the China National Intellectual Property Administration. In January 2023, the application was rejected by the China National Intellectual Property Administration according to Article 10(1)(8) of the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China. The trademark "Shenzhou Tanmeng" is likely to associate people with China's aerospace industry, leading to a misperception of relevance. The law enforcement authority determined that this act violated Article 3(6) of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Application and Registration Acts", and had other adverse effects.
An administrative penalty of a warning and a fine of RMB 3,000 was imposed in accordance with Article 12 of the "Several Provisions on Regulating Trademark Application and Registration Acts". The agency company's act was transferred to the local supervision department for investigation and punishment.
Typical Significance
This case is a typical example of applying for trademark registration in violation of the principle of good faith. The party involved sought to capitalize on the popularity of China's aerospace industry. The investigation and handling of this case reflect China's strict crackdown on malicious trademark registrations, contributing to the maintenance of the market environment and competition order.
来源：北京市知识产权局
编辑：IPRdaily辛夷 校对：IPRdaily纵横君
「关于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily是全球领先的知识产权综合信息服务提供商，致力于连接全球知识产权与科技创新人才。汇聚了来自于中国、美国、欧洲、俄罗斯、以色列、澳大利亚、新加坡、日本、韩国等15个国家和地区的高科技公司及成长型科技企业的管理者及科技研发或知识产权负责人，还有来自政府、律师及代理事务所、研发或服务机构的全球近100万用户（国内70余万+海外近30万），2019年全年全网页面浏览量已经突破过亿次传播。
（英文官网：iprdaily.com 中文官网：iprdaily.cn）
本文来自北京日报并经IPRdaily.cn中文网编辑。转载此文章须经权利人同意，并附上出处与作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立场，如若转载，请注明出处：“http://www.iprdaily.cn
共发表文章4464篇文章不错，犒劳下辛苦的作者吧
- 我也说两句
- 还可以输入140个字
