Changes in Trademark Crime Related Provisions of (Eleventh) Made by the Amendment to Criminal Law

(By Ye Sushuo)Comparison between trademark crime related provisions

Changes of trademark crime related provisions in Articles 213 to 215 of Section 7, Chapter 3 of Criminal Law
Crime Current Criminal Law (Eleventh) Amendment 2020
Article 213 Crime of falsifying a registered trademark A person who uses a mark that is the same as other’s registered trademark on the same type of products without permission of the registered trademark owner in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison or detainment and/or payment of a fine; and more than three and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances. A person who uses a mark that is the same as other’s registered trademark on the same type of products or services without permission of the registered trademark owner in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison and/or payment of a fine; and more than three and less than ten years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances.
Article 214 Crime of selling products with a falsified registered trademark A person who sells products in a large amount of sales which they know contain a falsified registered trademark should be sentenced to less than three years in prison or detainment and/or payment of a fine in case of a large amount of sales; and more than three years and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in case of a very large amount of sales. A person who sells products which they know contains a falsified registered trademark should be sentenced to less than three years in prison and/or payment of a fine in case of a large amount of illegal profits or serious circumstances; and more than three years and less than ten years in prison and payment of a fine in case of a very large amount of illegal profits or very serious circumstances.
Article 215 Crime of illegally manufacturing or selling illegally manufactured registered trademarks A person who falsifies or manufactures other’s registered trademark without permission or sells a registered trademark falsified or manufactured without permission in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison, detainment or surveillance, and/or payment of a fine; and more than three years and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances. A person who falsifies or manufactures other’s registered trademark without permission or sells a registered trademark falsified or manufactured without permission in serious circumstances should be sentenced to less than three years in prison, and/or payment of a fine; and more than three years and less than seven years in prison and payment of a fine in very serious circumstances.

Change A: An additional type of trademarks – service marks

One of major changes in trademark related crimes is that acts of seriously infringing service marks are treated as the crime of falsifying a registered trademark. Whether provisions relating to the crime of falsifying a registered trademark apply to service marks was always a question discussed in academic and practical worlds. Because of the large-scale development of the Chinese service industry, there is an urgent need to strengthen criminal law protection of service marks.

READ MORE

MOC Issues New Censorship Regulation on Online Game and Online Music

(By You Yunting) Pursuant to the Implementing the Administrative Measures for Content Self-review of Network Culture Operators that came into effect on December 1, 2013, an Internet entity holding an Internet Culture Business License may be entitled to self-examine the contents of online game and online music but the operators of said internet entity need to attend a content self-review training hosted by the Ministry of Culture.

The specific contents are as follows:

1.      Licensed Scope of Business:

READ MORE

What Legal Problems are GSK Scandal Involved within China’s Criminal Law?

1

(By Zhou Wei) On July 11, 2013, the Ministry of Public Security (the “MPS”) issued a piece of news on its official website that some senior executives of GlaxoSmithKline (China) Co., Ltd (the “GSK”) were being investigated for their involvement in serious unspecific economic crimes, demonstrating a scandal with GSK’s involvement in bribery in China. Utilizing currently disclosed information, this post is aimed at analyzing possible alleged criminal charges and criminal liabilities.

READ MORE

Full Text of NDRC’s Public Announcement on Milk Powder Manufactures’ Vertical Monopoly of Price Control

未命名

(By You Yunting) According to the latest announcement on Chinese National Development and Reform Commission website, NDRC’s carried out anti-monopoly investigations into milk powder manufacturers and imposed fines. Based on this announcement, we found that there are different views between NDRC and Chinese courts on the understanding of Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law. With regard to the court’s understanding that milk powder formula in this case is effective competitive, the milk powder manufacturers shall not the determined as violating the the Anti Monopoly Law even if they conducted price control. Following is our translation for this public announcement.

READ MORE

The Legal Sense of the Punishment over the Vertical Monopoly of Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye By NDRC

360截图-11608502_副本

(You Yunting) According to the report, Mao Tai Company and Wu Liang Ye Company, both are the top distilleries in China, would be ordered the penalty of 1% of their annual sales in 2012, approximately RMB 449 million yuan, by the National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) for their restricting or fixing the retail price of their downstream dealers. You might have noticed “would be”, and we have no idea about whether the final decision has been made, and it could not exclude the possibility that the news report is only the public opinion test by NDRC for its punishment in consideration.

READ MORE

Administrative Warning Issued to 360.cn by Beijing Administration of Industry and Commerce

20130213-周三

 (By You Yunting) Recently, the Beijing Municipal Administration of Industry and Commerce (“Administration”) published on its official Weibo that the Beijing Administration and Xicheng Administration of Industry and Commerce made an appointment with the chief of Beijing’s Qihoo Co. (“Qihoo”), and issued an administrative warning against company conduct, claiming violations of unfair competition laws and regulations related to its “360 Safeguard” for use in computer internet browsers.

READ MORE