Typical rights protection cases of Hunan Furong Law Firm's intellectual property team

The intellectual property team of Furong Law Firm is led by two senior lawyers, Ouyang Li and Xiao Sheng. The team members include practicing lawyers such as Yang Chen, Li Qiang, and Feng Yunbo. The team is deeply engaged in the field of intellectual property and competition law, and has rich practical experience in the fields of intellectual property application and registration, corporate brand protection, intellectual property litigation agency, and corporate intellectual property layout.

1. Introduction to the team leader

1. Main person in charge: Lawyer Ouyang Li

Lawyer Ouyang Li is a senior partner of the head office Hunan Furong Law Firm, a special guest lawyer of the public channel and the political and legal channel, a director of the Hunan Law Research Association, and an expert in the Changsha Intellectual Property Expert Database.

Lawyer Ouyang Li is good at non-litigation legal affairs such as corporate and corporate legal counsel, investment and financing, corporate bankruptcy, dissolution and liquidation, and is good at representing civil and commercial litigation and intellectual property cases.

2. Main person in charge: Lawyer Xiao Sheng

Lawyer Xiao Sheng is the director and senior partner of Hunan Furong (Shenzhen) Law Firm, a member of the Hunan Provincial Committee of the Jiusan Society, a mediator of the Qianhai Court Free Trade Zone Case Diversified Dispute Resolution Center (Qianhai Notary Office), a member of the Shenzhen Nanshan District Lawyers Working Committee, and a brand rights protection specialist of the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce Beauty and Cosmetics Industry Association.

He is currently serving as a legal advisor to many well-known artists at home and abroad, including the chief legal advisor to Mr. Xu Hongfei, a famous sculpture artist and member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. He has rich legal service experience in the field of art, culture and tourism. (Xu Hongfei: a famous sculpture artist, member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, president of the Guangzhou Sculpture Institute, director of the Chinese Artists Association, outstanding expert of the Ministry of Culture of China, and a national first-class artist).

3. Main members of the team lawyers: Yang Chen, Li Qiang, Feng Yunbo

Lawyer Yang Chen, a partner of Hunan Furong (Shenzhen) Law Firm, has a master's degree, has a legal professional qualification certificate and a patent agent qualification certificate, has been engaged in intellectual property legal services for seven years, has successfully represented hundreds of intellectual property litigation cases, and has rich experience in intellectual property litigation.

Li Qiang, a full-time lawyer at Hunan Furong Law Firm, holds a bachelor's degree in law from China University of Geosciences. He has been engaged in the legal profession for five years and has provided intellectual property rights protection services to many well-known brands, including "COFCO Great Wall Wine", "Six Walnuts", "Hougu Biscuits", "Yanghe Wine", "Xiaohutuxian Wine", "Ray-Ban Thermal Insulation Film", etc.

Feng Yunbo, a full-time lawyer at Hunan Furong (Shenzhen) Law Firm, is a master's student in intellectual property from Xiangtan University. He holds a legal professional qualification certificate and a level 8 English major certificate, and has rich practical experience in intellectual property litigation and civil and commercial dispute resolution.

2. Team intellectual property legal service field

Risk assessment, diagnosis, and rectification opinions on the intellectual property rights of the consulting unit; provide legal services for the construction of intellectual property architecture for the consulting unit, including but not limited to intellectual property rights confirmation, use rights, and rights protection. Successfully represented hundreds of trademark rights, copyrights, patent rights, unfair competition and other litigation cases, and accumulated rich experience in the field of intellectual property.

3. Clients for whom the team has provided intellectual property services

Including but not limited to:

Hong Kong TVB, COFCO Group Co., Ltd., Joy City Commercial Management (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Vanke Co., Ltd., Kweichow Moutai Distillery (Group) Co., Ltd., China Resources Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Group Co., Ltd., Sinohydro Group Real Estate (Changsha) Co., Ltd., Hebei Yangyuan Zhihui Beverage Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Liquor Group Trading Co., Ltd., Guizhou Xiaohutuxian Wine Co., Ltd., Xiamen Zhangtai Insulation Film Co., Ltd. (Taiwanese capital), Beijing Zijingzhiguang Technology Co., Ltd., Hunan Diefeiyang Network Technology Co., Ltd., Hunan Hertz Trading Co., Ltd., Hunan Xiebang Technology Co., Ltd., Changsha Zhensheng King Kong Group Co., Ltd., Qianbaizhi Beverage Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Shimofang Sculpture Landscape Art Co., Ltd., Beijing Chengtian Jiahe Film and Television Production Co., Ltd., Meiya Great Wall Film and Television Culture (Beijing) Co., Ltd., China Film Media Asia Audiovisual Products Co., Ltd., Dongyang Xingmeng Power Film and Television Distribution Co., Ltd., Dongyang Shenhua Film and Television Distribution Co., Ltd., Changsha Mituo Information Technology Co., Ltd., Hunan Weiqushidai Network Technology Co., Ltd. and dozens of other companies have provided special intellectual property services, etc. IV. Typical cases of intellectual property rights

Including but not limited to:

(1) Acting as agent for the criminal prosecution of the "Light Freedom" meal replacement powder and "Bitifu" teeth whitening device brands.

From May 2019 to 2020, the rights holders Hunan Diefeiyang Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Hunan Hezi Trading Co., Ltd., due to the growing influence of their "Bitifu" and "Light Freedom" brands, a large number of counterfeit products imitating "Bitifu" and "Light Freedom" products appeared on the market. They consulted the team on how to conduct intellectual property rights protection and combat counterfeit and infringing products. Based on the statements of the rights holders and the clues provided, the team's lawyers immediately judged that these cases were not ordinary civil trademark infringement cases, and the infringers were very likely to constitute criminal offenses. Based on the trust in the professional ability of the team's lawyers, the rights holders entrusted the team's lawyers to conduct criminal prosecution of intellectual property rights. After accepting the rights holder's entrustment, the team immediately formulated a comprehensive rights protection strategy. Through the cooperation of the rights holder's company in investigation and evidence collection, they obtained preliminary evidence that the defendant was suspected of criminal offenses and immediately reported the case to the public security organs. After receiving the report, the public security organs attached great importance to the matter, extracted valuable clues from tens of thousands of transaction information, and found out the production places, storage places, residences, and hierarchical structures of the persons involved one by one. In August 2019, March and May 2021, Ning, Zhu, Liao Gui, Liu Yuan, Hong, Hai Ge, Pan Bao, Lv Ming, Wu Lian, Gu Qiang, Ba Wei, Zhao, Li Chen, Zeng Chang, Luo and other 20 criminal suspects suspected of counterfeiting registered trademarks were arrested and brought to justice.

Judgment: In July 2020, the Tianxin District People's Court of Changsha City tried and sentenced Ning, Zhu and other 4 people for the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and sentenced the defendants, Zhu and other 4 people, to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 1 year to 3 years and 6 months, and imposed fines and recovered illegal gains. [(2020) Xiang 0103 Criminal First Instance No. 395]

Judgment: In November 2021, the Yuelu District People's Court of Changsha City tried and pronounced a verdict on the case of infringement of counterfeit registered trademarks by Pan Moubao and six others, and sentenced the defendants Cen Mou, Pan Moubao, and Lv Mouming to the crime of counterfeiting registered trademarks, and Gu Mouqiang, Wu Moulian, and Zhu Mou to the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks. The above defendants were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 3 years to 1 year, fined, and recovered illegal gains. [(2021) Hunan 0104 Criminal First Instance No. 1330]

Judgment: On March 22, 2022, the Changsha County People's Court pronounced a verdict on the case of infringement of counterfeit registered trademarks by Liao Mougui and 8 others, and sentenced the defendants Ba Mouwei, Liao Mougui, Zhao Mou, Hong Mou, Hai Mouge, Li Mouchen, Zeng Mouchang, and Luo Mou to the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks. The above defendants were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 3 years and 4 months to 10 months, and fined between 100,000 yuan and 20,000 yuan. [(2021) Hunan 0121 Criminal First Instance No. 841]

2. "Six Walnuts" v. "Six Walnuts" trademark infringement dispute case.

In this case, lawyers Xiao Sheng and Ouyang Li represented Yangyuan Zhihui Company in suing a food factory in Boxing County for infringement of the "Six Walnuts" trademark right. The second-instance court ultimately determined that the "Settlement Agreement" reached by the plaintiff and defendant in the previous litigation was legal and valid. In this case, a food factory in Boxing County repeatedly infringed upon the rights of its customers. According to the "Settlement Agreement" reached by both parties in the previous case, if the food factory in Boxing County infringed upon the rights of its customers again, it should pay compensation of 500,000 yuan.

Judgment: The Hunan High Court supported Yangyuan Zhihui's claim in the second instance and ordered a food factory in Boxing County to stop infringing and compensate Yangyuan Zhihui for economic losses of RMB 500,000. [(2018) Hunan Civil Final No. 56] 3. "Hou Gu" v. "Hou Er Mushroom" trademark infringement dispute case. In this case, lawyers Xiao Sheng and Yang Chen represented Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Company in suing a food factory for infringement of the exclusive right to use the "Hou Gu" series of trademarks. In this case, a food factory denied that the products involved in the case were produced by it. The second-instance court held that the food production license number, producer, place of origin, telephone, fax, sales hotline, website, and barcode stated on the outer packaging box of the allegedly infringing product were all owned by a certain food factory. A certain food factory denied that the products involved in the case were produced by it, and it should provide contrary evidence to prove it. In the absence of contrary evidence, the product information involved in the case, screenshots of its official website, products submitted by itself, false statements made by it, and its historical infringement records and other evidence can comprehensively identify a certain food factory as the manufacturer of the products involved in the case. 

Judgment: The second-instance court ordered a food factory to stop infringing and compensate Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Company for economic losses of RMB 250,000, and supported all the claims of Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Company. [(2018) Hunan Civil Final No. 52] 4. Youku Company sued Weiqu Company for infringement of the information network dissemination rights of the works "Dying to Survive" and "Eastern Palace". In the two cases, lawyers Yang Chen and Li Qiang represented the defendant Weiqu Company in responding to the plaintiff Youku Company's lawsuit against it for infringement of the information network dissemination of the works "Dying to Survive" and "Eastern Palace". In this case, Youku Company sued Weiqu Company for infringing its right to disseminate works information network through the "Ticket Circle Long Video" applet. In the two cases, Youku Company claimed a total of 4.02 million yuan from Weiqu Company. The court finally determined that the video in question was uploaded by a user and Weiqu Company was an information storage space service provider. After receiving the prosecution materials from the court, Weiqu Company set the works involved in the case to "invisible" status and blocked them. "Ticket Circle Long Video" is not a professional film and television drama video software, and Weiqu Company did not select, edit, modify, recommend, etc. the works involved; according to the content of the notarial certificate, Weiqu Company has set up a variety of complaint consultation channels and also submitted the "User Agreement". Therefore, Weiqu Company, as an Internet service provider, does not constitute knowledge of the infringement of videos uploaded by users and does not bear infringement liability. Judgment result: The first instance court dismissed all the claims of Youku Company, and the second instance court dismissed Youku Company's appeal and upheld the original judgment. [(2020) Jing 73 Min Zhong 3489, (2020) Jing 73 Min Zhong 2040] 5. Mituo Company sued a Chengdu company for infringement of the computer software copyright of "website template". In this case, lawyers Ouyang Li and Yang Chen represented the plaintiff Mituo Company in suing the defendant Chengdu company for infringement of the computer software copyright of "website template". Mituo Company is a company engaged in software development, computer technology services, network technology research and development, etc. Mituo Company has developed 45 sets of website template software and obtained the corresponding "Computer Software Copyright Registration Certificate". Mituo Company discovered that a Chengdu company displayed Mituo's 45 sets of website template programs on the website www.cdsile.com it operated. Mituo Company believed that the Chengdu company had infringed its software copyright and brought it to court. The court held that the 45 sets of website template programs of Mituo Company belong to computer software works protected by the Copyright Law. The relevant evidence of software copyright registration, source code, and online publication of works provided by Mituo Company can prove that Mituo Company is the copyright owner. A certain company in Chengdu displayed 45 sets of website template programs that are highly consistent with Mituo Company on its website, but failed to provide source or target program codes for comparison. It should bear the adverse liability of failure to provide evidence. The certain company in Chengdu violated the right of reproduction, right of signature, right of modification, and right to obtain remuneration in the software copyright enjoyed by Mituo Company. Judgment result: The court ordered the certain company in Chengdu to compensate Mituo Company 135,000 yuan. [(2019) Hunan 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 2179] 6. Two cases in which the plaintiff Guangzhou Company sued the defendants Beijing Company and Changsha Company for infringement of the exclusive right to use the "Liang Mei Ji" trademark and counterfeiting disputes. In this case, lawyers Xiao Sheng and Feng Yunbo represented the defendant Beijing Company, and lawyer Yang Chen represented the defendant Changsha Company in responding to the Guangzhou Company's lawsuit against the two defendants for infringement of the "Liang Mei Ji" trademark right and counterfeiting disputes. The court held that a Guangzhou company claimed that the "floodlights, line lights, contour lights, and point light sources" installed by the two defendants infringed its trademark and counterfeited its factory name, factory address, and certificate of conformity. In the notarized certificate provided by the company, only the trademark, factory name, factory address, and certificate of conformity of the "floodlight" were clearly visible. The evidence submitted by Zijingzhiguang Company was sufficient to prove that the "floodlight" came from a Guangzhou company. Another lamp, the "digital tube", could only be identified by the trademark and certificate of conformity, and the product name did not match the product name that the Guangzhou company had sued. The Guangzhou company claimed that the "digital tube" was a "wall washer" but did not submit evidence to prove it, and should bear the adverse liability of failure to provide evidence. A Changsha company provided a legitimate source and was able to prove that it was not a user of the product, so it should not bear the liability for infringement. Judgment result: The first instance court dismissed all the claims of a Guangzhou company, the second instance court dismissed its appeal and upheld the original judgment, and the retrial court dismissed its application for retrial. [(2019) Xiang Min Shen No. 4650, (2019) Xiang Min Shen No. 4651] 7. Qianbaizhi Company v. Jiyuan Company, et al., for infringement of design patent rights. In this case, attorney Yang Chen represented the plaintiff Qianbaizhi Company in suing the defendant Jiyuan Company, et al., for infringement of the "Qianbaizhi" design patent rights. The court held that the alleged infringing design and the authorized design had no substantial difference in overall visual effect, constituting similar designs, and the alleged infringing design fell within the protection scope of the design patent involved. The way in which a Jiyuan company compared multiple existing designs with multiple parts of the alleged infringing design violated the principle of separate comparison. The alleged infringing design was compared separately with multiple existing designs submitted by a Jiyuan company. The alleged infringing design had substantial differences in overall visual effect with the existing design. The two were neither identical nor similar. The existing design defense of a Jiyuan company was not established. The existing evidence submitted by a Jiyuan company was insufficient to prove that the alleged infringing product in this case originated from Taihua Company, and its legal source defense was not established. 

Judgment result: The court of first instance ruled that a company in Jiyuan should stop infringement and compensate 250,000 yuan. The court of second instance rejected the appeal of a company in Jiyuan and upheld the original judgment.