The winner of our 2023 China IP Awards IP Firm of the Year firm comes as no surprise: Beijing-based CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office takes the award home for the fourth consecutive year. The firm is the oldest and one of the largest full-service IP law firms in China, and it continues to provide strong results in both litigation and prosecution work. The firm’s history dates all the way back to January 1957, when a trademark agency was established within the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, a non-governmental trade promotion organization, to represent foreign companies before Chinese authorities. The agency was the sole trademark agency in China until the mid-1980s. The firm organized a patent agency in the early 1980s, when China began to establish its patent system. The patent agency was authorized as the first Chinese intellectual property law firm to have cross-border representation. In 1993, the two agencies merged to form the CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office. The firm, which boasts senior lawyers including president Chuanhong Long and vice presidents Zhongqi Zhou and Shaohui Yuan among its leadership, and some 322 patent and trademark attorneys and 96 qualified attorneys at law, is the recipient of many honours and awards, and was a clear winner in this category.  

Beijing Janlea Trademark Agency has assisted McDonald’s in filing applications for “Golden Arches” in Chinese, DairyFarm in filing applications for Mannings and Café de Coral Assets for Café de Coral. It has also handled appeals for McDonald’s McCafe mark, and the Coca-Cola Company’s Fanta mark. The firm was established in 1995. In 2011, the firm reported that it had succeeded in having 49 of its clients’ marks recognized as well-known trademarks in China, including Sprite, Disney, Nestlé, Hu Tong and Dong Yi Ri Sheng. The firm has handled tens of thousands of cases for trademark registration. 

Chang Tsi & Partners experienced a strong 2021, handling 32,953 trademark cases, an increase of 32 percent over the previous year, including more than 10,000 new trademark applications. In an important case, the firm helped American Dairy Queen (ADQ) obtain well-known trademark recognition without being sued before the court; the case also cleared a disputed mark owned by Wuxi Zhengke Foods Science and Technology Co., which claimed that the disputed mark was created by themselves, and it is not a copy or imitation of ADQ’s prior marks – and that he has many cups being the disputed mark in stock, and thus refused to sell its trademark to ADQ. “We filed an invalidation against the disputed mark on ADQ’s behalf, and received the favourable decision from the CNIPA, wherein the in-charge examiner finally decided to declare the disputed mark as invalid based on our well-known claim,” a representative told Asia IP. 

CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office advised Hastens Sangar in filing an invalidation against a similar mark registered by a Chinese individual in 2011 covering the goods “clothing and etc.” in Class 25. The cited marks of Hastens are the marks “” and “海丝腾” (hai si teng) covering the goods “fabric, textile materials and etc.” in Class 24 and the goods “bedroom furniture, mattress and etc.” in Class 20. The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) rejected the invalidation on the grounds that the disputed mark and the cited marks do not constitute similar marks used on similar goods, the evidence is insufficient to prove the cited marks were well-known before the filing date of the disputed mark, and the registration of the disputed mark does not infringe the prior trade name rights of Hastens. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court and Beijing High People’s Court maintained CNIPA’s decision. CCPIT and Hastens then brought the case to Supreme People’s Court, who overturned the judgments of the first and second instance, and CNIPA’s decision. The Supreme People’s Court acknowledged that the cited marks “” and “海丝腾” (hai si teng) bear strong distinctiveness and both the Latin and Chinese cited marks were used by Hastens before the filing date of the disputed mark. “In this case, the Supreme People’s Court did not strictly follow the Classification of Similar Goods and Services adopted by the CNIPA in the routine examination on trademark applications, and provided cross-class protection for prior trademark rights of Hastens on dissimilar goods,” a representative said. “The Supreme People’s Court explicitly stressed that when deciding whether the coexistence of marks of two parties would cause confusion, the degree of similarity between the marks, the distinctiveness and reputation of the cited marks, the features of and associations between the goods, the attention of relevant public, and the bad faith of the disputed party shall be given due consideration. This is another important breakthrough on the application of Article 30 of China Trademark Law, setting an example to courts of all levels to follow on determination of similar goods.” 

HFG Law & Intellectual Property practices out of offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin, offering contentious and non-contentious IP work with commercial and corporate law services. The firm advised Mary Kay, a purveyor of cosmetics, in a case against an infringing defendant which had been selling Mary Kay’s products through its online shop, with batch number and service QR codes which had been removed from the packages. The court ruled that the sale of the products with decoded batch numbers and service QR codes constituted unfair competition. “There is not an explicit stipulation about this decoding behavior in the current law and whether decoding products could constitute illegal behavior is unknown. Through comprehensive debate, finally the court held the decoding behavior had violated Article 2 of Anti-unfair Competition Law and belongs to ‘general unfair competition act’,” the firm told Asia IP. 

NTD IP Attorneys was established in 1987 and was the first of the four earliest Chinese IP firms to provide IP services for foreign clients. Today, it has more than 500 professionals and support staff, icnlduing 189 patent attorneys, 63 trademark attorneys and 69 lawyers spread across three offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. The firm advised Conseil de l’Europe, a widely-recognized international intergovernmental organization founded in 1949 and headquartered in Strasbourg, France. In 1955, the emblem of a circle of 12 gold stars on a blue background was launched. In 1983, the European Parliament in turn adopted the star-studded flag devised by Conseil de l’Europe and recommended that it become the European Communities’ emblem. This emblem has since become synonymous with a shared political project which unites all Europeans, transcending their diversity. TD represented the client to oppose Chinese trademark No. 37660585 in Class 35, which consisted of 12 gold stars on a blue background with the letters EDB inside the circle of stars. CNIPA found that the device part of the opposed mark has slight differences with the emblem and flag of the opponent, the use and registration of such mark which is similar to the aforesaid official emblem should not be approvable without permission or authorization from the international intergovernmental organization Conseil de l’Europe based on Article 10.1.(3) of the Chinese Trademark Law, to avoid the likeness of any misidentification or misunderstanding among the public. 

Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency advised Liyang Weixin Biotechnology Co. at the Supreme People’s Court in an invalidation proceeding against Lin Yuan’s patents protection of a powder of α, α-trehalose dihydrate crystals (crystalline trehalose powder), and defines the core parameters such as crystallinity of the crystalline trehalose powder. Trehalose is a known product in prior art and is widely used in the food industry, pharmaceutical industry and cosmetics. Liyang Weixin Biotechnology Co. and other companies filed invalidation requests against the patent. After full search and careful planning of strategies, Sanyou team filed invalidation requests against the two patents involved in the case in September 2018. In the invalidation request, Sanyou team deeply analyzed the physical meaning of the parameters defined in the claim and the relationship between the physical meaning and the technical effect. On the relationship between crystallinity and solidity: in the patent concerned, the crystalline trehalose powder is defined by the user-defined physical parameter “crystallinity,” which is different from the common definition of crystallinity. Its physical meaning is actually the proportion of crystalline trehalose dihydrate in the crystalline trehalose powder. The Sanyou team used textbooks as evidence to prove that moisture absorption can lead to powder consolidation. That is, as common knowledge in the art, the consolidation of powder is usually caused by its hygroscopicity. It can be seen that the higher the crystallinity of crystalline trehalose powder, the higher the content of non-hygroscopic crystalline trehalose dihydrate, the lower the content of hygroscopic amorphous trehalose, and the less easy for the crystalline trehalose powder to consolidate. Therefore, those skilled in the art have known that there is a correlation between crystallinity and consolidation, and it is easy to conceive improving the consolidation of powder by adjusting crystallinity. The Sanyou team believed that the patent involved was not inventive. CN’PA supported Sanyou's grounds for invalidation and declared the related patent claims invalid. After many years of trials, the Supreme People's Court made final judgments on January 29, 2023, (2021) rejecting all claims of the patentee and maintaining the original ruling. 

Liu, Shen & Associates advised Pfizer as CNIPA issued invalidation decisions respectively for two invalidation cases of patent of the Axitinib crystal, upholding the validity of claims related to the Axitinib marketed crystal. The Liu, Shen biomedical team assisted Pfizer in defending its rights successfully. The cases were represented by partner Zou Zongliang, partner Cao Lili and partner Liu Guojun to appear in court. Team members collected strong counter-evidence and formulated targeted strategies of response to the invalidation requests of different petitioners. It conducted in-depth and comprehensive discussions and analyses of the cases prior to the oral hearing, and the members worked closely together during the oral hearing to fight against more than 100 pieces and nearly 2,000 pages of evidence submitted by Petitioner A and nearly 20 pieces of evidence submitted by Petitioner B. 

China Patent Agent (H.K.) was established in Hong Kong in 1984 is considered one of three pioneering Chinese intellectual property agencies, providing comprehensive IP services to clients in China and abroad. The firm won in a patent contributory infringement lawsuit at the Beijing High People’s Court on behalf of a European client, Darwin Technology International, which holds a China patent on an air purifier (ZL00806175.0). The domestic competitor, Yujie, provided the filters used in the purifiers to Beijing Technology Co., which in turn installed the filters into the purifiers and put the same onto the market. The Beijing High People’s Court in its second instance judgment affirmed that the plaintiff met its burden of proof of Yujie’s knowledge of the ’175 patent and that the filters provided by Yujie are solely used for the infringing purifiers, i.e., having no substantial non-infringing uses, because of its special electrodes arrangements. The victory is worth noting because contributory infringement is rarely supported by the Chinese courts. Also, the test for establishing contributory infringement varies over time, especially during 2017-2021. 

King & Wood Mallesons advises on all areas of IP including copyright, domain name, dispute and enforcement, licensing and exploitation, trademark as well as patent. The firm’s clients include some of the most famous household brands in the world such as Nestlé and Colgate-Palmolive, and recent works include patent filing and prosecution for IBM and patent litigation efforts for ABB.  

Unitalen Attorneys at Law has a significant practice in all areas of patents, including patent prosecution, counseling, licensing, contracts, technology transfers and portfolio defense with financial transactions. The firm’s patent group has more than 180 attorneys representing both domestic and international preparation and prosecution of patent applications before the Chinese Patent Office and foreign patent offices. In 2021, the firm successfully dealt with more than 500 difficult patent litigation cases. The firm’s lawyers have extensive experience representing patentees and defending against patent infringement claims in patent litigation cases. 

East & Concord Partners has a legal team with extensive experience which has successfully rendered legal services to domestic and foreign clients. The firm has aided numerous enterprises in acquiring their copyright, trademarks, logos, and patents for effective protection. The firm successfully represented the People’s Education Press Co., which introduced the Sino-Japan Exchange Standard Japanese from Mitsumura Tosho Publishing Co. in 1988 and reprinted in April 2005. Since its release, it has had a circulation of more than 5 million sets. The People’s Education Press Co. found that China Yuhang Publishing House Co. published and issued the teaching auxiliary materials of the Sino-Japan Exchange Standard Japanese without permission, and quoted a large number of original content in the teaching auxiliary materials. In this case, Bing Guan represented the People’s Education Press and engaged in all the work including evidence collection and litigation.  

In the last 12 months, the number of copyright cases handled by Lung Tin Intellectual Property Agent increased over the prior year. Most of the cases are copyright registrations of art works and registrations of computer software. The team also represented several clients to enforce their copyright in China against the third parties’ copy or imitation by sending C&D letters, filing complaints or filing civil litigations concerning copyright infringement. Typical cases include a series of copyright infringement and unfair competition dispute cases between Tencent and a short video platform, a comprehensive rights protection project for the dance performance of Only This Green by China Oriental Performing Arts Group Co., Ltd., and the alleged infringing case for which Sanofi used Hanyi fonts. The font case is a significant development in the field of copyright that using fonts can be accused of infringement. Numerous online shop operators and content entrepreneurs have been accused of infringement because of using other people's fonts, and therefore pay economic costs. This reflects, on one hand, that the relevant practitioners urgently need to strengthen their copyright awareness, on the other hand, that the font copyright industry regulation is chaotic and vague, with some font companies even resorting to “phishing marketing” to protect their rights. At the end of 2022, Lung Tin strategically introduced a practical expert with experience in nearly 10,000 copyright cases, which is an important plan to further enhance our service quality and influence in this field, in order to provide high quality legal service to our clients in such areas as digital publishing, digital music, NFT, pan-entertainment, etc. 

IntellecPro IP Agency has advised Capitaland, a Singapore-based real estate developer which operates a chain of shopping centres under the brand name “Raffles City” (来福士). The firm has assisted the client to obtain well-known mark protection in oppositions, invalidations and administrative enforcement actions in past years. In a recent case, a Chinese company, Tianjin Arbos Technology Group Co. registered the mark “莱福士” under No. 23759476 in Class 33 on rum, wine, vodka, etc. The firm filed an invalidation against the mark on June 7, 2021, arguing that the mark is an imitation of the client’s well-known mark “来福士广场 RAFFLES CITY & Device” under No. 3493720 in Class 36 on real estate management and leasing of real estate, and violates Article 13.2 of the PRC Trademark Law. CNIPA ruled on April 29, 2022, to invalidate the disputed mark on the ground that the mark is an imitation of the client’s well- known mark. “We have helped the client to gain well-known mark protection in a number of cases, but not in all cases. Where the disputed marks are designated on goods/services unrelated to the real-estate services and there is a lack of evidence establishing the adverse party’s bad faith, CNIPA has hesitated to grant well-known mark protection. The present case is an exceptional victory. On the one hand, there is little connection between Class-33 goods and real-estate services. On the other hand, Arbos Tech is a large manufacturer of agricultural equipment and auto parts, and there is no clear evidence showing the company’s bad faith in filing the disputed mark,” a representative said. 

Lung Ting Intellectual Property Agent advised Xiamen Huadian Switchgear Co., a joint venture specializing in the production of medium-voltage switches, circuit breakers and related accessories. Since its establishment, the company has developed rapidly, and its products can be widely used in power system, industry, construction industry and various infrastructure projects. The famous Xi’an High Voltage Apparatus Research Institute is one of the shareholders of Xiamen Huadian, which was founded in 1958. It is one of the research institutes with high reputation in the high voltage apparatus technology industry at home and abroad, and also the second largest high voltage apparatus inspection center in the world. The Institute is also responsible for the inspection and evaluation of all imported and exported high-voltage electrical appliances on behalf of the Chinese government. Lung Tin has handled a series of intellectual property rights protection complaints on behalf of the client, which have had a far-reaching impact on the domestic high-voltage electrical equipment manufacturing industry. 

Unitalen Attorneys at Law houses a large number of attorneys, paralegals and clerks to serve clients from its Beijing headquarters and 22 other offices in China including Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong. With additional offices in Tokyo, Munich and San Francisco, Unitalen represents a diverse range of clients from startups to Fortune 500 companies such as Tencent.  

In the past 12 months, Beijing Uni-intel Patent and Trademark Law Firm handled more than 400 patent drafting and filing projects for Huawei, a top company in China, around 400 patent drafting and filing projects for Tianma, one of the top cellphone screen manufacturers in China, around 300 patent drafting and filing projects for Unisoc, which is one of the top chip manufactures in China, around 200 patent drafting and filing projects for China Mobile, which is the top telecommunication company in China, around 250 patent drafting and filing projects for Honor, which is one of main players in cellphone industry, and around 110 patent drafting and filing projects for Jinko Solar, which is now one of main players in photovoltaic industry. Among the above filing numbers, around 600 patent applications in total are overseas filings to the United States, the EPO, Japan, South Korea and other such offices. 

AFD China Intellectual Property Law Office is a full-service IP firm that is ranked a top tier firm by the Beijing IP Office, has been a top 10 PCT filer in China since 2009 (and has been top 20 in the world since 2011), and has three times been named a leading agency by the Beijing Patent Attorneys Association with the recognition of providing comprehensive, spot-on and one-stop services. The firm, in representing a client in litigation against the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), eventually secured a domestic priority in China of a patent of the client’s, which may result in improved understanding of domestic priority and related procedures across the industry. The case was eventually heard by the Supreme People’s Court. 

Peksung Intellectual Property offers a full spectrum of premium intellectual property services that cover all facets of IP law, including patents, trademarks, designs, copyright, trade secrets, licensing, technology transfer, enforcement, anti-counterfeiting and others for domestic and overseas clients. The firm has handled patent prosecution matters for Bayer in pharma and biotech areas, for AbbVie in pharma and for Oxford Nanopore in biotech. Jiancheng Jiang, one of the founders of Peksung, is a vice president of the All-China Patent Agents Association.