Japan Toyota and Geely: impossible to win a lawsuit

     Toyota and Geely trademark dispute is actually began China automotive intellectual property litigation crisis, this is the car field is the first field foreign-related intellectual property lawsuit. Geely is Chinese first production car of private enterprises, it is start from here, China auto industry opened the regiment "intellectual property a guerrilla war".

     In 2002 December, the Toyota Corporation to "trademark and unfair competition infringement" lawsuit filed for Geely, the Zhejiang Geely Automobile Co, Beijing LIAN automobile trade limited liability company, Beijing Yachen Weiye auto sales center together to court, said Geely against the Toyota Corporation intellectual property rights.

     Toyota said, from the beginning of 2000 May, the use of Geely Automobile Co in the Geely Group under the front cover of an automobile, tire, steering wheel, the vehicle trunk and other significant locations on the logo resembles the registered trademark "bull" Toyota car styling, resulting in misleading consumers, infringement of the trademark of Toyota Corporation. At the same time, the Japanese Toyota also believes that the Beijing LIAN automobile trade limited liability company, Beijing Yachen Weiye auto sales center hit "Toyota power in foreign advertising, price move" and "use Toyota 8A engine" propaganda language, contrary to the principle of honesty and credit, is the act of unfair competition.

     Toyota according to Geely is sued when sales of 23200 cars and 1% profit margins, calculate the Geely should compensate 13920000 yuan, and the lawyer fee total claims 14070000 yuan, 14000000 yuan compensation for geely.

     Geely duly convened a "protection of National Intellectual Property Forum", carry out the national flag, the statement "Geely Group to China automobile industry Zhengkou Qi," the tall image of themselves immediately radiant, Li Shufu suddenly became the embodiment of national hero, aroused the people to protect the national industry of patriotic enthusiasm.

     There are media said, "for to fully occupied China market transnational automobile giants, today also weak Geely, Chery and other local enterprises are stumbling blocks they nibble China market. In spare time, intellectual property rights become the foreign automobile enterprises on the domestic automobile enterprises. To have ulterior motives., transnational giants dominate the China car city ambition be completely bared there and then".

     In the professional appraisal of the famous legal professionals China participated in the meeting, the experts after careful scrutiny and contrast, made "Geely Meiri automobile trademark and Toyota trademark may not be consumer confusion" credible conclusion. This conclusion, Toyota immediately felt no win grasp, and in August the first hearing, Toyoda Saiho said as long as Geely stop using the suspected infringing trademark and advertising, Toyota will withdraw the lawsuit and give up all claims.

     At the end of 2003, the Beijing second intermediate people's Court of first instance dismissed the Toyota litigation request. Beijing erzhongyuan after hearing that, "the car belongs to high commodity prices, consumers generally to pass over in one's mind before they buy, therefore, they have strong ability to distinguish the different brands of cars. Will use the Toyota graphics trademark and Geely the U.S. - Japan graphics trademark isolated for observation comparison, with the general attention of the public, is able to determine two there are differences between the overall vision, the public will not be confused or mistaken two, also won't produce the plaintiff's registered trademark adverse lenovo. Therefore the court, Geely use Japan graphics trademark behavior does not infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark of the plaintiff.

      Geely in the U.S. and Japanese automobile publicity when using the 'Toyota' and 'TOYOTA' and 'Toyota inviting price dynamic text', 'with the Japanese TOYOTA8AFE four cylinder engine' words, and in the product use words like 'Toyota Auto Body Co' instructions, some with exaggerated, false propaganda but have not reached the the laws of our country on the properties of the product, use make misleading degree, the public will not think US Japan auto engine manufacturing technology in Japan, and 8A the actual engine derived from the Toyota Corporation, adversely affect the behavior not to Toyota automobile brand reputation, the behavior of Geely's does not constitute fair competition."

     So far, Toyota on Geely's action failed, it set the tone for the foreign enterprises Chinese car industry in the public opinion on the overall failure, become multinational automobile enterprises under the banner of intellectual property rights has banner unreasonable harm national automobile brand.

 

Honda and Lifan: local victory Island

     Trademark litigation between Japan Honda and Chongqing Lifan, the automotive industry is only the victory all Chinese and foreign intellectual property disputes in the case.

     Honda and Lifan dispute long-standing. Chongqing Lifan is the predecessor of the Chongqing Hongda Industrial Co., Ltd., in 1997 began producing motorcycles. When the 1995 Hongda to an enterprise in Wuxi spent 40000 yuan to buy a "Hongda" HONGDA "trademark, and registration to the State Trademark Bureau Hongda SINO-HONGDA" trademark, Honda giken kogyo challenged. Honda thinks, "Hongda" Pinyin and Honda of English is a letter G, Honda is HONDA, Hongda Chinese phonetic alphabet is HONGDA. In July 1, 1997, the National Trademark Office ruled that Honda proposed "Hongda SINO-HONGDA" trademark infringement objection, the trademark shall not be registered.

      In 1997, the National Trademark Office ruled Chinese, Honda still found marked "HONGDA" logo Lifan motorcycle sold in Chinese fake. In 2000, Wenling, Jiangxi City, Zhejiang Honda in Nanchang City Industrial and Commercial Bureau under the help of the motorcycle engine on the market, sales are marked "HONGDA" logo was banned, Nanchang Industrial and commercial bureau and the Wenling Bureau of industry and commerce to the distribution business and impose a fine of 610000 yuan and 42000 yuan fine, and the engine on the "HONGDA" logo removed.

     In 2001 November, Chongqing Hongda Industrial Co., Ltd. was renamed Chongqing Lifan Industrial Co., Ltd., completed by the "Hongda" to "Lifan" transformation. In 2003, Lifan Group sales revenue reached about 6000000000 yuan, exports exceeded $200000000, ranking China motorcycle industry first.

      However, Honda Lifan infringement has been found. In 2001 April, Honda warning letters to the Lifan Group, hope all to stop the infringing act. After unsuccessful negotiations, in July 24, 2002, Honda articles, under the old Honda, new continents, Honda Jialing Honda sitting on the plaintiff accused, located in Beijing Tongzhou District self-reliance motorcycle shops on grounds of trademark infringement (hereinafter referred to as self store owner Cao Yawen), Chongqing Lifan motorcycle factory and Lifan Group violated the trademark "HONDA" Honda the three defendants, requirements of common compensation 25020000 yuan, and request the court "Honda" for the well-known trademarks. Honda evidence is the purchase of three vehicles Lifan motorcycle -- "LF100-4" Lifan Lifan "and LF110-B" the use of "Hongda" mark and the "Honda" in Japanese Honda similar.

      Japan Honda Beijing office's spokesman Zhu Linjie says to the reporter: "Lifan use and Honda Corporation similar trademarks in the motorcycle products, easy to mislead consumers. The consumer may want to buy Honda Corporation products, but to see the trademark similar products to buy Lifan products, damage the interests of consumers Honda and".

      In this regard, Lifan motorcycle technology called the rough, not their own production, they are also victims of China fake motorcycle. In addition, Lifan also said Honda prosecution Lifan is because at a disadvantage in Vietnam market, and the benefit of the whole Chinese motorcycle industry grounds, calls for the support from all walks of life.

     And Honda in Chinese motorcycle industry "pick things" image has win support among the people (before 2004, Honda already in Chinese launched 7 intellectual property litigation, including the State Intellectual Property Office), and the relationship of Japanese enterprises, very easy to cause the media and public antipathy, therefore, for Honda, the media did not look good.

      The idea: "being carved up in the market and profit environment, the Japanese motorcycle enterprises generally feel the fear and pressure. Since 2000, originally in the Southeast Asian market unified country by Japanese motorcycle China especially fierce attack Chongqing motorcycle. With high quality and inexpensive advantage, Chinese motorcycle enterprises have occupied nearly 80% of the market share in Southeast asia". According to statistics, the annual production of about 11000000 motorcycles Chinese in nearly 9000000 vehicles is "piracy" Japanese products, of which 2000000 were exported to Asian countries. In Chinese market, Japan, Honda Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki heavy industry has to carry out a number of large-scale action of intellectual property rights.

    Intellectual property crisis only a few media faces to the Chinese motorcycle industry heavy-hearted, counterfeit development generally support industry to prospect deep concerns: "Japanese companies that Chinese motorcycle industry 90% technical violation of Japanese patent." "Enterprises to survive and develop, must be designed to create their own intellectual property rights of products."

    However, in such a favorable opinion condition, Lifan but destroy the Great Wall, a record Hunzhao -- cancelled Chongqing Lifan motorcycle factory, unavoidable give a person to have a guilty conscience impression. In December 20, 2004, a court verdict think, "HONGDA" logo and trademark "Honda registered HONDA" two "phase approximation, the Lifan motorcycle on the use of" "HONGDA" "LIFANHONGDA", "LIFAN-HONGDA" logo, has constituted an infringement exclusive right of the registered trademark of "HONDA". The court of First Instance judgement, Lifan Industrial Company compensation Honda corporation more than 147 yuan, and stop manufacturing, selling marked "HONGDA" logo of the infringing products. In addition, a Beijing sales Lifan motorcycle owner was sentenced to compensate the other party 6000 yuan.

    The court also pointed out that, before the Lifan industry liquidation and apply for cancellation of the debts of Chongqing Lifan Libang Motorcycle Co. Ltd., knowing Chongqing Lifan Libang Motorcycle Co. Ltd. has been pending litigation in the accused of infringement, so its behavior with the Chongqing Lifan Libang Motorcycle Co. Ltd. to escape the civil liability for infringement of the subjective malice, which therefore should be bear the corresponding legal responsibility.

     Honda victory is only limited success, the "stop selling infringing products" litigation request because the defendant company cancelled without support, huge claims are also believed to be unfounded. However, global and Honda in other proceedings in failing compared, Limited victory to Lifan to Honda a breathing island.

DVD patent fee dispute: Chinese manufacturing shame

      Now, when it comes to China companies because of the lack of consciousness of intellectual property protection and industry standard by the foreign press, says DVD patent fee. The last 7 years of disputes, has become an old wound China manufacturing, and still always ache, continue to cause concern and reflection from all walks of life.

      In 1999 June, it is the beginning of the DVD epidemic in the market era, 6C (including Hitachi, Panasonic, JVC, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, Time Warner) announced the "DVD joint patent license" statement, all production DVD manufacturer in the world to buy "patent licenses to them".

     In 2000 November, 6C introduced the "DVD patent licensing incentive plan", and began with the Chinese DVD enterprise patent fee pay negotiations.

     In January 9, 2002, Shenzhen Pudi company exports to 3864 sets of DVD machines in the UK, is Philips through local customs seized, evidence is without patent; February 21st, German Customs has detained DVD Huizhou DESAY company. So far, patent fee dispute on international trading desk, forcing exports accounted for 70% of the total output of the world DVD Chinese DVD enterprises to face this problem.

     In March 8, 2002, 6C issued an ultimatum, DVD patent fees, 6C in the past two years hard work and Chinese electronic audio-visual Association conducted more than 9 times of the negotiations failed, so now Chinese DVD enterprise must in March 31st before the agreed with 6C DVD patent fee paying agreement, otherwise they will sue. 6C's asking price is $20 per DVD, DVD manufacturers in China 200 yuan profit margins at the time, 6C will take more than half.

     In April 19, 2002, 6C struck a deal with the China CAIA, every China Company export 1 DVD, will pay $4 in royalties. In 2002 November, hold the DVD patent 6C alliance again asked: next year Chinese domestic DVD also have to pay patent fees, charges $12 each.

     Subsequently, the association also signed each export 1 DVD players to pay $5 to the patent royalty agreement with 3C. Other patent royalty payment is: lC Thomson charge each cost 2% ($2) fee to use the patent, Dolby charges $1 for each use of the patent, MPEG-LA each receive $4 in royalties (2002 to 2.5 U. S. dollars). So far, the patent fees storm seemed to come to an end.

     Each patent fees as high as 16~19 dollars, let a few years ago still CCTV for advertising pillar Wang's Chinese DVD manufacturers into manufacturing, domestic brands mass extinction. Moreover, due to the patented DVD technology high expansibility, Chinese manufacturing enterprises expanded rapidly in the world market share and the patent protection of backward, plus the patent fees charged by the smooth, inspired and affected by DVD events, foreign manufacturers on the Chinese TV, U disk, CD, DVD machines, digital cameras, motorcycle and other manufacturers also put forward a request of patent fee, but also have the tendency to expand constantly, may soon spread to the high-tech field of PC, mobile communication, biological medicine and related industries. This aroused great concern from the government, industry and the media and fears.

     As the DVD market matures, prices fell sharply, no adjustment of patent fees Chinese business head become increasingly tight shackles. Chinese enterprises to export a $32 DVD can only earn a profit of $1, and handed over to foreign enterprises patent fee is as high as 60%. At the same time, Philips Patent Alliance in domestic enterprise agreement signed with a total of nearly 3000 patents, in the ordinary DVD useful not to 10%. This is not subdivided in sell patent, bundling the practice of charging, caused the domestic DVD industry's discontent.

     In 2004 June, in the domestic backbone manufacturer support, Wuxi formally in the American multimedia Santiago City Southern California court an indictment, sued 3C (Sony, pioneer, Philips) patent alliance, accusing it of the royalties levied behavior Chinese DVD enterprise, in violation of the law "and" Sherman America California monopoly law and other laws, and decision 3C patent is invalid and unenforceable, and recover more than $3000000000 in patent fees. In 2004, the two disc machine enterprises in Taiwan area Chinese, also with the same reason to sue 3C alliance won.

     Wuxi Media Co., said: first, 3C fixed price in violation of the patent patent fee according to the system of floating adjustment law; second, contains a large number of non essential patent analysis report confirmed that violate the basic principles of patent pool can only contain essential patent 3C; third, continuous for Wuxi media limited company without reason to refuse, resulting in the use of unfair authorized; fourth, collective monopoly market, high authorising or not, in violation of antitrust law.

     The media have reacted strongly, said this is the most important twenty-first Century lawsuit, because this is China enterprises in the face of foreign companies, began to use legal means to fight for the rights: "China dish machine enterprises to take legal weapon way officially launched against the international patent hegemony first gun", "China enterprises to recover the dignity".

     In December 28th the same year, Wuxi East strong Digital Technology Co. Ltd. in the same case against 4C (plus LG), and correct the complaint satisfies certain conditions, representative DVD player manufacturers, distributors of collective action.

     At the same time, between Hongkong Dongqiang Electronics Group and Philips also occurred in the dispute, Hongkong Dongqiang electronics sued Philips invalid patent in germany. In 2005 May in Hongkong, Philips counterclaim Dongqiang Electronics Group and its 13 Affiliated Companies patent infringement and violation of the license agreement. In June 15, 2005, the German court Hongkong Dongqiang electronics sued Philips patent invalid case verdict, that Philips European patent invalid EP0745307 within germany.

      In March 10, 2005 in the proceedings, under pressure, 6C Patent Alliance suddenly has indicated it will reduce China DVD patent fee of $1, but China enterprise does not appreciate. Although the two enterprises in the America sued 4C alliance case has not been court accepted, China enterprises come from the China intellectual circles in the country, and launched legal action.

      By the end of 2005, the Intellectual Property Institute of Peking University Zhang Ping, Intellectual Property Institute of Shanghai Univer Dean Tao Xinliang, Intellectual Property Institute of Tongji University Dean Dan Xiaoguang, Dean of Zhongnan University of Economics and Law Zhu Xuezhong School of intellectual property rights, intellectual property of China University of Political Science and Law Research Center director Alex power five well-known professors at 3C patent pool rights to Philips company code data "sending and receiving method as well as the transmitter and receiver" China invention patent to the State Intellectual Property Office of the Patent Reexamination Board made request for invalidation of the patent right. Applications submitted after two days, more than a dozen well-known domestic intellectual property experts gathered to Peking University, research the building anti monopoly system of intellectual property in China, and in support of the request is invalid, on Philips led 3C alliance in China charge high license fees questioned the rationality.

     In December 10, 2006, five professors and Philips company signed a joint statement, Philips under patent examination and the domestic and foreign market pressure active sum, the final decision will be the patents from 3C
    The withdrawal of the DVD patent pool license the patent list, and that this Chinese patent no longer claim, five professors agreed to withdraw to the patent invalid declaration request. The two sides also on the protection of intellectual property rights, safeguarding fair competition issued a joint statement.

    Media says, this case and help build to promote China's legal system, with a warning and reference meaning to our country enterprise; but this result was not reached consensus expectations lower DVD patent fee of the target.

Viagra Marathon: "Viagra" be happy alone

    USA Pfizer Inc won a patent lawsuit, lost a trademark lawsuit, but eventually lost China market.

    America Pfizer Inc is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical company, one of its main products -- drug "treatment of impotence, Wan Aike" last year in global sales reached $1600000000. At present, "Viagra" in China sales of about 80000000 yuan, and the whole Chinese ED market has more than 100 billion yuan of the scale.

    It is this "Wan Aike", in China leads to a series of patent and trademark disputes, by the media as "Viagra marathon". In Chinese, never a patent case can like Viagra case in such a long time continue to attract the general public and professional attention.

     In 1994, Pfizer Inc started to apply "patent Viagra" in China. In September 19, 2001, announcement of the State Intellectual Property Office granted the patent right for invention "Viagra". The same year, 12 domestic enterprises (media called "Viagra alliance") jointly apply to the State Intellectual Property Office, a request for the declaration of "Viagra" patent invalid, then the State Intellectual Property Office began to review the patent.

     In July 5, 2004, entrusted with "the State Intellectual Property Office of the patent reexamination of patent disclosure is not sufficient" as an excuse to declare "Viagra" Pfizer's patent invalid, this result implies China enterprises can produce Viagra generics. Patent revoked immediately aroused the enthusiasm of domestic enterprises to imitate, 17 announced the upcoming imitation, "Viagra" ready for production, the ED market big cake.

     Pfizer Inc said he is very disappointed with this result. America chamber of Commerce President Chinese Ma Chengli even publicly, Viagra patent's decision was "a setback for the protection of intellectual property rights". In 2004 September, Pfizer a paper petition will review the State Intellectual Property Office patents commission to court. In March 31, 2005, the Beijing intermediate people's Court of intellectual property court hearing of the case first, until June 2, 2006, the court on the basis of "patent law" article twenty-sixth paragraph third, Pfizer the patent specification has been accompanied by the experimental data, the general technical personnel "without spending creative work" can be realized, the Patent Reexamination Board "the facts wrong, erroneous application of the law, it shall be revoked".

     So far, the Pfizer trial win, again have the patent right. Although the defendant has filed an appeal, but in a sense, the case has come to an end. The patent applications in 1994, the protection period until 2014. Because the drug production after application, pre clinical research, clinical trials, examination and approval stage, even if domestic enterprises will win in the second trial, there is not much development time and space.

     The delay for a long time the patent lawsuit is called "a classic case of" Sino US intellectual property law, is that in recent years, with the largest patent review, more foreign media have been treated as "specimens" type decision. However, this decision caused many media and the industry have questioned. Some media said, "in fact, this patent in other countries, Japan and other countries American abroad have been questioned. The patent right for Pfizer in 2000 November the British High Court ruling that the technical scheme: invalid, Pfizer required protection is based on public knowledge, the compound effect is obviously, therefore cannot be protected by patents, the industry also the reason is called, the patent is not creative".

       Have sympathy for the "Viagra" alliance said, emphasizing the generics business interests for the whole China pharmaceutical significance: "domestic R & D on 'Viagra' generic is millions of less investment, up to about 30000000 yuan, so the Pfizer wins that they suffered heavy losses. Viagra patent lawsuits enough to make Chinese legislature to seriously consider the intellectual property system China revision. Chinese as a developing country, after joining World Trade Organization, should be on the premise of maintaining and improving the rules for trade in goods, take active measures to modify the rules of trade in service, to prevent a few developed countries use the rules of the right and the right to speak, continue to damage the interests of the developing countries".

      At present our country produces more than 3000 kinds of Western medicine in 99% generic drugs; 837 new drugs in recent years in the production of 97% is generic, but about 60% of them still in the patent protection period. More than 6000 domestic pharmaceutical companies most is still in the low level dependent average profit of only 5%~10% generics survival.

      The media also clearly recognize that, "the domestic pharmaceutical enterprises may apply through the other patent invalid, in order to obtain the legal copy patented method to realize short-term profit goals, but not long-term plan. Just copying other people's patent, even if the approach is legitimate, but no innovation, do not have their own patents, will always be in a passive position. China enterprises should strengthen the innovation of intellectual property rights, have independent intellectual property rights".

     This marathon war also involved during the 8 years of the "Viagra" trademark for the.

     In 1998, Pfizer Inc of anti ED (male erectile dysfunction) medicine "Viagra" has just come out and cause for concern in the world, the name "Viagra" but also by the media as "Viagra" Chinese translation spread. However, the Guangzhou WRM Corporation have been the first to make known to every family China registered the trademark "Viagra", resulting in "Viagra" into the Chinese, can only be registered as "Wan Aike".

      In June 21, 2002, Wellman's "Viagra" brand by the State Trademark Bureau of first instance and make public announcement, but Pfizer objected, "Viagra" trademark registration certificate so delayed. In 2005 September, Pfizer has put the new concept of Beijing health pharmacy Guangzhou WRM Corporation, sales "Viagra" and two authorized manufacturer (Jiangsu Lianhuan Pharmaceutical (14.42,0.07,0.49%) and the Shanghai Oriental Medicine) on the court, said the two companies products "Viagra", the alleged infringement "Viagra" registered three-dimensional mark, asked 4 companies to stop infringement and compensate for 1000000 yuan.

      In December 27, 2006, after more than 1 years after the trial, the court finally think, Jiangsu Lianhuan pharmaceutical and Shanghai Dongfang pharmacy without Pfizer Inc permission, and blue diamond production and Pfizer trademark similar to combine product, easy to make the public think that a specific connection to the origin and the Pfizer Inc "Viagra", constitute the the exclusive right to use a trademark infringement judgment against the Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Inc 600000 yuan, and be ordered to stop production and sales and "Viagra" similar tablets. But it is to obtain trademark through legal channels, and have not been sentenced constitute infringement.

      For the right of trademark battle, the media reaction is light, one reason may be that the registration of a trademark dispute is not uncommon in Chinese, also may be because cybersquatting is Chinese local enterprises, the objective is to the welfare of consumers do, so it can be regarded as "business acumen and insight", not as in overseas registered Chinese brand case to review.

      Pfizer Inc refuses the verdict, has appealed to the court, hope that through the ruling "Viagra" for the well-known trademark trademark right a way back. At present, the case is still in the process of law, "Viagra marathon" seems to continue. However, both the competition, Chinese ED market ushered in the other multinational giant competitors, the market spread of fake drugs, Pfizer's market share is also on the decline. Perhaps, is considering giving up "not authorized China manufacturers" principle, to reduce the time cost to achieve win-win.

American 337 survey: brutal encounter

     In February 17, 2006, Epson Corp and its subsidiary American Japan to USA International Trade Commission (ITC) filed charges in the cartridge, Chinese sold (InkCartridges) products infringed its patent for inkjet printer cartridges, requirements on the starting 337 investigation. Then HP in June also launched 337 investigations, for a time, "337 investigation" frequently appear in the media.

       USA "section 337" prohibit all acts of unfair competition or to American export products in any unfair trade behavior, for violations of the legitimate and effective American trademarks and patents. "337 investigation" because the investigation is fast, high cost, difficult, once the charges are sanctions severely and the lack of effective remedies: once identified in tort, the enterprise related products would be banned from entering the American, and the country the same industry and similar products may never enter the America market.

      Media thinks, in recent years, China manufacturing enterprises because of the low entry America and the European market, frequently encountered the 337 survey, 337 investigation has become the "301 clause" in the most unfavorable Chinese enterprise trade weapons. From 1986 the first relevant China "337 investigation" began, as of 2006 June, involving 337 survey Chinese mainland products a total of 53, representing 9% of the total survey, among which there are 46 cases related to patent disputes.

     Review of the past to affect greatly the 337 case, it is not difficult to find, 337 investigation is the game of the brave, the most effective is actively responding, although cannot guarantee success, but better than out of the market.

     In 2007 March, Zhuhai Ninestar and Hewlett-Packard Co reached a settlement, HP on 337 investigation China supplies start end. However, the Epson lawsuit comprehensively failed, in March 31, 2007, American International Trade Commission (ITC) issued a preliminary ruling, declared 11 patents Seiko Epson all effective, identified 24 companies sell cartridges, ink box more than 1000 types of violations of the Epson patent, and recommendations issued a general exclusion order and stop orders, require all the defendant to stop the import and sales in the United States tort cartridges, and banned all infringing ink cartridges into USA market.

     In May 16, 2006, the famous American lighter company Zippo apply to the ITC, charged with 7 China enterprise exports to the United States and violations of the 1 trademarks in lighter beauty sales, requirements to start the 337 survey.

     Because the 337 survey will have a "disastrous" effect on the Chinese high-end lighter industry, as one of the main production base of domestic lighter, Wenzhou smoking set association has called for the lighter industry jointly respond to the survey. However, before finally responding to the deadline of September 1st, in addition to Star Inc, China again without a lighter enterprises to take response action, also submitted instead of reason not to USA trade commission.

     Wenzhou Hengxing smoking set Co. company then organization of lawyers, actively participate in the work of responding to the 337 survey, and become "the ant and the elephant confrontation only positive resistance Chinese private enterprises". After several rounds of the contest, 2006 December, Zippo finally offered reconciliation talks. Media said: "this marks the company deal with Sino US lighter 337 business survey litigation strategic victory. At present 337 the investigation of the case is such attacks China enterprise in the rare reconciliation case".

      Since 2006 September 15 days, from China lighter in Wenzhou star container, have been America customs supervision. According to the survey results, Zippo requires that the lighter promulgated "permanent general exclusion order" will automatically set up, then, China most high-end lighter will be blocked in the America market.

      In April 28, 2003, American energizer holdings and Eveready battery company, in violation of its mercury free alkaline battery production technology patent rights on the grounds, to American International Trade Commission sued the Chinese Fujian Nanfu, Shuanglu Ningbo, Sichuan Changhong (9.15, -0.08, -0.87%) and other 7 battery manufacturers, the 337 survey. In a lawsuit, Chinese cell association to organize related enterprises respectively to study the technical level of domestic and other products, and then hire an experienced lawyer American.

     In this case, striking one snag after another. In June 2, 2004, USA International Trade Commission preliminary identified China production of mercury free alkaline battery violated the Energizer Holding Inc as valid and enforceable patent 709. In June 9th, Chinese Battery Association Organization of the battery production enterprises are united again appeal, requirements America International Trade Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the preliminary results. In October 4th, America International Trade Commission that Energizer Holding Inc No. 709 patent is invalid for lack of certainty, thereby ending a 337 survey of Chinese battery. In October 10th, America Energizer Holding Inc to America Federal Circuit Court of appeals filed a complaint. In January 25, 2006, American Federal Circuit Court of appeals ruling USA against the Energizer Holding Inc.

      Media says, this is China won in the 337 survey series in the case of the most comprehensive, inspire people's victory, is actively responding, the courage to struggle results. In fact, this is the China enterprises in the 337 survey won the first and only a victory.

In July 1, 2005, Unilin Beheer Unilin, Ireland and Holland America flooring industrial companies combined to USA International Trade Commission report group, Chinese 18 floor enterprise floor lock patent infringement. In July 6th, Chinese forest products industry association held an emergency meeting, decided by the Ministry of Commerce led to.

     July 24, 2006. USA International Trade Commission ruling of Holland Unilin Company No. 779 floor lock patent invalid, the majority of China wood flooring companies think, this time more than a year of the "lock" disputes, will eventually be victory over china.

     But in late January 2007, America International Trade Commission ruled 38 global prosecuted enterprises (including holy elephant China enterprises 18) enhanced wood floor in the sales (hereinafter referred to as the floor) patent infringement, but at the same time issued a general exclusion order, will cause the Chinese wood floor is a large amount of refuse in America customs, the matter little after may.

     According to statistics, at present China's annual exports to the America aggrandizement wood floor is about 30000000 square meters. After losing the floor, if want to America market sales, it must be to Holland Unilin company, a one-time payment of 100000 to $120000, in addition, every sell 1 square meters need to pay patent fee of $0.65, which may result in low Chinese floor manufacturers collective diving.

     Media thinks, the case "stems from China's wood flooring enterprises with independent intellectual property rights and the protection of intellectual property rights consciousness is weak, resulting in infringement", and encourages the floor enterprises to strengthen technological innovation, very objective.

    In addition, China recently also faces 337 investigation lamps, engines, multimeter, jewelry box and feed industries, is the intellectual property rights to the China manufacturing industry sounded the alarm.