Zhejiang Tongxiang City, trademark registration, intellectual property consulting services Yew Hangzhou Limited Agency patent trademark registration, Jiaxing is located in the southeast coast of the Yangtze River delta plain, when the Qiantang River and the East China Sea will be the Chinese Communist Party was born in Jiaxing. Embrace the river, sea, lake shaped wins, known as the "land of plenty", "silk" said. Its land area of ??3,915 square kilometers, has a population of 4,501,700. Under the jurisdiction of South Lake, Xiuzhou two areas, Pinghu, Haining, Tongxiang three municipalities and Jiashan, sea salt two counties. Economic center. According to Jiaxing City chronicles: the Eastern Zhou Dynasty disputes, Wu Yue hegemony, followed annals of history. Since then, one thousand years, Jiaxing both "land of plenty", "clothing world," the rich, there are "hundreds of hands skills and Jervois other" downtown, economic development has always been in the lead. Since reform and opening, Jiaxing is approved by the State Council, the Yangtze River Delta, "advance planning in advance of development," the fifteen cities. Since 2000, GDP growth in Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province and the Yangtze River Delta in 15 cities in the top. In 2012 the city's GDP 288.5 billion yuan, in 2012 the resident population of ten thousand U.S. dollars per capita GDP exceeded. Under the jurisdiction of five counties (city) are included in the national comprehensive strength hundred counties in the top 50, all counties (cities, districts) were named as the "well-off county, Zhejiang Province." City and all counties (city) were awarded National Science and Technology Progress advanced cities and counties. [1] for a new "Trademark Law" of the several changes, I talk about a few implementation issues that need attention. First, the new trademark registration opposition procedures, there are some concerns: first, because the retention of "any person" can be based on "absolute grounds" to challenge the regulations, some of the people most likely still be based on the above "absolute grounds" to bring malicious objections And profit, so it is difficult to completely eliminate malicious objection. Second, because Trademark Office rejected the decision of trademark opposition can without administrative review and judicial review procedures immediately, significant expansion of the powers and Trademark Office, the existence of the risk of abuse of power, need to be vigilant. Third, it may encourage malicious trademark registration applications and malicious trademark infringement lawsuit. Despite the objections of people dissatisfied with the Trademark Office rejected the decision, you can still request the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board declared a registered trademark is invalid, however, because "the decision declaring invalid a registered trademark or ruling on the former People's Court declared invalid and has been implemented to make trademark infringement cases judgment, ruling, mediation and commercial administrative departments to make and trademark infringement cases have been performed with the decision and have fulfilled a trademark assignment or licensing contract does not have Tongxiang, Zhejiang retrospective application for trademark registration "so that the trademark invalid procedure, even if the registered trademark is actually illegal under trademark law, trademark owners can still claim trademark rights to obtain an unfair advantage. Although "because of trademark holders malicious damage caused to another person, shall be compensated," but, the law of the registered trademark "malicious" conduct does not define what is meant, but also to prove subjective "bad faith," the burden of proof will be very difficult, this requirement may be a mere formality. Because the "Trademark Law Implementing Rules" (1993) Article 25, paragraph 5, and the "Trademark Law Implementing Regulations" (2002) Section 36 also have this requirement, but in practice almost did not happen due to trademark holders malice compensation case. Secondly, the registered trademark for the Suppression of malicious modifications can really change the fact whether the well-known trademarks in China can not be effectively protected the issue still in doubt. Although the "Trademark Law" third amendment clarified the well-known trademark is "well known to the relevant public's trademark", and the TRIPs Agreement Article 16, paragraph 2, it states: In determining whether a mark is well-known, the only considered "relevant public know the extent. " However, the new "Trademark Law" Article 14 retains the existing "Trademark Law" Article 14 of the well-known trademarks are many factors that should be considered, namely, in addition to considering "(a) the relevant public know the extent of the trade mark ", but also consider" (two) the duration of use of the mark; (three) the mark of any publicity for the duration, extent and geographical scope; (four) of the trademark as well-known trademarks protected record "and so on factors, therefore, "that the standards are still too high, or too much limits set", I am afraid that is still difficult to effectively eliminate the fact that the relevant public registered trademarks of well-known acts. Once again, the "Trademark Law" on the increase in the statutory maximum amount of compensation changes, although given the judge in determining the amount of compensation a greater statutory discretion, however, as mentioned earlier, the judge in determining the amount of statutory damages, they still need According to facts of the case in order to "compensate for the loss" principle is limited to calculate, rather than arbitrary, but not punitive. In fact, even the law of statutory damages to a maximum of 50 million, but in the judicial practice, although difficult to prove infringement damaged or infringing specific amount of profit, but there is evidence of significantly more than the amount of statutory damages above the ceiling, the court may not be applicable statutory method of calculating the amount of compensation, but rather evidence of the case the whole case, more than 50 million reasonably determine the amount of compensation. Thus, the maximum amount of statutory compensation increase will really bring infringement damages improvement, remains to be seen. Finally, the implementation of punitive damages in tort of malicious modification of the first, this explanation is too simple, and it was not logical. If only to make up for the cost of the trademark owner's rights to make up for the loss of the trademark owner, as long as full accordance with existing legal provisions, adequate compensation trademark infringement person who suffered losses and fees paid to suffice, why should introduce " punitive damages "mean? Second, China's current judicial practice, trademark and other intellectual property infringement cases the amount of damages is low, it is difficult to make up for lost rights holders, the reason is not that the rule of law damages what flaws, but because it is difficult to determine. " actual losses and tort profit "amounts. The amount of punitive damages is based on precisely the already established "actual damages, tort multiples of earnings or licensing fees" to calculate, therefore, most IPR cases in China is based on statutory damages in the amount of compensation determined reality, even Tongxiang, Zhejiang application for trademark registration law provides for punitive damages, and its operability and the actual effect is very doubtful. Third, the implementation of punitive damages is required to meet the prerequisite requirements: "malicious" violation of trademark rights and "serious." It is not clear "serious" the specific meaning, it is unclear "malicious" refer infringer who knowingly and still others have implemented registered trademark infringement, "willful infringement" itself is also a "serious" in a performance. These have yet to be implemented in future regulations and judicial practice to clear. Finally, referring to China "Patent Law" (2008 amendments) the provisions of Article 65, "Trademark Law" amendment also provides for the third time: the amount of damages can refer to the license fee of the "multiple" reasonable assurance. It should be noted that the "29 April 2004 the European Parliament and the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights resolution 2004/48, Directive" Article 13.1 (b) has a similar article states: "may, in appropriate circumstances, according to the tort person requesting authorization to use the intellectual property dispute should pay royalties or license fees, calculated at least this amount of damages. "Clearly, there is no" multiple "requirement. In addition, the German government also believes that: According to the license fee "multiples" amount to pay damages will result in some form of punitive damages, which the German principles of civil law is not consistent. If we say that China "Patent Law" does not provide for punitive damages in the premise, patent licensing fees of the "multiple" reasonable assurance as to the amount of damages still merit, then, the new "Trademark Law" in accordance with the license fee The "multiple" OK, based on the amount of damages, and then impose punitive damages 1-3 times, then with the basic principles of civil damages obviously contrary. Coupled with China that administrative authorities may impose fines on trademark infringement and administrative penalties, if China's "Trademark Law" These punitive measures really have to be effectively implemented, then let people assume too harsh tort liability.