NEWS & PUBLICATIONS
Watson & Band’s Procuratorial Supervision Case Selected as an Exemplary Case Reflecting Protection for IP rights to Safeguard Innovation-driven Development by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate
Mon Apr 25 18:04:00 CST 2022 Published by:Editor

On April 25, before the 22nd World Intellectual Property Day, in order to fully implement the CPC’s decision and arrangement on strengthening protection for IP rights, to further advance comprehensive duty performance in procuratorial work for IP rights and to better serve and safeguard China’s innovation-driven development, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate published Exemplary Cases Reflecting the People’s Procuratorates’ Protection for IP rights to Safeguard Innovation-driven Development.

 

Said eleven cases include five criminal cases involving trademark infringement, two criminal cases involving trade secret infringement, one criminal case involving copyright infringement and three civil procuratorial cases involving IP rights. Among them, the procuratorial supervision case over a retrial judgment of a trademark infringement case that Watson & Band’s Partner Joe Liu and his team represented for the rights holder is listed as the No.9 case. It is the first time in China to initiate retrial procedure through the prosecutorial supervision procedure against a case that has already been retried.


The Prosecutorial Supervision Case concerning the Retrial Judgement on UL Trademark Infringement Case

(2020) Yue Min Zai No.364


Pursuant to the Civil Procedure Law, a party shall not apply for a retrial again against a retrial judgment. In this case, since there were still errors in the retrial case, the relevant party filed with the people's procuratorate an application for prosecutorial supervision, which was ultimately rejected. Later the party filed the application again with a higher-level people’s procuratorate for review, after which the people’s procuratorate at the provincial level issued a civil protest. This case is an attempt based on the actual needs of relevant parties and a referential precedent in terms of the procedure of applying for retrying a retrial judgment. 


The UL bad faith series cases are landmark cases in the intellectual property field and a breakthrough in terms of procedural law in addition to the substantial contents. In particular, it is extremely rare in China to initiate retrial procedure against a case that has already been retried.   

In the earliest cases filed by the plaintiff of the UL bad-faith series cases in Shenzhen, both the Shenzhen Basic People's Court(s) and the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (the appeal court) found that UNIQLO constituted trademark infringement and ordered UNIQLO to bear the compensation liability. In response, UNIQLO applied with the Guangdong High People’s Court for a retrial, which was conducted later by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court under the instruction of the Guangdong High People’s Court. After retrial, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court held that UNIQLO constituted infringement, but was not liable for infringement as the plaintiff did not actually use the disputed trademark. Under the second-instance-for-final system adopted in China, the party is only permitted to file one retrial application against an effective appeal judgment, meaning that retrial judgment is almost the final decision of a lawsuit.


At the same time, however, the Supreme People’s Court retried the effective judgment made by the Shanghai High People’s Court in the UL bad faith series cases and found that the plaintiff constituted bad faith litigation and UNIQLO did not constitute infringement, thus dismissing all claims of the plaintiff. Taking this opportunity, UNIQLO applied with the People’s Procuratorate of Shenzhen for prosecutorial supervision against the retrial decision issued by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. After the People’s Procuratorate of Shenzhen rejected UNIQLO's application, UNIQLO turned to the People’s Procuratorate of Guangdong Province for review. After review, the People’s Procuratorate of Guangdong Province issued a written civil protest to the Guangdong High People’s Court in April 2020, holding that there was error in the application of law in the retrial judgment made by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and requesting the Guangdong High People’s Court to retry the case in accordance with the law.


Ultimately, the Guangdong High People’s Court retried the retrial judgment made by the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court in 2021, holding that UNIQLO did not constitute infringement and dismissing all claims of the plaintiff.


Few precedents can be found in which there are still errors in the retrial case and the relevant party therefore seeks further remedies. Moreover, the Civil Procedure Law does not make specific provisions on the procedure of applying for prosecutorial supervision and review with a people's procuratorate by relevant parties. However, this case is an exploration of this issue, shedding light on a feasible way to seek remedies for parties to cases of the kind.


The Watson & Band website is intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this site is to be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship between the reader and Watson & Band or as offering legal advice on any specific matter. Since we are not providing legal advice through this website, you should not act upon any information that you might receive here without first seeking professional counsel. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information contained in the Watson & Band website without seeking appropriate legal or other professional advice based on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.

© Copyright 2000-2015 All Rights Reserved | Shanghai ICP for 15028801 Privacy Policy | User Feedback

沪公网安备 31010402001317号

Lin