Liu Zhaolong, a Chinese national, was found to have purchased
raw wine, bottles, bottle caps, labels, bottle capping equipment
and other illegal materials and tools, and manufactured counterfeit
wines imitating Chivas, Remy Martin, Ballantine's, Jack
Daniels, Martell, Hennessy, Royal Salute and other famous wine
brands. Liu filled the counterfeit wines and distributed them to
several cities in China, the illegal turnover of which has been
over RMB 200,000 (around US$31,250). As a result, Beijing Daxing
District Court found that Liu Zhaolong had violated the provisions
of Article 213 of the Criminal Law of China and committed the crime
of counterfeiting a registered trademark.
Pursuant to the judicial interpretations jointly issued by the
Supreme People's Court of China and the Supreme People's
Procuratorate of China in December 2004, a person who uses a mark
identical to a registered trademark on the same type of goods
without permission, and either has an operational value that
exceeds the statutory threshold or if there are other serious
circumstances justifying criminal sanction, has committed the crime
of counterfeiting a registered trademark. The crime carries a
sentence of not more than three years imprisonment, criminal
detention, and/or fines. If more than two registered trademarks are
counterfeited and the operational value reaches RMB150,000, or the
illegal profits reach RMB100,000, especially serious circumstances
are deemed to exist, and the applicable sentence is three to seven
years in addition to fines.
In the present case, Liu Zhaolong counterfeited nearly 10 types
of foreign wine brands, in an operation valued at more than
RMB150,000. These acts not only constituted the crime of
counterfeiting registered trademarks, but the court also determined
that especially serious circumstances existed. Therefore, Liu was
sentenced to 4 years imprisonment and fined RMB150,000 by the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).