中國知識產(chǎn)權司法保護

中國知識產(chǎn)權司法保護

TheIPJudicialProtectioninChina

夏君麗XiaJunliBerkeley,Oct.2012Fortheconferenceonly,nofurtherdistribution中國法院層級系統(tǒng)

HierarchyofCourtSystem–China中華人民共和國最高人民法院TheSupremePeople’sCourt,PRC32個高級人民法院32HighPeople’sCourts10個海事法院10MaritimeCourts406個中級人民法院406IntermediatePeople’sCourts3122個基層人民法院3122PrimaryPeople’sCourts中國人民解放軍軍事法院ThePeople’sLiberationArmy’sMilitaryCourt各大軍區(qū)、各軍兵種軍事法院TheMilitaryCourtsoftheMilitaryAreasandMilitaryServices基層軍事法院ThePrimaryMilitaryCourts

兩審終審制度

Two-TierAppellateSystem人民法院審理案件，實行兩審終審制度。Thecasewillendwhenitundergoesthetrialsoftwolevelofcourtsandthedecisionmadebythesecondtrialcourtwillcomeintoforce.當事人對已經(jīng)發(fā)生法律效力的判決、裁定認為有錯誤，可以向上一級人民法院申請再審，但不停止判決裁定的執(zhí)行。Ifapartyconsidersthatalegallyeffectivejudgmentororderhassomeerror,hemayapplytoapeople’scourtatthenexthigherlevelforretrial;however,theexecutionofthejudgmentor

ordershallnotbesuspended.

知識產(chǎn)權審判庭

IPTribunals最高人民法院、高級人民法院和中級人民法院普遍設立知識產(chǎn)權審判庭。TheIPtribunalsaregenerallysetupintheSupremePeople’scourt,highpeople’scourtsandintermediatepeople’scourts.129個基層人民法院經(jīng)最高人民法院批準，可以管轄商標、著作權、不正當競爭案件。3個試點基層法院可以審理實用新型和外觀設計專利糾紛案件。WiththeapprovaloftheSupremePeople’sCourt,129primarypeople’scourtsmayhavejurisdictionovertrademark,copyrightandunfaircompetitioncases.3pilotprimarycourtsmayhearthedisputecasesofutilitymodelsanddesignpatents.共有從事知識產(chǎn)權審判的法官2000多名Thereareover2,000IPjudges.最高人民法院知識產(chǎn)權庭

IPTribunaloftheSupremePeople’sCourt審理著作權、商標權、專利權、不正當競爭、技術合同、植物新品種、不正當競爭等第一審、第二審知識產(chǎn)權案件FirstandsecondinstanceofIntellectualPropertycasesforcopyright,trademarkright,patentright,unfaircompetition,technicalcontract,newvarietyofplant,etc.不服下級人民法院生效裁判的知識產(chǎn)權民事再審案件；IPcivilretrialcasesforrefusingtoaccepttheeffectivejudgmentsoflowerpeople’scourts;不服北京高級人民法院生效的商標、專利授權確權類知識產(chǎn)權行政再審案件IPadministrativeretrialcasesforrefusingtoacceptthetrademarkandpatentauthorizationandrightconfirmationoftheBeijingHigherPeople’sCourt.

司法解釋

JudicialInterpretation

制定司法解釋MakingJudicialInterpretationisoneofthemethodsfortheSPCtofulfillitsfunctionofadjudicationguidance.在中國最高人民法院的判例不具有先例地位，但可以作為下級法院裁判案件的指導和參考。TheSPC’sjudgmentsandrulingsdonotpossessthestatusofprecedents,yettheycanserveasaguidanceandreferenceforthecourtsatlowerlevelsincasehearing.

司法解釋

JudicialInterpretation最高人民法院的司法解釋不是立法，而是對審判過程中如何具體應用法律進行的解釋，與法律具有同等效力，是法官辦案的直接依據(jù)。法院將司法解釋作為裁判依據(jù)的，應當在司法文書中援引。TheSPC’sjudicialinterpretationsarenotlegislationbutexplanationonhowtoapplythelawsinthetrailproceedings.Theyareofthesameeffectasthelawsandmayactasadirectbaseforthejudgesincasehandingandshouldbecitedinthejudicialdocuments.司法解釋

JudicialInterpretation自2000年以來，根據(jù)入世和建設創(chuàng)新型國家的需要，制定了23件知識產(chǎn)權的司法解釋。Since2000,23IntellectualPropertyjudicialinterpretationshavebeenmadebasedontherequirementsofentryintotheWTOandconstructionofaninnovationcountry.涉及案件管轄、保全、訴前臨時禁令等程序性規(guī)定，也涉及專利、商標、著作權、不正當競爭、反壟斷、技術合同、馳名商標保護的侵權判定等法律適用問題。Theseinterpretationsarerelatedtotheproceduralregulationsoncasejurisdiction,preservation,pre-judgmentinterlocutoryinjunction,etc.andtheapplicationoflawforjudgingtheinfringementoftheprotectionofpatent,trademark,copyright,unfaircompetition,anti-trust,technicalcontractandwell-knowntrademark.正在起草關于信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權的司法解釋。Thejudicialinterpretationonrightcommunicationthroughinformationnetworkisbeingdrafted.司法解釋稿的主要內(nèi)容

TheMainContentoftheDraftJudicialInterpretation意見稿共22條，對網(wǎng)絡用戶、網(wǎng)絡服務提供者侵犯著作權行為，以及侵權認定情形做出規(guī)定。ThedraftofApril2012provideshowtodeterminetheinfringementandcivilliabilityifthenetworkusersandNSPsinfringeRCIN.基本原則：人民法院審理侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權民事糾紛案件，在行使裁量權時應當兼顧權利人、網(wǎng)絡服務提供者和社會公眾的利益平衡。Thebasicprinciple:InthecourseoftrialsofcivildisputesrelatedtoinfringementsofRCIN,thePeople'sCourtsshallbalancetheinterestsamongrightowners,networkserviceproviders(“NSP”)andthepublicwhenexercisingtheirdiscretion.信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權及提供行為

RCINandActofProviding意見稿指出，網(wǎng)絡用戶、網(wǎng)絡服務提供者未經(jīng)許可，通過信息網(wǎng)絡提供他人享有權利的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品，人民法院應當判令其承擔侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權的民事責任。ThePeople’sCourtsshallberesponsibleformakingrulingsandordersthatnetworkusersandNSPswhoprovideworks,performances,audioandvideoproductsofothersthoughinformationnetworkswithoutauthorizationmustbearcivilliabilityforinfringementsofRCIN.上傳到網(wǎng)絡服務器或者以其他方式，將作品、表演、錄音錄像制品置于向公眾開放的信息網(wǎng)絡中，使公眾可以以下載、瀏覽或者其他方式獲得的，人民法院應當認定其構(gòu)成作品、表演或者錄音錄像制品的提供行為。Whereworks,performances,andaudioandvideoproductsofothersthatareplacedonapublicly-accessibleinformationnetworkthroughuploadingtonetworkserversorinanothermannerbecomeavailabletothepublicthroughdownloading,browsingorothermeans,thePeople’sCourtsshalldeterminethatsuchactsconstituteanactofprovidingworks,performances,andaudio-visualproducts.提供行為的例外

ExceptiontoActofProviding

原告能夠舉證證明網(wǎng)絡服務提供者具有提供作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的外觀，人民法院可以認定其實施了提供行為，但網(wǎng)絡服務提供者能夠證明其僅為被訴侵權的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品提供了自動接入、自動傳輸、信息存儲空間、搜索、鏈接、點對點技術等服務的除外。WhereaplaintiffcanprovethatanNSPappearstohaveprovidedawork,performance,oraudio-visualproduct,thePeople’sCourtsmaydeterminethattheNSPhascommittedtheactof“providinga[work]”,providedhoweverthattheNSPcanprovethatitmerelyprovidedservicessuchasautomaticaccess,automatictransmission,informationhosting,searching,linking,orpoint-to-pointtechnologyfortheallegedlyinfringedwork,performance,audio-visualproduct.網(wǎng)頁快照和縮略圖的合理使用

FairUsetoWebPagesandThumbnailImages

網(wǎng)絡服務提供者為提供搜索服務，按照一定的技術安排生成作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的網(wǎng)頁快照、縮略圖等并向公眾提供的，人民法院應當認定其構(gòu)成提供行為。WhereanNSPusescertaintechniquestogeneratecachedwebpagesorthumbnailimagesofworks,performances,oraudio-visualproductsforthepurposesofprovidingsearchingserviceandmakesthemavailabletothepublic,thePeople’sCourtsshalldeterminesuchactsas“providing[works]”.前款規(guī)定行為未影響作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的正常使用，亦未不合理損害權利人對作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的合法權益，網(wǎng)絡服務提供者主張其構(gòu)成合理使用的，人民法院應予支持。Whereanactspecifiedintheprecedingparagraphneitheraffectthenormalexploitationofthework,performance,oraudio-visualproductnorunreasonablyprejudicesthelegitimateinterestsofrightownersintheirwork,performances,oraudio-visualproducts,iftheNSPclaimsthattheactconstitutesfairuse,thePeople’sCourtsshallsupporttheclaim.

共同侵權行為承擔連帶責任

JointInfringementandJointandSeveralLiability網(wǎng)絡服務提供者主張其僅提供信息存儲空間、搜索、鏈接、點對點技術等網(wǎng)絡服務，但有證據(jù)證明其與侵權作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的提供者，通過分工合作等方式共同實施提供行為，符合共同侵權行為要件的，人民法院應當判令其承擔連帶責任。

WhereanNSPclaimsthatitmerelyprovidednetworkservicessuchasinformationhosting,search,linking,andpoint-to-pointtechnologies,ifthereisevidenceprovingthattheNSP,inthemannerofdivisionoflabor,cooperation,etc.,jointlycommitstheactofprovidinginfringingworks,performance,audio-visualproductswiththeprovidersofthesame,andiftheactmeettheconditionsforafindingofjointinfringement,thePeople’sCourtsshallordertheNSPtobearjointandseveralliability.連帶責任和幫助侵權

網(wǎng)絡服務提供者提供信息存儲空間、搜索、鏈接、點對點技術等網(wǎng)絡服務時，教唆或者幫助網(wǎng)絡用戶實施侵犯他人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權行為的，人民法院應當判令其承擔連帶責任。網(wǎng)絡服務提供者明知或者應知其網(wǎng)絡用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權，人民法院應當認定其構(gòu)成幫助侵權行為。WhereanNSPwhoprovidesinternetservicessuchasstorage,hosting,search,linkingandpoint-to-pointtechnology,instigatesorassistsnetworkuserstocommitanactofinfringementagainsttheRCIN,thePeople’sCourtshallholdtheNSPjointlyandseverallyliable.WheretheNSPknowsorshouldhaveknownthatitsnetworkuserswereinfringinguponRCIN,thePeople’sCourtshalldeterminetheNSP’sacttoconstituteassistanceofinfringement.

JointandSeveralLiabilityandAssistanceofInfringement過錯的認定標準

Determinationof“Fault”判斷網(wǎng)絡服務提供者是否具有過錯，一般應當以其是否明知或者應知網(wǎng)絡用戶侵犯他人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權的具體事實為標準。網(wǎng)絡用戶侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權的具體事實明顯，網(wǎng)絡服務提供者仍為其提供服務或者不采取合理措施的，人民法院應當認定其構(gòu)成應知。IndeterminingwhetherornotanNSPhasfault,thePeople’sCourtsshallgenerallymakeadeterminationbasedonthestandardofwhetherornottheNSPkneworshouldhaveknownoftheconcretefactsrelatedofitsnetworkuser’sinfringementofanother’sRCIN.Wheretheconcretefactsprovingtheinfringementbyanetworkuserofanother’sRCINareobvious,iftheNSPcontinuestoprovideservicesorfailstoadoptreasonablemeasures,thePeople’sCourtshallfindthattheNSPshouldhaveknown[i.e.,constructiveknowledgeexists].明知應知的考慮因素

FactorsofKnowledge認定網(wǎng)絡服務提供者是否明知或者應知其提供服務的網(wǎng)絡用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權，可以根據(jù)案件的具體情況、網(wǎng)絡服務提供者提供服務的性質(zhì)、方式及其引發(fā)侵權的可能性大小，綜合考慮以下因素：WhendeterminingwhetheranNSPkneworshouldhaveknownthatthenetworkuserservedbyanNSPhasinfringedanotherperson’sRCIN,thePeople’sCourtmayrefertothespecificcircumstancesofthecases,thenatureandmeansoftheservicesprovidedbytheNSPandthelikelihoodofinfringement,andtakeintoaccountthefollowingfactors:

（一）網(wǎng)絡服務提供者應當具備的管理信息的能力；thecapabilitiesofinformationmanagementoftheNSP;（二）傳播的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的類型、知名度及侵權信息的明顯程度；thetypesanddegreeoffameofthedisseminatedworks,performanceoraudio-videorecordingproducts,andthelevelofobviousnessoftheinformation(indicatingthe)infringement;（三）網(wǎng)絡服務提供者因傳播作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的直接獲利情況；thesituationwithrespecttotheNSP’sdirectbenefitsderivedfromdisseminationofworks,performance,oraudioandvideorecordingproducts;（四）網(wǎng)絡服務提供者是否主動對作品、表演、錄音錄像制品進行了選擇、編輯、修改、推薦等；whethertheNSPproactivelytakesactions,suchasselection,editing,modification,recommendation,etc.,ofworks,performances,oraudio-videorecordingproducts;（五）網(wǎng)絡服務提供者是否采取了同行業(yè)普遍采取的、預防侵權的技術措施、對侵權通知是否做出合理的反應；whethertheNSPadoptscommonly-adoptedindustrypracticesandinfringementpreventiontechnologicalmeasures,andwhethertheNSPmakesreasonablereactionstonotificationsofinfringement（六）網(wǎng)絡服務提供者是否針對同一作品的重復侵權行為采取了相應的合理措施；whethertheNSPadoptsreasonablemeasurestoaddressrepeatinfringementsofthesame work;（七）其他相關情形。otherrelevantcircumstances.不具有過錯的考慮因素

FactorsforNoFault網(wǎng)絡服務提供者未對網(wǎng)絡用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權的行為進行主動審查的，人民法院一般不將其作為網(wǎng)絡服務提供者具有過錯的考量因素。。

WhereanNSPdoesnotcarryoutaproactivereviewofactofinfringementsofRCINsbynetworkusers,asageneralrule,thePeople’sCourtwillnotconsiderthisasafactorinfindingfaultbytheNSP.網(wǎng)絡服務提供者主動采取相關技術措施，防止侵犯信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權行為發(fā)生的，人民法院可以根據(jù)案件具體情況，將其作為認定網(wǎng)絡服務提供者不具有過錯的考量因素。WhereanNSPproactivelyadoptsrelevanttechnologicalmeasurestopreventtheoccurrenceofinfringementsofRCINs,thePeople’sCourtsmay,inaccordancewiththeactualcircumstances,considerthisasafactorwhendeterminingthattheNSPdoesnothavefault.網(wǎng)絡服務提供者采取合理、有效的技術措施，仍難以發(fā)現(xiàn)侵權行為的，人民法院一般不認定其明知或者應知網(wǎng)絡用戶侵害他人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權WhereanNSPhasadoptedreasonableandeffectivetechnologicalmeasures,butitisdifficulttodiscoverinfringements,thePeople’sCourtsshouldgenerallynotfindthattheNSPkneworshouldhaveknownthatitsnetworkusersinfringedtheRCINsofothers.

搜索引擎服務的應知

“ShouldHaveKnown”ofSearchEngine網(wǎng)絡服務提供者僅通過搜索引擎根據(jù)網(wǎng)絡用戶指令自動提供搜索結(jié)果鏈接的，人民法院一般不認定其應知他人利用其網(wǎng)絡服務侵害權利人信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權。WhereanNSPmerelyprovidesautomaticsearchresultsthroughasearchenginebasedoncommandsmadebynetworkusers,thePeople’sCourtsshallgenerallynotdeterminethattheNSPsshouldhaveknownsomeoneelseusedtheirnetworkservicestoinfringetheRCINofarightholder.網(wǎng)絡服務提供者有下列情形之一的，人民法院一般可以認定其構(gòu)成應知侵權：Asageneralrule,thePeople’sCourtmayfindtheNSP“shouldhaveknown”ofaninfringementinanyofthefollowingcircumstances:（一）通過對熱播影視作品、流行度較高的文字作品、音樂作品設置榜單、目錄、索引并提供深層鏈接服務的；providingrankinglists,catalogues,indexingandprovidingdeeplinkingservicesforcurrenthotbroadcastfilmsortelevisionprograms,literaryworksormusicworkswithrelativelyhighdegreeofpopularity;（二）通過描述性段落、內(nèi)容簡介等方式對鏈接作品、表演、錄音錄像制品等進行推薦的；recommendinglinkedworks,performances,recordingsandvideoworksandotherworksbymeansofdescriptiveparagraphs,introductorydescriptionofcontents,etc.;（三）為主要從事侵權活動的第三方網(wǎng)站提供定向鏈接的；directingweblinkagetoathirdpartywebsitewhichismainlyengagedininfringingactivities;（四）可以認定應知的其他情形。othercircumstances.

信息存儲空間提供者的應知

“ShouldHaveKnown”ofInformationHosting

有下列情形之一的，人民法院可以根據(jù)案件具體情況，認定信息存儲空間的網(wǎng)絡服務提供者應知網(wǎng)絡用戶提供的被訴作品、表演、錄音錄像制品侵權：

Underthefollowingcircumstances,thePeople’sCourtsmayfindthataninformationhostingserviceprovidershouldhaveknownthattheworks,performanceoraudio-videorecordingproductsindisputeprovidedbyanetworkuserareinfringing:（一）將標有明確的權利人、著作權保護權限等信息的內(nèi)容完整的熱播影視作品等，置于首頁、其他主要頁面等能夠為網(wǎng)絡服務提供者明顯感知位置的；placingcompletecopiesofhotcurrentfilmsorbroadcastingtelevisionprograms,etc.,whichareidentifiedwithclearinformation,suchasthe(thenameofthe)rightowners,limitationsoncopyrightauthorization,etc.,atanobviouslyperceptibleplacebytheNSP,suchasthehomepageandothermainpagesofwebsites.（二）對本條第（一）項熱播影視作品的主題、內(nèi)容主動進行選擇、編輯、整理、推薦，或者為其設立專門的排行榜的；proactivelyconductingselection,editing,organizingandrecommendationofthethemeorcontentofthehotshowing/airingfilmsortelevisionprogramsasreferredtoitem(1)hereof,orprovidingspecialrankingliststhereof;（三）其他可以明顯感知相關作品、表演、錄音錄像制品侵權性質(zhì)，仍未采取合理措施的情形anyothercircumstanceswheretheNSPcanobviouslyperceivethenatureoftheinfringementoftherelevantworksbutfailstotakereasonablemeasures. 信息存儲空間的無過錯認定

Determinationof“NoFault”ofInformationHosting提供信息存儲空間服務的網(wǎng)絡服務提供者對網(wǎng)絡用戶提供的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的下列改變情形，人民法院一般不認定其具有過錯：Underfollowingcircumstances,thePeople’sCourtsmaygenerallyfindthatanNSPofawebhostingservicedoesnothavefaultforthechangesmadetoworks,performancesoraudio-videorecordingproductsprovidedbyitsnetworkusers:（一）僅改變作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的存儲格式；merelymakingchangestothestorageformatsoftheworks,performanceoraudioandvideorecordingproducts;（二）對作品、表演、錄音錄像加注數(shù)字水印等網(wǎng)站標識；addingwebsiteidentificationinformation,etc.,suchasdigitalwatermarkstoworks,performances,audio-videorecordingproducts;（三）其他不足以認定構(gòu)成過錯的改變行為。anyotherchanges[byNSPs]thatareinsufficienttobedeterminedasconstituting“fault”.直接經(jīng)濟利益與過錯的認定

DirectEcnomicInterestandDeterminationofFault

提供信息存儲空間服務的網(wǎng)絡服務提供者從其網(wǎng)絡用戶提供的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品中直接獲得經(jīng)濟利益的，人民法院可以推定其對該網(wǎng)絡用戶侵害信息網(wǎng)絡傳播權的行為具有過錯。

Whereaninformationhostingserviceproviderobtainsdirectfinancialbenefitsfromtheworks,performanceoraudio-videorecordingproductsprovidedbyitsnetworkusers,thePeople’sCourtsmayassumethattheNSPhasfaultfortheactofinfringementofRCINsconductedbyitsnetworkusers.提供信息存儲空間服務的網(wǎng)絡服務提供者按照時間、流量等向其服務對象收取標準費用的，不屬于前款規(guī)定的直接獲得經(jīng)濟利益的情形。WheretheNSPofawebhostingservicechargesstandardfeestoitscustomersbasedondatavolumeorduration,itsrevenueshallnotbedeemedas“directlyobtainingfinancialbenefits”asprovidedintheprecedingparagraph.網(wǎng)絡服務提供者因提供信息存儲空間服務而收取的廣告費，一般不認定為直接獲取的經(jīng)濟利益。網(wǎng)絡服務提供者針對特定作品、表演、錄音錄像制品投放廣告所獲取的收益，或者有其他證據(jù)證明與提供作品、表演、錄音錄像制品存在特定聯(lián)系的獲利，可以根據(jù)案件具體情況認定為直接獲得的經(jīng)濟利益。Whereaninformationhostingserviceproviderchargesadvertisingfeesforitshostingservices,asageneralrule,thePeople’sCourtshouldnotfind[thatcollectingtheadvertisementfeeconstitutes]“directfinancialbenefits”.WheretheNSPderivesbenefitsfromadvertisementtargetingatspecificworks,performanceoraudioandvideorecordingproducts,orthereisotherevidenceshowingspecificconnectionbetweenbenefitsandthemakingavailableofspecificworks,performanceoraudioandvideorecordingproducts,thePeople’sCourtsmay,basedonthespecificcircumstancesofthecase,determinethattheNSPobtaineddirectfinancialbenefits.通知Notification

權利人向網(wǎng)絡服務提供者提交的刪除或斷開鏈接的通知應當符合法律、行政法規(guī)的特別規(guī)定。權利人提交的通知未告知被訴侵權的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的網(wǎng)絡地址，但網(wǎng)絡服務提供者根據(jù)該通知的內(nèi)容已足以對其進行準確定位的，可以視為該通知符合法律、行政法規(guī)的要求。

Thenotificationofdeletionordisconnectionoflinksshouldcomplywithspecialrulesoflawsandadministrativeregulations.Whereanotificationsentbyrightownerdoesnotindicatethenetworkaddressesoftheallegedinfringingworks,performance,audioandvideorecordingproducts,iftheNSPisalreadyabletomakeaccurateidentificationbasedonthecontentofthenotifications,suchnotificationshallberegardedashavingcompliedwiththerequirementsoflawsandadministrativeregulations.

認定是否能夠足以準確定位，應當考慮所涉網(wǎng)絡服務的類型、要求刪除或者斷開鏈接的作品、表演、錄音錄像制品的文件類型以及作品、表演、錄音錄像制品是否具有特定性等因素。Todeterminewhetherserviceprovidersareabletoaccuratelyidentify[infringingmaterials],thePeople’sCourtsshouldconsiderfactors,suchasthetypeofinternetservices,theformatoffilesoftheworks,performances,audio-videorecordingproductstobedeletedordisconnected,etc.,andconsiderfactorssuchasthespecificnatureoftheworks,performances,audio-videorecordingproducts,etc.網(wǎng)絡服務提供者接到權利人符合法律、行政法規(guī)要求的通知，未在合理期限內(nèi)采取刪除、屏蔽、斷開鏈接等必要措施的，人民法院應當認定其明知或者應知通知所定位的侵權行為。WhereanNSPreceivesarightowner’snotificationthatcomplieswithlawsandadministrativeregulations,iftheNSPfailstotakenecessarymeasures,suchasdeleting,blockingordisconnecting,withinareasonabletimethePeople’sCourtsshallfindtheNSP“kneworshouldhaveknown”oftheinfringingactsidentifiedandindicatedinthenotification.來自美國的關注

CommentsfromtheUSA美國全國商會全球知識產(chǎn)權中心

U.SChamberofCommerceGlob