尽管中国对知识产权的保护越来越强，但笔者还是经常会碰到国外的品牌所有人或其律师表现出对知识产权实际保护状况的担忧。笔者理解这些担忧产生的原因，中国毕竟还是发展中国家，虽然知识产权的法律体系和国际上已经比较接近，执法也在不断加强，但在某些方面，尤其是执法及惩处力度方面，和欧美等发达国家还有一些差距。
另一方面，通过一些实际案例，笔者也注意到一些品牌在中国没有得到更好的保护，这与其对中国的法律体系及司法环境了解不够，且未能制定并实施符合中国法律环境的知识产权保护策略有不小的关系。
品牌保护的现状。目前国外品牌在中国的知识产权保护总体上采取的是相对单一、分散的保护机制，具体表现在两个方面:
首先，从保护方式而言，很多公司将商标授权、确权，行政保护（打假）和诉讼等保护方式割裂开来，未能形成相互配合的有机体系。有些公司更注重对品牌通过授权和确权方式进行保护，以在更多核心类别及相关类别注册商标进行预防为主，并通过异议、撤三（申请撤销连续三年不使用的商标）或无效第三方商标建立起自己扎实的商标权利基础。
有些公司更注重市场及网络上的侵权产品，对行政保护投入更大，通过行政打击和网上投诉及警告信等方式清理市场上的假货。还有些公司更喜欢采用诉讼的方式应对侵权现象，通过启动民事诉讼甚至刑事诉讼程序打击侵权人并威慑潜在的侵权人。但目前还没有看到很多公司将以上保护方式通过整体策略有机地结合在一起对自己的品牌进行综合保护。
第二，就知识产权的保护种类而言，不少公司将商标、专利、著作权、域名、企业名称等知识产权分门别类进行保护。负责商标保护的人员和负责专利保护的人员有可能相互信息沟通较少，案件中也无太多交集。在对某一类知识产权进行保护时，不同部门系统地进行有机协调支持的现象也不多见。
上述相对单一、分散的保护，对公司管理而言可能相对简单，在采取单一行动时效率也会较高。但是，面对日益复杂的知识产权侵权现状，在应对有经验甚至有专业人士提供法律支持的侵权人时，单一保护方式往往显得力不从心，从而容易导致各个单一保护模式被侵权人逐个击破，最终无法达到对品牌的有效保护。
综合保护策略。综合知识产权保护策略，就是在保护方式上，按照客户在中国的业务发展目标、知识产权的权利现状及保护目的，通过统一的策略将商标权利的确立、行政保护及诉讼等保护方式，通过各类知识产权之间的相互支持，有机地融合在一起。在面对有经验的复杂侵权挑战时，一方面采用行政保护或/和诉讼方式打击网上及市场上存在的侵权行为，另一方面同时采取措施对侵权人抢注的相同和近似商标采取异议、无效或撤三的方式进行撤销，并且在两类行动中互相支持和配合以达到最佳制止侵权的效果（见下图例1）。
另外，需要将专利（尤其是外观设计）、商标及著作权等权利均作为品牌保护策略的有效手段。例如，在一些商标侵权案件中，侵权人已经抢注了客户有显著特征的图形作为其商标。在对方抢注的商标被无效之前，仅仅从商标方面考虑维权的途径肯定是难以获胜的，等待漫长的无效行政程序又可能对客户的商业机会及市场份额造成影响。在这个时候，就需要考虑用客户的著作权或外观专利来进行综合保护了。
笔者发现综合运用商标、著作权和专利等权利，采取商标确权、授权，行政保护和诉讼等综合手段应对复杂侵权案件，能产生“1+1>2”的效果。不仅成功率会提高，而且产生的综合效应是单一、分散的保护方式所无法实现的（见图例2）。但有效综合策略的制定也需要谨慎为之；如果对几种权利及方式缺乏整体协调配合的把控能力，反而可能会产生不如应用单一权利采取单一行动进行保护的情况。
（文章最初发表于《商法》（微信号：CBLJINSIGHT）2016年7/8月号。经《商法》编辑部同意后转载）
Combined protection of IP rights
AlthoughChina has enhanced its protection of intellectual property (IP) rights, the author often encounters overseas brand owners or their lawyers who concern about the actual IP protection situation. Suchconcernsare not without reasons - China is still a developing country; although its IP legal system has been close to the international level, and law enforcement has also been strengthened, there is still certain gap with that of Europe, the US and other developed countries, especially interms of law enforcement and punishment.
However, the author notices in some cases that some brands have not been well protected due to lack of sufficient knowledge of China’s law system and judicial environment,and thus failure to develop and implement IP protection strategy that comply with China legal environment.
Current situation of brand protection.Now the overall IP protection mechanisms of foreign brands in China are relatively single and dispersive, which are mainly embodied in two aspects:
In terms of protection methods, many companies separate the protection methods of trademark prosecution, administrative protection (anti-counterfeiting) and litigation etc., thereby failing to form an interactive and integrated system. Some companies focus on brand protection
through prosecution, put trademark filing first in the core categories and related categories to prevent the third party’s registration, and also establish their own solid foundation of trademark right through raising opposition, three-year non-use cancellation (cancellation of registered trademark for non-use for three consecutive years) or invalid third-party trademark.
Some companies pay more attention to the infringing products in the market and on the internet, put more efforts on administrative protection, and crack down the fakes in the market through administrative measures, online complaints, warning letters and other means. Some companies prefer to initiate litigation against infringement, and crack down infringers and deter potential infringers through civil procedures or even criminal procedures. However, few companies combine the aforesaid protection measures together through overall strategy to ensure a comprehensive protection to their brands.
In terms of the type of IP rights protection, many companies take protection measures for trademarks, patents, copyrights, domain names, business names and other IP rights respectively. Lack of communication between personnel who is responsible for trademark protection and the one who is responsible for patent protection may exist, and there is not much interaction in the case. It's rare that different departments coordinate with and support each other systematically concerning certain category of IP right protection.
It's probably relatively simple for the management of the company to take aforesaid relatively single and dispersive protection, and generally it's more effective to take single measure. However, given the increasingly complicated IP infringement situation, single protection always seems to be inadequate when the infringer gains legal support from experienced or even professional persons, thus each of the single protection mode is easily to be broken one by one by the infringer, and
ultimately effective brand protection cannot be achieved.
Comprehensive protection strategy. Comprehensive IP protection strategy means effective integration of the trademark prosecution, administrative protection, litigation and other protection measures via an unified strategy and mutual support among various categories of IP rights, based on clients' business objectives in China, IP rights status and protection purposes.When dealing with experienced and complicated infringement, on the one hand, we may take administrative protection and/or litigation to crack down the infringement on the internet or in the market; on the other hand, we may cancel the preemptive registration of the same or similar trademark of the infringer through raising opposition, 3-year non-use cancellation or invalid third-party trademark, and the above two measures shall support and cooperate with each other to achieve the best result of stopping infringement.
In addition, patents (especially the design), trademarks, copyrights and other rights shall be all regarded as effective means of brand protection strategy. For instance, in some trademark infringement cases, the infringer has preemptively registered clients’pattern featuring significant characteristic as its trademark.Before the trademark registered by the infringer becomes invalid, it's difficult to win the case if we only safeguard IP rights from trademark perspective, and waiting for the lengthy invalidation administrative procedures may adversely affect clients’ business opportunities and market share. In such circumstances, we need consider to take comprehensive protection measures and combine with clients’ copyright or design patent.
The author finds that it can have “1+1>2” effect to combine trademark rights, copyrights, patents and other rights, and take comprehensive measures, including but not limited to trademark prosecution, administrative protection and litigation, to deal with complicated infringement cases. By taking this combination strategy, the success rate will increase, and the combined effect thus generated may not be achieved by the single and decentralized protection. However, the right owner should also be cautious to develop effective comprehensive strategy; if the right owner lack of ability to overall coordinate and control the aforesaid rights and methods, the effect of this combination strategy may even not be as good as using of single right and take single protection method.
Frank Liu is a partner at Jincheng Tongda & Neal
