Menu

To cope with the explosion in the volume of cases in China, many have begun to promote pre-process mediation. Parties wishing to take legal action are recommended to negotiate for an amicable settlement, without going to court. However, in practice, if this method fails, the parties may conduct a dispute, with the settlement remaining, as far as possible, an alternative solution. Rightholders are better able to seek a settlement and introduce a damages clause in the event of repeated infringement if: in a case where the infringer has not only exploited the rightholder`s patent, but also used his registered trademark without authorization, the rightholders have entered into a settlement agreement with the infringer in the context of the patent infringement proceedings. It put an end to the infringement and contained a compensation clause for the circumstances of repeated patent and trademark infringements that the Tribunal wished to include in the civil mediation statement. Finding an act of violation of the law is a laborious task in a dispute. If the settlement agreement establishes the fact to which the damages clause applies in the event of repeated infringement, the burden of proof on the rightholder is significantly reduced. Court decisions are binding only on the parties to the dispute. In practice, an offender whose activities have been targeted can immediately set up another business to resume his counterfeiting activities. If the personalities of the two companies are not identical, there is a good chance that the settlement agreement concluded earlier by the rights holder and the infringer may have little or no influence on their subsequent infringement. It would therefore be desirable to include in the settlement agreement the companies linked to the infringer and to ensure that they are liable for damages in the event of repeated infringement. Right holders may refer to the Companies Act for the definition of „membership”. In order to respond to the repeated offer of sale in cases of infringement in which contrary products cannot be purchased to carry out an analysis of the infringement, it would be desirable to expressly provide, in the settlement agreement, that, as long as the infringer uses advertising content identical to that of the previous infringement procedure, the offender is held liable for damages in case of repeated violation.

. . .