|
|
|
No. 6 of Ten Model Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in 2022 Published by Hainan High People's Court: Jingyan Yinong (Shouguang) Seed Sci-Tech Co., Ltd. v. Xinjiang Changfeng Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a royalty for the use of a new plant variety for the provisional protection period)
|
|
海南省高级人民法院发布2022年知识产权司法保护十大典型案例之六：京研益农（寿光）种业科技有限公司与新疆昌丰农业科技发展有限公司植物新品种临时保护期使用费纠纷案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 6 of Ten Model Cases on Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in 2022 Published by Hainan High People's Court: Jingyan Yinong (Shouguang) Seed Sci-Tech Co., Ltd. v. Xinjiang Changfeng Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over a royalty for the use of a new plant variety for the provisional protection period) | | 海南省高级人民法院发布2022年知识产权司法保护十大典型案例之六：京研益农（寿光）种业科技有限公司与新疆昌丰农业科技发展有限公司植物新品种临时保护期使用费纠纷案 |
| [Case Summary] | | 【基本案情】 |
| “Dumi No. 5” is a new plant variety authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. Jingyan Yinong (Shouguang) Seed Sci-Tech Co., Ltd. (“Jingyan Company”, the plaintiff), alleged that Xinjiang Changfeng Agricultural Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Changfeng Company”, the defendant), during the provisional protection period as of the announcement of the qualified new plant variety rights in the initial examination till the authorization of the variety rights, produced and sold “Dumi No. 5” seeds under the name of “Shijimi No. 25”, and brought a case to the court, requesting that Changfeng Company cease the production and selling activities and compensate three million yuan for economic losses. Jingyan Company submitted a test report as evidence, which was made out by a laboratory that the plaintiff had unilaterally engaged prior to filing a lawsuit. Changfeng Company was of the view that the test report should not be used as evidence in this case and that “Shijimi No. 25” seed and “Dumi No. 5” seed were not the same variety. | | “都蜜5号”是经农业农村部授权的植物新品种。原告京研益农（寿光）种业科技有限公司（以下简称京研公司）在植物新品种权初步审查合格公告之日起至被授予品种权之日止的临时保护期内，主张被告新疆昌丰农业科技发展有限公司（以下简称昌丰公司）以“世纪蜜二十五号”生产销售实为“都蜜5号”的种子，遂向法院起诉请求判令昌丰公司停止生产销售行为并赔偿经济损失300万元。京研公司提交其在起诉前单方委托的鉴定报告作为证据。昌丰公司认为该鉴定报告不能作为定案依据，“世纪蜜二十五号”种子与“都蜜5号”不是同一品种。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|