2. Infringement. TOEFL test questions are divided into four parts: listening, grammar, reading and writing, and ETS is in charge of the development and design. As far as the design and creation process are concerned, each test question needs many people to go through multiple steps and pay creative labor to complete, which is original and belongs to the works in the sense of copyright law in China and should be protected by laws in China. The complete set of test questions compiled from this should also be protected by Chinese laws. Without the permission of the copyright owner ETS, New Oriental School copied and distributed TOEFL test questions in the form of public sale for the purpose of commercial operation. The way of using the works has exceeded the scope of reasonable use in classroom teaching. The behavior of copying and publicly selling TOEFL test questions by New Oriental School has infringed the copyright of ETS and should bear corresponding legal responsibilities.
3. No infringement. Although ETS has legally registered the trademark of TOEFL in publications and audio tapes, New Oriental School has highlighted the use of the word "TOEFL" in "TOEFL series teaching materials" and "TOEFL listening tapes", but New Oriental School is using "TOEFL" in a descriptive or narrative way. Its purpose is to explain and emphasize that the content of the publication is related to TOEFL test, to facilitate readers to know the content of the publication, not to indicate the source of the publication, and not to cause readers to misunderstand and confuse the source of goods.
2. 1. Infringement, which infringes on the manufacturing right and sales right in the patent right; Whether to bear the liability for compensation is judged according to whether the parties have subjective fault, that is, whether they know or should know that they have engaged in tort. W company's unauthorized use of H company's patent is of course intentional, so it should bear the corresponding liability for compensation
2. Infringement, infringing on the sales right in the patent right; The same as the above question, the behavior is subjective and intentional, and it is liable for compensation; Can't continue to sell, because its behavior is infringement, and selling is continuous infringement, which will further damage the legitimate rights and interests of H company
3. Infringement, infringement of the right to use in the patent; There is no subjective fault in the behavior and no liability for compensation; Can't continue to sell, must stop the infringement, for the same reason. (See Article 33 of the Measures for Administrative Enforcement of Patents)
3. 1. To judge whether trademarks are similar,
First of all, the general attention of the relevant public should be taken as the standard;
Secondly, we should conduct "isolated observation and comparison", "significant part comparison" and "overall observation and comparison" on trademarks to judge whether they are similar;
finally, we should consider the distinctiveness and popularity of the trademark.
Personally, I don't think "Hua Biao" and "Hua Deng" in this case will be confused in cognition, because the pronunciation and font are different, so I don't think they are similar.
2. The decoration of this trademark infringes the trademark right of Hua Deng; Reason: Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law: It is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark to mislead the public by using a mark identical with or similar to another person's registered trademark on the same or similar goods.
3, should bear the tort liability; Reasons: 1. This act infringes upon the right to exclusive use of a registered trademark. Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Trademark Law: Intentionally providing convenient conditions such as storage, transportation, mailing and concealment for the act of infringing upon the exclusive right to exclusive use of a registered trademark belongs to the act of infringing upon the exclusive right to use a registered trademark as mentioned in Item (5) of Article 52 of the Trademark Law. As long as it is an infringement, it must bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement and returning the infringement income; Second, Beijing Winery sent a letter to the storage company, but it ignored it. No matter whether it was intentional before, from this moment on, it can be considered as intentional. Because it was subjective and intentional, it should bear the liability for compensation (note that the legal liability is different from the liability for compensation)
4. It should bear the tort liability; Reasons: 1. This act is an infringement. Paragraph 2 of Article 52 of the Trademark Law states that selling goods that infringe the exclusive right to use a registered trademark is an infringement of the exclusive right to use a trademark. As long as it is an infringement, it must bear the responsibility of stopping the infringement and returning the infringement income; 2. Beijing Winery sent a letter to the mall, but it ignored it. No matter whether it was intentional before, from this moment on, it can be regarded as intentional. Because it was subjective and intentional, it should be liable for compensation.
First, analyze the behavior of student L:
L's translation behavior violates the translation right in S's copyright without S's permission, that is, others are not allowed to translate the work into other languages without the authorization of the author. The translation right of the original is a property right of the original copyright owner. Translators enjoy the copyright in their translated works, but when exercising the copyright, they shall not damage the copyright of the author of the original works. That is to say, L's translation in a magazine must also be approved by the original author S, otherwise it is infringement.
2. The behavior of Leisure: its defense is invalid. One of the conditions stipulated in China's Copyright Law that foreigners' works can be copyrighted in China is that their works can be protected by China's copyright if they are published in a state party to an international treaty to which China is a party. The United States is a signatory to the TRIPs Agreement, so the articles published by S in American newspapers are protected by China's copyright law. Second, copyright includes not only personal rights, but also property rights. It is obviously unreasonable for Leisure to refuse to pay remuneration on the grounds that its translation is titled S.
3. The defense of After-dinner is not fully established. 1. The translation is indeed within the scope of legal license, and L should be paid remuneration. 2. L's translation is based on S's article and is a derivative work. Therefore, reprinting the translation is also equivalent to reprinting S's works. Based on legal license, S should be paid corresponding remuneration.
5. Think for yourself, it shouldn't be a problem.
I've been calling for over an hour ... I hope I can help you.