One Italian company transferred its equity of one Chinese joint venture to one Zhenjiang company and the parties agree to the installment payment term. The final payment shall be made upon the satisfaction of such requirement that the trademark registration organizations in America and Canada accept the transfer of one registered trademark from the Italian company to the Zhenjiang company within agreed time limit. The Italian company submitted the transfer application to WIPO which was accepted within the agreed time limit while the time of the notice issued by US Patent and Trademark Office to confirm the effectiveness of the transfer of the trademark is later than the agreed time limit under the equity transfer agreement. Therefore, the Zhenjiang company considered that the Italian company had breached the contract and refused to pay the final payment in accordance with the equity transfer agreement. The Italian company considered that it had performed its contract obligations and entrusted legal team of Chambers Yang to raise arbitration toward CIETAC to claim the final payment of equity transfer against the Zhenjiang company.
Upon acceptance of this case, in order to clearly explain to arbitration court that the application of trademark transfer to WIPO is fully in conformity with the equity transfer agreement, legal team of Chambers Yang has not only conducted researches on relevant regulations of registration and transfer of international registered trademark under International Registration of Marks Madrid Protocol, but has also conducted researches on the procedural provisions of transfer of international registered trademark under Trademark manual inspection procedures of US Patent and Trademark Office, and has made “time axis”. Based on these, legal team of Chambers Yang has comprehensively analyzed that the acceptance of trademark transfer application by WIPO shall be deemed the acceptance of trademark transfer application by US Patent and Trademark Office agreed under the equity transfer agreement. Meanwhile, legal team of Chambers Yang has refuted the opinion of the Zhenjiang company through logical analysis on the relevant terms of the aforesaid regulations of WIPO and US Patent and Trademark Office. And, our views have been fully supported by the arbitration court finally.
相关法律服务
杨春宝一级律师简介
杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。入选上海涉外法律人才库、上海市司法局鼎新法治人才库、上海国有企业改制法律顾问团,具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多常见法律问题
股权转让价格的付款纠纷是如何产生的?
股权转让价格的付款纠纷产生于意大利公司与镇江公司之间的股权转让协议约定中,意大利公司将其在中国合资企业的股权转让给镇江公司,并约定了分期付款条款。最终付款应在美国和加拿大的商标注册机构接受股权转让的申请并在约定时间内完成转让时才进行。
WIPO和美国专利和商标局的受理申请有何区别?
WIPO和美国专利和商标局的受理申请虽然都是关于商标转让的申请,但受理的时间和方式有所不同。WIPO的受理申请是合同约定的受理申请,而美国专利和商标局的受理申请则晚于合同约定的时间。
仲裁庭如何支持意大利公司的诉求?
仲裁庭通过全面分析WIPO和美国专利和商标局的相关规定,成功地证明了WIPO的受理申请是合同约定的美国专利和商标局的受理申请。最终,仲裁庭支持了意大利公司的诉求。
以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn




