EDPB Publishes FAQ on ‘Schrems II’

On July 23, 2020, EDPB released an FAQ on Schrems II, which replied to the questions received by Data Protection Authority (“DPA”), and will be developed and complemented along with further analysis,.

The FAQ addressed several issues:

1. The EDPB clarified that the CJEU's judgment does not provide for a grace period in relation to the invalidation of the EU-US Privacy Shield；

2. The EDPB outlined, in relation to the transfer of personal data on the basis of Standard Contractual Clauses ('SCCs'), that whether or not you can transfer personal data on the basis of SCCs will depend on the result of an assessment；

3. The EDPB reiterated that it is currently analysing the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”)'s judgment to determine the kind of supplementary measures that could be provided；

4. The Court has indicated that SCCs as a rule can still be used to transfer data to a third country, however the threshold set by the Court for transfers to the U.S. applies for any third country. The same goes for BCRs.

5. Where the exporter intends to keep transferring data, it must notify the competent supervisory authority；

6. SCCs and BCRs rules are still applicable to a third country other than the U.S.

*EDPB Website：edpb.europa.eu

ZLWD Commentary:

In Schrems II, CJEU ruled to invalidate the EU–U.S. Privacy Shield, which is a remarkable judgement towards EEA-US data transfer after CJEU ruled to invalidate EU-U.S. Safe Harbor program in 2015. Obviously EDPB did not prepare for this judgement and there remains unsolved problems needed to be considered by EDPB in short term, otherwise the judgement could affect bunches of the U.S. internet giants located in the EU, especially in Ireland.

 CJEU’s Recent Decision Could Affect IP Protection

On 11 June 2020, the CJEU issued its decision arising from copyright infringement proceedings by Brompton Bicycle Ltd (Brompton) against a Korean company Get2Get Chedech (Get2Get) relating to its folding bike. CJEU considered an earlier case law in 2019, held that there are two elements must be fulfilled to become as a “work”: first, the product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation; second, the author expresses his creative ability in an original manner. Hence the copyright can protect a product’s shape which is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result, provided it is original. If the shape is solely dictated by function, copyright cannot protect it. Based on that, CJEU ruled that the shapes of three folding parts on the folding bicycle cannot be protected by IP law. Nevertheless, CJEU also emphasized that whether its shape can be protected depends on whether the shape is exclusively dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints, which have left no room for creative freedom, meaning that if there is creativity within the functional shape, then it shall be protected.

ZLWD Commentary:

The judgment first confirmed a precedent, and then made it clear that "functional shape" can also be protected by copyright law, but its "original" criteria shall be consistent with the criteria of non-functional shape. At the same time, the CJEU emphasized that when determining whether functional shape is protected by copyright law, the relevant courts need to take into account all relevant factors when originality arises, rather than the factors arise afterwards. The judgment also reminds other intellectual property owners that the elements of each intellectual property right need to be analyzed and evaluated case by case.

Was the Vietnamese Youtuber Being Copycat by Uploading Similar Content as Li Ziqi?

Recently, Vietnamese Youtuber uploading retro food preparation videos brought lots of controversy, because those videos are quite similar to the videos made by a Chinese KOL Li Ziqi. The main issue of this "plagiarism" focuses on the determination of plagiarism in film and television works, which involves the basic principle that copyright law protects expression without restraining thought. Because there is no simple and uniform applicable standard for the boundary of "dichotomy of thought and expression", it is arguable that whether the imitation of film and television works can be regarded as infringing copyright. 

The determination of copyright infringement first requires the judgement the object of the right, the said controversy involves several ten-minute of food preparation videos. Short videos can be regarded as work of film when it is original. Li Ziqi's videos recorded a series of quiet and simple activities in the countryside. Through the unique shooting methods and the selection of the shooting objects to show the charm of Chinese food, beautiful scenery, which reflects the traditional Chinese culture of diligence, filial piety, independence and virtue. The videos undoubtedly had a high degree of originality, so that it could be protected by copyright law as a film work.

The original elements of the film works mainly include the design of the script, the arrangement of the scene, the design of the props, the costume of the actor, the choice of the angle and distance of the shooting, the post-processing, the selection of the background music, and the expression, action and language of the actor. However, Li Ziqi's videos contain relatively few unique content because most of the scene were documentary style. It may be difficult to conclude that the Vietnamese Youtuber plagiarized the content, but her video also imitates the scene, the shooting object, the clothing, the shooting angle and the distance grasp and the background music in the Li Ziqi’s videos, which may constitute substantive infringement. Therefore, Li Ziqi shall claim that the Vietnamese Youtuber infringed the whole concept of the series of videos.

In recent years, plagiarizing Chinese film works has become a common phenomenon in Vietnam. As a member of Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“the Berne Convention”), Vietnam should protect the copyright of the works of other member states in accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The works of Chinese nationals may be protected by copyright in Vietnam in accordance with the principles of national treatment and minimum protection standards of international treaties. However, since Vietnam's alleged infringer's place of residence or main business place is in Vietnam, in most cases only Vietnamese courts have jurisdiction over the infringement, and Chinese citizens can only file a lawsuit in Vietnamese courts and may need to hire Vietnamese lawyers, which could be a high cost for safeguarding rights. However, with the development of the international protection system of intellectual property rights, the obstacles to cross-border rights protection will become less.

ZLWD Commentary:

According to the dichotomy of thought and expression, in the infringement cases involving copyright, the key is to see whether the unauthorized use plagiarized the idea in the plaintiff's work or the expression of the idea, which constitutes "substantial similarity". However the law of this area is relatively vague about the boundary between expression and thought. In some cases, the court mainly used the "abstract-filtering- comparison" three-step method to determine the infringement. The abstract parts of the work, such as ideas and creatively, are first removed, and then the parts of the two works that belong to the public domain or  are filtered out, then the remaining parts of the two works are compared for their originality.

Whether Li Ziqi can protect her rights successfully mainly involves factors such as the internationalization and even politicization of the protection of intellectual property, whether the conventions and agreements signed between countries have credibility. Li Ziqi’s videos have gone viral in other countries, which is indeed a high-quality cultural output. This will not be the single case, the future of the protection regarding international intellectual property will be a key issue. China's IP law practitioners in the foreseeable future will protect the IP rights of high-quality creators from the perspective of the academic, legislative, judicial and administrative.

Douyu Was Sued for its 12 Streamer Using the Song “Xiao Tiao Wa (Little Jump Frog)” Without Authorisation

Beijing Qilintong Culture Communication Co., Ltd. (“Qilintong”) claimed that 12 streamer signed by Wuhan Douyu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Douyu”) used the song “Xiao Tiao Wa”, which legally enjoys copyright, 59 times without authorisation. Beijing Internet Court ruled in the first instance that Douyu infringed the copyright of Qilinong, and compensate the economic loss of Qilitong for RMB 37,000. Currently the case is still pending for appeal.

The court held that the online streaming shall fall within the Paragraph 17, Article 10 of the PRC Copyright Law, which provided that “any other rights enjoyed by a copyright holder”, and confirmed the legal definition of performance in online streaming. The main focus of the case is that whether the streamer singing during streaming is performance right or other right. The court stated that performance right, information network transmission right and broadcasting right etc. belong to copyright property rights. The key to distinguish the types of rights depends on the methods and technical means of communication. The right of performance controls the behavior of public communication in the form of "living performance" or "mechanical performance", rather than falling into the control of the right of performance as long as the work is performed.

There is a view that the audiences interacts with performers, so that the online streaming is both live and open to the public. In this regard, the Beijing Internet Court held that although the way of determining the type of right by the actual network technology can better adapt to the development trend of the new communication technology in the network era, so as not to cause the law to lag behind due to the iteration of technology. The existing copyright legal system in China already includes the consideration of specific communication technology, for example, various technical means and communication channels such as "slide show machine", "wired" and "wireless" have been specified. In this case, if the existing legislative system is overthrown, the interpretation of the right of performance can be divided into two categories, which will lead to the overlapping of several types of rights in the copyright and confusion of the system.

The key to the means of communication involved in the case lies in the way of public live broadcast through the network, which shall be consistent with other webcast activities such as regular broadcast, real-time broadcast and so on. Therefore, the court found that the act of performing and publicly broadcasting through online streaming should be included in the control scope of other rights stipulated in the copyright law.

Chine IP News

Publish Date: July 2, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

It is indeed an infringement to sing a song during online streaming without authorization and made profit out of it. The main issue of the case is that which right such behaviour infringed. There are 17 different rights provided in the PRC Copyright Law, the online streaming may cover: (9) Performance right, ie the right to put up a public performance of a work and publicly broadcast performance of a work through various means; (11) Broadcasting right, ie the right to publicly broadcast or transmit a work through wireless method, the right to transmit or broadcast a work to the public through cable or relay broadcast, and the right to transmit or broadcast a work to the public through a loudspeaker or other tools for transmission of symbols, sounds and images; (12) Information network transmission right, i.e. the right to provide a work to the public through cable or wireless method so that the public may have access to the work at their individually selected time and venue. The PRC Copyright Law has not provided a clear provision for online streaming, thus the court found that it belongs to the other rights stipulated in Article 10(17) of the Copyright Law, not to the performance rights stipulated in Article 10(9), which is also a safe choice to avoid overlapping with the definition of other rights stipulated in the current legislative system. The streamer and the platform should raise copyright awareness, actively communicate with the copyright owner before the live broadcast and acquire authorization.

TV Show Imitating Hulu Wa Found Infringement, Use the Animation Image May Cause Worry

Beijing Internet Court issued a judgement on the dispute over infringement between Shanghai Animation Film Studio and Anhui TV "Come and Laugh" TV show. Beijing Internet Court found in first instance that in the involved TV show, although the actor's hair style and face shape are different from "Hulu Wa". However after comparison, the actor used the same pattern and clothing accessories as the disputed work. Hulu Wa’s make up style and clothing accessories occupied large proportion of the disputed work, which can be found involved in the TV show and this constitutes substantial similarity. The defendant used the work without the plaintiff's authorisation and spread it to the public through the Internet, which infringed the right of information network dissemination enjoyed by Shanghai Animation Film Studio, and should bear the liability. Therefore, the defendant was required to immediately stop playing the related content of "Hulu Wa", and compensate Shanghai Animation Film Studio RMB 100,000 economic losses and RMB 2000 for reasonable expenses.

Beijing Youth Daily

Publish Date: July 16, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

Whether the Cosplay constitutes copyright infringement can be comprehensively judged by combining the use of the cosplay performance and whether there is substantial similarity. Substantial similarity could be judged by makeup, dress, limb proportion, performance form, etc. If there are many overlapping parts, the work may constitute infringement. 

But not all imitation acts are infringing. In the film "Lu Yao Zhi Ma Li ", the hero Lu Hao (Bao Beier) dressed in “Hulu Wa”’s dress to perform, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court found that although the characters in the film dressed similar clothes, but there is a big difference in eyebrow shape, face shape, limbs proportion and so on, which will not cause confusion to the audience, thus it is not unfair competition. When it comes to specific cases, the use and proportion of cosplay performances should also be taken into account. At present, most of the cosplay performance are commercial performance, which may be difficult to constitute a reasonable use of self-entertainment. However, producers, film and television producers or individual coser should be authorized as early as possible to give reasonable consideration to avoid the related infringement problems.

Can the Analysis of Examination Papers be Protected by Copyright Law?

The college entrance examination was affected by the pandemic, there have been many changes this year. On July 7, once the Chinese exam finished, the test questions and analysis was spreading on the internet. Hence, does paper analysis have the copyright? Recently, the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court (“the Court”) gave an answer in a  retrial.

In June, 2017, Shenzhen Jingyou Wisdom Education Co., Ltd. (“Jingyou”) analysed 2017 National College Entrance Examination Mathematics Test Paper (Arts), and published the “2017 National College Entrance Examination Mathematics Test (Arts) (Xinkebiao I)”, and registered the copyright. Soon thereafter, Jingyou found that the website of Douding Century (Beijing) Network Technology Co., Ltd (“Douding”) can download and read the analysis. Jingyou then sued Douding for infringement of copyright, and claim for RMB 10,000 compensation. The court of first instance found that the disputed documents enjoys copyright and therefore Douding infringed such right and shall make RMB 2000 compensation. Douding appealed to the Court. However tge Court held that the disputed documents are fall within the definition of works, and Jingyou failed to submit evidence that Douding committed an infringement. The Court set aside the judgement of first instance. Jingyou filed a retrial. In the retrial this June, the Court concluded that: Jingyou's analysis is different from answers to the questions, which the analysis has unique ideas and thoughts. For the same math test, different people are explaining their multiple ideas, which can reflect different people's intellectual judgment and choice, and show different personality. Therefore, as long as the analysis has been input intelligence, and has some originality, generally the analysis shall be protected as works. Allowing others to use the analysis for free will certainly strike down the author's creative passion, which is contrary to the purpose of copyright law to encourage creation. Therefore pages 1 to 29 of the disputed documents gathered the intelligence of authors with originality, and shall be protected by copyright law.

China IP Online

Publish Date: July 14, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

An analysis of the test paper contains questions, solutions, problem-solving ideas, testing objectives, comments on difficult questions, etc. The key to judging whether a test paper is a work is to see whether it belongs to expression and originality when cutting out the analysis of question. Although there is only one correct answer to the question, there are different solutions and comments to the questions. In this case, Jingyou hired eight experts to conduct in-depth analysis of the 2017 College Entrance Examination mathematical questions from different angles. Different experts had different solutions to the same question, which the analysis has gathered the thoughts of experts and shall be regarded as results of intelligence and creativity. For the platforms like Douding, although there is protection under the "safe harbour" principle pursuant top Article 22 of the Regulations on Protection of Information Network Transmission Right, the premise of this principle is the good faith of the platform. The platform should strengthen management regarding how to present the content properly and legally, so as to avoid the unknown infringement.

An Audiobook Version of ”Ordinary World” Provided by "Lychee FM" was Found for Infringement

Beijing Haidian District People's Court recently issued a first-instance judgment in the case of a dispute between the plaintiff Lu and the defendant Guangzhou Lizhi Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Lizhi”) for infringing on the right to disseminate information networks. The Court held that Lizhi had violated Lu's right to disseminate information networks by providing audiobooks of the novel "Ordinary World" on Lychee FM, and that Lizhi shall compensate RMB 500,000 for economic loss and RMB 5,000 for reasonable expense.

Lu claimed that that Lu Yao (formerly known as Wang Weiguo) is a famous contemporary writer in China, his novel "Ordinary World " (“disputed work”) won the third Mao Dun Literature Award in 1991, after Lu Yao died in 1992, he inherited the property right of all his works according to law. Lu found that Lizhi disseminated a large number of disputed book in electronic audiobooks version on Lychee FM, which infringed his right to disseminate information networks. The defendant, Lizhi, argued that they only provided information storage space services and did not change the program on the platform, hence they did not know that the content uploaded by the user was infringing the copyright.

The court held that considering the originality, literary value and popularity of the disputed work, the tort liability of Lizhi and the play volume of the disputed work, the legal compensation shall be awarded. The case is still pending for appeal.

China IP News

Publish Date: July 10, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

This case is a dispute over the right to disseminate information network, and the user uploaded "Ordinary World" on his own. Lizhi argued that it only provided storage service, but it failed to submit the key evidence such as the user’s IP address, registration time, IP address used for uploading, upload information, and the existing evidence is not enough to determine that it is only the storage service provider. The Court found that Lizhi, as the content provider of disputed audiobooks, should bear the tort liability. The judgment of this case corrects the abuse of the "safe harbour" principle. Good faith is the premise for the application of the "safe harbour" principle. The judgment of this case also suggests that the relevant industries and enterprises should strengthen the supervision and examination of the contents on their platforms and keep the evidence of infringement act which can prove the innocence of the platform.

"Qi Ji Jue Xing (Miracle Awakening)" Mobile Game was , first instance was awarded RMB 1 million

Recently, the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing (the Court) concluded the case on infringement of copyright and unfair competition between the plaintiff Shanghai Tianluan Network Technology Co., Ltd (“Tianluan”) and the defendant Guangzhou Youcheng Network Technology Co., Ltd (“Youcheng”) and Yang, and decided that Youcheng will stop the infringement of the right to disseminate information network and unfair competition, and jointly compensate Tianluan for economic losses of RMB 1 million and reasonable expenses of RMB 50,000.

Tianluan claimed that "Qi Ji Jue Xing" (also known as Qi Ji MU: Jue Xing", hereinafter referred to as the rightful mobile game) is the company's a mobile game enjoys copyright. The mobile game "Qi Ji Feng Shen" (the “wrongful mobile game”) developed and operated by Youcheng uses the  similar name, game icon of the rightful mobile game, and the advertising page used the role image of the rightful mobile game. In addition, Youcheng also set "Qi Ji Jue Xing" as a keyword on the Internet to promote the alleged mobile game, its behavior infringed the copyright of Tianluan and constituted unfair competition.

Youcheng and Yang did not submit a written defense to the court, and also did not show up at the court for trials.

The Court held that Tianluan launched the game images earlier than the launch of the wrongful mobile game, Youcheng has the possibility to copy the game images involved. After comparison, there is no difference in the role images of "swordsman” and "wizard" in terms of color collocation, overall modeling and other original elements. The game icon used by the wrongful mobile game and the rightful mobile game  constitute a substantial similarity. Therefore, Youcheng infringed the Tianluan’s right to disseminate information networks.

The Court also found that the names “Qi Ji Jue Xing" and “Qi Ji MU: Jue Xing" owned by Tianluan has certain degree of popularity. When “Qi Ji” and "MU" are not inherent or common words in gaming products, the Court held that the game name used by Youcheng could easily confuse the public to consider that there is a specific connection between the two games and therefore constitutes unfair competition.

In summary, the Court made the aforementioned judgment. The case is currently pending for the second trial.

China IP News

Publish Date: July 3, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

The gaming industry, especially the mobile game industry, has been developing rapidly. The period and cost of developing a new game is rather long and high. It is common that some game companies directly steal the characters in other games.

In the judicial practice of such violations, IP law and anti-unfair competition law can be applied AT THE SAME TIME. In this case, one of the reasons why Tianluan chose to bring unfair competition action instead of claiming infringement of copyright is that the standard of compensation awarded under Article 17 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law is higher than that under Article 49 of the Copyright Law. In this case, the right holder chooses the law with higher standard of compensation to protect the legitimate rights. The author suggests that professionals should choose the most favorable litigation strategy according to the specific circumstances of the case, rather than blindly choosing the law with higher compensation standard.

Invalid Trademark Administrative Disputes "Wang Zhe Rong Yao (King of Glory)" was Decided for the First Instance

On June 17,2020, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a first instance judgment on the administrative dispute over the application for invalidating the “Wangzhe Rongyao” trademark. The court held that the "Wangzhe Rongyao" trademark (“dispute trademark”) applied for registration by Guizhou Wenqu Chengyu Alcohol Co., Ltd. (“Chengyu”) damaged the plaintiff's prior rights and interests in the name "Wang Zhe Rong Yao" and ruled that the decision shall be set aside.

On November 19, 2015, Chengyu applied for the registration of the disputed trademark No.18379954, designated for use in class 33 spirits (drinks), wine and other commodities. In June 2018, Tencent filed a request for invalidation of the trademark. The National Administration for Intellectual Property considered that the dispute trademark will be used on products like "cider (containing alcohol)", which are rather different from the products of "electronic publications (downloadable)" submitted by the plaintiff in terms of sales places and service objects, and therefore cannot be recognised as similar trademarks on similar products.

Tencent filed a lawsuit against the ruling before Beijing Intellectual Property Court. The court found that mobile game has gained popularity and a wide range of attention. Also, “Wang Zhe Rong Yao” has been cooperated with many other brands for producing beverages. Hence the dispute trademark enjoys prior rights and interests. The game launched earlier than the trademark registration date. Chengyu should have known about the game before applying for trademark registration. In addition, Chengyu also applied for trademarks that have characters of “Wang Zhe Rong Yao”, which proved Chengyu has subjective malice. Chengyu must have borrowed the market reputation formed by the prior work name "Wang Zhe Rong Yao” and therefore improperly damaged its commercial interests. The public will be confused and mistaken the source of the goods, thus crowding out the market advantage position and trading opportunities enjoyed by the prior rights owner. The case is still pending for appeal.

China IP News

Publish Date: June 24, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

In order to prevent malicious abuse of brand value by others, enterprises may, when necessary, consider the registration of defensive trademarks. The “defensive trademarks” refer to a number of identical trademarks registered by a high-profile trademark owner on goods, services or similar goods or services other than those approved for use by the registered trademark, in order to prevent others from registering and using the same trademarks in these categories of goods or services, which is a common means of protection for well-known trademark owners at this stage to prevent others from carrying out "hitchhiking" in other classes. Meanwhile, the enterprise should strengthen the monitoring of the trademark, find out the possible infringer as early as possible, and plan the strategy to protect the brand's legitimate rights and interests.

Forming University Intellectual Property Interconnection of Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area (GBA)

Through developing "public chain + alliance chain", which can promote the construction of GBA university intellectual property interconnection chain, the application of block chain in intellectual property area can be realized, so as to solve the problems such as long-term and high cost of protecting intellectual property.

The advantage of the public chain is to ensure that transactions can not be tampered through cryptography. The cryptography and economic incentives are also used for verification to build consensus in the unfamiliar network environment, in order to form a decentralized credit mechanism. The embodiment and ownership of the value of intellectual property rights in the public chain can promote the docking of intellectual property rights to scientific research institutions and enterprises in related fields, which can promote the industries and improve the utilization. The advantage of the alliance chain is that it is safe and controllable, and that the processing time is faster than the public chain, because the number and identity of nodes have been defined, which the relatively loose consensus mechanism can be used, and the speed of processing data will be greatly enhanced.

In conclusion, combining the public chain with the alliance chain to form the intellectual property interconnection chain can effectively solve the problems in the GBA university intellectual property alliance. The intellectual property certification is placed on the alliance chain, while the intellectual property ownership and its value are placed on the public chain.

NIPA

Publish Date: June 30, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

The block chain is the trend of development. The block chain technology has characteristics such as "decentralization, openness and transparency, traceability of the whole process", which can be applied in the field of intellectual property rights to reduce the cost of safeguarding rights and improve the efficiency. Technology and justice has been increasingly connected with each other, which will also become a trend in the future.

NIPA: China has More Than 27.4 million Effectively Registered Trademarks

On July 9, the NIPA held the third quarter of 2020 regular press release, focused on the publication of semi-annual statistics on patents, trademarks, geographical indications, integrated circuit layout design, and the development trend and progress of intellectual property cause in China as reflected in these data, which demonstrates that, in the first half of 2020, China's main intellectual property indicators meet expectations and intellectual property development remained stable.

According to HU Wenhui, a spokesman for NIPA, in terms of trademarks, in the first half of 2020, the number of trademark applications in China was 4.284 million, and the number of trademark registrations was 2.629 million. By the end of June 2020, the number of valid registered trademarks in China is 27.414 million. A total of 3875 applications for the international registration of Chinese applicants received by the Madrid trademark system, an increase of 36.0% over the same period last year.

By the end of June 2020, the effective amount of international registration in Madrid trademark system applied by Chinese is 410,000.

In the first half of the year, 166,000 applications were received for various trademark review cases and 192,000 cases were closed. The average review period for trademark registration is within 4.5 months.

Renmin Network - IP Channel

Publish Date: July 9, 2020

ZLWD Commentary:

China is one of the countries that has most trademark registrations. In recent years, China has increased the number of effective trademark registration by promoting the reform of facilitating trademark registration, and increasing the protection of trademark brands. However, the steady increase of the overall quantity does not mean the improvement of the trademark quality. The core indication of the registered trademark volume in China is how many of these "effectively registered" trademarks have commercial value and are actually used. While encouraging and promoting the development of "registered trademarks", it is also necessary to step up efforts to crack down on malicious trademark squatting, and guide applicants to use trademarks rationally.

This Newsletter is produced by Economic and Legal Development Research Centre for Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area 

For Your Reference Only

Editorial Board: Wei LIN, Simon TANG，Lisi ZHOU,

Yu DENG, Yuming LI, Shell WU, Oyagi, Gong CHEN, Ning NING

All Information published in this Newsletter is from open source.

If you have any suggestion or need more information, please contact us.