NEWS

International IP/IT Review December 2020

Date and time :2020-12-31
RETURN

正能量_励志_日签 (1).jpg


The Street Artist Banksy’s Trademark Was Announced for Invalid by the EUIPO

Banksy is an anonymous street graffiti artist in the U.K., who is famous for his mysterious style in creating street art. For more than ten years, he has created a large number of art works themed with real life and anti-war, known as one of the most talented street artists in the world today.

Meanwhile, Banksy is also famous for his "copyrights are for losers" speech. In order to keep his identity anonymous, He never applies copyrights for his graffiti works. Instead, he uses shadow companies to apply for trademark registration.

Recently, according to the application of a company called Full Colour Black, EUIPO finally ruled that Banksy’s famous street graffiti work “Flower Thrower” trademark is invalid, since the application for trademark registration is in obvious bad faith.

 

ZLWD Commentary:

The judgment indicates that the EUIPO made a broader interpretation in determining “bad faith”. When submitting a trademark registration application, there must be a clear intention for commercial usage before it can be registered. While in this case, Banksy’s street art works should obviously be protected as copyright However, Banksy did not wish to reveal his/her true identity, and EUIPO considered such usage of trademark protection system is obviously in bad faith. Since there are differences between trademark protection system and copyright protection, Banksy can in fact hold the exclusive right of related works through his shadow company for quite a long time, which is not allowed by copyright law.


CJEU Ruled that “Massi” and “Messi” are Not Similar Trademarks

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) recently dismissed the appeal filed by the EUIPO and a Spanish company. The CJEU held that there was no possibility of confusion between trademark Massi and the symbol containing Messi.

Messi filed trademark application for “Messi” in 2011, which was challenged by a third party during the application, claiming that “Messi” is similar to the prior registered trademark “Massi”. EUIPO found the objection to be established and rejected the application in 2013. Messi then applied for a review, which was rejected again in 2014. Messi then sued to the General Court. The Court ruled to set aside the EUIPO’s decision on April 26, 2018 and held that Messi's trademark can be registered. Subsequently, the EUIPO and the third party appealed to the CJEU.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-09/cp200108en.pdf

 

ZLWD Commentary:

CJEU made it clear in the ruling that although the two trademarks are highly similar in letters, the impact of football star Messi's personal reputation imposed on the trademark should also be a consideration. Since Messi's personal influence had a great impact on the “Messi” trademark, the public's understanding of the trademark is significantly different from the trademark “Massi”.

Also, CJEU’s ruling also shows some positive feedbacks in terms of celebrities registering trademarks. But whether this court view will be applied to names of enterprises other than individual celebrity still remains uncertain.


Baidu Intervening Search Results of Toutiao, Convicted for Unfair Competition 

On November 30, Beijing Haidu Court ruled for the first instance that Baidu Wangxun Technology Co., Ltd. (“Wangxun”) was constituted unfair competition for commercial disparagement. The court ordered Baidu to immediately stop the unfair competition and compensate the plaintiff Beijing ByteDance Technology Co., Ltd (“Bytedance”) for economic losses and reasonable rights protection costs of RMB 500,000. Moreover, Baidu has to post apology on their official website.

ByteDance claims that when users searched key words related to Toutiao on Baidu, there will be a reminder under the title saying “the page may not be able to access due to unstable services!” or similar warning words. These derogatory and false descriptions, together with the exclamation point "!" is usually used to warn the security of website, resulting in users give negative feedback about Toutiao.

The court held that Baidu intentionally interfered with the search results of Toutiao for specific keywords, falsely prompted the search results of Toutiao, violated the principle of good faith and business ethics, and damaged a fair and just competition order. This behaviour not only damaged the business reputation and commodity reputation of byte beat company, but also misled users. The court finally found that Baidu, in the absence of the corresponding facts, prompted network users in the form of waning words, which was to fabricate and disseminate false information and constituted an act of unfair competition for commercial disparagement. Therefore, Baidu shall bear the responsibility to stop the unfair competition.

Source: China.com.cn

Issue Date: December 2, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

There are four elements of commercial disparagement: first is the existence of a competitive relationship between the parties, second is that the actor has fabricated and disseminated false or misleading information, the third is that the actor's behavior has or may cause damage to the relative person's commercial goodwill or commodity reputation, and the fourth is that the actor has subjective intent.

In production and business activities, operators should follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness and good faith, as well as abide by the law and business ethics. Especially in the Internet industry, operators should follow the principle of good faith, abide by business ethics and establish a business philosophy of compliance, and gain competitive advantage by improving the quality of their products and services. Trying to rely on malicious competition to crack down on opponents for improper benefits is illegal.


Xiaomi Applied Trademark for Chinese Pinyin “Lei Jun”

Xiaomi Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xiaomi”) applied for registration of Chinese pinyin “Leijun” on December 7, 2020. The trademark covers 20 kinds of fields, such as metal materials, scientific instruments, medicine, lamps and lanterns air conditioning.

Lei Jun, as founder, Chairman and CEO of Xiaomi, is not only Xiaomi's leader, but also Xiaomi's spokesman. Xiaomi, under his leadership, has grown into a world-famous multinational company in just a few years. Lei Jun's influence and execution are exceptional. Xiaomi has “Leijun” registered trademark is also in line with global practice. It is an effective self-protection behavior to put an end to the free-rider behavior, such as Lei Jun Electric.

It is reported that in October this year, Xiaomi's registration of the "Xiao Ai" trademark was rejected. Xiaomi registered only one trademark in advance and failed to protect the full class of "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" trademark. Thus after the introduction of “Xiao Ai Tong Xue” speakers, there was a trend to register "Xiao Ai Tong Xue" as trademark on all different kinds of products.

Source:Tengxun.com

Issue Date: December 15, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

In 2014, the company registered all 45 classes of “Lei Jun” trademark. The PRC Trademark Law adopts the principle of "registration priority". From the point of view of safeguarding rights, once the trademark is registered by other enterprises, the cost of protecting rights is relatively greater, such as the burden of proof and litigation. In addition to the development of independent core brands, providing a full-scale protection for trademark registration is particularly important.


Monster Energy v. Gentle Monster, Court Found They are Not Similar Trademarks

The Monster Beverage Corporation (“Monster Energy”), who owns the Monster energy drinks, lost a trademark similarity dispute with the NIPA over the glasses brand “Gentle Monster” of IICOMBINED Co., Ltd. The second instance of Beijing High Court still found that the Gentle Monster, used on sunglasses and other commodities did not resemble the Monster Energy trademark used on drinks and other commodities, and finally rejected the Monster Energy's appeal.

According to the second instance judgment issued by the Beijing High People's Court at the end of August this year, the disputed trademark is No.11022899, which was applied by IICOMBINED in June, 2012. The trademark is composed of English letter “Gentle Monster” under class 9, which contains glasses frame, sunglasses, glasses box, glasses cloth, sports goggles, contact lenses, contact lens box and swimming goggles. The claimant’s trademark include trademarks No.G1048069, No.5397978 and No.5447961 applied by Monster Energy since 2006 and their approved commodities include mineral water, soda, non-alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, isotonic beverages (non-additive drugs), juice drinks and beverage syrup, etc. under class 32. It also includes sports helmets under class 9.

The original Trademark Review and Adjudication Board ruled that because both the disputed trademark and the referred trademark contain a significant identification word “Monster”, it is easy to cause confusion and misunderstanding on similar goods. Thus the the trademark “Gentle Monster” shall be invalidated on sports goggles and swimming goggles. However, because it does not constitute a similar commodity with the referred trademark on other commodities such as “eyewear frames” and the evidence on the record is not sufficient to prove that the referred trademark has become a well-known trademark before the date of application for the disputed trademark. Therefore, the validity of the trademark on the rest of the goods is maintained.

Monster Energy disagrees with the ruling and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court for administrative proceedings.

The Beijing intellectual property court held that the trademark “Gentle Monster” used on commodities such as glasses is different from “Monster Energy” used on commodities in terms of function, production department, sales route and consumption object, and does not belong to the same class or similar commodities, hence they do not constitute an approximate trademark. 

Meanwhile, the court of second instance also mentioned that Monster Energy did not give sufficient evidence on the sales scope, economic indicators, advertising input, market ranking of the last two cited trademarks within a reasonable range before the date of application for the trademark, so it was not sufficient to prove that the trademark “Monster Energy” have already constituted well-known trademarks before the registration of the disputed trademark.

Accordingly, the use of the trademark “Gentle Monster” does not constitute the third paragraph of Article 13 of the Trademark Law, which provided that “an application for registration of a trademark which is a replication, imitation or translation of other's well-known trademark already registered in China for use on non-identical or non-similar commodities which is misleading to the public and may cause harm to the interests of the trademark registrant of the said well-known trademark shall not be registered and the use of such a mark shall be prohibited.”

The court finally rejected the Monster Energy’s appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Source: Beijing Intellectual Property Court

Issue Date: October 10, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

The criteria of trademark similarity should be based on the general attention of the public with general knowledge and experience in purchasing goods.

Therefore, whether the trademarks are enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding of the relevant public is a necessary condition to constitute trademark approximation. If only the words and patterns of the trademark are similar, but they are not enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, they shall not constitute a trademark similarity.

Therefore how to judge whether it is enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding to the relevant public? It is considered that the public mistook the commodities indicated by the alleged infringing trademark and the registered trademark from the same market entity, or that the commodities indicated by the two are from different market entities, but that there are operational, organizational or legal connection between the market entities.


China (Wuhan) Intellectual Property Protection Center Officially Opened

On December 11, China (Wuhan) Intellectual Property Protection Center officially opened. Wuhan built the center with high standards. The center can provide enterprises with "one-stop" services such as rapid intellectual property review, protection assistance, navigation and operation. After moving into the new site, the area will increase by 1/4, and the external service environment such as the reception hall, self-service area, mediation room and multimedia trial court will be much more better.

According to the responsible person of Wuhan Market Supervision Bureau, while building Wuhan Protection Center, Wuhan actively explored the extension of intellectual property protection to the basic level, and initially formed a “central + station” intellectual property protection system. Since the end of last year, the city has built 17 basic level intellectual property protection stations in parks, professional markets and other places, combined with regional industrial development priorities. The workstation has full-time intellectual property staff to provide one-stop intellectual property services in the aspects of rapid patent prequalification, intellectual property information retrieval, legal advice, law enforcement assistance and so on.

By the end of November 2020, Wuhan intellectual property Protection Center has determined 541 entities to enter into the database of the rapid examination service.

A person in charge of filing said that fast protection of intellectual property rights is sometimes the key to success for enterprises. A key technology invention is aimed at the golden window period of industry development. Whether it can be protected as soon as possible directly affects the competitiveness of enterprises.

Data shows that numbers of patent applications and licensing in Wuhan continued to grow from April with a rapid year-on-year increase, especially patent licensing numbers increased significantly.

The Center’s responsible person introduced that service of the center for enterprises is free of charge in terms of the new generation of patent information service retrieval and analysis system, in order to help enterprises patent layout. At present, nearly 1,000 users have registered to use the system.

Source: Beijing Intellectual Property Court

Issue Date: October 10, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

The establishment of center certainly has positive effect on the intellectual property protection of various industries in Wuhan, and has a profound impact on industrial transformation and upgrading, as well as sustainable and healthy development.

First is to create a rapid channel to protect innovations. The center will use the review resources of the NIPA to construct a double channel for fast patent authorization and confirmation. Meanwhile, the centre coordinates local administrative law enforcement and judicial trial resources, in order to establish administrative and judicial channels for safeguarding rights quickly, and speed up the solution of practical problems such as sexual abuse and repeated infringement of patent groups in the industry.

Second is to enhance the ability to use and protect intellectual property rights, promote industrial transformation and upgrading. From the long-term effect analysis, the efficient operation of the center will greatly improve the number of patent authorizations, the efficiency of law enforcement, the awareness of intellectual property protection, the ability of industrial innovation and the environment of intellectual property protection in Wuhan. 


When “Jiugui” Meets “Jiugui” Peanuts

The application for registration of the disputed trademark was submitted by Guan, Executive Director and General Manager of Sichuan Baishixing Food Industry Co., Ltd (“Baishixing”) on June 25, 2003, which was approved and announced on May 21, 2007. The trademark was approved for using on processed peanuts, refined nuts and other class 29 commodities in August, 2015. In 2008, the original committee approved the transfer of the trademark to Baishixing.

Guan is now the legal representative of Baishixing, which was founded in 2002. The main business is producing and selling peanuts, fungi and other snacks. Jiuguijiu Liquor Co., Ltd. (“Jiuguijiu”), which was founded in 1956, sells “Jiugui” and “Xiangquan” series of alcohol. The “Jiuguijiu and symbol” trademark was approved for using under Class 33 of alcoholic beverages in 1998.

In December 2015, Jiuguijiu filed a request to the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“the Board”) for invalidation of the disputed trademark, claiming that the trademark constitutes a parody of its well-known trademark No.1639051 “Jiugui”, No.1695309 “Jiugui” and No.1411951 “JiuのGui”. The application for trademark registration is obviously malicious. Such use of the disputed trademark will cause confusion to the public.

Baishixing argues that after many years of use, their trademark has a high reputation and influence, and has formed corresponding connections with the company. Its trademark does not constitute similar trademarks comparing to Jiuguijiu’s trademarks.

The Board considers that the disputed trademark does not violate the Trademark Law and the “Jiuguijiu” alcohol has not reached well-known brand. Also, the public will not be confused about the two commodities.

Jiuguijiu does not accept the ruling made by the Board and appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for administrative proceedings.

Source: Shanghai Market Supervision and Administration

Issue Date: October 10, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

A key question in this case: whether the referred trademark needs cross-class protection with well-known trademark shall be determined by whether the the trademarks has misled the public.

Article 13(3) of the Trademark Law, the meaning of “...misleading to the public and may cause harm to the interests of the trademark registrant of the said well-known trademark” shall refer to whether the public regard the registration of the disputed trademark is connected with the well-known trademark. Such confusion may diminish the popularity and harm the reputation of the trademark.

In the request procedure for the invalidation of the trademark, the well-known party usually invokes the well-known trademark protection clause for greater chance of winning. However, in this case, the evidence submitted by Jiuguijiu and Baishixing only proved that their trademarks both have high reputation in their respective commodities, and the coexistence of the two in the market will not lead to the misunderstanding of the public. Therefore, it is difficult to invoke trademark cross-class protection.


Can “Naipi (Milk Skin)” Mask be Registered as a Trademark?

On October 19, 2018, Meiji Co., Ltd. (“Meiji”) submitted an application for registration of the trademark “Nai Pi”, designated for use in beauty mask and other class 3 goods.

In April 2019, the NIPA decided that the term “Naipi” could easily cause confusions to consumers in terms of raw materials of commodities, and could not be used as trademark. The NIPA rejected the application. In May 2019, Meiji’s application for review was also rejected.

Meiji filed an administrative lawsuit with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court against the review decision. In the case, Meiji said it had waived its application for registration on commodities other than beauty masks. Meiji claimed that the trademark “Naipi” is a common name of food, and is largely used in the beauty masks by Meiji. Thus the trademark has already had a high profile and would not cause confusions to the public.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the trademark application was made up of the Chinese characters “Naipi”. “Naipi” is a kind of semi-solid material which is precipitated on the surface of milk after heating with high temperature. When it is designated to be used on the beauty mask, this can easily lead consumers to misidentify the raw materials and ingredients of the products.

After the judgment of first instance, the company appealed to the Beijing High Court for withdrawal of the first instance judgment and requested the NIPA to make a new decision.

The Beijing High Court believes that the case is a review of administrative decision, such case usually does not take into account the use of trademarks and other factors, Moreover, the evidence submitted by Meiji is not sufficient to prove that the public will not be misunderstood about the ingredients of the mask. Meiji’s appeal has no factual or legal basis, which the court cannot support.

Based on the above grounds, the Beijing High Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

Source: Shanghai Market Supervision and Administration

Issue Date: October 10, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

The use of “Naipi” in designated commodities may make consumers mistake the characteristics of raw materials, ingredients and so on. According to Article 10(1)(7) of the Trademark Law, which provides that “a mark which is deceptive, easy to cause the public to be misled over the characteristics such as quality or place of origin of commodities” cannot be registered. This clause belongs to the trademark absolute prohibition clause, and trademarks violating this clause cannot be used as the trademark.


Fairy Tales King Winning Anti-piracy Case

Jiangsu Huai'an’s “2.22” serious copyright infringement case, which was reported by “Fairy Tales King" Zheng Yuanjie after winning several copyright disputes, has made new progress. On November 27, the Huai'an Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu rendered its first instance judgment on the case, ruling that Beijing Xinsheng Jianda Books Co., Ltd. and Beijing Hongrui Jianxing Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. committed copyright infringement, both companies were fined RMB 500,000. The defendant Wang was sentenced for 4 years and was fined for RMB 3 million. The defendant Li was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months and was fined for RMB 2.6 million. The other seven defendants, including Qi was sentenced under 3 years and with a total fine of RMB 630,000. Wu committed illegally manufacturing and selling a registered trademark, and was sent for imprisonment of 3 years, with four years on probation, and a fine of RMB 60,000.

The successful conclusion of the case has eliminated an industrial chain of infringing copyright across many provinces and cities, which effectively protecting the intellectual property rights of copyright owners and maintaining normal market order.

The case is currently pending for appeal.

Source: Beijing Court Online

Issue Date: October 27, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

According to the PRC Criminal Law, Article 217, which provided that whoever, for the purpose of making profits, commits any of the following acts of infringement on copyright shall, if the amount of illegal gains is relatively large, or if there are other serious circumstances, be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years or criminal detention and shall also, or shall only, be fined; if the amount of illegal gains is huge or if there are other especially serious circumstances, he shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years and shall also be fined:

(1) reproducing and distributing a written work, musical work, motion picture, television programme or other visual works, computer software or other works without permission of the copyright owner;

(2) publishing a book of which the exclusive right of publication is enjoyed by another person;

(3) reproducing and distributing an audio or video recording produced by another person without permission of the producer; or

(4) producing or selling a work of fine art with forged signature of another painter.

Criminals privately print and sell pirated books in order to obtain illegal interests. The amount involved is usually rather huge. This kind of criminal behavior not only infringes the legitimate rights and interests of the copyright owner, but also destroys the state's management order of the cultural market.


“Bao Shifu” Starts Protecting Its Right and Counterfeiters Nowhere to Hide

Recently, Bao Shifu's trademark case has made new progress. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court issued a final judgment on the case of trademark infringement and unfair competition between Baocaisheng Co., Ltd. (“Baocaisheng”) and Beijing Yishang Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd., (“Yishang”) rejected the appeal of Yishang and upheld the judgment of first instance, that is, found that Yishang used the “Bao Shifu” logo prominently on its website, WeChat official account, other platforms and stores, infringing Baocaisheng's exclusive right to use the registered trademark No.12484211 “Bao Shifu”. Meanwhile, Yishang used the name of “Bao Shifu Pastry” as on its stores without authorisation, causing confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public about the source of the goods. In the company's statement, Yishang repeatedly mentioned Baocaisheng's name and its information as false propaganda, which constituted unfair competition.

Source: China IP Online

Issue Date: December 3, 2020

 

ZLWD Commentary:

With the increase in brand awareness, there are frequent acts of choosing to use other people's registered goods or service trademarks that already have a reputation, or registering the same or similar trademarks. According to Article 5 of the PRC Anti-unfair Competition Law, which provided that “business operators shall not commit the following acts to mislead others to misidentify their goods as others' goods or to associate their goods with others:......(2) unauthorised use of other's influential enterprise name (including abbreviation, brand name etc), social organisation name (including abbreviation etc) and name (including pen name, stage name, translated name etc)”.  

Baocaisheng opened its first store in 2004, but it was not until 2017 that it obtained the registered trademark of “Bao Shifu”. However Yishang has opened a large number of “Bao Shifu” pastry stores. Failing to register trademarks in time makes Baocaisheng safeguarding its rights more difficult. Enterprises shall promptly carry out trademark registration and monitoring.


The National Intellectual Property Strategic Planning Department Issued the 20th Issue of 2020 Intellectual Property Statistics Bulletin 

On December 2, 2020, the National Intellectual Property Strategic Planning Division issued the 20th issue of the Intellectual Property Statistics Bulletin 2020, collecting data on intellectual property rights between January and November of 2020. For the period January to November 2020, 1.403 million applications for invention patents in China. The invention patent authorizations are 470,000 applications. By the end of November 2020, the effective amount of invention patent applications in China is 3.01 million; 2.726 million applications for utility model patents in China, utility model patent license is 2.152 million. 700,000 applications for design patents and authorizations is 672,000. Accepting 62,000 applications for PCT international patents, Among them, there are domestic 57,000 applications.

Source: State Intellectual Property Office: https://www.cnipa.gov.cn/col/col61/index.html

 

ZLWD Commentary:

Since the 18th National Congress of the Party, China's intellectual property protection has made significant achievements. In the 2020 Global Innovation Index report issued by the WIPO, China is ranked for 14th for two consecutive years and is the only middle-income country that entered the top 30 of the global innovation index. During the 14th Five-Year Plan period, under the guidance of Xi Jinping, we should promote the rule of law in domestic together with foreign affairs as a whole. This is to promote the protection of intellectual property rights, and provide a strong guarantee for carrying out the new development concept, constructing a new development pattern and promoting high-quality development.


Regulations on the Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Xiamen Special Economic Zone 

Since December 1, 2020, “Regulations on the Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Xiamen Special Economic Zone” (“the Regulations”) has been formally implemented. This regulation is the first comprehensive local intellectual property law issued by Fujian Province. The Regulations strengthens the incentive mechanism and protection system of intellectual property in Xiamen from five aspects: creation, application, protection, management and service. It also helps to create a business environment that respects the value of intellectual property. Xiamen has paid great attention to the promotion and protection of intellectual property rights through a series of measures to encourage innovation and enhance the core competitiveness of enterprises. It is also important to promote industrial transformation and upgrading. Xiamen is dedicated to make its intellectual property work into the top of the country and is already listed as one of the top ten national intellectual property cities.

Source: National Intellectual Property Strategy Network: http://www.nipso.cn/onews.asp? id=51685

 

ZLWD Commentary:

The Regulations clearly establishes and improves the incentive and security mechanism, and comprehensively apply the policies in terms of fiduciary, taxation, finance, industry, science and technology, culture, trade and talents to promote and support the creation and application of intellectual property rights. Setting up the gathering area of intellectual property service industry, gathering the market-oriented service elements of intellectual property and enhancing the service ability that matches the demand of enterprise innovation and development are essential. This is to provide a whole chain service such as agency, consultation, training, evaluation, transaction, rights protection and so on for the creation and application of intellectual property.


Van Cleef & Arpels Failed to Register Its “Four-Leaf Clover” as a Three-dimensional Trademark

As a world’s top jewelry brand, Van Cleef & Arpels applied for the registration of Three-dimensional Trademarkin China. After three rounds of decisions by the trademark review committee, as well as the first and second instance court, the company still lost the case.

The court held that the “clover” used in the field of jewelry was mostly regarded as the appearance of the goods, not as a trademark indicating the source of the goods. Van Cleef & Arpels Company failed to limit the scope of usage, thus the judiciary should avoid the negative impact on the proper operations of other enterprises.

Source: Beijing Court Trial Information Network

 

ZLWD Commentary:

The main reason for the failure of the registration of the three-dimensional trademark is that, based on the recognition ability of the public, when identifying the “clover” as brand jewelry, they are used to identify it as appearance rather than trademark, meaning it is easy to consider it as the shape of commodity and style. Hence it is hard to distinguish the source of goods. In the field of jewelry, a large number of jewelry companies have used “clover” as the decorative appearance of related commodities, which leads to more public recognition of the decorative effect of “clover”. 


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: Lin Wei, Chu Shu Bake, Zhou Lisi, Deng Yu, Li Yuming,

Wu Ziling, Ouyang Jun, Chen Gong, Ning Ning

All Information published in this Newsletter is from open source.

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