Who Authors a Video Game? Three 1982 U.S. Decisions That Made Games Audiovisual Works / 游戏是谁的作品?1982 年三份美国判决如何把游戏变成视听作品

江苏高院刚认定任天堂游戏画面可作视听作品,可四十年前美国法院还激烈反对。1982 年三份上诉判决——Stern、Midway、WGN——共同确立:视频游戏可作为视听作品受版权保护,玩家的选择不破坏保护。 / The Jiangsu High Court has just held Nintendo game visuals qualify as audiovisual works, yet forty years earlier U.S. courts fiercely objected. Three 1982 appellate decisions — Stern, Midway, and WGN — jointly established that video games can be protected as audiovisual works, and the player’s choices do not defeat protection.

The Trademark ‘Revival Channel’ Is Narrowing — What Is Contested Is the Degree / 商标”复活通道”将收窄,可争的是程度

商标驳回复审败诉后,若引证商标被撤销或无效,申请人仍可申请再审让商标”复活”。但司法解释征求意见稿第二十八条给出两套收紧方案,一个全关、一个半开,均未给”维持现状”留选项。争论的焦点不在存废,而在程度。 / After a trademark refusal-review is lost, if the cited mark is revoked or invalidated the applicant may still seek a retrial to “revive” the mark. But Article 28 of the draft judicial interpretation offers two tightening schemes — one closing the channel, one half-open — neither preserves the status quo. The contest is over degree, not existence.

Huiyuan’s Brand ‘Severance’: When a Cutting-Off Statement Risks New Infringement / 汇源”切割”声明:当”切割”本身可能构成侵权

10 月 19 日,汇源集团宣布与”汇源”品牌切割、启用”咱家果源”;当晚北京汇源回以反声明。判决划清了商标归谁,声明还在争商誉归谁——而一份切割声明本身,可能构成新的侵权。 / On October 19, Huiyuan Group declared a “severance” from the “Huiyuan” brand and launched “Zujia Guoyuan”; that evening Beijing Huiyuan countered. The judgment clarified who owns the mark; the statements still contest whose goodwill owns — and a severance statement itself may constitute fresh infringement.

LV v. Molimilk: A Ruling Rewritten Three Times by Public Opinion / LV诉茉莉奶白案的代价

LV 诉茉莉奶白一审被判赔 1030 万,判决却在三个月里被舆论改写三次——每一次都恰好抹去它对原告的约束。本文逐条检验四个不成立的前提。 / LV won a 10.3-million-yuan first-instance ruling against Molimilk, yet the judgment was rewritten by public opinion three times in three months — each time erasing a constraint on the plaintiff. This article tests four unfounded premises one by one.

Audi Has Not Split: What the Trademark Registry Shows / 奥迪并未“分家”:商标公告簿说明了什么

奥迪与中国一汽、上汽签署的新协议被炒成“分家”,但商标公告簿显示注册人未变、许可仍是普通许可——变的只是车头用哪块标。 / Audi’s new FAW–SAIC agreements were spun as a “split,” but the trademark gazette shows the registrant is unchanged and the licenses remain ordinary — only which badge goes on the hood has shifted.