25
2025-09
From September 20 to 21, the "2025 Lhasa South Asia Corridor Construction: Forum on Foreign-related Legal Services," hosted by the Lhasa Lawyers Association, was successfully held in Lhasa, Tibet. The forum brought together representatives from lawyers associations, foreign-related legal experts, and business leaders hailing from Lhasa, Wuhan, Haikou, Nanjing, Jinan, Chengdu, Huai'an, Mianyang, and other cities. Together, they gathered to actively contribute ideas and strategies aimed at strengthening the rule-of-law framework and enhancing legal services along the South Asia Corridor under the Belt and Road Initiative. Attorney Sona, a partner at Zhongcheng Qingtai Law Firm in Jinan, attended the forum as a special guest, delivering a presentation titled "Practical Insights into International Trade Contracts and Risk Management." She was also honored by the Lhasa Lawyers Association with the title of "Special Contributor."
2025-09-25
25
2025-09
Under the overarching framework of "One Country, Two Systems," the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region enjoys independent judicial power and final adjudication authority. Its legal system is based on common law, which differs significantly from the mainland's legal system, where statutes play the dominant role. While these differences have enriched the diversity of China's rule of law, they also pose challenges in ensuring the mutual recognition and enforcement of court judgments as cross-border civil and commercial interactions become increasingly frequent. Therefore, safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of parties from both regions—and enabling judicial decisions to effectively transcend different legal jurisdictions—has emerged as a critical issue for enhancing judicial cooperation between the two places.
2025-09-25
25
2025-09
In the field of real estate transactions, it is not uncommon for individuals to purchase properties under the names of third parties—often referred to as "buying a house in someone else's name"—in response to housing loan restrictions, purchase limits, or to qualify for government-sponsored housing programs. When creditors of the property owner attempt to seek judicial intervention to freeze or seize the registered property due to outstanding debts, the actual buyer typically steps in by initiating legal proceedings to assert their ownership rights. In such disputes, the main points of contention usually revolve around whether the actual buyer’s claims can override compulsory enforcement actions, what criteria judicial authorities use to evaluate these claims, and the burden of proof that the claimant must bear. Drawing on normative documents such as the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the Supreme People’s Court’s Draft Interpretation on Applying Laws to Cases Involving Objections to Enforcement (I), and the Supreme People’s Court’s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Review Cases by People’s Courts (Revised in 2020), this article examines key issues related to third-party objections to enforcement in cases involving "buying a house in someone else's name," supported by relevant case studies.
2025-09-25
23
2025-09
As China’s society continues to age, the number of people living alone, single individuals, and women without children is steadily increasing. Consequently, how to ensure their ongoing livelihood and financial security after losing some or all of their civil capacity has become a growing concern for more and more families. Traditionally, the guardianship system has primarily relied on "statutory guardianship," where the order of legal succession determines who will serve as the guardian. However, real-life situations often prove more complex than what is outlined in legal statutes: some individuals have no suitable immediate family members available, others prefer specific friends or relatives to take care of them, and still others wish to proactively arrange for decisions regarding their finances and medical care in advance. In response to these societal needs, China’s *General Provisions of the Civil Law* first established the "voluntary guardianship" system in 2017, which was further refined when the full *Civil Code* came into effect in 2021. The voluntary guardianship system reflects the law’s respect for individuals’ autonomous wishes, while also serving as an essential tool to safeguard citizens’ personal and property rights.
2025-09-23
17
2025-09
In business practice, operators often put considerable effort into packaging design to promote their products. However, when these design elements inadvertently cross the boundaries of others' intellectual property rights, they can trigger complex legal disputes. This article will analyze a typical case in conjunction with relevant provisions from the Trademark Law of the People's Republic of China and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, as well as insights drawn from judicial practices. It will delve into the definition of "trademark-like use" when incorporating another party's registered trademark into a product's "background image," examine the criteria for assessing "likelihood of confusion," and share valuable lessons learned during the handling of this case. The aim is to provide businesses with clear legal guidance and practical compliance advice on trademark usage in product packaging.
2025-09-17
17
2025-09
Perspective | Can the Bankruptcy Creditor Confirmation Ruling Based on "Res Judicata" Be Overturned?
Issue raised: While handling a lawsuit to confirm bankruptcy claims, the author encountered a situation where the claim had already been reviewed and confirmed by the administrator, who subsequently submitted an uncontested claims list to the court. The court then issued a civil ruling recognizing the claim as uncontested. This led the author to ponder: Can a claim confirmation lawsuit still be filed against this particular claim? Moreover, does the court's prior ruling on the uncontested claim carry res judicata effect? Finally, will the court dismiss the claim confirmation lawsuit outright, or will it proceed with a review of the case?
2025-09-17
17
2025-09
The Deep Rock Principle, also known as the Equitable Subordination Principle, is designed to safeguard the legitimate interests of a company’s creditors from being compromised by shareholders or de facto controllers who exploit their control over the company. When shareholders or controlling entities abuse their shareholder rights, leading to confusion in the company’s corporate identity, engaging in unfair related-party transactions, or colluding maliciously with insolvent enterprises—thereby harming the lawful interests of external creditors—their claims must be subordinated to those of other creditors, ensuring substantive fairness under bankruptcy law. This principle is regarded in U.S. case law as a powerful tool for addressing issues related to affiliated creditor claims in bankrupt companies. In its reasoning section of Civil Ruling No. (2023) Supreme People’s Court Min Shen 2707, the Supreme People’s Court provided an interpretation and clarification of the Deep Rock Principle. Specifically, it explained that the equitable subordination principle—also referred to as the "Deep Rock Principle"—applied during bankruptcy proceedings dictates that claims held by a controlling company against a subsidiary cannot participate in the subsidiary’s distribution alongside other creditors if the subsidiary becomes unable to pay or enters bankruptcy proceedings. Alternatively, such claims should rank lower than those of other creditors in the order of repayment. Although China has not explicitly codified the Deep Rock Principle into its legislation, similar rules have been adopted through judicial interpretations, meeting minutes, and practical judicial applications.
2025-09-17
17
2025-09
In a limited liability company, shareholders are liable for the company's debts only to the extent of their subscribed capital contributions. While this principle safeguards shareholders' limited liability, it can also be misused by certain shareholders to evade debts, thereby harming the interests of creditors. In practice, when corporate debt disputes arise involving shareholders who fail to contribute capital as stipulated in the company’s articles of association—whether they contribute only partially or even withdraw their contributions entirely—it often raises the critical question: Can creditors demand that these shareholders assume joint liability alongside the company? Moreover, under what circumstances will courts uphold creditors' claims, allowing them to name these shareholders as co-defendants in debt-collection lawsuits against the company? This article will examine, based on the Company Law and related statutes and judicial interpretations, combined with real-world case examples, the legal grounds for holding non-contributing shareholders accountable, the specific types of liabilities involved, the applicable judicial standards, and the potential risks encountered in practice.
2025-09-17
09
2025-09
Perspective | Qualifying Infringement in Trademark Rights Disputes
General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered an important speech on comprehensively strengthening intellectual property protection while presiding over the 25th collective study session of the 19th Central Political Bureau. The report from the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China emphasized, "We must enhance the rule-of-law safeguards for intellectual property rights and establish a foundational system that supports comprehensive innovation." In response, the CPC Central Committee and the State Council jointly issued the "Outline for Building a Country Strong in Intellectual Property (2021–2035)," while the State Council released the "National Plan for Intellectual Property Protection and Utilization during the 14th Five-Year Plan period." Additionally, the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the "Opinions on Strengthening Intellectual Property Protection." These directives and government documents have already laid out a comprehensive top-level design for building and enhancing intellectual property protection. To implement the deployment on intellectual property protection made by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council, local governments and people's courts across the country have also formulated specific guidelines tailored to their respective jurisdictions, such as the "Guiding Opinions of the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court on Implementing the Strictest Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights to Provide Judicial Support for High-Quality Development," the "Revised Guidelines for Handling Civil Disputes Involving Trademark Infringement Cases by the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court," the "Implementation Opinions of the Tianjin Higher People's Court on Strengthening Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights," and the "Opinions of the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court on Providing High-Quality Judicial Services to Support High-Quality Development."
2025-09-09
08
2025-09
The new Company Law, effective July 1, 2024, establishes a systematic shareholder forfeiture mechanism. Through Articles 51 to 53, it creates a comprehensive regulatory framework that integrates the board of directors' obligation to verify and urge payment, the shareholder forfeiture procedure, and the directors' liability—forming a unified system. This institutional reform marks a pivotal shift in China's corporate capital system, transitioning from a fully subscribed model to a limited subscription model, while simultaneously strengthening the mechanisms that ensure the adequate capitalization of companies.
2025-09-08
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
