jiang-irac-opposition

商标异议·无效申请推理引擎(SJ-IRAC):基于法条要件、证据链与风险分级的专业级审查与攻防系统。

Safety Notice

This listing is from the official public ClawHub registry. Review SKILL.md and referenced scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "jiang-irac-opposition" with this command: npx skills add jisngzhongling/jiang-irac-opposition-invalidation

商标异议·无效申请推理引擎(SJ-IRAC)

Author: Jiang Zhongling (商标蒋道理)
Organization: Nantong Zhongnan Quansheng IP Co., Ltd.
Version: 1.1.2 Last Updated: 2026-02-03


Summary (for ClawHub)

A law-firm-grade CNIPA Opposition / Invalidation engine that turns case materials into examiner-readable attack briefs with IRAC, SJ-6 evidence chains, and A–E risk gates.
No templates. No fluff. No fabricated facts.


What This Skill Does

This skill ingests CNIPA registry data + case facts + evidence inventory and outputs:

  • Ground selection system (main + auxiliary, prioritized)
  • Element-by-element legal reasoning (Article-precise, guideline-aligned)
  • SJ-6 evidence chain map (proof purpose + timeline + weak-link detection)
  • Stop-loss decisions (standing / time-bar / admissibility / EV-cost kill gates)
  • Submission-ready structure (Document Mode)

Constraint: No generic AI writing. No speculative conclusions. Only verifiable, evidence-backed reasoning.


v1.1 Highlights (Operational Upgrades)

  1. Standing & Limitation Control (Hard Gate)
  • Eligibility screening before any drafting
  • Time-bar traps surfaced early (relative grounds / 5-year logic where applicable)
  • “不能打”的案子直接止损,不堆字
  1. Procedural Control Review
  • Deadline control and procedural admissibility checks
  • Suspension triggers / coordination with parallel proceedings
  • Evidence form compliance checks (source, integrity, probative chain)
  1. Risk Engine Refinement (Kill Gates)
  • Procedural / discretionary fatal-defect gates
  • EV-cost stop-loss when expected value < cost
  • Evidence weakness quantified and action-ranked

Scope & Positioning

Primary Scope

  • CNIPA Opposition
  • CNIPA Invalidation (absolute grounds; relative grounds where legally available)

Core Mission

Convert dispute materials into a decision-grade argument system:

  • Which grounds to use (and in what order)
  • Which elements must be proven
  • Which evidence carries probative weight
  • Which defects are fatal (stop-loss)
  • How to write in a CNIPA examiner-readable structure

Not a Template Pack

This is an argument + evidence engineering engine, not a folder of sample briefs.


Legal Basis (Bounded Sources)

Operates strictly within:

  • PRC Trademark Law (2019 Amendment)
  • Implementing Regulations
  • CNIPA Examination & Adjudication Guidelines / review norms
  • Nice Classification + Similar Goods/Services Classification (use your latest internal table)

Prohibited

  • Fictional statutes, fictional cases, invented timelines
  • “Common sense” replacing evidence
  • Fame/renown claims without third-party proof

Core Framework

1) IRAC (Mandatory, Examiner-Oriented)

  1. Issue: define disputes (grounds, parties, marks, timeframe, target goods/services)
  2. Rule: map statutes + guideline purpose + elements + burden/standard
  3. Application: match evidence to elements (逐要件对应,不做假设)
  4. Conclusion: enforceable outcome + next-step plan (补证/改路/止损)

2) SJ-6 Evidence Chain (Mandatory)

Each item is scored under:

  1. Authenticity
  2. Relevance
  3. Completeness
  4. Temporal validity
  5. Logical consistency
  6. Cross-examination resistance

Evidence organization rules

  • Timeline-first
  • Each exhibit must have an explicit proof purpose
  • Identify the weakest link and the minimum supplementation set

3) Risk Module (A–E + Kill Gates)

Outputs include:

  • Risk Level: A / B / C / D / E
  • Risk Dimensions: Substantive / Evidentiary / Procedural / Discretionary / EV-cost
  • Kill Gates: standing缺失、时效障碍、证据不可核验、路径不适配、成本倒挂等

Supported Scenarios

  • Opposition: absolute / relative grounds (route-prioritized)
  • Invalidation: absolute grounds; relative grounds within applicable time limits
  • Bad-faith pattern attack: serial filings / hoarding / imitation patterns
  • Cross-class confusion reasoning: confusion → similarity inference where supported
  • Evidence gap diagnosis: replace low-value evidence; build high-signal chain
  • Overloading control: avoid “全都写上”造成裁量反噬

Input Requirements (Minimum Viable Case Packet)

Provide at least:

  1. Target trademark number(s), status, filing/registration dates
  2. Parties and relationship clues (if any)
  3. Designated goods/services + class(es)
  4. Case timeline (publication/registration + prior use milestones)
  5. Intended grounds (optional; engine can propose)
  6. Evidence inventory: source / date / type / brief / proof purpose (if known)

If inputs are incomplete → conservative output by design.


Output Modes

Quick Mode (Fast Triage)

  • rule positioning
  • route shortlist (main/aux)
  • key evidence checklist
  • go/no-go (no full IRAC)

Pro Mode (IRAC + SJ-6 + Risk)

  • full IRAC
  • evidence chain diagnosis + weak-link list
  • A–E risk rating + kill-gate triggers
  • conservative success probability range
  • action plan + supplementation list (ranked by ROI)

Document Mode (Submission-Ready)

  • neutral official tone
  • statute + evidence driven
  • no probabilistic language
  • paragraphing optimized for CNIPA examiner reading
  • exhibits indexed + proof-purpose mapping + timeline tables (if provided)

Compliance & Hard Constraints

  • No fabricated facts, transactions, screenshots, or dates
  • No speculation without evidentiary support
  • No inflated influence/fame claims without third-party proof
  • Always surface: weakest link + minimum fix
  • If expected value < cost → advise against proceeding + alternatives

Typical Use Cases (Law-Firm Grade)

  • CNIPA opposition brief drafting (attack route selection + structure)
  • CNIPA invalidation petition drafting (absolute/relative route control)
  • Bad-faith chain construction (pattern proof + linkage logic)
  • Evidence packet engineering (what to keep / replace / add)
  • Client-facing risk memo (non-guarantee, cost-aware, decision-grade)

How to Use

  1. Provide registry data + facts + evidence inventory
  2. Choose mode: Quick / Pro / Document
  3. Receive:
    • prioritized grounds,
    • element-based reasoning,
    • evidence chain + gaps,
    • risk rating + next actions,
    • (Document Mode) submission-ready structure.

Versioning Notes

  • Patch (x.y.z): doc/consistency fixes
  • Minor (x.y.0): new modules / workflow upgrades
  • Major (x.0.0): architecture changes

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Web3

蒋道理|CNIPA商标驳回复审证据推理引擎(SJ-IRAC)

商标驳回复审推理引擎(SJ-IRAC):面向CNIPA驳回通知的要件化论证、证据链工程与A–E风险闸门,输出审查员可读、可直接提交的复审材料结构。

Registry SourceRecently Updated
11.5K
Profile unavailable
Web3

蒋道理|撤三证据链与风险审核引擎(SJ-IRAC)

CNIPA撤三(连续三年不使用)双轨证据引擎:答辩证据链构建 + 质证审计(SJ-6 + IRAC + 风险A–E)。

Registry SourceRecently Updated
01.7K
Profile unavailable
Security

Safe Exec

Safe command execution for OpenClaw Agents with automatic danger pattern detection, risk assessment, user approval workflow, and audit logging. Use when agen...

Registry SourceRecently Updated
86.8K
Profile unavailable