Friday, January 30, 2009

Huawei Top PCT Applicant 2008; China Sixth Largest User of PCT

The People's Republic of China has the ambition to shift its manufacturing based economy to a knowledge based economy. Therefore Chinese companies need to innovate, and protect their innovations by patents, internationally.

If a company registers its patent in one country, it is only protected in that country. Therefore companies need to register their patents in every single country were they want to be protected. Using the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), however, they can file patent applications in different countries in an efficient way: filing at patent applications in more than one country using one patent office. A real internatonal patent does not exist yet, but the second best is to get a bundle of national patents, using the PCT.

Is China a heavy PCT-user?

A press release of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) reports that Shenzhen based Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. filed the most Patent Cooperaton Treaty (PCT)-applications in 2008, namely 1,737. More than the 1,729 PCT-applications filed by Panasonic Corporation of Japan or the 1,551 patents by Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. of the Netherlands.

One other Chinese company, ZTE Corporation, also a Shenzen-based telecommunications company, ranks at the 38th position in the top 50 PCT applicants 2008 list. So Chinese companies in general might be not heavy PCT-user yet, but two Shenzhen ( 深圳市) companies certainly are.

The People's Republic of China improved by one place, to become the sixth largest user of the PCT (overtaking United Kingdom's position). It is expected that China will France's fifth position in 2009.

Read more here.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Copycats in China: Trains, Plains and ... Automobiles

Planes, traines and ... automobiles. Chinese copycats in all modes of transport. After this ruling by the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court against Zhongwei's Zonda A9 that found the latter copying the MAN AG's Neoplan Starliner, one might wonder whether Hillmann (of Iven & Hillmann, see below) who described Zonda A9 as a "vivid example of how rapid and uninhibited the Chinese are when it comes to copying," was in fact defamatory, as was alleged by Zonda.
According to the Guardian Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court ordered Jiangsu province Zhongwei Passenger Bus Co Ltd, its parent company and its Beijing dealer to pay 21.16 million yuan ($3.1 million) to Neoplan Bus GmbH, a MAN AG subsidiary.
Zhongwei is going to appeal. Read the article by Michael Wei of the Guardian here.

History: Zonda sues Neoplan and blogger Hillmann (of Iven & Hillmann) for defamation in 2007

At the website of Zonda Motor one can read that Zonda sued before the Yancheng City Intermediate Court because it alleged Zonda copied its outline design.

"The indictment asked for Man AG, Iven & Hillmann Co. and Neoplan Co. ltd immediately stop slandering on Zonda Group, eliminate the negative effect brought by the affair, and apologize to the Chinese party through German media. The indictment also restated that Zonda Group has the right to require the German party to pay for the compensation and undertake the legal cost for the German media has brought serious impact to Zhongda Group by reprinting and citing.
Thereby, Hillmann soon announced his apology statement to Chinese party in his Blog. He said: “As the author of the Blog article, I had no intention to hurt the relationship between China and Germany. In June, 2006, I presented the international meeting in Shanghai on invitation and made an address, where I had been well treated by the host. Now I would like to draw back my violent words, and apologize to the Chinese auto manufacturer.
Read more here.

"The dispute was exacerbated by a blog linked to a Der Spiegel story about the lawsuit. Hillmann from Iven & Hillmann company posted on the regional Auto blog on Oct. 22 comments to the effect "this is a vivid example of how rapid and uninhibited the Chinese are when it comes to copying.""
Read the Xinhua article about it via the IPR in China site here or via the Beijing Shijitianping Intellectual Property Cooperation Organization here.
Partly victory for MAN, article by Christian Buchholz in Manager-Magazine.DE, June 8, 2007: Teilsieg für MAN (in German). MAN sues in China, article by Andreas Lorenz in Der Spiegel, November 19, 2006: MAN zieht in China vor Gericht (in German).

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Coming Up: China - Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement

After Chile and Peru, Costa Rica is the third Latin American country that is to negociate a free trade agreement with China. Read the AFP article here.

Free trade agreements can play an important role in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Therefore I intend to read the following two brand new books edited by professor Bryan Mercurio (international economic and trade law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, School of Law) and Simon Lester (WorldTradeLaw.net): 'Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Commentary & Analysis' and 'Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Case Studies'. In particular I would like to read professor Mercurio's chapter on the TRIPs-plus areas of intellectual property: copyright, geographical indications and patents in 'Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements: Commentary & Analysis'.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

IP Dragon Weekend Game: Dyslectic Or Counterfeit

Ms Hannah Wood has an intriguing article about names very similar to famous ones in China. See Ms Wood's article with pictures, here.

Can you guess which are the original brands? The answer can be found by clicking on the links.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Poisonous Optima Dog Food: Product Liability Or Blame The Counterfeiters?




Mr Ryan McLaughlin, blogger of Life in Suzhou, wrote about the death of Addie his beloved Golden Retriever around Christmas, read here. According to Mr McLauglin the cause is probably poisonous dog food. Addie was fed dog food from Optima, which is sold by food giant Mars, Inc.

Andrew Schneider of Seattlepi.com wrote: "Mars is aware of recent reports that dogs in the People's Republic of China have died as a result of consuming what appeared to be Optima brand pet food. However, Mars does not sell Optima branded products in China," Fair wrote me in an e-mail. "Our initial findings suggest that the affected pet food was not manufactured by, nor under the authority of, Mars or any of its affiliated companies." She told me that Mars only sells that dog food in Taiwan. But that statement does nothing to clarify the source of the poisoned food because Chinese officials said the Optima that sickened the dogs was imported to China through a Taiwan company, Natural Pet." Read Mr Schneider's article here.

So it is unclear whether Optima is the source or a counterfeit version of Optima. Product liability is for every company of crucial importance to enforce verociously every infringement of their intellectual property rights. And if they are liable to compensate in a decent way.

Indian High Court Claims Jurisdiction Against Chinese Cybersquatter of ICICIGROUP.COM

Malathi Nayak of Livemint has a very interesting article about who has the jurisdiction over Chinese entities if they infringe intellectual property rights via the internet. In this case a Chinese entity had registered the domain name icicigroup.com which is similar to icicibank.com.

First the icicibank tried to get control over the domain name by filing a complaint with the WIPO’s Arbitration and Mediation Center (AMC) using the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. To no avail.

Malathi Nayak wrote:

"In December, justice Sanjiv Khanna [of India's High Court, IP Dragon] passed an order restraining a resident of Beijing, Chuandong Xu, and a Chinese website registrar, HiChina Web Solutions Ltd, from using or selling the site ICICIGROUP.COM.
The order was passed ex parte or in the absence of the defendant. The same court had heard a 2007 case, in which India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd sued US-based India Broadcast Live Llc. over thewww.indiatvlive.com domain name. In October, it dismissed India TV’s suit and allowed India Broadcast Live to use the name.
The two cases mark a trend where Indian courts are ruling on cybersquatting cases involving people and firms from different geographies—not all of which may fall under their jurisdiction."

The enforceability of such cross-border rulings are in general doubtful. However, Saikrishna Rajagopal, partner at Saikrishna and Associates, who filed the suit for ICICI bank, said that the Chinese defendants have complied with the high court order.

Read more Malathi Nayak's article here.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Electric Guitar Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition Makes Itself Heard Against Beijing Infringers

IP Dragon welcomes a new organisation that will fight the manufacturers of and traders in counterfeit guitars. The Electric Guitar Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (EGACC), founded by four guitar manufacturers; Ibanez, Gretsch, Fender and Paul Reed Smith, in March 2008 and will lobby government authorities to enforce their intellectual property laws better against counterfeiting. Gear-Vault broke the news about the EGACC, read more here.

The first action of EGACC was to bundle their complaints, involve law firm Baker & McKenzie to activate the Public Security Bureau in Beijing against two alleged counterfeiters:
paylessguitar.com.cn and musoland.com.cn.

After investigations, the Xuanwu District Public Security Bureau in Beijing initiated simultaneous raids on November 26, 2008, against the retail operations and warehouse of both Paylessguitar and Musoland in Beijing.

Gear-Vaul, the music gear research and resources magazine wrote: "The PSB seized over 1,200 counterfeit guitars and other musical instruments not only counterfeiting all four EGACC group member brands but also those of several other renowned electric guitar manufacturers."

According to a spokesperson of Baker & McKenzie:

"The EGACC group members are grateful for the cooperation of the PSB, and of other PRC enforcement authorities, including the Xuanwu Administration for Industry & Commerce [part of State Administration for Industry & Commerce; SAIC, IP Dragon], for pursuing these law enforcement actions. The EGACC group members look forward to working closely with these and other government enforcement authorities on this and future actions in the PRC and elsewhere."

Chinese guitar
The Chinese invented many snare instruments, including the pipa, a sort of lute.
This video shows what you can do with the pipa. Well, if you practise a long long time, that is. See what Liu Fang can do with it.

World Trademark Review: "US crowns China top of the counterfeiters"

Adam Smith of the World Trademark Review wrote an article that put a few of the actual news events into perspective.: The news of the US customs that the People's Republic of China is number one origin of counterfeit goods seized in the US, Chinese ministers that held a meeting (12 January 2009) on the country’s National Intellectual Property Strategy, about which I wrote 'Feasible commitments or Road to nowhere paved with good intententions'.

Mr Smith asked yours truly whether this recent meeting of Chinese ministers will do anything to tackle the huge problem of counterfeiting?

My answer: The Chinese ministers might feel that their hands are tied. On the one hand they want to enforce intellectual property rights, but on the other they do not want to increase unemployment and cause social unrest by putting whole villages out of work that sustain on the manufacturing of counterfeit products. This is a fortiori so, because of the economic downturn.
Well the last sentence was not published, but is relevant I think. Read Mr Smith's World Trademark Review article here.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Zen And the Art Of Intellectual Property in China

I love that title (remix of perfect book title: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig, which is a remix of the title Zen in the Art of Archery, by Eugen Herrigel who brought Zen to Europe after WOII), and have repeated it like a mantra. All the time I meditated until there was an occasion to use the title. That time has come now that the universe has alligned to this mantra, at last.

The occasion is an interesting article in the Shanghai Daily (one page free the rest paid) and a fine adaptation of the article on Xinhua with the same title (shorter but free) "Commercialism or industrialization is path to truth of Zen" about the world famous Shaolin Monastery turning to intellectual property to spread its ideas.

In the article the author asks whether the ideals of Zen Buddhism can be reconciled with commercialism/industrialization. Good question, my first take would be yes, because "seemingly disjunct or opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, giving rise to each other in turn." Here I would like to limit myself to some words on the three pillars of the Shaolin Monastary: Zen, martial arts and medicines.
Martial arts
Shaolin monks know not only how to use their hands (Plum flower fist, eigh flower fist and don't forget Dragon technique) and feet as lethal weapons. They also know how to protect their intellectual property rights assertively, as early as 1997; see the 2005 IP Dragon article about it here.

Martial arts. The Shaolin monastery tried to protect the incredible Shaolin kungfu style as an intangible cultural heritage with Chinese characteristics already in 2002, which was granted in 2006; see the 2006 IP Dragon article about it, here.

Medicines
China is keen to protect traditional Chinese medicines. My perception of traditional Chinese medicines is that the protection is difficult, since these medicines are highly personalised to each patient. Then again the medicines can be standardised. In 2007 Jia Hepeng wrote for Intellectual Property Watch that China still has problems with protecting traditional Chinese medicines, because of the gap between the patent system and the protection efforts for traditional knowledge, read here.

Zen 禪
Looking at the history of Zen Buddhism one could see this set of beliefs as an example of the benefits and appeals of remix, avant la lettre. It all started with Bodhidharma, an Indian prince, who went into China (teaching a special transmission outside normal Buddhist scripture), where the school of thought radically changed. This procedure happened again when the ideas were taken to Korea, and Japan and also to Vietnam it changed very much because of the influence of the local population. The result is that we now have an Indian version of Zen called Dhyāna, a Vietnamese version called Thiền, a Chinese version called Chán, a Korean version called Seon, and a Japanese version that obviously has become most popular in the West, called Zen and which is often used as a denominator of all these styles. I guess Zen is used in a dilutionary way for a long time.

I am doubtful if we would have such a wealth of branches in Zen Buddhism if the manifestations of Buddhism were protected and enforced by intellectual property rights after the time of the adventurous Bodhidharma, who went north to spread his ideas (Bodhidharma was not really infringing upon the intellectual property rights of Buddhism, even if there were any existent at the time, if he taught a special transmission outside scripture, as is said about him). Is remix the way to enlightenment?

IP Dragon Writes Book About Intellectual Property in China

Dear readers,

I am delighted to announce that I am writing a book for Oxford University Press about intellecual property rights in China. It will be published in 2010.

I thank all the (anonymous) peer reviewers that have given feedback to my book proposal.

Cheers,
Danny Friedmann

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

IP Dragon Wins Danwei's Olympic Model Worker Award 2008

IP Dragon is proud and happy to have received Danwei's Model Worker Award for 2008 ("the best of the China blogs"), in the category Law & Intellectual Property, for the second time in a row (2007). Only this time the award's name was changed into Olympic Model Worker 2008. The procedure was the same as in 2007: "The winners are chosen by Danwei's Central Committee; no voting or democracy of any kind is involved."

There are two more winners in the category Law & Intellectual Property. In 2007 it were only IP Dragon and China Law Blog, in 2008 the new recipients were Forgotten Achipelagoes and China Law Prof Blog.

Thanks Danwei.

US Customs Seizure Statistics 2008: "China number one, India number two and Hong Kong number three counterfeit producer"

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and U.S. Customs Enforcement divisions of Homeland Security gives some statistics about the numbers, characteristics and origins of counterfeit goods seized in the U.S. in 2008.
IPR seizures of goods from China rose 40 % by value in 2008. Footwear from China accounts for almost 96% of all IPR infringing footwear. "In 2008, China, India, and Hong Kong, the top three trading partners for IPR seizures overall, accounted for 94% of all IPR seizures of products posing potential safety or security risks." Read more about on the CBP.gov site here.

IPR seizures counterfeit products originating from:

  • 1. China $ 221.7 million (81 %);
  • 2. India $ 16.2 million (6 %);
  • 3. Hong Kong $ 13.4 million (5 %);
  • 4. Taiwan $ 2.6 million (1 %);
  • 5. South Korea $1 million (<1%).
Read more statistics here.

All Clichés But Still True: Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in China Leaves Room For Improvement

France24 reports in a 2 minutes 51 seconds video (from April 2008) about the rampant violations of IPR in China and the insufficient measures to tackle the problem. One big déjà vu all over again...

We see the familiar in this short video:

  • the inevitability of a visual spectacle of destruction of counterfeit DVDs;
  • a Chinese official determined to enforce IPRs (Mr Lin Binjie, Deputy Director, National Anti-Pornography and Anti-Illegal Publications Work Group);
  • Silk Street Market and some mini-interviews with pedestrians about fake products;
  • An IPR right holder, in this case Ms Fang Fang, Chief Representative of luxury goods producer Pierre Cardin China tells that she is called "tout les temps" by licensees that have found a counterfeiter and it is operating. Pierre Carin is then sending a legal team. Result: counterfeiting stops there, but the counterfeiters set up shop somewhere else;
  • James Zimmerman, Chairman American Chamber of Commerce in China says that intellectual property is not only important for foreigners but for Chinese in China as well;
  • then more images of hawkers and markets with counterfeit products emerge.

That was April 2008, Pre-Olympic Games. However, the question is whether the level of intellectual property enforcement is still as high in Beijing after the Olympic Games, let alone in China, because of the financial crisis.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Professor Daniel Gervais' New Book Includes: Confidential Interim Report DS 362

Who won the IPR dispute at the WTO between China and the U.S.? That was the name of my blog posting in October 2008 and gave some leaked information. But what does the official information say? According to WTO document WT/DS362/9, that can be found at the site of the WTO dedicated to DS 362 the Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties to the dispute by November 2008. After that IP Dragon understood that the final report would be ready somewhere in 2009.

I just got an email from Rogier Creemers who has recently started a PhD Research Project at Maastricht University concerning the political and legal side of copyright piracy in China, under the auspices of professor Kamperman Sanders. Sounds very interesting. Mr Creemers pointed me to 'TRIPs Agreement - Drafting History and Analysis', 3rd Edition, November 30, 2008, written by professor Daniel Gervais (Vanderbilt University Law School) in which the main conclusions of the Dispute Settlement Body confidential interim report concerning DS 362 can be found:

These conclusions look lapidary, however, they represent professor Gervais' version of the interim report, not the final report. I was already familiar with Daniel Gervais' 'TRIPs Agreement - Drafting History and Analysis, 2nd Edition and even 1st Edition (both at the excellent Library of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) and recommended by professor P. Bernt Hugenholtz). Updates of good books are important, indeed. Thank you Rogier Creemers.

Microsoft Anti-Piracy: Are Your Eyes Shining Because of China's IPR Enforcement Efforts or Shenzhen's Efforts?

Xinhua reported that the Shenzhen Futian Court on 7 January 2009 sentenced 11 people who violated Chinese criminal and copyright laws to make pirated Microsoft software and distribute copies to Australia, Canada, Germany, the United States and other countries.

Brad Luo of China Business Law Blog observes that the article generalises Shenzhen's success, which probably was influenced by the external pressure of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, to "China's sincerity in implementing intellectual property law enforcement". Besides, the case only involves Microsoft's software. Read Brad's article here.

Wang Jun , an IPR scholar at Fudan University said according to Xinhua: "Our eyes shone as we heard the verdicts. I and my fellow researchers sensed that China meant business this time." Despite the shining eyes, they continued to observe sharply: "However, as the verdicts were meted out at a local district court and Shenzhen took the lead in doing many things, further observation is needed to determine whether the case will be a 'milestone' for the country's intellectual property law enforcement," according to Wang.

Read the Xinhua article via China Daily here.

Japanese Companies Can Register Chinese Copyights in Japan: save 50 percent time

Copyright is an automatic right, which arises when it is created. (because of the 'no formalities provision' of the article 5 (2) Berne Convention). However you can register your copyright with China's National Copyright Administration, which can be helpful to establish prima face evidence, for example ownership. If companies outside China opted for registering their copyrights, they had to do so in Beijing. Until September 2008, there is a possibility for Japanese companies, to register Chinese copyrights in Tokyo.

".. Japanese companies jointly invested to establish the Golden Bridge Co. in September in Minato Ward, Tokyo," according to the Yomiuri Shimbun. Several Chinese lawyers will be dispatched at the Golden Bridge institute, to register and applications for lawsuits and mediation related to copyright in China, which will decrease the time needed for Japanese companies to register their Chinese copyrights from one month to two weeks.

In the future the institute will also register Chinese trademark rights and design patents.
Read the Yomiuri Shimbun article here.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Trademarks in China: Nomen Est Omen

Stan Abrams of China Hearsay fame blogged about why the car manufacturer SAIC choose for the name Roewe and how to pronounce that name. He contemplates that: "As a Chinese brand, the English name is of secondary importance. However, if you’re going to use the English brand prominently (and they do), you gotta give it some thought, especially if you want to be a major exporter."

Stan continues that it is peculiar that Roewe 荣威 is pronounced in Mandarin "rong wei", which sounds like the English words "wrong way". Read the China Hearsay article here.
Of course if you have a non-Chinese name and you want to sell your product to the Chinese market it is wise a translation/transliteration of your brand in at least Mandarin and/or Cantonese. Translation is possible if your name has a meaning too, for example Shell (the energy giant) means the external skeleton of a mollusc.
Let's say you are Shell Oil and you wants to sell your products in China, then you can do three things:
  • Register only your non-Chinese name, this is unwise, because it invites Chinese counterfeiters to jump into the vacuum;
  • Register also a translation of the meaning of the mark into Chinese, a so called conceptual translation. Shell, the energy provider, choose to translate the meaning of the external skeleton of a mollusc: 壳 shell you pronounce ke2 in Mandarin and hok3 in Cantonese; 牌 brand you pronounce pai2 in Mandarin and paai4 in Cantonese;
  • Another option is to register a transliterated or phonetic translated mark. This can be a great route, if you choose characters that correspond to the characteristics of the brand. Coca-cola transliterated its brand into "ke kou ke le", but then you have to find Chinese characters that fit to your brand: if you do not pay attention you can find Chinese characters that are pronounced in Mandarin as "ke kou ke le", but which mean: "female horse fastened with wax". However, the Coca-Cola company paid attention and came with the splendid result: 可 ke3 (approve) 口 kou3 (mouth) together means tasty, 可 ke3 (approve) 乐 le4 (joy) or in the words of Marc Garnaut "permitting the mouth to rejoice".

After you choose between these options or a combination thereof, you have to decide whether you want to register traditional Chinese characters (used in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan) or simplified Chinese characters (used in People's Republic of China and Singapore).

More about the trademarks and the special challenges in translation/transliteration of non-Chinese words into Chinese characters can be found in the powerpoint presentation of Paul Jones, of Toronto-based law firm Jones & Co., pages 18-31. The white paper of Marc Garnaut of Spark Media Lab is also about translating logos and brands into Chinese for the Chinese market, here.

Does China Export In Violation of License EU Train Technology Back To Europe?

Mr Philippe Mellier, CEO of Alstom Transport, the second manufacturer (after Bombardier Transportation) of high-speed trains, locomotives and metro cars, is calling on countries for a boycot of Chinese trains according to the Financial Times, here. In an interview Mr Mellier said that
  • China was closing its domestic market;
  • Chinese companies export trains that use foreign technologies.
The Associated Press said that the Financial Times suggested that these exports could be in violation of licensing agreements. Read here.

The spokesman of China's railway ministry Mr Wang Yongping has denied the allegations.

Mr Wang said that that Chinese companies paid foreign firms money for learning how to develop trains with average speeds of 300 kilometers per hour, but that China's new generation of high-speed trains which travel at 350 kilometers per hour were completely homegrown.

"This is the innovative results of our wholly owned intellectual property and there's no stealing of Western technology, " Mr Wang said according to Associated Press, read here.

France24's Owen Fairclough talks about it here in English: Don't buy Chinese trains, says Alstom Transport boss and his colleague Sébastien le Belzic in French, Alstom prône le boycott des trains "made in China".

Siemens, the number three high-spreed train manufacturer, has also problems with China,

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Well Known and Less Known Aspects Of Well-Known Marks

In the USTR 2008 Report to Congress on China's WTO compliance on page 4, one can read the following remarkable sentence:
"...the promotion of famous Chinese brands of merchandise using what appear to be prohibited forms of financial support, ..."

So it appears to be a prohibited form of financial support, but the USTR is not totally sure about it? First China was encouraged to protect well-known marks, and now that they do...? What is happening?

The USTR alleges that China subsidises Chinese "famous brands" by

  • including cash grant rewards for exporting;
  • preferential loans for exporters;
  • research and development funding to develop new products for export;
  • and payments to lower the cost of export credit insurance.

Hui Boyang, deputy director of the quality management department of the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, denies the claim. Read the Xinhua article by editor Sun here. Stan Abrams of China Hearsay has a nice blog 'There Are No Coincidences - trade edition', about the coincidence of the expiration of the textile deal between the U.S. and China and this new allegation.

What are famous brands or well-known marks?

Intellectual Property Rights has two pillars

  • Copyrights regulated by the Berne Convention, which come into existence without any formalities at the moment of creation of a work;
  • Industrial rights (also called "registered rights"), regulated by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, and which, generally, need to be registered before they are protected.

Well-Known Mark Exception To Second Pillar (the European Community has another exception, the unregistered Community Design right)

However, article 6bis Paris Convention prescribes to its members "to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use, of a trademark which constitutes a reproduction, an imitation, or a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well known in that country as being already the mark of a person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods." So this means that marks that are well-known in a country are protected, whether they are registrated or not. Registration of these well-known marks has its advantage, as we will see below.

In December 2008 I mentioned that I would come back to Brad Luo and Shubha Ghosh's paper 'Protection and Enforcement of Well-Known Mark Rights in China: History, Theory and Future' (74 pages PDF) after finishing reading it. As I already expected it is a great paper.

Article 13 Trademark Law 2001 PR of China stipulates:

Where a trademark in respect of which the application for registration is filed for use for identical or similar goods is a reproduction, imitation or translation of another person's trademark not registered in China and likely to cause confusion, it shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.

Where a trademark in respect of which the application for registration is filed fdr use for non-identical or dissimilar goods is a reproduction, imitation or translation of the well-known mark of another person that has been registered in China, misleads the pub1ic and is likely to create prejudice to the interests of the well-known mark registrant, it shall be rejected for registration and prohibited from use.

Take note that transliteration is not mentioned as ground for to oppose registration or prohibit use of a mark.

Messrs Luo and Ghosh explain the advantage of registering your mark as a well-known mark in China: "the owner of the mark can exclude others from registering or using the mark, may it be reproduction, copying or translation, in goods of all types, similar or dissimilar, identical or non-identical. If a mark is unregistered and has been deemed as well-known in china, the owner can still avail itself of the accompanying protection by preventing the use or registration in similar or identical categories of goods. Notably, the 2001 CTL gives equal treatment and protection to owners of service marks and trademarks. Furthermore, the owner of a registered mark has the right to oppose the unauthorized registration and use of the mark by its agent or representative, thus enjoying an added protection for the owner where the agency relationship goes sour."

I could add that it is always good to have a mark registered in a country, including China, so that this factor may be taken into account when you want your mark be recognised as a well-known mark in another country. See in the joint recommendation below how this works:

The Standing Committe on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) has adopted a joint recommendation pages 1-12 (pdf) concerning provisions on the protection of well-known marks (June 7-11, 1999), which on its turn was adopted at a joint session of the Assembly of the Paris Union for the Protection of Industrial Property and the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (September 20-29, 1999). The provisions on the protection of well-known marks do apply to conflicting marks, business identifiers and domain names, but not to geographical indicatitions nor appellations of origin.The International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) made some explanatory notes pages 13-20 (pdf) about the joint recommendation. the SCT has agreed that the notes will not be submitted for adoption by the Assembly of the Paris Union and the WIPO General Assembly. In cases of conflicts between the provisions and the notes, the provisions would prevail (paragraph 17 document SCT/2/5).

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

USTR in 2008 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance: Still Not Satisfied After All These Years

One of the priority issues in the 115 page 2008 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, released by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in December is, unsurprisingly, the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. Below you will find a selection of the USTR report which shows where China has room for improvement:

Pg 3. "In two other WTO cases, a challenge to key aspects to China's IPR enforcement regime, along with a challenge to market access restrictions affecting the importation and distribution of copyrighted-intensive products such as books, newspapers, journals, theatrical films, DVDs and music, ..."
More surprisingly, however, is the statement in bold:
Pg 4. "..., including the setting of unique Chinese national standards, the tremendous expansion of the test market for China's homegrown 3G telecommunications standard, China's government procurement practices, an array of policies promoting and protecting "pillar industries,", the promotion of famous Chinese brands of merchandise using what appear to be prohibited forms of financial support, ..." Read IP Dragon's 'Well known and Less Known Aspects of Well-Known Marks.
IP Dragon has dealt with the subject of China's homegrown 3G standard and hopes to interview the government procurement in China specialist and president of the China-Mekong Law Center professor Daniel Mitterhof about the intellectual property in China aspects, this year. After some compliments to China steps to protect IPRs the USTR writes:
Pg 4. "However, some critical reforms are still needed in a few areas, such as further improvement of China's measures for copyright protection on the Internet following China's notable accession to the World Intellectual Property Rights Organization (WIPO) Internet treaties, .and correction of continuing deficiencies in China's criminal measures."
Pg 5. "In addition, effective enforcement of China's IPR laws and regulations remains a significant challenge. Despite repeated anti-pirated campaigns in China and an increasing number of civil IPR cases in Chinese courts, counterfeiting and piracy remain at unacceptably high levels and continue to cause serious harm to US businesses accross many sectors of the economy."

To measure whether China's enforcement of intellectual property rights improves IP Dragon has proposed the use of the Enforcement/Infringement ratio.
Pg 5. "The United States also continued to prosecute a WTO case challenging specific deficiencies in China's legal regime for protecting and enforcing copyrights and trademarks. Following the establishment of a WTO panel last year to hear the case, 12 WTO members joined in as third parties. Proceedings before the panel took place in April and June 2008, and the panel is expected to make its decision public in 2009."
Pg 72. "For example, one major weakness is China's chronic underutilization of deterrent criminal remedies. In particular, legal measures in China that establish high thresholds for criminal investigation, prosecution and conviction preclude criminal remedies in many instances of commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy, creating a "safe-harbor" for infringers and raising concerns that China may not be complying with its obligations under the TRIPs Agreement."
Pg. 74. "..more work is needed at b the national level and the provincial level to meet the challenges of Internet piracy and fully implement the WIPO Internet treaties."
Pg 75. "...the lack of criminal liability for certain acts of copyright infringement, the profit motive requirement of identical trademarks in counterfeiting cases, and the absence of minimum, proportional sentences and clear standards of initiation of police investigations in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity."

Pg 76. "...China could clarify that certain Internet "deep linking" and other services that effectively encourage or induce infringement are unlawful."
Pg 76. "Disposal of confiscated goods remains a problem under the implementing rules, which appear to mandate auction following removal of infringing features, rather than destruction of infringing goods not purchased by the right holder or used for public welfare."

Pg 76. "The United States also remains concerned about a variety of weaknesses in China's legal framework that do not effectively deter, and may even encourage, certain types of infringing activity, such as "squatting" of foreign company names, designs and trademarks, the theft of trade secrets, the registration of other companies' trademarks as design patents and vice versa, the use of falsified or misleading license documents or company documentation to creat the appearance of legitimacy in counterfeiting operations, and false indications of geographic origin of products."

Pg 76. "The United States has urged China to provide greater protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test and other data submitted by foreign pharmaceuticals companies seeking marketing approval for their products. The United States has also encouraged China to undertake a more robust system of patent linkage and to consider the adoption of a system of patent term restoration. In addition, built-in delays in China's marketing approval system for pharmaceuticals continue to create incentives for counterfeiting, as does China's inadequate regulatory oversight of the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients by domestic chemical manufacturers."

Conform the conclusion of my thesis, the USTR points to some extra-judicial factors that influence the enforcement of IPR negatively:

Pg 77. "IPR enforcement is hampered by lack of coordination among Chinese government ministries and agencies, lack of training, resource constraints, lack of transparency in the enforcement process and its outcomes, and local protectionism and corruption."

Pg. 77. "Trade in pirated optical discs continues to thrive, supplied by both licensed and unlicensed factories and by smugglers. Small retail shops continue to be the major commercial outlets for pirated movies and music (and a variety of counterfeit goods). Piracy of books and journals and end user piracy of business software also remain key concerns, although improvements have been seen in business software piracy rates, as discussed above. In addition, Internet piracy is increasing, as is piracy over enclosed networks such as universities."

Pg. 77. "...right holders have monitored China's efforts and report little meaningful improvement in piracy of pre-release titles in several major cities."

Appendix 3 shows a fact sheet of the 18th US-China Commission on Commerce and Trade Meeting, December 11, 2007, was given:

It states about Intellectual Property Rights:

  • China reported on steps it has taken since the previous JCCT meeting in April 2006 to improve protection of intellectual property rights in China, including accession to the WIPO internet treaties, a crackdown on the sale of computers not pre-loaded with legitimate software, enforcement efforts against counterfeit textbooks and treaching materials, and joint enforcement raids conduct by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Chinese security agencies.
  • China and the United States agreed to exchange information on customs seizures of counterfeit goods in order to further focus China's enforcement resources on companies exporting such goods.
  • China agreed to strenghten enforcement of laws against company name misuse, a practice in which some Chinese companies have registered legitimate US trademarks and trade names without legal authority to do so. The two sides also agreed to cooperate on case-by-case enforcement against such company name misuse.

Appendix 4 shows a fact sheet of the 19th US-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade Meeting, September 16, 2008.

It states about Intellectual Property Rights:

  • China and the United States noted the importance of ongoing dialogue and cooperative efforts taking place under the JCCT IPR Working Group, which met September 4-5 in Beijing, and agreed to hold regular meetings of the IPR Working Group in the future.
  • China and the United States agreed to continue pursuing cooperative activities in addition to formal meetings of the IPR Working Group, on such issues as: IPR and innovation, including China's development of guidelines on IPR and standards; public-private discussions on copyright and internet piracy challenges, including infringement on user-generated content sites; reducing the sale of pirated and counterfeit goods at wholesale and retail markets; and other issues of mutual interest.
  • China and the United States welcomed plans to conduct further cooperative meetings between responsible officials regarding: China's patent law amendments now under consideration in the National People's Congress; pharmaceutical data protection; and the Memorandum of Cooperation on Strenghened Cooperation in Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights.
  • China and the United States agreed to sign two IPR memoranda of understanding (MOUs) on strategic cooperation to improve the administration and effectiveness of copyright and trademark protection and enforcement, as soon as possible but no later than the end of 2008. The MOUs will be signed between the US Patent and Trademark Office, the US Copyright Office, China's National Copyright Administration and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Slow As A Turtle? Copyright Protection Expiration in China: Lifetime Plus Fifty

IP Dragon's feline friend has an interesting post December 31, 2008, about the expired protection of copyrights for authors that died seventy years ago, including the painter Wang Zhen (1867-1938), read Mr Jeremy Phillips' article for IP Kat here.

According to article 20 Copyright Law PR of China the rights of authorship, alteration and integrity of an author shall be unlimited in time. Then again, the term of protection for the right of publication and rights referred to in article 10 (5) Copyright Law PR of China (the right of showing, that is, the right to show to the public a work, of fine art, photography, cinematography and any work created by analogous methods of film production through film projectors, over-head projectors or any other technical devices) and 10 (17) Copyright Law PR of China (any other rights a copyright owner is entitled to enjoy) was already expired after the lifetime of the author and fifty years, according article 21 Copyright Law PR of China.

If Wang Zhen's paintings are in a country with a copyright protection of the lifetime of the author plus seventy years, and if this country is a member of the Berne Convention, it has to comply to the national treatment requirement (article 5(1) Berne Convention), which means that this member state has to treat the nationals of every other member state at least as favourably as its own. Article 7 Berne Convention and article 12 TRIPs, however, obligate their respective member states to protect copyright for fifty years. The People's Republic of China acceded to the Berne Convention in 1992 and TRIPs in 2001.

EU Experience and Practice Must Show China The Way Concerning IPR Protection At Exhibitions

It is crucial for companies to showcase their new products to the world at trade fairs and exhibitions. Hower, these places welcome potential customers but also IPR infringers.

To make the bonafide exhibitors less vulnerable to IPR infringements and deal with the IPR infringers that also have come to the trade fairs, the IPR2 (EU-China Project on Protecting Intellectual Property Rights, 10.85 million euro provided by the EU and 5.425 million euro by China) has written a 36 page study that must show the way to the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Commerce of China on 'How to Protect Your Intellectual Property at Trade Fairs', based on the experience and practice of France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, see pdf here.

Negative peculiarities in IPR protection during exhibitions mentioned in the study are:

  • Timing; because of the short period it can be hard to execute an ex parte order;
  • There can be a lack of availability of experts;
  • Risk of double prejudice for both the IPR owner and alleged infringer.

The study comes up with the following positive peculiarities in IPR protection during exhibitions:

  • Move evidence available;
  • An extra jurisdiction option;
  • Deterring effect, because of the public perception of an intervention.

The study was written by:
Jean-Frédéric Gaultier (Clifford Chance, France);
Reinhardt Schuster (Bardehle Pragenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler, Germany)
Giovanni Casucci (Casucci Studio Legale, Italy) who also coordinated the study;
Montserrat Lopez-Bellosta (Clifford Chance, Spain);
Carlos Rivadulla (Clifford Chance, Spain);
Johannes Jabocus Brinkhof (Brinkhof, the Netherlands);
Philippe Azzola ( Philippe P. Azzola, Switzerland).

A condensed version of the study was provided to some 200 companies in a training run by the Ministry of Commerce at China's most important trade fair, 104th China Import and Export Fair in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province (15-19 Oct; 24-28 Oct and 2-6 Nov 2008).

The report came a year after a EU-China Seminar on the Protection of IPR at Trade Fairs in Beijing and Shenzhen in November 2007. IPR2 supported a study tour by MOFCOM officials to Paris, France; Berlin, Hannover, Germany and Milan, Italy in November 2008 to assess the methods and practices employed at several of the largest European trade fairs. Read more about the study tour here.

The Protection Measures for Intellectual Property Rights during Exhibitions of the People's Republic of China, formulated according to the Foreign Trade Law of the PR China, Patent Law of the PR China, Trademark Law of the PR China, Copyright Law of the PR China and relevant administrative regulations, however, is already in force since 2006, see here.

UPDATE: The powerpoint presentation 'Stakeholder briefing www.ipr2.org, March 6, 2009, can be seen here.

Comparison Between The IPR in China Relevant Provisions Of the Foreign Trade Law 2004 and 1994

I have just added links to the Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China 1994 and 2004 on IP Dragon's blogroll ( under "IPR in China Laws and Regulations").

The IPR relevant article 6 Foreign Trade Law 1994 is almost identical to article 6 Foreign Trade Law 2004 (most favoured nation treatment and national treatment because of articles 4 and 4 TRIPs, respectively, before 2001 because of article 5 (1) Berne and aricle 3 Paris Conventions)

Article 14 Foreign Trade Law 1994 is similar to article 13 Foreign Trade Law 2004 (the departments that get information from the foreign trade operaters should keep business secrets to themselves, see pages 15-16 Thesis).

Article 27 (2) Foreign Trade Law of 1994 prohibits explicitly infringing upon intellectual property rights and article 27 (5) Foreign Trade Law 1994 "other acts violating laws or administrative rules and regulations" can also be used to base a prohibition against IPR infringement.

It can be concluded from article 14 Foreign Trade Law of 2004 that import and export of goods is not free if law or administrative regulation provides otherwise.
Different from Foreign Trade Law 1994 is that Chapter V of the 2004 amendment is dedicated to Foreign-trade-related Intellectual Property Protection. Article 29 Foreign Trade Law 2004 includes: "Where any of the import goods violates any intellectual property right and, at the same time, endangers the foreign trade order, the foreign trade department of the State Council may take such measures as prohibiting the import of the relevant goods that the infringer has produced or sold for a certain period of time." No word about export goods that violate IPRs. This is in compliance with TRIPs, since article 51 TRIPs only obligates that WTO members shall adopt procedures to enable a right holder that has valid grounds that counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods import may take place, to lodge an application. Article 2 Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Customs Protection of IPRs 2003, however, goes beyond this obligation and applies to both import and export.

Article 30 Foreign Trade Law 2004 is to give the foreign trade department of the State Council the legitimacy to take measures in case of an IP right holder that hinders the licensee from questioning the validity of the IPR involved in the license agreements, conducting forced package license or providing exclusive selling back conditions in the license agreement, etc.
Picture: threecee