Friday, July 10, 2009

EU Customs Report 2008 About IPR Enforcement Activities not IPR Infringements from China

Yesterday the European Commission Directorate-General Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD) published the 'Report on EU Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. Results at the European Border 2008'.

On page 9 we find a crucial alinea, which disclaims the scope the report:

"Although the overall amount of IPR infringing goods entering or leaving the EU cannot be
ascertained from these figures, or whether the problem is growing, the figures do show that IPR
enforcement continues to be a priority for customs authorities in the EU."

Of course it would be interesting to know whether the IPR infringements that originate from China were growing or decreasing. That was the very reason why I devised theEnforcement/Infringement Ratio, see here.

The report states that 80 percent of the cases concerned seizures that were requested by the right holder and that 20 percent of the cases were done on the initiative of customs (ex-officio). So the number of cases and articles detained and the percentages of the countries of origin and provenance were all these products come from are interesting, but only show the perception of the right holders and customs of the goods that are suspected of infringing IPRs. A few times in the report the distinction is not made between seized goods that may or may not infringe IPRs and goods that actually do infringe IPRs.

Read the report here.

Thank you Rogier Creemers for pointing out to me the report.

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Fake iPhones: Rip-off or Innovation

iPhone in relation to China is in the news again. Stan Abrams of China Hearsay wrote about the alleged looming problems with Apple's iPhone trademark in China, see here. And then I was interviewed by Sophie Pilgrim of France 24, the French BBC so to say, about a video by MacMedics and about iPhones, counterfeiting and what you can do about it.

However, the third point I make about what to do against counterfeiting was not: "Get a strong legal team. This isn’t very useful in China, though, where foreign companies are afraid of saying anything because they want to continue investing in the country, since it’s very cheap to manufacture there."

It must be:

"Register your IPR's (or so you will get a strong legal team). But you need to be willing to litigate. Some foreign companies are afraid of saying anything because they don't want to jeopardise their investments in the country, and they want to keep on manufacturing there, since it is still relatively cheap."

You can check out the interview here.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

May You Live In Interesting Times Online: Does China's Green Dam Includes Pirated Code?

May you live in interesting times on the Chinese internet: pre-installed filtering technology which is used to censor, a passionate opinion against it supported by a massive internet survey, and last but not least the very filtering software might be qualified as copyright infringement.
Of course I am talking about Green Dam: China wants its citizens to use pre-installed filtering software to avoid that they will be exposed to pornography and I assume also to texts that include words deemed a threat to the Chinese government. This censorship method China called Green Dam. Alexa Olesen of the Associated Press quoted an anonymous Chinese official saying that Green Dam is not compulsory, see here. However, I guess not pre-installing Green Wall might not be conducive for computer manufacturers that want to sell in China. Then again, Chen Weihua, reported in an unprecedented frank way 'Let's not allow the Green Dam software to block our way into the future' on China Daily about an opinion poll on Sina.com, which showed that 90 percent of the people polled will not use Green Dam, read here. By the way: to stop all unwelcome information is not feasible for any government; the higher the dam the more forceful the water will stream out through the cracks.

Now, US software maker Solid Oak Software has sent cease and desist letters to computer manufacturers Dell and Hewlett-Packard, because it alleges that the Green Wall software includes code of which the graphical user interface (GUI) has the same look and feel as Solid Oak's Cybersitter software, which would constitute copyright infringement.

Isn't it ironical that the filtering software that could be used (maybe with different technology) against copyright infringements itself might be pirated?
Read Mark Hachman's article for PCMAG.com, which links to many relevant PCMag.com articles about the same subject.

UPDATE
I was linking the expression 'May you live in interesting times' to the Wikipedia page about it. This is what Charles R. Stone has to say about it. Thanks Charles.

Charles R. Stone: "My vote for a possible Chinese origin for "May you live in interesting times," if indeed we should be looking for a Chinese source, is: 多事之秋。It's found a few times in classical histories and Ming dynasty novels, as a Google search will show. (Insert pages of footnotes.) The problem, of course, is that it's not used as an imprecation in these sources. It figuratively means something like "a season of much trouble." The step to "may you live in a season of much trouble," or "may you live in interesting times," is not a big one. In any event, it seems more plausible than "It's better to be a dog in a peaceful time than be a man in a chaotic period" as the Wikipedia link speculates."

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Supreme People's Court of China: "Current Economic Situation Makes Granting IPR Injunctions More Difficult"

December 2008, I dealt with the 'Influence of the Financial Crisis on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property in China'. In this post I wrote:

In China there are still villages dependent on the production of counterfeit and pirated goods. The incentive for the Chinese government to enforce intellectual property and make these people de facto unemployed and thus prone to protest is not very likely. The Chinese government might temporarily look the other way when it comes to intellectual property infringement.

Well, the Chinese Supreme People's Court does not look the other way: they came up with an opinion (Opinion on Certain Issues with Respect to Intellectual Property Judicial Adjudication Under the Current Economic Situation) that says for example that courts should consider other measures than injunctions in case an injunction would run counter to the public interest.

This this not contravene China's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs): Articles 7 and 8 TRIPs, taken together may provide, "a basis for seeking waivers to meet unforeseen conditions of hardship," J.H. Reichman, The TRIPs Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries, 32 Case W. Res. J. International Law, 2000, pp. 441 and 461.

Drastic times call for drastic measures, what do you think? And how temporary is the Opinion?

Read Peter Ollier's article about the opinion at Managing Intellectual Property Magazine here.

Sino-Japanese IPR Memorandum of Understanding: What Does It All Mean?

Although the text of the IPR MOU between China and Japan is not available, Adam Smith of the World Trademark Review tried to make sense of it all and prognose what the results will be of the negotiations/cooperations and asked yours truly in the process.

Read Mr Smith's article 'China and Japan sign IP rights cooperation agreement' here.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules (2009)

The Administrative Punishment Rules for Copyright Infringement were recently updated and will take effect June 15, 2009. Rogier Creemers, Ph.D. Researcher at Maastricht University (the Netherlands) who already obtained a Master's degree in Sinology from the University of Leuven (Belgium), sent me an email with these rules translated by him into English.

In addition Mr Creemers gives some highlights of the rules:
"- the regulations now include guidelines and a legal basis on how to deal with on-line piracy;
- the "grave circumstances" threshold present in Article 31 have been drastically lowered, and no distinction is made anymore between individual acts and work unit acts;
- the 2003 version predominantly attacted "infringing duplications" (fuzhipin). This has been changed in these rules (except in Art. 19), and replaced by "infringing products" which are defined as infringing duplications and works passed off as signed by another person (Art. 41)."

Thank you Rogier for this splendid translation.

Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rule

The National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China decrees

No. 6

The “Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules”, were passed in the 1st department meeting of the National Copyright Administration on 21 April 2009, and will take effect on 15 June 2009.

Translatation: Rogier Creemers

National Copyright Administration Director: Liu Binjie

7 May 2009

Article 1: In order to standardise the administrative punishment actions of the administrative management entities for copyright, protect the lawful rights of citizens, legal persons and other groups, according to the "Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter abbreviated as "Administrative Punishment Law", the "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter abbreviated as "Copyright Law" and other relevant laws, administrative regulations, these rules are established.

Article 2: The National Copyright Agency as well as the relevant entities within local governments enjoying copyright enforcement rights (hereinafter abbreviated as copyright administrative management entities), in the statutory scope of their official powers, implement punishment actions against unlawful acts as listed in these rules. If other laws or regulations provide otherwise, those provisions shall be followed.

Article 3: Unlawful acts as named in these rules refers to:

(1) Infringing acts as listed in Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which at the same time damage public interest;

(2) Infringing acts as listed un Article 24 of the "Regulations on Computer Software Protection", which at the same time damage public interest;
(3)
Infringing acts as listed under Article 18 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights" if they damage the public interest at the same time; infringing acts as listed under Articles 19 and 25;
(4)
Acts requiring administrative punishment under the provisions of Articles 41 and 44 of the "Regulations on Collective Management of Copyright;

(5) Unlawful copyright acts, which should receive administrative punishment under the provisions of other laws, regulations and rules.

Article 4: Concerning unlawful acts as listed in these rules, the copyright management administrative entities may, in accordance with the law, order cessation of the infringing activity, and mete out the following administrative punishments:

(1) warnings;
(2) fines;
(3) confiscation of illicit profits;
(4) confiscation of infringing products;
(5) confiscation of equipment for installing and stockpiling infringing products;
(6) confiscating of materials, tools and equipment mainly used in producing infringing products;
(7) other administrative punishments under the provisions of laws, administrative rules and regulations.

Chapter 2: Jurisdiction and application

Article 5: The unlawful acts as listed in these rules will be investigated and prosecuted by the copyright administrative management entities of the locality of the infringing act, the locality of the manifestation of the result of infringement, the locality of the storage of infringing products or the locality of lawful sealing or detaining. Except if other laws or regulations provide otherwise.

Investigation and prosecution of unlawful acts of infringements of dissemination rights over information networks will be the responsibility of the copyright administrative management entity of the location of the infringer, the location of the network service machines and other equipment effecting the infringing activity or the location of registry of the website. 

Article 6: The National Copyright Agency may investigate and prosecute unlawful acts of significant influence in the entire country, as well as other unlawful acts it considers it should investigate and prosecute. Local copyright administrative management entities are responsible for investigation and prosecution of unlawful acts occurring in the area under their jurisdiction.

Article 7: When two or more local copyright administrative management entities have jurisdiction over the same unlawful act, the copyright administrative management unit who was first in filing the case is responsible for investigation and prosecution of the unlawful act.

If disputes between local copyright administrative management entities occur because of jurisdiction, or if jurisdiction is not specified, a compromise solution will be worked out by both parties in the dispute; if a compromise solution cannot be reached, their common copyright administrative management entity of one level higher will be petitioned to assign jurisdiction, their common copyright administrative management entity of one level higher may also directly assign jurisdiction.

Higher level copyright administrative management entities may, if this is necessary, deal with cases of significant influence in the jurisdiction of lower level copyright administrative management entities, they may also hand over cases in their jurisdiction to lower level copyright administrative management entities to deal with; if lower level copyright administrative management entities believe that the case details of cases in their jurisdiction are significant or complex, and need to be dealt with by higher level copyright administrative management entities, they may petition the copyright administrative entity of one level higher to deal with the case.

Article 8: Unlawful acts found out, investigated and prosecuted by copyright administrative management entities, if suspected to constitute a crime under the provisions of the criminal laws of our country, should be transferred by that copyright administrative management entity to the judiciary in accordance with the "Regulations on Administrative Enforcement Bodies' Transfer of Suspected Criminal Cases".

Article 9: The period of effectiveness of administrative punishments issued by copyright administrative management entities is two years, calculation starting from the date of occurrence of the unlawful act. If the unlawful act is of successive or continuous nature, calculation will start from the ending of the unlawful act. If infringing products are still being distributed, or dissemination on a website still continues, it shall be considered as still continuing unlawful acts.

If unlawful acts are not found out within two years, they will no more be punished administratively. Except when other laws provide otherwise.

Chapter 3: Punishment procedure

Article 10: Apart from circumstances in which the Administrative Punishment Law provides the use of the simplified procedure, administrative copyright punishment shall use the normal procedure provided in the Administrative Punishment Law.

Article 11: The copyright administrative management entity using the normal procedure to investigate and prosecute unlawful acts, should register the case.

Towards unlawful acts as outlined in these rules, copyright administrative management entities may by themselves decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution, or can decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution based on materials transferred from relevant entities, they may also decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution based on the written request or report of persons of which the rights were infringed, persons concerned, or other insiders.

Article 12: The requesting person applying for the filing of a case for investigation and prosecution on the basis of unlawful acts as listed in these rules, should submit a letter of application, proof or rights, infringed goods (or products) as well as other evidence.

The letter of application should illustrate the name and surname (or organization name) and address of the party as well as the main facts and reasons for application for filing a case for investigation and prosecution.

If the requesting person entrusts a procurator to apply, the procurator should show a trust deed.

Article 13: The copyright administrative management entities should within 15 days of receiving all written request materials decide whether or not to accept and hear a case and inform the requesting person. If acceptance and hearing would not be granted, reasons should be informed in written form.

Article 14: At the time of filing of a case, a case file examination and approval form should be filled out, at the same time the relevant materials, including written request or report materials; the relevant materials of a case transferred by a higher level copyright administrative management entity or a relevant entity, the inspection reports of law enforcement officers etc. should be enclosed, and examined and approved by the responsible person of this entity, two or more case-handling staff are to be appointed to carry out investigation and processing.

If case-handling staff is concerned with the cases, they should withdraw themselves, if they do not withdraw, the parties may request their withdrawal. Withdrawal of case-handling staff must be examined and approved by the responsible person of this entity. The withdrawal of a responsible person should be examined and approved by the People's Government of this level.

Article 15: When law enforcement officers in the process of enforcement find out that unlawful acts are in the process of being committed, and if the circumstances are so critical that there is not time to file a case, they may take the following measures:

(1) Cease or correct the unlawful acts

(2) Put infringing products and materials, tools, equipment etc. used mainly for unlawful acts in advance registered storage

(3) Gather and collect other relevant evidence.

Law enforcement officers should promptly report relevant circumstances and materials to the copyright administrative management entity in charge, and conduct case filing formalities within seven days of discovery of the circumstances.

Art. 16: After the filing of the case, the case-handling staff should promptly carry out investigations, and demand the person with statutory burden of proof to put his proof within the time limit appointed by the copyright administrative management entities.

The case-handling staff, when collecting evidence, may adopt the following means to collect and gather relevant evidence:

(1) Consulting, duplication of document records, account books and other written materials relevant to the suspected unlawful acts;

(2) Collect samples of evidence of suspected infringing products;

(3) Put suspected infringing products, equipment for installing and stockpiling infringing products; suspected infringing websites and web pages, suspected infringing website service machines and materials, tools and equipment mainly used in unlawful acts in advance registered storage.

Art. 17: The case-handling staff should, during enforcement, show to the party or relevant persons their administrative enforcement credentials issued by the National Copyright Administration or local People's Government.

Art. 18: Evidence collected during the handling of the case include:

(1) documented evidence;

(2) material evidence;

(3) witness testimonies;

(4) audiovisual material;

(5) statements of the parties;

(6) authenticated conclusions

(7) records of spot inspections and checks

Article 19: Copyright-related manuscripts, master copies, lawful publications, work registry certificates, copyright contract registry certificates, proof provided by authentication organs, contracts of acquisition of rights, as well as infringing reproductions obtained by way of ordering, buying on the spot etc., by the parties or their entrusted persons and acquired objects, invoices etc, may act as evidence.

Art. 20: When the case-handling staff sample and collect evidence, and put relevant evidence in advance registered storage, they should have the party present. Concerning relevant goods, they should issue on the spot a double duplicate of a manufacturing statement, which should, after it is signed or stamped by the case-handling staff and the party, given respectively by the party and the case-handling staff to the local copyright administrative management entity for preservation. If the party is not present or refuses to sign or stamp, this circumstances shall be noted by two or more case-handling staff.

Article 21: When putting relevant evidence in advance registered storage, case-handling staff should obtain permission from the responsible person of this entity, and should hand over to the party an evidence advanced storage notice. The party or relevant person may not transfer or destroy relevant evidence during the period of evidence storage.

Evidence in advance registered storage, should be sealed with advanced registered storage strips of the copyright administrative management entity, and preserved on the spot by the party. If evidence in advance registered storage really needs to be moved to another location, it may be moved to a suitable location for storage. If the circumstances are so critical that there is no time to perform the formalities provided in these rules, the case-handling staff may adopt advance measures, and afterwards promptly complete formalities.

Art. 22 (Steps after advanced registered storage) Concerning evidence in advanced registered storage, one of the listed decisions should be made within 7 days of handing over the evidence advanced registered storage notice:

(1) If authentication is needed, it should be delivered for authentication;

(2) If unlawful facts are established, and if confiscation should happen, the confiscation procedure should occur according to law;

(3) If transfer to a relevant entity is necessary, the case together with the evidence will be transferred to the relevant entity;

(4) If unlawful facts are not established, or if confiscation should not happen according to the law, measures should be taken to release registered storage;

(5) Other related statutory measures.

Art. 23 (Entrusted investigation) When, during the process of case investigation, the copyright administrative management entities entrust other copyright administrative management entities to perform investigations on their behalf, they should issue a trust deed. The copyright administrative management entity that is entrusted should give vigorous assistance.

Art. 24 (Expert appraisal) For questions of a technical nature arising during the investigation and prosecution, the copyright administrative management entity may entrust special agencies or engage expert personnel to carry out appraisal.

Art. 25 (Investigation report) After the final stage of the investigation, the case-handling staff should submit a case investigation report, explaining whether the relevant activities violate the law or not, and putting forward suggestions for process, and relevant facts, grounds and basis, as well as including the complete evidence materials.

Art. 26 (Notification of the parties) When the copyright administrative management entity has drafted an administrative punishment decision, the person in charge of that entity should sign an issue an administrative punishment advance notice, informing the parties on the facts, grounds and basis of the drafted administrative punishment decision, as well as informing the parties on their rights of declaration, right of defence and other rights.

The administrative punishment advance notice should be delivered directly to the parties by the copyright administrative management entity, the parties should sign or stamp the delivery form. If parties refuse to sign for receipt, the situation should be noted clearly by the delivery personnel, the documents to be delivered should be left at the domicile receiving the delivery personnel, and the person in charge of the relevant entity should be informed. The copyright administrative management entity may also adopt postal delivery methods to inform the parties. If there is no way to find the parties, they may notify by public proclamation.

Article 27: If the parties wish to make a statement or a pleading, they should raise their statement or pleading, as well as the relevant facts, reasons and evidence before the copyright administrative management entity within seven days after notification of the defendant, or within 30 days of the day of issuance of the announcement. If the parties did not exercise their right statement or pleading within this period, they will be regarded as having renounced the right.

If the direct delivery method is used for notification, the day of receipt and signing of the party is used as the day of notification of the defendant, if the postal delivery method is used for notification, the day of receipt as indicated on the receipt slip is used as the day of notification of the defendant.

Article 28: The case-handling staff should fully listen to the statements and pleadings of the parties, carry out a review of the facts, reasons and evidence raised by the parties, and submit a review report.

The copyright administrative management entity may not increase punishment because of pleading by the parties.

Article 29: The responsible person of the copyright administrative management entity should carry out an examination of the case investigation report and the review report and respectively make the following processing decisions on the basis of the investigation results:

(1) if an unlawful act that should be punished administratively truly exists, administrative punishment should be meted out according to the level of the fault of the infringer, the duration of the infringement, the size of the scope of infringement, the consequence of the damage and other circumstances;

(2) if the unlawful act is trivial, administrative punishment may not be meted out;

(3) if unlawful facts are not established, no administrative punishment will be meted out;

(4) if the unlawful acts are suspected to constitute a crime, it will be transferred to the judiciary.

Relatively heavy administrative punishment will be meted out against unlawful acts of which the circumstances are complicated or which are significant, this will be decided by collective discussion of the responsible persons of the copyright administrative management entity.

Article 30: When the copyright administrative management entity decides to impose a fine, the amount of the fine will be fixed according to the provisions of Article 36 of the "Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China", Article 24 of the "Regulations for the Protection of Computer Software" and Articles 18 and 19 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights".

Article 31: If the circumstances of the unlawful act are grave, the copyright administrative management entity may confiscate the materials, tools and equipment etc., used mainly in producing the infringing products.

"Grave circumstances" as named in the aforementioned clause, refers to:

(1) if the illicit income amount (viz. amount of profit) is more than 2.500 yuan;
(2) if the illicit business amount of is more than 15.000 yuan;

(3) if the number of infringing products of an individual is greater than 250 volumes (discs or boxes);

(4) if one has already been found liable for copyright infringement, and again infringes copyright;

(5) if other significant influence or grave consequences result.

Article 32: If another administrative department has already fined the same one unlawful act of the party, the copyright administrative management entity may not fine it again, but may still mete out other sorts of punishment according to the provisions of Article 4 of these Rules, according to the specific circumstances.

Article 33: Before the copyright administrative management entity decides to impose relatively large fines or other administrative punishments requiring a hearing according to the provisions of laws or administrative regulations, it should notify the parties of the rights for requiring for a hearing.

"Relatively large fines" as named in the aforementioned clause, reference to a fine for an individual of more than 20.000 yuan, and a fine for a work unit of more than 100.000 yuan. If local rules and regulations have different criteria for a hearing, it will be conducted according to local rules and regulations.

Article 34: If the parties wish a hearing, the copyright administrative management entity should organize a hearing according to the procedures of the provisions of Article 42 of the Administrative Punishment Law. The parties do not bear the cost of organizing a hearing.

Article 35: If the copyright administrative management entity decides to mete out punishment, it should formulate an administrative punishment resolution.

If the copyright administrative management entity decides not to mete out punishment for a trivial unlawful act, it should formulate an administrative non-punishment resolution, explain the facts, reasons and basis for not meting out punishment, and serve it on the parties; if an unlawful act is not established, it should formulate an investigation result notice, and serve it on the parties.

If the copyright administrative management entity decides to transfer a case to the judiciary for processing, it should formulate a notice of transfer for a suspected criminal case, and send it timely to the judicial department having jurisdiction, together with the relevant material and evidence.

Article 36: The administrative punishment resolution should be handed over to the parties on the spot after proclamation by the copyright administrative management entity. If parties are not present, it should be sent to the parties within seven days.

Article 37: If parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment of the National Copyright Administration, an application for administrative redress may be made to the National Copyright Administration; if the parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment of a local copyright administrative management entity, an application for administrative redress may be made to the People's Government of that level of the copyright administrative management entity of one level higher.

If the parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment or the administrative redress decision, administrative action may be raised, according to the law.

Chapter 4: Execution procedures

Article 38: After the parties receive the administrative punishment resolutions, they should fulfil their obligations within the time limits of the administrative punishment resolution.

If the party’s request administrative redress, or an administrative action is raised, the administrative punishment must be fulfilled without delay. Except if laws provide otherwise.

Article 39: Confiscated infringing products should be destroyed, or should be disposed of in other suitable manners after approval of the infringed party.

When destroying infringing products, the copyright administrative management entity should appoint more than two law enforcement officers to supervise the destruction process, examine the destruction results and record the destruction.

Concerning the confiscated materials, tools and equipment etc. mainly used in producing infringing products, the copyright administrative management entity should organize a public auction according to the law or dispose of them according to the relevant national provisions.

Chapter 5: supplementary articles

Article 41: infringing products as named in these rules include infringing reproductions and works posing as signed by other persons.

Article 42: The copyright administrative management entities should set up a copyright administrative punishment statistics system according to the national regulations on statistics, and should submit yearly copyright administrative punishment statistics to the copyright administrative management entity of one level higher

Article 43: After the administrative punishment decision or reconsideration resolution is completely carried out, the copyright administrative management entity should file the case materials timely.

Materials to be put on file include: the administrative punishment resolution, the case file examination and approval form, the case investigation report, the review report, the reconsideration resolution, the records of hearings, the hearing reports, evidence material, property disposition documents as well as other relevant materials.

Article 44: The relevant legal documents touched upon in these Rules, should be made according to the relevant document forms of the National Copyright Administration.

Article 45: These Rules will take effect from 15 June 2009. The "Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules ", promulgated by the National Copyright Administration will be abolished at the same time, if these Rules should contradict with other relevant regulations promulgated before the implementation of these Rules, these Rules should be carried out.

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Working Group Must Protect Against Flood of Chinese IPR Infringements of Japanese Products

Mainichi Daily News reports that Japan and the People's Republic of China have set up a working group to address intellectual property challenges. This Sunday the working group (which consists of the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Ministry and Chinese Ministry of Commerce and other institutions) will probably meet for the first time.

Read the Mainichi Daily News article here.

UPDATE:
Sachiko Sakamaki and Takschi Hirokawa, 'Japan, China Will Start Group on Intellectual Property Rights', Bloomberg, June 7, 2009.

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

LOIYIR Must Stop Using L'Oréal's Chinese Name and Claiming It's Part of L'Oréal

Already in 2007 there was some confusion among consumers, see the question at Ask Koubei here:

Question: "LOIYIR 是 L'Oréal 的产品吗?" translation: LOIYIR is L'Oréal's product?
Answer: "不是."
Translation: no

The confusion was created by Hangzhou LOIYIR Cosmetics and Shanghai Meilianni Cosmetics that used the Chinese name of L'Oréal 欧莱雅 and claimed that LOIYIR's products are from L'Oréal.

Finally in 2009, the case was brought before the
Nantong (Jiangsu province) Intermediate People's Court (first-instance judgement). From 1981 to 2001, L'Oréal registered the trademarks L'Oréal, 莱雅 and 欧莱雅, certified to be used on Class 3 goods, i.e. cosmetics, beauty products and perfumes.

The Nantong Intermediate People's Court judged:

- the joint distribution of LOIYIR products by the co-defendants constituted trademark infringement, they have to indemnify L'Oréal by paying jointly 400,000 Renminbi in damages;
- Hangzhou LOIYIR used 欧莱雅 in its trade name, which constituted unfair competition; therefore they have to pay another 100,000 Renminbi in damages.

However, LOIYIR still uses 欧莱雅 in its trade name, see its website here. Maybe they will appeal the judgement.

See China Law Edu (Chinese).

Monday, May 25, 2009

IP Dragon's Law Firms Update

IP Dragon checked the IP law firms specialised in IPR in China. Here are some of the firms with new articles:

Baker & McKenzie
- 'People's Republic of China Patent Law Implementing Regulations Draft' (pdf)http://www.bakernet.com/BakerNet/Resources/Publications/Recent+Publications/ChinaPRCPatentLawImplementingRegulationsDraftCAApr09.htm
Bird & Bird
- Chen, Sofia and Ewan Grist, 'Anti-counterfeiting framework', May 11, 2009 http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Anti-counterfeiting_Legal_Framework.Aspx

CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office
- 'The Second "Beijing International Pharmaceutical & ChemicalIntellectual Property Forum"will be held from August 6 to August 8, 2009 in Beijing' http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2009042201.htm
- Hu Gang, 'Position Trademarks Refused by the Chinese Court forRegistration as Three-dimensional Trademarks for the First Time'http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2009030301a.htm

China Patent Agent (HK) Ltd.
- Liao Xiaojun, 'Several Issues in Hearing Design Patent Cases the IPTribunal of Beijing Higher People’s Court' http://www.cpahkltd.com/cn/Publications/2009liulan/200902/ebjc.pdf
- Wu Yuhe and Pang Lizhi, 'Impact of Drug Dosage Feature on Novalty ofSwiss-type Use Claim' http://www.cpahkltd.com/cn/Publications/2009liulan/200902/ewyh.pdf

China Science Patent & Trademark
- Zhu Nongfan, 'Review: 2008 China Intellectual Property Developments' http://www.csptal.com/en/en_z.asp?id=119

Deacons
- China IP Bulletin- May 2009 http://www.deaconslaw.com/eng/knowledge/knowledge_330.htm

Dragon IP Law
- Newsletter March 18, 2009 http://www.dragon-patent.com.cn/en/news_content.asp?id=218&anclassid=1

DS-Avocats
- Lettre en Droit Chinois des Affaires (French), February 19, 2009 http://www.ds-asie.com/dszh/IMG/pdf/Droit_chinois_des_affaires_no107.pdf

East IP
- 'Our Chairman, Dr. Lulin Gao, Invited to Attend 2009 Global IPExchange in U.S.A.' http://www.eastip.com/news/ip/news_publications/09-2-22gie/index_html_v2

Foley & Lardner LLP
- Bartner, Sharon R., Catherine Sun and Yan Zhao, 'China's HighestCourt Opinion Addresses Impact Of The International Financial CrisisOn Intellectual Property', April 24, 2009 http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=5977

Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer
- Carnabuci, Connie and Richard Bird, 'Major changes in the thirdrevision to the PRC Patent Law', February 13, 2009 http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2009/feb09/25150.pdf
- Carnabuci, Connie and Richard Bird, 'Trade Descriptions (Amendment)Ordinance 2008, Hong Kong', February 10, 2009 http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2009/feb09/25054.pdf

Haseltine Lake
- 'Haseltine Lake at INTA 131st Annual Meeting', May 16-20, 2009 http://www.haseltinelake.com/news/shownews/inta09

JSM (Johnson Stokes & Master) Mayer Brown
- Wong, Kenny, 'A New Opinion of the PRC Supreme People's CourtConcerning the Adjudication of IP Disputes' http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=6683&nid=6

Jones Day
- Bai, J. Benjamin, Tony Chen, Mark Allen Cohen, Chiang Ling Li, AnnW. Chen, 'What Does the Third Amendment to China's Patent Law Mean toYou?', January 2009

Jun He Law Offices
- 'The Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Due Implementation of NationalIntellectual Property Strategy', April 30, 2009, http://www.junhe.com/uploadpic/news/2009511214635977.pdf

Kangxin
- 'SARFT offers 9 mln yuan to support original cartoon', February 11, 2009. http://124.207.176.104:8080/mainServlet.do?ClassName=NewsManage1&ActionName=doBeforeUpdate&jsp=/english/ipnews/viewnews.jsp&newsID=590&titleimage=title-2-4-1.gif&lanuage_type=2&Pro_type_id=90
- 'China to build 100 IP assistance centers', February 10, 2009. http://124.207.176.104:8080/mainServlet.do?ClassName=NewsManage1&ActionName=doBeforeUpdate&jsp=/english/ipnews/viewnews.jsp&newsID=589&titleimage=title-2-4-1.gif&lanuage_type=2&Pro_type_id=90

King & Wood
- IP Bulletin, February 2009, Shi Yusheng, 'Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage Initiative andthe Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in China'
- Zheng Lizhu and Kenneth Y. Choy, 'The Impact of Bilski on BusinessMethod Patent'- Nelson, Stephen, and Wu Libin, 'Tax Issues Related to Intellectual Property Transfer of the Foreign Enterprise to China Transferee' http://www.kingandwood.com/Bulletin.aspx?id=11445

Lehman, Lee & Xu
- Lee, John and Cythia Zhang, 'Trademark Practice & Forms' http://www.lehmanlaw.com/fileadmin/lehmanlaw_com/Publications/Trademark_Practice_and_Forms-China_Chapter.pdf

Liu, Shen & Associates
- 'New Comments on IP Trials issued by Supreme People’s Court' May 7, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=511
- 'New Interpretations of Application of Law in Civil Litigationconcerning Well-Known Trademark by Supreme People’s Court', May 7,2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=510
- 'Development on Well-Known Trademark Recognition and Protection', May 7, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=512
- ChinaCourt.org,'The Judicial Reform of People’s Court Considers Introducing Unified IPR Courts', April 15, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=500- 'Liu, Shen & Associates Receives “China IP Firm 0f 2009” Award', April 15, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=504
- Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, 'Shenzhen Covers 44.5% of the Total PCTPatent Application', March 24, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=492

Lung Tin International Intellectual Property Agent Ltd.
- 'The third revision of Chinese Patent Law regarding the design: anintroduction (fourth)', April 24, 2005 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=124053784249
- 'Shanghai MGE sentenced to pay CNY 0.5 million in compensation', April 24, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=124053765916
- 'For suspected promotion of feudal superstition, registration of anew trademark of Blizzard Entertainment based in USA has beenrejected', April 24, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=124053751559
- 'The third revision of Chinese Patent Law regarding the design: anintroduction (3)', Mar. 27, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=123813353819
- 'Administrative institutions strengthen the capacity ofinvestigating and dealing with trademark violation cases', March 27, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=123813335997
- 'New rules for trademark applications in newspapers industry', March 27, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=123813311909

Maier & Maier
- 18 articles about IPR in China http://www.postgrant.com/china-ip/

McDermott Will & Emery
- Ma, Patrick, 'Chinese Trademark Office Releases Trial Provisions for Online Trademark Applications', April 9, 2009 http://www.mwechinalaw.com/news/2009/chinalawalert0409a.htm

NTD Trademark & Patent Agency Ltd.
- 'Shanghai Expo Lawsuit Service Center Established', May 14, 2009 http://www.chinantd.com/en/en-newsshow.asp?id=1016
- 'Chongqing Subsidize Invention Patents Granted Abroad', May 13, 2009 http://www.chinantd.com/en/en-newsshow.asp?id=1015

O'Melveny & Myers LLP
- 'Trial measures for Online Trademark Applications', China Law & Policy, February 16, 2009 http://www.omm.com/files/Publication/a70f2a48-2380-4c36-b3d7-2e4eca6e15f2/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ab35488e-bb34-4fda-8049-301225b7eda8/clp2009E05.pdf

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
- Xiang Wang, Neal Stender, Tao Wu and Gary Zeng, 'China's New Testfor Patent Injunctions; Echoes of eBay', May 5, 2009,
http://www.orrick.com/publications/item.asp?action=article&articleID=1832
- Xiang Wang and Neal Stender, 'More changes & some more of the samein amended PRC Patent Law', April 1, 2009 http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/1823.pdf
- Dale, Andrew and Janie Wong, 'The Civil Justice Reforms, An In-House Perspective', March 9, 2009 http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/1691.pdf

Rouse & Co.
- 'China IP Express, 316', April 24, 2009 http://www.iprights.com/document.aspx?fn=load&media_id=611

Shanghai Patent & Trademark Law Office, Inc.
- 'World Expo 2010 Shanghai IP Protection Outlines Unveiled' http://www.sptl.com.cn/en/news/news08.htm

Tee & Howe
- Haynes, James, 'Chinese Utility Model Patents Might Cut Your IP Costsby Half While Providing Better Protection' http://www.teehowe.com/news_detail.php?id=323

Troutman Sanders
- 'Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues on Application ofEnforcement Procedures in PRC Civil Procedural Law', January 22, 2009 http://www.troutmansanders.com/cnlb-012009-07/

Tsai, Lee & Chen
- 'Opinions Shared across the Straits: Using Other’s Trademark as aCompany’s Chinese/English Name Not Allowed', May 12, 2008 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1303
- 'Third Read of Amendment to Copyright Act Pass Three-strikesProvision', May 1, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1302
- 'Indication of Distinctive Name on Company’s Website Not TrademarkUse', May 1, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1301
- 'FOXY Sued for Involvement in Copyright Infringement over 5.8Billion', May 1, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1300
- 'The Cross-strait Regulations Recognize the Validity of Judgments',April 14, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1284

Unitalen
- 'China’s Ministry of Commerce Highlighted IPR for ChineseEnterprises on CeBIT' http://www.unitalen.com/servlet/Node?node=38389&language=0

Wilkinson & Grist Solicitors & Notaries
- articles about IPR in China publised in IAM Magazinehttp://www.wilgrist.com/index.php?main=10002&dept=05&lang=en

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Harlan Ellison Says The Darndest Things About Digital Piracy Of His Work

May 16-17, 2009, the International Herald Tribune had the following quote from the sci-fi author and screenwriter Harlan Ellison

"If you put your hand in my pocket, you'll drag back six inches of bloody stump." 

Monday, May 18, 2009

Reality Imitates Fiction: China National Space Administration Logo: Half Star Trek, And Other Half ...Star Trek

Professor Susan Scafidi, the authoriy on Fashion Law (Fashion and Intellectual Property Law), author of 'Who Owns Culture?' and Counterfeit Chic sent me a great link: 'China Bootlegs Star Trek for Its Space Program' on Cool Aggregator, a site about pop-culture and strange news maintained by Valerie D'Orazio. 

Reality Imitates Fiction

It is understandable that the people of the China National Space Administration (CNSA) are inspired by science fiction show Star Trek, but the fact that the designers of the logo of CNSA forged two different Star Trek logo's (of Star Trek itself and of the imaginary United Federation of Planets) from this popular series into one, is less then decent. Then again, the creators of Star Trek probably never imagined that their creations would ever fly, in reality, into space. Unless, Star Trek will sue the CNSA for trademark infringement, that is.  Then again, they might see it as a free (interplanetary) advertisment for their science fiction show (which becomes less and less science fiction).  

After the name "Taikonaut" was coined by Chiew Lee Yih from Malaysia and later embraced by Xinhua for people who travelled in space for the Chinese space programme (to distinguish those from astronauts from the US and cosmonauts from the USSR/Russia), IP Dragon is surprised that the CNSA chose for a less than original logo. According to this Wikipedia article: "the terms "yǔhángyuán" (宇航员, "sailing personnel in universe") or "hángtiānyuán" (航天员, "sailing personnel in sky") have long been used for astronauts. The phrase "tàikōng rén" (太空人, "spaceman") is often used in Hong Kong and Taiwan." 

Grim audits of EU-China Relations – IPR to the rescue?

Guest article by Mikołaj Rogowski

Dragons Nightmare, an article from the last month’s edition of The Economist drew a rather pessimistic picture of the European Union – China relations landscape.  According to The Economist the EU is a tough spot. The Economist argues that currently the conflicting policies of the member states are far from rising to the task of coping with the challenges of the emerging of China.

“If you wanted to design a competitor to show up European weaknesses most painfully, you would come up with something a lot like China. It is a centralized, unitary state, which is patient and relentless in the pursuit of national goals that often matter more to the Chinese than anyone else. European governments do not even agree on what they want from China”.

That picture is grim. On the far reaches of the horizon the author sees a possibility of a world where “Chi-American” G-2 is in charge and the European states are no longer treated as meaningful world powers. 

This gloomy vision might just be one of many possible outcomes of the current geopolitical struggle, however the newly published Policy Report by the European Council on Foreign Relations confirms most if not all defects of the current European position outlined by The Economist. 

The report written by John Fox, ECFR Senior Policy Fellow; and François Godement, ECFR Senior Policy Fellow, Professor and Director of the Asia Centre at Sciences Po, proposes what its authors call a “reciprocal engagement” a new policy based on 4 R’s: reduction and reciprocity, relevance and realism: 

“… interest-based approach with two principles and two criteria. The principles: European offers to China should be focused on a reduced number of policy areas, and the EU should use incentives and leverage to ensure that China will reciprocate. The criteria: relevance to the EU, and a realistic expectation that a collective European effort will shift Chinese policy.”(pg. 13) 

Unsurprisingly many of the actions proposed by the report are focused on IPR. The paper perceives the strengthening of the IP protection in China as one of the key factors that could shape the new rebalanced economic relationship between China and EU. One that stands out the most among the anticipated actions is the proposition of establishing “an IPR and patent support fund, supervised by the EU delegation or Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, to which European SMEs could apply for financial support and legal advice to assist with IPR registration/protection in China. “(pg. 56) I am sure that many European companies that are currently considering entering Chinese market would welcome such a move. 

The report’s appendix also proves to be a source of interesting information. It summarizes the approach of every EU member state towards China, highlighting certain areas, including IPR (You can find out i.e. that Poland, as far as the foreign policy goes, is blissfully unconcerned about IPR in China). 

All too all ECFR’s paper is a read worth recommending. It gives the reader a coherent view of the current Eu-China relations and suggests several appealing solutions. It would be interesting to hear what others have to say on the topic of the current EU policy, its proposed changes and how they could affects IPR and IP focused business in China.

Text  Mikołaj Rogowski

This is the second guest contribution of Mikolaj Rogowski, law student at Jagiellonian University, author of several IP articles and Polish-English translations, specializes in Polish, European, Chinese and American IP law, China assistant to MEP Jan Olbrycht. His first guest contribution can be found here.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Business Leaders' Advice On Succeeding in China: IPR, IPR and IPR

The Knowledge@W.P. Carey newsletter of the W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, has a great series of articles: 'Trade, China and the World Economic Order'. Part 3 is called: Business Leaders' Advice on Succeeding in China.' Herein, sensible things are said about intellectual property rights in China:
  • "Hit-and-miss IP regulation is a significant inhibitor to development in China," said W.P. Carey School's Phillip Carter [professor supply chain management]. To work around that challenge, companies should not enter China with their most cutting-edge technology.
  • Now that China's domestic companies have moved up the value chain, becoming significantly better at innovating their own technologies, they too are pushing the government for intellectual property rights protection in China.
  • While the joint venture model may be great for China and its demestic firms, Motorola's Gary Tooker advises against it. "The best model to incorporate in China is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the American or multinational company," he said." Again to avoid to intellectual property problems.
Read Part Three here.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index and China: The Last Shall Be The First

The People's Republic of China was ranked last (24th position) in the Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index 2009, see here. The methodology of the GIPI rating is a calculation by a factor assessment model with jurisdiction assessments and instrumental factors as input. See the methodology here

About China's trademark system Taylor Wessing complains about the delay in adopting the new Trademark Law which it sees as the solution to the registry delays and backlogs. The time from application to publication of trademarks in China is according to Taylor Wessing currently three years and the duration of opposition procedures up to five years. It says that there is an "absence of any protection for unregistered marks, save the 230 or so marks held to be “famous” (of which only about 20 are foreign), remains a concern for respondents." Taylor Wessing is more positive about China's National IP Strategy and an electronic application system which has cut costs and allocated filing receipts and application numbers quite quickly.

About China's copyright system Taylor Wessing wrote: "China trails overall, as well as for each
of the attacking, enforcing, exploiting and cost-effectiveness subindices." The lack of effective enforcement of copyright is respondents' primary concern, as is bureaucracy associated with giving evidence, and criminal remedies that are perceived as too low, underused and with thresholds set too high, civil and administrative remedies inadequate. Taylor Wessing mentioned also the harsh criticism China received from the USTR in the Special 301 Report. The supporting argument that China faces the "the harshest and most in-depth criticism" because it was covered in 24 pages while the other 45 countries only got 16 pages is not very convincing. It is not the quantity but the quality of the commentary that counts. On a positive note Taylor Wessing acknowledged that the US government considers that progress is being made because China is fulfilling its WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) and WTO TRIPs obligations. 

About design Taylor Wessing wrote that "China’s courts have awarded $3 million to the German
bus maker, Neoplan, in one of the biggest design patent infringement awards since China joined the WTO in 2001." China’s design system which requires annual renewals of designs (plus renewal fees) is seen by respondents as onerous and in need of reform, according to Taylor Wessing.

About China's domain names system Taylor Wessing wrote that although China has liberal registration rules it ranked low, because domain names are extremely cheap to register in China, which has encouraged domain name squatters. Taylor Wessing: "It remains to be seen whether the recent exponential increase in numbers (nearly 90% last year) is an ongoing trend or a spike, and also whether brand owners’ awareness of the issue and increasing interest in doing business in China will lead to them registering more pre-emptive .cn domain name." 

About China's Patent system Taylor Wessing was quite positive: "China certainly has also made significant efforts over the past few years to improve its IP systems." The respondents appreciated China's new specialist IP courts, that are relatively much speedier than before and anticpate the Third Amendment to the Patent Law which will take effect October 1st, 2009 and will introduce the absolute international novelty standard and the possibility of compulsory licensing for patents unused within 3 years of grant. 

I am not sure whether Matthew 20:16 (King James Bible) can bring any consolation for China's low score, but here goes: "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Two Encouraging Surveys: On Public Awareness and Business Attitudes of Intellectual Property Rights in Hong Kong

Selene Ng of Wilkinson and Grist wrote an article on the site of IAM Magazine about an encouraging outcome of a survey on public awareness of intellectual property protection by the Hong Kong population. The Survey on Public Awareness of Intellectual Property Right Protection 香港市民保護知識產權意識調查 2008 conducted by Mercador Solutions Associates Ltd., commissioned by the IP Department of Hong Kong. It showed that 96.3 percent of the surveyed group (1,003 repondents, response rate of 51.5 percent) considered that it was very/quite necessary to protect the IP rights in Hong Kong.

However, awareness does not necessarily convert into online behaviour that is respectful towards intellectual property rights. 78.6 percent stated that they probably/definitely would not pay to download songs, movies, games or ebooks. Why? The main reason for this was that purchasing legitimate content is “considered troublesome in purchasing online” (47.0%). When this group is downloading chances are that they access pirated content. So it is safe to assume that there is enough work to do for the intellectual property department of firms, such as Wilkinson and Grist, to enforce IPRs in Hong Kong. Read Ms Ng's article here.

Then there was another rather encouraging survey: Survey on Business Attitudes to Intellectual Property 香港商業機構知識產權意識調查 2008 conducted by Mercador Solutions Associates Ltd. , commissioned by the IP Department of Hong Kong (1,001 business establishments surveyed, response rate 30.3 percent) which showed that: 
  • 98.3% of business establishments considered intellectual properties (e.g. patents for invented products / technology, design, logo or brand name) of the surveyed group in Hong Kong valuable assets of a company;
  • 93.7% of the business establishments considered that it was very/quite necessary to protect IP rights in the business environment of Hong Kong.

WSJ Reports 90 Percent of China's Netizens Access Pirated Music

Mira Veda of the Huffington Post writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that 90% of China's Web Users, which is estimated to be about 162 million people, access pirated music from their computers every day ... " Read here.

Ms Veda, and with her many others, is doubting what the next best business model for the music industry will be in times of massive digital piracy: Google's advertising model (read 'Giving Away Music for Free to Destroy Copyright Piracy: Operation Succes, Patient Dead?') or France's three strikes system (read 'Taiwan's Three Strikes System Less Strict Than French Equivalent'), or some other model. Ms Veda is convinced that some regulation is a prerequisite for the world to see the potential of authors and performing artists that otherwise cannot afford to make music.

Below Ms Veda's article rjmiller (Rob Miller, who is a musician and songwriter) comments that regulation is not the answer and that it only hurts the extremely succesful musicians, quoting Tim O'Reilly 'Piracy is Progressive Taxation'. Mr Miller also wrote: "If you've ever spoken to an Indie artist, they don't worry about piracy, they worry about obscurity". 

Google Will Continue To Investigate Trademarks as Keywords in China, Hong Kong and Macau

Imagine that your competitor can advertise with your name using Google AdWords. This nightmare can come true in the following jurisdictions: 'Regions for Which Google will not investigate the use of trademarks as keywords'. So far the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong SAR and Macau SAR are excluded from this practice. 

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Promising News: China and UK Fast-Track Green Patent Applications

Today the UK will start fast-tracking green patent applications, and China will follow suit. IAM Magazine 's Joff Wild has a very interesting blog about it called 'China and UK to fast-track green patent applications, according to British IP Minister'. That could be the best news since the WIPO chose "promoting green innovation" as its theme for this year's World Intellectual Property Day (last April 26th). Read Mr Wild's blog here.  

BSA Software Piracy Study: Taiwan 39 Percent, Ranks 23th Lowest

Business Software Allicance (BSA) publishes its 2008 study of software piracy: May 2009, Sixth Annual BSA-IDG Software 08 Piracy Study.

With 39 percent, Taiwan came in on the 23th position of the countries with the lowest software piracy, causing a 201 million US dollar loss in 2008 (215 million US dollar loss in 2007):

Percentage software piracy Taiwan
2008 39 percent
2007 40 percent
2006 41 percent
2005 43 percent
2004 43 percent

BSA Software Piracy Study: Hong Kong 48 Percent, Ranks Average

Business Software Allicance (BSA) publishes its 2008 study of software piracy: May 2009, Sixth Annual BSA-IDG Software 08 Piracy Study.

With 48 percent, Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region whose software piracy ranking is between a country with a low and a country with a high software piracy percentage, causing a loss of 225 million US dollar in 2008 (224 million US dollar in 2007).
 
"In Hong Kong, 2008 saw the government amend
copyright laws to make it easier for criminal
enforcement against end-user piracy and conduct
more highly publicized raids on infringing hard-disk
loaders. The extension of the government’s Genuine
Business Software Campaign (GBSC) reached 50,000
companies and increased software vendor revenues
from legalization programs."

Percentage software piracy Hong Kong SAR
2008 48 percent
2007  51 percent
2006  53 percent
2005 54 percent
2004 52 percent

BSA Software Piracy Study: China 80 Percent; Ranks 24th Highest

Business Software Allicance (BSA) publishes its 2008 study of software piracy: May 2009, Sixth Annual BSA-IDG Software 08 Piracy Study.

With 80 percent, China came in on the 24th position of the countries with the highest software piracy, causing a loss of 6,677 billion US dollar in 2008 (6,664 billion US dollar loss in 2007):  

"China’s piracy rate has dropped 10 points since 2004, a result of more vigorous enforcement and education as well as vendor legalization programs andagreements with original equipment manufacturers(OEMs) and resellers. The government, for instance, has mandated that PC OEMs only ship PCs with legitimate operating systems."

"In China, the break up of a massive counterfeiting ring in late 2007 and the subsequent trials in 2008 set a stern anti-piracy tone for the year. Also during 2008, BSA sent out 53,000 “notice and takedown” letters to Chinese Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in an effort to counter Internet piracy. The government conducted enterprise end-user raids in numerous regions, including Jinlin, Hainan, Shanxi, Shanghai, Beijing, Xian, Wuhan, Shenyang, and Qingdao. The Chinese government also continued its efforts to ensure legal use of software in government agencies and stateowned enterprises."

Percentage software piracy People's Republic of China
2008 80 percent 
2007 82 percent
2006 82 percent
2005 86 percent
2004 90 percent

Little Red Book About Xiao Nei: "A Great Example of Digital Copycatting Done Right"

Rand Han of Little Red Book has another great article. This time he has used, analysed and deconstructed the social networking site Xiao Nei (at Campus) which is a blatant copycat of Facebook.

Mr Han's blog posting does not lack humor: "Now while we normally associate copies with inferior quality or some odd defect from the original, Xiaonei, on the other hand, is a great example of digital copycatting done right. It’s funny how I’ve turned copying someone else’s work into a positive. This is just one of many signs that I’ve been in China too long." 
It is not very likely that Facebook is smiling. Literal imitations in our digital era must be demotivating for businesses to invest in creative works and innovations. 

Read more here.

Taiwan's Three Strikes Sanction Less Strict Than French Equivalent

In the rebound the French Assemblée national adopted the Hadopi law today, which includes a "three strikes" sanction for file sharers of pirated works: repeat offenders will have their internet connection cut off after the third offense, see the France24.fr video about it here (in French) or here (in English). Besides France, Taiwan's Executive Yuan has proposed an amendment to its Copyright Law (ISP liability limitation bill) which includes this three strikes sanction. The bill completed the third reading by the Legislative Yuan and will be promulgated by the Presidential Office in the near future. ISPs will be exempt from both civil liability in case of alleged copyright infringement to the copyright owner and contractual liability to the alleged user. The price for this exemption is that ISPs should abide the notice-and-take down procedures for alleged infringing content and apply the three strikes system. 

However, the Taiwanese version of the three strike system seems at first sight less strict than its French equivalent: 

Margaret Chen, Deputy Director General of Taiwan's Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) said to reporters: ".., there are lots of ways to restrict Internet access besides cutting it off entirely." Read blog about it by Ben Challis at  'At last ...the 1709 Copyright Blog'. 

Monday, May 11, 2009

Hon Hai versus BYD: IPR Infringement or Malicious Attack by a Rival?

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. sued Build Your Dreams (BYD) at a People's Court in Shenzhen for intellectual property infringement in technology needed for electrical cars. Hon Hai is Taiwan's leading outsourced manufacturing company for Apple's iPhone, HP, Sony and Nokia etc. BYD started with the production of batteries in 1995 and combined this with the development of cars (electrical) six years ago. BYD already has its own museum.

Terry Gou, the CEO of Taiwanese Hon Hai, said in an interview with Economic Daily News in Taiwan: "Didn't Buffett proclaim that he would only invest in companies that are trustworthy? Then why did he invest in BYD which stole commercial secrets from (Hon Hai affiliate) Foxconn?" Billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire's MidAmerican Energy Holdings took a 10 percent stake last and stated that Hon Hai's accusation is a malicious attack by a rival.  

Read Alex Crippen's article for CNBC here.

AmCham Gives Chinese Government Recommendations About Copyright Law, Trademark Law and Patent Law

American Chamber of Commerce in the People's Republic of China (AmCham-China) issued the 'American Business in China White Paper 2009' last month. Pages 45-48 pdf, with pagenumbers 88-94 are about intellectual property rights protection. Read here.

AmCham-China's recommendations to the Chinese government are:
  • "Continue the pioneering efforts of the US Embassy and government in recent years, with greater internal coordination and cooperation with industry.
  • Amend the Chinese Patent law to address AmCham-China concerns, as specified in this chapter (IP Dragon: Lacks patentability from computer program/software; left out an earlier draft provision allowing employers and inventors to define remuneration for employment invention through contracts; requires the disclosure of genetic resource for patentability; does not have criteria of inventiveness at the same levels for utility model patents and invention patents; does not compensate for regulatory approval process delays in the duration of drug patents; does not set forth conditions for granting compulsory license in sufficiently detailed language; and is unclear and possibly overly broad in defining what constitutes “patent abuse,” its relationship with the Anti-monopoly Law, and “working” requirements for patents.
  • Fully support and follow through with the efforts of the trademark office in eliminating the examination backlog. Retain the Trademark Office examination of trademark applications on relative grounds.
  • Establish new public-private partnerships to duplicate the effective IPR infringement prevention during the Olympics.
  • Resist establishing IP policies in violation of WTO rules, which unduly favor Chinese domestic companies over foreign companies.
  • Amend the 2006 Internet Regulations and Copyright Law to correspond with international norms and comply with WIPO treaties.
  • Enable websites and ISPs to work with rightholders and adopt preventive measures such as filtering and automated take-down.
  • Establish a clear and transparent government structure for administrative enforcement, and adopt an inter-departmental enforcement platform."
I do not understand AmCham-China's recommendation to change China's patent law so that it has criteria of inventiveness at the same levels for utility model patents and invention patents. A utility model patent is something completely different from an invention patent: Utility model patents are meant to protect innovations and are not examined at the application stage, such as an invention patent, and is only examined in case it is enforced. Besides, the protection term for a utililty patent is 10 years, while the term for an invention patent is 20 years. Do you know the ratio of this recommendation?

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Knockoff Phones Explode And Not Just the Volume

Knockoff mobile phones such as Apple (hi-phone), Nokia (Nckia), Samsung (Sumsang), that sometimes explode or have high radiation, are immensely popular in China, 20 percent of this biggest market in the world! The phones are also exported to Russia, India, Middle East, Europe and US. David Barboza wrote an article about it: 'In China, Knockoff Cellphones Are a Hit' for the NYT, read here.

Mr Barboza explains why it is easy to produce a knockoff mobile phone in China for about 20 US dollar:

  • Since 2005 came Mediatek, a Taiwanese semiconductor design company with a turnkey solution that can be used as a platform to produce low cost mobile phones;
  • Since 2007 no license is needed to manufacture a cellphone;
  • If you are a manufacturer of these so called Shan Zhai Ji (Mountain Bandit Machines), you are not going to pay value-added tax of 17 percent of the revenues;
  • Tapping in the supply chains is not difficult, because there are manufacturers that cannot resist a request to run a night shift.
New Chinese brands emerge, such as Meizu, that aspire to emulate Apple. More information about Shan Zhai Ji, read here.

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Professor Mossoff's Historical Paper About Patent Thicket, Patent Troll and Patent Pool: Relevant Today

Can we learn from history? Or are we doomed to make the same mistakes over and over? Professor Adam Mossoff of George Mason University School of Law wrote an excellent paper about the Sewing Machine War of the 1850's which illustrates that the challenges we are facing in this day and age with patent thickets, patent trolls and patent pools are not new. Professor Mossoff draws the conclusion that "[t]he denouement of the sewing machine patent thicket in the Sewing Machine Combination of 1856, the first privately formed patent pool, further challenges the widely held belief that patent thickets are best solved through new statutes, regulations or court decisions that limit property rights in patents."

The paper illustrates in great style the titanic battle between Elias Howe (who did not do anything other with the patent then using it for injunctions to compel licenses from manufacturers) and Isaac Merritt Singer (who was an incremental inventor). In this battle Singer was looking for prior art to invalidate Howe's patent:

"Singer first attempted to uncover prior art in the patent offices in England, France, and, of course, the United States, and he even went so far as to argue that the sewing machine had long been invented in China, but this was all to no avail."

Download and read professor Mossoff's great SSRN-paper 'A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket', here (52 pages PDF).

Sunday, May 03, 2009

IIPA: "China and Russia Remain Major Concerns for Copyright Industries"

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) has made a statement on USTR’s decisions in its 2009 Special 301 Review affecting copyright protection and enforcement around the world. No real surprises, including that the IIPA commends USTR for the decision to elevate Canada to the Priority Watch List.

This is what IIPA stated April 30, 2009 about China:

China and Russia both continue to be major concerns to the copyright industries, as they were in 2008 and prior years. While there have been some positive developments in both these key markets over the past year, enforcement efforts generally remain inadequate, and the copyright industries continue to await sustained, effective and deterrent enforcement, enhanced legal reform, and greater market access for legitimate copyrighted materials.”

“While the Chinese government has launched enforcement efforts, these have so far not proven to be effective in dealing with pervasive piracy in the physical and online markets. These problems have been exacerbated by the maintenance of severe and discriminatory market access restrictions for the distribution of some categories of U.S. content. China must significantly expand its use of criminal measures in appropriate circumstances and employ all available tools, including administrative sanctions, to prevent companies such as Baidu and Kangjian Shixun from continuing to profit from providing access to infringing materials.”

China's number one search engine Baidu needs no introduction. Beijing Kangjian Shixun Technology Company with the sites http://www.kjmed.com.cn/ and http://www.kjmed.com.cn/ offers "subscribers access to the firm’s Foreign Medical Journal Full-Text Service (FMJS), a paid service that sells electronic copies of medical journals, including many well-known American ones, obtained from libraries at no cost", according to the US-China Business Council, see here.

  • Business Software losses 2008 2940.0 million US dollar levels 79 percent.
Business Software Alliance (BSA)’s 2008 statistics are preliminary. They represent the U.S. software publishers’ share of software piracy losses in each country, and follow the methodology compiled in the Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study (May 2008). These figures cover, in addition to business applications software, computer applications such as operating systems, consumer applications such as PC gaming, personal finance,and reference software.
  • Records & Music losses 2008 564.0 million US dollar levels 90 percent.
Read the IIPA's press release (4 pages pdf) here.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Happy World Intellectual Property Day 2009

IP Dragon wishes you a happy World Intellectual Property Day 2009. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has chosen a very relevant theme for this year's World Intellectual Property Day: promoting green innovation. WIPO takes responsibility for the polution that is connected with technology protected by intellectual property rights: technology has created polution, but technology has also the potential to come up with solutions for this problem.

The 'greening' of China might be one of the most important challenges the world is facing. Read more about this on Erica Lee Schlaikjer's magnificent blog ResponsibleChina.com.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

"China Will Reshape International Intellectual Property Policy"

I just read a great paper by Andrea Wechsler 'Intellectual Property Law in the P.R. China: A powerful Economic Tool for Innovation and Development', Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper No. 09-02, November 12, 2008, download at SSRN here.

In 56 pages Ms Wechsler takes you on a journey to see the changing purposes in and rationales for international IP protection, the political economy of IP protection and the Chinese approach to IP policy in the light of international IP law developments.

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPs) is an integral part of the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s Agreement. Therefore this treaty (TRIPs) is a hybrid form which for most countries decreases the manoeuvring space in the field of IP protection policy. That China is an exception in this case Ms Wechsler writes on page 18: "The case of China thus demonstrates that – due to China’s sheer size but also due to its growing economic and political importance – China is to some extent defying the limitation of policy space in the field of IP protection through integration of this area into international trade policy."

Ms Wechsler shows how the Chinese government has changed its perception of intellectual property from a Fremdkörper that was transplanted in China from abroad, to uneasiness about the foreign pressure to reform its IP system in order for it to enter WTO, to China's autonomous realisation that IP protection is crucial to foster innovation and development, as evidenced by China's third amendment to its patent law (effective October 1, 2009). China is gradually opting for more country and industry specific intellectual property rights. Ms Wechsler writes: "it was argued that recent policy shifts in Chinese IP policy are to be considered as the first omens of the Chinese emergence as potent forces in reshaping the global intellectual property landscape according to their own political, economic, and social interests."

Read Ms Wechsler here.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Is There Anything Original To A Geely GE? And What About Huatai?

At the 2009 Shanghai Auto Show the Chinese Geely GE gives its acte de présence. Richard S. Chang wrote: "By all accounts the limo is a shameless (if not slightly shorter in length) knock-off of the Rolls-Royce Phantom." Read Chang's blog for the NYT here.

Surprisingly, there is one thing that is original, but for that you need to go inside: there is only one backseat, according to Jalopnik, see and read here.

UPDATE: Michael Harley writes for Autoblog about Chinese Automaker Huatai that is reportedly readying a knockoff version of Bentley Continental, read here
Last year Matt Hardigree wrote for Jalopnik about Huatai's "most suetastic logo ever," see here.

Monday, April 20, 2009

“A new dawn for the China health-care or… Grand theft IP?”


Guest article and picture by Mikołaj Rogowski





Back in January, Chinese government announced another one of its subsidies. This time around public health-care is the target and a sum of $128 billion is the weapon. It is no secret that it is another of Beijing’s measures of calming the nation during the year of the economic slow down, however anyone who has been in a public hospital in China will tell you that the system is indeed in need of the equipment and drugs that can be bought with such a substantial sum. Reasons aside, the dawn of new health care means that in the years to come Chinese officials will be on the medical shopping spree. Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/08/china-health-care-markets-equity-stimulus.html) has an interesting article on that topic. As Tina Wang points out, it is more than likely that most of the promised sum will go to the Chinese companies. However, in many fields of medicine there are simply no Chinese-made substitutes for the western made, high-end equipment and drugs. That leaves the government with no other choice than to contract with foreign producers. Seems that non-Chinese firms have much to gain, however it might turn out that there is even more to lose. Most if not all of the companies working in the aforementioned fields are IP-based. Without their patents and know-how their products would simply stand no chance of competing with their cheaper Chinese rivals.
The optimistic scenario: some of the items from the no doubt massive order list will not end up as targets of a disappearing act performances, only to later magically ‘reappear’ as certain solutions in ‘new’ Chinese made products.

The pessimistic picture? Remember how Russian military industry was always eager to sell their arms to the ever-expanding, ever-modernized People’s Liberation Army (People's Republic of China armed forces)? Seems that lately they have had a change of heart. After long negotiations concerning the sale of Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D carrier-borne fighters Russian party decided to scrap the deal because of the… Fear of the IP theft. Russians claim that China has already copied most of the equipment they have sold them. (More on this topic here: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090313/120554173.html). A month after the fiasco of that deal China Association for Science and Technology publishes an article in which it stated that "In some areas, Chinese weapons have either achieved or are very close to achieving international advanced standards,". (The China Post: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national-news/2009/04/13/204090/China-says.htm) The question that just begs to be asked, assuming the report is trustworthy, is how did the Chinese industry reach such levels of standards and if the theft of the IP was one of the main factors that led to this achievement, what would stop the Chinese medical industry from doing the same thing?

It certainly would not be the first time. Thanks to a friend of mine I had an opportunity to talk to a executive at Optopol ( http://optopol.com/en/), a renowned Polish firm specializing in manufacturing of diagnostics equipment in ophthalmology. They have sold a few units of their devices in China and they were met with a disturbing pattern. Most of the equipment was returned shortly, labeled as nonfunctioning. After a brief inspection it turned out that all of the returned machines bared signs of disassembly and whoever did the dismantling had a much harder time putting the machines back together – hence the returns of the “faulty” equipment. Now why would anyone want to take these machines apart, I wonder? What is even more disturbing is that this practice seems not be local - different copies of their products were sent to various locations in china, with the same results.

What do you think? Have any of the readers had any similar experience with products that were sold in China?

For more on the reform check: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123982492165322167.html

Text and picture Mikołaj Rogowski

Mikolaj Rogowski, law student at Jagiellonian University, author of several IP articles and Polish-English translations, specializes in Polish, European, Chinese and American IP law,
China assistant to MEP Jan Olbrycht.

Green Gold Rush: The Interview, The Movie

Laurent Gaberell told me that he made a video documentary called Green Gold Rush about bioprospecting (the exploration of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and bio-chemical resources) and indigenous peoples. See the video here.

The Interview
IP Dragon: Is traditional knowledge what the developed world wanted to give (as some would say "small change") to the developing world in exchange for their enforcement of the economically more important intellectual property rights of copyrights, trademarks and patents?
Laurent Gaberell: "The rhetoric of biopiracy has emerged as a political discourse and strategy to counter the piracy rhetoric that MNCs used to justify the enforcement of stronger and stronger intellectual property rights in the geopolitical South. To sum up, Third World countries were saying "you call us the thief for stealing your intellectual property when in reality you are the thiefs you steal our intellectual property", as Martin Khor well puts it in the movie. This biopiracy rhetoric has proven very effective in putting the issues on the top of the political agenda. Yet it has its dangers too. And one of them is the one you refer too. If we are speaking about two problems of piracy, then why not make a deal: "small changes" in the IP system such as disclosure of origin requirements againts enforcement of strong standards in the Third World to protect the IP assets of developed countries. It is a dangerous deal because I am really not sure it would benefit developing countries and moreover these are very diferent problems. On one side you have the patenting of innovations that originated in the geopolitical South while on the other side you have the use of IP protected innovations produced by MNCs. Third World countries are not appropriaiting the innovations of MNCs through IP, they are using it. But the North not only copies the innovations of the South but also appropriates it through IP. The problem is very different. I think Third World countries would be very ill advised to make such a deal. They have the legitimacy to ask for both the protection of their resources and knowledge, and the right to copy IP protected assets of the North in the name of their needs for development."

IP Dragon: Why wasn't a representative of the People's Republic of China included in the documentary?
Laurent Gaberell: "No representative of the People's Republic of China appears in the movie for the simple reason that there were no indigenous peoples delegates or representants of minorities of China present at the IGC. And the idea of the movie was to give an opportunity to indigenous peoples' delegates of various part of the world to share their experiences and perspectives. It was not the intention of the documentary to interview state representants or members of official delegations. So it is not a discriminitation against China, it is just that no representatives of any country was interviewed for this movie."

IP Dragon: Why is the movie relevant for China?
Laurent Gaberell: "For the importance of traditional medicinal knowledge there. China might not be part of the most megadiverse countries of the world, but it has accumulated an impressive quantitiy of knowledge about the medicinal properties of its biological resources, and that knowledge is of very strategic and economic importance in the context of the biotech revolution. So the question that the movie asks for Bolivia is also relevant for China: how not only to protect our knowledge and innovations of being appropriated but also how to use it and develop it in a way that is really beneficial to the people and to the country."

IP Dragon: Can you tell anything China-related in relation to this movie?
Laurent Gaberell: "I have read about the strategy that China is currently experimenting to protect its TK, namely the patenting of this knowledge, especially its traditional medicinal knowledge and formulations. The advantage of this strategy is that the patents can then be enforced through WIPO in countries like the US or in Europe, something a national sui generis system is currently not able to do. What is not clear to me however is who owns the patent. The State? Chinese companies? Individuals? Traditional comunities?"

Friday, April 17, 2009

Consumers International Says UK Has Worse Copyright Regime Than China... Nonsense Says Sharkey

Thank goodness it is Friday. Consumers International did a survey on the intellectual property laws and enforcement practices of Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, the UK and the US, see here

According to BBC News Consumers International decided that "UK law was least effective in balancing the interests of rights holders against those of consumers." Read BBC News "UK 'has the worst copyright laws'", here

Feargal Sharkey, yes the great singer of 'A good heart' and CEO of UK Music strongly opposes this view: "In particular, claims that Chinese and Indian consumers (and media) have greater freedoms to access copyrighted works than UK citizens are as ludicrous as they are offensive."
Read more on MusicWeek, here.

The simple fact that China blocked the YouTube video of 'A Good Heart' below suggests Sharkey is right. This songs' lyrics are appropriate and include:
"I hear a lot of stories
I suppose they could be true
All about intellectual property and what it can do to you
Highest risk of striking out
The risk of getting hurt
And still, I have so much to learn"

Ok, ok, I changed a word or two; listen to the original lyrics below and enjoy your weekend. 


Music Copyright Fees for Television and Radio Announced





Picture:
TV History

JLM Pacific Epoch (China Business Headlines & Analysis from JL McGregor & Company) translated a report by West China City Daily quoting Chinese composer Xu Peidong that China's National Publishing Administration plans to set up copyright fees of 2.4 Renminbi per minute for music used on television and 0,3 Renminbi per minute for Radio. Read here.

Read more about the General Administration of Publication under the Central People's Government on the site of ChinaCulture.org, here.

Also the US Library of Congress gives some information about the history of the National Publishing Administration: "In 1982 the China National Publishing Administration, the umbrella organization of Chinese publishers, was placed under the Ministry of Culture, but actual management of the industry was directed through four systems of administration: direct state administration; administration by committees or organizations of the State Council or the party Central Committee; armed forced administration; and administration by provinces, autonomous regions, or special municipalities."

Read more here.

IP Dragon's Worldwide Review of Seizures and Measures Against Counterfeit and Pirated Goods Originating from China

This article will be a work in progress, because everytime I will come across news about a country that seized counterfeit or pirated goods originating from China I will add the link, so that a worldwide overview will emerge. If you find articles about activities against infringed goods from China in exotic places (or if such a countery has any link with infringement originating from China), feel free to send me the links. Thanks.

Afghanistan – Islamic Republic of Afghanistan:



Albania – Republic of Albania

Algeria – People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

Andorra – Principality of Andorra


Angola – Republic of Angola



Antigua and Barbuda – Antigua and Barbuda



Argentina – Argentine Republic



Armenia – Republic of Armenia



Australia – Commonwealth of Australia



Austria – Republic of Austria



Azerbaijan – Republic of Azerbaijan



The Bahamas – Commonwealth of The Bahamas



Bahrain – Kingdom of Bahrain



Bangladesh – People's Republic of Bangladesh



Barbados



Belarus – Republic of Belarus



Belgium – Kingdom of Belgium



Belize



Benin – Republic of Benin



Bhutan – Kingdom of Bhutan



Bolivia – Republic of Bolivia



Bosnia and Herzegovina – Bosnia and Herzegovina



Botswana – Republic of Botswana

Phillips, Jeremy, 'Poison toothpaste alert in Botswana', Afro-IP, January 25, 2008.

Brazil – Federative Republic of Brazil



Brunei – Negara Brunei Darussalam



Bulgaria – Republic of Bulgaria



Burkina Faso – Burkina Faso



Burma – Union of Myanmar



Burundi – Republic of Burundi



Cambodia – Kingdom of Cambodia



Cameroon – Republic of Cameroon



Canada


Cape Verde - Republic of Cape Verde

Central African Republic


Chad – Republic of Chad


Chile – Republic of Chile



China – People's Republic of China: it can be argued that the People's Republic of China is the greatest victim of the infringements originating in China.

Wang Guanqun, China seizes counterfeit commodities worth 1.55 bln yuan in 2008, Xinhua, March 14, 2009

Colombia – Republic of Colombia


Comoros – Union of the Comoros


Congo – Democratic Republic of the Congo (Congo-Kinshasa)



Congo – Republic of the Congo (Congo-Brazzaville)



Costa Rica – Republic of Costa Rica



Côte d'Ivoire – Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)



Croatia – Republic of Croatia



Cuba – Republic of Cuba



Cyprus – Republic of Cyprus



Czech Republic



Denmark - Kingdom of Denmark

Djibouti – Republic of Djibouti


Dominica – Commonwealth of Dominica



Dominican Republic



East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste



Ecuador – Republic of Ecuador



Egypt – Arab Republic of Egypt



El Salvador – Republic of El Salvador



Equatorial Guinea – Republic of Equatorial Guinea



Eritrea – State of Eritrea



Estonia – Republic of Estonia



Ethiopia – Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia



Fiji – Republic of the Fiji Islands



Finland – Republic of Finland



France – French Republic



Gabon – Gabonese Republic



The Gambia – Republic of The Gambia



Georgia



Germany – Federal Republic of Germany



Ghana – Republic of Ghana



Greece – Hellenic Republic



Grenada



Guatemala – Republic of Guatemala



Guinea – Republic of Guinea



Guinea-Bissau – Republic of Guinea-Bissau



Guyana – Co-operative Republic of Guyana



Haiti – Republic of Haiti



Honduras – Republic of Honduras



Hong Kong – special administrative region of Hong Kong


Hungary – Republic of Hungary



Iceland – Republic of Iceland



India – Republic of India



Indonesia – Republic of Indonesia



Iran – Islamic Republic of Iran



Iraq – Republic of Iraq



Ireland



Israel - State of Israel

Italy - Italian Republic

Jamaica


Japan - State of Japan

Jordan - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Kazakhstan - Republic of Kazakhstan


Kenya - Republic of Kenya

Phillips, Jeremy, 'China blames Kenya for buying its fakes', Afro-IP, April 30, 2008.

Kiribati - Republic of Kiribati

Korea, North - Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)


Korea, South - Republic of Korea (South Korea)


Kosovo - Republic of Kosovo

Kuwait - State of Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan - Kyrgyz Republic


Laos - Lao People's Democratic Republic

Latvia - Republic of Latvia


Lebanon - Republic of Lebanon

Lesotho - Kingdom of Lesotho

Liberia - Republic of Liberia

Libya -Socialist People's Libyan Arab Great Jamahiriya

Liechtenstein - Principality of Liechtenstein

Lithuania - Republic of Lithuania

Luxembourg - Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Macao special administrative region of Macao

Macedonia - (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia

Madagascar - Republic of Madagascar

Malawi - Republic of Malawi
Malaysia

Maldives - Republic of Maldives

Mali - Republic of Mali

Malta - Republic of Malta

Marshall Islands - Republic of the Marshall Islands

Mauritania - Islamic Republic of Mauritania

Mauritius - Republic of Mauritius

Mexico - United Mexican States

Micronesia - Federated States of Micronesia

Moldova - Republic of Moldova

Monaco - Principality of Monaco

Mongolia

Montenegro

Morocco - Kingdom of Morocco

Mozambique - Republic of Mozambique

Namibia - Republic of Namibia

Nauru - Republic of Nauru

Nepal - Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

Flag of the Netherlands The Netherlands - Kingdom of the Netherlands

New Zealand


Nicaragua - Republic of Nicaragua

Niger - Republic of Niger

Nigeria - Federal Republic of Nigeria

Olivier, Darren, 'Nigeria textile industry under threat from China fakes', Afro-IP, October 27, 2008.

Norway - Kingdom of Norway

Oman - Sultanate of Oman

Pakistan - Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Palau - Republic of Palau

Panama - Republic of Panama

Papua New Guinea - Independent State of Papua New Geuinea

Paraguay - Republic of Paraguay

Peru - Republic of Peru

Philippines - Republic of the Philippines

Poland - Republic of Poland

Portugal - Portuguese Republic

Qatar - State of Qatar

Romania

Russia - Russian Federation

Rwanda - Republic of Rwanda

Saint Kitts and Nevis - Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis

Saint Lucia


Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa - Independent State of Samoa

San Marino - Republic of San Marino

São Tomé and Príncipe - Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe

Saudi Arabia - Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Senegal - Republic of Senegal

Serbia - Republic of Serbia

Seychelles - Republic of Seychelles

Sierra Leone - Republic of Sierra Leone

Singapore - Republic of Singapore

Slovakia - Slovak Republic

Slovenia - Republic of Slovenia

Solomon Islands


Somalia - Federal Republic of Somalia

South Africa - Republic of South Africa

Spain - Kingdom of Spain

Sri Lanka - Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

Sudan - Republic of the Sudan

Suriname - Republic of Suriname

Swaziland - Kingdom of Swaziland

Sweden - Kingdom of Sweden

Switzerland - Swiss Confederation

Syria - Syrian Arab Republic

Taiwan - Republic of China

Tajikistan - Republic of Tajikistan

Tanzania - United Republic of Tanzania


Phillips, Jeremy, 'China condemns its own export of fakes to Tanzania', Afro-IP, August 14, 2008.

Thailand - Kingdom of Thailand

Friedmann, Danny, IP Dragon, China Bad News for Thailand's Counterfeit Manufacturers, November 28, 2007


Pataya People newspaper Thailand, Goods confiscated from Tukcom

Togo - Togolese Republic

Tonga - Kingdom of Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago - Republic of Trinidad an Tobago

Tunisia - Tunisian Republic

Turkey - Republic of Turkey

Turkmenistan



Tuvalu



Uganda - Republic of Uganda

Phillips, Jeremy, 'Ugandan authorities squeeze imported toothpaste tubes', Afro-IP, June 3, 2009.


Ukraine



United Arab Emirates - United Arab Emirates

Kawach, Nadim, 'Abu Dhabi moves against fake Chinese mobile phones', Emirates Business 24/7, May 6, 2009

United Kingdom - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United States of America



Uruguay - Eastern Republic of Uruguay

Uzbekistan - Republic of Uzbekistan

Vanuatu - Republic of Vanuatu

Vatican City - State of the Vatican City

Venezuela - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuala

Vietnam - Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Yemen - Republic of Yemen

Zambia - Republic of Zambia

Zimbabwe - Republic of Zimbabwe

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Zhongnanhai Cigarettes? White House Cigars? Kremlin Wodka?

Xin Dingding and Wang Huazhong report on an anti-tobacco non-governmental organisation (NGO) called Think Tank Research Center for Health Development, that submitted a petition on April 14, 2009 to the Beijing Trademark Office to stop the use of Zhongnanhai, the complex of buildings in Beijing which serves as the central headquarters of the Communist Party of China, as a trademark for ... cigarettes, because it would mislead consumers.

Zhongnanhai cigarettes have an interesting history, because they used to be specially made for Chairman Mao in the Sixties, read here. The question is do they have an interesting future?

Article 10 (1) Trademark Law: Those identical with or similar to the State name, national flag, national emblem, military flag, or decorations, of the People's Republic of China, with names of the places where the Central and State organs are located, or with the names and designs of landmark buildings." The NGO has definitively a point.

Read Xin and Wang's article for China Daily here.

Hat tip to Mikołaj Rogowski, a law student of Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland, who pointed me to this article. Mikołaj is going to write a guest article on IP Dragon in the near future.

Do ACTA Member Countries Want to Confront China With A Fait Accompli?

Since April 9, when I blogged 'China and ACTA: Why the problem is not made part of the solution', new information about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) has leaked, see Wikileaks here. It makes you realise how transparent the founding parties to ACTA want to be. Compare the United States Trade Representative posting a 6 page Summary, April 6, 2009 with the 48 page draft that leaked.

I know some lawyers who will be exuberant with the most conspicious provision of the ACTA draft you can find:

Section 3: Criminal Enforcment; article 2.14:
"Willful copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes:
a. significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain; and
b. willful copyright or related rights for purposed of commercial advantage or private gain."

Although a lot is in flux, these are some of the other interesting things in the draft:
- Higher damage awards;
- Mandated information from infringer;
- The right holder is not liable for payment of any storage or destruction;
- Right to block or detain goods at the border for up to one year.

By excluding countries such as the People's Republic of China, it seems that the ACTA members first want establish a high IPR enforcement standard, and make this standard the global standard. But this makes all the other fora less significant. As Professor Michael Geist put it: "there will be a concerted effort to transform a plurilateral agreement into a multilateral one, though only the original negotiating partners will have had input into the content of the treaty". Read Professor Geist's column for Intellectual Property Watch: 'The ACTA Threat To The Future Of WIPO'. Of course ACTA is not only threatening the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), but also World Trade Organization (WTO)'s Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). One of the advantages of WTO's TRIPs in comparison to WIPO treaties is that WTO has an effective dispute resolution mechanism. It will be interesting to see how the ACTA members will resolve disputes.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Silk Market Vendors of Counterfeit Goods Terrorise Law Firm


Remember the Silk Market Appeal Case/Landlord Case about which I blogged at the exact same date, but then in 2006? Read here. Well, a lot has happened in the mean time:

The Beijing Silk Market (before known as Silk Street or Silk Alley) vendors of counterfeit Burberry, Chanel, Gucci, Louis Vuitton and Prada products, have again overstepped the boundaries of accepted behaviour. After a long history of infringing these luxury brand's trademarks, design-patents and copyrights, the market management organisation entered into an anti-counterfeiting agreement with the coalition of luxury brands, last December (2008). The agreement was that the market manager would close down a stall for two weeks if is caught infringing intellectual property rights of the luxury brands coalition. If the infringing vendor is paying 5000 renminbi to the coalition in the first three days, the ban is reduced to one week.

So far, so good. But now the market management has sued the Chinese law firm IntellecPro which has been acting for the coalition at the Beijing Chaoyang People's Court for lost earnings after being shot down temporarily. They might think the best defense is offence.
Zhao Tianying, legal consultant at IntellecPro, told Managing IP that 40 of the Silk Market stallholders crammed into the law firm's reception and even invaded their rooms to scratch files and documents. And that this continued for days. Read Janice Qu's article for Managing Intellectual Property, which includes a time line of the last four years of legal battles, here.

China Daily says that the lawyer of the Silk Market vendors claims that the report by IntellecPro is lacking the evidence to prove that the vendors were selling fake goods: "The could have been sold by street vendors who just happened to be in front of the traders' stalles". Read the China Daily article here.

The case at the Beijing Chaoyang People's Court was adjourned.

Faustian Pact Anno 2009: Receive Counterfeit Products, Lose Your Soul


You might have seen the movie 'The Devil Wears Prada'. A more empirical title could be 'The Devil Sells fake Prada'. Research conducted by Duke and MIT professor Dan Ariely (author of Predictably Irrational) found out that owning a counterfeit product significantly corrupts your morality.

Jennifer Lee wrote for the NYT: "In one of his studies, half of the 250 subjects were told that the designer glasses they were wearing were "real," while the other half were told they were wearing "counterfeits." They were told to do a number of tasks that seemed to be related to the glasses, like evaluating scenery. But tucked into the sequence was a math test. Researchers found that 60 percent of those who were wearing "counterfeit" glasses cheated, while only 20 percent of those wearing "real glasses cheated."
Glasses, because the participants will either have a bright future or face the purgatory?
Read Ms Lee's article here.

Picture by Cat Segovia

Sweet US ITC Victory Over Sucralose Patents For Chinese Manufacturers

Complainants:
Tate & Lyle Technology Limited of London, United Kingdom;
Tate & Lyle Sucralose, Inc. of Decatur, IL.

Versus

Respondents:
AIDP, Inc. of City of Industry, CA;
Beijing Forbest Chemical Co., Ltd. of China;
Beijing Forbest Trade Co., Ltd. of China;
Forbest International USA, LLC of Edison, NJ;
Changzhou Niutang Chemical Plant Co., Ltd. of China;
U.S. Niutang Chemical, Inc. of Brea, CA;
CJ America, Inc. of Los Angeles, CA;
Fortune Bridge Co. Inc. of Elmont, NY;
Garuda International, Inc. of Exeter, CA;
Gremount International Co., Ltd. of China;
Guangdong Food Industry Institute of China;
Hebei Province Chemical Industry Academe of China;
Hebei Research Institute of Chemical Industry of China;
Hebei Sukerui Science and Technology Co., Ltd. of China;
Heartland Packaging Corporation of Carmel, IN;
L&P Food Ingredient Co., Ltd. of China;
Lianyungang Natiprol (Intl’l) Co., Ltd. of China;
MTC Industries, Inc. of Edgewood, NY;
Nantong Molecular Technology Co., Ltd. of China;
Nu-Scaan Nutraceuticals, Ltd. of United Kingdom;
ProFood International, Inc. of Naperville, IL;
Ruland Chemistry Co., Ltd. of China;
Shanghai Aurisco International Trading Co. Ltd. of China;
Vivion, Inc. of San Carlos, CA;
Zhongjin Pharmaceutical (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. of Hong Kong.

The complainants (Tate & Lyle) asked the US International Trade Commission (US ITC) to conduct a Section 337 investigation and give an exclusion order that directs Customs to stop imports that allegedly infringe their patents for sucralose, a sweetener. However, the US ITC confirmed its decision that imported sucralose from China does not infringe Tate & Lyle's patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,470,969; 5,034,551; 4,980,463; 5,498,709; and 7,049,435). Read more on the site of US ITC here.

So probably these patents have something that is added to the sucralose.
A certain Dr Mercola says: "Splenda (sweetener by Tate & Lyle) is a combination product. It is not synonymous with sucralose. Sucralose is the actual organic chemical coordination-compound. It is 60o times sweeter than sugar. But when you buy Splenda at the store it consists of sucralose and a bulking agent, because it is 600 times sweeter than sugar you cannot use it by itself. You would have such a small amount that you would not even be able to see it when you use it, so they have to combine it with the bulking agent. And the bulking agent they use are dextrose and maltodextrin, those are sugars, and they are taken from high fructose corn syrope." See Mercola's YouTube presentation here. Sean Croxton has a YouTube presentation called "The Truth about Splenda/Sucralose" in which he tells about the invention/discovery by two scientists who were looking for a new insecticide, see here.

Joff Wild of IAM Magazine blogged that the expected results could be devastating for Tate & Lyle, read here.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

China and ACTA: Why Is The Problem Not Made Part Of The Solution?

Medio December 2008 IP Dragon wrote about the controversial genesis of the China-less Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by Japan and the US (joined by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore and Switzerland) whose goal it is to stem the tide of counterfeit and pirated goods that originate for the lion share from China, read here.

ACTA is not only controversial because it was born in darkness (then again out of darkness beautiful flowers grow), but also because:

- Why start a new multilateral trade agreement when the international community has already the World Trade Organization (WTO)'s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Then again it is hard to reform TRIPs because there are many WTO members. So the way of least resistance is to start a new trade agreement with pre-selected countries that think the same about a TRIPs plus level of IPR enforcement;
- If the People's Republic of China causes the initiators of ACTA such headaches, should they not involve this country in some way with ACTA? In the philosophy of Yin and Yang, the problem (China's lack of IPR enforcement) is existent in the solution (multilateral trade agreement) and vice versa;
- ACTA's content is unknown, so this opens the gates to speculations.

Now the United States Trade Representative has posted ACTA's 'Summary of Key Elements Under Discussion' (Summary) which gives the countours of the draft structure:
  • Chapter 1. Initial Provisions and Definitions;
  • Chapter 2. Legal Framework for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights;
Section 1. Civil Enforcement

Section 2. Border Measures:
Under discussion is whether border measures should apply not only to importations (as TRIPs prescribes) but also to export and transit of goods;
Another possible point of contention is whether travelers can import counterfeit or pirated goods for their personal use (de minimis exception);
It is no surprise that ACTA tries to solve some of the points, which especially has frustrated the US (which among other reasons brought a claim against China at the WTO: DS 362): measures to ensure that infringing goods are not released into free circulation and the destruction of goods that have been determined to infringe intellectual property rights.

Section 3. Criminal Enforcement; the holy grail (overestimated to my taste) remains criminal enforcement of IPR. In the leaked out version of the ACTA proposal of 2007, see below on page 2 here, it was proposed to apply criminal sanctions to IPR infringements on a commercial scale "IPR infringements for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain. This sentence that I could not find back in the Summary was a bit unclear, because either you apply criminal sanctions if a commercial threshold of the infringed goods is reached (problem: which threshold is not arbitrary and what to do with infringers that keep their activities just under the threshold) or you sanction the intention of commercial advantage/financial gain plus the infringement of minimal one product.

Section 4. Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment: surprisingly no draft proposal has been tabled yet.
  • Chapter 3. International Cooperation;
  • Chapter 4. Enforcement Practices; I cannot stress the importance of the exchange of best practices enough. Transparence of IPR enforcement information, including statistics is key;
  • Chapter 5. Institutional Arrangements;
  • Chapter 6. Final Provisions.
Expect a lot more discussion when the first draft provisions are disclosed (or leaked).

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Center Stage for Background Music: Collective Society Victorious Against Supermarket

Mena Lo and Lilian Shi of Wilkinson & Grist China wrote a short article about a copyright infringement case the Music Copyright Society of China brought against Beijing MerryMart Chain Stores.

The Beijing Haidian District People's Court awarded only 500 Renminbi damages.
Read the IAM Magazine article here.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Giving Away Music For Free to Destroy Copyright Piracy: Operation Success, Patient Dead?

Google is trying to get a bit closer to Baidu, the number one search engine in China. Therefore it is offering the users of google.cn free music downloads. It is legal, because all copyright holders have given permission.

Murad Ahmed of the Times Online wrote:
"The service is supported by 140 record labels, including the big four (Warner Music, Universal, EMO, Sony BMG), and will earn revenue from advertising on pages that let Chinese web users download or stream licensed music – 350,000 tracks are already available, with plans to have more than a million tracks within a few months. Warner Music said that it would make its entire global catalogue available as part of the deal." Read Mr Ahmed's article here.

Advertising seems to be the only feasible business model on the internet that has emerged and the music industry also wants to give it a try. The music industry might have realised that (to paraphrase Professor Lawrence Lessig in his excellent book Free Culture) to criminalise a whole generation is not the way to go forward.

There is no question about whether this business model decreases the urge to pirate copyrights, but the question is whether the music industry can survive this way. Is it a good idea, or will this turn out to be "operation succeeded, patient died"? 

What do you think?

UPDATE1:
Also listen to/read the interview of Bob Garfield of On the Media with Greg Kot, author of the upcoming book 'Ripped: How the Wired Generation Revolutionized Music'. 
Thanks for pointing out this interview Ron Yu of novacourses.com

UPDATE2:
Mira Veda wrote a nice article for the Huffington Post about it called 'Pirates Stealing Music in China ... US ... Everywhere', don't forget to read the commentaries below Ms Veda's article.

Guidelines of the Supreme People's Court on Implementing the National IP Strategy

Last year China's State Council promulgated the National IP Strategy ("National IP Strategy 2008: Feasible Commitments or Road to Nowhere Paved with Good Intentions" read here), a roadmap that must lead China to become one of the most innovative countries by 2020. The goals formulated in the National IP Strategy were laudable indeed. Question was, how to achieve these goals? Now the Supreme People's Court has formulated some guidelines: 'Comments of the Supreme People's Court on Implementing the National Intellectual [Property] Rights Protection Strategy'. Read the Xinhua article via People's Daily Online here.

Peter Ollier and Janice Qu give a good overview of the guidelines in an article for Managing Intellectual Property; read it here.

I don't have the document, yet. Make my day and send it to ipdragon at gmail dot com. Thanks.
I will come back to it, after I got a chance to read it.

UPDATE: Jing "Brad" Luo of China Business Law sent me the link to the guidelines in Chinese, see here. Thanks Bradford!

Sunday, April 05, 2009

IPR Enforcement in China via Inversed Trojan Horse: LVMH Invites China Investment Corporation to Take An Equity Stake

March 16, Tim LeeMaster wrote for the South China Morning Post, the English language newspaper of Hong Kong, that China Investment Corporation is considering to take an equity stake of 10 percent in the French luxury goods company LVMH. Head tip to the China Economic Review, read here.

Let's speculate what an eventual deal could bring the LVMH group:

1. Cash (the 10 percent equity is valued between 788 million and 3.1 billion US dollar);
2. Better access to the Chinese markets;
3. The intellectual property rights of LVMH, which include trademarks, design-patents and copyrights of the Louis Vuitton brand, are one of the most infringed intellectual property rights in China. To make LVMH partly Chinese, could prove to be master stroke, since it could help improve the enforcement of LVMH's intellectual property rights in China.

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

How to Protect Traditional Chinese Medicine?

Recently I have been corresponding about Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and which intellectual property rights (IPR) can protect them. I just read Mr or Ms Jia's interesting paper on TCM (Jia Q., The World Health Organization, 'Traditional Chinese Medicine Could Make "Health for One" [Come] True', 2006) which includes a very interesting chapter on intellectual property rights:
4.3. No good methods have been developed to protect traditional knowledge starting at page 64. Jia gives a discription of 10 different methods to protect TCM (I have numbered the list and wrote the IPR in bold):

1. "Trade secret: It has a long history of thousands of years in China and it is one of the important protective methods.
2. National secret: It is one of the most effective methods of all protections now that only finite TCM products enjoy such protection like Yunnan Baiyao capsule.
3. Trademark protection: It is the weak link which TCM industry is liable to be trespassed on. For example, trademark of the Beijing Tongrentang Co. Ltd, which is one of the oldest and well-known corporations of TCM, was even enrolled by a Japanese company in 1983.
4. Geographical indication: It is a kind of protection aimed mainly at trueborn medicinal herbs or the products made from them.
5. Patent protection: It is the strongest methods to protect inventions. But patent system isn’t considered suitable for traditional medicine except those innovative products.
6. Protection and inspection of new medicine: In 2002, administrative protection of new medicine was abolished and inspective duration for new medicine of 5 years, in which the same produces can’t be manufactured as well as imported by other corporations was set up.
7. Protection of Chinese medicines: There novelty is not required and the protective limit is from 30 to 7 years. The protective species have reached to 1668 in which 12 kinds of species belong to the first class of protection.
8. Copyright system: It contains books, articles, prescriptions and instructions.
9. New herb species: It is often developed by cultivation or domesticated from wild species which are newly found.
10. Frontier protection of the intellectual property: It could be applied to the customhouse through which the tortious products export or import."

Ad 5. As Jia already points out, TCM are not well suited to the patent system. A patent needs to be novel, innovative and have practical applicability. By definition TCM are traditional, and not novel. Therefore only innovative use of TCM can be patented. But the special characteristics of TCM make it even more difficult to patent them. TCM are not just curative, but have a preventive part as well. And they are focused on syndromes not diseases (separate diseases can be prognosed as the same syndrome). TCM is catered to the individual and can by definition not be standardised. Its philosophy is holistic, which means no body/mind dichotomy, therefore mind cultivating methods, such as acupuncture, moxibustion, massage, taiji, qigong, next to herbal medicine, are part of TCM. It is also very hard to pinpoint the effective substance of a TCM, since many substances are used in one TCM which supposedly all contribute to the end result.

Ad 7. Protection of Chinese Medicines. This is a sui generis, which might be promising. The idea is to avoid the situation that Chinese people infringe some foreign patent by using or selling a TCM. "Meanwhile, our own TCM is frequently applied for patents by other countries, which reminds us of the serious situation that Chinese traditional medicine knowledge is encountering,"see here. Regulations on the Protection of Types of Traditional Chinese Medicine, effective 1993, see here.

Thanks Ron Yu (Novacourses) and Laurent Gaberell.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Professor Lessig Went To Beijing to Warn China Against ...

... US copyright policy

Mr Brett Gaylor, a Canadian from Montreal wrote and directed a thought provoking documentary 'RIP: A Remix Manifesto', which can be seen in 13 chapters via the internet, see here; which is an open invitation to remix it. The movie criticises copyright laws and intellectual property laws in general that constrain creativity instead of stimulating it. The 'Remix Manifesto':  
1. Culture always builds on the past;
2. The past always tries to control the future; 
3. Our future is becoming less free; 
4. To build free societies, you must limit control of the pas  was proposed by professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University and founder of the Center for Internet and Society and initiator of the Creative Commons movement. Now, what is this documentary saying about China?

In chapter 6 'Preachers, Lawyers and Criminals' professor Lessig is going to China to warn it against ... American copyright policy.

Mr Brett Gaylor: "Professor Lessig has been travelling the globe for over a decade sounding the alarm on its own country's copyright policy."
Professor Lawrence Lessig: "You know I am not anti-American, I am not trying to rally people against America. But I am against this particular version of American policy and I am embarrassed by it, because it is so extreme relative to our tradition and it does harm when this kind of extremism is forced on developing nations. And I think it is particularly appropriate then to come to developing nations and at least got them to recognise that there is another side to the story. So I felt like a lawyer with a guilty conscience, that somehow there must be a balance to this. And if a mess is being created, because lawyers were playing in the hands of these people who profit from this, then laywers need to be on the other side.         

 
In chapter 12 'Which road to the future? ' Mr Bruce Lehman who was the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office between 1993 and 1998, was interviewed. He talks about a "deal" between the US and the rest of the world, I think, not everybody was aware of the consequences at the time.  Mr Lehman is looking back to his legacy in a critical way. 

Mr Gaylor: "In the 1990s the US hatched a plan to trade the economy of things for the economy of ideas. 
And the man who would protect those ideas was . 
Mr Lehman: "In the Clinton administration my job was to be in charge of the intellectual property policy of the US both domestically and in terms of our diplomacy. 
You know in a modern economy I think wealth is a product of the mind. It is really in intellectual creations. 
You know in much of the world we live in a sea of piracy. And you can have sympathy for developing countries, but we made a deal. You know, if you go to a shopping mall in this country you cannot buy anything made in the US anymore, all comes from China or some other place like that. Well the reason for that is that we really opened up our markets. It was to basically abandon low wage manufacturing jobs and the ideas that we would compensate for that with higher wage high tech more intangible based jobs."

Cory Doctorow, writer of sci-fi novels and copyleft advocate and blogger of Craphound : "The idea was that they would convince the world's economies to adopt that prohibited the copying of American ideas without American permission. And in exchange it would require all the countries that wanted to manufacture stuff and export them here to adopt American copyright laws. And if they didn't they wouldn't be allowed to sell their physical goods here in America. And the World Trade Organisation would be the teeth."

Mr Lehman: "And the difficulty in the global trading system is that we met our part of the bargain, but these other countries did not theirs. 
Then images of Beijing's Shijiingshan Amusement Park are shown, which I blogged about in May 2007, see here . And you see a spokesperson of the park answering to the question: Is Mickey Mouse there? "No, that's a cat with big ears."

Mr Lehman: "I have to say that now we are more than a decade into our policies on digital copyrights I feel that it also has achieved the results that we wanted. "
"So I am thinking, you know, maybe we should have forgotten intellectual property rights internationally and gone for labour standards and the environment." 

  

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Video Copyright Enforcement/Anti-Piracy in China Comes of Age

Andy Greenberg wrote two great articles for Forbes about video copyright piracy in China.

In 'Video Piracy's China Syndrome' he writes that "[a]ccording to date from copyright-fingerprinting start-up Vobile, the number of copyright-infringing videos on some Chinese sites like Ku6 and Youku has jumped more than six-fold between September 2007 and September 2008 [..]"
In 'Sinking China's Video Pirates' Greenberg gives an introduction of Vobile and the service deals it struck with 56.com and Pomoho to check whether their users have uploaded content that infringes copyright. Greenberg writes:

"Even as sites like YouTube, Dailymotion and Veoh have purged the vast majority of their infringing content in recent years, Asian user-generated video sites like 56.com, Tudou, Youku, Ku6.com and Megavideo have become frustrating black holes for intellectual property. A second layer of sites like Alluc.org, MovieTVonline.com and Sidereel.com--all based in the West-- have made a business of cataloging pirated clips on those sites and linking to them for a global audience."

Read more of Greenberg's article here.

Interlingua Publishing's China Piracy Reports has a good report 'Famous Video Streaming Website Punished for Copyright Infringement' on a relevant 2008 case: Sifang Yuanchuang International Film, Yingyi Entertainment and China Warner Film Corp. as plaintiffs and Tudou.com as defendant for copyright infringement by streaming the video 'Crazy Stone'.

"Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court ordered Tudou.com to delete the film from their server, and pay damages in the amount of RMB 50,000."

Tudou.com tried to defend itself by saying that they had a computerised system in place, but that it did not have the characteristic code and the copyright holder did not file any notification.
Despite this, the judge decided that the "amount of financial and human power investment and the popularity of the film, Tudou.com should have been aware that the copyright holder was not likely to offer free viewing service of the film online."

Read Interlingua Publishing's report here.

Read also JLM Pacific Epoch's article 'Youku Sued, Claims Its Inundated by Content'.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Neither US Nor China Appeals Against WS/DS362 report

Ms Kaitlin Mara has an excellent post on Intellectual Property Watch about the acceptance of and reactions to the WTO Dispute Settlement Report (WS/DS362) by the US and China. China is expected to tell how it will implement the changes that are prescribed by the report.

The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) co-organised with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) an event on February 23, 2009, to analyse the implications of the WTO Dispute Settlement Report.

Ms Mara gives an overview of some of the remarks made by the speakers, which included:
Read Ms Mara's article here.

Friday, March 20, 2009

The Future of Innovation in China: "China Will Overtake Position Germany in 20 years" Or "Not in Our Life Time"

I just listened to the IP Think Tank Podcast of February 16, 2009 which is an initiative of Duncan Bucknell Company. Besides an interesting review of the WTO report on DS 362, the IP Think Tank Podcast has a lot to offer to any IPR enthusiast. At the end, Mr Nicholas Redfearn, Rouse country manager in Hong Kong, told about two recent books that convey two diametrical opposite views of China's path to patent and innovation growth (the assumption implied is that there is a strong correlation between the growth of patents and innovation in a country).
  • Hutton, Will, 'Writing on The Wall (which refers to idiom: portent of doom or misfortune, see here): Why We Must Embrace China as a Partner or Face It as an Enemy', Simon & Schuster, November 2006. Mr Hutton writes according to Mr Redfearn: "the number of triadic patents (US, Europe and Japan) from China is too small for it to sustain the kind of growth and innovation you read about."
  • Gupta, Anil K., Haiyan Wang, 'Getting China and India right: Strategies for Leveraging the World's Fastest-Growing Economies for Global Advantage' Wiley, John & Sons, February 2009, while Messrs. Gupta and Wang argue, according to Mr Redfearn: "China is producing vast numbers of patents and with the current rate it will overtake Germany by 2020."

Gupta and Wang's book is the most recent, whether it will be more accurate on this, we will have to see. What is your opinion about it? Let me know (ipdragon at gmail dot com). Listen to the IP Think Tank Podcast here.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Interview with Mr Joseph Simone About Which Steps The US Could Take in regard to IPR in China

IP Dragon's Danny Friedmann asked foreign registered lawyer and IPR in China specialist Mr Joseph Simone of Baker & McKenzie in Hong Kong about which course of action the US could take after the decision, WTO DS 362 Report, by the dispute settlement panel on United States’ complaint against “China — Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.”

IP Dragon: Could you please give your opinion on the best recommendation the IACC can give to the USTR in regard to their Special 301 Review about China's status: 'Priority Watch List or Priority Foreign Country/Section 306 Monitoring?
Joseph Simone: "I think the issue of thresholds is one which continues to deserve priority attention--along with the other issues mentioned in the 2009 Special 301 report of IACC. So "Priority Foreign Country" seems preferable, but if USTR has no plans to file an appeal or a fresh case in the very near term, then I'd expect them to decide on Priority Watch List and Section 306 Monitoring."

IP Dragon: Why should the US appeal the panel decision?
Joseph Simone: "It's quicker/cheaper than refiling- any refiling would probably require fresh data from industry- USTR wouldn't need more political support from Industry (really) to appeal - they arguably have a fiat already."

IP Dragon: What would a refiling mean?
Joseph Simone: "A refiling would require a lot more preparation work- an appeal would not annoy China so much as a refiling- the WTO Appellate Body has in the past shifted the burden of proof to defendants (here, China) in analogous cases, the latest being the one involving gambling (DS 285)."

IP Dragon: Did the US have enough information to base their claim?
Joseph Simone: "The US should in any case ask China for narrower data under a new article 63 (3) TRIPs request. The last one in 2006 was way to broad. If China comes through with useful data, the US may not need to ask industry for case info.

IP Dragon: What are your hopes in respect to what China should do?
Joseph Simone: "I'm really hoping China will wake up and decide to start a serious governmental/academic and legislative research project to reform all aspects of IP enforcement--including the Criminal Code.

IP Dragon: What is the magnitude of the problem of counterfeits that originate from China in the developing and developed countries?
Joseph Simone: "For example in Tanzania, between 15 and 20 percent of ALL GOODS circulating were found to be fakes from China, according to the Confederation of Tanzania Industries and up to 30 percent of medicines are counterfeit, according to a 2006 report by the World Health Organization. And for example in Japan, as you have seen, almost 82 percent of all counterfeit products originate from China."

More aricles about counterfeit goods in Africa originating from China:
- 'Tanzania: Counterfeit Drugs Put Lives at Risk', allAfrica.com, January 15, 2009, read here.
- Wadhams, Nick, 'Rapid Rise In African Anti-Counterfeiting Efforts Led By Developed Nations' IP-Watch, December 9, 2008, read here.
- Nakaweesi, Dorothy, 'Traders battle counterfeit products from China', Daily Monitor Uganda, October 14, 2008, read here

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

How to Sanction Lack of IPR Enforcement in China: Priority Watch List (IILA) or Foreign Country/Section 306 Monitoring Status (IACC)

The International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC) is an organisation that represents companies concerned with trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. The IACC submitted the following recommendations to the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) in their annual Special 301 review of intellectual property protection issues in foreign countries. As in the past years, China and Russia remain the main concern for the IACC. China should be dealt with as a Priority Foreign Country, Section 306 Monitoring, according to IACC.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), an alliance representing U.S. producers of content and materials protected by copyright laws, including computer software (BSA joined IIPA, see here), films, television programs, music, books and journals, has the most problems with China, Russia and Canada. The IIPA submitted these recommendations to USTR. It suggest to the USTR that China stays on the priority watchlist, see here. The IIPA also recommends that Hong Kong SAR deserves 'Special Mention' (which is a warning sign), read here and so does Taiwan, read here.

Priority Foreign Countries: those countries that USTR believes have the most onerous or egregious policies with the greatest adverse impact on U.S. right holders or products. These countries are subject to accelerated investigations and possible sanctions.

Section 306 monitoring: means that the USTR can move directly to the application of trade sanctions against China if monitoring shows a slippage in China's enforcement of bilateral intellectual property rights agreements. The USTR is granted this authority under Section 306 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974.

Priority Watch List: those countries which do not to provide adequate IP protection and enforcement or market access for U.S. persons relying on intellectual property protection.

Special Mention: These countries have made progress in improving their level of intellectual property protection but USTR believes they still need to be monitored. USTR also included countries in which problems with intellectual property protection were beginning to become more serious.

I will elaborate on these recommendations, later.

Monday, March 16, 2009

81.5 percent of Counterfeit Products in Japan originates from China

The Japan Times is running (and probably translated) Kyodo News' article which is quoting Japan's Finance Ministry saying that 81.5 percent of counterfeit products come from China.
  • Japan's 9 customs houses handled 26,415 cases of fake imported goods in 2008, up 16.6 percent from 2007 and the seventh consecutive record;
  • Cases linked to China (excluding Hong Kong), grew 33.6 percent from the previous year to 21,529;
  • compared with 2004 the number of counterfeit itmes from China expanded about sixfold in 2008.

Read The Japan's Times article here.

In the video below you can see how the seized counterfeit goods, including fake Louis Vuitton bags, are being destroyed by Japanese customs (in the text under the moving images you can see the Kanji, which are the Chinese characters the Japanese also use: 中国 for China, plus 82 percent, which refers to the rounded up 81.5 percent of all seized counterfeits goods by Japanese customs that originate from China).

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Multinationals Strengthen Their Commitment to China; But Are Scared of IPR Challenges

Booz & Company conducted a study (survey under 108 foreign invested manufacturing companies) together with the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai to see what the influence is of the economic crisis on their commitment of doing business in China.

"Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) of respondents said that enforcing intellectual property protection was “important” or “very important.” Other manufacturing sector issues ranked similarly include improving education and productivity of Chinese labor (67 percent), increasing quality and safety standards for Chinese-made products (66 percent), and welcoming foreign investment (62 percent). Respondents reported that the Chinese government has made noticeable progress on improving manufacturing infrastructure and incremental progress on protecting intellectual property rights."
Read the summary of the AmCham Shanghai/Booz & Company 'China Manufacturing Competitiveness report 2008-2009' here.

Monday, March 09, 2009

AMP: "Economic Crisis Should Make German Government Act More Aggressively Against Counterfeiters"

Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) interviewed Mr Rüdiger Stihl, chairman of the Aktionskreises gegen Produkt- und Markenpiraterie (APM). The resulting article at the site of N24 (in German) gives a good overview of the damages that are caused by counterfeit products originating from China (for 75 percent) and Turkey (10 percent) and the measures that APM is proposing.

APM claims that:
  • the counterfeit products on the German market represent a value of an estimated 30 million euro;
  • 70.000 jobs in Germany are lost because of the counterfeit products.

APM demands more agressive measures from the governement, especially now during the economic crisis:

  • counterfeiters should get draconic sanctions, including imprisonment;
  • not only should the counterfeit products be seized that tourists bought, but they should get a fine as well.

To raise public awareness and sensitise German citizens, APM is organising an exhibition, called 'Schöner Schein. Dunkler Schatten' which means 'Glamour appearance. Dark shadow', that will be held medio 2010 in 30 German shopping centres and must inform 10 million consumers about the risks of counterfeit products.

Bleak reminder

Market price of 1 kilo counterfeit viagra: 90,000 euro (dealers are in many cases not even prosecuted); Market price 1 kilo heroin: 40,000 euro (dealers are risking high jail sentences). You can guess what is the most profitable/low risk business for organised crime.

Update: Mr John Bingham wrote an article for the Telegraph.co.uk in which he claims that drug dealers switch from cocaine to fake viagra, read here.

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Portrait Rights In China: When They Say Cheese, You Say See You In Court

Chinese companies in China infringe portrait of foreign celebrities
Jane Macartney of The Times Online has an article about the commercial use of the portraits of Western celebrities without their permission, which is an infringement of their portrait right.
Little Red Book has nice post about it called 'Beckham, Reeves, and Connery; Selling Sex Pills in China; Fake ad and Chinese Netizen Reactions' including a YouTube video where you see these three celebrities, talking Chinese, endorsing a product that claims to increase the masculinity of the user; and another YouKu video where the Italian football player Messi is used to sell a height pills. IP Dragon's friend Stan Abram of China Hearsay is quoted.

Contrary to many jurisdictions where portrait rights can be found in the copyright law, China's portrait rights are hosted in two articles of the General Principles of Civil Law:
  • Article 100 General Principles of Civil Law: "Citizens shall enjoy the right of portrait.
    The use of a citizen's portrait for profit without his consent shall be prohibited."
  • Article 120 General Principles of Civil Law: "If a citizen's right of personal name, portrait, reputation or honour is infringed upon, he shall have the right to demand that the infringement be stopped, his reputation be rehabilitated, the ill effects be eliminated and an apology be made; he may also demand compensation for losses."

In this case the celebrities also have a right based on article 99 General Principles of Civil Law, which forbids false representation of personal names.

Portrait associated with special event
Rebecca Ordisch an IP Counsel for Cadbury wrote a 10-page paper called 'Sports Marketing in China: an IP perspective' in the Sports Law eJournal (February 13, 2007) of the Australian Bond University Faculty of Law, where she writes:
"[a] small restaurant owner sought legal advice recently, for example, because he wanted to celebrate Liu Xiang’s latest hurdling win with a special offer to his customers. He wanted to promote the special offer with a banner and a photo of the famous hurdler. He was told that, although he could use Liu Xiang’s name in a promotion in celebration of his win, he could not use the image as it would infringe Liu Xiang’s portrait rights."

Foreign company in China infringes portraits of Chinese celebrities
But foreign companies operating in China can also infringe the portrait right of Chinese celebrities. In 2003 Yao Ming, the 2.29 meter (7 ft 6 in) basketball giant sued Coca-Cola Co. for portrait infringement, when his portrait and that of two other Chinese Basketball Association was displayed on commemorative cans (here you see an AFP picture of a Coca-Cola bottle with Yao Ming on it). In the end Coca-Cola settled the case outside of court. Read the People Daily Online article here.

Stills and the coexistence between copyrights and portrait rights
Professor Chen Longjiang of the Haidian University School of Law wrote a very interesting article about the relationship between copyrights and portraits using stills to illustrate this coexistence, for China Intellectual Property Magazine, August 2008, issue 25. The article, translated by Zhang Meichang, can be read here.

So can I use the portrait right/copyright of Yao Ming?
One can argue that I do not really use the picture for commercial reasons, and the picture is on the site of Wikipedia for a long time. And I would like to refer to article 22 Copyright Law which has some relevant paragraphs limiting copyright, so I can use the picture of Yao Ming to illustrate my blog.

Article 22 Copyright Law:
"In the following cases, a work may be exploited without permission from, and without payment of remuneration to, the copyright owner, provided that the name of the author and the title of the work shall be mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law shall not be prejudiced:
(2) appropriate quotation from a published work in one's own work for the purposes of introduction to, or comments on, a work, or demonstration of a point;
(3) reuse or citation, for any unavoidable reason, of a published work in newspapers, periodicals, at radio stations, television stations or any other media for the purpose of reporting current events;
(4) reprinting by newspapers or periodicals, or rebroadcasting by radio stations, television stations, or any other media, of Articles on current issues relating to politics, economics or religion published by other newspapers, periodicals, or broadcast by other radio stations, television stations or any other media except where the author has declared that the reprinting and rebroadcasting is not permitted;
(5) publication in newspapers or periodicals, or broadcasting by radio stations, television stations or any other media, of a speech delivered at a public gathering, except where the author has declared that the publication or broadcasting is not permitted;

Why STAs are Different From EPAs/FTAs and Influencing IPR norms is Preferable to Being Influenced

Professor Peter K. Yu , one of the leading scholars on Intellectual Property Rights in China (director of the Intellectual Property Law Center at Drake University School of Law), informed me that he just wrote a paper called 'Sino Trade Agreements and China's Global Intellectual Property Rights'. It is a great thought provoking read. In the first part Professor Yu explains why a Sino Trade Agreement (STA) is different from a European Partnership Agreement (EPA) or US Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In the second part he gives reasons why China keeps a low profile in the global IPR policy arena, but should be more assertive to help shape global IPR norms.

What makes STAs different from EPAs/FTAs

STAs include Chile-China FTA (November 18, 2005) , Pakistan-China FTA (November 24, 2006), New Zealand-China FTA (April 7, 2008) and China-Singapore FTA (October 23, 2008).
China has, according to Professor Yu, at least the following goals for STAs:
  1. secure energy sources;
  2. facilitate trade between China and signatory countries;
  3. attract Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) from signatory countries;
  4. strengthen China's diplomatic ties with signatory countries;
  5. cultivate goodwill among its neighbours;
  6. improve China's position within WTO.
The strategies deployed by China to develop such STAs are also different from the strategies deployed by the EU and US, respectively, to develop EPAs and FTAs:
  • governed by the principles of national sovereignty, self-determination and non-interference in the internal matters of the signatory countries;
  • gradually developed;
  • more flexibile terms;
  • no ambition to impose Chinese laws upon signatory countries;
  • focus more on acceptance and accommodation, rather than on conversion and harmonization.

In other words: STAs are more pragmatic and tailor-made to the conditions of each signatory country. Therefore, each STA is very different from the other. Examples of the differences between the STAs: In the New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement there is a full chapter (Chapter 12 articles 159-166) on IPR, while you cannot find a word about it in the China–Singapore FTA. Professor Yu mentions that while article 111 (a) Chile–China FTA states the Doha Declaration on TRIPs on Public Health and identifies as an important goal the prevention of abuse of intellectual property rights and restraints on competition, the New Zealand-China FTA omits both issues.

According to Professor Yu, so far, China has not shown any ambition to develop the existing STAs into a multilateral agreement in the future.

Professor Yu notices that STAs are hardly ever TRIPs plus, contrary to many EPAs and FTAs. Professor Yu argues that maybe the only exception to this might be article 165 New Zealand-China FTA, which focuses on the protection of genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and folklore, as an anticipation of the amendments in China's Patent Law. Then again this protection is optional. Many TRIPs-plus Bilateral and Regional Agreements resulted from an asymmetric power relationship. One can argue that this is also the case with China. However, it is not in China's interest to push for TRIPs-plus STAs, since China itself does not want to comply to TRIPs-plus norms at the moment.

Why China keeps a low profile

Professor Yu contends that China keeps a low profile in the arena of global IPR norms, because:

  • several parts of China have not yet reached the point where companies and citizens start demanding higher levels of IPR protection and enforcement; therefore it is very difficult to come up with one IPR policy that deals with all the different challenges within China;
  • China's leadership prefers to focus on its enormous domestic problems;
  • The challenge for China to meet its many international commitments is difficult as it is; it is not the time to assume a leadership role in this respect, yet.

Why China needs to become an influencer of global IPR norms

Professor Yu advises China to be more assertive in shaping the global IPR norms. Only the very fact that the global IPR norms will be used in dispute settlements with WTO members to interpret whether China complied these international IPR norms, for example TRIPs as was the case with DS 362) justifies an effort by China to influence global IPR norms that could possibly prevent future problems.

  • China acceded to the WTO on December 11, 2001, which is rather late. It is time to start influencing rather than being influenced;
  • it could help get rid of the external pressure from the EU and US;
  • it could formulate solutions to China's specific IPR challenges;
  • to assume leadership in the less developed world, so that it could gather a collective bargaining position to influence the global IPR norms.

I concur with Professor Yu that it is in China's interest to try to assume a leadership role so it can help shape global IPR norms (or at least set the IPR policy agenda) and that China should consider developing coalitions with other less developed countries to change some IPR treaties to their wishes. However, I am wondering whether this would intensify the trend in the more developed countries to migrate to different forums (as they are already doing, for example it is said there is a migration going on from TRIPs to ACTA) and also to increase the number of Bilateral and Regional Agreements.

Coming Up: China-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Why Intellectual Property Rights In China Don't Come Naturally

I was delighted to receive the learned paper of Charles R. Stone, published in the Marquette Law Review, Vol. 92, p. 199, 2008. It is called 'What Plagiarism Was Not: Some Preliminary Observations on Classical Chinese Attitudes toward what the West Calls Intellectual Property'.

It has 32 pages and I read it in just half an hour. And a splendid half hour it was.

In this paper Charles makes it plausible that the classical Chinese authors expected their readers to be erudite enough to know what and when they quote and how to interpret these often substantial quotes within the rest of the text. By comparing Chinese classical texts with a legal text that includes references to Supreme Court opinions and quotations, Charles gives his readers (especially the ones with a legal education) the chance to actually experience that the process of interpreting a legal text has in a way many similarities with interpreting a Chinese classical text, which is of course only possible if you have had a classical Mandarin education. Charles explains that in such a cultural environment, heavily influenced by Confucianism, Buddhism where the classical texts were made for the initiated, and communism, a different development of looking at intellectual property was inevitable in China.


Gaining power from the dharani

"The reproduction of religious texts is uniquely appealing to Buddhists because it is a tenet of that religion that the copying and distribution of its sutras is a way to receive the blessings of its founder. The Buddha, it is said, once remarked, “Whoever wishes to gain power from the dharani [charms] must write seventy-seven copies and place them in a pagoda.” The underlying “religious motivation is . . . confirmed by the earliest printings of the dharani discovered in Japan and Korea.”"

Fascinating. Thanks Charles.
Using the web as a pagoda here is a chanted version of (one of) the most famous dharani the Lotus Sutra.



Picture by Peter Nijenhuis can be used with the following Creative Commons license.

Monday, February 23, 2009

Chinese Counterfeit Products Distort Sub-Saharan Market

Great 2008 article by David Rocks and Alex Halperin for BusinessWeek. They write that the manufacturers of low cost high volume products such as shoe polish, ball pens and tooth brushes in African countries, such as Uganda, meet a lot of IPR challenges originating from China.

Chinese counterfeiters adapt quicker and quicker to the changes in the packages of the genuine goods. essrs Rock and Halperin quote Joab Ouma, who at the time was Sara Lee's marketing director of East Africa, about the lead time of Sara Lee that is getting smaller and smaller: “First it was six months, and now it’s as little as six weeks.”

And the quality of the counterfeit products is good. "The faux Nice toothbrushes come in a plastic blister pack that’s virtually indistinguishable from Nice’s packaging, except that the knockoffs say “Design in Germany” while the real ones say “Made in Uganda.

The problem is these African countries is that the enforcement of IPR in difficult. First of all, because there are not many big retail chains but many many small shops, that do not know how to distinguish a fake from a real product.
The irony of it all is that because of the Chinese counterfeiters, the manufacturing in African countries is getting too expensive and will be outsourced to ... yes, China.
Read the BusinessWeek article by Messrs. Rock and Halperin here.
Africa is considered the preferred route for Chinese counterfeiters to Europe, read here.
When the Olympic torch came to Tanzania. people were demonstrating against ... Chinese counterfeit products, read here.

MOU on IPR Between Philippines and Taiwan

Taiwan and the Philippines try to develop a so called Subic-Clark-Kaohsiung Corridor. Taiwan is located north of the Philippines, with the Taiwanese city Kaohsiung in the South. Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway is the longest toll expressway of the Philippines.

PNA reports via TradingMarkets.com that the Philippines and Taiwan held the 16th Republic of Philippines-Taiwan Joint Economic Conference (JEC), read here.

Four trade and investment agreements were signed:
  • The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Philippine-Taiwan Cooperation on Industrial Technology Development;
  • MOU on SME Food Development;
  • MOU on Intellectual Property Cooperation;
  • and MOU on Standardization and Conformity Assessment for Electronic Products.

According to the Taiwan News it was also announced that ATA carnet systems will be activated June 15 between Taiwan and the Philippines to facilitate temporary imports to each other's country. The ATA carnet operations will be implemented only for cooperation in the intellectual property area, officials of the Taiwan Ministry of Economic Affairs told, read here.

In 2007 the two countries also signed a MOU on IPR, see here.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

"Keepin' it real fake"

Engadget, the second most popular blog, according to Technorati has tagged "Keepin' it real fake" as KIRF. In this category gadgets originating from China are frequently showed. Such as a Samsung knock-off called the Sumsang etc, etc.

See their overview here.

Monday, February 09, 2009

WTO Report DS362: "Panellists On Your Marks, Get Set, Decide"

The first thing the WTO panel did was to get translations of the People's Republic of China's both countries agreed upon (so called mutally agreed translations, fourteen of them).

(MAT-1) Criminal Law (Articles 213, 214, 215, 217, 218 and 220);
MAT-2) 2007 Judicial Interpretation (Articles 1 through 7);
(MAT-3) 2004 Judicial Interpretation (Articles 1 through 17);
(MAT-4) 1998 Judicial Interpretation (Article 17 paragraph 2);
(MAT-5) Prosecution Standards on Economic Crimes (Articles 8, 16, 23, 38, 39 and 70);
(MAT-6) Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (Article 27);
(MAT-7) Customs IPR Implementing Measures (Article 30);
(MAT-8) Customs Announcement No. 16/2007;
(MAT-9) Measures on the Administration of Property Confiscated by Customs (Articles 1, 2, 3, 17 and 18);
(MAT-10) Law on Donations for Public Welfare;
(MAT-11) Copyright Law (Articles 2 and 4);
(MAT-12) Regulations on the Administration of Films (Articles 2, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 42 and 55);
(MAT-13) Regulations on the Administration of Audiovisual Products (Articles 2, 4, 28 and 36); (MAT-14) Regulations on the Administration of Publication (Articles 6, 26, 27, 40, 44, 45 and 56). Then they requested the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to give them factual information available to it relevant to the interpretation of the Berne Convention for the Protecition of Literary and Artistic Works (1971).

So these, plus the input by the parties and third parties (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Communities, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey) are the ingredients for the pannelists to come up with a decision.

The factual information provided by the International Bureau consists of a note (pp 10-18) that it prepared and 16 annexes containing excerpts from the Official Records of the various Diplomatic Conferences which adopted, amended or revised the provisions currently contained in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 17 of the Berne Convention. The International Bureau's Note is attached as Annex D-3 to the WTO report, but unfortunately not the 16 annexes.

These Diplomatic Conferences are in chronological order:
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1884: International Conference for the Protection of
    Authors' Rights held in Berne, from September 8 to 19, 1884;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1885: Second International Conference for the
    Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, held in Berne, from September 7 to 18, 1885;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1886 (Berne Act): Third International conference for
    the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, held in Berne, from September 6 to 9, 1886;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1896 (Paris Act): Diplomatic Conference held in Paris, from April 15 to May 4, 1896;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1908 (Berlin Act): Diplomatic Conference held in Berlin, from October 14 to November 14, 1908;
  • Additional Protocol of 1914 (Berne Protocol): Additional Protocol to the Convention signed in Berne without a conference of revision;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1928 (Rome Act): Diplomatic Conference held in Rome, from May 7 to June 2, 1928;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1948 (Brussels Act): Diplomatic Conference held in
    Brussels from June 5 to 26, 1948;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1967 (Stockholm Act): Intellectual Property Conference held in Stockholm, from June 11 to July 14, 1967;
  • The Diplomatic Conference of 1971 (Paris Act): Diplomatic Conference for the
    Revision of the Berne Convention held in Paris, from July 5 to 24, 1971.
Why they didn't ask for the factual information available to WIPO relevant to the interpretation of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967) (not to be mistaken with the Paris Act of Berne Convention), I don't know. I do know that the complaints were also directly based on China's obligation to comply to the provisions of the Paris Convention and indirectly to the Berne and Paris Convention provisions incorporated in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).

To be continued.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

WTO Report DS362

We have been waiting even before 10 April 2007, because a dispute between the US and the People's Republic of China regarding the protection and enforcement of intellectual property in China, was in the air. Finally the WTO panel published their conclusion on 26 January 2009, read here.

So first who were the honorable WTO report panellists?
The WTO report reports that on 13 December 2007, the Director-General composed the Panel with as Mr. Adrian Macey (Chairperson) and Mr. Marino Porzio (Member) and Mr. Sivakant Tiwari (Member).

According to Wikipedia Mr. Adrian Macey is a New Zealand diplomat who in 1987 became Counsellor (economic) and Consul-General at New Zealand’s embassy in Geneva, where he was a New Zealand negotiator in the Uruguay Round for dispute settlement.
Mr. Marino Porzio, is a Chilean lawyer, partner of Porzio, Rios & Associates, who worked at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva, in several posts from 1970 to 1987. Deputy Director General between 1980 and 1987. Since 1990 he has been advisor to the Chilean Government in matters of Intellectual Property. Advising mainly the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy. In this respect and on a regular basis he attended, as a Chilean delegate, the meetings of the Administrative Bodies of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in Geneva. He also participated in the meetings leading to the adoption of TRIPS and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Mr. Sivakant Tiwari is Attorney-General's Chambers of Singapore and Chair of APEC Intellectual Property, you can see a presentation by him here.

When I was finishing my thesis (which is about whether the People's Republic of China is compliant with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)), I had to add the formal complaint of the US to China at the WTO in the preface. Even before that I had made some prognoses about a possible outcome of the dispute.

Before assessing whether my expectations were correct, let us first revisit the three complaints:

The United States claims that China is acting inconsistently with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement by denying the protection of its Copyright Law to creative works of authorship (and, to the extent Article 4 of the Copyright Law applies to them, sound recordings and performances) that have not been authorized for, or are otherwise prohibited from, publication or distribution within China.
The United States claims that China's measures for disposing of confiscated goods that infringe intellectual property rights are inconsistent with China's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
The United States claims that China has not provided for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale that fail to meet certain thresholds.

The first complaint, summarised is that the copyright of censored works is not protected nor enforced. In my thesis 'Paper Tiger or Roaring Dragon, China's TRIPs implementations and enforcement' (pg 73) I wrote: "One can argue that the legitimate foreign and domestic movies cannot compete with pirated movies (footnote 339: Legitimate foreign and domestic movies cannot compete with pirated movies “who endure no censorship, pay no taxes, and bear minimal production costs”, Ranjard and Misonne, see note 109, pg 13.) Even the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has concluded that state censorship of film imports helps encourage piracy because distributors want to give customers more choices than what’s officially available (footnote 340: “China’s censorship process means that legitimate titles are a subset of all titles produced, i.e. producing pirated titles allows distributors to offer customers much wider choice; with no royalties and taxes to pay, and no quality control requirements to meet, pirated movies provide distributors with significantly higher profits, because sellers of pirated movies are generally unlicensed, the distribution network for pirated movies is far more developed than that for legally licensed movies”, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences report, ‘Study of the Impact of Movie Piracy on China’s Economy’, June 2006, available at: http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2006/07/cass_piracyimpact_e.pdf.)"
"China has agreed to regularly instruct enforcement authorities throughout the country that copies of select films which are still in censorship, and not yet ready for distribution are deemed pirated and subject to enhanced enforcement. Notwithstanding these instructions, a Memorandum of Understanding that was reached July 2005, about the protection of films from piracy before, during and immediately after their theatrical release in China (footnote 341: Hau, see note 285.) (thesis pg 74) between the Ministry of Culture, SARFT and MPA, only protects 15 Hollywood movies that are released in China (footnote 342: Chris Israel, ‘Testimony before the US-china Economic and Security Review Commission Piracy and Counterfeiting in China’, June 7, 2006, pg 5, available at: http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2006hearings/written_testimonies/06_06_07wrts/Chris_Israel.pdf.) An interesting question is whether, and if so to what extent non-released movies can contribute to the damages that a plaintiff can claim. In the Sohu versus MPA case, half of the infringed movies were released (footnote 343: The Associated Press, ‘U.S. film group: Chinese portal Sohu loses copyright suit over movie downloads’, December 29, 2006, available at: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/29/business/AS_TEC_China_Sohu_Movie_Piracy.php.
), and this case was further complicated, because people could download from countries where the movie was released."

The second complaint about the disposal of confiscated goods inconsistent with China's obligations I wrote in my thesis (pg 38): "Infringing products are often not destroyed in China and find their way back into the channels of commerce, which conflicts with article 46 TRIPs. Competent authorities shall have the authority to order the destruction or disposal of infringing goods in accordance with the principles as set out in article 46 TRIPs, thus to dispose the infringing goods outside the channels of commerce, without compensation to the infringer. Article 30 (1) Implementation Regulation 2004 states that customs are permitted to donate infringing goods to public welfare organisations or the right holder can purchase the goods. According to article 30 (2) Implementation Regulation 2004 if the goods cannot disposed of in a way they can be used by a public welfare organization, they shall be auctioned after eliminating the infringing character of the goods. The income of the auction goes to the state treasury. Article 30 (3) Implementation Regulation 2004 states that only if donating to a charitable organisation and auctioning is not possible, the infringing products shall be destroyed. The equivalent of article 30 Customs Implementation Regulation 2004 could already be found in article 27 Regulations 2003. One can argue that the donation to charitable organisations and auctions open the possibility of infringing product reentering the channels of commerce (footnote 164: “It is not uncommon for counterfeit goods donated to charity or sold at auction to reenter the stream of commerce as they can easily be repurchased by the infringers and leave brand owners right back where they started,” Timothy Trainer, ‘Submission of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, Inc., to the US Trade Representative, Special 301 Recommendation’ , February 11, 2005, pg 30., available at: http://www.iacc.org/resources/2005_USTR_Special_301.pdf.), which is in conflict with article 46 TRIPs. Trainer contends that counterfeit goods should always be destroyed unless the right holder gives prior consent for donations or auctions, because no company is able to vouch for the safety of seized products, allowing counterfeit products to reenter the marketplace will injure the right holder’s brand equity, and the destruction of illegal goods makes a statement it is unacceptable (footnote 165: Trainer, see note 164, pg 30.)."
"Besides, it can be argued that article 16 Regulations 2003 (footnote 166: Article 16 Regulations 2003: Customs shall notify the right owner immediately when they discover the goods suspected to infringe recorded intellectual property rights. Where the right owner files an application according to Article 13 of these Regulations within three business days after he receives the notice from Customs and submits the guarantee according to Article 14 of these Regulations, Customs shall detain the suspected goods and send the detention receipt to the consignees or consignors. Where the right owner fails to file the application or submit the guarantee within the time limit, Customs shall not detain the goods.) and article 21 Customs Implementation Regulation 2004 (footnote167: Article 21 Customs Implementation Regulation: An intellectual property right holder shall give reply according to the following provisions within 3 working days from the date of serving the customs the written notice as described Article 20 of the present Measures:
(1) If he believes that the relevant goods have infringed upon the intellectual property right that have been put on archives at the General Administration of Customs, and requests the customs to detain the goods, he shall file a written application to the customs for detaining the goods suspected of infringement and providing guarantee in accordance with Article 22 of the present Measures;
(2) In case he believes that the relevant goods do not infringe upon the intellectual property rights that have been put on archives at the General Administration of Customs by him or does not request the customs office to detain the goods suspected of infringement, he shall explain the reason to the customs in writing.
The intellectual property right holder may check the relevant goods upon approval of the customs.) that impose a deadline of three days for a right holder to apply for seizure of suspected infringing goods held by Chinese customs, otherwise the goods shall not be detained, are not conducive to border enforcement (footnote 168: “[T]hese rules impose a deadline of only three days for a right holder to apply for seizure of suspected infringing goods held by Chinese customs,” USTR, 2006 Special 301 Report, April 28, 2006, pg 20, available at: http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2006/2006_Special_301_Review/asset_upload_file473_9336.pdf.) in the best case or non-compliant to the prohibition to entail unreasonable time-limits of article 41 (2) TRIPs in the worst case. On the other hand, customs protection in China may have been strengthened by the Regulations Governing Customs Penalty of 2004 (footnote 169: Regulations Governing Customs Penalty of People's Republic of China (Provision related to intellectual property protection), adopted at the 62nd Executive Meeting of the State Council on September 1, 2004, promulgated by Decree No.420 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China on September 19, 2004 and effective as of November 1, 2004, available at:
http://www.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=2045&col_no=121&dir=200603.) which consists of only one single provision. This article 25 Regulations Governing Customs Penalty of 2004 provides customs the power to fine exporters or importers up to 30 percent of the value of the infringing goods for IP infringements."

The third complaint about the numerical thresholds for commercial scale intellectual property infringements I wrote in my thesis (pg 82): "There is no indication that numerical thresholds are prohibited by TRIPs. The judicial interpretation’s calculation methods undermine the effectiveness of a deterrent, but does not exclude the possibility that the result is “sufficient to provide a deterrent”, pursuant to article 61 TRIPs."

I will analyse the WTO report later. My first reaction I gave in an interview with World Trademark Review, see here. To be continued.

In the meantime you can already read Stan Abrams of China Hearsay's interesting take on the WTO report, here and Michael Geist's take here.

Thursday, January 29, 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<