Friday, July 10, 2009
EU Customs Report 2008 About IPR Enforcement Activities not IPR Infringements from China
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Fake iPhones: Rip-off or Innovation
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. Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Supreme People's Court of China: "Current Economic Situation Makes Granting IPR Injunctions More Difficult"
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?
Monday, June 08, 2009
Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules (2009)
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.
(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. 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: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.
Monday, May 25, 2009
IP Dragon's Law Firms Update
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
Monday, May 18, 2009
Reality Imitates Fiction: China National Space Administration Logo: Half Star Trek, And Other Half ...Star Trek
Grim audits of EU-China Relations – IPR to the rescue?
Guest article by Mikołaj RogowskiFriday, 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.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Taylor Wessing Global Intellectual Property Index and China: The Last Shall Be The First
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Two Encouraging Surveys: On Public Awareness and Business Attitudes of Intellectual Property Rights in Hong Kong
- 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
Google Will Continue To Investigate Trademarks as Keywords in China, Hong Kong and Macau
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Promising News: China and UK Fast-Track Green Patent Applications
BSA Software Piracy Study: Taiwan 39 Percent, Ranks 23th Lowest
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):
BSA Software Piracy Study: Hong Kong 48 Percent, Ranks Average
BSA Software Piracy Study: China 80 Percent; Ranks 24th Highest
Little Red Book About Xiao Nei: "A Great Example of Digital Copycatting Done Right"
Taiwan's Three Strikes Sanction Less Strict Than French Equivalent
Monday, May 11, 2009
Hon Hai versus BYD: IPR Infringement or Malicious Attack by a Rival?
AmCham Gives Chinese Government Recommendations About Copyright Law, Trademark Law and Patent Law
- "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."
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.
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:
Sunday, May 03, 2009
IIPA: "China and Russia Remain Major Concerns for Copyright Industries"
This is what IIPA stated April 30, 2009 about China:
- Business Software losses 2008 2940.0 million US dollar levels 79 percent.
- Records & Music losses 2008 564.0 million US dollar levels 90 percent.
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. 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. 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.Monday, April 20, 2009
“A new dawn for the China health-care or… Grand theft IP?”

For more on the reform check: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123982492165322167.html
Text and picture Mikołaj Rogowski
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
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"
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
Phillips, Jeremy, 'Poison toothpaste alert in Botswana', Afro-IP, January 25, 2008.
Mainichi Daily News, 'Japan, China agree to set up working group to address intellectual property violations', June 4, 2009.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
China and ACTA: Why Is The Problem Not Made Part Of The Solution?
- Chapter 1. Initial Provisions and Definitions;
- Chapter 2. Legal Framework for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights;
- 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.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Center Stage for Background Music: Collective Society Victorious Against Supermarket
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. 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.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.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: Sunday, March 29, 2009
Professor Lessig Went To Beijing to Warn China Against ...
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.Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Neither US Nor China Appeals Against WS/DS362 report
- Professor Peter K. Yu, director of the IP Law Center at Drake University Law School in Indiana, who gave an interesting presentation about the 'Key Legal Findings and Implications of the US-China Panel Report';
- Professor Joost Pauwelyn, international law at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva;
- Atul Kaushik of the Consumer Unity & Trust Society International and former Indian negotiator at WTO;
- Dr. Xuan Li, Coordinator Innovation and Access to Knowledge Programme of the South Centre gave also a presentation: 'US-China case: Implications for the protection and enforcement of IPRs in China'.
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: 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. Monday, March 16, 2009
81.5 percent of Counterfeit Products in Japan originates 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.
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.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 celebritiesJane 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 eventRebecca 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
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:
- secure energy sources;
- facilitate trade between China and signatory countries;
- attract Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) from signatory countries;
- strengthen China's diplomatic ties with signatory countries;
- cultivate goodwill among its neighbours;
- improve China's position within WTO.
- 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.
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.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. - 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"
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.
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.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.”