IP Dragon Blogging From Singapore at Global Forum on Intellectual Property

Raffles and Fairmont (Picture Danny Friedmann)

Once every other year the IP Academy of Singapore handpicks IP experts and brings them all together at the Fairmont, opposite the Raffles Hotel at the Global Forum on Intellectual Property 2011.

Professor David Llewelyn made an excellent line up of speakers and IP Dragon is very happy to be give two presentations and launch the TP website. The programme is extremely full of must-see presentations.

For those passionate about IP in China, a lot of very interesting information can be expected.

Tomorrow, January 6th, Professor Peter Williamson (International Management, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and Co-author of Dragons at Your Door: How Chinese Innovation is disrupting Global Competition is giving the keynote address 1 about IP and China, with the title "Geting Ready to Rumble in the New Asian Decade".

Then also there will be Special Judges' Plenary Session about "The Next Ten Years in Intellectual Property". Moderator will be professor Llewelyn and panelists include:

Dr Jiang Zhipei, Chief Justice of IPR Tribunal, People's Republic of China Supreme People's Court (retired) and senior advisor at Fangda Partners law firm.

I am a great fan of Dr Jiang's famous site China IPR Law on which Dr Jiang explains about IPR in China and answers letters from readers. This site I also heavily used when I was writing my master's thesis.

Also present are judge Joachim Bornkamm, presiding judge of the Federal Supreme Court of Germany;

Justice Andrew Phang, Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore;

Hon. Randall R. Rader, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Washington DC;

Sir Richard Arnold, judge of the High Court, Chancery Division;

Hon. Robert van Peursem, vice president, District Court of The Hague, The Netherlands.

At parallel sessions IP in China experts such as Professors Peter K. Yu, Justin Hughes and Sun Haochen will be available. Last but certainly not least Professor Susan Scafidi will tell everything you ever wanted to know about fashion and IP.

More blogs about this event will follow.

continue reading ...

Cheese With A Double Identity Crisis: Dutch, No Chinese, No Kiwi

Last Saturday this consumer strolled through the Park N Shop Super Store in Tsuen Wan, near the Tsuen Wan MTR line towards Central, Hong Kong, and was confused not once, but twice.

Firstly, because when he saw Edam on the package, he associated the cheese with the city in the Netherlands with the same name. Edam cheese, one assumes, is produced in Edam. However, when he read the promotional line: "A smooth Dutch-style cheese with a light fresh flavour" he knew his association was a mistake, since it is not a real Dutch cheese, but only Dutch-style.

Intrigued by the origin of the cheese, (and flattered by the combination of the words Dutch and style) he was looking for clues of the place of origin of the cheese. When one is in Hong Kong and reads 'Mainland', in the lion's share of cases the People's Republic of China is meant. Therefore yours truly was confused for the second time, since the manufacturer is a New Zealand company named Mainland, based in Dunedin.

Against this kind of confusion the Agreement on Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) mandates protection via Geographical Indication (GI)'s. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) a Geographical Indication (GI) is "[...] a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that place of origin." Read more here.

The best article I have ever read about GI's was written by Professor Justin Hughes of the Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University of New York. Professor Hughes proposes three basic purposes of GI's: (1) to communicate geographic source, (2) to communicate (nongeographic) product qualities, and (3) to create evocative value. Read his excellent article 'Champagne, Feta, and Bourbon - the Spirited Debate About Geographical Indications'.

Professor Hughes describes the two basic approaches in national

law protecting GIs: "either a free-standing appellations law or the use of certification marks within trademark law." So appellations law, which is used in the EU versus certification marks, which is used in the US. China seems to side with EU on this issue, but on second thought it is more complicated.

How does China protect geographical indications?

• The State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) is protecting it via the trademark law, implementing regulations for the trademark law, measures regarding the registration and administration of collective marks and certification marks.
• The Administration for Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) protects it via the product quality law and standardization law
• Ministry of Agriculture via administrative measures.

Read more about China's solution to protect GI's in Jinhua Ham's article 'Application of geographical indication systems in China' here.

So China seems to protect GI's via three separate administrative institutions. This could on the one hand cause some coordination problems in the protection of GI's and ambiguity for manufacturers of agricultural produce about how to product their GI, and on the other hand it could increase competition between these administrative institutions, which could ameliorate the quality of protection.

Read more about China's views on GI's here (IP Dragon) and here (WIPO magazine) and here (EU-China trade project).

For a confusing title read 'China owns 600,000 geographical indication trademarks for agricultural products' (People's Daily Online). In the article, however, you will find statistics that China had 531 geographical indications and 600,000 trademarked agricultural products at the time the article was published (2008).

continue reading ...