China's Influence On Non-Trade Concerns In International Economic Law

Maastricht University, Faculty of Law

Professor Paolo Farah organised with a grant from China-EU School of Law (CESL) in Beijing three conferences on China and Non-trade Issues. The first was held at the University of Turin (November 23-24, 2011), the second at Tsinghua University and the third was hosted by the Faculty of Law of the Maastricht University, the Netherlands, January 19-20, 2012.

Hall of fame at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law

The papers of the speakers presented will be collected in a book edited by Professor Farah called "China's Influence on Non-Trade Concerns in International Economic Law", will be published by Ashgate Publishing (UK), forthcoming in 2012. Beside the English version, there will be an Italian, Hungarian and Chinese version of the book, thanks to the CESL in Beijing.

Law scholars at Faculty of Law, Maastricht University

Professor Farah describes what non-trade concerns of international trade are and why they are of crucial importance: "Both public opinion and policy makers fear that international trade, in particular a further liberalization thereof, may undermine or jeopardize policies and measures on a wide variety of issues, for example, the protection of the environment and a sustainable development, good governance, cultural rights, labour rights, public health, social welfare, national security, food safety, access to knowledge, consumer interests and animal welfare." The list is not exhaustive and includes intellectual property rights.

Professor Paolo Farah

This author had the honour to present his paper 'Rise and Demise of U.S. Social Media in China' at the last conference hosted by the Faculty of Law of the Maastricht University. It is about how U.S. social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were cloned by Chinese social media sites, RenRen, Sina Weibo and Youku, then blocked from China, and then the Chinese clones got funding in the U.S. at the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ.

Speakers from right to left
Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Arianna Broggiato, Danny Friedmann, Rogier Creemers

On January 19, the programme for experts included:
Professor Farah of the University of Turin and visiting scholar of Harvard Law School (East Asian Studies) and Professor Thomas Christiansen of Maastricht University, Political Science Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, discussed the EU External Action toward China on Non-Trade Concerns in International Economic Law.

Professor Thomas Christiansen

Sergi Corbalán, Executive Director of the Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO) in Brussels, was talking about fair trade and the new EU policies on Corporate Social Responsibility and Development.

Sergi Corbalán

Benjamin Barton of King's College of London, gave a presentation about the EU, China and international development.

Benjamin Barton

Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders of the Faculty of Law of Maastricht University gave a presentation on China-EU Relations in the Field of Intellectual Property Law. He is not only Intellectual Property Law, Director of the Advanced Masters Intellectual Property Law and Knowledge Management (IPKM LLM/MSc), and Academic Director of the Institute for Globalisation and International Regulation (IGIR), but also Director of the Annual Intellectual Property Law School and IP Seminar of the Institute for European Studies of Macau (IEEM), Macau SAR, China.

Professor Anselm Kamperman Sanders

Arianna Broggiato, BIOGOV UNit, Université Catholique de Louvain, Centre for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR) talked about Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge at the Crossroads of Intellectual Property and the Environmental Regime.

Rogier Creemers, who made a transfer from Maastricht University to the Centre of Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University presented his paper called Cultural Products and the WTO: China's Domestic Censorship and Media Control Policies. Rogier has an interesting blog called China Copyright and Media.

Rogier Creemers

On January 20, the programme focused on public health, product and food safety and consumer protection. Lukasz Gruszczynski of the Law Institute of the Polish Academy of Science talked about product safety in the framework of the WTO agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.

Lukasz Gruszczynski

Denise Prevost of Faculty of Law of the Maastricht University discussed her paper Health Protection Measures as Barriers to EU Exports to China in the framework of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.

Denise Prevost

Enrico Bonadio of the Law School of the City University of London presented his paper on Plain Packaging of Cigarettes and Public Health under the TRIPs Agreement.

Enrico Bonadio

Paolo Vergano of FratiniVergano European Laywers in Brussels gave a Practitioner's Perspective on Specific Non-Trade Concerns in the Areas of Food Safety and Consumer Protection: A Comparative Analysis of WTO Notifications.

Paolo Vergano

Lorenzo di Masi presented his paper on The Protection of Public Health and Food Safety in East Asia Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs): ASEAN and China.

Lorenzo di Masi

Maastricht city on the banks of the Maas

continue reading ...

TGIF: Vacuum Cleaner Inventor Says The Darndest Things

Thank goodness it is Friday

Sir James Dyson was quoted by Dan Milmo in the Guardian, here, saying:

"They are running the risk of being expelled from the WTO. They are creating an unlevel playing field by taking our technology and selling it all over the world." 

With "they" Mr Dyson means China. I understand Mr Dyson's frustration, but the quote is grotesque. China cannot be simply pulled out of the World Trade Organization (WTO) equation. China is one of its key players. The idea about the WTO is to resolve the issues via a binding dispute resolution system. When Mr Dyson would have said that a dispute resolution procedure could be started against China's lack of IP enforcement or non-compliance of the national treatment principle (treating foreign companies at least as good as domestic ones), it would have made more sense.  

Police in Shenzhen. Aren't we ... visible?
Photo: Danny Friedmann

In the piece Mr Dyson, who invented the bagless vacuum cleaner and the bladeless electronic fan, makes the following clueless allegations to China:

- "China benefits from strictly monitored IP regimes outside its own border, but has failed to crack down on domestic offenders as it pursues rapid economic growth." Does China benefit much from strictly monitored IP regimes, if their alleged infringed products cannot enter into other countries? Did China fail to crack down on domestic offenders? One can argue that China failed to crack down on domestic offenders inadequately or insufficiently. But to assert that China failed to crack down on domestic offenders is simply not true (think about all the campaigns with the fancy names, see here 2010 and here 2011).
Mr Dyson backs up his claim with anecdotal, evidence: a patent infringement case he won, but where the infringers did not pay the fine nor stop their infringing activities.
- "China's reputation among foreign investors is being diminished by the flouting of product copyrights and a two-speed patent system that appears to discriminate against non-Chinese applications."

With "product copyrights" probably intellectual property protection is meant, which includes invention-patents, utility-patents, design-patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. To make such sweeping statements is not useful unless they are backed up by research that gives the status on how the intellectual property rights of British industries or European industries are protected. Until now Chinese foreign direct investments did not correlate much with China's level of intellectual property enforcement level. It seems more to correspond to China's economic growth. And I have not come across evidence that foreign patents on average are examined slower. Very broadly speaking a utility and design patent takes about half a year and an invention patent can take up to two years time. 

Dyson, the company, is spending 10 million UK pounds per year on legal costs (according to an article by James Hurley in the Telegraph, see here) and is also inventive to bring the intellectual property in China challenges under the attention of people in British government, such as David Cameron (prime minister) and Baroness Wilcox (IP minister). 

Inconvenient truth about intellectual property infringement

A Dyson bagless vacuum cleaner costs about 4,000 Yuan in China. Factory workers in Shenzhen make about 1,200 Renminbi per month and middle class earnings are about 4,000 Renminbi per month. The inconvenient truth is that the more a company has spent on research and development (as is the case with Dyson) or marketing and advertising (as is the case with luxury brands) the bigger the incentive for infringers to ride on the coat tails of some other companies' economic activities.

continue reading ...

Corrupting Our Youth One Sing Contest At A Time, and Time-Travelling Still Possible

Super girl, o boy o boy!

In the year 399 BC, Socrates was sentenced to death by drinking a cup of Hemlock, because he corrupted the youth. In hind sight we hold his contribution to educate the population in high esteem. How will our progeny judge a TV programme such as Super Girl? At least now the creators of this programme are affected by a similar criticism that once hit Socrates: "vulgar, manipulative, poison for our youth". Read more here.

"I don't want to be vulgar ...

"Market access ban is the modern hemlock cup"
The Death of Socrates 
Jacques-Louis David 1787

We can debate about whether the ever o so impressionable youth can spend their time wiser (hurray for programmes about "practical information about house work"). But especially in a stressful hyper competitive society as China's, people also grave for some entertainment after a day chock-full of study or work. I think the more choice the better. Hopefully then the audiences gravitate toward higher quality. State Administration for Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) might not be in the best position to be a media critique. And it might be better if the government sticks to facilitating the preconditions for culture to blossom, which includes providing a varied TV programmes schedule with uplifting but also entertaining programmes. Therefore, and based on China's WTO commitments, China should give market access to foreign TV and film providers. Limiting them market access does not only harm foreign media providers (it does also indirectly, because it creates a huge demand for pirated works). It also harms Chinese audiences that miss out on good programmes and Chinese media providers that are not stimulated to meet high international standards.

... but I support their freedom of being vulgar."

I am quoting my colleague Tan Fugui, who inspired by Voltaire said this to me after reading this article. Tan Fugui adds: "a precondition, people have freedom of being vulgar as long as they dont penetrate other peoples right territory, for example, not involving outsider's privacy etc."

Must be harsh for American Idols producers to see that even their knock-off version is kept off the tube.
Read my 2005! blog post about the American Idols knock-off with Chinese characteristics, here.
Read my 2006 blog post about copyright allegations against Super Girl's producer here.

Time-travelling to Alternate Reality

Do you remember that SARFT forbid time-travelling, read here. Well, last weekend I went to the movies in CoCo Park, Shenzhen. And it seems that time-travelling is still possible ..., at least in the movie Source Code.

Spoiler alert
Via "Source Code" Captain Colter Stevens is in the body of Sean Fentress during the last 8 minutes of his life, just before a train blew up. With Source Code and some alleged quantum mechanics, that creates an alternate reality he is able to visit this last 8 minutes many times (using the memory of someone who is technically dead) in order to find who is behind the terrorist attack, so that this information can prevent future attacks. Stevens find a way to alter at least one parallel universe and is able to save the people on the train and can even contact the people of the control centre at Source Code via SMS.
End spoiler alert


The prohibition of time-travelling is to prevent to mislead or confuse uneducated people. Or is it because the future can be changed by going back in time? Or that future projections of many a science-fiction work (such as George Orwell's Nineteen Eigthy-Four which he wrote in 1949) is a kind of critique of contemporary society? But this could happen in a parallel society such as Avatar (that was blocked in 2-D, not 3-D, read here). But why stop there: one can start to interpret the Smurfs (very popular in China) as social criticism. Maybe Source Code slipped through the censor because it is too far fetched even for the credulous and gullible.

continue reading ...

Prepositions in China Product Labels Tell It All: Good Bye Country of Origin, Hello Country of Destination

1 articles to go: IP Dragon on its way to its 1,000th article

The world is flat according to Thomas Friedman, and therefore the determination of the country of origin of most products is becoming more complex. So what should be put on the product labels? Below a short history.

Made in China
The probability that any given product has a label 'Made in China' (中国制造) is quite high. Because of some lethal food and drink scandals and recalls, its reputation was dealt some major blows. Dirk Lammers wrote in 2007 an article for MSNBC.com about the effort his family made to avoid one week products with the label Made in China. Read here.

Made with China
To associate China products with Western quality, a "co-branding" campaign was started in 2009, under the banner of Made with China. As you can see in the video: Made in China, with American sports technology, Made in China with European styling, Made in China with software from Silicon Valley, Made in China with French design. Read also Jin Zhu's China Daily article about a static advertisement during the Shanghai F1 Grand Prix, in April 2010, here.




World Trade Organization (WTO) General-Director Pascal Lamy was trying to ion out trade disputes bubbling up, and invoking David Ricardo's theory on comparative advantage,
to put it into perspective. Mr Lamy used the example of an iPod.

"According to a recent study, it has an export value of $150 per unit in Chinese trade statistics but the value added attributable to processing in China is only $4, with the remaining value added assembled in China coming from the United States, Japan, and other Asian countries."

Read Mr Lamy's speech of April 2010 here.

Made for China

trendwatching.com identified eleven trends in 2010. On number 11 is Western products and brands that are adapted and specially 'made for China, if not BRIC'. The explanation is that Western companies want to profit from the economic growth in China by leveraging the perceived quality of Western goods and brands. An example is Shang Xia, a new brand of French luxury house Hermès.

"Affluent Chinese consumers prefer foreign brands: 52% of consumers whose annual income exceeds RMB 250,000 (USD 36,765) trust foreign brands more than Chinese ones while just 37% said they prefer the latter. (Source: McKinsey, September 2010)"

continue reading ...

Taiwan Makes Priority Claims in Other Countries Possible In The Patent, Trademark and Plant Variety and Plant Seed Acts

Taiwan Intellectual Property Organization (TIPO) announced that the Presidential Office promulgated the amendments of some IPR laws on August 25, 2010, that makes priority claims possible in other countries. The amendments went into force on September 12, 2010. Implementing a principle of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (article 4) and incorporated in the WTO's TRIPs Agreement (article 2(1)). IP Dragon already covered the ECFA here. Read more here.

It concerns the following provisions:

Articles 27 and 28 Patent Act

Articles 4 and 94 Trademark Act

Article 17 Plant Variety and Seed Act

continue reading ...

Best of Google's White Paper: Censorship is Hurting China's Economy

Intellectual property and market access are interdependent subjects. If there is a barrier to the free flow of information (the market access is challenged, regulated or censored when it refers to copyrighted goods), no intellectual property can be exploited and this will feed a demand for pirated works and counterfeit products.

Google has problems accessing the market in China, because it cannot offer its users unrestricted access via its search engine and other applications. In the hope of solving this problem it published a white paper of 25 pages, see here: Enabling Trade in the Era of Information Technologies: Breaking Down Barriers to the Free Flow of Information, in which it appeals to basically everyone:

• "Focus on and publicly highlight as unfair trade barriers those practices by governments that restrict or disrupt the flow of online information services.
• Take appropriate action where government restrictions on the free flow of online information violate international trade rules.
• Establish new international trade rules under bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements that provide further assurances in favor of the free flow of information on the Internet."

If this does not sound very innovative to you, it is because it is not.

The most persuasive argument: internet censorship is bad for the economy of the censoring country, because it is a restraint on global trade. The other arguments (trying to stop violation of international trade treaties such as WTO's TRIPs, unfair competition and favouring indigenous industry) might all be laudable and valid, but not as compelling to China right now.

Therefore it would be interesting to elaborate how censorship is hurting China's economy and stifling innovation. More about this subject later.

UPDATE November 18, 2010:

Ronald Yu pointed me to an interesting The Register article by Cade Metz 'Baidu boss: Google don't know China' that the problems Google is facing are not only related to market access. Thanks Ron.

continue reading ...

November 17: USCC Report about Indigenous Innovation, WTO and Disclosure Requirements

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) will release its 2010 Report to Congress at a press conference Wednesday, November 17.

Among the topics in the 316-page report will be about:

National defense and foreign affairs and energy and environmental issues.

But also about economic, trade and censor issues:

• China's 'indigenous innovation' policy to promote favored industries and limit imports;.
• China's past and future role in the World Trade Organization;
• How China's revised state secrets laws may conflict with U.S. disclosure requirements and put U.S. investments in Chinese firms at risk.

UPDATE November 18, 2010: report has been released, read more about it here.

continue reading ...

What is so special about Special 301 vis-à-vis China?

Each year, since 2005, IP Dragon dealt with the annual Special 301 reports, as a ritual dance in April which had to be described concisely and quickly. Not this year. The ferociousness of the tone by some (see below Messrs. Masnick and Basheer) against the perceived lack of legitimacy, methodology and flawed content of the report combined with the important subject matter made me take a closer look.

First the legitimisation of the Special 301 procedure and its report is explored; then the content of the report about the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property in China (this is IP Dragon, after all) is investigated (see Part II), then some of the criticism will be debunked (see Part , and some comments on a comment on Mr Masnick's article will be made. After that the testimonies of messrs. Donnelly, Smith, Mellis and Palmedo regarding IPR in China during the hearing will be looked into.

Legitimisation: "You are not strange, you are eh... special"

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) put China also this year on the so called 'Priority Watch List' and is again subject to 'Section 306 monitoring' ("the USTR may apply sanctions if a country fails to satisfactorily implement an agreement", however these sanctions are restricted to bringing a case to the WTO, see 'Statutory language versus undertakings that remove inconsistency' below). The USTR published its annual report in which it reviews the adequacy and effectiveness of the protection of intellectual property rights in and market access to U.S. persons that rely upon the protection of intellectual property rights.

The Special 301 procedure is pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (enacted in 1994). It was controversial for some time, because many countries thought that it gave the USTR the right in case of a perceived denial of adequate and effective protection of IPRs or market access to retaliate unilaterally. Therefore the European Communities brought a case to the World Trade Organization, which got the code WT/DS152. See an excellent 63-page summary of the case, here.

The main complaint of the European Communities was that Section 301(c), which became later 19 U.S.C. Section 2411, authorises the USTR to "suspend, withdraw, or prevent the application of, benefits of trade agreement concessions", or "impose duties or other import restrictions on the goods of, and … fees or restrictions on the services of, such foreign country for such time asthe Trade Representative determines appropriate". It also came to the conclusion that because the U.S. is a member of the WTO it should bring its trade conflicts to a panel of the Dispute Settlement Body to solve the problems multilaterally. The same is also applicable to Section 306.

Statutory language versus undertakings that remove inconsistency

According to the panel the statutory language was indeed inconsistent with the obligations under the WTO Agreement. However, such inconsistency could be removed upon examination of the US' undertakings: namely a Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) in which the US promised to follow the route set out by the WTO to settle trade conflicts and made a promise that consecutive US governments will honour this pledge.

To be continued: see Part II, Part III and Part IV.

continue reading ...

USCC 2008 Report to Congress: From Visible IPR Infringements To Undectable Cyber Espionage

The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission came up with their 2008 Report to Congress. The conclusion includes:

• "China continues to violate its WTO commitments to avoid trade distorting measures. Among the trade-related situations in China that are counter to those commitments are restricted market access for foreign financial news services, books, films and other media; weak intellectual property protection; sustained use of domestic and export subsidies; lack of transparency in regulatory processes; continued emphasis on implementing policies that protect and promote domestic industries to the disadvantage of foreign competition; import barriers and export preferences; and limitations on foreign investment or ownership in certain sectors of the economy."
• "China has an active cyber espionage program. Since China’s current cyber operations capability is so advanced, it can engage informs of cyber warfare so sophisticated that the United States maybe unable to counteract or even detect the efforts."

So it's all about intellectual property rights violated, noticed or unnoticed. Read the 405 page report here.

continue reading ...

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

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

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

About China's copyright system Taylor Wessing wrote: "China trails overall, as well as for each

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

About design Taylor Wessing wrote that "China’s courts have awarded $3 million to the German

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

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

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

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

continue reading ...

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

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

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

Section 3: Criminal Enforcment; article 2.14:

"Willful copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes:

a. significant willful copyright or related rights infringements that have no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain; and

b. willful copyright or related rights for purposed of commercial advantage or private gain."

Although a lot is in flux, these are some of the other interesting things in the draft:

- Higher damage awards;

- Mandated information from infringer;

- The right holder is not liable for payment of any storage or destruction;

- Right to block or detain goods at the border for up to one year.

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

continue reading ...

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

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

What makes STAs different from EPAs/FTAs

STAs include Chile-China FTA (November 18, 2005) , Pakistan-China FTA (November 24, 2006), New Zealand-China FTA (April 7, 2008) and China-Singapore FTA (October 23, 2008).
China has, according to Professor Yu, at least the following goals for STAs:

1. secure energy sources;
2. facilitate trade between China and signatory countries;
3. attract Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) from signatory countries;
4. strengthen China's diplomatic ties with signatory countries;
5. cultivate goodwill among its neighbours;
6. improve China's position within WTO.

The strategies deployed by China to develop such STAs are also different from the strategies deployed by the EU and US, respectively, to develop EPAs and FTAs:

• governed by the principles of national sovereignty, self-determination and non-interference in the internal matters of the signatory countries;
• gradually developed;
• more flexibile terms;
• no ambition to impose Chinese laws upon signatory countries;
• focus more on acceptance and accommodation, rather than on conversion and harmonization.

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

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

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

Why China keeps a low profile

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

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

Why China needs to become an influencer of global IPR norms

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

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

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

Coming Up: China-Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement

continue reading ...

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

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

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

• Article 4 Copyright Law is a violation of articles 5 and 9(1) Berne Convention and article 41(1) TRIPs;
• The panel found that the criminal thresholds are not acceptable, however the U.S. did not present enough evidence of actual harm;
• The sale of confiscated goods is a violation of article 46 TRIPs.

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

continue reading ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picture: threecee

continue reading ...

Drafting An Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Where is China?

The drafting of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was, and to a lesser extent still is, shrouded in secrecy. There has been a lot of criticism about the lack of transparency in the negotiation process and drafting of ACTA. Only a leakage in 2007 provided a draft version of ACTA, see here (4 pages pdf).

This September a lot of stakeholders signed a protest letter that to withhold the citizens of countries participating in the negotiation process is undemocratic. The Chinese Domain Name User Alliance in Beijing was the only Chinese signatory of the protest.

It became clear in October 2007 that the United States, the European Community, Switzerland, and Japan are participants. After that Australia, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Jordan, Morocco, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Canada joined.

The goal is to establish a new international legal framework and to set a new, higher benchmark than TRIPs for the enforcement of intellectual property rights that countries can join on a voluntary basis.

Although China is not participating in the drafting process (either because China was not invited or it declined an invitiation), it is the ultimate objective of ACTA that "large emerging economies, where IPR could be improved, such as China and Russia" to sign up to the global act. Read more in the November 2008 Fact Sheet of the European Commission about ACTA, here. However, one can doubt whether China wants to adhere to a global act if they did not participated in the negotiation process.

So why did the United States and European Community shift the forum from WTO's TRIPs to this new forum, that has no ties with WTO, WIPO or anything we already know? I take it that if you have ambitions to increase the minimum protection/enforcement level of intellectual property, the WTO is a forum with many members so it is likely that the participants have to strike a compromise.

The drafting process of ACTA is in full swing and will continue in 2009.

Read more about ACTA here.

continue reading ...

Transitional Review Mechanism of China’s TRIPs Implementations Q&A Copyright Law

When China became the 143rd Member of the WTO on December 2001, it automatically entered into TRIPs, which is an integral part of the WTO Agreement. Upon accession to the WTO, China agreed (see Section 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China WT/L/432) that the first eight years its commitments to align its IPR laws will be reviewed during an annual Transitional Review Mechanism (TRM) by the TRIPs Council. This means that the last of such annual reviews will be held in 2009. Thereafter there will be a final review in year 10 (2011) or at an earlier date decided by the General Council.
According the TRM: “China shall provide relevant information, including information specified in Annex 1A, to each subsidiary body in advance of the review.”

The Secretariat of the WTO received communications with questions addressed to the People's Republic of China from Japan on 6 October 2008 (IP/C/W/518), the United States on 9 October 2008 (IP/C/W/520), the European Communities on 13 October 2008 (IP/C/W/521), and Canada on 20 October 2008 (IP/C/W/524). The Reply from China (IP/C/W/525) came on 21 October 2008.

In a Q&A series about the communication between the United States/Japan/European Communities on the one hand and the People's Republic of China on the other I will deal with the questions and answers about the following subjects: copyright, trademarks and geographical indications, patent law revisions, enforcement, plant variety protection, anti-monopoly law, undisclosed information/protection of confidentional information and government policy.

We start the series with Questions about China's Copyright Law US/Japan/EU/Canada versus the People's Republic of China:

Canada had no questions regarding copyright.

The US asked whether China has explained (and translated in accordance with paragraph 334 Working Party Report) article 4 Copyright Law, Amended 2001 (and I guess if they didn’t that the US would like to get this interpretation): “Works the publication or distribution of which is prohibited by law shall not be protected by this Law. Copyright owners, in exercising their copyright, shall not violate the Constitution or laws or prejudice the public interests.”

The US is probably most interested in the interpretation of the first sentence which declares censored works not protected under the copyright law. It is dubious whether this provision is in compliance to the Berne Convention.

By reading the questions it becomes clear that copyright piracy via the internet is becoming an ever more crucial subject in China. The US requests a description of the steps necessary to take down infringing content or links after receiving notice from a recognised right holders’ representative. What are the remedies available against internet service providers who do not engage in immediate takedowns and whether such remedies have been imposed to date. Remedies available to suspend or terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. Legal steps necessary for right holders or their representatives to obtain information about direct infringers. Give examples of vases where the above referenced legal procedures, including specific efforts taken, have taken place. Whether the Regulations for the Protection of the Right of Communication through Information Network is also covering ‘the right of making available’ on other forms of transmission in an online environment such as real-time and P2P streaming. Does the criminal prosecution/conviction thresholds established in the judicial interpretations of 2004 and 2007 apply for internet copy piracy too?

Picture by Kai Hendry

US asks China to provide information on the number of prosecutions for each provision of law under which criminal copyright infringement, including via the internet, for 2007 and the first six months of 2008. Please provide the following information: When the criminal complaint was filed; Which court; Identities of the defendants; Provisions of law alleged to have been violated; Current disposition; If concluded, whether the case resulted in acquittal or conviction (and the sentence, suspended or not; Involved foreign work.

US asks China whether the software end-user piracy is subject to criminal penalties, if so under what circumstances and pursuant to which laws. US and Japan ask China when it will amend its copyright law. And what are the steps involved. Can foreign governments and other stakeholders provide input and comment on the drafts and if so at what stages.

Japan asks China to provide it with a schedule for the drafting of the regulation on royalty regulation for broadcasting and television organizations, which article 43 Copyright Law stipulates that the State Council is to establish. Article 43 Copyright: “A radio station or television station that broadcasts a published sound recording, does not need a permission from, but shall pay remuneration to, the copyright owner, except that the interested parties have agreed otherwise. The specific procedures for treating the matter shall be established by the State Council.”

If the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council is still in process of establishing the regulation, please provide is with the details of the progress. Japan writes that the collective management societies in China are not able to distribute royalties to right holders appropriately because users of copyrighted works often do not report their actual usages fully. Therefore, to build an adequate system for distribution, as stipulated under of the Regulation for Collective Management of Copyright, there is a need to ensure full enforcement of the users’ obligation to provide full usage information. And a need to encourage them (what means Japan, higher punishments, or better explanation by the collective management societies in China?). Is China planning to take new measures against this problem?

According to the European Communities foreign suppliers of sound recording distribution services appear to receive less favourable treatment than Chinese suppliers. The European Communities complain that imported music is subject to content review before digital distribution, while Chinese enterprises without foreign investments are subject to registration but not prior content review.

The European Communities have a problem with time it takes to clear the censorship process. First mover advantage for the right holders is very important in the music business in the race with infringers. What is China intending to do about this? Equality of arms for foreign suppliers as to Chinese enterprises? Are there plans to make the clearance process quicker?

The European Communities point out that sound recording imported into China in physical form intended for digital distribution must undergo content review prior to distribution. Domestically produced sound recordings appear not to be subject to this requirement, but can instead be digitally distributed immediately. Another problem is that censorship clearance for a digital work does not mean the equivalent physical work has also passed censorship and vice versa. What is China going to do about this?

The European Communities writes: Article 9(1) TRIPs imposes an obligation to comply with articles 1 to 21 Berne Convention. Article 11bis Berne Convention prescribes that at least an equitable remuneration is payable to the author for the broadcasting of their works. However since the amendment of the Copyright Law in 2001 no remuneration has been paid to right holders for the use of music in their broadcasts. What measures will China take, when will the tariff rates be set by the State Council? Will right holders be compensated for the years when their music was being broadcast prior to tariff rates being set?

Answers by China

China refers vaguely to modifications to the Copyright Law, relevant implement rules that cover all areas included in TRIPs and bring these measures info full conformity with the TRIPs. And regarding copyright it gives some statistics: "In 2007,copyright administrative agencies at all levels imposed 9,816 administrative punishments, confiscated 75.69 million pirate goods." China declined to answer the other questions. However, this might have something to do with the pending dispute settlement at the WTO.

continue reading ...

China's National IP Strategy 2008: Feasible Commitments or Road to Nowhere Paved With Good Intentions

This article by Danny Friedmann is also published at the site of Duncan Bucknell Company, the consulting firm that specialises in global intellectual property strategy, see here.

China's State Council promulgated a National Intellectual Property Strategy [1]. In the policy document there is a lot of talk about doing everything more efficient and more effective. Great, but how to achieve these laudable goals?

Over the last two decades, and especially around the time China ascended to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, China impressively improved its system of IP protection and enforcement. However, it’s aspirations to make the enforcement “hard as steel and definitely not soft as bean curd” as China’s premier Wen Jiaobao aspired for in 2006 [2], have not yet materialised. In the so called Compendium of China's National Intellectual Property Strategy [3], an extensive list of aspirations and measures, China is vowing to develop itself into a country with a relatively higher level of intellectual property right creation, utilisation, protection and administration by 2020.

So what exactly is a national IP strategy? Are all desired goals and commitments in there? What is missing? And how to achieve the goals set out in the strategy?

What is a national IP strategy?

National IP strategies are en vogue. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has gathered the summary of the national IP strategies of 21 countries, plus the African Union and the European Union [4]. WIPO’s definition of a national IP strategy is: “a set of measures formulated and implemented by a government to encourage and facilitate effective creation, development and management of intellectual property.” Professor Daniel Gervais [5] points out to the fact that to make a proper policy analysis is impossible or inherently unreliable, because theoretical models are inadequate or valid empirical data unavailable. Despite this correct observation the promulgation of a national IP strategy can clarify common goals. In this case the national IP strategy is a product of the National Working Group for IPR, made up of 13 officials from 12 IP-related agencies and ministries, including the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), Customs, the Supreme People’s Court and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) [6]. So the commitments set in the national IP strategy will be broadly embraced, which increases its chances to be realised.

What stands out in the national IP strategy?

Paragraph 13, 14 and 15 give the contours of strengthening IPRs protection, preventing abuses of IPRs and fostering a culture of IPRs. After that is becomes more interesting, because the more specific tasks are announced. The key industry sectors where China wants to obtain strategic patents are given in paragraph 16. They include: biology, medicine, information, new materials, advanced manufacturing, new energy, oceanography, resources, environmental protection, modern agriculture, modern transportation, aeronautics and astronautics. It is safe to predict that one can expect a lot of patent activities in China in these industry sectors.
Paragraph 17 is about setting technology standards. Chinese national standards, such as AVS in the audio-visual industry [7], the Chinese version of the RFID standard [8] or the TD-SCMDA in the telecoms industry [9] have a chance of developing into de facto international standards, because of China’s growing economical significance in the world.
Paragraph 19 deals with patent examination. It is clear that patent quality in China has enough room for improvement [10]. In the document one cannot find surprising new strategies for trademarks or copyright protection and enforcement. “Stealing trade secrets it to be severely punished according with law”, paragraph 29 stipulates. But as we will see below, sometimes this bland language is a prelude to concrete change, although it is unclear when this will happen. Until now trade secrets are dealt with in China’s Labour Contract Law [11].
China wants to establish or improve upon a protection system for geographical indications (paragraph 32), genetic resources (paragraph 33), traditional knowledge (paragraph 34), folklores (paragraph 35) and layout-designs of integrated circuits (paragraph 36). The wording of these goals and commitments is vague, because how do you measure whether a system is strengthened or sound, and when can you say that the utilisation of rights is more effective?
More promising is paragraph 45 which stipulates that the trial system for intellectual property should be improved upon, the allocation of judicial resources optimised and remedy procedures simplified. In this paragraph the need for studies to establish special tribunals for civil, administrative and criminal cases involving intellectual property rights is articulated. Also the centralisation of jurisdiction involving patents or other highly technical cases will be studied. This makes a lot of sense, since it will build expertise and bring experience together. Although, this concept is not really new: since 1993, Chinese courts have made efforts to establish special trial chambers of IP. In 2000, China set up special and independent divisions to exclusively deal with all IP related civil cases. These so called No. 3 (or No. 5) Civil Divisions, can be found at the Supreme People’s Court, all High People’s Courts, Intermediate People’s Courts in all provincial cities and many big cities, and even a few Basic People’s Courts. Judges on the panels have science or engineering backgrounds and experience in dealing with IP cases. Such courts include the Intermediate People’s Courts in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and Shenzhen [12].
Another good development mentioned in paragraph 45 is that China explores to set up courts of appeal for IP cases. This will improve the uniform and consistent application of laws, which will increase the certainty for all stakeholders in the legal process. Paragraph 52 states the commitment to get high quality databases for patents, trademarks, copyrights, layout-designs of integrated circuits, new varieties of plants and geographical indications. This could dramatically add to the transparency of intellectual property rights in China.

What is lacking in the national IP strategy?

To achieve any goal, one has first to know exactly where one stands. Therefore one needs to be able to measure in an objective way the enforcement and infringement levels in China. For this purpose one could use the Enforcement/Infringement Ratio this author has proposed in his thesis [13]. When the position is known one can set goals, which are well defined and attainable. The vague language in the national IP strategy is not very conducive for this purpose and it remains silent about what the level of IP enforcement compared to the level of infringement should be. The following concepts; effective enforcement and deterrent remedy should be precisely defined.

There is a paragraph about an interdepartmental coordination mechanism to make overall plans for the development of IP human resources (paragraph 59), but there is no plan for a better coordination between the different administrative authorities with overlapping capabilities, such as the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and the Administration of Quality and Security Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) concerning the enforcement of infringed trademarks. In addition to this, there is no plan for a better coordination between the administrative authorities and the Public Security Bureau (PSB) so that criminal cases will be transferred to the PBS, which hardly happens at this moment in time.
One of the most fundamental challenges IP enforcement in China faces is that there is state by law instead of state of law. The law is used to achieve government policies, instead that government policies are used to apply the law. Therefore the administrative route of enforcement is preferred by the Chinese government, so that the judicial enforcement route has still to be developed more fully.

How to implement the national IP strategy?

Annually China comes up with action plans on the enforcement of IPR which have to implement the national IP strategy. March of this year China launched the Action plan on IPR protection 2008 [14]. It deploys 280 detailed measures and announced 16 massive campaigns to fight IP piracy and infringement. Every year these campaigns get names such as ‘Fight Piracy Every Day’, ‘Zero Counterfeiting in Ten Thousand Shops of One Hundred Cities’ and ‘Special Operation Thunderstorm’ on patent protection.
Action Plan 2007 [15] also launched this kind of campaigns with imaginative names and so did Action Plan 2006 [16, 17] Are these massive, temporal, top-down initiated campaigns effective? They might draw attention to the case of IPR protection and enforcement and educate the public at large. However, temporal campaigns that crackdown on piracy and infringement fight the symptoms, but do not seem to solve the fundamental extra-judicial problems of IPR enforcement in China [18].

On a positive note Action Plan 2008 [19] shows that it takes the coordination of criminal cases between administrative authorities and the PBS very serious. Another good omen is that it states that “the People’s courts in central and western parts of China where IPR cases have serious quality problems and the legal team relatively weak” need targeted supervision, inspection and training [20]. This is a probably a good way to fight the prevalent legal protectionism [21]. Other good news in Action Plan 2008 is that China wants to do special research to build a trade secret system and come up with a judicial interpretation about trade secrets [22].

Well who knows, maybe we can “greet the spring of IP cause” soon, as Tian Lipu, SIPO’s commissioner, put it so optimistically and poetically at the beginning of this year [23].

Danny Friedmann/IP Dragon 知識產權龍

Notes and links:

[1] - National Intellectual Property Strategy issued by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China on June 5, 2008, available at http://www.law-now.com/law-now/sys/getpdf.htm?pdf=outlineofthenationalintellectualpropertystrategy1.pdf.
[2] - ‘Full manuscript of The Times interview with Wen Jiabao’ during his visit to the ASEM, in Helsinki, Finland, The Austalian, September 6, 2006.
[3] - ‘Compendium of China National Intellectual Property Strategy issued’, Intellectual Property Protection in China, SIPO.gov.cn, June 6, 2008, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=214475&col_no=925&dir=200806.
[4] - ‘IP Strategies and Innovation Intellectual Property and New Technologies Division’, WIPO, updated until January 2007, available at http://www.wipo.int/ip-development/en/strategies/national_ip_strategies.html#what.
[5] - Daniel J. Gervais, ‘The TRIPS Agreement and the changing landscape of international intellectual property’, Chaper 3 of Intellectual Property and TRIPs Compliance in China, Edward Elgar, 2007, pg. 65.
[6] - Peter Ollier, ‘China releases national IP strategy, Managing Intellectual Property, June 13, 2008, available at http://www.managingip.com/Article/1945806/China-releases-National-IP-Strategy.html.
[7] - ‘China is developing new standard to own IP’, IP Dragon, February 22, 2006, available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2006/02/china-is-developing-new-standard-to.html.
[8] - ‘China develops own RFID standard to own IPR’, IP Dragon, March 14, 2006, available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2006/03/china-develops-new-rfid-standard-to.html.
[9] - ‘China’s wish to circumvent 3G royalties has its price’, IP Dragon, June 20, 2007, available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/06/chinas-wish-to-circumvent-3g-royalties.html.
[10] - ‘Patent quality in China: “You could patent a wheel”, July 3, 2008, IP Dragon, available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2008/07/patent-quality-in-china-you-could.html.
[11] - ‘What has Labour Contract Law in China to do with IP?”, November 15, 2007, IP Dragon, available athttp://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-has-labour-contract-law-in-china.html.
[12] - Danny Friedmann, ‘Paper Tiger or Roaring Dragon, China’s TRIPs Implementations and Enforcement’, July 10, 2007, pg. 98, available at http://www.nfprojects.nl/ipdragon/Paper_Tiger_or_Roaring_Dragon.pdf.
[13] - Data key on road to IPR transparency, IP Dragon, December 19, 2007, available at http://ipdragon.blogspot.com/2007/12/data-key-on-road-to-ipr-transparency.html.
[14] - Action Plan on IPR protection 2008, March 18, 2008, available at http://english.ipr.gov.cn/ipr/en/info/Article.jsp?a_no=197210&col_no=925&dir=200804.
[15] - Action Plan on IPR protection 2007, April 6, 2007, available at http://zgb.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/az/k/200704/20070404541058.html.
[16] - Action Plan 2006 on IPR Protection – I, available at http://sbj.saic.gov.cn/english/show.asp?id=460&bm=sbyw.
[17] - Action Plan 2006 on IPR Protection – II available at http://sbj.saic.gov.cn/english/show.asp?id=461&bm=sbyw.
[18] - Friedmann, see note 11, pg. 58.
[19] - Action Plan on IPR protection 2008, Chapter IV Institution Building, paragraphs I (3) and III (1), (3) and (4), see note 13.
[20] - Action Plan on IPR protection 2008, Chapter VI Training and Education (II)(13), see note 13.
[21] - Friedmann, see note 11, pg. 69.
[22] - Action Plan on IPR protection 2008, Chapter X (I)(V)(1) and Chapter VII (X)(I)(2), see note 13.
[23] - Tian Lipu, ‘To Greet the Spring of IP Cause’, 2008 New Year Address, SIPO, January 3, 2008, available at http://www.sipo.gov.cn/sipo_English/about/commissioner/200801/t20080103_229110.htm.

continue reading ...