Showing posts with label copyright infringement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright infringement. Show all posts

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Is American Superconductor Fighting Chinese Windmills?

Don Quixote:      "Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, 
              thirty or forty hulking giants?"
Sancho Panza:  "What giants?"
In Don Quixote, Miguel de Cervantes' masterpiece (1605 part I, 1615 part II) Cervantes wrote that Quixote was tilting at windmills, because he thought they were ferocious giants. This lead to the English expression: "tilting at windmills", which means: "attacking imaginary enemies" or "fighting unwinnable or futile battles". 

American Superconductor is suing its former largest customer Sinovel Wind Group Co. of Beijing in several law suits in China for alleged trade secret theft and "copyright" (I think it might be patent and copyright) infringements.American Superconductor is seeking 1.2 billion dollar in damages. 

Is American Superconductor the 21st century version of Don Quixote? 

In June 2011, American Superconductor discovered an imperfect replica of its software in a Sinovel wind turbine. Then they found the possible leak, an engineer at a subsidiary in Austria, who was sentenced to a year in prison.

American Superconductor chief exectuvie Daniel McGahn was quotes saying that they had strong evindence against Sinovel and that hundreds of emails between senior Sinovel staff members and our now incarcerated former employee were found. That these messages give a detailed account of the timetable of the crime and  show that certain senior level Sinovel employees knew that these intellectual property rights were illegally obtained.

To find trade secret thiefs can be elusive. Unless your company have the right safety procedures in place so that trade secret theft can be avoided or at least traced, courts will think you are fighting an imaginary enemy, just like Don Quixote was doing. So protect your company so that your battles will be neither unwinnable nor futile. 

Read Erin Ailworth's article for the Boston Globe here.

continue reading ...

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Independent Creation Valid Defense Against Copyright Infringement

Jonathan Mak, design student at Hong Kong Polytechnic University School of Design said that he did not rip-off the idea for the Apple tribute in which you can distinguish the silhouette of the late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs.

Invisible Gold in Asia Facebook Page (set up by author of the book with the same name Professor David Llewelyn) explains that both parties (or theoretically even more parties) can come up with the same copyrighted work: "Although that will be harder to prove so make sure you keep records."

If you can prove that you created the work independently, you can use it as a valid defense against copyright infringement.

See Jonathan Mak's design here.
The design of UK designer known as Raid71 here.

In this YouTube video the voice-over says that Jonathan Mak "has been offered copyright offers". Well, if Mak is the creator he automatically has the copyright of the work, at the moment of creation. What the voice-over probably means is that he got offers to assign his copyright. 


continue reading ...

Friday, September 30, 2011

Innovative Enforcement of Trademark and Copyright Infringement by LVMH

What to do when the trademarks and copyrights of your luxury products are infringed by Chinese companies that sell these products online to, for example, U.S. consumers. You can go after the source: using Chinese customs, the administrative, criminal or litigation routes. Another innovative way is to go also after the U.S. company that leases packages of server space, bandwidth and IP addresses to the infringing companies for contributory trademark and copyright infringement.


Global Challenge, Local Solutions

Exactly this is what Louis Vuitton Malletier did and confirms once again that this company is one of the most innovative companies in regard to the protection and enforcement of its intellectual property rights. The company takes it zero-tolerance principle and self-sustained protection/enforcement system serious.

Louis Vuitton versus Akanoc Solutions United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed September 9, 2011, see here. Louis Vuitton Malletier was the plaintiff, and Managed Solutions Group (MSG), Akanoc Solutions and Steven Chen the defendants (San Jose, California, U.S.).

The Ninth Circuit instructs the District Court to award damages of 10,500,000 US dollar for contributory trademark infringement and 300,000 US dollar for contributory copyright infringement, for which Akanoc and Chen shall be jointly and severally liable.

One can question the validity of the decision by the Ninth Circuit to not instruct the District Court to order Managed Solutions Group to pay damages too, because of an alleged lack of "substantial evidence" to the jury. The Ninth Circuit: "We agree with the district court that no evidence presented at trial showed that MSG operated the servers that hosted the direct infringers’ websites. Even assuming that the direct infringers could be construed as MSG’s customers, Louis Vuitton presented no evidence that MSG had reasonable means to withdraw services to the direct infringers."

However, after Louis Vuitton discovered that the websites were using IP addresses assigned to defendants MSG and Akanoc, I am sure that they both received Notices of Infringements. So both had an actual or constructive knowledge about the infringements. Plus Chen managed both MSG and Akanoc. According to the defendants, MSG leased servers, bandwidth, and some IP addresses to Akanoc. So the means to withdraw seem self-evident, because MSG could simply have severed the bandwidth or stopped the functionality of the server, once it knew what was happening on the severs it was leasing to Akanoc.

continue reading ...

Friday, August 05, 2011

CNTV (CCTV) Sues China Telecom For Copyright Infringement

Geng Wenxin of Global Times, a state owned news organisation, reports about CNTV (China Network Television) part of CCTV (China Central Television) suing two provincial branches of China Telecom for using its copyrighted content without permission.

  • China Telecom at the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court (Guangdong province)
  • China Telecom at the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court (Jiangsu province)
There are four nationwide IPTV license owners that are competing with each other. They have licenses and content, but no networks and users. Telecom operators own those resources, so they have to cooperate.

Read more here.
continue reading ...

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Undecent Miffy Bunnies Spotted In Macau

Warning: This article contains material which may offend and may not be distributed, circulated, sold, hired, given, lent, shown, played or projected to a person under the age of 18 years.

Let me first refresh your memory about IP relevant rabbits and then tell you about my encounter with the undecent two Miffy bunnies in Macau.

Miffy is the English name of the Nijntje (konijntje = little rabit) cartoon figure, created by Dick Bruna. Kathy (in many articles this name is written with a C) looks very similar to Miffy and is a cartoon by Sanrio, the same company that created HelloKitty. To distinguish the two alleged "cute" rodents. Miffy nose is an X, and Kathy's nose is a O.

Rabbits are known for their talent to reproduce, but Mercis, the company representing Miffy's creator, Dick Bruna, held that there can be only one: Miffy, based on Miffy's Dutch copyright and Benelux trademark.
November 2, 2010, the judge responsible for interim relief (voorzieningenrechter) Amsterdam Regional Court (Rechtbank Amsterdam) agreed with Mercis that Sanrio infringes both Mr Bruna's copyright and trademark for Miffy. Read the judgment here. Sanrio decided to appeal the decision.

Then March 11, 2011 Japan was struck by natural disasters. This seems to have relativised both parties, because in the beginning of 2011 they settled the matter out of court and decided to donate 17,5 million yen (155,000 euro) to the victims of the natural disasters. And Sanrio will exit Kathy, read Catherine Lee's article for IP Kat about it here.

Read more here.

Japanarchist and Givemeabreakman with Tomoko give an overview of the Miffy versus Kathy, rabbit fight and reconciliation.


In a shop at the Calçada da Barra, a sinister street in Macau, the Dutch Miffy is depicted on each plastic bags. Now the bag does not show whether or not the maker of bags has a license to use the copyrighted Miffy. In Macau's Online Trademark Registration Search System I could not found Miffy as a Macanese trademark. My impression was that this is a school example of passing-off, although it is called judicial action for unfair competition (articles 156-173 Commercial Code of Macau).

The Calçada da Barra might as well be named Sodom and Gomorrah for its aberrant disrespect of IP.

Each sold product, unrelated to Miffy, was put in a Miffy bag
In bright daylight I was exposed to the plastic bag. 
Two Miffy bunnies are depicted here tastelessly topless.
Mr Bruna could invoke its moral rights based on his copyright.
Another option might be trademark tarnishment,
if Miffy is a well known mark in Macau and if trademark dilution is possible under Macanese law.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Surrealistic Copyright Infringement During Design Contest TIPO: Work Shattered, But the Truth Came Out

China National News reported the most surreal news IP Dragon has read for a long time. The Taiwanese Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) organised a design competition. The purpose was to make the public respect the intellectual property of other people. The Taiwanese student Wu Chih-Wei won the contest with 'Work - shattered' a design of a paper plane that was crashing because its tail was broken off. Wu received a medal and 5,000 Taiwanese dollar.

Then somebody recognised the design as being a copy of a design called 'Truth', made by Dutch designer Dennis Sibeijn, and Wu had to give everything back. In a way Wu succeeded in the purpose of the contest in winning by copying and then after the revelation crashing, as the paper plane design he copied. And after all the purpose of the contest was to make the public respect the intellectual property of other people, not to respect intellectual property yourself.

See Dennis Sibeijn's website DAMNENGINE.
Read the China National News report here.
continue reading ...

Friday, June 18, 2010

Shanghai World Expo 2010 Exposes Organisers' Lack of Creativity

In 2007 the Bureau of the Shanghai World Expo 2010 Coordination promulgated a special regulatation (See here: No. 11) concerning intellectual property rights. In short all participants to the World Expo were warned that they should comply to China's IPR laws, regulations and rules far in advance. "The General Administration of Press and Publication and the National Copyright Administration have also called for a rapid-response mechanism to protect the intellectual property rights of the Shanghai World Expo, meaning that copyright departments at all levels will check materials that may infringe on the copyrights of the Shanghai World Expo as soon as they are found." Read more here. That is laudatory indeed, but what about the Shanghai World Expo 2010 organization themselves? Do they also have to comply to the very same IPR laws, regulations and rules?

You probably have seen that 'Haibao', the expo mascot, was an unauthorised copy of an American cartoon figure Gumpy, read the Japan Probe article about it here.

Then the Shanghai Expo theme song 'Right here waiting for you' is an almost completely plagiarized song by Maya Okamoto from 1997 called 'Stay the way you are', listen to the two songs and read Japan Probe's article here.
The Shanghai World Expo and organizers first paid 10 million yuan for the plagiarized song and then had to pay 300 million yen to Ms Okamoto to settle the case. According Elaine Kurtenbach who wrote an article about ti for the Associated Press, the Shanghai World Expo organizers said that Ms Okamoto was honored to have a chance to cooperate with the event. Read the AP article here.

continue reading ...

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Google Government Requests Tool Copyrighted Content Included and What About China?

Google has launched a Google Maps tool, called Google Government Requests to show statistics of all government requests it is getting to supply data or to remove content and the percentage it is fully or partially complying with these requests.
  • Because, according to Google, "Chinese officials consider censorship demands as state secrets", Google "is not disclosing that information at this time."
  • "[F]or YouTube, we have not included government requests for removal of copyrighted content. The vast majority of requests for removal of copyrighted material on YouTube are received from private parties; some may come from state or foreign governments, but that number is very low. Regardless, such requests are not reflected in these statistics."

Great that Google is disclosing its dealing with governments, but the following is unclear to me:

  • This emphasis on the exclusion of government requests for removal of copyrighted content for YouTube, suggests that the requests for the removal of copyrighted content at other Google sites is included in the statistics. Is it? However, when you click on China, the only information you are getting is about censorship.
  • And this suggests that the Chinese government never requested a removal of data because of copyright infringement. Did it?
continue reading ...

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Shanghai's "Bad Girl" Writer Mian Mian (棉棉) Sues Google

The writer of the banned book Candy, and, Panda Sex (according to China Daily more mature) and Acid Love, sues Google.
Shanghai's "Best Bad Girl" Author Mian Mian (棉棉), finds support from the China Written Works Copyright Society.

Chen Jia en Xie Yu of China Daily report:
"Mian said Google scanned her entire novel, titled Acid Lover, published by the Shanghai Joint Publishing Company, without notifying her or paying her for copyright permission. Google China deleted Mian's Acid Lover from their website on Nov 15. But she said a Google key-word search still brings up passages of her book."

So now not only the China Written Works Copyright Society, see here, and the Chinese Writers Association are negociating with Google about the Google Class Action Settlement over Google Books, but an individual has sued the company based in Mountain View, California, as well.

Read the China Daily article here.
continue reading ...

Friday, August 21, 2009

Tomatolei.com Copyright Infringement Case: Four Sentenced To Imprisonment

See the verdict of the Suzhou Huqiu District People's Court's in the copyright infringement case against tomatolei.com at the BSA site here.
continue reading ...

Monday, July 20, 2009

Effect of DS362 on Copyright Piracy in China Nil?

Rogier Creemers of the University of Maastricht, Faculty of Law, has written an interesting article that will be published in the forthcoming number of European Intellectual Property Review:
'The Effects of WTO Case DS362 on Audiovisual Media Piracy in China'.

"The outcome of the recent WTO case China - Intellectual Property Rights, mainly concerned with copyright matters, was touted by both the U.S. and China as a victory. Looking beyond the rhetoric, however, shows that the effect of this case on copyright piracy in the real world is limited. The article outlines the case and analyzes its effects. Furthermore, it widens the scope of analysis, to include other factors influencing IP infringements in China, which are crucial in creating and supporting copyright piracy."

You can download the 22-page article from the SSRN site here.
continue reading ...

Sunday, May 24, 2009

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

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

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

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

16 Copyright Piracy Suspects Identified During Operation Torpedo in Hong Kong

According to a press release by Karri Ho from the International Federation Against Copyright Theft – Greater China (IFACT-GC), from September 29 to October 1, IFACT-GC representing the Motion Picture Association (MPA) and the CJ Mark Committee (CJ Mark) in Hong Kong, which represents Japanese rights owners, joined forces with over 120 officers from the Hong Kong Customs Intellectual Property Investigation Bureau (IPIB) and the Special Task Force (STF) in a territory-wide anti-piracy operation against a series of distribution and retail outlets selling pirated optical discs in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

19 retail shops and a warehouse were raided. Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department estimates that the seizures of the DVDs created a revenue loss of HK$ 1,147,963 (US$ 147,175).

15 or 16 suspects (in the same press release these two numbers are used) of copyright infringement of Hollywood, Hong Kong and Japanese movies were arrested.


Read the IFACT-GC press release by Karri Ho here (pdf).
continue reading ...

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

First Bar Ordered To Pay Damages For Copyright Infringements of Karaoke Songs

In April the People's Court in the Chancheng district of Guangdong Province's Foshan city ordered Haoledi Entertainment Company, the karaoke bar management firm, to pay damanges of 30,000 yuan (4,286 U.S. dollars) by Beijing-based New Run Entertainment Company, a performance management and audio-visual production firm.

Read the Xinhua article via Sina about this reportedly first karaoke copyright infringement case of China here.
continue reading ...

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Internet Copyright Law 2006 Difference Between Winning (Baidu) And Losing (Yahoo China)?

Although both Baidu.com and Yahoo China basically provided deep links to pirated mp3's, Baidu won in court, while Yahoo China lost. What are the differences?

7 (minus EMI) IFPI members versus Baidu.com

Wang Hongjiang of Xinhua reports about a group of record companies who lost again a lawsuit against Baidu.com (a Chinese search engine and the first Chinese company that became a component of the NASDAQ-100, read here), because of alleged copyright infringements.
  • In 2005 the group, represented by IFPI, consists of EMI, SONY BMG, Warner Music, Universal Music, Cinepoly, Go East and Gold Label, "accused Baidu.com of engaging in illegal downloading and playing 137 pieces of music (195 sound recordings, according to IFPI, read here IP Dragon) owned by the record companies online without their permission." The demands by the group were a public apology from Baidu, the suspension of its download service and compensation of 1.67 million yuan (226,000 U.S. dollars);
  • November 2007, Beijing's First Intermediate Court ruled "that Baidu's service, which provides web links to the music, does not constitute an infringement as all the music is downloaded from web servers of third parties."
  • December 30, 2007, the People's High Court of Beijing agreed with Beijing's First Intermediate Court and ruled that Baidu's service does not constitute an infringement.

Read Wang Hongjiang's article here.

If you cannot beat them join them

John Liu and Jannet Ong reported for Bloomberg News that EMI dropped the appeal and joined Baidu, read here.

7 IFPI members versus Yahoo China

  • April 2006, IFPI, on behalf of the 7 members asked Yahoo China to take the necessary stepts to stop the copyright infringement. Negotiations between Yahoo China and IFPI took place, but Yahoo China, according to IFPI, walked away from those talks;
  • January 2007, IFPI filed a lawsuite at the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court against Yahoo China; Eleven separate claims were brought against Yahoo China by local and international record companies, who presented evidence of widespread infringement of their copyrights. The claims filed concerned infringement of tracks by international artists such as U2 and Destiny’s Child, as well as local repertoire performed by singers such as Penny Tai and Kelly Chen;
  • April 2007, Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court ruled Yahoo China was found liable for facilitating copyright infringement; Yahoo China appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court;
  • December 20, 2007, the Beijing Higher People’s Court, upheld the verdict.

Mr John Kennedy, Chairman and CEO of IFPI said:

We are disappointed that the court did not find Baidu liable, but that judgment was about Baidu’s actions in the past under an old law that is no longer in force. The judgment is irrelevant since it has effectively been superseded by the Yahoo China ruling. Baidu should now prepare to have its actions judged under the new law. We are confident a court would hold Baidu liable as it has Yahoo China." Read the IFPI press release here.

China is no Common Law country and the final court, in this case the Beijing Higher People's Court, is not bound by precedent. Music 2.0, which is "exploring chaos in digital music" doubts whether Mr Kennedy's "old law" is no longer in force. Music 2.0 quotes Chinese lawyer Yu Guo Fu who said on Sina:

Even though the Provisions of Copyright Protection regarding Transmissions through Digital Networks (Internet Copyright Law 2006) was introduced in July 2006, it is not the underlying reason for the different results in both the Yahoo and Baidu cases. Fundamentally, the higher level Copyright Law and also the General Principles of the Civil Law were unchanged throughout both cases and that has been the basis for both rulings”. Read Music 2.0's article here.

Other factors that could explain the differences between the outcomes is whether there was sufficient evidence for direct and/or contributory infringement.

continue reading ...

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Mr Schwabach's Essay Debunks Perception IP Piracy in China, But Remains Silent About IP Infringements In/From China

Aaron Schwabach wrote an well written and interesting essay called ‘Intellectual Property Piracy: Perception and Reality in China, the United States, and Elsewhere’. Find the pdf here.

Mr Schwabach starts with the quote: “There is probably more misinformation about China than about any other country in the world”. That is hard to proof. But it is also IP Dragon's mission to make intellectual property in China, including its perception in the world at large more transparent. So IP Dragon was very happy that Mr Schwabach took upon himself the difficult task to debunk a perception gone awry, at least in the eyes of Mr Schwabach.

Mr Schwabach wants to drive home the point that there is a widespread but incorrect perception in the US that IP piracy is only or primarily a problem in developing countries, especially East Asian countries, and most especially China.

First IP Dragon opines IP infringements (counterfeit and piracy) from China is a bigger problem than IP infringements in China. This will change over time, when the demographics change in China and a more substantial middle class comes into existence.

Although Mr Schwabach rejected the cover showing a card table covered with DVDs and VCDs of Hollywood movies, presumably offered for sale, labeled in Chinese, because "it is only a very small part of IP law and receives only brief discussion in the [Mr Schwabach's book called Intellectual Property] book on intellectual property law". This essay is only about copyright piracy in China. And it does not mention a thing about seize or dimension of copyright piracy coming from China or counterfeiting in China and originating from China.

I guess Mr Schwabach is fighting fire (incorrect perception of importance of IP piracy in China) with fire (remaining silent about the importance of other IP infringements in and from China, at least in this essay).

Well having written this, let's look at his assertions that are to debunk the perception about IP piracy in China:

His theory that countries or the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has a low per-capita loss, because of its movie industry, is hard to proof, since this could also be caused, because of Hong Kong's different jurisdiction and the more effective enforcement authorities. But it is an interesting thesis, which deserves further study.

Mr Schwabach looks at different statistics:

MPA members’ lost revenues, per capita
IP Dragon agrees with Mr Schwabach’s assessment that online piracy is harder to catch and sellers of pirated DVDs are out in the open, so it is easier to put the attention on this group.

Per capita cost of piracy is negligible in China according to Mr Schwabach. He thinks that although a significant percentage of China’s 1.3 billion people are excluded from participating in the modern information society, the explanation lies in the language of the Hollywood movies, which are in English. However, I do not think Mr Schwabach ever saw a pirated movie, which pleads for him. If he did, he could see that many are subtitled with Chinese characters.
IP Dragon opines the first reason, the exclusion of the majority of the Chinese of DVD players is the reason there is not much per capita cost of piracy.

MPA members’ lost consumer spending due to movie piracy, per capita
The statistics show that the total loss of consumer spending due to movie piracy in China at 2,7 billion dollar, is the highest total amount of any country in the study other than the US. However, not the highest per capita, because again of the dilution by the poor masses.

Total consumer spending lost to movie piracy, per capita
Because Chinese also watch Chinese pirated movies, the per capita consumer spending is somewhat higher than the MPA members' lost consumer spending, due to movie piracy.

Retail sales value of music piracy, per capita
I do not understand the sentence: “And despite the near-universal availability of Internet access in the US, per capita sales of pirated music recordings are actually higher in the US than in 11 of the 21 other countries and territories listed here, including China, India, Korea, and Thailand, and comparable to rates in Hong Kong, Japan and Taiwan." Maybe the word despite is a mistake.

I enjoyed reading Mr Schwabach's essay and hope he will write about the importance of IP infringements (piracy and counterfeiting) originating from China too. Perception is best served when the bigger picture/context is given too of the IP in/from China challenge.
continue reading ...

Thursday, September 13, 2007

Bust of an Allegedly Pirated DVD Vendor in Hangzhou Night Market: Show or for Real?

A certain msmakara witnessed, recorded it and uploaded a video on YouTube of Hangzhou police who bust an alleged pirated DVD vendor in June 9, 2007. See here.

msmakara wrote as an introduction to the video:
"As I was walking through the market, I heard someone yell out something very loudly. After this, all of the vendors went crazy rushing to hide all of their apparently counterfeit goods. It was a little scary being in the middle of it all--it was a complete frenzy, and I could tell all the vendors were really scared. This video doesn't quite capture the chaotic feeling of the market but they might give you a hint. At first I was surprised that the police allowed me to film them up close. But then I realized that they probably want to show Westerners that they are enforcing their IP laws."

In the end of the video you see the following text:
"New Chinese law states that anyone found with 500 or more counterfeit a/v products can be imprisoned for up to 7 years and fined from one to 15 times the illegal earnings, or from 50 to 200 percent of the business turnover."

Msmakara refers to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues in the Concrete Application of the Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement, that went into effect April 5, 2007.

Article 1: “where for profit-making purposes and without the permission of the copyright owner there is reproduction and distribution of a literary work, a musical, cinematographic, television, or video recording work, computer software or other works, and the total quantity of reproductions is 500 units or more, this shall constitute “other serious circumstances” pursuant tot Article 217 of the Criminal Code; where the total quantiy of reproductions is 2500 units or more, this shall constitute “other exceptionally serious circumstances” under Article 217 of the Criminal Code.

According to Article 217 Criminal Law: “when there are other serious circumstances, the violator is to be sentenced to not more than three years of fixed-term imprisonment, criminal detention, and may in addition or exclusively be sentenced to a fine; when the amount of the illicit income is huge or when there are other particularly serious circumstances, he is to be sentenced to not less than three years and not more than seven years of fixed-term imprisonment and a fine.

Source:TidyTent Intellectual Property Law Firm, see here.

With the last text sentence in the video Msmakara makes clear there is not room for the thought that this raid constituted an effective deterrent:
"Within minutes, the vendors in the market began selling their counterfeit products again."

The question is what happens in reality with the DVD vendor. Will he be back selling his products again the next day or will he really be sanctioned. In other words, was it all a show for public foreign consumption? Is seems that in this case the police took action, but lukewarmly and the pirated DVD vendors felt relatively safe, because they are with many and the police probably only wanted single out one vendor of allegedly pirated DVDs to set an example.

continue reading ...

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Protect Or Destroy: Pick Your Choice in Transformers' IPR

Mr John Neff of the Autoblog is ranting against China's car advertisments that use cars transforming into robots and vice versa. His article's title is: "Chinese automakers copy everything else, why not the Transformers", read more here.

One should distinguish the Transformers toys and cartoons of Hasbro and the movie the Transformers made by Michael Bay, who got the permission of the right holder to adapt the toys and cartoons into a special effects movie, from the idea of transforming cars into robots and vice versa. This idea cannot be protected, only the expression of this idea can.

Now in the case of a car advertisement, what kind of intellectual property rights are possibly infringed?

Let's first watch the advertisment from China Lifan Car on YouTube, here.

The soundtrack might be copyrighted; and in this YouTube video one can see the mask of the Autobots, which is trademarked (I am not sure if this mask is part of the advertisement or whether it is added to the advertisement later); the skating robot looks very similar to the expression of the skating robot in the movie, this could be an infringement of copyright; if the designs of the robot in the advertisment is too similar in case the Transformers' robots designs are registered, it could be a design rights infringement. What do you think?

The Great Wall Motor Company also uses cars that can change into robots and back. However, knocking-off this idea in advertisments and passing-off (misappropriating the reputation), is not done only by Chinese car companies. See on YouTube a skating Citroën here, and a dancing Yugo here. To show that you can use the idea of transformation from a car into a robot in a creative way, without getting associations with the Transformers, watch Nissan's advertisement here.
continue reading ...

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Confucius Institute Has Already Apologised And Removed China Expat Copyrighted Content From Its Site


The Confucius Institute online has already removed the copyrighted content of China Expat that was published unauthorisedly on its site. They want to talk with China Expat in the future to see whether they can start a partnership.
IP Dragon congratulates the two parties. End good, all good.

Read the Confucius Institute online's apology at the site of China Expat here.
continue reading ...