Joff Wild of IAM Magazine has another great blog: 'Major breakthrough for Chinese companies in the patenting stakes' , read here. Friday, July 31, 2009
New Red Dawn in Patents: More Chinese than Foreign Companies Filed Chinese Invention Patents
Joff Wild of IAM Magazine has another great blog: 'Major breakthrough for Chinese companies in the patenting stakes' , read here. Cherkizovsky Market Closed Because of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods From China
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
News From The Front Lines

Guest article and picture by Mikołaj Rogowski
Writing that the all-front global IPR war between the owners and the infringers is well underway might sound a bit of a truism so I will simply skip to the notable news from the trenches.
Chinese government owned China Daily and Taiwanese China Post both have some worth reading articles regarding details of the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Courts recent decision. The amount of +67000 dollars of compensation is by no means a substantial sum for a corporate giant of Microsoft’s size but it’s more than sure that it will be a motivation for the likes of Strongwel to make sure that no one under their roof is selling computers with illegal software.
Remember how some of the commentators used to mention that a time will come when the entire trend of litigation against Chinese based entities will turn against some weiguo firms? The time is now, it seems : China Post reports that Wall Mart and Best Buy have been sued in US court, by a Chinese company on the grounds of patent infringement. The article has some interesting data regarding the number of Chinese patent applications.
Final piece of news: not surprisingly my previous post on the topic of the health reform in china and what it means for the “western” medical companies is not the only material that focuses on the opportunities and threats that come with this Chinese reform. Go to Reuters. Once again, some very interesting numbers are attached.
This is the third guest contribution of Mikołaj Rogowski, law student at Jagiellonian University, author of several IP articles and Polish-English translations, specializes in Polish, European, Chinese and American IP law, China assistant to MEP Jan Olbrycht. His first guest contribution can be found here, second here.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Good Old Days of Counterfeiting in Hong Kong?
Adrian Burden of No to Fakes interviewed Sarah McCartney, the writer of the book Fake Factor. Monday, July 20, 2009
Effect of DS362 on Copyright Piracy in China Nil?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama Endorses Fake Blackberry? Yea, right...
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Recession + E-commerce = Counterfeiting
Robert Klara wrote a very nice article: 'The Fight Against Fakes' for Brandweek.- the economic crisis and advent of e-commerce that prove to be a fatal mix for brands; trademarks are increasingly being infringed upon; if global dimension of this fatal mix is well described by Mr Klara: "The same Wild West quality of the Internet that makes it so enticing to shoppers is also why it's most terrifying for upscale brands, most of which have little hope of foiling the sale of a fake handbag made in China and bought by a customer in South Carolina from a Web site based in Estonia."
- consumer education campaigns such as FakesAreNeverInFashion.com and Fake Watches Are for Fake People (see picture);
- brands that produce mass-market extensions of their high-end lines in China, so that they are easier to copy;
- ACTA (anti-counterfeiting treaty agreement);
- At the end of the article Mr Klara mentions luxury good firms such as Luis Vuitton and l'Oréal as plaintiffs against eBay about the question who is liable in case of goods offered on eBay that are intellectual property infringements. Mr Klara writes: "Some legal experts predict this latest ruling from London will effectively end suits against eBay." I believe that some legal experts predict this, but I do not agree with them.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Article 6ter Paris Convention Online: Hong Kong (2), China (0), Netherlands (37)
March 31, 2009, WIPO's first electronic publication of signs, emblems etc. protected under article 6ter Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, see here. On this day (July 13, 2009), if you type in China, you see only the emblem and flag of Hong Kong S.A.R. witn the stylised form of Bauhemia Blakeana. That is a very small number for such a big country such as the People's Republic of China (0) and Hong Kong (2), compared to the tiny Netherlands which protects 37 signs, emblems (including for such collective marks as Holland Cheddar Cheese etc), Germany (128), USA (117), United Kingdom (38), Italy (32). Then again Japan and France each only had two signs in the database.Saturday, July 11, 2009
EU Customs Report 2008 About IPR Enforcement Activities not IPR Infringements from China
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Fake iPhones: Rip-off or Innovation
However, the third point I make about what to do against counterfeiting was not: "Get a strong legal team. This isn’t very useful in China, though, where foreign companies are afraid of saying anything because they want to continue investing in the country, since it’s very cheap to manufacture there."
It must be:
"Register your IPR's (or so you will get a strong legal team). But you need to be willing to litigate. Some foreign companies are afraid of saying anything because they don't want to jeopardise their investments in the country, and they want to keep on manufacturing there, since it is still relatively cheap."
You can check out the interview here.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
May You Live In Interesting Times Online: Does China's Green Dam Includes Pirated Code?
May you live in interesting times on the Chinese internet: pre-installed filtering technology which is used to censor, a passionate opinion against it supported by a massive internet survey, and last but not least the very filtering software might be qualified as copyright infringement. Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Supreme People's Court of China: "Current Economic Situation Makes Granting IPR Injunctions More Difficult"
In China there are still villages dependent on the production of counterfeit and pirated goods. The incentive for the Chinese government to enforce intellectual property and make these people de facto unemployed and thus prone to protest is not very likely. The Chinese government might temporarily look the other way when it comes to intellectual property infringement.
Well, the Chinese Supreme People's Court does not look the other way: they came up with an opinion (Opinion on Certain Issues with Respect to Intellectual Property Judicial Adjudication Under the Current Economic Situation) that says for example that courts should consider other measures than injunctions in case an injunction would run counter to the public interest.
This this not contravene China's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs): Articles 7 and 8 TRIPs, taken together may provide, "a basis for seeking waivers to meet unforeseen conditions of hardship," J.H. Reichman, The TRIPs Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries, 32 Case W. Res. J. International Law, 2000, pp. 441 and 461.
Drastic times call for drastic measures, what do you think? And how temporary is the Opinion?
Read Peter Ollier's article about the opinion at Managing Intellectual Property Magazine here.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Sino-Japanese IPR Memorandum of Understanding: What Does It All Mean?
Monday, June 08, 2009
Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules (2009)
The National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China decrees
No. 6
The “Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules”, were passed in the 1st department meeting of the National Copyright Administration on 21 April 2009, and will take effect on 15 June 2009.
Translatation: Rogier Creemers
National Copyright Administration Director: Liu Binjie
7 May 2009
Article 1: In order to standardise the administrative punishment actions of the administrative management entities for copyright, protect the lawful rights of citizens, legal persons and other groups, according to the "Administrative Punishment Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter abbreviated as "Administrative Punishment Law", the "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter abbreviated as "Copyright Law" and other relevant laws, administrative regulations, these rules are established.
Article 2: The National Copyright Agency as well as the relevant entities within local governments enjoying copyright enforcement rights (hereinafter abbreviated as copyright administrative management entities), in the statutory scope of their official powers, implement punishment actions against unlawful acts as listed in these rules. If other laws or regulations provide otherwise, those provisions shall be followed.
Article 3: Unlawful acts as named in these rules refers to:
(1) Infringing acts as listed in Article 47 of the Copyright Law, which at the same time damage public interest;
(2) Infringing acts as listed un Article 24 of the "Regulations on Computer Software Protection", which at the same time damage public interest;
(3) Infringing acts as listed under Article 18 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights" if they damage the public interest at the same time; infringing acts as listed under Articles 19 and 25;
(4) Acts requiring administrative punishment under the provisions of Articles 41 and 44 of the "Regulations on Collective Management of Copyright;
(5) Unlawful copyright acts, which should receive administrative punishment under the provisions of other laws, regulations and rules.
(1) warnings;
(2) fines;
(3) confiscation of illicit profits;
(4) confiscation of infringing products;
(5) confiscation of equipment for installing and stockpiling infringing products;
(6) confiscating of materials, tools and equipment mainly used in producing infringing products;
(7) other administrative punishments under the provisions of laws, administrative rules and regulations.
Chapter 2: Jurisdiction and application
Article 5: The unlawful acts as listed in these rules will be investigated and prosecuted by the copyright administrative management entities of the locality of the infringing act, the locality of the manifestation of the result of infringement, the locality of the storage of infringing products or the locality of lawful sealing or detaining. Except if other laws or regulations provide otherwise.
Investigation and prosecution of unlawful acts of infringements of dissemination rights over information networks will be the responsibility of the copyright administrative management entity of the location of the infringer, the location of the network service machines and other equipment effecting the infringing activity or the location of registry of the website.
Article 6: The National Copyright Agency may investigate and prosecute unlawful acts of significant influence in the entire country, as well as other unlawful acts it considers it should investigate and prosecute. Local copyright administrative management entities are responsible for investigation and prosecution of unlawful acts occurring in the area under their jurisdiction.
Article 7: When two or more local copyright administrative management entities have jurisdiction over the same unlawful act, the copyright administrative management unit who was first in filing the case is responsible for investigation and prosecution of the unlawful act.
If disputes between local copyright administrative management entities occur because of jurisdiction, or if jurisdiction is not specified, a compromise solution will be worked out by both parties in the dispute; if a compromise solution cannot be reached, their common copyright administrative management entity of one level higher will be petitioned to assign jurisdiction, their common copyright administrative management entity of one level higher may also directly assign jurisdiction.
Higher level copyright administrative management entities may, if this is necessary, deal with cases of significant influence in the jurisdiction of lower level copyright administrative management entities, they may also hand over cases in their jurisdiction to lower level copyright administrative management entities to deal with; if lower level copyright administrative management entities believe that the case details of cases in their jurisdiction are significant or complex, and need to be dealt with by higher level copyright administrative management entities, they may petition the copyright administrative entity of one level higher to deal with the case.
Article 8: Unlawful acts found out, investigated and prosecuted by copyright administrative management entities, if suspected to constitute a crime under the provisions of the criminal laws of our country, should be transferred by that copyright administrative management entity to the judiciary in accordance with the "Regulations on Administrative Enforcement Bodies' Transfer of Suspected Criminal Cases".
Article 9: The period of effectiveness of administrative punishments issued by copyright administrative management entities is two years, calculation starting from the date of occurrence of the unlawful act. If the unlawful act is of successive or continuous nature, calculation will start from the ending of the unlawful act. If infringing products are still being distributed, or dissemination on a website still continues, it shall be considered as still continuing unlawful acts.
If unlawful acts are not found out within two years, they will no more be punished administratively. Except when other laws provide otherwise.
Chapter 3: Punishment procedure
Article 10: Apart from circumstances in which the Administrative Punishment Law provides the use of the simplified procedure, administrative copyright punishment shall use the normal procedure provided in the Administrative Punishment Law.
Article 11: The copyright administrative management entity using the normal procedure to investigate and prosecute unlawful acts, should register the case.
Towards unlawful acts as outlined in these rules, copyright administrative management entities may by themselves decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution, or can decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution based on materials transferred from relevant entities, they may also decide to file a case for investigation and prosecution based on the written request or report of persons of which the rights were infringed, persons concerned, or other insiders.
Article 12: The requesting person applying for the filing of a case for investigation and prosecution on the basis of unlawful acts as listed in these rules, should submit a letter of application, proof or rights, infringed goods (or products) as well as other evidence.
The letter of application should illustrate the name and surname (or organization name) and address of the party as well as the main facts and reasons for application for filing a case for investigation and prosecution.
If the requesting person entrusts a procurator to apply, the procurator should show a trust deed.
Article 13: The copyright administrative management entities should within 15 days of receiving all written request materials decide whether or not to accept and hear a case and inform the requesting person. If acceptance and hearing would not be granted, reasons should be informed in written form.
Article 14: At the time of filing of a case, a case file examination and approval form should be filled out, at the same time the relevant materials, including written request or report materials; the relevant materials of a case transferred by a higher level copyright administrative management entity or a relevant entity, the inspection reports of law enforcement officers etc. should be enclosed, and examined and approved by the responsible person of this entity, two or more case-handling staff are to be appointed to carry out investigation and processing.
If case-handling staff is concerned with the cases, they should withdraw themselves, if they do not withdraw, the parties may request their withdrawal. Withdrawal of case-handling staff must be examined and approved by the responsible person of this entity. The withdrawal of a responsible person should be examined and approved by the People's Government of this level.
Article 15: When law enforcement officers in the process of enforcement find out that unlawful acts are in the process of being committed, and if the circumstances are so critical that there is not time to file a case, they may take the following measures:
(1) Cease or correct the unlawful acts
(2) Put infringing products and materials, tools, equipment etc. used mainly for unlawful acts in advance registered storage
(3) Gather and collect other relevant evidence.
Law enforcement officers should promptly report relevant circumstances and materials to the copyright administrative management entity in charge, and conduct case filing formalities within seven days of discovery of the circumstances.
Art. 16: After the filing of the case, the case-handling staff should promptly carry out investigations, and demand the person with statutory burden of proof to put his proof within the time limit appointed by the copyright administrative management entities.
The case-handling staff, when collecting evidence, may adopt the following means to collect and gather relevant evidence:
(1) Consulting, duplication of document records, account books and other written materials relevant to the suspected unlawful acts;
(2) Collect samples of evidence of suspected infringing products;
(3) Put suspected infringing products, equipment for installing and stockpiling infringing products; suspected infringing websites and web pages, suspected infringing website service machines and materials, tools and equipment mainly used in unlawful acts in advance registered storage.
Art. 17: The case-handling staff should, during enforcement, show to the party or relevant persons their administrative enforcement credentials issued by the National Copyright Administration or local People's Government.
Art. 18: Evidence collected during the handling of the case include:
(1) documented evidence;
(2) material evidence;
(3) witness testimonies;
(4) audiovisual material;
(5) statements of the parties;
(6) authenticated conclusions
(7) records of spot inspections and checks
Article 19: Copyright-related manuscripts, master copies, lawful publications, work registry certificates, copyright contract registry certificates, proof provided by authentication organs, contracts of acquisition of rights, as well as infringing reproductions obtained by way of ordering, buying on the spot etc., by the parties or their entrusted persons and acquired objects, invoices etc, may act as evidence.
Art. 20: When the case-handling staff sample and collect evidence, and put relevant evidence in advance registered storage, they should have the party present. Concerning relevant goods, they should issue on the spot a double duplicate of a manufacturing statement, which should, after it is signed or stamped by the case-handling staff and the party, given respectively by the party and the case-handling staff to the local copyright administrative management entity for preservation. If the party is not present or refuses to sign or stamp, this circumstances shall be noted by two or more case-handling staff.
Article 21: When putting relevant evidence in advance registered storage, case-handling staff should obtain permission from the responsible person of this entity, and should hand over to the party an evidence advanced storage notice. The party or relevant person may not transfer or destroy relevant evidence during the period of evidence storage.
Evidence in advance registered storage, should be sealed with advanced registered storage strips of the copyright administrative management entity, and preserved on the spot by the party. If evidence in advance registered storage really needs to be moved to another location, it may be moved to a suitable location for storage. If the circumstances are so critical that there is no time to perform the formalities provided in these rules, the case-handling staff may adopt advance measures, and afterwards promptly complete formalities.
Art. 22 (Steps after advanced registered storage) Concerning evidence in advanced registered storage, one of the listed decisions should be made within 7 days of handing over the evidence advanced registered storage notice:
(1) If authentication is needed, it should be delivered for authentication;
(2) If unlawful facts are established, and if confiscation should happen, the confiscation procedure should occur according to law;
(3) If transfer to a relevant entity is necessary, the case together with the evidence will be transferred to the relevant entity;
(4) If unlawful facts are not established, or if confiscation should not happen according to the law, measures should be taken to release registered storage;
(5) Other related statutory measures.
Art. 23 (Entrusted investigation) When, during the process of case investigation, the copyright administrative management entities entrust other copyright administrative management entities to perform investigations on their behalf, they should issue a trust deed. The copyright administrative management entity that is entrusted should give vigorous assistance.
Art. 24 (Expert appraisal) For questions of a technical nature arising during the investigation and prosecution, the copyright administrative management entity may entrust special agencies or engage expert personnel to carry out appraisal.
Art. 25 (Investigation report) After the final stage of the investigation, the case-handling staff should submit a case investigation report, explaining whether the relevant activities violate the law or not, and putting forward suggestions for process, and relevant facts, grounds and basis, as well as including the complete evidence materials.
Art. 26 (Notification of the parties) When the copyright administrative management entity has drafted an administrative punishment decision, the person in charge of that entity should sign an issue an administrative punishment advance notice, informing the parties on the facts, grounds and basis of the drafted administrative punishment decision, as well as informing the parties on their rights of declaration, right of defence and other rights.
The administrative punishment advance notice should be delivered directly to the parties by the copyright administrative management entity, the parties should sign or stamp the delivery form. If parties refuse to sign for receipt, the situation should be noted clearly by the delivery personnel, the documents to be delivered should be left at the domicile receiving the delivery personnel, and the person in charge of the relevant entity should be informed. The copyright administrative management entity may also adopt postal delivery methods to inform the parties. If there is no way to find the parties, they may notify by public proclamation.
Article 27: If the parties wish to make a statement or a pleading, they should raise their statement or pleading, as well as the relevant facts, reasons and evidence before the copyright administrative management entity within seven days after notification of the defendant, or within 30 days of the day of issuance of the announcement. If the parties did not exercise their right statement or pleading within this period, they will be regarded as having renounced the right.
If the direct delivery method is used for notification, the day of receipt and signing of the party is used as the day of notification of the defendant, if the postal delivery method is used for notification, the day of receipt as indicated on the receipt slip is used as the day of notification of the defendant.
Article 28: The case-handling staff should fully listen to the statements and pleadings of the parties, carry out a review of the facts, reasons and evidence raised by the parties, and submit a review report.
The copyright administrative management entity may not increase punishment because of pleading by the parties.
Article 29: The responsible person of the copyright administrative management entity should carry out an examination of the case investigation report and the review report and respectively make the following processing decisions on the basis of the investigation results:
(1) if an unlawful act that should be punished administratively truly exists, administrative punishment should be meted out according to the level of the fault of the infringer, the duration of the infringement, the size of the scope of infringement, the consequence of the damage and other circumstances;
(2) if the unlawful act is trivial, administrative punishment may not be meted out;
(3) if unlawful facts are not established, no administrative punishment will be meted out;
(4) if the unlawful acts are suspected to constitute a crime, it will be transferred to the judiciary.
Relatively heavy administrative punishment will be meted out against unlawful acts of which the circumstances are complicated or which are significant, this will be decided by collective discussion of the responsible persons of the copyright administrative management entity.
Article 30: When the copyright administrative management entity decides to impose a fine, the amount of the fine will be fixed according to the provisions of Article 36 of the "Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China", Article 24 of the "Regulations for the Protection of Computer Software" and Articles 18 and 19 of the "Regulations on the Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights".
Article 31: If the circumstances of the unlawful act are grave, the copyright administrative management entity may confiscate the materials, tools and equipment etc., used mainly in producing the infringing products.
"Grave circumstances" as named in the aforementioned clause, refers to:
(1) if the illicit income amount (viz. amount of profit) is more than 2.500 yuan;
(2) if the illicit business amount of is more than 15.000 yuan;
(3) if the number of infringing products of an individual is greater than 250 volumes (discs or boxes);
(4) if one has already been found liable for copyright infringement, and again infringes copyright;
(5) if other significant influence or grave consequences result.
Article 32: If another administrative department has already fined the same one unlawful act of the party, the copyright administrative management entity may not fine it again, but may still mete out other sorts of punishment according to the provisions of Article 4 of these Rules, according to the specific circumstances.
Article 33: Before the copyright administrative management entity decides to impose relatively large fines or other administrative punishments requiring a hearing according to the provisions of laws or administrative regulations, it should notify the parties of the rights for requiring for a hearing.
"Relatively large fines" as named in the aforementioned clause, reference to a fine for an individual of more than 20.000 yuan, and a fine for a work unit of more than 100.000 yuan. If local rules and regulations have different criteria for a hearing, it will be conducted according to local rules and regulations.
Article 34: If the parties wish a hearing, the copyright administrative management entity should organize a hearing according to the procedures of the provisions of Article 42 of the Administrative Punishment Law. The parties do not bear the cost of organizing a hearing.
Article 35: If the copyright administrative management entity decides to mete out punishment, it should formulate an administrative punishment resolution.
If the copyright administrative management entity decides not to mete out punishment for a trivial unlawful act, it should formulate an administrative non-punishment resolution, explain the facts, reasons and basis for not meting out punishment, and serve it on the parties; if an unlawful act is not established, it should formulate an investigation result notice, and serve it on the parties.
If the copyright administrative management entity decides to transfer a case to the judiciary for processing, it should formulate a notice of transfer for a suspected criminal case, and send it timely to the judicial department having jurisdiction, together with the relevant material and evidence.
Article 36: The administrative punishment resolution should be handed over to the parties on the spot after proclamation by the copyright administrative management entity. If parties are not present, it should be sent to the parties within seven days.
Article 37: If parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment of the National Copyright Administration, an application for administrative redress may be made to the National Copyright Administration; if the parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment of a local copyright administrative management entity, an application for administrative redress may be made to the People's Government of that level of the copyright administrative management entity of one level higher.
If the parties refuse to accept the administrative punishment or the administrative redress decision, administrative action may be raised, according to the law.
Chapter 4: Execution procedures
Article 38: After the parties receive the administrative punishment resolutions, they should fulfil their obligations within the time limits of the administrative punishment resolution.
If the party’s request administrative redress, or an administrative action is raised, the administrative punishment must be fulfilled without delay. Except if laws provide otherwise.
Article 39: Confiscated infringing products should be destroyed, or should be disposed of in other suitable manners after approval of the infringed party.
When destroying infringing products, the copyright administrative management entity should appoint more than two law enforcement officers to supervise the destruction process, examine the destruction results and record the destruction.
Concerning the confiscated materials, tools and equipment etc. mainly used in producing infringing products, the copyright administrative management entity should organize a public auction according to the law or dispose of them according to the relevant national provisions.
Chapter 5: supplementary articles
Article 41: infringing products as named in these rules include infringing reproductions and works posing as signed by other persons.
Article 42: The copyright administrative management entities should set up a copyright administrative punishment statistics system according to the national regulations on statistics, and should submit yearly copyright administrative punishment statistics to the copyright administrative management entity of one level higher
Article 43: After the administrative punishment decision or reconsideration resolution is completely carried out, the copyright administrative management entity should file the case materials timely.
Materials to be put on file include: the administrative punishment resolution, the case file examination and approval form, the case investigation report, the review report, the reconsideration resolution, the records of hearings, the hearing reports, evidence material, property disposition documents as well as other relevant materials.
Article 44: The relevant legal documents touched upon in these Rules, should be made according to the relevant document forms of the National Copyright Administration.
Article 45: These Rules will take effect from 15 June 2009. The "Copyright Administrative Punishment Implementation Rules ", promulgated by the National Copyright Administration will be abolished at the same time, if these Rules should contradict with other relevant regulations promulgated before the implementation of these Rules, these Rules should be carried out.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Working Group Must Protect Against Flood of Chinese IPR Infringements of Japanese Products
Mainichi Daily News reports that Japan and the People's Republic of China have set up a working group to address intellectual property challenges. This Sunday the working group (which consists of the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Ministry and Chinese Ministry of Commerce and other institutions) will probably meet for the first time. Wednesday, June 03, 2009
LOIYIR Must Stop Using L'Oréal's Chinese Name and Claiming It's Part of L'Oréal
Already in 2007 there was some confusion among consumers, see the question at Ask Koubei here:Answer: "不是." Translation: no
The confusion was created by Hangzhou LOIYIR Cosmetics and Shanghai Meilianni Cosmetics that used the Chinese name of L'Oréal 欧莱雅 and claimed that LOIYIR's products are from L'Oréal.
Finally in 2009, the case was brought before the Nantong (Jiangsu province) Intermediate People's Court (first-instance judgement). From 1981 to 2001, L'Oréal registered the trademarks L'Oréal, 莱雅 and 欧莱雅, certified to be used on Class 3 goods, i.e. cosmetics, beauty products and perfumes.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
IP Dragon's Law Firms Update
Baker & McKenzie
- 'People's Republic of China Patent Law Implementing Regulations Draft' (pdf)http://www.bakernet.com/BakerNet/Resources/Publications/Recent+Publications/ChinaPRCPatentLawImplementingRegulationsDraftCAApr09.htm
Bird & Bird
- Chen, Sofia and Ewan Grist, 'Anti-counterfeiting framework', May 11, 2009 http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Anti-counterfeiting_Legal_Framework.Aspx
CCPIT Patent and Trademark Law Office
- 'The Second "Beijing International Pharmaceutical & ChemicalIntellectual Property Forum"will be held from August 6 to August 8, 2009 in Beijing' http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2009042201.htm
- Hu Gang, 'Position Trademarks Refused by the Chinese Court forRegistration as Three-dimensional Trademarks for the First Time'http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2009030301a.htm
China Patent Agent (HK) Ltd.
- Liao Xiaojun, 'Several Issues in Hearing Design Patent Cases the IPTribunal of Beijing Higher People’s Court' http://www.cpahkltd.com/cn/Publications/2009liulan/200902/ebjc.pdf
- Wu Yuhe and Pang Lizhi, 'Impact of Drug Dosage Feature on Novalty ofSwiss-type Use Claim' http://www.cpahkltd.com/cn/Publications/2009liulan/200902/ewyh.pdf
China Science Patent & Trademark
- Zhu Nongfan, 'Review: 2008 China Intellectual Property Developments' http://www.csptal.com/en/en_z.asp?id=119
Deacons
- China IP Bulletin- May 2009 http://www.deaconslaw.com/eng/knowledge/knowledge_330.htm
Dragon IP Law
- Newsletter March 18, 2009 http://www.dragon-patent.com.cn/en/news_content.asp?id=218&anclassid=1
DS-Avocats
- Lettre en Droit Chinois des Affaires (French), February 19, 2009 http://www.ds-asie.com/dszh/IMG/pdf/Droit_chinois_des_affaires_no107.pdf
East IP
- 'Our Chairman, Dr. Lulin Gao, Invited to Attend 2009 Global IPExchange in U.S.A.' http://www.eastip.com/news/ip/news_publications/09-2-22gie/index_html_v2
Foley & Lardner LLP
- Bartner, Sharon R., Catherine Sun and Yan Zhao, 'China's HighestCourt Opinion Addresses Impact Of The International Financial CrisisOn Intellectual Property', April 24, 2009 http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=5977
Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer
- Carnabuci, Connie and Richard Bird, 'Major changes in the thirdrevision to the PRC Patent Law', February 13, 2009 http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2009/feb09/25150.pdf
- Carnabuci, Connie and Richard Bird, 'Trade Descriptions (Amendment)Ordinance 2008, Hong Kong', February 10, 2009 http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2009/feb09/25054.pdf
Haseltine Lake
- 'Haseltine Lake at INTA 131st Annual Meeting', May 16-20, 2009 http://www.haseltinelake.com/news/shownews/inta09
JSM (Johnson Stokes & Master) Mayer Brown
- Wong, Kenny, 'A New Opinion of the PRC Supreme People's CourtConcerning the Adjudication of IP Disputes' http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=6683&nid=6
Jones Day
- Bai, J. Benjamin, Tony Chen, Mark Allen Cohen, Chiang Ling Li, AnnW. Chen, 'What Does the Third Amendment to China's Patent Law Mean toYou?', January 2009
Jun He Law Offices
- 'The Supreme Court Issues Opinions on Due Implementation of NationalIntellectual Property Strategy', April 30, 2009, http://www.junhe.com/uploadpic/news/2009511214635977.pdf
Kangxin
- 'SARFT offers 9 mln yuan to support original cartoon', February 11, 2009. http://124.207.176.104:8080/mainServlet.do?ClassName=NewsManage1&ActionName=doBeforeUpdate&jsp=/english/ipnews/viewnews.jsp&newsID=590&titleimage=title-2-4-1.gif&lanuage_type=2&Pro_type_id=90
- 'China to build 100 IP assistance centers', February 10, 2009. http://124.207.176.104:8080/mainServlet.do?ClassName=NewsManage1&ActionName=doBeforeUpdate&jsp=/english/ipnews/viewnews.jsp&newsID=589&titleimage=title-2-4-1.gif&lanuage_type=2&Pro_type_id=90
King & Wood
- IP Bulletin, February 2009, Shi Yusheng, 'Microsoft's Windows Genuine Advantage Initiative andthe Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in China'
- Zheng Lizhu and Kenneth Y. Choy, 'The Impact of Bilski on BusinessMethod Patent'- Nelson, Stephen, and Wu Libin, 'Tax Issues Related to Intellectual Property Transfer of the Foreign Enterprise to China Transferee' http://www.kingandwood.com/Bulletin.aspx?id=11445
Lehman, Lee & Xu
- Lee, John and Cythia Zhang, 'Trademark Practice & Forms' http://www.lehmanlaw.com/fileadmin/lehmanlaw_com/Publications/Trademark_Practice_and_Forms-China_Chapter.pdf
Liu, Shen & Associates
- 'New Comments on IP Trials issued by Supreme People’s Court' May 7, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=511
- 'New Interpretations of Application of Law in Civil Litigationconcerning Well-Known Trademark by Supreme People’s Court', May 7,2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=510
- 'Development on Well-Known Trademark Recognition and Protection', May 7, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=512
- ChinaCourt.org,'The Judicial Reform of People’s Court Considers Introducing Unified IPR Courts', April 15, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=500- 'Liu, Shen & Associates Receives “China IP Firm 0f 2009” Award', April 15, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=504
- Shenzhen Special Zone Daily, 'Shenzhen Covers 44.5% of the Total PCTPatent Application', March 24, 2009 http://www.liu-shen.com/english/news_detail_en.asp?newsid=492
Lung Tin International Intellectual Property Agent Ltd.
- 'The third revision of Chinese Patent Law regarding the design: anintroduction (fourth)', April 24, 2005 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=124053784249
- 'Shanghai MGE sentenced to pay CNY 0.5 million in compensation', April 24, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=124053765916
- 'For suspected promotion of feudal superstition, registration of anew trademark of Blizzard Entertainment based in USA has beenrejected', April 24, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=124053751559
- 'The third revision of Chinese Patent Law regarding the design: anintroduction (3)', Mar. 27, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=123813353819
- 'Administrative institutions strengthen the capacity ofinvestigating and dealing with trademark violation cases', March 27, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=123813335997
- 'New rules for trademark applications in newspapers industry', March 27, 2009 http://www.lungtin.com/en/view.php?id=123813311909
Maier & Maier
- 18 articles about IPR in China http://www.postgrant.com/china-ip/
McDermott Will & Emery
- Ma, Patrick, 'Chinese Trademark Office Releases Trial Provisions for Online Trademark Applications', April 9, 2009 http://www.mwechinalaw.com/news/2009/chinalawalert0409a.htm
NTD Trademark & Patent Agency Ltd.
- 'Shanghai Expo Lawsuit Service Center Established', May 14, 2009 http://www.chinantd.com/en/en-newsshow.asp?id=1016
- 'Chongqing Subsidize Invention Patents Granted Abroad', May 13, 2009 http://www.chinantd.com/en/en-newsshow.asp?id=1015
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
- 'Trial measures for Online Trademark Applications', China Law & Policy, February 16, 2009 http://www.omm.com/files/Publication/a70f2a48-2380-4c36-b3d7-2e4eca6e15f2/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/ab35488e-bb34-4fda-8049-301225b7eda8/clp2009E05.pdf
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
- Xiang Wang, Neal Stender, Tao Wu and Gary Zeng, 'China's New Testfor Patent Injunctions; Echoes of eBay', May 5, 2009,
http://www.orrick.com/publications/item.asp?action=article&articleID=1832
- Xiang Wang and Neal Stender, 'More changes & some more of the samein amended PRC Patent Law', April 1, 2009 http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/1823.pdf
- Dale, Andrew and Janie Wong, 'The Civil Justice Reforms, An In-House Perspective', March 9, 2009 http://www.orrick.com/fileupload/1691.pdf
Rouse & Co.
- 'China IP Express, 316', April 24, 2009 http://www.iprights.com/document.aspx?fn=load&media_id=611
Shanghai Patent & Trademark Law Office, Inc.
- 'World Expo 2010 Shanghai IP Protection Outlines Unveiled' http://www.sptl.com.cn/en/news/news08.htm
Tee & Howe
- Haynes, James, 'Chinese Utility Model Patents Might Cut Your IP Costsby Half While Providing Better Protection' http://www.teehowe.com/news_detail.php?id=323
Troutman Sanders
- 'Judicial Interpretation of Several Issues on Application ofEnforcement Procedures in PRC Civil Procedural Law', January 22, 2009 http://www.troutmansanders.com/cnlb-012009-07/
Tsai, Lee & Chen
- 'Opinions Shared across the Straits: Using Other’s Trademark as aCompany’s Chinese/English Name Not Allowed', May 12, 2008 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1303
- 'Third Read of Amendment to Copyright Act Pass Three-strikesProvision', May 1, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1302
- 'Indication of Distinctive Name on Company’s Website Not TrademarkUse', May 1, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1301
- 'FOXY Sued for Involvement in Copyright Infringement over 5.8Billion', May 1, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1300
- 'The Cross-strait Regulations Recognize the Validity of Judgments',April 14, 2009 http://www.tsailee.com/_en/_ipn/default01.asp?PKID=1284
Unitalen
- 'China’s Ministry of Commerce Highlighted IPR for ChineseEnterprises on CeBIT' http://www.unitalen.com/servlet/Node?node=38389&language=0
Wilkinson & Grist Solicitors & Notaries
- articles about IPR in China publised in IAM Magazinehttp://www.wilgrist.com/index.php?main=10002&dept=05&lang=en
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Harlan Ellison Says The Darndest Things About Digital Piracy Of His Work
Monday, May 18, 2009
Reality Imitates Fiction: China National Space Administration Logo: Half Star Trek, And Other Half ...Star Trek
Grim audits of EU-China Relations – IPR to the rescue?
Guest article by Mikołaj RogowskiFriday, May 15, 2009
Business Leaders' Advice On Succeeding in China: IPR, IPR and IPR
The Knowledge@W.P. Carey newsletter of the W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, has a great series of articles: 'Trade, China and the World Economic Order'. Part 3 is called: Business Leaders' Advice on Succeeding in China.' Herein, sensible things are said about intellectual property rights in China:- "Hit-and-miss IP regulation is a significant inhibitor to development in China," said W.P. Carey School's Phillip Carter [professor supply chain management]. To work around that challenge, companies should not enter China with their most cutting-edge technology.
- Now that China's domestic companies have moved up the value chain, becoming significantly better at innovating their own technologies, they too are pushing the government for intellectual property rights protection in China.
- While the joint venture model may be great for China and its demestic firms, Motorola's Gary Tooker advises against it. "The best model to incorporate in China is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the American or multinational company," he said." Again to avoid to intellectual property problems.