Say My Name Say My Name ...No Domain Name For Individuals In China

January 30th, 2010, Verna Yu wrote an interesting article for the South China Morning Post: 'Upset Net Users Show Their Discontent On Censor's Website'. Ms Yu wrote that the website of the government's internet censor in Hunan was attacked by hackers, that were, allegedly unhappy applicants for website approval.

The article explains that in China different levels of communication administrations act as supervisory authorities. For example: Sina.com needed about 10 different licenses from different government authorities for providing their range of internet services.

There is a recent regulation that prohibits to host individually owned websites. Only business licensed or government authorised websites can register domain names in China. The Chinese government said that this measure was taken to rein in the spread of pornography, but some allege the reason is to control the flow of information.

continue reading ...

If You Have .hk HKIRC Will Give You .香港 For Free

James Nurton of Managing IP reports about an announcement from the Hong Kong Internet Registration Corportation (HKIRC). If ICANN will introduce new non-Roman country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) names, including Chinese characters, HKIRC will give everyone with a .hk address an extra .香港 for free.

Read Mr Nurton's article 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 ...

.ASIA Landrush Ends March 12, 2008

Law firm Foley & Lardner LLP warns firms that the landrush for .ASIA domain names ends March 12, 2008 (Hong Kong time). Read more here.

.Asia is a sTLD (sponsored top-level domain name). According to ICANN: "[g]enerally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under policies established by the global Internet community directly through the ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus carries out delegated policy-formulation responsibilities over many matters concerning the TLD." Read more here.

continue reading ...

Alibaba and the IP Thieves; Domain Name, Trademark and Copyright Disputes

Cherry Zhang of Pacific Epoch wrote:
"Chinese e-commerce company Alibaba is in a trademark war with Beijing-based software company Beijing Zhengpu Technology to register the "Alibaba" name in China, reports Sohu. Alibaba originally applied for the trademark from China's State Administration of Industry & Commerce (SAIC) on January 14, 2002, while Zhengpu applied for the name for its subsidiary 2688.com in 1999, according to the report. Due to objections submitted to the SAIC by the two companies or third-parties, both Alibaba and Zhengpu have experienced procedural delays and have been unable to register the trademark."
Source Pacific Epoch.

Alibaba had also a domain name dispute with Zhengpu, back in 2002. In fact it was China's first Chinese-language domain name dispute. Li Heng wrote about it for People's Daily here.

"On 9 August 2002, the High People's Court of Beijing Municipality rendered its final judgement in a suit by the owner of the domain names "2688.net"and "2688.com", Beijing Zhengpu Science Development Co., Ltd. (Zhengpu). The court ruled in favor of the defendants, the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) and Alibaba (China) Network Technology Co. Ltd. (Alibaba, the owner of the domain name "alibaba.com" and one of China's first Internet companies)." Read page 3 of TransAsia Lawyers' PRC Telecoms, Media & Technology Law Newsletter of October 2, 2002, here (pdf).

This March Alibaba was sued by 11 music companies for copyright infringement via Yahoo China which it operates. Read about the Alibaba case here.

Zhang Haitao sheds light on why Alibaba had to indemnify the music companies, while in the seemingly similar Baidu case (Baidu versus music companies) Baidu was pardoned. The difference was that in the Baidu case the plaintiff did not send a notice of warning to Baidu that it linked to sites that infringe copyrights, therefore it was relased from civil liabilities. Zhang writes: "In the Alibaba Case, however, the plaintiff sent a warning to the defendant, which resulted in the removal of some of the links to the disputed music but not all of these links were removed. Obviously, the defendant shall be liable for its failure to remove all of the links that the plaintiff required." Read Zhang's article 'China's Internet Search Engines and the Struggle for Copyright Enforcement'in King & Wood IP Bulletin of September 2007, here.

Read IP Dragon's posting about Baidu and Yahoo.cn in 2006 called 'Yahoo.cn Mirroring Baidu.com's Copyright Infringements here.

continue reading ...