Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in the Next Internet Era

King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

In recent years, the world has witnessed several milestone events signaling the arrival of a new generation of global internet companies. Apart from the much-hyped dawn of social media, there is a much broader trend taking place, one that has outgrown the traditional boundaries of the tech sector itself. “In short,” as Marc Andreessen wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal column, “software is eating the world.” As corresponding developments are happening in China, this new era has caused and will continue to cause dramatic implications on the monitoring and enforcement of intellectual property rights in the country.

In the United States, consider the examples that Andreessen cites in his article. With the fall of Borders earlier this year, Amazon is now the largest bookseller in the US; but through the power of software, Amazon is beginning to emerge as a threat to the traditional retail industry. The most dominant and rapidly growing distributors of music, movies, and television programming are companies like Netflix and Apple (through its iTunes service), both of which sell and stream their content entirely online. The world’s fastest growing telecom company is Skype (purchased by Microsoft earlier this year). The fastest-growing recruiting company? The newly-listed LinkedIn. Even the multi-billion dollar gaming industry is being taken over by online gaming providers such as Zynga and leaving behind traditional hardware manufacturers such as Sony and Nintendo.

Parallel developments are also taking place in China, where the social, political, and regulatory landscape have made the domestic internet sector notoriously difficult to penetrate for foreign players. Fast-growing consumer e-commerce websites such as Alibaba’s Taobao and 360buy.com are squeezing the market share of traditional brick and mortar retail businesses. Online video providers such as Youku.com and Tudou are beginning to partner with media production companies such as Time Warner and Disney to provide paid video-on-demand services.

As the retail industry begins to migrate online and the prospects of e-commerce have become more lucrative for small businesses, the online sales of counterfeit goods have also spiked in recent years. Likewise, the more primitive methods of copying DVDs or sharing media through the web are now giving way to streaming media websites that often contain copyrighted movies or television programming. The result is that the battle between intellectual property infringers and enforcement efforts to contain them is increasingly taking place online and within the bounds of software platforms operated by third parties such as Taobao and Youku.

Rather than employing litigation tactics or notifying the authorities, shutting down a retail operation for counterfeit goods now often involves notifying consumer-to-consumer or business-to-consumer software platforms of the infringing activities. Similarly, rather than seeking to destroy countless DVD copies of copyrighted content, removing infringing media from mass distribution involves corresponding with online video-sharing platforms. In both cases above, the platform provider risks exposure to secondary liability if it is notified of infringing content and fails to make sufficient efforts to remove such content or accounts.

Thus, as infringement activities become consolidated onto online software platforms, whether these activities be the sale of counterfeit goods on an e-commerce site or the distribution of a copyrighted content on an online video site, the methods of monitoring and controlling intellectual property infringement are changing.

The traditional view of the IT sector is that the internet has transformed the way we obtain, process, and communicate information, whether that information is in the form of a study in an academic journal or the latest status update from a friend on Facebook or Renren. However, in this new world of software-dominated companies, the internet is not only a means of manipulating information, but a means of providing consumer goods, entertainment,  and services (the list goes on). How this will continue to shape the future of intellectual property enforcement in China remains to be seen.

(Contributed by Peter P. Li)

Overview of Doing Business in China

By Zeng Xianwu King & Wood's Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group

Since the reform and opening-up policy was introduced in 1978, especially in the past ten (10) years, the People's Republic of China (the "PRC" or "China") has undergone significant changes.  China is a growth engine for the worldwide economy, fueling global expansion via higher output and trading relationships with other nations as well as greater contributions from domestic consumption.  Over last nine (9) months of 2011, China has already attracted contractual inbound foreign direct investment of USD177.8 billion.  Notwithstanding China's status as one of the world's largest economies, and the massive amounts of foreign money invested in China, the basic laws and rules in China governing foreign investment seems mysterious for those who want to invest in China or are accustomed to laws of their countries.

1  Governmental Structure

1.1 China's Political System

Political System of China refers to the political structure, fundamental laws, rules and regulation and practices that are implemented in China, and which control the state power, government, and the relationships between the state and society.  Being a socialist country, based on the worker-peasant union and practicing people's democratic centralism, the primary system in the country is the socialist system.

The main political structure of the PRC is comprised of two vertically integrated, but interlocking institutions: the Chinese Communist Party (the "CCP" or "Party"), headed by the Party Politburo and its Standing Committee; and the state government (the "state" or "government") apparatus, headed by the premier, who presides over the State Council, a de-facto cabinet.  Throughout China, Party and government structures closely parallel one another, with Party committees and representatives present not only in government agencies, but also in most organizations and institutions, including universities and foreign owned enterprises.

Two other major institutions play roles in Chinese politics.  One is the National People's Congress (the "NPC").  According to the PRC Constitution, the NPC of China is the highest organ of state power.  Its highest officers are the president and vice president of the NPC, who are directly elected by the members of the NPC.  Articles 85 and 92 of the Constitution state that the State Council is the executive arm of the government and reports to the NPC.

The other is the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC").  The CPPCC is an organization of the patriotic united front of the Chinese people.  It is also an important organ of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC, and an important instrument of democracy in the nation's political life.  The CPPCC exercises the functions of political consultation, democratic supervision, and participating in the administration and discussion of state affairs.  This is a key link for the CPC and the governments at all levels to ensure that decision-making is scientific and democratic.

Another key institution in Chinese politics is the People's Liberation Army ("PLA"). The distinction between civilian and military leadership in the PRC is tenuous. There are, for instance, two authoritative bodies ostensibly tasked with authority over military policy and decisions: the Central Military Commission of the PRC, a state entity; and the Central Military Commission of the Communist Party, a party organ.  Although the former is nominally considered to be in supreme command of military and defense affairs, including the formulation of military strategy, in reality it is the Party-controlled Central Military Commission ("CMC") that exercises command and control over the PLA.  Since the membership of the two 11-member commissions is usually identical, it has become customary to refer to the CMC alone without distinguishing between the two.  The CMC is chaired by the Party general secretary, emphasizing that leadership of the military is a Party prerogative.

1.2 Government

The PRC is governed under the leadership of the CCP.  The PRC government is organized in two tiers.  The central government, State Council is the highest administration authority of PRC and leads various departments, bureaus and public service units, while local governments have authority over the provinces, autonomous regions, centrally governed municipalities (Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin and Chongqing), and special administrative regions (Hong Kong and Macau).

The PRC's legal system, administrative apparatus, policy-making and government organizations are broadly divided into three levels, namely, the central government level, provincial or municipal government level, and local municipal or county government level.  Foreign investors need to understand which authorities are relevant to their particular activities and it is important to appreciate that the role of government is very significant in PRC business matters.

1.3 Foreign Investment Approval Authorities

There are several authorities responsible for overseeing different aspects of foreign investment through their central and local branches.

(a) Project Approval involves the National Development and Reform Commission (the "NDRC")

The NDRC co-ordinates development policy and also takes a major role in approving foreign investment projects.  Along with the project approving procedure, opinions from other relevant authorities (such as the opinion from the Ministry of Environment regarding the environmental protection for a plant project) are often involved in this process.

(b) Approval of establishment of foreign invested enterprises (the "FIE") by the Ministry of Commerce (the "MOFCOM")

MOFCOM is responsible for examining and approving the establishment of FIEs, including the form of their constitutional documents and the approved areas in which they will be permitted to conduct business. 

(c) Special Industry Approvals

Although the main approving authorities are the NDRC and MOFCOM, other authorities may also be involved in approving procedures particularly where there is some limitation on the entrance by foreign investors into a special industry.  For example, the pre-approval from the State Food and Drug Administration ("SFDA") or its branches is needed if the investment involves the pharmaceutical production.

(d) Registration with the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (the "SAIC")

All business entities need to maintain records of corporate documents with local branches of SAIC including basic information regarding registered capital, directors, shareholders and the constitutional documents.  SAIC also oversees initial approvals for special industries such as advertising.

(e) Other business administrations relevant to foreign investors

The tax bureau, the administration of foreign exchange, the finance bureau, the customs and the administration of quality supervision, among others, are all involved in the routine management of FIEs.

1.4 Constitutional Protection

A number of constitutional changes have occurred in recent years.  Businessmen have been allowed to join the CCP since November 2002 which is indicative of the importance now placed on the private sector in modern China.  The amendment to the state constitution in March 2004 and enactment of the PRC Property Law in 2007 both demonstrated the PRC government's commitment to the protection of property rights and investors' interests.  Measures such as these have also helped to strengthen foreign investors' long term confidence in China.

2  Legal System

Shortly after its founding in 1949, the PRC government dismantled the former legal system and created a socialist legal system. The modern Chinese legal system mainly consists of seven (7) branches and four (4) levels of law.  The seven (7) branches of law are: the Constitution and laws related to the Constitution; civil and commercial laws; administrative laws; economic laws; social laws; criminal laws; and litigation and non-litigation procedural laws.  The four (4) levels of law are: the Constitution; laws; administrative regulations; local regulations, and autonomous regulations, specific rules and rules.

Amendments to the Constitution are rectified by a two-thirds majority vote from all deputies of the NPC.

Laws on the following matters are enacted exclusively by the NPC and its Standing Committee: state sovereignty; the formation, organization, functions and powers of state organs; the system of regional autonomy by ethnic minorities, the system of special administrative regions and the system of autonomy at the grass-root level; criminal offences and punishment; the deprivation of citizens' political rights and mandatory measures and penalties involving the restriction of personal freedom; the expropriation of non State-owned property; the basic civil system; the basic economic system and basic systems of finance, taxation, customs, banking and foreign trade; the litigation and arbitration systems and other matters for which laws must be enacted by the NPC or its Standing Committee.  The Standing Committee of the NPC follows the "system of three deliberations" in the enactment of laws, which means that a bill should be deliberated at three (3) meetings of the Standing Committee of the NPC before it is voted on.  An important or controversial bill may undergo more than three (3) deliberations.

The State Council enacts administrative regulations in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.

The people's congresses of the provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government, or their standing committees, have the power to enact local regulations.  The people's congresses of the ethnic autonomous regions have the power to enact autonomous region regulations and also other specific regulations based on local political, economic and cultural conditions.

Ministries and commissions of the State Council and other organs endowed with administrative functions directly under the State Council, such as MOFCOM, SAIC and the China Securities Regulatory Commission (the "CSRC") may, in accordance with the laws and administrative regulations, enact departmental rules within the limits of their power.  The people's governments of the provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the central government and larger cities may, in accordance with the laws, administrative regulations and local regulations of their respective province, autonomous region or municipality, enact local rules.

Bills are usually deliberated on a non-public basis.  The process is not published in government publications, nor are the bills announced to the public.  However, in recent years, laws, regulations and rules that are controversial or will have a significant social and economic impact on Chinese society, such as the PRC Property Law, the PRC Labor Contract Law, the PRC Food Safety Law and the Administrative Regulations on the Registration of Resident Representative Offices of Foreign Enterprises, have been released on the Internet to solicit public opinion.  Public seminars and public hearings have also been held, for example, in respect of revisions proposed for the PRC Individual Income Tax Law and the PRC Intangible Cultural Heritage Law, as well as the formulation of the Regulations on the Expropriation of Houses on State-owned Land and Compensation.  These signify a major change in the PRC legislative system.

In general, legislative bodies are entitled to construe and interpret the laws and regulations that they have enacted, although such laws and regulations are also subject to the construction and interpretation by other legislative bodies of a higher level.  The PRC body of laws has undergone a comprehensive overhaul since 1979 with the passage and revision of many major pieces of legislation, including laws and regulations applicable to foreign investment.

3  Establishing a Business Vehicle in China

3.1 General Policy

Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment promulgated by the State of Council came effective on 11 February 2002, which classifies foreign investment areas into four (4) different sectors, the encouraged, permitted, restricted and prohibited.  In the Catalogue of Industries for Guiding Foreign Investment (the "Catalogue") jointly published by the MOFCOM and NDRC further specifies which areas are prohibited, restricted and encouraged for foreign investors, and those areas which are not provided in the Catalogue should be permitted for foreign investors.  According to the Catalogue, we understand the prohibited are areas which cannot be invested by foreign investors, the restricted may have some investment requirements or limitations such as only permitting cooperation jointly by Chinese and foreign investors, or only permitting foreign investor to hold minority interests of the proposed company (or other kinds of organizations) up to 49% etc., and the permitted and encouraged are areas which permit the structure wholly invested by foreign investors.

3.2 Types of Foreign Investment Vehicles

Companies that desire a permanent presence have to set up operations as an appropriate legal entity, depending on the intended business scope, and be compliant with Chinese legal and tax requirements.  The most common legal structures used for establishing a presence in the PRC are:

  •  A Representative Office (the "RO")
  •  A Wholly Foreign-owned Enterprise (the "WFOE")
  •  An Equity Joint Venture (the "EJV")
  •  A Contractual Joint Venture (the "CJV")
  •  A Foreign-invested Partnership Enterprise (the "FIPE")

Each of these structures has unique advantages, restrictions and drawbacks, and it is essential to choose the option best suited to your business aims.  Among of the above forms, the WFOE, EJV, CJV and FIPE are collectively referred to as FIEs.

(a) RO

ROs are often the first step taken by foreign companies when establishing a permanent presence in China.  ROs can undertake market investigation, display, publicity activities in connection with the products or services of foreign companies, and liaison activities in connection with the products sales, services provision, domestic procurement and domestic investment of foreign companies.  However, ROs are not permitted to engage in any profit activity which means that they cannot sign contracts, receive income, or issue invoices and business tax receipts.  Under PRC law, an RO is considered to be an extension of its establishing company, and does not have the status of a legal person.

To establish an RO in China is relatively easy.  Generally, a foreign company only needs to register with the SAIC to establish an RO.  Law firms, financial and insurance companies and other certain industries may require substantive approvals, but for most industries no substantive government approval is required.  In addition, ROs are not subject to the capital contribution requirement imposed on companies and their investors.

(b) WFOE

A WFOE refers to a company incorporated in China with limited liability that is owned by one or more foreign investors.  Where permitted, a WFOE is now a popular option for foreign business, as the investor may completely control over their business entity as well as enjoy the full profit from its operation.  Moreover, WFOEs also provide a better protection to the investor's intellectual property rights in comparison to other types of entities.

The WFOE is an appropriate structure for companies whose main activities in China are to manufacture and sell products, or provide services such as research and development or business consultancy.  A WFOE allows the foreign investor to issue invoices and receive revenues in Renminbi (the "RMB") that can then be converted and repatriated out of China.

Compared to an RO, to establish a WFOE is a little more complex and time consuming, since generally the WFOE has to get the approval from MOFCOM prior to registration with SAIC.  In addition, besides the approval from MOFCOM, the WFOE usually should obtain approvals from other governmental authorities such as NDRC and SFDA etc., depending on the WFOE's business scope.

(c) EJV

An EJV is typically used for long-term projects and is formed by foreign companies, enterprises, other economic organizations or individuals and Chinese companies, enterprises or other economic organizations.  An EJV is typically a limited liability company.  The proportion of an EJV's registered capital contributed by the foreign investors shall not be less than 25%.

The board of directors is the highest authority of an EJV, which should decide all major issues concerning the EJV.  An EJV must have at least three (3) directors, including a chairman and a vice chairman.

For foreign investors who are not familiar with Chinese market, an EJV may be beneficial for such foreign investors.  A good local partner may contribute market knowledge and strong marketing and distribution channels, and they may help reduce the costs and risk of market entry.  In certain restricted sectors, such as automotive and insurance, forming an EJV with a Chinese company is still the only permitted route for establishing a permanent presence in China.

The challenge of establishing and running a successful EJV is finding and nurturing the right partnership.  Partners have to overcome issues such as mismatched expectations and differences in business culture and practices.  The ability to maintain effective communication, and control where necessary, is also crucial.

(d) CJV

A CJV is often adopted for shorter-term projects or built-operate-transfer projects, and are formed with join capital or terms of cooperation between foreign enterprises, other economic organizations or individuals and Chinese enterprises or other economic organizations.  CJV can be registered as a limited liability company which owns the status of legal person, but it is not mandatory.  A CJV should set up a board of directors (a CJV which has the status of legal person) or a joint management committee (a CJV which has no status of legal person) which is the authority of CJV.

CJVs are similar in many ways to EJVs but have the potential to be more flexible in certain aspects.  Unlike EJVs, the profits, risks and losses of CJVs may be allocated between the parties in a proportion that differs from the equity contributions by the parties.  It may also be possible for the foreign investor to recover its investment before the end of cooperation term of the CJV.

(e) FIPE

On 1 March 2010, Administrative Measures on the Establishment of Partnership Enterprises in China by Foreign Enterprises or Individuals came into effect, allowing foreign individuals or organizations to participate in partnership enterprises, offering a further alternative to the RO, WFOE, EJV and CJV.  FIPEs allow for partnerships between two or more foreign enterprises or individuals, or a combination of foreign enterprises or individuals and Chinese individuals, legal persons or other organizations.

FIPEs do not need to obtain the approval from MOFCOM.  They only require registration through the local branches of SAIC.  However, businesses in certain sectors will need to comply with other specific regulations and the FIPE should submit approvals from relevant authorities when applying for its registration.

The types of FIPEs include foreign-invested general partnership and foreign-invested limited partnership.  Solely State-owned companies, State-owned enterprises, listed companies and public welfare institutions and social organizations shall not be general partners of FIPEs.  Limited partners cannot be the executive partner of a FIPE.

The FIPE provides a good channel to enter into Chinese market for foreign investors, especially for those private equity firms.

(f) Branch Office

Besides the above forms, a foreign company can set up a branch office in China if certain prerequisites, which may vary for different industries, can be met.  Such branch office does not have independent legal person status and its parent company will be held liable for all of its business activities in China.  Generally, in practice not all industries are permitted to establish a branch office by the foreign company in China.

The approval authority for the establishment of branch offices is generally MOFCOM or its local counterparts, while for certain regulated industries, it is the industry administration authority, such as China Insurance Regulatory Commission ("CIRC") or China Banking Regulatory Commission ("CBRC") that is charged with the approval responsibility.  Following the obtaining of approval of establishment, a branch office must apply to the local branch of SAIC for a business license.

3.3 Investment Process

(a) Establish a New Company

As analysis in Item 3.2, there are several different choices for foreign investors if they want to establish a new company in China.  Foreign investors may select a proper vehicle in accordance with their business considerations.

(b) Merger and Acquisition (the "M&A") of Domestic Chinese Enterprises

(i) General rules

Instead of setting up a brand new company, a foreign investor may acquire the equity interest in or the assets of a domestic Chinese company, assuming that such domestic company is engaged in an industry which is open to foreign investment under the Catalogue, and the shareholding ratio of foreign investors is compliant with the relevant rules and regulations.  There are two ways of achieving this, namely: ⑴ by establishing a FIE with the purpose of using such FIE to purchase assets from a PRC domestic company, or by directly acquiring assets from a PRC domestic company and then using those assets to establish a FIE; and ⑵ by acquiring the equity interest in, or by subscribing for new equity in a PRC domestic company, resulting in the conversion of such PRC domestic company to a FIE.

(ii) Special provisions on State-owned Enterprises

If the subject matter of the M&A involves the equity interest or assets of a State-owned enterprise (the "SOE"), a qualified asset valuation company must be appointed to carry out a valuation of the State-owned equity interest or assets in question.  The valuation result must be approved by or filed with the appropriate level of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (the "SASAC"), and will be used as a reference for the determination of the transfer price of the State-owned equity interest or assets.  Where the agreed transfer price falls below 90% of the valuation, approval from the relevant property rights transfer government authorities must be obtained before the transaction may continue.  Moreover, the sale of State-owned equity interest or assets to foreign investors must be conducted publicly through holding public tender, or by listing or being auctioned on a recognized property rights exchange.

(iii) M&A  procedures

When acquiring the equity interest in or assets of an existing domestic company, it is necessary to conduct a thorough due diligence investigation on the Chinese target company or the assets to be acquired.  It is important to confirm that the target company was duly organized and are validly existing, and to investigate any loans borrowed or extended, and the title of any assets (including but not limited to land use rights, intellectual property rights etc.) owned by the target company.  The results of such thorough due diligence can provide guidance to the foreign investor when negotiating the contractual terms of the acquisition.

As the completed M&A will result in the conversion of the domestic company into an FIE, it is essential to obtain approval from the government authorities at the correct level.

If the proposed M&A by foreign investors of a domestic company satisfies the reporting standards as stipulated in the Rules on Standards of Reporting Business Operator Concentration promulgated by the State Council, the foreign investors shall report to the MOFCOM beforehand, and no transaction shall be conducted without reporting.

In 2011, the State Council released certain rules on the national security review.  Where the target domestic enterprise is involved in a business that concerns national defense security issues or national economic security issues, the national security review process will be conducted by the Joint Committee led by NDRC and MOFCOM.  If the proposed transaction is determined by the Joint Committee that it has or is likely to have a major impact on national security, the merging parties will be required to terminate the transaction or to undertake certain remedies such as the transfer of relevant shares, assets to eliminate any impact on national security.  It's worth noting that the variable interest entities mode (the "VIE") which was common used in foreign investments will face restrictions for certain industries in the future.

Following the obtaining of governmental approvals, registration with the local branches of SAIC and other relevant governmental authorities, such as tax administration authority, customs administration authority and foreign exchange administration authority, will have to be conducted within specified time periods.

(c) M&A of FIEs

Alternatively, a foreign investor may acquire the equity interests of a FIE held by another foreign investor.  Acquiring the equity interests in an already established FIE requires the consent of all other original shareholders, approval by the government authorities which initially approved the establishment of the FIE, and re-registration with SAIC.  In the case of an EJV, unanimous approval of the EJV's board, or in the case of some CJVs, the "joint management committee", is also required.

(d) Merger and Division of FIEs

Merger and division of FIEs are allowed in the PRC.  The merger of two or more FIEs requires approval from the relevant PRC government authorities that originally approved the establishment of each of those FIEs.  Similarly, the division of a FIE requires approval from its original examination and approval authority.

(e) Purchasing Shares in PRC Public Companies

Shares in PRC companies listed on the Shenzhen or Shanghai stock exchanges are classified into "A" shares, which can only be sold to Chinese citizens and organizations, Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors (the "QFII") and strategic foreign investors, and B shares, which can be sold to foreign citizens and organizations, including persons from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, and (since February 2001) also to Chinese nationals residing inside the PRC.

3.4 Government Approval

(a) Approval Level

According to PRC law, the foreign invested projects should be submitted to NDRC or its local branches for the project review (if necessary) and the contract and articles of association (the "AOA") should be submitted to MOFCOM or its local branches prior to registration with SAIC.  The following chart shows which level of government approvals should be obtained.

 

Sector

Investment Amount

MOFCOM

NDRC

Encouraged or Permitted

Less than USD300 million

Provisional or local MOFCOM

Provisional or local NDRC

USD300 million and above

Central MOFCOM

Central NDRC

Restricted

Less than USD50 million

Provisional or local MOFCOM

Provisional or local NDRC

USD50 million and above

Central MOFCOM

Central NDRC

Moreover, for the approval of an investment company by MOFCOM, if its registered capital is less than USD300 million, the approval level should be provisional or local MOFCOM, and only if its registered capital is or exceeds USD300 million it should obtain the approval from central MOFCOM.

(b) The Basic Approval Process

An FIE may be established only with the approval of the Chinese government.  The approval process for forming new entities or for acquiring existing companies (thereby converting them into FIEs) is largely the same.  The approval process begins with a name reservation application to the SAIC to check on the proposed name for the FIE.

After the company name has been reserved, the applicant must obtain substantive examination and approval of the investment by MOFCOM.  Examination and approval by MOFCOM is the key stage in the approval process.  It requires submission of the full definitive documents for the proposed FIE to MOFCOM, and may also require a feasibility study report describing background on the project, along with other supporting documents.  MOFCOM has the flexibility to request documents not expressly set forth in the statutes if they believe such documents would be helpful to its decision.

Project Verification from NDRC is technically required for any foreign investment project, but in practice, the NDRC's approval is critical only in certain industries, such as automotive industry, oil exploitation industry, etc.

After approvals from MOFCOM and NDRC (if necessary), the FIE may be registered with SAIC for issuance of a business license.  Under PRC law, the date of issuance of the business license is the date of incorporation of a company.  After obtaining the business license, the FIE should complete remaining registrations with relevant authorities including branches of State Administration of Foreign Exchange (the "SAFE"), General Administration of Customs of the People's Republic of China (the "Customs") and State Administration of Taxation ("SAT"), etc.

(c) Special Approvals

For some certain industries, the FIE should obtain special approvals.

Environmental approval from State Environmental Protection Agency (the "SEPA") may be required prior to applying to MOFCOM for manufacturing enterprises, or for any investment project that entails a construction project.  Before registration with SAIC, for companies involving food or pharmaceutical production, they have to get the approval from SFDA.

The approval from SASAC will be required for investments involving Stated-owned assets.
Some typically regulated industries (including, for example, securities, banking and insurance) involve special approval regimes in addition to, or in place of, MOFCOM examination and approval.  CSRC reviews applications to set up or acquire securities companies, CBRC covers banks, and CIRC reviews insurance company applications.

4  Operating in China

Whereas the previous parts addressed the basic political and legal system of China and the entry into Chinese market, this part will outline the principle business and commercial regulations governing the operations of FIEs in China.

4.1 Taxation

(a) Tax System

Under the current tax system, the PRC imposes about twenty (20) types of taxes, including enterprise income tax (the "EIT"), value added tax (the "VAT"), business tax, property tax, consumption tax, land appreciation tax (the "LAT"), land use tax, deed tax, stamp duty and individual income tax (the "IIT").  PRC has signed income tax treaties and arrangements with more than 80 countries and regions, including two special administrative regions of the PRC, Hong Kong and Macau.

(b) EIT

On 1 January 2008, the new unified PRC Enterprise Income Tax Law (the "EIT Law") became effective.  It consolidated the previous two separate income tax regimes for domestic enterprises and FIEs into one single income tax regime. The new EIT Law introduced the concept of resident enterprises, unified the tax rate for Chinese domestic enterprises and FIEs, replaced the old tax incentive system with a new model and addressed special tax adjustments, such as adjustments made pursuant to transfer pricing, or thin capitalization rules.

(i) Resident Enterprises vs. Non-resident Enterprises

A resident enterprise refers to an enterprise which is legally established in accordance with PRC law, or an enterprise which is legally established in a foreign country or region whose actual administration institution is in China.  The actual administration institution refers to the institution that actually and comprehensively manages and controls the production and operation, staff, account, property and other aspects of the enterprises.  A resident enterprise should pay EIT on its worldwide income, i.e., income derived from sources both inside and outside the PRC.

A non-resident enterprise refers to an enterprise which is legally established in a foreign country or region whose actual administration institution is outside China, but which either has an establishment in the PRC or has no establishment in the PRC but derives PRC-sourced income.  A non-resident enterprise which has an establishment or place in the PRC pays EIT on income which is derived from sources inside the PRC, as well as on income which, although derived from sources outside the PRC, is effectively connected with such establishment.  If a non-resident enterprise has no establishment in the PRC, or has an establishment in the PRC but has derived income not effectively connected with such establishment, it pays EIT only on income derived from sources inside the PRC.

(ii) Tax Base and Tax Rate

The taxable income of an enterprise is defined as the amount remaining from its gross income in a year, after non-taxable income, tax-exempt income, various expenses and losses have been deducted.  Losses incurred by an enterprise may be carried forward for a period of five (5) years.  No carry-back is permitted.  Reasonable expenditures which have actually been incurred and are related to the generation of income, including costs, expenses, taxes, losses and other expenditures are deductible.

A PRC resident enterprise is subject to EIT at a rate of 25% on its worldwide income.  A non-resident enterprise having an establishment in the PRC is subject to EIT at a rate of 25% on its PRC-sourced income received by the establishment as well as its non-PRC-sourced income actually connected with the establishment.  Where a non-resident enterprises that does not set up an institutions or establishments in China, or where institutions or establishments are set up but there is no actual relationship between the income and such institutions or establishments, the non-resident enterprise should pay EIT at a rate of 10% in relation to the income originating from China, which should be subject to tax withholding at source with the payer as the withholding agent.  Under certain tax treaties between China and other countries and/or regions, non-resident enterprise may enjoy more preferential tax treatment depending on the provisions of such treaties.

(iii) Tax Incentives

Various EIT incentives are provided in the EIT Law.  Preferential treatment is generally granted to industries and projects, the development of which is supported and encouraged by the State.

Qualified high-new technology enterprises (the "HNTEs") enjoy a 15% preferential tax rate nationwide.  Further, in respect of HNTEs established in the five special economic zones (Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Xiamen, Shantou and Hainan) and Pudong New Area of Shanghai, a tax holiday of a two-year exemption of EIT and a three-year half reduction of EIT will apply commencing from the first profitable year.

Venture capital investment enterprises enjoy a bonus deduction equaling 70% of the investment made to qualified medium and small sized high-tech enterprises, upon reaching two (2) years of ownership.  A bonus deduction or amortization of 50% of expenses incurred for research and development activities for new technology, new products, or new craftsmanship is also available to most enterprises.

Incomes earned from projects of agriculture, forestry, husbandry and fishery, incomes earned from business operations of important public infrastructure investment projects supported by the state, and incomes earned from eligible projects of environmental protection, energy and water saving may be exempted or reduced.

(c) IIT

China has a progressive IIT ranging from 3% up to 45%.  Generally, an individual who has a domicile in the territory of China or who has no domicile but has stayed in the territory of China for one (1) year or more should pay individual income tax for his/her incomes obtained in and/or outside the territory of China.  An individual who has no domicile and does not stay in the territory of China or who has no domicile but has stayed in the territory of China for less than one (1) year should pay individual income tax for his incomes obtained in the territory of China.

An FIE must generally serve as a withholding agent for its employees, and withhold and pay IIT on their behalf each month.  China relies principally on withholding to collect IIT, and only those individuals whose annual income is RMB120,000 or more, whose income from outside the territory of China, who receive wage and salary income from at least two (2) sources within the territory of China, or who receive taxable income but have no tax withholding agent, are required to file separate annual tax returns to the competent tax authorities.

(d) VAT

VAT is levied on the sale of goods inside the PRC, the import of goods into the PRC and the provision of processing, repair and maintenance services in the PRC.  The standard tax rate for most goods is 17%, though a concessionary rate of 13% applies to certain goods such as agricultural machinery, books and utilities.
The PRC VAT regime distinguishes between general VAT taxpayers and small scale VAT taxpayers.  The threshold to qualifying for general VAT taxpayers are those whose annual sales are above RMB 0.5 million for manufacturing enterprises and above RMB 0.8 million for trading enterprises.  The small VAT taxpayers should pay VAT at a lower rate of 3%.

(e) Business Tax

Business tax is levied on the provision of most services within the PRC, the transfer of intangible property in the PRC and the transfer of real property in the PRC.

Business tax rates

 

Services

Tax rate

Construction, transport, post and telecoms, cultural activities and sports

3%

Banking and insurance

5%

Services, transfer of intangible assets

5%

Sale of real properties

5%

Entertainment

5%-20%

(f) Consumption Tax

Consumption tax is imposed as a measure to monitor the consumption of goods deemed as luxury or unhealthy.  It is charged to any person or unit engaged in the manufacturing, subcontracting, importing or processing of the prescribed goods.  The rate varies, depending on the exact taxable items.

(g) Stamp Duty

Stamp duty is levied on specific documents executed or obtained in the PRC. The rates generally range from 0.01% to 0.003%, depending on the type of document. To the extent that a document is a contract to which there is more than one contracting party, each party needs to pay stamp duty at the full statutory rate.

(h) Deed Tax

Deed tax is levied on the transfer of land use rights and real property.  The rate is 3% to 5%, depending on the location of the land or property.  Deed tax is payable by the transferee.

(i) LAT

LAT is levied on the gain from the transfer of State-owned land use rights and the property situated on the land.  The rates are progressive ranging from 30% to 60%, depending on the percentage of the appreciation.

(j) Property Tax

Property tax is levied on the ownership of real property in urban areas.  It is assessed at an annual rate of 1.2% of the original cost of the building with less a 10% to 30% deduction (this percentage of deduction is determined by the relevant local authorities and thus may vary from location to location) or at a rate of 12% of the annual rental income.  From 1 January 2009, Chinese companies or individuals have stopped paying property tax; however, FIEs, foreign enterprises and organizations and foreign individuals continue to pay property tax.  In early 2011, Chongqing and Shanghai has begun to levy property tax again.

(k) Urban Land Use Tax

Urban land use tax is levied on the ownership of land use rights in urban areas.  The exact rate depends on the location of the relevant land.  According to the national regulations, the applicable rates per square meter are RMB 1.5 to RMB30 per year for large cities, RMB1.2 to RMB24 per year for medium-sized cities, RMB0.9 to RMB18 per year for small cities and RMB 0.6 to RMB12 per year for counties.

(l) Customs Duty

Customs duty is levied on the imported and exported goods and articles entering or leaving the territory of the PRC. Customs duty is payable according to a tariff schedule.  With free trade agreements (the "FTA"), goods traded between the PRC and the FTA signatory countries qualify for lower customs duty rates.  Qualified enterprises enjoy duty reduction or exemption as a tariff preference measure.

4.2 Employment

(a) Regulatory Environment

The foundation for China's employment laws, rules, and regulations is the PRC Labor Law, which was enacted on 1 January 1995 by the NPC.  Another milestone in the development of China's labor and social security legislation is the PRC Labor Contract Law, which was passed by the NPC and came into force on 1 January 2008.  Later, the Regulations of Implementation on the PRC Labor Contract Law became effective on 18 September 2008, which specifies certain issues on labor.

Employment matters, including those of FIEs, within the territory of the PRC are all subject to the PRC Labor Law, the PRC Labor Contract Law, and other laws and regulations issued by the NPC or the central government.  There are also local regulations and rules issued by provincial, municipal, and other lower level government authorities that are only applicable to the relevant local regions.

(b) Contract of Employment

PRC law allows the employer to engage a part-time employee with an oral contract.  However, in case of any employment of full time employee, the parties are required to enter into a written labor contract within one month from the date of commencement of employment.  Failure to comply with this provision results in the employer being required to pay to the employee twice the amount of the agreed remuneration as salary.

(c) Minimum Wage

There is a system of guaranteed minimum wages and salaries for Chinese workers.  Local people's government will formulate its own specific standards for minimum wages and salaries.  The payable wages and salaries (exclusive of any overtime pay, social insurance/housing fund contributions borne by the employee, or any allowance for middle/night shifts, high/low temperature etc.) shall be in no case lower than the local minimum wage and salary standards if the workers have provided "normal work" pursuant to their labor contracts.

(d) Working Day and Overtime

There are three kinds of work hour systems, i.e., standard work hour system, comprehensive work hour system and indefinite work hour system.

(e) Social Insurance

The employer is obliged to have their PRC employees enrolled in the applicable social insurance schemes provided by the local labor authorities, and withhold the contributions borne by the employee (referred to as the "Individual Contributions" below) from his/her monthly salary and pay the individual contributions as well as the contributions borne by the employer (the "Company Contributions") to the local social insurance institution each month.

The rate and contribution basis of social insurance premium depends on the relevant local regulations.  Different localities provides for different categories of social insurance schemes, which mainly depends on the localities of the domicile of the employees.

(f) Health and Safety

Employers are required to strictly implement the rules and standards of the State with regard to occupational safety and health, carry out relevant education among employees, prevent accidents in the process of work, and lessen occupational hazards.  Facilities of occupational safety and health must meet the standards set by the State.

(g) Termination of Employment and Economic Compensation

(i) Termination initiated by employer

The employer is generally not allowed to unilaterally terminate the labor contract at will or without cause.  The termination of employment initiated by the employer is not allowed unless some specific conditions (i.e., the statutory termination grounds) have occurred, for instance, the employee seriously violates work rules and regulations of the employer.

If the employer terminates the employment of the employee in violation of law, the employee may request for specific performance, i.e., reinstatement to his/her job position.  If the employee does not so request or the contract is no longer capable of being performed, the employer shall pay twice the usual severance pay amount as damages to the employee.

(ii) Termination by mutual consent

If the employer proposes to terminate the employment of the employee, and the employee so agrees after negotiation between the parties, the labor contract can be terminated, which is referred to as the "termination by mutual consent" in the PRC employment law.

(iii) Termination initiated by employee

The employee may: ⑴ unilaterally early terminate the labor contract without cause as long as he/she gives a 30-day prior written notice to the employer (in case such employee is in probationary period, such prior notice period is three (3) days); or ⑵ immediately terminate his/her labor contract without any prior notice under some specific circumstances, such as when the employer does not pay the employee in full and on time.

(h) Labor Secondment or Contractual Worker

The ROs set up by foreign companies are not allowed to employ staff directly in the PRC but may only obtain the staff through certain designated labor agencies (the "Agency") like Foreign Enterprise Services Corporation (the "FESCO"), which is generally referred to in China as the labor secondment arrangement.  Local labor bureau are in charge of monitoring compliance.  Under this arrangement, the RO as the Secondee Company signs a service contract with the Agency for engagement of their labor secondment services, and the employee as the Seconded Employee, who may be appointed by the Secondee Company or the Agency, signs labor contract with the Agency and is seconded to work in the Secondee Company.

(i) Employment of Foreigners

In most cases, employers must recruit Chinese nationals if at all possible.  In order to bring in a foreign employee, the employer must first apply to the local labor bureau for an employment permission certificate to bring in the intended employee.  Once the employer has received the employment permission certificate, the foreign employee must apply for a work visa at his local Chinese consulate.  After entering China, the employee must obtain a work permit and residence card prior to commencing employment.  Foreign experts, off shore petroleum workers, cultural and artistic performers, and representatives of ROs enter China under different procedures.

4.3 Antitrust & Competition

(a) Legislation

A broad range of PRC laws contain one or more provisions prohibiting anti-competitive practices such as price-fixing, market-sharing and below-cost sales. These include the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the Price Law.  Many of these provisions have not been widely enforced, and the fragmented structure of the competition legislation reflects the historical absence of a cohesive competition policy in the PRC.

However, a comprehensive Anti-Monopoly Law (the "AML") came into effect on 1 August 2008.  A number of provisions in the AML overlap with pre-existing competition provisions, but it is expected that the AML will be the primary law used to tackle anti-competitive conduct going forward.  The AML regulates three (3) main areas of business conduct: monopoly agreements, the abuse of a dominant market position, and concentrations (i.e., M&A deals and certain other transactions) with anti-competitive impacts.  These prohibitions are understood to apply to nearly all businesses, although SOEs may receive some special treatment under the AML, and certain activities of agricultural producers and farming entities are exempt from the law.

(b) The Development Nature of the PRC Competition Regime

Prior to the commencement of the AML, most PRC competition-related provisions were rarely enforced.  The main exception was the merger control regime under the M&A regulations.  However, the commencement of the AML, and the introduction of significant new legal liabilities relating to anti-competitive practices, reflects an increasing focus on competition issues in China.  This suggests that, going forward, competition provisions may be enforced with more vigor than historically has been the case – particularly once further detailed implementing regulations and guidelines regarding application and enforcement of the AML are released.

It should also be noted that many of the laws prior to the AML that incorporate competition-related provisions remain in force.  While many of these provisions overlap with the AML, in some cases they may have a potentially broader application.  Additionally, some competition provisions are sector-specific, relating to industries such as banking and telecommunications.  It is possible these provisions may still be applied going forward, either in conjunction with the AML or on a stand-alone basis.

4.4 Intellectual Property

Intellectual property protection is a key consideration for foreign investors entering Chinese market.  The PRC has a comprehensive regime of intellectual property laws which provide a wide range of remedies and channels for enforcement, including civil and criminal courts, several different administrative enforcement authorities, prosecutors and polices.  Legislation facilitating private prosecution by intellectual property owners came into effect in 1997.  These intellectual property laws are compliant with the requirements under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the "TRIPs Agreement") of the World Trade Organization.  Also, China is a party to most of the international conventions on intellectual property rights, including:

  •  the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
  •  the TRIPs Agreement
  •  the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
  •  the Universal Copyright Convention
  •  the WIPO Copyright Treaty
  •  the Locarno Agreement for International Classification for Industrial Designs
  •  the Madrid Agreement for the International Registration of Trademarks
  •  the Nice Agreement for the International Classification of Goods & Services
  •  the Patent Co-operation Treaty
  •  the Strasbourg Agreement for International Patent Classification
  •  the Budapest Treaty for Deposit of Micro-organisms
  •  the Geneva Convention on Unauthorized Duplication of Phonograms
  •  the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty

Although the laws are there, the level of infringement and the inadequacy of enforcement has been the subject of disputes with Chinese trade partners, particularly the United States of America.
In China, PRC law provides protection for the patent, trademark and copyright.

(a) Patent

There are three (3) types of patents in China: invention patents, utility model patents and design patents.   Invention refers to any new technical solution relating to a product, a process or improvement thereof.  Utility model refers to any new technical solution relating to the shape, the structure, or their combination, of a product, which is fit for practical use.  Design refers to any new design of the shape, pattern or their combination and the combination of color and shape or pattern, of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fit for industrial application.

Patents may be assigned or licensed, but only upon registration with the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Public of China (the "SIPO").  Invention patents are the most robust of the three (3) kinds of patents, involving a meticulous review process that takes several years to complete, and providing protection for a period of twenty (20) years from the date of filing to SIPO.  Utility model patents and design patents have a less meticulous and lengthy review process, and also provide a shorter period of ten (10) years after the date of filing.  China's patent system works on a first to file basis.

(b) Trademark

In China, trademarks include registered trademarks and unregistered trademarks.  Only if trademarks are registered with the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of the People's Republic of China (the "Trademark Office") can such trademarks seek protection under the PRC Trademark Law, unless the unregistered trademarks are be defined as well-known trademarks.  The period of validity of a registered trademark is ten years commencing from the date of approval for the registration, with subsequent ten-year extensions being available.  Registered trademarks may be assigned or licensed provided such assignments or licenses are registered with or approved by the Trademark Office.

(c) Copyright

The PRC Copyright Law provides protections for creative works, including software.  The National Copyright Administration of the People's Republic of China (the "NCAC") oversees the copyright system.  The NCAC oversees a non-mandatory registration process covering the both registration of copyrights themselves and of assignments or licenses thereof.

4.5 Real Property

(a) Overview

In China land in urban areas shall be owned by the State, and land in rural and suburban areas, unless otherwise prescribed by the State, shall be collectively owned by farmers, including land for houses and private plots in fields and on hillsides.  Neither domestic companies nor FIEs can own land, although they may hold land use rights.

For State-owned land use rights, there are two (2) different types, allocated land use rights and granted use rights.  Generally, the State-owned land use right shall be obtained by paid means such as grant.  However, upon the approval from the government at or above the county level, the State-owned land may be allocated for government institutions or the military; urban infrastructure or public welfare projects; or energy, transportation and water conservancy projects as well as other infrastructure projects supported by the government.  In general, allocated land use rights cannot be transferred or leased without first being converted into granted land use rights (for which a grant fee must generally be paid to the government).  The government may reclaim allocated land use rights at any time without compensation. 

Granted land use right is the right to use land for a specific purpose for a fixed term, seventy (70) years, fifty (50) years or forty (40) years, depending on the purpose of land.  A grant fee must be paid to the government for granted land use rights.

Buildings on land generally should be owned by the same person that holds the corresponding land use rights.  Nevertheless, land use rights and buildings on the corresponding land are sometimes owned by different persons.

(b) Land use rights transfers

Under PRC law, only granted land use rights may be transferred.  Nobody will obtain title to allocated land, even if someone purports to sell it to you, provided that it is first converted to granted land use rights (for which a grant fee must first be paid to the government).  Vacant land is required to be at least 25% developed before the corresponding land use rights can be transferred.  The government may reclaim vacant land if development is not started within two (2) years of transfer.

(c) Renewal of land use rights

From 1 October 2007, the term of residential land use rights will be automatically renewed upon expiry.  This is a welcome relief to those owning residential properties in China.  It will also ensure that financing remains available for residential property approaching expiration of its land use right term.  Non-residential land use right terms are not granted automatic renewal under the Property Law.  Rather, renewal will be subject to other laws and regulations.

(d) Easements

The creation of easements has been recognized since the PRC Property Law became effective on 1 October 2007.  The ability to create easements recognized by law is likely to be of particular importance for infrastructure projects that involve the construction of pipelines or other networks requiring access to land over which the project owner does not hold the land use rights.

(e) Leasing

Land must generally have been developed before it can be leased.  A lessee is required to comply with the terms and conditions of the land use rights grant contract.  A registered lease with authorities will gain priority over any unregistered lease.

(f) Expropriations

Land may be expropriated by the government only in special circumstances and in the public interest.  Compensation is required to be paid if land is expropriated.

4.6 Foreign Exchange

China's currency, the RMB, is not fully convertible.  The RMB is ultimately monitored and controlled by China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (the "SAFE").  In the past, all foreign currency transactions involving the purchase or sale of RMB were subject to SAFE's review and approval.  Since China became a member of the WTO in 2001, China's foreign currency policy has become increasingly less restrictive.

Under PRC law, foreign currency transactions are categorized as the capital account transactions and the current account transactions.  Capital account transactions refer to the transaction items in the balance of payments leading to changes in external assets and liabilities, including capital transfers, direct investments, portfolio investments, derivatives, loans, etc.  Current account transactions refer to the transaction items in the balance of payments involving goods, services, income, and current transfers, etc.  Compared to payments of capital, current account items may face relatively easier control.

An FIE may, subject to SAFE approval, open a foreign exchange account with a designated foreign exchange bank.  Usually, the account must be opened within the same area in which the FIE is registered.  The approval is required to open an account in another area.  An FIE may purchase foreign exchange if it has insufficient funds in its foreign exchange account to meet a foreign exchange obligation.  Foreign currency accounts of FIEs are subject to annual inspections by SAFE.  Moreover, foreign investors without an FIE in China may open a multicurrency account with a bank to fund the pre-establishment expenses of an FIE.

4.7 Environmental Regulation

The PRC Environmental Protection Law is the national law governing all environmental protection matters in the PRC.  In addition to the Environmental Protection Law, other laws and regulations such as the Prevention of Atmospheric Pollution Law and the Prevention of Water Pollution Law have been enacted to regulate different parts of the environment.  Different provinces and municipalities have also implemented their own environmental protection regulations which are of regional application.

It should be noted that the PRC government has not separately formulated a set of rules and regulations concerning environmental protection for FIEs and FIEs within the territory of the PRC are subject to the same regulatory regime as domestic enterprises.

It's also worth noting that China's recent green policy link benefits in other areas to environmental compliance.  Green insurance policies require enterprises in certain sectors to insure against environmental damage.  Green trade policies may result in higher export taxes on products made in pollution-intensive industries.  The EIL Law also contemplates green taxation polices, providing tax incentives and sanctions concerning the environment.

4.8 Product Safety

China does not have a single, codified product safety law.  Manufacturers and sellers of products and other stakeholders in this area must follow legal requirements as set out in various laws and regulations, including the General Principles of the Civil Law, the Law on Protection of the Rights and Interests of Consumers, the Criminal Law, and laws on the Administration of Pharmaceuticals and on Product Quality.  China issued important legislation on food and product safety in the past several years, including the Law on the Quality and Safety of Agricultural Products in 2006; several sector-specific regulations covering the recall of vehicles, toys, food, and drugs in 2007; and the Food Safety Law and its implementing rules in 2009, which represented a milestone in the formation of China's product safety regime.  These laws and regulations responded to the public's rising concern about product safety in China.  Despite these laws and regulations, China has experienced a number of significant product safety issues in the recent years.

4.9 Dispute Resolution

As an increasing number of foreign investors penetrate the Chinese market, commercial disputes are expanding quickly both in number and in scale.  China has made significant progress in increasing the integrity and reliability of its courts.  The formal processes available for resolving such disputes in China have, in recent years, become increasingly similar to those elsewhere in the world.

If a dispute cannot be settled through negotiation between the parties, the case must be submitted for litigation or arbitration.  Under PRC law, it is permitted for the parties to choose for binding arbitration to resolve their disputes and the courts will generally enforce arbitration judgment without inquiry into the merits.  It is worthy noting that arbitration is only possible if the parties expressly agree to arbitrate. In practice, the arbitration is favored by many foreign investors in China.

(a) Litigation

The PRC courts consist of four (4) layers: the People's Court (at the district or county level), the Intermediate People's Courts (at the municipal level), the High People's Courts (at provincial level), and the Supreme People's Court (at the national level).  The level of the competent court should be generally subject to the nature and size of the disputes.  In most cases, disputes with a foreign connection may be initially in the Intermediate People's Courts.

Court judgments may be appealed once, but the judgment of the second instance is final and binding upon the parties immediately.  Under the PRC Contract Law, it is permitted to select a foreign law to govern the contract with a foreign connection and to provide for exclusive jurisdiction in foreign courts.  In fact, it may be difficult for Chinese courts to enforce a judgment made by a foreign court, but Hong Kong's judgments are exceptions.

(b) Arbitration

In comparison to litigation, the arbitration seems much quicker, more efficient and more reliable, thus major foreign investors would like to include an exclusive arbitration clause in their contracts.

 Under PRC law, an express clause clearly indicating the parties' selection of binding arbitration is enforceable, which should be in writing and contain a clear statement of the parties' intention to submit the dispute to arbitration, the scope of disputes subject to arbitration, and the specific arbitral commission to resolve the dispute.  In addition, it is possible for the parties to reach an arbitration agreement after a dispute arises, but in most cases an arbitration clause is included from the outset in the operative contracts.

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (the "CIETAC") is one of the most frequently selected arbitration forums when the arbitration will be held within the PRC.  Foreign investors sometimes do not agree to arbitration in PRC, including arbitration at CIETAC, because they believe that Chinese parties will have a home advantage, meanwhile, Chinese parties concomitantly often object to arbitration aboard.  Therefore, Hong Kong seems as acceptable compromise to both parties.  Of course, to select a third country's jurisdiction for arbitration is also common in practice.  Since China is a party to the United Nations Convention of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, it is generally possible to obtain the enforcement of an arbitration award issued by a panel in any member country.

SIPO Issues Amendments to Compulsory Patent Licensing Measures

By King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is able to issue compulsory patent licenses where an entity or individual who is otherwise qualified to exploit a patent does not succeed in obtaining a license on  reasonable terms and within a reasonable period from the patent holder. The new Patent Law of the PRC (the “Patent Law”) and the Implementing Rules of the Patent Law of the PRC (the “Implementing Rules”) both contain provisions regarding the compulsory licensing of patents. On October 12, 2011, the SIPO issued a circular to solicit public comments on the Amendments to the Measures on Compulsory Patent Licensing (Draft for Comments) (the “Draft Amendments”). The SIPO will be taking comments until November 13, 2011.

The Draft Amendments provide more detailed rules governing the submission and approval of compulsory licensing applications, the application examination procedures followed by the SIPO, and the calculation of licensing fees. The Draft Amendments also specify the conditions under which compulsory patent licenses will be granted as well as the conditions under which they will be terminated. The Draft Amendments specify that where patent rights have been granted for more than three years and where a patent application has been submitted for more than four years, if the patent holder fails to exploit or fully utilize the patent rights without justification for not doing so, qualified entities or individuals with the capacity to exploit such a patent may file applications with the SIPO for a compulsory license. For more information, please refer to:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/tz/gz/201110/P020111012508894173220.doc

国家知识产权局对专利实施强制许可办法修订草案征求反馈

金杜律师事务所知识产权

在中国,具备实施条件的单位或个人不能以合理条件或在合理期限内取得专利权人许可的情况下,国家知识产权局可以对该专利实施强制许可。中国专利法和专利法实施细则都规定了专利强制许可。国家知识产权局于20111012发布通知,就《专利实施强制许可办法修订草案(征求意见稿)》(办法草案)于1113日前向社会各界征求反馈。

征求意见稿对专利实施强制许可申请的提交和受理、专利实施强制许可的审查和决定、专利实施强制许可使用费和终止等法律问题 制定了更详细的规则。征求意见稿指出,专利权人自专利权被授予之日起满三年,且自提出专利申请之日起满四年,无正当理由未实施或者未充分实施其专利的,具备实施条件的单位或者个人可以请求给予强制许可。更多信息参见:

http://www.sipo.gov.cn/tz/gz/201110/P020111012508894173220.doc

IP rights and Antitrust - Awaiting Guidelines (and the Tsum-Sony Case)

By Susan Ning, Huang Jing and Angie Ng, King & Wood's Competition Practice

We understand that the SAIC is currently working on draft guidelines (the guidelines) which will shed light on how Article 55 of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) will be enforced. It has been reported in the press that the SAIC has published a 4th draft of these guidelines and are currently consulting with the relevant stakeholders (we understand that these drafts are not publicly available).

 Article 55 of the AML deals with the intersect between intellectual property (IP) law and antitrust law (see also a previous article entitled “The intersect between intellectual property law and competition law – implications for China”).

Specifically, Article 55 of the AML carves out conduct amounting to the “exercise of intellectual property” from the AML, except when the said conduct amounts to an “abuse of intellectual property to exclude or restrict competition” by businesses.

The issue of the intersect between IP law and antitrust law is not new to China. There has been case law from the Chinese courts, which have dealt with this issue. A prime example is the case of Tsum (Shanghai) Technology Co Ltd vs Sony Corporation (2004) (the Tsum-Sony case).
The following are some salient pointers to do with this case:

  • In 2004, Tsum (Shanghai) Technology Co Ltd (Tsum) a manufacturer and supplier of batteries alleged that Sony Corporation (Sony) sold digital cameras which were not compatible with any other brands of batteries but Sony batteries and that this was in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
  • Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law states that entities must abide by the principle of voluntariness, equality, impartiality, honesty and good faith, and also adhere to public commercial “morals” in respect of their business transactions. Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law states that entities are prohibited from selling commodities attached with “unreasonable conditions” or force consumers to by tied commodities.
  • Tsum alleged that Sony has “tied” Sony digital cameras with Sony batteries. Sony has “tied” these products by ensuring that other batteries were not compatible with Sony digital cameras. Tsum further alleged that Sony has “locked out” competing businesses (involved in the manufacture and supply of batteries) by undertaking the above mentioned conduct.
  • Sony denied that it was seeking to “lock out” its battery competitors. Sony explained that they had to install a certain “digital key” in their cameras which rendered other batteries incompatible with Sony digital cameras – due to safety considerations. Sony further explained that when other brands of batteries were being used in Sony digital cameras, there were reports of “smoke, explosions and burning” – resulting in users and property being damaged.
  • Sony’s digital key was patent protected – and Sony claimed that they had the right to exercise their intellectual property rights by making use of this digital key, without having to worry about the encroachment of antitrust principles and law.
  • Tsum alleged that Sony’s usage of its digital key was unreasonable and harmful to consumers as companies like Tsum had to spend a lot of money (approximately more than RMB1million) to decipher how to ensure their batteries are compatible with Sony’s digital cameras and that this would result in higher prices (in relation to batteries) for consumers.
  • On 20 December 2007, the Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s court ruled in favour of Sony and denied Tsum’s claims.
  • The court held that Sony’s digital key was necessary in Sony cameras to ensure that there was “necessary communication” between the battery and the camera. The court also held that there was insufficient evidence to show that Sony made use of its digital key to foreclose competition in relation to its battery competitors.

Comments
We expect to see many more actions like the Tsum-Sony case, now that Article 55 of the AML is in force. It is likely that Article 55 actions will commence soon after the SAIC publishes their guidelines (so Plaintiffs are clear on the sorts of arguments and evidence they would need to launch a successful Article 55 case).
 

 

China's Indigenous Innovation Policy and its Effect on Foreign Intellectual Property Rights Holders

 By Peng Heyue,  King & Wood's IP Department

 

Since the end of 2009, King & Wood has received regular requests from a number of foreign enterprises for advice on China's 'Indigenous Innovation' Policy. These firms are concerned that the new policy will either force the transfer of their IP rights to China or will influence their business operations in the Chinese market by limiting their ability to compete with local domestic firms.

 

'Indigenous Innovation' is a national strategy put forward by the Chinese government for the purpose of promoting the development of technological innovation in domestic firms, eventually leading to the ownership of their own core IP rights. Due to large volume export processing, China has long been labeled with the moniker 'The World's Factory', yet Chinese enterprises are primarily engaged in low added-value, environmentally-unfriendly manufacturing, with the more complex aspects of product research, design, and development often being controlled by foreign entities. It is from this background that the new 'indigenous innovation' policy was proposed.


In February 2006, the State Council issued both "The Guiding Principles of Program for Mid-to-Long Term Scientific and Technological Development (2006-2020)" and a notification about a number of accompanying policies on the implementation of the above program, requiring that 'improving indigenous innovation' be made the most important aspect of all science and technology related work and that the promotion of 'indigenous innovation' be carried out through tax incentives, financial support and technological investment and so on.


The most eye-catching provision details plans for the acceleration of 'indigenous innovation' through government procurement. The 'Accompanying Measures' stipulate that correlating government departments must both set up systems for the authentication of new 'indigenous innovation' products and create a list of these products. Those products listed will be treated preferentially during government procurement.


In December 2006, the Ministry of Science and Technology, National Development and Reform Commision and the Ministry of Finance issued "Methods for Determining the National 'Indigenous Innovation' Products (Trial)" stipulating the norms and procedures by which 'indigenous innovation' products can be recognized. In November 2009, the three government bodies jointly administering the policy, according to the "Methods for Determining...", drafted and issued "2009 Explanatory Report Regarding the National 'Indigenous Innovation' Products". Six high-tech industries were identified for inclusion in the indigenous innovation catalogue, namely computers, telecommunication installations, modern office equipment, software, new energy, and energy saving products. In other words, only the products of above listed high-tech industries are involved in the question of the preferential treatment of the products of ‘indigenous innovation’ by government procurers.


From the first announcement in 2009, the determination of 'indigenous innovation' products has been followed closely both in China and abroad. The fourth item regarding the condition of the IP rights of new products in the "2009 Explanatory Report" has led to widespread debate:
“…
(2) A product's IP rights and the condition of rights and interests are clear. Products have 'indigenous innovation' IP rights when: the applying enterprise owns IP rights through its own technological innovation, or obtains IP rights or IP usage rights owned by a Chinese enterprise, state-run institution or citizen, according to Chinese law. At the same time, the applying enterprise’ use, disposal or improvement of IP is not restricted by foreign institutions or individuals.
(3) The product possesses its own trademark, namely the applying institution has the proprietary rights to the product's registered trademark. The products' marketing trademark must have been initially registered in China, and can not be restricted by related foreign brands.
…”


The "2009 Explanatory Reports fourth provision retains the IP property rights related requirements stipulated in "Methods for Recognizing" while at the same time adding the two requirements underlined above.


Foreign enterprises believe that this provision confirms their longstanding fears. The IP rights of Multinational corporations are usually first acquired abroad, and due to concerns about China's present ability to protect IP rights, are rarely transferred to the Chinese WFOE or JV subsidiary. If it is necessary, foreign parent companies license their IP rights to their Chinese subsidiaries but the licensing agreements usually all have limiting conditions. Very rarely is a foreign-invested enterprise completely free of restrictions regarding the rights of use originating from a foreign parent company's IP rights. Although the documents themselves suggest that foreign-invested companies can also apply for recognition of 'indigenous innovation' products, because they may not be able to meet the conditions listed above, foreign-invested enterprises could be excluded for the Chinese government procurement market worth USD tens of billions per annum.

After the issue of the "2009 Explanatory Report" while one side, foreign enterprises, successively raised doubts about the abovementioned provisions, the other, the Chinese government, over several different occasions clarified that the 'indigenous innovation' policy would treat foreign-invested enterprises equally without any discrimination.


On April 10, 2010 the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Commision for Development and Reform and the Ministry of Finance jointly issued the "2010 Notification Regarding the Development of Determining 'Indigenous Innovation' Products (Draft Seeking Opinions)".  The scope of recognition in 2010 remained the same six high-tech fields as in 2009, yet the requirements for 'indigenous innovation' IP rights were relaxed when compared to the year before. Section two of the "2010 Notification" reads as follows:

"...
2. The applying institution legally owns the undisputed domestic IP rights or the right of use of IP for the product through its own technological innovation or grant by another institution..
3. The applying institution legally holds the exclusive rights or right of use to the products registered trademark in China.
…”


The "2010 Notification" suggests that provided the applying institution enjoys the IP right of use, and that there is no issue or dispute about that right, then the conditions are met for classification an 'indigenous innovation' product, and that the issue of control over these rights will not be considered. Even if the right of use is restricted by the foreign parent company, it will not influence the application for 'indigenous innovation' qualifications, thereby eliminating the obstacles to application for recognition of 'indigenous innovation' products by foreign-invested enterprises.
So far, however, the three government bodies jointly administrating this policy have yet to release an official notification for 2010 regarding the recognition of products of 'indigenous information'. In addition, the 2009 national list of products of 'indigenous innovation' is still unpublished, and therefore, it is still necessary for foreign-invested enterprises to closely follow the progress of this policy.
 

Limitation of Actions Regarding Patent Ownership Disputes

By Li Ruihai and Su Juan, King & Wood's IP Department

Patent ownership disputes arise, when a party challenges the ownership of a patent right at the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) and files suit with the People's Court to seek rectification of the ownership of the patent. Article 135 of the General Principles of Civil Law of the PRC (Civil Law) provides that "unless otherwise stipulated by law, the statute of limitations to file civil actions with the People's Court shall be 2 years." The PRC Patent Law (Patent Law) provides no specific provision regarding the statute of limitations in patent ownership disputes. Hence, issue arises as to whether the court can, upon the defendant's request, dismiss the plaintiff's claim for patent ownership due to the statute of limitations for civil actions.

 

One opinion is that patent ownership claims should be subject to the 2-year statute of limitations principle provided by Article 135 of the Civil Law, as there are no other provisions under the Patent Law stipulating otherwise. The date should be calculated from the date of announcement for granting the patent right.

Others argue that patent ownership disputes should be deemed as disputes under patent infringement and be handled under Article 23 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Relating to Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Disputes (Judicial Interpretation [2001] No.20) (Interpretation), which provides that, while the patent is effective and infringement continues, patent infringement actions shall not be restricted by a statute of limitations.

A third opinion holds that the patent right is an absolute right and right in rem. Therefore, it has the same judicial characteristics as jus in re in conventional civil law. Under PRC law, the provisions on statute of limitations do not apply to enforcement by action in rem. Accordingly, patent ownership disputes is not subject to the 2-year statute of limitations.

Discussion

According to legislative intent, the statute of limitations only applies to the right to petition. Other rights, such as ownership, personal right, are rights of property dominion in nature, and thus are not subjected to the statute of limitations. Therefore, statute of limitations should not apply to non-credit patent ownership disputes.

China currently rejects adverse possession, because of its inherent conflict with traditional Chinese values and social principles. If the People's Courts refuse to grant trial due to statute of limitations, the rightful patent owner may lose his patent rights, and the announced patentee will, in all practicality, obtain the patent rights. The result is nothing short of adoption of adverse possession in China and conflicts with legislative principles of the Civil Law.

A statute of limitations only deprives the plaintiff's right to file suit, but the substantive right of ownership still exists. Dismissal due to statute of limitations does not mean that the People's Court has recognized the patentee as the legitimate patent owner and neither affirms nor denies the patent ownership status granted by the SIPO. As a result, it causes a strange situation, where legal ownership of the patent is in limbo. The ambiguities in law disrupt the social and legal relations derived from the patent rights, and will hinder the actuation of patented technology.

A patent not only brings economic benefits to the patentee, but also good reputation or recognition. Therefore, patent ownership disputes inherently involve a matter of deprivation of right to good reputation or recognition. This is pertains to a personal right, which does not vanish with the expiry of the patent right. Statute of limitations is not applicable to personal rights.

In general, the purposes of a statute of limitations are: (a) to stabilize social legal relations; (b) to encourage the timely protection of rights; (c) to avoid evidentiary difficulties. However, there is no reasonable basis for applying the statute of limitations to patent ownership disputes.

Settlement of patent ownership disputes does not affect already established legal relations. Patents are, in essence, intangible knowledge or information. Neither the patent owner nor any others can control technology or design in the same way as a tangible object. Possession and transfer of patent rights are not legally enforceable without SIPO's registration and announcement procedures. If a third party obtains a patent license in good faith, his reliance interest is protected by law and won’t be affected by the rightful patent owner's claim. The rightful patent owner's claims for compensation, license fees and assignment fees are obviously the creditor's claims and subject to the statute of limitations. In short, established legal relations, as protected under the systems of public credibility and statute of limitations, will not be undermined by rectification of ownership.

The loss of evidence due to the extended lapse of time is only a theoretical presumption. Such presumption might be correct in certain cases, but not in all cases. If the plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proof, the court may apply the Right Presumption Principle. Any such plaintiff willingly risks defeat, if he does not exercise his rights timely. This basic principle of civil proceedings is not unique to the nature of a statute of limitations but inherent in litigation. Therefore, evidentiary difficulties cannot justify application of statute of limitations to patent ownership disputes.

The second opinion asserts a statute of limitation exemption for continuous infringement is applicable to patent ownership disputes. Article 23 of the Interpretations exempts patent infringements, namely, exploitation of the patent without the patentee's consent and authorization. Since the patent infringements are not patent ownership disputes, such opinion that an exemption is available is unconvincing. Furthermore, although this opinion addresses the issue of statute of limitations in duration of patent, it does not indicate whether patent ownership disputes are subject to the statute of limitations after expiration of the patent.

The third opinion asserts that patent ownership disputes are peculiar and should not be subject to the statute of limitations. This opinion is feasible in practice for it reasonably settles conflicts between jurisprudence and legal provisions through the interpretation of laws, and thus incorporate jurisprudence and judicial practice.

Conclusion
As Chinese law has not yet explicitly stipulated the application range of the statute of limitations, judges should be allowed to exercise judicial discretion on a case-by-case basis and exclude the patent ownership disputes from the provisions of Article 135 of the General Principles.

We hope that the future PRC Civil Law may provide more reasonable and detailed stipulations on this issue.


 

Just Do It!? Protecting Advertising Slogans in China Part II

By Jiang Ling, Partner, King & Wood's Trademark Department

The term "works" used and protected under the Copyright Law refers to original intellectual creations in the literary, artistic and the scientific domain, in so far as they are capable of being reproduced in a certain tangible form. As for literal works, this refers to the works manifested in text form, no matter how long it is or what type or format of literature it uses. As long as it is original, it should be within the scope of protection by the PRC Copyright Law (as well as Trademarks as previously discussed). Therefore, it can be concluded that an advertising slogan is in principle not excluded from copyright protection on the condition that it is original. However, the Copyright Law does not define what "original" is. Judging by judicial practice, the expression of original works may not necessarily be unprecedented, and re-creation based on previous intellectual works of others is not forbidden either. In general, works possess originality as long as it is created by the author independently rather than plagiarizing others' works which bears some personalized characteristics. Thus, it is possible for slogans to be copyrighted.

 

In practice, there are some instances in which advertising slogans are granted copyright protection. For example, in the case of Cheng Du Huangchenglaoma restaurant vs. Beijing Huangronglaoma hotpot restaurant, the court held that the slogans used by the plaintiff possessed the originality to qualify as a literal work and thus should be protected under the copyright law. Accordingly, the defendant infringed on the copyrights of the plaintiff in using the same slogans during its daily business. As to how to judge the originality of advertising slogans, the court specifically made the following analysis and statement on the verdict, " 'original' mentioned in the copyright law means that the works are created by the author independently without plagiarism or imitation, which is mainly manifested in the selection, design and composition of certain material. Although the vocabulary which comprises the slogans was not original, through the plaintiff's selection, combination and arrangement, they have reflected certain personalized characters.

Moreover, if advertising slogan has become a symbol or identifier of the company through long-term use and promotion, hence closely associated with the goodwill and the products of the company, it may also seek protection under the Anti-unfair Competition Law against other party's unauthorized use.

Conclusion

In fierce market competition, companies tend to promote their brand and products by adopting unique advertising slogans. Advertising slogans could become a symbolic sign of the company and thereby attain an intangible value just like a trademark. Under the existing legislation and in practice, advertising slogans can 1) be protected under the Trademark Law through trademark registration, as long as it is original and could function as a source indicator. 2) slogans that have built a connection with certain enterprises in the course of business should also fall within the protection scope of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. 3) original advertising slogans may also be protected under the Copyright Law. Among the three, trademark registration is the most effective means of protection.
 

Hong Kong Budget Report: New Benefits for Inventors

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, Corporate, King & Wood–Hong Kong

Hong Kong's Financial Secretary, the Hon. John C Tsang, gave his annual budget speech Wednesday, February 24th. Buried in the 178 paragraph speech on the 2010-2011 Budget Report were two paragraphs relating to intellectual property rights. The issues mentioned by the Financial Secretary may benefit inventors and high-tech start ups.
 

In paragraph 106, he expanded deductibility as capital expenditure of the purchase of registered trademarks, copyrights, and registered designs. Under the current scheme, only purchase of patent rights and industrial know-how are deductible. The purpose of the expansion is to promote wider application of intellectual property and to help develop the creative industries in Hong Kong. Actual formulation for deductions will be prepared by the Inland Revenue Department. This addition brought in the most common types of intellectual property rights transferred in Hong Kong and will serve as a boon for creative entrepreneurs.

The second item concerns funding for patent applications. Currently, the Hong Kong Government provides funding assistance for Hong Kong inventors and enterprises to help them pay for the cost of filing their first patent application. The current ceiling of such grants and funds is HK$100,000. In paragraph 107, Mr. Tsang raised the ceiling to HK$150,000. Hong Kong has a recordation system for patent registration that requires the granting of a patent in another jurisdiction before a Hong Kong standard patent may be issued. To obtain a Hong Kong standard patent, an inventor must file in an approved jurisdiction where substantive review is conducted and a patent granted before a Hong Kong patent can be registered. In essence, the inventor has to pay for two patent applications to have a Hong Kong patent granted. The increase in the funding should be helpful for small inventors.

Compared to other ‘sweeteners’ offered in the speech, these two additional benefits offered for intellectual property rights are fairly minor but will have a relatively broad application. At least, the topic of IP rights is not completely left out of the speech. A full copy of the Budget report can be downloaded at www.budget.gov.hk.
 

30% Jump in Chinese WIPO Filings

By Kenneth Choy, Partner, Corporate, King & Wood–Hong Kong

The World Intellectual Property Organization, also known as WIPO, recently disclosed the number of international patent applications filed under its Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) for 2009. A copy of the release, entitled International Patent Filings Dip in 2009 Downturn (PR/2010/6), may be downloaded here. While the total number of PCT applications filed for the year was down compared to 2008, filings by applicants from East Asian countries actually grew with Japan, Korea and China ranking among the top five filing countries. Although the number of applications from the United States dropped by more than 11% to 45,700 applications, it still held its place on top of the rankings. Japan (2), Korea (4) and China (5) accounted for 45,839 PCT applications in 2009, about 30% of total filings

China filed 7,946 applications, an impressive 29.7% increase over its 2008 filings. Two Chinese filers were among the top 100. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. came in with 1847 applications, second only to Japan's Panasonic Corporation and ZTE Corporation jumped 15 places to finish 23rd with 502 filings. Together, these two companies accounted for 30% of China's 7,946 filings. For the year, Huawei filed 110 more applications than in 2008, an increase of 6.3% while ZTE increased by 52.6%, submitting 173 more applications into the PCT system than in the previous year.

The prolific activities of these two equipment makers in the telecommunications industry indicate the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in multiple jurisdictions as Chinese companies expand beyond China's shores to become players in the global market. The WIPO statistics indicates that Chinese companies are taking advantage of using PCT applications for international protection.

The PCT procedure gives an applicant the convenience of filing initially only one patent application with one set of papers in one language with a receiving office designated by the PCT. At a later stage, should the applicant desires, it can then choose the jurisdictions where the patent application should be filed. Only at that stage would the applicant have to pay for necessary translations and filing fees of the national jurisdiction where the application is filed. The procedure gives the applicant much more control over the application process. Companies with proprietary knowhow or inventions interested in expanding overseas should consider this option as part of their patent application strategy.
 

Just Do It!? Protecting Advertising Slogans in China Part I

By Jiang Ling, Partner, King & Wood's Trademark Department

Concise and vivid advertising slogans quickly draw the public's attention and are integral to a company's brand. Over years of use and promotion, some slogans have become well-known to the public, such as Nike's "Just do it",  Adidas' "Impossible is nothing" and DeBeers'  "Diamonds are forever." In many ways, such slogans are often no less important than the company's logo and other marks. As such, companies must figure how to protect and prevent the unlicensed use of their advertising slogans. Accomplishing this in China presents a unique set of considerations.

 

Advertising slogans, composed of words in the form of phrases, formally possess both the characteristics of both literal works and trademarks. Therefore, in principle, they can be the protected by the PRC Copyright Law ("Copyright Law") and the PRC Trademark Law ("Trademark Law").

Trademark Protection

The Trademark Law provides that:

"Any visual signs of words, devices, letters, numerals or any combination of the above elements, which being able to distinguish the goods or service of one entity from the others, can be registered as trademarks."

Accordingly, advertising brand names consisting of words are acceptable for trademark. As to whether registration is granted, all trademarks go through an official examination to determine if they possess due distinctiveness and can function as indicators the products they represent. In terms of common word marks, the trademark law does not require a word mark to be original or coined in order to achieve distinctiveness. Generally, as long as the words used by a trademark are not the generic name of the goods or does not directly indicate the features of the products, they are considered distinctive and capable of distinguishing its origin. Hence, "Apple", "Great Wall" and other dictionary words possess just as much distinctiveness as the coined words "NEC", "TCL".

Second, the words used by a brand trademark need not be totally unrelated to the features of the products. For instance, "Safeguard" indicates the features of the products in certain a way, but as long as the indication is not a direct description, the mark does not typically lose its distinctiveness.

However, the examination on trademarks for slogans tends to be more stringent both in terms of the examination criteria employed and in its application by the trademark authorities. According to the Examination Criteria issued by the Trademark Office, a slogan that does "not indicate the characteristics of the products" is one of the most elementary requirements for the registration of a slogan trademark. In addition, slogan trademarks should be original and non-popularly used, which sets a higher threshold in the judgment of their distinctiveness and thereby greatly increases the difficulty in getting them registered in the PRC.

As to whether a trademark is original, it is not difficult to judge in the case of common word marks. Non-dictionary words can most easily be regarded or alleged as "original" words, such as "Haier", "Canon" and "Philips". It seems that applying words in a non-dictionary or non-traditional way, an applicant can relatively easily meet the "originality" component.

The originality of slogans, on the other hand, is not so easy to ascertain. As a short phrase consisting of words, the purpose of slogan is to promote the concept, culture and image of the enterprises and their products, which requires it to be expressed in a way familiar and comprehensible to the general public. Hence, slogan trademarks cannot differ far from the language used by people in daily life. There may be some uniqueness in the sentence structuring, but the slogan ultimately cannot avoid being tinted with a sense of popularity. As such, the originality of a slogan is intrinsically hard to demonstrate.

As different people can have different views and feelings on what is popularly used, this makes Trademark Office's examination subjective and uncertain. The following slogans have previously applied for registration as trademarks: "The world swings with me", "Inspiration lights life", "Your vision, Our future", "Listening creates the future", "Sense the world, foresee the future" and "Share the moment, share the life" of which the Trademark Office directly approved the registration for "The world swings with me", "Inspiration lights life" and "Your vision, Our future", while rejecting the rest for lack of distinctiveness. The Office even makes a contradictory conclusion to the same slogan applied for different goods. For example, the Eastman Kodak Company's slogan "Share the moment, Share life" was approved in for pictures, but was denied in for cameras.

However, Article 11 of the Trademark Law provides that slogans that lack distinctiveness cannot be registered as trademarks with the exception of "those that have acquired distinctiveness through use ". According to this provision, if the slogans have established sole association with certain enterprises in the public recognition through use and are capable of functioning as a distinguisher of their source, they can be granted with trademark registration. As this exceptional provision further increases the threshold of registration, meanwhile it has opened a new path for the registration of slogan trademarks. Having met the requirements of this provision by proving the acquired distinctiveness through use, the slogans mentioned above, i.e. "Listening creates the future" of KENWOOD, "Sense the world, foresee the future" of OMRON and "Share the moment, Share the life" of Kodak, which were preliminarily rejected by the Trademark Office, have eventually all been approved for registration.

 

Unification of Jurisdiction in IPR-Related Civil, Criminal and Administrative Cases in China

Traditionally civil, administrative and criminal IPR cases have been heard by the Intellectual Property, Administrative and Criminal Divisions of the courts, respectively. For instance, both the IPR Tribunals and the Administrative Tribunals of the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s courts were entitled to exercise jurisdiction over IPR administrative cases involving patent and trademark rights grants and determinations. The issue is that different divisions may apply different criteria to the same case.

Xu Jing & Zhang Hairuo, IP Litigation, King & Wood

 

As such, several guidelines have been issued to explore the possibility of establishing specialized IPR Tribunals which would hear all types of IPR-related cases. In this regard, on June 5, 2008, the “Outline of the Nation's Intellectual Property Rights Strategy” promulgated by the National Council requested that courts “look into the establishment of specialized IPR tribunals and IPR appellate courts which have jurisdiction over all IPR civil, administrative and criminal cases.” Furthermore, on March 23, 2009, the Supreme People;s Court promulgated the ”Opinions of the Supreme People;s Court on Several Issues Regarding the Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy” (hereinafter, the “Opinions”) which provided that “research shall be carried out regarding the appropriate adjudication model for IPR-related cases; research on the establishment of specialized IPR tribunals to hear IPR civil, administrative and criminal cases”.
 

In line with the Opinions noted above, at the “China High-Level Forum on IPR Protection” held on April 24, 2009, the Chief Justice of the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court announced a list of test courts for the establishment of specialized IPR Tribunals to hear IPR civil, administrative and criminal cases. This list includes three (3) High People’s Courts (in Chongqing, Jiang and Fujian), twelve (12) Intermediate People’s Courts and fifteen (15) District Courts.
 

On July 1, 2009, the Supreme People's Court (“SPC”) released a Circular providing guidelines for courts exercising jurisdiction over cases involving patent and trademark rights grants and rights determinations (hereinafter known as the “Circular”). From July 1, 2009, IP Tribunals of intermediate courts in Beijing and the Beijing High People’s Court will have exclusive jurisdiction over IPR administrative cases of the First and Second Instance for rights grants and rights determinations for patent, trademark, layout design of integrated circuit and new varieties of plants cases. If parties are dissatisfied with the rulings after they have been rendered, parties may file a re-trial application to the court of the next higher level. The re-tried case shall be examined and heard by the IPR Tribunals of the court of the next higher level.
 

The “Circular” is a first step in legislation to establish specialized IPR Tribunals to hear IPR civil and administrative cases, while the “test courts”, as designated by the IPR Tribunal of the Supreme People’s Court, will address, concurrently, civil, administrative and criminal claims. Based upon the success of the adjudications in the “test courts”, IPR criminal cases will be exclusively adjudicated by IPR Tribunals throughout China. With the guidelines set forth in the Circular, as well as the establishment of the “test courts”, the judiciary in China is taking steps towards improving the efficiency of adjudication in IPR cases and unifying the judicial practices.
 

 

知识产权民事、行政、刑事案件“三审合一”审判模式
徐静 张海若
在中国,传统上知识产权民事、行政、刑事案件分别由知识产权庭、行政庭以及刑事审判庭审理,其中,针对专利、商标授权确权类知识产权行政案件,北京市第一中级人民法院行政庭及知识产权庭均有权受理。上述知识产权案件的审理模式容易出现裁判标准不一的问题。
为解决上述问题,国务院以及最高院先后出台文件,要求探索设立知识产权三审合一的法庭。2008年6月5日,国务院出台《国家知识产权战略纲要》,要求法院“研究设置统一受理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件的专门知识产权法庭。探索建立知识产权上诉法院”。2009年3月23日,最高院出台《最高人民法院关于贯彻实施国家知识产权战略若干问题的意见》(“意见”),提出要“积极探索符合知识产权特点的审判组织模式,研究设置统一受理知识产权民事、行政和刑事案件的专门知识产权审判庭”。
为贯彻上述“意见”,2009年4月24日举行的中国知识产权高层论坛上,最高院知识产权庭审判长颔中林公布了三审合一试点法院的名单,进行“三审合一”试点的高院有3个:重庆市高级法院、江苏省高级法院、福建省高级法院。中院“三审合一”的有12个,基层法院进行“三审合一”的有15个。
2009年7月1日,最高院出台《关于专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件审理分工的规定》(“规定”),明确规定“专利、商标、集成电路布图设计和植物新品种案件4种授权确权类知识产权行政案件,自7月1日起将统一 由知识产权审判庭审理。”根据该规定,北京市有关中级人民法院知识产权审判庭将作为专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件的一审法院,北京市高级人民法院知识产权审判庭作为此类案件的二审法院。同时,该规定还明确了专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件再审分工,即当事人对于人民法院就此类案件所作出的生效判决或者裁定不服,向上级人民法院申请再审的案件,由上级人民法院知识产权审判庭负责再审审查和审理。据悉,对于7月1日之前已经受理的案件,原由行政审判庭审理的,将继续由行政审判庭审理完结,如上诉,也仍然由上级人民法院的行政审判庭审理。
此次最高院正式发文,确定知识产权行政案件和民事案件统一由知识产权审判庭审理,已经迈出了三审合一的第一步。同时,最高院指定的试点法院也已开展了三审合一的审判试点工作。基于试点结果,最高法将考虑是否将刑事案件统一归属知识产权庭审理。上述规定的出台以及试点法院的建立,有助于法院逐步提高知识产权案件审判效率、实现知识产权审判标准的统一。
 

Copyright Due Diligence Investigations in China: Legal Entity Work or Occupational Work?

The Chinese legislature created a hybrid from the different approaches adopted by civil and common law jurisdictions through the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (the “Copyright Law") and the Regulations on the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China (the“Implementation Regulations"), and produced the twin concepts of “legal entity work” and “occupational work” for assigning rights to works made in the course of an employment relationship. For example, a book written by a group of employees organized by an entertainment company for celebrating the company's anniversary would likely be considered “legal entity work”, but a piece of music composed by a composer employee (not for specific purposes) is “occupational work”, because in the former case, supervision of the company would be involved but the latter case it would not.


Being able to draw a clear line between “legal entity work” and “occupational work” is crucial during a due diligence investigation in terms of copyrighted materials in employment relationships- ascertaining an accurate chain of title from the author turns out to be a thorny issue. Though these two types of works are seemingly similar, the attribution of the copyright ownership between a legal entity employer and an employee is critical. Though the determination of “legal entity work” and “occupational work” can be extremely confusing, neither the legislatures nor judicial organs have ever promulgated any guidance. Thus far, only the National Copyright Administration of the People’s Republic of China (the “NCA") has expressed its viewpoints on this matter in the circular “Reply to the Liaoning Tieling Mediate Court Regarding How to Determine Legal Entity Work and Occupational Work” (the “NCA Circular”), which however does not have judicial binding force.
 

 

Wang Rui, Partner, International Trade

 

 

 

“Legal Entity Work”
The NCA Circular recognized a three-point standard concerning “legal entity work.” I.e., creation of a “legal entity work” should at least satisfy three conditions: (i) supervised by the legal entity; (ii) developed according to the intentions of the legal entity; and (iii) the legal entity is responsible for the work.


This standard sheds some light on the issue but is far from clear. Point (ii) is especially difficult to apply due to uncertainties regarding a legal entity's intention. Three issues are often considered in practice to identify the existence of a legal entity's intention:
 

(a) Signature on the work. According to Article 11 [paragraph (4)] of the Copyright Law, so long as the legal entity’s name is mentioned in connection with a work and there is no proof to the contrary, the legal entity should be deemed to be the author of the work and therefore the work should have reflected the intention of legal entity.
 

(b) Content of the work. Does the content of the work likely reflect the legal entity’s intention or only the employee's own creative expression?
 

(c) The nature and purposes of the work. Given the nature and intended purposes of the work, in which party’s name will the work be published? For example, the advertising and explanatory materials created by a governmental agency for policy making, or an agency’s declaration or statement on certain events or actions (such as the “China's Situation in IPR Protection” issued by the Press Office of the State Council of PRC)—are all considered having reflected the intention of the legal entity.
 

“Occupational Work”
According to the NCA Circular, “occupational work” should meet two criteria: (i) the citizen who created the work should have an employment relationship with the legal entity; (ii) the work is created to fulfill tasks assigned by the legal entity employer. While criterion (i)--existence of employment relationship is to be decided in accordance with the labor law of China, Article 11 of the Implementation Regulations interpreted the term “work assignment” in criterion (ii) as –“a work within the scope of the duties that a citizen should fulfill for the legal entity or body.”
 

Two issues are often considered in practice to identify whether a work falls within the scope of the duties to be fulfilled by the employee: (a) whether the duties are specified in the employment contract or labor rules & regulations of the company, or reflected in the company's long term work planning; (b) whether the work has significant and direct correlations with the normal business of the legal entity employer.

 

2009: New Trends in China's Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

As 2009 begins and the economic crisis has hit most major markets globally, the Supreme People's Court of the People’s Republic of China (“Supreme Court”) is studying how to adjust judicial policy on intellectual property rights (“IPRs”). The new policies will outline developing trends in the legal protection of IPR in China that may occur this year:

1. Increasing Compensation for Infringement on Intellectual Property Rights

Recently, the Supreme Court has stressed on various occasions that the court shall adopt flexible and practical methods to calculate the damages awarded in cases concerning infringement on IPRs in order to adequately compensate rights owners, negate illegal profits collected by the infringement, and truly raise the costs for infringement; the reasonable expenses of the right owners incurred while enforcing their lawful rights shall be reimbursed. When statutory compensation is applied, the compensation for the expenses incurred by the rights owners while enforcing their lawful rights shall be calculated separately, rather than be included in the statutory compensation. The current applicable maximum amount for statutory compensation in China is RMB 500,000(though the maximum amount has already been raised to RMB 1million in the third revised PRC Patent Law promulgated on December 27, 2008 which will come into effect on October 1, 2009), which includes the allowance for expenses incurred. Due to the difficulty in producing evidence when seeking compensation and that the statutory compensation is non-substantial, the absence of sufficient and adequate compensation is a common problem faced by right owners. This issue could addressed in 2009.
 

Mia Qu, Bessie Ye, Nick Wang of King & Wood's Intellectual Property Group

 

2. Simplifying and Improving Flexibility of Litigation Procedures

For example, on December 17th of 2008, the Supreme Court promulgated the Circular on Application of the Provisions on Time Limit for Evidence Production under Several Provisions on the Evidence for Civil Actions. Such an interpretation allows for more flexibility on the time limits in evidence production and requires the court to adjudicate cases in a more just and efficient manner. This development is also applicable to all types of IPR litigations.

At the recent National Symposium on the Court Trial of Intellectual Property Rights held at the end of November 2008, the Supreme Court specially held a discussion on how to make it more convenient for plaintiffs (especially foreign plaintiffs) during legal proceedings, and clearly indicated that all the cases which meet the acceptance requirements shall be heard in a timely manner in accordance with the law. Currently, foreign rights owners usually delegate a representative within China to initiate the legal proceedings, and the court has a more complex set of procedures for such an arrangement. Some courts even require the rights owners to sign on the bills of complaints personally, and prohibit the local representative to sign on their behalf. The Supreme Court now, however, has standardized the process, allowing authorized delegates to initiate legal proceedings on behalf of foreign rights owners. Thus, the inconvenience currently faced by foreign rights owners may be minimized in 2009.

3. Taking into Account the Interests of All Parties and Carefully Sustaining Claims for Injunction

It is foreseeable that in 2009, the courts will place a stronger emphasis on the balance between the interest of the rights owners and the interest of the public, and prevent IP right owners from abusing their power. This means that the standards applicable to patent infringement determination, especially to equivalence infringement, may be tightened; in cases where the rights owners have allowed their rights to be infringed and take no action over a lengthy period of time, should they finally do take action and seek an injunction and if the order of injunction could potentially tip the balance between the interest of the parties, or impact economic activity so as to go against the public interest, the court may consider not granting the injunction. For some infringing acts, if public interest may be affected, the court may rule for compensation to be paid rather than grant the injunction. At present, the application for injunction can usually be granted by the court if the claim of infringement may be established by the rights owners.


In summary, it is foreseeable that due to the publication of the Outline of the National Intellectual Property Strategy in China, judicial protection will play a leading role in safeguarding IPRs. Furthermore, China’s intellectual property rights protection policy is undergoing change and adjustment in order to integrate further with the development trends of global IPRs protection.
 

 

在2009年即将到来、而全球经济危机正给世界大部分国家造成巨大影响的时刻,中国最高人民法院正在研究调整知识产权的司法政策。这些新的政策导向为我们勾绘了2009年可能出现在中国知识产权司法保护领域的一些新气象:

一、 加大知识产权侵权赔偿力度,贯彻全面赔偿原则

最高人民法院近期数次强调,在知识产权审判中,应运用灵活多样和合理可行的损害赔偿计算方法,使权利人受到的损害获得足够的赔偿,彻底剥夺侵权行为人因侵权而获得的利益,切实提高侵权代价;对于受害人正当合理的维权成本要给予赔偿;在适用法定赔偿时,对于合理的维权成本应另行计赔,不列入法定赔偿额之内。而目前,中国的法定赔偿最高额是五十万元(于2008年12月27日颁布、2009年10月1日生效的第三次修改后的《专利法》已将最高金额调整到人民币一百万元),并且包含了对权利人因维权所发生的费用的补偿。由于损害赔偿的举证难度较大,而法定赔偿的金额较低,不能得到足够的、实质性的赔偿是权利人普遍面临的难题。这一问题可望在2009年得到改善。

二、 简化或放宽诉讼程序

例如,今年12月17日,最高人民法院颁布了关于适用《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》中有关举证时限规定的通知,该通知对举证期限等问题做出了更加灵活的规定,有利于人民法院以更加公正高效的方式进行案件的审判。该通知同样适用于各类知识产权诉讼。

最高人民法院在此次全国法院知识产权审判座谈会上特别讨论了如何便利当事人(尤其是外国当事人)诉权的行使,并明确指出符合受理条件的起诉均应依法及时受理。目前,外国权利人通常授权我国境内代理人代为提起诉讼,法院的相关程序性要求比较繁琐。部分法院还要求权利人必须在起诉书上签章,不得由代理人代为签署。此次最高人民法院明确统一,凡经权利人明确授权代理提起诉讼的代理人,均可以权利人名义提起诉讼。因此,该等不便可望在2009年得以免除。

三、 兼顾社会各方利益,审慎适用停止侵权责任形式

可以预计,在2009年,法院在知识产权案件的审理中将更加注重知识产权权利人与社会公共利益的平衡,防止知识产权权利人滥用权利。这体现为,专利侵权的判定标准,尤其对等同侵权的情况,可能会适度从严掌握;权利人长期放任侵权、怠于维权,在其请求停止侵权时,倘若责令停止侵权会在当事人之间造成较大的利益不平衡,或者影响经济活动从而违反公共利益,法院可以审慎地考虑不再责令停止行为;对于一些侵权行为,如果要求其停止侵权可能导致违反公共利益,则可能仅判令侵权人承担损害赔偿,而不必停止侵权。而目前,如果权利人提起的侵权诉讼可能成立,则停止侵权的申请一般能获得法院支持。

综上,可以预见,由于中国《国家知识产权战略纲要》的颁布,司法手段将成为知识产权保护的主导角色。而中国知识产权保护的司法政策正在酝酿着调整和转变,更融于全球知识产权保护的发展趋势。
 

Software Resale: A China IP Puzzle Part II

According to the fundamental principles of Chinese courts concerning software resale, the resalability of software under different sales models may also be different.

A. Traditional sales model

Under the traditional model, the supplier sells to their clients a CD-Rom or floppy disk containing the software and enters into an agreement with the clients on the scope of license.

This model involves three relationships
:

1) The transfer of ownership of the medium carrying the software ;

2) The transfer of the copy of the software; and

3) The licensing of copyright.

 

Among these issues, the transfer of ownership of the hard copy is subject to property law, while the transfer of the copies of the software falls into the category of exercising the distribution right by the right owners under the Copyright Law, and the licensing of the copyrighted software relates to the defined licensing relationship between the copyright owner and the user under the Copyright Law.

As the sale of software sold under the said model is completed by transferring of the ownership of the medium containing the software, the doctrine of exhaustion of rights is applicable to this model. In practice, software can be resold without the consent of the copyright holder.

 

Xu Jing, Partner and Zhao Ye, Associate, IP Litigation

 

 

B. Corporate sales model

 

Since corporate users usually need a large number of licensed copies of the software, the suppliers do not usually provide corporate users a CD-ROM for each of the copies. Instead, corporate users are provided with a master copy and a certain number of licenses. From the view point of the Copyright Law, this sales model does not affect the relevant legal relationships which refer to the transfer of ownership of the medium, the transfer of the copy of the software and copyright licensing.

Under the corporate sales model, software is usually resalable as in the traditional sales model, if the sale involves the transfer of the medium carrying the software such as a master copy on a CD-ROM. However, if the corporate client only purchased the license right to use the software -- for example, only paid for an increase in the number of software users -- based on the current practice, it would be difficult to implement a lawful resale. In practice, the judges may also evaluate a sales activity according to the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law or the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law on a case-by-case basis.

C. Online sales model

The increased usage of the Internet and the expansion of bandwidth have caused fundamental changes to the sale of software. Software suppliers do not need to provide CD-ROM for their products; instead, they may direct their clients to the designated websites where the clients can download the software. After downloading the software on their computer, the clients can install and activate the software with the registration code or serial number provided by the software suppliers. Compared with the first two sales models, the possession of the medium containing the software does not shift from the suppliers to their clients. Therefore, this type of sale only involves transferring the copy of the software and licensing.

Online sale of software is merely an act of licensing. According to the Regulations on the Protection of Software Copyright, the copyright owner is entitled to all copyrights which are not clearly mentioned otherwise and the licensee shall not sub-license such rights. Therefore, unless otherwise specifically stated in a written agreement, reselling software by transferring registration codes or accounts infringes the copyright of the software owners and is prohibited by the existing PRC laws.

D. Sales of distributed software

As the Internet evolves, software no longer runs on stand-alone computers, instead, the actual running of software requires simultaneous running of both server software and the client software. A typical example of distributed software is online game software, where the distributors of online game software are also acting as server providers. These companies only provide clients with the installation software for clients' computer with related use right license for logging on to the server. The sale of this type of software involves the license of the client terminal software and the server software, and the scopes of the said two licenses are also different. The license of the client software includes the authorization for client terminal software installation, copying and operation, and the license of the server software only grants the clients use right to access the server from their terminals. In other words, the former license grants the client's use right under the Copyright Law, and the latter license merely allows the functional use of the software for the purpose of visiting a server.

The scope of license for distributed software varies since such software usually differentiates between client terminal software and server software. Therefore, whether distributed software can be resold and to what extent it can be resold should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

Software Resale: A China IP Puzzle Part I

 

In recent years, second hand trading of software has experienced substantial growth and the legal issues involved in such transactions have also caught the eyes of the players in the industry. Generally, the legality of software resale is decided by whether the distribution rights of the copyright owners are exhausted upon the transaction. However, it is difficult to decide when a transaction should be regarded as "licensing" and when the transaction should be deemed as a "sale". As the number of software resale cases brought before the courts increases, the courts' understanding of the nature of software trading develops. Various jurisdictions have formed their own approach on differentiating an act of sale from that of licensing.

Common copyrighted products such as books or CDs can be resold because most countries adapt the "doctrine of exhaustion of distribution rights" in their copyright law, namely once a copyright owner publicly distributes his/her original work or the copies of such work by way of "sale" or "gifting", the distribution right will be deemed exhausted and the owner may not reclaim such right.

 

Xu Jing, Partner and Zhao Ye, Associate, IP Litigation

 

 

Theoretically, the exhaustion of rights is equally applicable to software, which is a form of work. In practice, however, problems arise when the software is "licensed" to public users, since the "doctrine of exhaustion of rights" only applies to the distribution methods of "sale" or "gifting". Under such circumstances, software licensing will not trigger the exhaustion of distribution rights. However, the sale of software will inevitably involve licensing and is usually subject to software licensing agreements. Therefore, the key factor which determines whether the exhaustion of distribution rights occurs depends on when a sale of software constitutes "sale" and when it constitutes "license"; this factor also determines whether a resale of software constitutes copyright infringement. Different jurisdictions have developed their own approach towards this issue.

In the United States, for example, ProCD Corp. v. Zerdenberg, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit established three criteria on how to distinguish a sale activity from licensing:

1. Purchasers of mass-market software pay a single purchase price rather than a series of royalties;

2. The software publisher does not retain title to the "product" as a security interest; and

3. The rights of the licensee to the software copy are perpetual, like the rights of a purchaser pursuant to a sale

China has developed its own criteria for the applicability of the doctrine of exhaustion of rights with a reference to the theories and laws of other jurisdictions. Under Chinese criteria, the rights are exhausted if the software is distributed by way of transfer of ownership, otherwise, it should be deemed as "license" only.  On May 14, 2008, the Shanghai High People's Court rendered the final decision in respect of copyright infringement on Shanghai Shanjun Industrial Ltd., Zheng Feng v. Shanghai Jiliang Software Technology Ltd. In this case, a third party legally acquired a set of copyrighted software by Shanghai Jiliang Software Technology Ltd. ("Jiliang") and resold it to Shanghai Shanjun Industrial Ltd. ("Shanjun"). Shanjun later resold the software to another company, which is also a third party to the case. Jiliang sued Shanjun for copyright infringement.

The court held that "the copyright owner enjoys the right to distribute the original work or copies of such work by transferring proprietary rights to the public. However, once the copyrighted work or the copies are initially sold or gifted to the public under the license of the copyright owner, the copyright owner will no longer enjoy the right to control further resale of the work or its copies. In other words, the party that legally acquired the ownership of the original copyrighted work or its copies may resell or gift such work or copies or provide them to other parties without seeking further license from the copyright owner.”

The above analysis of the Court of the Second Instance has great significance for software related copyright matters in China. It not only defines the doctrine of exhaustion of distribution rights for the first time in China, but also confirms that the application of the doctrine should be determined by whether the distribution involves the change of the ownership of software. Instead of following the traditional method of merely distinguishing "sale" from ‘license", the Court instead uses a more pragmatic approach.

 

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC -- Insights on the Applications of the Safe Harbor Principle and how this is applied in China

In recent years, search engine providers, P2P website or other Internet service providers are often challenged in the courts by content owners. While the legal actions brought by international record companies are constant headaches for major Chinese search engine providers, including Baidu, Yahoo and Sogou, international search engine giants like Google and YouTube have also been struggling to resolve various lawsuits internationally.

These cases raise the same issues for legislators and judges in all jurisdictions -- how to evaluate the business models of Internet Service Providers or Online Service Providers ("ISPs" or "OSPs", collectively "ISPs") and the responsibilities and obligations for copyright protection of the ISPs?

In 2007, the US Ninth Circuit Court of the State of California rendered its judgment for Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC. The California Court granted CCBill LLC immunity under the Safe Harbor Principle on the ground that the notice for removal sent by Perfect 10, Inc. failed to provide sufficient information and could not be deemed as effective notice. The intention of the US Congress when adopting the Safe Harbor Principle was to ensure that liabilities are shared fairly between the parties by requiring the copyright owner to bear the burden of proving the existence of infringement.  These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. The California Court's decision has been interpreted by US legal professionals as another affirmation of the application of "Safe Harbor Principle" to ISPs.
 

He Wei, Partner and Wang Yaxi, Associate, Intellectual Property

 

Perfect 10, the Plaintiff, is a publisher of an adult entertainment magazine and the owner of a pornographic website. The Plaintiff has created approximately 5,000 images of models for display on its website and magazine and holds registered copyrights for these images. However, the Plaintiff found that a large number of the images later appeared on the adult websites of its competitors.

CCBill LLC, the Defendant, and its affiliated companies, provides web hosting and online credit card payment services for such adult websites. For example, if a user wants to log-on to a particular adult website, he would need to provide his credit card number to the Defendant. Only after the Defendant contacts the credit card company on behalf of the website operator and a fee is paid will the Defendant connect the user to the gateway of the adult website.

The Defendant was found providing this service to many of the websites which posted copyrighted images. Therefore, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant and other infringing website owners ( collectively " Defendants " ) for contributory copyright infringement.

During the proceedings, the Defendant successfully argued that it only provided hyperlinks towards the infringing adult websites and, according to the Safe Harbor Principle under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), it was not liable for infringement as proper notice was not provided.


In China, a principle similar to the Safe Harbor Principle (the "Chinese Safe Harbor Principle") is established by Article 23(4) of the Regulations on the Protection of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of China (The “PRC Regulations”). Under this principle, an ISP is immune from liability if the ISP removes the links to the infringing work, performance, and audio or video products upon receiving notice from the right owner. Article 14(5) of the PRC Regulations requires the notice issued by the copyright owner to include the following information:

1) the right owner's name, contact information, and physical address;
2) the description and network address of the infringing work, performance and audio or video products that are required to be removed; and
3) the preliminary evidential materials that prove the alleged infringement.

The PRC National Copyright Administration (the "NCA") provides on its official website a standard format of the Notification for Requesting Removal or Disconnection of Internet Links which Containing Infringing Contents. This form requires information from the copyright owner such as the name, domain name and IP address of the infringing website.

Accordingly, it is clear that Chinese laws and regulations have also set forth a reasonably complete provision regarding the formality requirements of a notice by the owner. If a copyright owner fails to provide a notice that satisfies all the requirements, such notice will be regarded as ineffective. The ISP may refuse to remove or disconnect the links to the infringing content on the grounds that the information provided by the notice is incomplete.

The purpose of the Safe Harbor Principle, which defines clearly the rights and obligations of copyright owners and ISPs, is to balance the interests of the said two parties. The key point is that the Chinese courts should consider carefully whether effective notification is given by the copyright owner to the ISP, and whether the ISP removes the hyperlinks to the infringing contents promptly once the notification requirements are satisfied.

click here for full article.

Clean Development Mechanism: Untapped Potential

Under the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), “developed country Parties should provide new and additional financial resources to support the transfer of technology and take all practical steps to promote, facilitate and finance the transfer of, or access to, environmentally sound technologies and know how to developing country Parties.” However, a UNFCCC report revealed that a large portion of developing nations do not take advantage of CDM projects to import technology.
 

As long as technology transfer from developed countries is a convenient low-cost means for China to reduce GHG emissions, why doesn't China have more CDM projects that involve technology transfer? [continue reading to see our analysis]
 

Wang Rui, Partner, International Trade

 

 Lack of Policy Incentives

Currently, the 《清洁发展机制项目运行管理办法》[Measures for Operation and Management of Clean Development Mechanism Projects] (the “CDM Project Measures”) are the only specific “CDM project” related legislation in China. The CDM Project Measures have set out related procedures and requirements but with respect to technology transfer, however, these Measures only specified a general principle that “CDM project activities should promote the transfer of environmentally sound technology to China.” Notably, these provisions did not impose any mandatory obligations or incentives to the foreign party and Chinese project owner to include technology transfer factors in proposed CDM projects.
 

Economic Barriers


Many Chinese enterprises are not interested in introducing technology transfer into CDM projects. For most Chinese enterprises, equipment and technology provided by foreign parties indicate longer cooperation terms and are associated with bigger risks. In addition, project owners normally will consider the payment of operation fees and maintenance fees once the clean technologies and equipment are put into use. If the technology transfer is free of charge but the operation and maintenance fees are expensive (the assumption of Chinese companies is that technical teams from western countries charge very high fees for remedial services), this may not be a good deal for the Chinese party. For Chinese companies, it is important to make sure that technology transfer does not impose large up-front costs.


Intellectual Property Concerns


Companies from developed countries are also concerned whether their intellectual property rights can be effectively protected should the technology transfer be implemented. As such, “some of the technologies imported under the CDM projects are second or third class in exporting countries. It is not possible [for Chinese enterprises] to touch the newest emission reduction technologies.”
 

Solutions


The UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol are subject to adjustments or even drastic change after 2012. Before the CDM system is rescinded in multinational negotiations on climate change, China should fully use these valuable opportunities to gain access to more advanced emissions reduction technologies from developed nations to achieve sustainable development through the following means.
 

(1) Legislation.
Amend the CDM Project Measures to mandate a certain degree of technology transfer involved in each of the CDM projects, unless the particular types are unsuitable for technology transfer. Technical standards and criteria should be set out to screen the out-dated technologies. More legislative efforts should also be made to promote the activities of technology transfer under the CDM projects, such as providing taxation incentives and favorable treatment to both Chinese and foreign participants.
 

(2) Provide incentives to the private sector both domestically and abroad.
From the standpoint of Chinese enterprises, the current mechanism for allocation of revenues from CERs under the CDM Project Measures can be adjusted by reducing the portion of the cake taken by the government. In addition, the Chinese government may require that, as a contractual condition, “the foreign companies executing CDM projects should be responsible for costs incurred until the anticipated improvement in emissions is achieved.” As such, the economic concern of Chinese enterprises may be largely eliminated.


In order to encourage more foreign companies to do technology transfer, in addition to the legislative efforts, the government may popularize a “bundled CDM project package”. In this way,“[a] consortium of advanced technology equipment manufacturers and the GHG emission reduction credits buyers may obtain the purchase order and GHG emission reduction credits respectively by providing advanced equipment and advanced technology transfer and carbon funds accordingly.” This is a new “kind of CDM cooperation mode with complementary advantages” - several examples in China proved its feasibility and popularity.
 

Intersect Between Intellectual Property Law And Competition Law

At first glance, the goals of intellectual property law and competition law might appear to conflict. IPR owners are granted statutory rights to control access and charge monopoly rents to others for use of their rights. IPR owners may also use terms of IPR licences to regulate downstream activities of their distributors, such as imposing exclusivity, territorial restraints and price restraints. Competition law, on the other hand, is directed at curtailing such market power which may prove harmful to economic welfare.

 However, IP laws and competition laws can also be seen as complementary rather than antagonistic. Both laws share the same fundamental goals of enhancing consumer welfare and promoting innovation. According to the United States (US) Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) :

 “…[competition] laws protect robust competition in the marketplace, while intellectual property laws protect the ability to earn a return on the investments necessary to innovate. Both spur competition among rivals to be the first to enter the marketplace with a desirable technology, product, or service.”

 While an IPR may confer a “legal monopoly” over a product, process or work, it does not necessarily confer an “economic monopoly”. Further, while an IP license may well confer restraints on licensees (such as territorial restraints) with respect to a specific product, process or work, there may be sufficient actual or potential close substitutes that constrain the exercise of market power by the IPR owner.

 Despite the view that the goals of IP and competition laws are complementary, difficult questions can arise when competition law is applied to specific activities involving IPRs.

 

A. China's AML:  Article 55

 The IPR provision in the AML is set out in Article 55:


“This law shall not apply to the conduct of operators to exercise their intellectual property rights in accordance with the laws and relevant administrative regulations on intellectual property rights; however, this law shall apply to the conduct of operators to eliminate or restrict market competition by abusing their intellectual property rights.”

 

 Article 55 exempts conduct which amounts to an exercise of IPRs so long as:  those IPRs are exercised in accordance with the provisions of laws and administrative regulations relating to IPRs; and the conduct does not amount to an abuse of IPRs by eliminating or restricting competition.

 The Article 55 approach is very similar to the approaches in Australia and Canada. In both these countries, there has been debate about when the IPR owner is only fairly exercising their inherent rights in the IPR or is trying to achieve something more which has an anti-competitive outcome. Experiences in both countries show that this dividing line can be difficult to draw.

 

* Angie Ng is a graduate in the Competition and Regulatory Group at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, Australia.

** Ding Liang is of counsel for King & Wood's International Trade Practice in Beijing.

*** Peter Waters is a partner in the Competition and Regulatory Group at Gilbert + Tobin in Sydney, Australia.

King & Wood established a strategic alliance with Gilbert + Tobin in November 2007.
 

B. IPRs and abuse of dominance

Article 55 also subjects the exercise of IPRs to the abuse of dominance conduct rule (Article 17 of the AML). This is similar to the approaches of the competition laws of the US, Singapore, EU and Australia.

The key phrase is “abusing… intellectual property rights”. However, this phrase has not been defined in the AML.

This phrase, is, however used in Article 40 of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Article 40(2) may shed some light in relation to the AML phrase “abuse of intellectual property rights”:
“…nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Members from specifying in their legislation licensing practices or conditions that may in particular cases constitute an abuse of intellectual property rights having an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market …a Member may [however] adopt, consistently with the other provisions of this Agreement, appropriate measures to prevent or control such practices, which may include for example exclusive grantback conditions, conditions preventing challenges to validity and coercive package licensing, in the light of the relevant laws and regulations of that Member.”

China acceded to the WTO in 2001 and as such has an obligation to comply with all WTO agreements including TRIPS. In paragraph 286 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China, some members of the Working Party expressed some concern as to the compatibility of China's rules on control of anti-competitive licensing practices or conditions with the corresponding obligations under Article 40 of TRIPS. Notably, the representative of China stated in response that China's legislation would comply with these obligations. The representative of China stated that these rules would apply across the board to all intellectual property rights. The Working Party on the Accession of China took note of this commitment. Hence, there is some suggestion that Article 55 of the AML may not stray too far from Article 40(2) of TRIPS.

On October 11, 2007, the European Communities raised the following question with China during a WTO Council for TRIPS meeting: “…[t]he EC welcomes the recently adopted Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law. This new legislation refers to the concept of ‘abuse of intellectual property rights’ in particular in Article 55. Can China clarify what this concept means in practice? Can China confirm that this concept does not go beyond what the TRIPS Agreement considers as abusive practices under Article 31(k) (compulsory licensing) and Article 40 (competition)?” This question may be indicative of concerns from other WTO members as to whether China will ignore Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement when defining the term “abuse of intellectual property rights”.

Dominant entities exercising IPRs may still have to be concerned about the following provisions: (a) the prohibition against refusal to deal (without justification) ; (b) the prohibition against exclusive dealing (without justification) ; (c) the prohibition against tying ; and (d) the prohibition against applying differential treatment to parties . In a typical IP licence, it is common to find tying and exclusive dealing provisions. It is also common for IPR owners to refuse to deal with certain entities for various reasons.

Given that no guidelines or regulations have been issued in relation to the AML, there is much uncertainty as to how the dominance provisions (or the rest of the other provisions) of the AML will operate.

In relation to Article 55, the following questions arise: Should dominant entities (exercising IPRs) be subject to the same competition scrutiny as dominant entities selling other goods or services? Or would Chinese competition regulators apply a different standard in relation to IP licences and assignments, in recognition of the fact that IP differs from all other forms of property? Does the Chinese government intend for there to be transitional provisions in relation to the AML? Will the AML apply to IP licences and assignments entered into after 1 August 2008 (the date in which the AML will come into effect) or will it apply retrospectively to IP licences and assignments entered into before 1 August 2008?

C. The Article 15 “improving technology, research and new products” exception

If entities are somehow not able to get their IP related agreements exempt from the AML pursuant to Article 55, then there is a possibility that these agreements may be exempt pursuant to Article 15. Specifically, Article 15 of the AML exempts certain categories of agreements from the “monopoly agreements” conduct rule (located in Article 13 and 14). However, it is important to note that Article 15 does not exempt an agreement from the abuse of dominant position conduct rule (located in Article 17).

The most relevant Article 15 exemption in relation to IP related agreements is the “improving technology, research and new products” exception located in Article 15(1). Specifically, Article 15(1) exempts agreements made “for the purpose of improving technology, researching and developing new products” from the monopoly agreements conduct rule.

The EU has a similar exemption in the form of a block exemption entitled “categories of research and development agreements”. However, in order for an agreement to fall under the EU block exemption, there are several conditions which need to be fulfilled, including the condition that, if the agreement only provides for joint research and development but excludes joint exploitation of the results, then each party conducting the research must be free to exploit the results and any necessary pre-existing know-how independently. In addition, agreements exempt under this block exemption are immune from competition law only for a limited period of time (usually 7 years) and the market share of the participant undertakings must not exceed a particular threshold (for non-competing undertakings, the threshold is 25%).

It is unclear whether the Article 15 exemption will apply in a similar way as the EU’s “categories of research and development agreements” block exemption.

There are still many grey areas to iron out in relation to Article 55 and Article 15 of the AML. Hopefully guidelines or regulations, which are able to shed light on some of the issues and questions above, will be issued before the AML comes into effect.

 

Wine Confusion: Trademark Dispute over Cabernet

On May 26, 2008, the China Trademark Review and Adjudication Board (“TRAB”) of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) made a decision in favor of Changyu Winery Group, upholding its exclusive use of the mark “cabernet” in Chinese 解百纳 as a registered trademark. The decision further found that Changyu established “解百纳”  as one of its trademarks through its use and did not consider “解百纳” the generic name for these cabernet grape varieties.  This means other wineries such as China Great Wall Winery, Dynasty Fine Wines Group Limited and Yantai Weilong Grape Wine Co. are prohibited from using the mark “解百纳", which may certainly cause damage to these wine makers in marketing their products.

This dispute mainly focuses on the following two issues:

1. Whether “解百纳” directly indicates the main raw materials and the characteristics of the products and accordingly should be considered a generic term for certain wine products;

2. Whether Changyu obtained the characters “解百纳” through its long term use.

 

Ting Xu, Associate, Trademark Department

 

1. According to the decision, “a generic term” that cannot be trademarked is defined as “a product name which is set out in the national standard and/or industry criteria, or accepted by common use”. The Examiner held that “解百纳” is not the name of a grape variety published in the national standard nor the generic term of a wine regulated by the applicable “wine” related industry criteria and standards. 

 

In addition, “解百纳” was not deemed as the generic term accepted in common use. As a generic term, it must explicitly refer to one product and reflect the essential differences between one product from another. However, “Cabernet” has been translated into “解百纳”, “本力本纳特卡贝奈特”. The Chinese wording “解百纳” does not establish a substantial and clear relationship with “Cabernet” as it would in English since there are other equally valid translations. Secondly, three grape varieties contain the word “Cabernet”, i.e. Cabernet Sauvignon; Cabernet Franc; Cabernet Gernischt which are translated as “赤霞珠”; “品丽珠” and “蛇龙珠” respectively leading one to conclude that the wording “Cabernet” is merely a prefix to the name of grape varieties. The above three grape varieties are not translated into “解百纳” and thus are not the common use terms.

 

2. As for the second issue, the TRAB held that “解百纳” originated from Changyu’s first use beginning in 1936.  “解百纳” was registered as a part of Changyu's trademark and was recognized as Changyu's trademark by wine magazines, the authorities, as well as the China national food industry association. Through its long term use, “解百纳” has become a trademark for Changyu's wine and identifies the origins of the wine products. Therefore “解百纳” has developed its distinctive use by Changyu's over its 70 year history.

 

However it is obvious that the 6-year dispute regarding the mark “解百纳” has not come to an end since as many as 12 competitors including China Great Wall Winery, Dynasty Fine Wines Group Limited and Yantai Weilong Grape Wine Co., have all claimed to have filed lawsuits against the TRAB with the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing. It remains to be seen to what extent the court's decision will influence the wine industry in China by this case as well as how the court will set an interesting precedent for judging what constitutes a “generic name”.

China Patent Holders Beware!

There are Risks in Participating in the Formation of Standards.

On July 8, 2008, when China's Supreme Court addressed the question raised by the Liao Ning High People's Court arising from a patent infringement dispute, it stated, “If a patentee participates in the formulation of the Standard or agrees to incorporate its patented technology into the National Standard, the Industrial Standard and/or the Local Standard, it shall be deemed as the patentee authorizing other parties to exploit the patent for the purpose of conforming to the standards. The exploitation by the said parties may not constitute patent infringement as specified under Article 11 of the Patent Law.” 
 

How can this impact your patent in China? 

 

Xu Jing, Partner at King & Wood's IP Litigation Practice

 

 

 

The Chinese Supreme Court further clarifies, under such circumstances, that the Patentee is allowed to demand exploitation fees from the users, however, such fees are to be much lower than the licensing fees which could be obtained through normal commercial dealings.

 

It is worth mentioning that neither a patent disclosure system nor a patent exploitation system exists in China during the process of standard formulation. China's Supreme Court, as the highest judicial authority having the authority to interpret laws and regulations in judicial practices, filled in rules where the law itself was silent. Though its opinion is made upon a specific case tried in Liaoning Court, this posturing will be a guide for inferior courts nation wide and will be binding on similar cases.

 

Patent holders in China would be wise to exercise caution when participating in the formulation of industry standards. Taking part in formulating standards could potentially result in the patentee forfeiting its chance to bring a claim for patent infringement and fees collected for exploitation will likely be significantly lower than those gained through market-based licensing agreements. Given the impact which this opinion could potentially have on protecting and profiting from one's patent rights, we suggest that patent holders weigh the benefits of participation in industry forums with the risks inherent in the process.
 

 

专利权人参与标准制订将面临风险

2008年7月8日,最高人民法院在答复辽宁省高级人民法院请示的案件时明确批示:“专利权人参与了标准的制定或者经其同意,将专利纳入国家、行业或者地方标准的,视为专利权人许可他人在实施标准的同时实施该专利。他人的有关实施行为不属于专利法第11条规定的侵犯专利权的行为。”最高人民法院还进一步明确,在这种情况下,专利权人可以要求支付技术使用费,但专利权人要求实施人支付的使用费数额应当明显低于正常的许可使用费。

在中国专利法尚未建立有关标准中专利信息的公开披露以及使用制度的情况下,最高人民法院作为中国的最高审判机关以及具有司法解释权的机关,对该问题的上述态度在一定程度上补足了立法空白。该批示尽管是对辽宁省高院作出的个案批复,但批复内容对于类似案件以及对于下级人民法院的审判工作均具有指导意义。

对于最高人民法院作出的上述批复,专利权人应当引起高度关注。对于是否参与标准制定以及是否将自己的专利纳入标准,专利权人应当持格外审慎的态度。专利权人的上述行为很有可能导致其丧失主张专利侵权的机会, 同时专利权人可以取得的使用费也会相应降低。
 

Viagra Judgment: Impact on future patent filings?

Written By Yang Hongjun, Partner

The recent decision by the Beijing Higher People's Court revoking the Patent Reexamination Board (PRB) invalidation Decision of Pfizer's Viagra Patent in China has put an indefinite end to a drawn out battle between domestic drug companies and Pfizer. This case, while not firmly establishing any foundation for patent examinations, has revealed many of the risks associated for all parties in proceeding into a legal dispute regarding patents in China.

At the heart of this dispute was the reexamination of Pfizer's patent for Viagra. The courts revoked the invalidation decision with respect to the Viagra Patent and as a result, the PRB was requested to render a new decision on the validity of Viagra patent. The judgment was final, but I believe that the grounds for the rulings are highly debatable.

The final ruling does not provide new reasoning for why the Viagra Patent application satisfies the requirements set forth in the Patent Law, it simply repeats the Intermediate Court's previous ruling and leaves me unconvinced. Although the Guidelines on Patent Examination ("Guidelines") provides no specific provisions regarding the necessity of identifying specific compounds used in the pharmacology tests in a patent application, a clear and complete description of an invention is the basic requirement for the patent specifications. At the very least, the specifications should be consistent and self-explanatory. In this case, the applicants only provided one pharmacology test result and failed to specify the specific compound used in performing the test. It is impossible for the technicians in the industry to identify the relevant compounds to be used. If tests cannot be reproduced, then there are serious issues with the patent.

It is reasonable to say that the specification of the subject patent application did not satisfy the requirements of "providing clear and complete description of invention features". The final judgment reflects more or less a compromise between the Chinese and the US governments. As China is not a country that follows precedent, this has no practical significance for future patent drafting and examinations. I recommend that patent applicants, especially foreign applicants, should not be influenced too much by this court decision. Instead, patent applicants shall always provide clear specifications regarding the compounds applied in the pharmacology test in their patent specifications, as there won't be political compromises between governments for every patent. The viagara decision should be considered a stand alone ruling.