作者：金杜律师事务所商标组
地理标志，是指标示某商品来源于某地区，该商品的特定质量、信誉或者其他特征，主要由该地区的自然因素或者人文因素所决定的标志。也就是说，地理标志代表了在某个特定区域或在某个特定区域内的地区的商品的原产地。而该商品的特定质量、信誉或其他特征在很大程度上与商品的原产地密切相关。即便是同种类的商品来自于不同的地区，由于自然因素或人文因素的不同导致商品的质量和信誉也不尽相同。
地理标志目前已经成为区分商品来源的最重要的标志之一。对于地理标志的保护不仅可以刺激某个特定地区或国家的经济发展，而且可以保护生产商和消费者的合法权益。因此，对于地理标志的保护是十分必要的。Continue Reading 外国地理标志如何在中国获得保护？
By Liu Cheng and Linda Davinson King & Wood’s Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Group
A significant recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit temporarily concludes the U.S.-China tire wars in the case of GPX International Tire Corporation and Hebei Starbright Tire Co., Ltd et al v. United States et al. The U.S. Federal Court held that existing U.S. countervailing duty law cannot be applied to non-market economy (NME) countries including China, affirming the U.S. International Trade Court’s decision but on different grounds.
Shortly thereafter, China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) highlighted the U.S. Federal Court’s decision by issuing a statement to the United States to not impose countervailing duties on Chinese imports because to do so would violate the rules of the World Trade Organization and prevailing U.S. law.Continue Reading US-China Trade War Continues: No Countervailing Duty to be Applied to Goods from China, a Non-Market Economy Country
长期以来，可变利益实体结构（即Variable Interest Entity，“VIE”结构）一直是外国投资者进入中国外商投资限制领域的常用模式。与此同时，VIE结构一直以来也是中国境内企业在境外资本市场实现上市的常用做法。
第一个通过VIE结构上市的著名案例便是新浪，其于2000在美国纳斯达克成功上市。实际上，VIE结构的另一种常用的说法就是“新浪模式”。新浪使用VIE结构成功绕开了中国电信增值产业对于外商投资的限制。从那以后，无论是外国投资者还是国内投资者在中国很多限制或禁止外商投资的领域开始复制使用VIE结构。
VIE结构实质上是指一种安排，根据该安排，在中国境内的一家全资或合资外商投资企业（“控股公司”）取得另一家实际运营公司（“运营公司”）的控制权，而该运营公司则持有必要的许可以在限制或禁止外商投资的领域内开展业务。由于这些产业被中国政府规定为限制或禁止外商投资的产业，所以外国投资无法直接向该运营公司进行投资。相应的，外国投资者会在控股公司和运营公司之间采取多种合同安排，以便使该控股公司获得对运营公司的运作和管理的实际控制权。该运营公司的利润也将流回控股公司，并其业绩将最终纳入控股公司。
Continue Reading 在中国通过VIE结构进行外商投资将遇到挑战
作为世界第二大经济体，中国逐步出现在世界经济舞台的中心，中国的经济和法制也不断发生变化。随着中国国家知识产权保护体系的不断完善，专利投入快速增长，越来越显示出中国创新政策的优势，专利申请也出现了自己的特色。中国公司也创造了大量专有的知识产权，并对外国公司和中国当地的竞争对手提起侵权诉讼。中国第三次专利法修正案[1] （“新专利法”）也在很多方面改变了中国专利实务和程序。
这些新变化对所有中国境内开展的公司将产生深远的影响，特别是发展很大程度上依赖知识产权的公司。应对这些重要变化的最好的方式是什么呢？中国境内公司在设计其中国专利战略时，至少要考虑到下述几点要素。Continue Reading 对中国境内公司专利战略实施的几点建议
By Guan Feng King & Wood’s Finance Group
Banks usually require a borrower to provide a mortgage on their property as security for the bank’s loan. However, under China’s laws, a mortgagee is not entitled to directly receive insurance benefits or indemnification relating to the mortgaged property. If the mortgagee cannot be directly indemnified when the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss, the mortgagee bears the risk of being under-secured on its loan since it does not have a priority right to the insurance proceeds. Although the mortgagee can seek indemnification from the borrower if the borrower has been reimbursed with insurance benefits, ideally the bank should directly receive indemnification for the loss in value of its security.
In practice, the lender bank usually requires the borrower to insure the mortgaged property and designate the bank as the "first beneficiary" in the property insurance contract. In this way, the bank can directly obtain indemnification if the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss due to insured incidents. However, under the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China ("Insurance Law"), the term "beneficiary" is only defined in life insurance rather than in property insurance. On September 23, 1992, the Department of Real Estate Credit of the Construction Bank of China promulgated the Interim Measures of Employees Mortgage, which defined the term of "first beneficiary". However, the Measures for the Administration of Individual Housing Loans promulgated by the People’s Bank of China on May 9, 1998 phased out the "first beneficiary" concept. Thus, since there is no definition for "beneficiary" in property insurance under China’s current laws, the question of whether such a "beneficiary" is entitled to any direct claim to indemnity remains a myth in the property insurance contract. In order to clarify this issue, the High Court of Shanghai, in its 2009 and 2010 White Paper on Trial Judgments in Financial Cases, instructed that a beneficiary can only be specified in a life insurance contract according to the relevant provisions of the Insurance Law and instructions of the Supreme Court of China.Continue Reading Insurance Benefits for Banks as Mortgagees (Part I of II)
作者 宁宣凤、吉凯伦、尹冉冉
2011年12月30日，商务部发布了《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》（“暂行办法”），将于2012年2月1日正式实施。该暂行办法就达到申报标准但未依法申报的经营者集中，规定了调查处理程序。
根据暂行办法，任何单位和个人均有权向商务部举报涉嫌应报未报的经营者集中，商务部也可能通过其他途径获得相关信息。如果有初步事实和证据表明存在未依法申报嫌疑，商务部就应当立案，并书面通知被调查的经营者。Continue Reading 商务部将加大未依法申报经营者集中查处力度
在抵押贷款中，银行为了担保债权利益的实现，通常会要求借款人提供抵押物担保，但是，如果抵押物因客观原因发生毁损、灭失，由于法律没有赋予抵押权人直接扣押抵押物的保险金、补偿金等赔偿金的权利，因此，抵押权人在取得抵押物的赔偿金之前，存在不能就抵押物的赔偿金优先受偿的风险。为此，银行作为抵押权人希望直接受领抵押物的赔偿金，以实现其债权利益。
实践中，银行通常会要求借款人对抵押物投保，并在保险单中指定银行为“第一受益人”，以使银行在保险事故发生后，能直接受领抵押物的保险赔偿金。但是，在我国的《保险法》上，只在人身保险中规定了受益人，在财产保险中未规定。中国建设银行房地产信贷部在1992年9月23日颁布的《职工住房抵押贷款暂行办法》中曾出现过“第一受益人”的概念，但是中国人民银行于1998年5月9日颁发的《个人住房贷款管理办法》中已没有“第一受益人”的概念。因此，在我国目前的法律规定中，暂且没有关于财产保险中受益人的规定。财产保险中的受益人享有的是什么性质的权利，是否因此而取得了保险金请求权，在法律没有明确规定的情况下，都不甚明确。为此，上海市高院在2009年度和2010年度的《金融审判白皮书》中，也明确：根据保险法和最高法院有关规定，受益人仅可在人身保险合同中设置。并且建议保险公司对已签订的合同进行清理、批改，以保障投保人的信赖利益。Continue Reading 抵押贷款项下银行获得贷款抵押物保险收益法律问题研究（1）
By Susan Ning, Ji Kailun and Hazel Yin
On 30 December 2011, the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") promulgated the Interim Measures on Investigation and Punishment of Failure to Duly Notify Concentrations of Undertakings (《未依法申报经营者集中调查处理暂行办法》, "Interim Measures"), effective from February 1, 2012.1 The Interim Measures set down the procedures for MOFCOM to investigate and penalize companies for failure to notify a notifiable transaction in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law ("AML").
According to the Interim Measures, MOFCOM shall initiate an investigation ("case acceptance") if there is prima facie evidence, either presented by any third party or it obtains through other channels, indicating that a company fails to notify a notifiable transaction.
Continue Reading MOFCOM Getting Tough on Failure to Notify a Concentration
作者：金杜律师事务所金融组
2011年12月7日，商务部、中国银行业监督管理委员会、中国保险监督管理委员会颁布了《对外承包工程项目投标（议标）管理办法》(简称“投标管理办法”)。投标管理办法对之前适用的相关规定做出了较大的改动，对企业的要求更加明确和具体，同时也扩大了银行开展相关业务时的要求。当前，中资工程项目承包类企业在海外的业务日益壮大和发展，而在这一过程中中资银行提供的支持是极其重要的一环。因此，在业务开展中，企业和银行需要注意新的投标管理办法中的相关要求。投标管理办法将自2012年1月15日起施行。
投标管理办法提出的具体要求和对之前的规定作出调整的领域主要包括：Continue Reading 对外承包工程项目投标（议标）管理办法发布
By Richard W. Wigley of King & Wood’s Dispute Resolution Group
Data privacy for internet users is a topic of concern the world over, with the P.R.C. being no exception. Internet information service providers (hereinafter also referred to as "IISPs"), such as commercial websites, regularly collect information from online visitors, sometimes with full knowledge of the visitors and sometimes unknown to the visitors. In addition, IISPs have been known to maliciously introduce software incompatible with the user’s existing software, install certain software such as "spyware" onto users’ computers/mobile devices and/or change users’ browser configurations without permission, and it goes without saying that "pop up ads" are an ongoing online annoyance. As online users in the P.R.C. look for protections from such unwanted invasions of their privacy and restrictions upon user control of their online experience, the recently released "Several Provisions on Regulating the Market Order for Internet Information Services" (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions") provides needed rules and regulations in this regard.[1] Continue Reading New M.I.I.T. Provisions Provide Additional Online User Control and Data Privacy Protections