By Susan Ning, Ding Liang and Shan Lining, King & Wood’s Competition Group
At the end of last month, it was reported in the press (for example see an article dated 29 August published in the Legal Daily, that since the enactment of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008, at least ten antitrust private actions have been heard in the courts. Continue Reading Two Years On, Ten Antitrust Private Actions
By Susan Ning, Jiang Liyong and Angie Ng, King & Wood’s Competition Practice
On 5 July 2010, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) enacted regulations which set out the rules and procedures to do with divesting assets. These regulations are entitled “Interim Regulations on Implementing the Divestiture of Assets or Businesses in Concentration of Business Operators” (divestiture regulations). A copy of the divestiture regulations are located here.
Continue Reading Regulations on Divesting Assets – Enacted
By Susan Ning, Ding Liang and Jiang Liyong, King & Wood’s Competition Practice
In mid-August, it was reported in the press(1) that the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) had received complaints that the commercial banks in China have engaged in price-fixing conduct. Pursuant to the Anti-Monopoly Law, conduct amounting to price-fixing is prohibited. Continue Reading Collusive Behaviour Amongst Banks?
By Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Liu Jia, King & Wood’s Competition Practice
On 13 August 2010, the proposed acquisition of Alcon, Inc (Alcon) by Novartis AG (Novartis) was approved by the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), with conditions. MOFCOM’s public announcement in relation to this acquisition is located here. This is the 6th merger that has been approved with conditions, since the enactment of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) in 2008.(1)Continue Reading Novartis’ Acquisition of Alcon – Cleared with Conditions
By Susan Ning, Shan Lining and Angie Ng, King & Wood’s Competition Practice
On 12 August 2010, the PRC Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) hosted a “stocktake” briefing to mark the second anniversary of the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).(1) Director-General of the Anti-Monopoly Bureau Shang Ming chaired the briefing. MOFCOM’s transcript of this briefing is located here. The following were the salient points raised during the briefing.
Continue Reading Second Anniversary of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law – MOFCOM’s Stocktake
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.
Continue Reading Just Do It!? Protecting Advertising Slogans in China Part II
The Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) made the decision to prohibit the proposed acquisition of China Huiyuan Juice Group Limited by the Coca-Cola Company (the “Transaction”) under Article 28 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of People’s Republic of China (the “AML’). We believe the following three negative influences on competition were the primary considerations taken into account by MOFCOM:
Susan Ning, Partner, International Trade
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.
Continue Reading Intersect Between Intellectual Property Law And Competition Law