United States v. China – Measures Affecting the Regulation and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
Complaint
On 10 April 2007 the United States formally requested that consultations be held with the People’s Republic of China regarding China’s alleged failure to carry out its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. This agreement, known more commonly as the
TRIPS Agreement, defines the framework for relations between World Trade Organization (WTO) Member nations regarding the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Procedure
Article 64 of the
WTO TRIPS Agreement instructs that Articles
XXII and XXIII of GATT 1994, as elaborated on and interpreted by the
Dispute Settlement Understanding, guide the resolution of disputes between Members over issues concerning intellectual property matters. These provisions instruct that a complaining Member first request that consultations be held with the respondent Member before progressing to additional dispute resolution measures.
During the consultation period, the Dispute Settlement Understanding allows Members other than the complaining and responding Members, who feel that they have a substantial interest in the issue, to request join in the consultation process. So far Japan, the European Communities, Canada, and Mexico have requested to join in the US' case against China (known as "Dispute DS362").
Under the rules, if within 60 days of the receipt of the request for consultations, the dispute has not yet been settled between the parties, the complaining party may request the establishment of a panel which will be tasked with conducting the fact-finding necessary to present a report about the dispute to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Members unsatisfied with the panel’s conclusion have the opportunity to appeal the decision to a standing Appellate Body. So far, the US request for consultations is the only step in the dispute resolution process that has occurred.
Claims
The US complaint is based on four claims concerning Chinese law as it pertains to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China:
I. Thresholds for criminal procedures and penalties
Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to establish enforcement procedures that will “permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights” and which “constitute a deterrent to further infringements”. Additionally, when infringements consist of "trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale", Article 61 requires Members to provide criminal procedures and penalties in their domestic laws.
The US claims that China’s current criminal procedures and penalties fail to satisfy these obligations. US interpretation of Chinese law finds that these criminal procedures and penalties are only available when the circumstances are “serious” or “especially serious,” or when the amount of illegal gains is “relatively large” or “huge.” The meaning of these terms is ambiguous as the Chinese criminal law does not define them, though they have been interpreted as referencing the size of the infringing activity, in terms of value, profit, or number of copies. However, this measure is made in regards to the prices at which the infringing goods are sold, not the prices of the corresponding authorized goods, for determining the magnitude of the infringing activity. The US claims that these thresholds, and the requirement that they be met or surpassed before criminal procedures and penalties become available, violate China’s international obligations under Articles 41.1 and 61 of TRIPS.
II. Disposal of confiscated infringing goods
Articles 46 and 59 obligate Members to provide foreign intellectual property holders with access to local civil judicial authorities that, upon a finding that goods are infringing, have the authority to dispose of these goods “outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder”. In interpreting Chinese customs regulations however, the US contends that Chinese customs authorities give priority to disposal options in which the confiscated goods are re-introduced into channels of commerce, with destruction of the goods occurring only if the infringing features cannot be removed. The US contends that China's prioritization of disposal through entry into the channels of commerce violates China’s obligations under Articles 46 and 59 of TRIPS. The US argues that Chinese judges and customs officials should instead destroy the unauthorized books, medicines, music, movies, and other IPR goods.
III. Denial of copyright and related rights protection and enforcement to unauthorized works
Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that all WTO members comply with certain provisions of the
Berne Copyright Convention, an earlier treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Amongst these provisions, and a core concept of Berne, is the idea of “national treatment,” which obligates signatories to extend to foreign authors of copyrighted works the same rights extended to domestic authors, and that these rights will not be subjected to formalities such as registration.
Under current Chinese copyright law, "protection" is only offered to those works that have been authorized for publication or distribution within the country. The US argues that the requirement of authorization constitutes a formality and that the disparite treatment between domestic and foreign authors who have yet to satisfy this formality violates the requirement of national treatment imposed by Article 9.1 of TRIPS. In addition, the US claims that China’s requirement that works first be authorized before a rights holder may enforce copyright violates China’s obligation of providing enforcement measures in Article 41.1 of TRIPS.
IV. Unavailability of criminal procedures and penalties against individuals engaged solely in unauthorized reproduction or unauthorized distribution
The final claim presented by the US concerns the interpretation of Chinese criminal law regarding unauthorized reproduction or distribution. According to the US, it appears that criminal procedures and penalties for copyright infringement are available only for acts of reproduction and distribution, but that acts of reproduction or distribution alone are not subject to criminal procedures and penalties. If this interpretation is correct, the US argues that China is violating its international obligations under Articles 41.1 and 61 of TRIPS.
Possible Results
The most efficient resolution to the dispute will occur if the US' claims are settled in the consultation process. Should this fail, the case will be sent further along the dispute settlement process. If the WTO panel or Appellate Body decides that China’s laws are inconsistent with its TRIPS obligations, China will be required to change its domestic laws and implement the Dispute Settlement Body’s recommendations to conform to these obligations. Failure to change Chinese law in accordance with the "recommendations" within a reasonable period of time grants the US the opportunity to request that China enter into negotiations to determine a mutually acceptable compensation, or payment to the US. If satisfactory compensation cannot be agreed upon, the US may request authorization from the Dispute Settlement Body to suspend its own TRIPS obligations with respect to China.
16 Feb, 2009: Buy Valtrex Without Prescription
"The World Trade Organization on 26 January issued a panel report in a case brought by the US challenging China's enforcement of intellectual property rights. While the case has been commonly reported as a victory for the US, careful and detailed analysis of the panel ruling indicates that China's intellectual property laws have been
vindicated in the most important areas that ...
27 Jan, 2009: Buy Effexor Without Prescription
China has been found in violation of two of its responsibilities under international rules on trade and intellectual property, and in partial violation of one more, said a World Trade Organization panel report on the US-China dispute over copyright and customs matters released Monday. But the panel did not make a decision on some of the US claims. The ...
27 Jan, 2009: Buy Diflucan Without Prescription
The World Trade Organization yesterday released its much-anticipated decision involving a U.S. complaint against China over its protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The U.S. quickly proclaimed victory, with newspaper headlines trumpeting the WTO panel's requirement that China reform elements of its intellectual property laws. For its part, China was conciliatory and offered to work with the ...
26 Jan, 2009: Buy Potassium Citrate Without Prescription
Read the WTO Decision Here. The WTO, on 26 January 2009, issued the report of a panel that had examined United States’ complaint against “China — Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights” (DS362).
17 Sep, 2008: Buy Lamisil Cream Without Prescription
High-level officials from China and the United States on Tuesday reiterated their joint commitment to “strategic cooperation” on copyright and trademark protection and enforcement, and agreed to hold further meetings of a joint intellectual property working group in the near future. The 19th United States - China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) met on 16 September in ...
28 Nov, 2007: Buy Glucotrol Xl Without Prescription
The World Trade Organization has launched an investigation into allegations that China is unfairly limiting the flow of copyrighted material from the United States into the country. Meanwhile, the WTO issued the periodic review of Thailand’s policies including a discussion of intellectual property rights. US concerns in the new dispute are that China provides “less favourable distribution opportunities for ...
24 Nov, 2007: Buy Himcolin Without Prescription
"The formation of a World Trade Organization panel requested by the United States on China’s distribution of American copyrighted material was delayed this week after a procedural move on an unrelated matter. The US panel request was to be considered by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on 19 November, but the agenda for the meeting was blocked by Taiwan ...
8 Nov, 2007: Buy Kapikachhu Without Prescription
Lawmakers in the United States concerned that global counterfeiting and piracy are hurting American business on Wednesday introduced two bills aimed at curbing the practices, and said they want more international cooperation to do so. Senators Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, and George Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio, introduced the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act, which would establish an ...
19 Oct, 2007: Buy Mirapex Without Prescription
"China's battle against intellectual-property rights piracy will take "generations," a senior official said Thursday, adding that the main victims are Chinese and that other countries should stop politicizing the issue....It was only in 2000 that the Chinese expression for IPR protection started appearing in dictionaries, Tian said...."
18 Oct, 2007: Buy Maxaman Without Prescription
"Speaking to reporters, Tian said that China's IPR legal system will take some time to evolve, noting that Western IPR concepts took some time to mature. 'China's IPR legal system has only existed for 20 years,' he said. 'Britain took 300 years and America 200 years. We need at least another generation.'
- View all entries under US v. China 2007