‘Crayon Shin-chan’ is a cartoon character in a series created by a Japanese cartoonist, the late Yoshito Usui. With copyright solely authorised by Yoshito Usui in 1992, Futabasha Co Ltd of Japan, believed that three Chinese companies, including Shanghai Enjia, used images of Crayon Shin-chan in many goods, promotional activities and trademarks without authorisation, and conducted franchising activities in the market in respect of Crayon Shin-chan products via various media so that these companies had infringed its copyright and seriously affected its authorised business and commercial promotion of cartoon images of Crayon Shin-chan. Therefore, Futabasha brought a lawsuit against the three Chinese companies to the court and asked for RMB 1.06 million ($167,615) in compensation for its loss.

 At the hearing, Shanghai Enjia argued that it legally used the trademarks that had been approved for registration, and so it had properly exercised its trademark right. The other two defendants, Guangzhou Chengyi Optical Co Ltd and Jiangsu Xiangshui Shifu Economic Development Co Ltd, argued that they had legally obtained the trademark registrations of the word and the design concerning Crayon Shin-chan, so their use didn’t constitute an infringement of the copyright.

 The Shanghai Municipal No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court held that the images and calligraphic works of Crayon Shin-chan have originality and belong to works of fine arts under the Copyright Law of China. The facts that the defendant, Shanghai Enjia, used and reproduced the images and characters of Crayon Shin-chan on its products and sold the products and also promoted them for sale via the Internet constituted the acts of reproducing, distributing, and communicating through an information network under the Copyright Law of China. The defendant, Shanghai Enjia, implemented the exclusive right of the prior copyright owner without authorisation in the process of exercising the right of licensed trademarks, so it did constitute an infringement of the copyright and the company should bear relative liability for the infringement.

 The other two defendants’ activities—registering and holding the trademarks—are not exclusive rights the copyright owner should enjoy, so they did not constitute copyright infringement under the law. Therefore, the court ordered Shanghai Enjia to stop infringement and pay compensation to Futabasha.

 Trade secrets can apply for a closed hearing

 The National People’s Congress passed the Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic ofChinaon March 14, 2012. The new law will come into force on January 1, 2013.

 The present Criminal Procedure Law of China was enacted in 1979 and first amended in 1996; this is the second important amendment. The number of articles in the amended Criminal Procedure Law increases from 225 to 290 and the contents relating to the amendment involve evidence systems, compulsory measures, defence systems, investigative measures, trial procedures, enforcement procedures, etc, and a special procedure is added.

 According to Article 152 of the present law, cases of first instance in a people’s court shall be heard in public, but cases involving state secrets or personal privacy shall not be heard in public. The amended law changes Article 152 to a new Article 183 and adds a provision that where the party applies for a closed hearing in a case involving trade secrets, a closed hearing may be conducted.

 This amendment further enhances the feasibility of criminal law protection and strengthens the IP rights-related criminal trial’s functions of punishing and deterring criminals.

Author: Xiang Gao

Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd

Xiang Gao is a partner at Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd and head of Peksung’s trademarks department.

 The cause of this dispute can be traced back 11 years. ProviewTaipei, like Proview Shenzhen a subsidiary of Proview International, registered the iPad trademark in a number of countries and regions as early as 2000. Proview Shenzhen registered the trademark in two classes in mainlandChinain 2001. At that time Apple had not yet launched its tablet PC product iPad.

 In 2009, Apple founded IP Application Development Limited (IPADL), a company registered in theUKseemingly for the sole purpose of buying the iPad trademark on a global scale. Because this company’s name has the same abbreviation as iPad, as alleged by IPADL, IPADL contacted Proview and asked to buy the trademark. In 2009, Proview Taipei sold the global trademark right of iPad to IPADL and then Apple bought the rights to use the trademark from IPADL. However, Proview said that the iPad trademark right inChinawas not included in the transfer. Proview Shenzhen claims it still owns the iPad trademark right inChinaand Proview Taipei has no right to sell it.

 Apple and IPADL brought a lawsuit against Proview Shenzhen to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, claiming the iPad trademark and RMB4 million ($630,000) compensation. The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court accepted the case in April 2010. After three hearings were held, the court made the first instance ruling in December last year, rejecting the claim of Apple and IPADL. Proview Shenzhen won at the first instance.

 Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court held that if the plaintiff, Apple and IPADL, would like to obtain another’s trademark via business means, they should bear a higher duty of care and conclude a trademark assignment contract with the trademark holder as well as going through the necessary procedure of trademark assignment in accordance with Chinese laws. The court further held that in this case, the trademark assignment contract was signed between the plaintiff, IPADL and Proview Taipei, and that ‘apparent-agency’ was not established between IPADL and the defendant, Proview Shenzhen. Therefore, the court held that the plaintiff’s claims lack factual and legal basis and thus should be rejected.

 Apple appealed to the Guangdong High People’s Court in January 2012. The court held the second instance hearing of this trademark dispute on February 29, 2012. Apple and Proview Shenzhen provided new evidence and debated fiercely in the court. The chief judge summarised two key points in this case: first, whether trademark assignment can be established between Proview Shenzhen and IPADL; and second, whether Proview Shenzhen is bound by the trademark assignment contract between Proview Taipei and IPADL. After a five-hour hearing, the court was adjourned.

 The chief judge mediated between Apple and Proview Shenzhen at the end of the hearing. The two sides had only attorneys present in the court hearing, who said they would make final decisions after discussion with their clients. A final ruling by the high court is expected to take several weeks. Although the two sides debated fiercely in the court, it is believed that this case may still be concluded via mediation.

 Author:  Stephen Yang

Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd

 A utility model is a new technical solution relating to the shape, structure, or combination of the two, of a product, which is fit for practical use. In other words, utility model patents protect products, but not methods. A Chinese utility model is valid for 10 years from the filing date. There is no substantive examination for a utility model. Hence, a utility model patent is usually granted much quicker than an invention application. Under the current electronic examination system in SIPO, a utility model patent can be granted in as quickly as three months whereas an invention needs on average two and half years

The patent law and implementing regulations have new provisions which address the issue related to the situation where an applicant files a utility model application and an invention application for the same invention-creation on the same day. The utility model is usually granted first and when the invention application is ready to be allowed and the utility model is still valid at that time, the applicant may abandon the utility model and choose the invention patent. The utility model is then abandoned on the issue day of the invention patent.

In fact, these provisions are put in place as an exception to double patenting, as only one patent shall be granted for one invention-creation. These provisions clearly allow one utility model patent and one invention patent to be granted for the same invention-creation, as long as they are not in force at the same time. According to the Guidelines for Examination, double patenting means claims in two or more patents having the same scope of protection, in that they protect the same technical solution. In other words, if an applicant gets a utility model patent and an invention patent for the same product, but with different scope, it can keep both as they will not be considered double patenting, even if the scope of their claims overlap.

In reality, if an applicant files a utility model application and an invention application, it is more than likely that it will obtain claims in utility model patents and invention patents with differing scopes, even if both applications have exactly the same set of claims at the time of filing. Usually, the claims of the invention application have been amended, often narrowed, during prosecution when the claims are ready to be allowed. In contrast, utility model applications are often granted with the same claims as filed as no substantive examination is conducted, assuming the utility model application complies with relevant provisions, such as formality, and patentable subject matter. In this case, the applicants do not need to abandon the utility model and could keep both the utility model and the invention.

However, if the claims of the invention application have to be narrowed in substantive examination probably in light of prior art references cited by the examiner, then the granted claims of the utility model patent may not have novelty or inventiveness as they are the same as the invention application at filing. In many cases, this is true, especially if the claims of the invention application are found to have no novelty, which means one piece of prior art reference discloses all the technical features of the claims. However, if the claims of the invention application are narrowed due to alleged lack of inventiveness by the examiner, often using a combination of prior art references, then the claims of the utility model patent may still be valid, due to differing requirements of inventiveness for the invention and utility models.

A Chinese utility model has a lower requirement of inventiveness than that for an invention patent. The patent law prescribes that the inventiveness of invention means as compared with prior art, the invention has prominent substantive features and represents notable progress. The inventiveness of the utility model means as compared with prior art, the utility model has substantive features and represents progress. As can be seen, inventiveness of invention or utility model includes two aspects: (prominent) substantive features and (notable) progress. To determine (prominent) substantive features is to determine whether an invention or a utility model is obvious in light of prior art. Notable progress basically means advantageous technical effects achieved by the invention or utility model. Clearly, the requirements for utility models are lower in both aspects. The same method of assessing (prominent) substantive features, the so-called problem-solution approach, is used for both invention and utility model. Specifically, the following steps are followed: determining the closest prior art, identifying distinguishing features and the technical problem actually solved by the invention or utility model and then determining whether or not there exists a technical motivation in the prior art so that one skilled in the art would apply the distinguishing features to the closest prior art to solve the technical problem.

The difference between the requirements of inventiveness for invention and utility model is embodied mainly by whether the existence of technical motivation in the prior art can be determined. The Guidelines for Examination prescribe that determining the existence of technical motivation for invention and utility model differs in the following two aspects

1 Field of prior art references

For an invention, the examiner shall consider not only the technical field to which the invention belongs, but also the proximate or relevant technical fields, and those other technical fields that may give technical motivation. In contrast, for a utility model, the examiner usually focuses on the technical field to which the utility model belongs, unless there is a clear technical motivation in a proximate or relevant technical field, in which case such field may be considered.

2 Number of prior art references

For an invention application, no restriction is put on the number of prior art references that may be cited to assess its inventiveness. However, for a utility model, usually one or two prior art references may be cited to assess its inventiveness. Where a utility model is made by simply juxtaposing some prior art means, the examiner may cite more than two prior art references to assess its inventiveness, depending on the circumstances of the case.

A few examples are given here for better understanding of the inventiveness requirements of a utility model. In the invalidation decision (no WX11627) made by the Patent Re-examination Board (PRB) on May 19 2008, utility model patent no 200420028451.8 entitled Carpet for Martial Arts was declared valid. A third party tried to invalidate the utility model patent and provided three prior art references, US20030072911A1 which is directed to a residential carpet, Chinese utility model patent No 96229637.6 which is directed to a composite carpet and WO02094616A1 which is directed to sound absorptive protective mats used in automobiles. The PRB found none of them belonged to the same technical field of the utility model patent, as the required features of a carpet for martial arts are different from those of a carpet used in a residence or an automobile.

In a final ruling (no (2010)686) made by Beijing High Court on November 24 2010, the court overturned the decision of the first instance court, Beijing No1 Intermediate Court, which maintained the PRB’s decision (no WX13590). A utility model patent no 200420003299.8 entitled Electronic Audio Book was declared invalid by PRB in this decision made on June 23 2009, on the grounds that the claims lacked inventiveness in light of the combination of US2003/0016210A1 which is directed to 3D interactive books, Chinese invention patent application CN1202671A which is directed to a radio index device, and three features which are deemed as common knowledge in the art. The PRB also found that the utility model patent could be invalidated in light of the combination of Chinese utility model patent no 02273039.7 which is directed to an electronic audio book, Chinese invention patent application CN1202671A and common knowledge in the art. The Beijing High Court ruled that the use of the first two references and three pieces of common knowledge by PRB violated the principle in the Guidelines for Examination and was too strict, also in the use of the latter two references plus common knowledge in the same decision.

As can be seen from these cases, in practice it may not be easy to invalidate a utility model on the grounds of inventiveness, due to its lower requirements. According to statistics from SIPO, up until August 31 2008, approximately 25% of invention patents were declared completely invalid compared with 33.3% of utility models –a less than significant difference. In fact, many utility models filed by Chinese applicants are not drafted by sophisticated professionals and often leave little room for the patentee to make amendments during invalidation proceedings. The statistics for the utility model could have been even better otherwise.

It follows that owners of Chinese utility model patents may be in a strategically advantageous position as the utility model patent may withstand attack on validity, with a broader scope than any invention patent owned by the same owner for the same product, due to the different standards of inventiveness for utility model and invention patents.

It is suggested that applicants seriously consider Chinese utility models, whether or not they could take advantage of the new provisions mentioned above. If these provisions apply to them, they could effectively extend the period during which an enforceable patent right is available. As the cost of prosecuting and maintaining a utility model is far less than that for an invention, filing two applications will not significantly increase the cost to the applicant. For a foreign applicant, since the texts of the applications are the same, translation cost will be the same as filing only one application.

It is very important for an applicant to note that in these new provisions the phrase “same day” refers to the same filing date. These provisions apply when both applications are the first filings. These provisions also apply when both applications are filed in China on the same day and claim priority through Paris convention from same previous foreign applications. If they are not filed on the same day or have different priority dates, under the current Chinese patent law, the earlier one constitutes a conflicting application against the novelty of the latter.

It is to be noted that one cannot take advantage of these provisions when it files a PCT international application and a Chinese utility model application on the same day, even if both are filed with SIPO, since the type of application cannot be determined at the time of filling the PCT application and it is not certain the PCT application will enter Chinese national phase. These provisions do not apply when an applicant files a Chinese utility model application and enters national phase of a PCT application on the same day, as they have different filing dates, one being the international filing date and the other Chinese filing date. In the worse case scenario, the applicant may end up with no patent, as most likely, the utility model will be granted which bars the PCT national phase application from being granted on the ground of double patenting and the PCT publication will destroy the novelty of the utility model in potential invalidation proceedings.

Despite the above limitations, applicants may still want to file Chinese utility model applications and an invention application through the PCT route, due to the lower requirements on inventiveness for a utility model, and the definition of double patenting. As mentioned above, in reality it is possible for applicants to keep both an invention patent and a utility model patent, with the latter having broader claims which may well be valid. If applicants choose to do so, it is crucial to ensure that both applications have the same priority date. Otherwise, one will constitute a conflicting application for the other and destroy its novelty.

Applicants could file the PCT application and the Chinese utility model application with different sets of claims. Alternatively, they could be filed with same set of claims and as long as they end up with allowable claims having different scope, they both can be granted.

 Author Stephen Yang

Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd.

The Shanghai Pudong District People’s Court recently entered the first-instance judgment on trademark infringement lodged by Levi Strauss, ordering four defendants to cease infringement and indemnify 350,000 yuan in damages.

The plaintiff claimed that the double-arc design on their products is a registered trademark. However it discovered that a similar pattern was used on a jean brand named Jasonwood in June 2009. Finding many shops in Shanghai distributing such products, it sent a cease and desist letter and would procure no response. Then, it brought the case to the court and sought injunction, removal of ill impact and 1 million yuan in damages.

The court held that the radian of the double-arc and position on the pants are closely the same, so similarity is constituted. The pattern on the products of the defendants would cause public confusion, which lead to infringement of the Levi’s trademark. (Source: SIPO 2011-11-03)

Author and contributor:
ESSEN Patent & Trademark Office
Beijing | Shanghai | Suzhou | Taipei | Kaohsiung
Web: www.essenptl.com

China became the world’s sixth largest applicant for international trademark registration this year, up one place from 2010, said Wang Binying, deputy director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) at the 4th China Trademark Festival held in Chengdu, capital of southwest China’s Sichuan Province on September 6.

Wang said that the country is now among the world’s most active applicants in terms of the number of applications. Numbers show that the WIPO received a total of 39,687 applications worldwide in 2010. Among them, 1,928 came from China, up 42 percent year-on-year, the second fastest increase worldwide after the Republic of Korea. European Union countries ranked top with 22,403 applications in terms of numbers. (Source: SIPO 2011-09-23)

Author and contributor:
ESSEN Patent & Trademark Office
Beijing | Shanghai | Suzhou | Taipei | Kaohsiung
Web: www.essenptl.com

One of the most pirated brands in China now has more local protection after Apple was granted 40 design patents on Sept 9 by China’s Patent Office. The patents cover 37 of its products including the iPhone, iPad and MacBook Air, as well as the architecture of its three stores in Shanghai.

Most of Apple’s new China patents relate to its mobile phones, including various user interface elements and even the speaker, according to Patently Apple, a blog by the company on its latest intellectual property (IP) news.

Apple was also granted three design patents on its iAd mobile advertising network, nine for its iPod nano and four on the MacBook Air. Patent documents include actual photos, the designs in black and white, and graphics in a beige tone that match the color of the Asus Ultrabook, which is considered a copycat by Apple.

Experts surmise that extensive patent documentation on the MacBook Air might be the prelude to an IP infringement lawsuit against the Taiwan-based manufacturer of the upcoming Ultrabook. The Ultrabook was first presented at the Intel Developer Forum in June. At the fall session of the industry forum that began on Sept 13, a new wave of Ultrabook designs were displayed that look similar to the MacBook Air.

Apple also patented its overall store designs with views from the side and top, and one exclusively for its glass panels. After a blogger uploaded pictures of a fake Apple store in Kunming last summer, the story gained widespread coverage in the international media. Subsequent investigations by Chinese IP officials found 22 unauthorized Apple stores in Kunming, three in Chongqing and one in Xi’an.

Some Chinese experts said Apple’s mass patent registration is a response to rampant counterfeiting of its products – most commonly fake iPhones – and unauthorized stores.

More than 220 million copycat mobile phones were sold on the Chinese mainland in 2010, according to a report in the Chongqing Times, with the figure expected to reach 250 million by the end of this year. “It shows that Apple has started to strengthen its advantages and market competitiveness by using legal weapons in China since they may foresee the future of copycat designs,” said Wang Xiumo, director of the enterprise institute in Chongqing Academy of Social Sciences.

Li Guangdou, a Chinese analyst on brand competitiveness, said that with improvements in China’s IP protection system, other famous phone brands might also file massive numbers of patent applications, which will leave less room for the copycat culture to survive.

Instead of pirating designs, producers of fake phones “can cooperate with the brands by using their existing equipment and technologies as supporting manufacturers”, Wang said. (Source: TIPO 2011-09-27)

Author and contributor:
ESSEN Patent & Trademark Office
Beijing | Shanghai | Suzhou | Taipei | Kaohsiung
Web: www.essenptl.com

SIPO’s proposal on incorporating Chinese patent documentation in PCT minimum documentation was passed at the PCT Union of the 49th Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO held at Geneva, Switzerland on September 29. With this in effect, PCT member states are required to search Chinese patent documentation (invention) when performing examination for PCT applications. China becomes the first developing country having its patent documentation listed in PCT minimum documentation.

As of December 31, 2010, invention patent applications filed in China had reached 2.33 million. In 2010, nearly 75% of invention patent applications filed in China actually made their global debut. PCT applications with Chinese origin also ranked No.4 in the world.

The PCT minimum documentation refers to the must-search documentation when examiner of member states of PCT Union examining PCT application, which covers the latest and advanced technologies of the most innovative countries. At present, the minimum documentation includes the patent documentation provided by France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Switzerland, the Great Britain, the U.S., South Korea, European Patent Office and PCT organization. (Source: SIPO 2011-10-20)

Author and contributor:
ESSEN Patent & Trademark Office
Beijing | Shanghai | Suzhou | Taipei | Kaohsiung
Web: www.essenptl.com

China joined the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (the Agreement) on July 4, 1989. It entered into force in China on October 4, 1989.

China joined the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (the Protocol) on September 1, 1995. It entered into force in China on December 1, 1995.

An application for international registration designating China must be presented to the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) through the office of origin of the holder. Unless the China Trademark Office (CTMO) issues a refusal and notifies the IB within 12 months under the Madrid Agreement (or within 18 months under the Madrid Protocol) the protection of the mark in China is the same as if it had been registered by the CTMO. Therefore there is no difference in legal effectiveness.

The Madrid approach is cost-efficient, especially when a holder wishes to designate more member countries. However, some holders still prefer the national filing approach in China possibly because of the following reasons: The scope of specification of the holder’s basic registration or application is not broad enough; the international registration designating China might encounter refusal due to the problem of the specification; the holder prefers a national certificate of registration which is convenient for enforcement actions; the mark is a Chinese character mark, so it is more convenient to directly file such applications to the CTMO; and/or the holder is afraid of the risk of “central attack”.

How easy is it for foreign companies to register a trademark through national approach?

Generally speaking, it is easy for foreign companies to apply to register a trademark in China.

There are a few points to emphasise: A foreign applicant as a legal entity does not need to provide a copy of proof of its identity, such as a Certificate of Incorporation, but a foreign applicant as a natural person must provide a copy of their identity card or passport; home registration is not required, neither is the use of the trademark before filing.

However, multi-class application is NOT allowed in China, so one application means one mark in one class and applications for the registration of smell and sound trademarks are not acceptable yet. If the CTMO does not object to the application or its office actions (the first could be issued in approximately 4 to 6 months from the filing date) are overcome, the trademark will be published in the Trademark Gazette for 3 months. If no opposition is filed against the trademark during the publication period, or if the opposition fails, the CTMO publishes the registration in the Trademark Gazette and issues the registration certificate in about 2 months. Overall, it may take about 15 months from application to registration if there are no obstacles.

Are there any common mistakes clients can be aware of before they look to register trademarks in China?

1) Not to decide to file as early as possible

China is a first-to-file country, so whoever registers a trademark first will have exclusive rights to use it. Only registered trademarks are protected. Protection for well-known trademarks that are not yet registered in China can be an exception, but it is very hard to have an unregistered trademark recognized as well-known by Chinese administrative or judicial bodies. If a foreign company is thinking of doing business in China now or in the future it needs to register its trademark in China. If not, there is a risk that someone else will do it and the foreign company may have to face costly and timeconsuming processes such as opposition, review, cancellation, litigation, and/or negotiation.

2) Not to consider consistency of the applicant’s name and address

Supposing an applicant has previous trademark registrations or applications in China and its name and/or address has undergone a change but it did not apply to record such a change with the CTMO and if it, in the form of its new name and/or address, applies for registration of a new trademark which is identical or similar to the prior registered or pending trademarks in respect of identical or similar goods, the new application will likely be rejected by citing the old ones as obstacles because the owners in different names or addresses are not treated as the same one. Therefore, it is important to record a change in registrations or applications when the change occurs or at the time of filing the new application. Incidentally, the CTMO requires Chinese translation of a foreign applicant’s name, and it is advisable to adopt a consistent version of the translation.

3) Not to file properly and broadly in respect of specification in one class

The CTMO does not totally copy the International Classification of Goods and Services enacted by WIPO, but uses it as the basis to make its unique Book on Classification of Similar Goods and Services for the Chinese examiners’ reference. Chinese common goods and services which are not listed in the International Classification are also added and the unique subclasses within each of the 45 International Classes are further designed according to the similarity of the goods or services.

Therefore, it is likely that if an application is filed using the original specifications instructed, the CTMO may issue official notifications of amendment if it thinks some items are too vague. To avoid potential amendment, the applicant may consider choosing standard wordings before filing. To broaden the scope of protection on the other hand, it is useful to select one or a few representative items in subclasses other than those in which the original specifications fall.

4) Not to consider “defensive registrations” in other classes

The concept of defensive trademark registration does not exist in Chinese Trademark Law. Nevertheless, some companies register their marks not only in the classes of their actual goods or services, but also in classes of the goods or services that are dissimilar to theirs. This approach might lead to cancellation actions due to non-use for three consecutive years, but the cost of registering a mark is much less than for initiating other proceedings and this approach may also allow the companies to negotiate from an advantageous position.

5) Not to consider registering a proper Chinese trademark

Chinese marks may be of even greater importance to protecting a brand in China, thus it is recommended to register Chinese-language versions of foreign-language trademarks too. If not, there is a risk that someone else will. When developing a Chinese language trademark, an applicant has three options: Translation, transliteration, or a combination of both translation and transliteration. The ideal method is to make the translation/transliteration positive and attractive while maintaining a strong connection to the phonetic content of the original. When picking a Chinese character, it is important to avoid one which has a negative meaning or which has little resonance with Chinese consumers – whether it is conceptually negative in itself or it is an inseparable part of the whole Chinese mark which conveys a negative meaning.

How effective is the administrative raid procedure available to trademark owners in China?

The Administrations for Industry and Commerce (AICs) at different levels across China can, initiatively or at the request of the trademark owners, conduct administrative raids. It is very suitable for stopping an obvious infringing act or for instantly preventing an infringement from being rampant. However, there is no discovery procedure in China as there is in the US. An investigation to collect evidence of infringement is a prerequisite for the AIC administrative action initiated by a trademark owner’s complaint.

Border measures can also help to protect trademark owners. There are two types of border measures: Measure of Protection Upon Direct Application and Measure of Protection Upon IP Recordation and Customs Ex-officio Action. It is highly recommended to use the latter because recordal of registered trademarks before the General Administration of Customs of China (GACC) enables the officials of local port customs, on their own initiative, to take enforcement actions against suspect goods at the border.

Author:
Mr. Xiang Gao
Partner, Trademark Attorney
Peksung Intellectual Property Ltd.