QBPC 2017 June Membership Meeting Held in Beijing

Time: 2017-06-15 09:00:00 ~ 06-17 18:00:00
Contact Person:
JW Marriott Hotel Beijing Central No.18 Xuanwumenwai Street Xicheng District, Beijing
Meeting name Time Seat remaining Operation
QBPC June Membership Meeting 2017-06-15 09:00:00 ~ 06-17 18:00:00 300

News Release

· Patent and Innovation Committee Lunch Meeting
· Fight against IP Crime Supply to Choke the Roots of Counterfeits
· Intellectual Property Protection and Trade of China and the U.S. under Trump Administration —  Speech by Professor Rader at QBPC  Membership Meeting
· Shanghai People’s Procuratorate Won the Award of national PUBLIC Body Presented by GACG
· QBPC and Economic Crime Department of People's Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality Signed  Memorandum of Understanding
· The 2017 Symposium on Intellectual Property Protection of Foreign Invested Enterprises Held in  Beijing



Patent and Innovation Committee Lunch Meeting


On June 15, 2017, the Patent and Innovation Committee Lunch Meeting was held in Beijing. Liu Qinghui, the judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Beijing Higher People’s Court, was invited to explain basic content of the Guidelines for Patent Infringement (2017) issued by Beijing Higher People’s Court. Deng Jun, Vice Chairman of the Patent and Innovation Committee, hosted the meeting.

Judge Liu mainly introduced the background, basic framework, and key content about the revision of the guidelines.

The Supreme People’s Court issued the Interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues About Law Application for the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases (II) in 2016. Meanwhile, new situations and problems occurred in judicial practice. Therefore, the Guidelines for Patent Infringement (2013) need to be further improved. As a result, Beijing Higher People’s Court issued new guidelines.

Judge Liu combed the basic logical sequence for determining infringement of inventions and new patents, focused on explaining the determination of “equivalent infringement”, the defense type of patent infringement determination, and standard essential patent (SEP), and discussed specific issues and cases with members during the Q&A session.


Fight against IP Crime Supply to Choke

the Roots of Counterfeits


In the membership meeting held in June, Leon Lv, brand protection manager of Unilever and vice chairman of Best Practice and Enforcement Committee of Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC), gave a speech titled Fight against IP Crime Supply to Choke the Roots of Counterfeits. In his speech, Leon shared with the member companies the brand protection strategies implemented in China by Unilever and those by its headquarters on a global scale. Unilever has been upholding an active and open attitude, strive to protect its IP rights, pay attention to the health and safety of consumers and protect the legal rights and interests of consumers. Mr. Lv pointed out the negative effect on the global economy caused by counterfeits by citing the analysis reports of OECD and EUIPO. Unilever has been persistently paying due attention to suppress the production and sales of counterfeits by means of criminal punishment and making tremendous efforts to break down the IP crime supply chain to choke the roots of the counterfeits. He especially introduced a criminal case, whose investigation was led by Unilever in the meeting. This case is an extraordinarily serious criminal case committed by a criminal group who carried out the production and sales of counterfeit household chemical products. In this case, a total of 12 criminals have been prosecuted for criminal responsibility and the principal criminal was sentenced to 3 years and 2 months in prison. Due to the large number of criminals involved, the extremely severe penalties for such criminals and the huge impact on society, this case was selected as one of the Top 10 Criminal Protection Cases of QBPC in 2016-2017. 

Jack Chang, QBPC Chairman, presided over the meeting on June 16. Professor Randall Ray Rader firstly addressed the keynote speech. He talked about the IP and Trade under Trump Administration. Next Mr. John Anderson, the Chairman of Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group, presented the National Public Body Award to Shanghai People’s Procuratorate. Director Xiao Kai of Shanghai People’s Procuratorate received the award, and then gave the speech on the Challenges for the Current Criminal Judicial IP Protection. Ms. Jiang Shuzhen, Director of the Economic Crime Procuratorial Department Beijing People’s Procuratorate, as the following speaker, talked about How to Protect the Legitimate Rights of Right Owners in Criminal IP Cases. And Beijing People’s Procuratorate and QBPC the Economic Crime Department of Beijing People’s Procuratorate signed MOU in order to strengthen the cooperation on the protection of legitimate rights of the right holders. Lastly, Ms. Zhang Jialu, Deputy Chief Judge of of IP Tribunal of Shanghai Putuo District Court, gave a speech on trademark. Ms. Zhang introduced the L Brands case in  her speech. 


Intellectual Property Protection and Trade of China and the U.S. under Trump Administration 

— Speech by Professor Rader at QBPC Membership Meeting



Introduction: Professor Rader was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the United States Court of Federal Claims in 1988. In 1990, Rader was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In 2010, Rader became Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit. During the twenty-six years of term as justice, Rader participated in many of the drafting, legislating and amending of crucial acts. Over 100 of his case decisions have been assembled into judicial precedents, becoming important legal basis for the judicial practices of U.S. Patent Law. Due to his remarkable contributions to the U.S. judicial and global intellectual property protection, Rader has been enlisted on the Top 50 Figures in International Property Protection for three years consecutively. In 2011, he was selected into IPR’s Hall of Fame. During his serve as Chief Justice, Rader visited China with U.S. delegations for several times, and has greatly enhanced the communication between China and U.S. in IPR.


Under the invitation of QBPC, Professor Rader delivered a speech titled IP and Trade under the Trump Administration.

Professor Rader praised many of the achievements of China in IPR protection. Grown up alongside the reform and opening up of China, IPR protection of China has entered into a crucial stage. Outstanding progresses have been achieved: In terms of number, China is the country that files the most trademarks; China files more trademarks than the other four IP jurisdictions put together; and among all countries, businesspersons have the best chance as foreign litigants to win IP cases in China.

Professor Rader suggested that Jordan Case decided by the Supreme People’s Court in December 2016 is the most important case of China in IP in the last five years. It has brought great awareness among the society about the significance of the accuracy of trademarks, the importance of famous brands, and their contribution to the economy. That case is a testimony of the contribution of the QBPC group in the case. Rader mentioned that this is a great time to get together with QBPC, and to figure out how this record-breaking case can be used to even greater marks, and really make China the international leading intellectual property country. While emphasizing some of the goods, he also pointed out that there are still areas that China needs to improve, and that’s true everywhere in the world.

Rader introduced that as a matter of the general IP, abusive litigation has been much of the emphasis, particularly in the patent area. It needs some explanations due to the different judicial customs of China and the US. In China, we expect the same result whether we go to courts in Shanghai, Guangzhou or Beijing. However in the US, every court is different. They are different in terms of the speed of the case will be resolved, the ways it is dealt with, the success rate, as well as the individual peculiarities of each judge. Under the influences of these four elements, and with the usual high damages awarded, litigants favor courts in the eastern district of Texas. The US Supreme Court recently decided that the criterion now for which court litigants visit, is where they incorporate, where they reside. It is not just where the infringement happened anymore. After the first case, TC Heartland vs. Kraft Foods after the change, some changes were displayed in the places where most cases have been filed. Texas gets decreasing but still quite a few cases, but California now is getting more cases. In abusive litigations, where litigants tend to go to the most favorable court, this change will no doubt inflicts great impacts on IP cases.

The pharmaceutical industry is a heavily protective area of IPR. Some blame heavy patent protection for the high prices of medicine. Rader pointed out that of all the 315 essential drugs on the lists of the World Health Organization, only three percent are under patent protection at the moment. It is hard to blame patents for the high price of drugs when there are only three percent of them. From the other side of the story, almost all of the 315 drugs were once under patent protection. So IP is performing a great service for helping us to produce new drugs, instead of being the cause for drugs’ high prices. There are similarities between China and US in drug administration and the patent system. For instance: the U.S. Circular 55 was an effort to link the approval of drugs at the FDA to the patent system. The Chinese administration will not issue an approval to market a drug which is still covered by a patent. In China, the IPR of drugs under patent protection is still under consideration before the State Council. It is of great significance to China’s IPR, and Professor Rader regards it as an issue that the membership meeting can capitalize.

US president’s impact on IPR is seen from several aspects: the standpoints on many related issues during presidential campaign are domestic-oriented; the talks with leaders of other countries reveal the focal areas that they decide for further cooperation or negotiation; the initiatives bring up in negotiations in wider areas or on regional scale are important watch-points of US policy; the reshuffles of judicial and administrative organs related to IP judicial process and administration are also vital.  

During his campaign, Trump uttered a lot of statements, expressing his concerns of the infringement rate of China in IP. But his words have been criticized by many for the imbalance, and his real meaning has been doubted by the society of the US. Earlier this year, when President Xi met with President Trump in Mar-a-Lago, a constructive basis was set to discuss about international IP right. Both of them suggested that they are willing to adopt strong measures to protect IPR.

Rader suggested that the meeting between Xi and Trump has created better conditions for the cooperation of the two countries in IPR protection, and a basis for deeper collaboration in eliminating counterfeit goods and IP infringements. On the side of the US, the transpacific partnership (TPP), as an effort to bring together the entire trans-Pacific region, from which some principles and promises were formed, still has its impact. Their influence will be seen in later in the bilateral-negotiations between countries.

With the above mentioned uncertainties after Trump won the White House, many other issues are also with no answer at present. From the view of a senior U.S. justice, Rader gave his advice about the further progress of China’s IPR judicial protection. The IP Tribunals in Chengdu, Nanjing, Wuhan and Suzhou are under great challenges, and more resources are needed to help protect against IP abuses. He suggested that to change the IP tribunals administered by the supreme people’s court to IP courts acknowledged by the NPC, is to give them rights to issue principal damages, and take away the past profit of counterfeiting. And the courts can make it the job of attorneys to collect evidence of damages. In the future, more powerful weapons are needed in the IP judicial procedures, we need more than injunctions.


Shanghai People’s Procuratorate Won the Award of national PUBLIC Body Presented by GACG



John Anderson, Chairman of the Global Anti-Counterfeiting Group, attended the QBPC General Membership Meeting on the 16th. The GACG, headquartered in Paris, France, is an international organization specializing in intellectual property rights  protection and fight against counterfeiting. Chairman Anderson is an old friend of QBPC. He participated in the QBPC General Membership Meeting and granted the “2017 National Public Body Award for Global Anti-Counterfeiting International Public Institution” to Shanghai People’s Procuratorate to recognize its outstanding contribution to the establishment of IPR protection system with high standards and internationlization.

Shanghai People’s Procuratorate, nominated and recommended by QBPC, has been unanimously approved by all judges of the GACG to be awarded. It is the first time that GACG Group granted the award to the local judiciary.

Shanghai People’s Procuratorate has established a professional procuratorial department for finance and IPR, which is the first professional procuratorial department in provincial procuratorates that integrates the traditional investigation and supervision functions and public prosecution function. This important measure has greatly improved efficiency of fighting against IPR crime. Shanghai People’s Procuratorate has also enhanced the judicial transparency of the punishment of IPR crime and supported IPR holders to participate in the relevant criminal proceedings. It has strengthened the public awareness of respecting IPR through the issuance of white paper on IPR procuratorial work and typical cases. Shanghai People’s Procuratorate has also established a unified online platform for IPR protection to deepen cooperation with IPR holders with an open attitude. In view of the efforts and contributions of Shanghai People’s Procuratorate, it was honored with 2017 National Public Body Award by GACG .

The General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China was honored with 2011 National Public Body Award by GACG . Public Security Bureau of The Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China was honored with 2015 National Public Body Award by GACG in 2015. The Department of Law Enforcement and Supervision of the General Administration Quality Supervision Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China received 2016  National Public Body Award by GACG in 2016.

Xiao Kai, Director of the Financial Procutorial Department of Shanghai People’s Procuratorate, took the award from Chairman Anderson and made the keynote speech on Challenges of Criminal Judicial Protection in IPR. He introduced the situations, new characters and challenges that the Shanghai Procuratorate in combating IP crimes. He shared with the audience about the four major challenges in around evidence gathering, the cohesive mechanisms of criminal, civil and administrative trials, and the awarding of damages in IP cases. As the first provincial/ municipal Procuratorate in IP the Shanghai Procuratorate has established specified sections for financial and IP cases, and is the first Chinese Procuratorate that combines traditional function of investigation and supervision with public litigation. In recent years, the Shanghai procuratorial organs took IRP judicial protection as a crucial part in the service for Shanghai Science and Innovation Center. Their efforts have created a sound legal environment for the progress of enterprises in all ownership forms. To enhance communications and work together for IPR protection, they issue bilingual notices of rights and obligations to rights owners, hold panel discussions, meetings, seminars and lectures with IPR representatives, civil organizations and regulative organs.


QBPC and Economic Crime Department of People's Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality Signed Memorandum of Understanding



In order to promote the equal, comprehensive and legal protection of intellectual property, Economic Crime Department of People’s Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality and QBPC signed a MOU during QBPC membership meeting to further strengthen cooperation in IP protection by enhancing information communication and resource sharing, based on safeguarding the criminal litigation rights of right holders according to law.

The MOU firstly defines the liaison system. The Economic Crime Department determines someone to make contact with QBPC and the special liaison in relevant district procuratorates in due time. QBPC determines the director of the specialized committee as a member of the liaison team to contact the ECPD of People’s Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality and the group coordinators and relevant member representatives within QBPC as temporary liaisons. The liaison team holds an information briefing once a year.

The MOU emphasizes that a platform should be built to deepen cooperation. Both parties strengthened communication in the IP criminal protection and the improvement in right-protection awareness and ability of right enterprises. They also explored the opportunities for cooperation in informing rights, reporting the case and listening to the opinions.

One of the main contents of the MOU is to carry out the researches and strengthen the publicity by making special researches on the improvement of the criminal legal system, carrying out the special teaching in intellectual property laws, and actively publicizing the typical cases and experience and practices of procuratorial organs to fight crimes of infringing upon intellectual property rights.

Jiang Shuzhen, Director of the Economic Crime Department of People’s Procuratorate of Beijing Municipality, and Jack Chang, QBPC Chairman, as representatives from two parties signed the Memorandum of Understanding.


The 2017 Symposium on Intellectual Property Protection of Foreign Invested Enterprises Held in Beijing


The Symposium Intellectual Property Protection of Foreign Invested Enterprises was jointly held by National Leading Group on the Fight Against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting (hereinafter referred to as the “NLGO”) and Quality Brands Protection Committee of China Association of Enterprises with Foreign Investment (QBPC). It is a traditional scheme that has been running for years. This meeting aims to provide a communication platform where Chinese governments, IPR holders, and foreign-invested enterprises can discuss and exchange views on IPR protection issues of common concern.

On June 16, the Symposium on Intellectual Property Protection of Foreign Invested Enterprises was held in Beijing. A total of 200 people, including Chai Haitao, Deputy Director General of NLGO. Sun Yong, Leader of the Inspection Liaison Team of NLGO. Wang Fei, Deputy Director of the Intellectual Property Division, Economic Crime Investigation Department, MPS,Tan Jian, Director of the Intellectual Property Rights Service Center, China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT), Zhao Jie, Director of National Copyright Administration Of General Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television of the People’s Republic of China, Fu Zhu from the Supervision Division of the Trade Mark Office of The State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), Wang Liting from the Department of Policy and Legal Affairs, GACC, Liu Shengzhong from the Department of Market Supervision, State Post Bureau (SPB), representatives from U.S., Israeli, Polish, and British embassies in China, members from the Japan External Trade Organization, and members from Quality Brands Protection Committee (QBPC), attended the meeting. Haitao Chai, together with Jack Chang, Chair of the QBPC, hosted the meeting.

Representatives from the QBPC spoke first.

Colin Chen, Vice Chair of the QBPC and also Greater China and Asia-Pacific Director for the Global Security Department of Johnson & Johnson, delivered a speech themed on Suggestions on Right Owners’ Proactive Participation of Belt & Road Exchange and Cooperation on Intellectual Property. Colin elaborated on the role that foreign-invested enterprises play in communication and cooperation on intellectual property rights between the countries along the Belt and Road. He explained the proposal from the following four aspects:

1. Foreign-invested enterprises can proactively drive customs and other law enforcement agencies in countries and regions along the Belt and Road to carry out more communication, training, and discussion activities. This will help the customs and agencies improve their law enforcement capabilities.

2. Foreign-invested enterprises have been paying great attention to major infringing product and counterfeit markets in China, and undertaken a great endeavor to fight against infringement and counterfeiting. This will help Chinese governments and law enforcement agencies regulate and supervise major markets.

3. Strict quality monitoring that foreign-invested enterprises have implemented will help Chinese governments and enterprises strengthen the supervision on products to be exported to countries and regions along the Belt and Road.

4. Foreign-invested enterprises can play a principal role in the construction of intellectual property right systems in countries and regions along the Belt and Road, and spur bilateral or multilateral treaties on IPR protection.

Colin Chen stressed the commitment that representatives from the QBPC made on December 9, 2015 at the CAEFI council hosted by Deming Chen, President of the CAEFI. Colin Chen showed the QBPC’s determination to proactively participate in activities initiated by departments, such as the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), to drive intellectual property cooperation with countries and regions along the Belt and Road. When reporting to Mr. Chai and other NLGO members on January 18, 2016, Colin Chen, on behalf of the QBPC, expressed the willingness to obtain help and guidance from the NLGO as to how the QBPC, as a civil organization, can play a good role in international communication on intellectual property protection and cooperation with countries and regions along the Belt and Road.

Steven Wang, QBPC Vice Chair,  Senior IP Counsel of Royal Philips made speech themed on Issues and Solutions on Online IP Infringement.

Steven shared his observation about Alibaba’s change of attitude towards online IP infringement, and take it as an example to show the importance of the IP protection dialogue mechanisms. Steven raised four issues on online IP infringement and proposed the solutions on it accordingly: improvement of drafted E-commerce Law, protection of design patent, legal liabilities of e-commerce platforms, and criminal actions from online to offline leading to the whole supply chain of counterfeits. 

Yang Tao, Vice Chair of the Best Practice/Enforcement Committee (BPEC) and the intellectual property consultant of BRITA, gave a speech themed on Counterfeiting Problem in Courier and Logistic.

Thanks to the rapid development of E-commerce, the number of express parcels in 2016 reached 30 billion, with 70% of these parcels related to E-commerce. The express and logistics industries have become a crucial part of national economy. However, many express companies got caught up in fraud scandals due to two reasons, sending parcels from a different place other than the place of origin, and false express information and payment collection. Yang Tao made suggestions on building some mechanisms through which right holders and the express industry can better communicate and cooperate with each other. This way, counterfeiting in the express and logistics industries can be eradicated, and a win-win result can be achieved.

Conan Chen, Vice Chair of the BPEC and also the Brand Protection Director of L Brands, made a speech themed on The Fair Use of Trademark Problem.

The legitimate use of trademarks is a hot and difficult issue that QBPC members focus on. In the real business activities, trademarks are often used without the authorization of trademark owners. Trademark use issues can be mainly classified into three types: use of trademarks on authentic products, independent distributors’use of trademarks for promotion, and accessory dealers and maintenance service providers’ nominative use of trademarks. These are common issues that trademark owners often encounter in the field of commodity circulation which is also a knotty problem in judicial practice. Issues related to the circulation of authentic products involve the boundary between proper trademark use and infringement or unfair competition. If this issue can’t be solved effectively, trademark use in the circulation field will spin out of control. Consequently, trademark owners will lose their competitive advantages in the markets, and the rights of trademark owners and consumers will be infringed.

Felix Zhang, Vice Chairman of Best Practice/Enforcement Committee and Brand Protection Manager for Eaton Electrical APAC: Bad Faith Registration of the Similar Trademarks

The speech is composed of three parts: manifestations in practice, dangers of malicious registration as well as problems existed in malicious registration examination and suggestions. In the problems and suggestions, Felix Zhang pointed out that many factors urgently need to be solved, such as non-transparent examination standards for similar logos and trademarks, abuse of the trademark examination power, non-transparency of trademark examiners, arbitrary identification of generic names, lack of prevention mechanisms for the repeated registration and scope of agents / representatives / persons concerned.

Wang Minghong, trademark lawyer for Honeywell APAC:Issues related the Criminal IP Protection

Wang Minghong pointed out in the speech that such issues as the determination of counterfeit product values, probation, litigation status of right holders and transparency of criminal proceedings are the common issues in the criminal protection of intellectual property (IP). The right holders have taken great efforts and invested financial resources to investigate the behavior of the infringer and hence understand more facts, and more fully understand product prices. The right holders’ participation in the proceedings is also beneficial for the courts in fact finding and making of fair and just judgments.

Miller Wang, Brand Protection Manager for MCM APAC: The Counterfeiting Problems in WeChat

Miller Wang’s speech involves a new topic that the wechat individual trader sells counterfeit products. Taobao has actively taken measures to fight against and close the online shops selling counterfeit products. For MCM, Taobao closed more than 3,000 online stores in 2016. Many foreigners, especially those at headquarters,  misunderstand that Taobao is the largest platform to sell counterfeit products. But we found that WeChat has surpassed Taobao to some extent. It has become a real platform to sell counterfeit products on Moments among invited friends/visitors,which is different from Taobao store whose counterfeit products can be witnessed and accessed by everyone. Miller Wang stated whether WeChat’s Moments/Friends Circle (朋友圈) should be a territory out of rule of law and whether Tencent should control the Moments/Friends Circle through technical means in a proactive way and take active sanctions against the advertisements on counterfeit products.

Comments of Jack Chang, QBPC Chairman and Special Counsel to L Brands International, on E-Commerce Law (Draft) and Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Revised Draft)

Jack first focused on the E-Commerce Law (Draft) and he noted that an IP owner can currently complain to the operator of a third-party e-commerce platform if he/she finds that E-commerce retailers are selling goods which infringes his/her rights or using his/her copyrighted works without permission on the platform. Based on the preliminary evidences provided by the right owners and the E-commerce retailers and when deemed under strong suspicion of infringement, the platform operator may take necessary measures such as delete, block, break the link of or terminate relevant transactions and services of the E-commerce retailers. This practice currently has yielded certain positive results. However, the second paragraph of Article 54 of the E-Commerce Law (Draft) provides that if the retailer makes a unilateral declaration to the e-commerce platform claiming the inexistency of any infringement, the platform operator shall terminate all such relevant measures and the right holder may lodge an administrative complaint or file a lawsuit in this regard. Such a provision not only deprives the rights and obligations of the third-party e-commerce platform operator to govern its own platform, but also inevitably increases the burden of competent judicial and administrative authorities. Moreover, it is hard for even the third-party e-commerce platform operator to locate the actual position of retailers, not to mention right holders who need to identify competent administrative authority or court to safeguard their legal rights.

The Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Revised Draft) is another focus of Jack’s speech. He pointed that the Revised Draft, though shows certain progresses, such as Article 10.1.1 provides that employee or former employee of the right holder of business secrets conducting the acts under Article 9.1 of this Law shall be deemed as infringing upon the right to such business secrets, still leaves many loopholes (This paragraph of provision has been deleted in the Revised Version for Second Review issued by the NPC in 2017). Take the behavior patterns of unfair competition in article 6.1 for example. The Revised Draft only lists three characteristics of famous commodities, i.e. name, packaging and decoration, which is too narrow in scope. This provision is intended only for commodities, and not for the decoration design, layout and color, decoration and business equipment style of a commodity competitor’s business premise. Therefore, it is recommended to add “the overall appearance on decoration design, layout, color and decoration of the business premise, business equipment style, operating personnel’s clothing design and color, or the combination of the above elements” in article 6.1. The definition of commercial bribery is so ambiguous that it may involve certain lawful commercial acts. Moreover, the Revised Draft is at odds with the provisions of the E-Commerce Law (Draft) on unfair competition acts.

Jack shared with participants the news that Shanghai People’s Procuratorate and Beijing People’s Procuratorate will make efforts to promote the right holder to participate in criminal prosecution of IP crimes and judicial proceedings of criminal cases, pointing out that this progress will greatly enhance the transparency and effectiveness of criminal protection of IP. Jack hoped that the Office of the National Leading Group on the Fight against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting can promote the practices of Beijing and Shanghai to other key provinces and municipalities with the support of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and the Supreme People’s Court. This will be a milestone advancement in China’s criminal protection of IP.

Director Chai Haitao introduced the recent work developments and focuses of the National Campaign against IPR Infringements and Counterfeit Products to the representatives attending the exchange meeting. Director Chai clearly pointed out that China has been strengthening the work on the fight against IPR infringement and counterfeiting and the IP protection, rather than weakening in recent years. The number of fake and shoddy cases and the amounts of money involved in 2016 have been increased than that in 2015. At the same time, the number of judicial cases in China’s IP judicial protection has also been increasing greatly in the past three years. In the near future, the National Leading Group on the Fight against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting will carry out the work on the IP protection and the fight against counterfeiting in Internet, rural markets and import and export. The Leading Group is vigorously promoting cross-department, cross-regional, trans-provincial and cross-border cooperation in law enforcement and the participation and co-governance of all circles of the society. It aims to enhance citizens’ IP awareness through education, increase the disclosure and supervision on IP infringement cases through the news media, strengthen the industry’s self-discipline and norms through the development of industry associations and fulfill the obligations of IP protection by encouraging and clarifying the obligations and responsibilities of enterprises.

Next, Director Chai summarized the speeches of eight QBPC representatives as follows:

I. China put forward the Belt and Road Initiative and how does the IP protection go out with Chinese goods and investment?

II. How does the supervision on the e-commerce field and the sales of counterfeit products on WeChat platform be strengthened?

III. With the rapid development of e-commerce and cross-border e-commerce, how do the express industry and post industry, as transport channels, deal with new challenges?

IV. How do the copycat brand and bad faith trademark registration and improper use of the trademark be dealt with?

V. Enterprise representatives have given their views and suggestions from the legislation to trial of the case.

Foreign-funded enterprises play a role in awareness, skills and experience of enterprise intellectual property during the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, which is in accordance with the co-governance and participation of all circles of the society promoted by the Leading Group. The participation of right holders is placed great expectations. The Leading Group will carefully study how to support the Belt and Road Initiative to better play the role of enterprises including foreign-funded enterprises in the second stage of Qingfeng Action.

The NPC Financial and Economic Committee is developing the Electronic Commerce Law, which is a huge improvement, because there was no applicable laws to fight against infringement and counterfeiting in the e-commerce field, and only the Substantive Law could be applied in the past. The process of legislation is relatively long. China’s e-commerce has made rapid development. The practice of seeking for opinions from the public in two or three years is enough to explain that the legislative departments have paid attention to the e-commerce legislation. The current Electronic Commerce Law has added a lot of legal obligations and standards for the obligations of third-party platforms. It adds the legal obligations rather than voluntary obligations, including establishing an internal review system for e-commerce operators, making public the e-commerce platform trading rules, keeping the records of e-commerce transactions, and establishing the exit mechanism for enterprises to conduct the platform e-commerce.

For the fake imports of express industry and overseas online shopping, the main focus of supervision is changed from export commodities to both export and import commodities. At the same time, more attention is given to new issues occurring in cross-border e-commerce.

WeChat, the social software used by the microboss is only one link of the sales of counterfeit products. The actual deal, settlement, payment and logistics occur in the e-commerce link. So a situation that social software and e-commerce lie in different links is formed, adding a lot of challenges and difficulties in management. Tencent should be taken into consideration. This is a new issue which is also realized by China’s internet enterprises.

The copycat brand and bad faith registration have been one of priorities for the annual work of the Leading Group in the past two years. The issue of improper use is put forward as a new one and will be considered in the future. The blacklist system for malicious registration has begun to implement.

Currently China is conducting active explorations to solve the problems encountered in criminal protection