

Currently released so far... 12900 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AE
ASEC
AS
AR
AMGT
AFIN
AORC
AU
AG
AF
APER
ABLD
ADCO
ABUD
AM
AID
AJ
AEMR
AMED
AL
ASUP
AN
AIT
ACOA
ANET
ASIG
AA
AGMT
AINF
AFFAIRS
ADANA
AY
AADP
ARF
ACS
AGR
AMCHAMS
AECL
AUC
APEC
APECO
AFGHANISTAN
ACAO
ASEAN
ADM
AGAO
AND
ADPM
ATRN
ALOW
AROC
APCS
AORG
AO
AODE
ACABQ
AX
AMEX
AZ
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
ASCH
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORL
BR
BO
BA
BM
BL
BH
BK
BEXP
BILAT
BTIO
BF
BU
BD
BY
BE
BG
BB
BBSR
BT
BRUSSELS
BP
BX
BC
BIDEN
BMGT
BWC
BN
BTIU
CA
CS
CO
CD
CR
CPAS
CDG
CI
CDC
CBW
CU
CVIS
CE
CONS
CH
CMGT
CASC
CY
CW
CG
CJAN
CIDA
CODEL
CWC
CIA
CBSA
CEUDA
CFED
CLINTON
CAC
CL
CACS
CIC
CHR
CAPC
CM
CT
CTR
COM
CROS
CN
COPUOS
CV
CF
CARSON
CONDOLEEZZA
CICTE
CYPRUS
COUNTER
COUNTRY
CBE
CKGR
CVR
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CLEARANCE
COE
CARICOM
CB
CSW
CITT
CACM
CDB
CJUS
CTM
CAN
CLMT
CBC
CNARC
CIS
EFIN
ECON
ETRD
EAID
EC
EU
EUN
EINV
EG
ETTC
EIND
ELAB
EAGR
ECIN
EINT
ENRG
EFIS
ELTN
EAIR
EPET
EZ
ET
ENERG
ECPS
EWWT
EI
ETRN
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ER
ES
EN
EMIN
ESENV
ENNP
ENGR
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENVI
ECINECONCS
ELN
EFTA
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EXTERNAL
ENIV
ESA
EPA
ETRO
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUR
ECUN
EXIM
EK
EUREM
ECONOMY
EUMEM
ERNG
EFINECONCS
EAIDS
ECA
ETRC
EINVEFIN
ETC
EAP
EINN
ECONOMIC
EXBS
ENGY
ECONOMICS
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
EFIM
EREL
EINVETC
ECONCS
ETRA
EAIG
EUC
ERD
IQ
IR
IS
IN
IA
IC
IZ
ICRC
ID
IDA
IT
IO
IAEA
ICJ
ICAO
IV
IBRD
IMF
IAHRC
IWC
ILO
ISLAMISTS
IGAD
ILC
ITU
ITF
INRA
INRO
ICTY
INRB
ITALY
IBET
IL
INTELSAT
ISRAELI
IMO
IDP
ICTR
ITRA
IRC
IRAQI
IEFIN
IPR
IIP
INMARSAT
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
INTERNAL
IRS
INTERPOL
IEA
INR
ISRAEL
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
IACI
INDO
KPAO
KMDR
KCOR
KNNP
KJUS
KCRM
KDEM
KVPR
KTFN
KPRP
KTIP
KSCA
KSUM
KTEX
KIDE
KIRF
KV
KTIA
KN
KG
KFRD
KWMN
KUNR
KISL
KU
KGHG
KPKO
KOMS
KPAL
KIPR
KMCA
KOMC
KRVC
KSEP
KAWC
KOLY
KWBG
KACT
KFLO
KHIV
KZ
KGIC
KBCT
KDRG
KBTR
KCFE
KE
KHLS
KMPI
KAWK
KPWR
KIRC
KRAD
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLU
KPLS
KRIM
KSTH
KDDG
KPRV
KICC
KS
KSAF
KBIO
KREC
KCGC
KCIP
KTDB
KWAC
KPAI
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFSC
KSTC
KMFO
KID
KNAR
KMIG
KVRP
KNEI
KGIT
KNSD
KHDP
KSAC
KWMM
KR
KCOM
KAID
KENV
KVIR
KHSA
KO
KCRS
KPOA
KTER
KFIN
KSPR
KTBT
KX
KCMR
KMOC
KCRCM
KBTS
KSEO
KOCI
KNUP
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KSCI
KTLA
KCSY
KTRD
KMRS
KNPP
KJUST
KRCM
KCFC
KCHG
KREL
KFTFN
KLIG
KDEMAF
KGCC
KICA
KHUM
KSEC
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KPIR
KWWMN
KOM
KWNM
KRFD
KRGY
KIFR
KWMNCS
KPAK
MARR
MOPS
MUCN
MCAP
MNUC
MEPP
MTCRE
MASS
MO
MIL
MX
MAS
MEDIA
MAR
MI
MQADHAFI
MPOS
MTCR
MK
MG
MA
MY
MU
ML
MPS
MW
MD
MARAD
MC
MR
MT
MTRE
MASC
MRCRE
MAPP
MZ
MP
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MEPN
MEPI
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MCC
MIK
MAPS
MV
MILITARY
MDC
MASSMNUC
NI
NZ
NL
NO
NPT
NATO
NS
NU
NP
NPA
NSFO
NDP
NT
NW
NASA
NSG
NE
NORAD
NAFTA
NG
NATIONAL
NSSP
NV
NSF
NK
NA
NEW
NPG
NR
NGO
NIPP
NZUS
NH
NC
NRR
NAR
NATOPREL
NSC
OIIP
OPRC
OTRA
OEXC
OREP
OSCE
OVIP
OPAD
OBSP
OECD
OFFICIALS
OAS
OPDC
ODIP
OPCW
OES
OFDP
OPIC
OCS
OIC
OHUM
OSCI
OVP
ODC
OIE
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OFDA
ON
OCII
PREL
PINR
PGOV
PARM
PE
PTER
PHUM
PO
PINS
PREF
PK
PM
POL
PBTS
PNAT
PHSA
PAS
PA
PL
PGIV
PHUMPREL
POGOV
PAK
PEL
PROP
PP
PINL
PBT
PTBS
PG
PINF
PRL
PALESTINIAN
PSEPC
POSTS
PAHO
PHUMPGOV
PGOC
PNR
PREFA
PMIL
POLITICS
POLICY
PROV
PBIO
PREO
PAO
PDOV
PGOF
POV
PCI
PRAM
PSI
POLITICAL
PAIGH
PJUS
PARMS
PROG
PTERE
PRGOV
PORG
PS
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PNG
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PY
PLN
PHUH
PF
PHUS
PU
PARTIES
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
RU
RS
REGION
REACTION
REPORT
RO
RW
RCMP
RSO
RP
RM
ROOD
RFE
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RF
RELATIONS
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
RUPREL
SENV
SY
SNAR
SCUL
SP
SF
SW
SOCI
SU
SMIG
SO
SA
SR
SZ
SI
SC
SEVN
SN
STEINBERG
SK
SH
SNARCS
SPCE
SARS
SNARN
SG
SL
SYRIA
SIPRS
SAARC
SNARIZ
SWE
SYR
SEN
SCRS
SAN
ST
SIPDIS
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SENVKGHG
SANC
SHI
SHUM
TU
TSPA
TBIO
TS
TRGY
TINT
TPHY
TN
TW
TH
TZ
TSPL
TP
TBID
TI
TF
TD
TT
TNGD
TL
TC
THPY
TIP
TX
TV
TK
TERRORISM
TO
TRSY
TURKEY
TFIN
TAGS
TR
UK
UNSC
UNGA
UNESCO
UNHRC
UP
UN
USTR
US
UNDC
UY
UNICEF
UNDP
UNMIK
UNAUS
UNCHC
UNCSD
USOAS
UNFCYP
UG
UNIDROIT
UNO
UV
UNHCR
UNEP
USEU
UZ
UNCND
USUN
UNCHR
USNC
USPS
USAID
UE
UNVIE
UAE
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNDESCO
UNC
UNPUOS
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05GENEVA2809, TRIPS COUNCIL, CHINA TRM, OCTOBER 25, 2005
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05GENEVA2809.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
05GENEVA2809 | 2005-11-17 04:07 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED | US Mission Geneva |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 GENEVA 002809
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY
STATE PASS USTR FOR ESPINEL, MCCOY, STRATFORD, WINTER,
WELLER
USDOC FOR DAS LEVINE, ITA/MAC/OCEA MCQUEEN/CELICO
USDOC FOR ISRAEL
PASS USPTO FOR DUDAS, BOLAND, BROWNING, WU, ANTHONY, NESS
PARIS ALSO PASS USOECD
STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPC, EAP/CM
USDOJ FOR RIEGEL, BRYANT
USDOJ FOR PARSKY, CHEMTOB, GAMMS, SHARRIN
USPTO: LASHLEY, SALMON
GENEVA PASS TO USTR
DHS FOR CBP/PIZZECK
STATE PASS FTC FOR BLUMENTHAL
E.O.12598: N/A
TAGS: KIPR ETRD KJUS PGOV CH JA SW CA WTRO EUN
SUBJECT: TRIPS COUNCIL, CHINA TRM, OCTOBER 25, 2005
1.(U) Summary. At the fourth annual Trade Review
Mechanism (TRM) on China?s intellectual property (IP)
regime at the WTO, the United States, Japan and the
European Union submitted, collectively, their most
extensive questions to the China. In addition, the United
States formally submitted its Article 63 request to China
for further detail on China?s IPR enforcement regime since
2001, with additional Article 63 requests also then
expected from Switzerland and Japan. Notwithstanding this
increased pressure, the Chinese delegation responded by
rejecting many of the TRM questions as unrelated to China?s
TRIPS obligations, avoiding various challenging questions
in their entirety, and initially rejecting the Article 63
request in a bilateral meeting as lacking specificity and
not within the purview of Article 63 itself. China instead
urged reliance on bilateral mechanisms rather than the WTO
process. The WTO Secretariat will draft a factual report
of China?s review to the General Council in accordance with
China?s TRM, containing WTO Members? interventions and
documentation. END SUMMARY
Background
¶2. (U) An interagency delegation led by Acting Assistant
U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property,
Investment and Services Victoria Espinel, and including
Assistant USTR General Counsel Stanford McCoy, USPTO Geneva
and Beijing based IPR Attaches, Jon Santamauro and Mark
Cohen, as well as USPTO Attorney Advisor Deborah Lashley
Johnson and USDOC?s Kristine Schlegelemilch attend the
fourth annual TRM of China at TRIPS Council. The USDEL
also met with the Chinese delegation on October 25, 2005.
The Chinese delegation was led by Shao Changfeng, Deputy
Director, Notification and Policy Review Division,
Department for WTO Affairs of MOFCOM. Rong Min, who works
in Law and Treaties under Li Ling of the Ministry of
Commerce led the legal discussions, as well as Ren Gang
from the SAIC, Xu Chao from the National Copyright
Administration, among others. Separate meetings were also
held with the delegation of Japan.
China Shows Less Willingness to Cooperate in a Multilateral
Environment
¶3. (U) At TRIPS Council, the Chinese head of delegation
demonstrated a markedly less interest in engaging on IPR
issues in comparison to past meetings. The delegation
argued at TRIPS Council and in the later bilateral meeting
that many of the issues being raised by the USDEL and
others were outside of the scope of TRIPS, could be better
handled in bilateral context, and that the scope of the
information requested was typically at a level beyond the
capability that even the inquiring countries could respond
to if they had been asked the same questions. The
potential precedential impact of the Chinese delegation?s
efforts to narrowed the scope of information that it would
provide in the TRM compared to prior years and its
ungenerous view of the scope of TRIPS were not positive, to
say the least. Among the inquiries China rejected were
that China: would not provide information on substantive
IPR provisions in its Free Trade Agreements; would not
provide information on limitations on scope of operations
of non-governmental organizations in China; would not
provide information on Internet copyright; would not
publish its administrative decisions, including
administrative enforcement decisions; and that China has no
plans to amend its criminal code to address alleged TRIPS-
inconsistencies. The Chinese delegation also asserted that
the relationship among market access, censorship and piracy
were not TRIPS-relevant issues.
¶4. (SBU) In addition to the above, in some instances,
China flatly misstated or confused relevant Chinese laws.
Thus, China equated the legal requirements in its Trademark
Law to protect geographical indications (GI?s), including
relevant implementing regulations, with a rule promulgated
by China?s Administration for Quality Supervision,
Inspection and Quarantine; a rule has much less legal
effect or significance than a law in China. China also
advised that there are no plans to revise any IPR laws,
when in fact a draft revision of the patent law has been
discussed, and a revision to the Trademark Law is also
expected to be revived for consideration by the National
Peoples Congress. Moreover, the Chinese delegate in the
discussion on implementing the Doha agreement regarding
access to medicines advised that China is drafting
implementing legislation for Doha, which could take the
form of a revised law.
¶5. (SBU) China also advised that only Beijing and
Shanghai have lists of foreign specially protected marks,
when data suggests that other localities have developed or
are contemplating such lists. China also suggested that
rights holders can apply to have their brands included on
these lists, when in fact the list in Beijing, at least, is
closed. In the criminal IPR area, China misstated that
arrest and investigation standards for IPR crimes can only
be adopted by the National People?s Congress, when in fact
such local standards have been known to exist for some time
and have been adopted in Shanghai and elsewhere.
Modest Improvements in China?s IPR Regime Revealed by China
¶6. (U) China did advise that there has been no change in
its policies towards licensing of investigative firms, that
information regarding the national IPR strategy is
available on a website, www.nipsocn, and that freight
forwarders may be held liable for exporting infringing
goods under appropriate circumstances. Chinese Customs is
drafting guidance with the Ministry of Public Security
(MPS) on procedures with Customs procedures in
international trade. Chinese delegates also said criminal
penalties may be available for service mark infringement,
and explained that the recent judicial interpretation on
criminal IPR enforcement does not address the relationship
between repeated administrative offenses and criminal
liability. Two websites provide details on local efforts
to improve trademark enforcement: www.baic.gov.cn and
www.sgs.gov.cn, for Beijing and Shanghai, respectively.
The compulsory license for textbooks applies to foreign and
domestic textbooks, although China had not yet received any
complaints about such efforts. No special protection is
afforded to well known marks under the criminal law,
although infringements of well known marks more easily
cross the thresholds of criminality.
U.S. Highlights Continuing Challenges, While EU and Japan
Express Dissatisfaction, Canada Expresses Weakly Worded
Concerns
¶7. (U) The U.S. delegation separately delivered five
additional questions to TRIPS Council for later response by
China, as well as a statement which highlighted areas in
which there had been improvements by China, as well as
outlining underlying concerns. The U.S. statement in
particular highlighted concerns about national treatment in
enforcement, continued problems in squatting, including
design squatting, the need for enhanced criminal
deterrence, a continuing problem with lack of transparency
in the Chinese system, and the importance of efficient
enforcement measures to small and medium enterprises who
are encountering infringement in China and who lack a
physical presence in China.. The United States also
expressed its concerns about low levels of enforcement
action taken on behalf of foreign rights holders, as well
as lack of transparency in the administrative system
generally. The United States also noted that it believed
that only a criminal justice system could adequately serve
the need for effective deterrence in accordance with
China?s own legal development and the TRIPS Article 61
obligation to have criminal procedures and penalties.
¶8. (SBU) The Japanese delegation, relying upon METI?s
?Field Survey for Infringement of Intellectual Property
Right in China? completed on June 23, 2005 (available at:
http://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/data/050 623ChinaIPR.ht
ml), advised TRIPS Council that ?there still exists
significant problem in IP protection and enforcement in
China.? In particular, application of administrative
sanctions is not effective enough, and as a result repeated
infringement is rampant. At least one half of Japanese
companies which use remedial procedures also experienced
repeated infringement and that Chinese IPR enforcement is
insufficient to deter further infringements, the Japanese
delegation explained. Japan underscored the importance of
enhanced criminal prosecution against IPR infringement.
The Japanese delegation in a separate bilateral with USDEL
advised that it had not received any complaints about
famous brand issues in China, a subject of the USG TRM
inquiry, and was interested in knowing further about this.
¶9. (U) The European Commission delegation advised that the
Chinese response was ?not as comprehensive and detailed? as
it would have hoped, and that it would like to see more
questions answered. The EC noted some progress on IP
enforcement in China but that, like other delegations, it
remains ?highly concerned.? The EC noted in particular
that it would continue to work bilaterally, building upon
its mid-October IPR Working Group meeting in Beijing.
(Note: Some recipients of this report also received (SBU)
Beijing 17254, which provided a readout of that October 18
EU-China IPR Working Group meeting. Endnote.)
¶10. (U) Canada noted its concern about Chinese
infringements of products affecting public health and
safety, such as pharmaceuticals, and that it was pleased to
host a recent Chinese delegation on Internet copyright
matters.
¶11. (U) There were no interventions from any of the several
countries currently negotiating Free Trade Agreements
(FTAs) with China. As in last year?s TRM an IPR delegate
from a North African country privately expressed his
concerns over increased counterfeiting of trademarks from
his country in China and their export back to his country.
In addition, he noted that these marks were also being
squatted upon in China. The scheduling of the TRM did not
permit further extensive bilateral discussions with other
missions.
Chinese Delegation Gets Defensive
¶12. (SBU) The Chinese delegation, in its closing comments,
rejected many of the assertions made by many countries that
China was responsible for much of the world trade in
counterfeit goods.The Chinese delegation also pointed out
that many of the challenges China faces are not unique to
China, but are also being faced by many developed and
developing countries. This official specifically pointed
to a recent criminal case involving two Americans in
Shanghai who were convicted of selling pirated DVD?s over
the Internet (Operation Spring), as well as other cases
suggesting international involvement in the trade of
counterfeit and pirated goods. Comment: This was a long-
anticipated first effort by China to use criminal justice
cooperation with foreign countries to support its trade
position in IPR and highlights the critical need for
improved cooperation between trade and criminal justice
authorities in the United States to ensure that criminal
cases are prosecuted or presented that advance overall
intellectual property and trade goals. End comment.
Bilateral Meeting: The First Legal Sparring Over TRIPS
Article 63
¶13. (U) A separate bilateral meeting was held between the
USG and China over outstanding bilateral issues. The
meeting had originally been scheduled before the TRIPS
Council session, but was ultimately postponed until after
the TRM, perhaps to afford a further opportunity to the
Chinese delegation to consider how to respond to the
Article 63 request in a bilateral, rather than a
multilateral context.
¶14. (U) The delegate from China leading this discussion
was Rong Min, from the Law and Treaties Division of China?s
Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM). Mr. Rong advised that his
government had not yet come to a final decision regarding
how to respond to these requests. However, in his view,
the US government?s Article 63.3 request was governed by
TRIPS Article 63.1 which limited such requests to ?final
judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general
application,? made effective by a Member. As, in his view,
China is not a common law country and lacks cases of
precedential impact, he did not view Article 63.1 as
applying to China. With regard to Article 63.3, the first
sentence of 63.3 was clearly governed by Article 63.1, as
it stated that WTO members shall ?supply, in response to a
written request from another Member, information of the
sort referred to in paragraph 1.? The second sentence of
Article 63.3 was also not applicable, as it stated that ?A
Member, having reason to believe that a specific judicial
decision or administrative ruling or bilateral agreement in
the area of intellectual property rights affects its rights
under this Agreement, may also request in writing to be
given access to or be informed in sufficient detail of such
specific judicial decisions or administrative rulings or
bilateral agreements.? Because, in Mr. Rong?s view, the USG
had not identified specific decisions of concern but had
asked for information regarding all cases, the request was
overly broad. Moreover, Mr. Rong also expressed his
opinion that Article 63.3 was a one-side authorization.
The USG may make such requests, however there was no
corresponding Chinese obligation to respond. Mr. Rong
suggested that a more appropriate legal basis would be
Article 18 of China?s Protocol of Accession to the WTO.
Note: Article 18 provides the legal basis for the TRM
itself. End note.14. The Chinese head of delegation
however took pains to note in his final comments that the
Chinese delegation would respond to the inquiry if it was
in fact required under TRIPS and that it was willing to
respond to many of the USG concerns outside of the WTO
context.
¶15. (U) USTR General Counsel?s Stan McCoy led the U.S.
response. The U.S. advised that the reason that the
request was being made was because the Chinese government
had previously identified these decisions as important
enough to distribute to TRIPS Council in statistical
format. There is no indication in the second sentence of
Article 63.3 that it should be governed by Article 63.1.
The U.S. also advised that a one-sided view that members
could pose questions without any corresponding obligation
would render the second sentence of 63.3 ineffective, which
certainly could not have been the drafters? intent.
Finally, the US government was prepared to work with China
to make the work manageable. Most importantly, Article 63
was intended to avoid disputes by providing a basis for a
cooperative exchange of information.
¶16. (SBU) In a separate discussion after the bilateral
meeting of delegations with the Beijing IPR Attach,, two
Chinese IPR officials argued noted that the scope of the
U.S. request is too broad for them to easily implement as
there are simply too many IPR administrative enforcement
cases. They would appreciate a narrower request on
specific issues.
Comment
¶17. (SBU) Compared to last year?s TRM, this year?s TRM
provided considerably less constructive information on
developments in China?s IPR system. China was also
noticeably less willing to engage multilaterally on the
relevant issues. It was too early to determine what
impact, if any, the Article 63 request will have and how
China will respond to it as well as the overall impact on
these requests on bilateral dialogue, including Embassy
Beijing?s Ambassador?s Roundtables on IPR protection in
China in Beijing and Shanghai, the JCCT IPR Working Group
meetings, and related efforts which will no doubt be the
subject of separate cables from Beijing and Shanghai.
AllGEIER