Header graphic for print
China Law Blog China Law for Business

China IP Problem? Just Dial Up President Obama. Yeah, That’s The Ticket.

Posted in Legal News

I just recieved the following e-mail, which I quote in its entirety:

Legal remedies now abound for companies victimized by Chinese counterfeit stores

China, widely considered the world capital of counterfeit and knock-off consumer goods, has created a buzz in recent weeks with reports that entire U.S. stores, including the iconic Apple store, Ikea, and Dairy Queen, are now being counterfeited with startling accuracy. While much has been made of this phenomenon, very little has been written about the legal remedies that U.S. companies may have against the Chinese infringers that may be damaging their brands. Mark Zolno, chair of the Customs and International Trade Practice at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP in Chicago, notes that while at one time, partnering with an IP law firm in China to file suit against the infringer was an exercise in futility, in the last few years, Chinese courts have begin enforcing domestic IP sanctions against Chinese nationals.

“In addition to seeking remedies in Chinese courts,such conduct also violates the WTO agreement and China is a WTO member,” Mr. Zolno says. This would allow a U.S. copyright or trademark holder to file a complaint with the U.S. Trade Representative’s office under section 301 of the Trade Act. The USTR would contact the Chinese government and press it to take action the Chinese infringer to cease such activities. If the Chinese government refused to act in response to the USTR’s complaint, sanctions against Chinese exports to the U.S. could be imposed, such as additional duties or quotas on select Chinese products.  The additional duties or quantitative restrictions would be enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Mr. Zolno is available for comment on the current counterfeiting situation in China and legal remedies available to U.S. companies. Please let me know if you would like to speak with him.

Best,
Jason

Jason Milch
Vice President, Public Reputation Services, Jaffe PR
808 Woodbine Lane, Northbrook, IL 60062

jmilch@jaffepr.com
Direct: 312-379-9406
eFax: 267-545-5679
Twitter: twitter.com/jasonmilch

I responded to Mr. Milch by asking that he remove my name from his email list and noting that the email was “deceptive bull—t.” 

It is. 

It may be great in theory, but come on.

How many times has what this email makes out to be easy ever happened? I mean really.

If your store is being copied in China, do you really think it makes economic sense for you to go to the WTO about it? Do you really think that your doing so is going to lead to the Chinese government taking prompt action against the store? Do you really think that the USTR is going to take up a cudgel on your behalf over a routine trademark or copyright infringement in China?

This email is not only unrealistic, it is either overly vague or just plain wrong on the law.

Someone with a U.S. trademark generally has no rights to that trademark in China. In other words, if I own the trademark for Brand X on water bottles in the United States and someone in China starts calling their water bottles “Brand X,” there is no law to stop that company from selling Brand X water bottles in China unless I registered “Brand X” in China or Brand X for water bottles is a well-known mark. If I were to go to my U.S. Trade Representative on this, he or she would no doubt tell me to work within the laws to protect my trademark. The odds of the U.S. government using my complaint to start a trade war are about the same of Troy McClure becoming President of the United States tomorrow.

In other words, it just ain’t gonna happen.

Wikipedia does a nice job setting out the way things really are under Section Mr. Zolno’s beloved Section 301:

Section 301 authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.  The law does not require that the U.S. government wait until it receives authorization from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take enforcement actions, but the U.S. has committed itself to pursuing the resolution of disputes under WTO agreements through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which has its own timetable.

We typically handle our China IP theft matters by sending out cease and desist letters and then suing if those do not work. From now on I think I’ll just call President Obama and hand them over to him. Yeah right. That’s the ticket.

Oh, and last time I checked, Ikea was Swedish, not American, but hey, if US laws are going to rule the world, we might as well just take over all the big stores as well.

I give Jason Milch a Zilch and Mark Zolno a NoGo.

What do you think?

  • http://zhongguojinrongblog.wordpress.com/ Fredrik

    I wonder if we have something similar to this Section 301 thing that I can call upon to get whoever wrote that email to stop claiming IKEA as a US store.. I could get Freddie Reinfeldt on the case, reclaiming Sweden’s good name.

  • TWT

    I think he deserved to be called out.

  • Laughing Man

    Do you think the lawyer should sue the PR firm for a refund? Why would anyone hire an international lawyer who doesn’t seem to understand there are other countries besides the United States?

  • wairen

    Sounds exactly like the “due diligence” scam you described previously. Trolling for $…

  • Allroads

    I love the Zilch and NoGo part.

  • http://www.marketsia.com/ Ryan Leaf

    The U.S. placing sanctions on China because of a few bad apples (no pun intended)? Not only does Apple rely upon Chinese factories to manufacture their goods, China is also one of the largest trade partners with the United States. Not a logical move for anybody involved.
    The reality is companies struggling with trademark infringement by phony stores need to address the issue by building real stores. Obviously if there is a significant demand for an Apple Store or IKEA or any other store, the real brand owner should step in and build their own retail outlet.

  • Ian T.

    I just added the President to my Rolodex. Does this mean I should be seeking a refund from my attorneys who billed me for my successful trademark infringement lawsuit my company brought in China last year? Though we won, it cost quite a bit in attorney time and certainly more than that one phone call with the President would have cost.

  • Twofish

    One other problem with this is that WTO sanctions are (quite intentionally) designed to deal with *industries* rather than individual companies. When people talk at the WTO level they are talking in terms of getting China (or the US or anyone else) to pass general laws and establish general procedures on IP. Getting help for an *individual* company is by design not part of the WTO framework.
    The “real” way of getting something done is to form an industry group and then have this group hire lawyers and lobbyists work with the US government to get things done, but what you’ll find that you are often in conflict with other industry and trade groups that have conflicting objectives, but that’s politics.
    Also if you want do this sort of thing, you are going to have more luck with Sections 337 and Sections 421 and going through the USITC rather than the USTR.

  • http://www.thekoreanlawblog.com Sean Hayes

    A cudgel – hey. My father taught me about Shaleighleighs, but never cudgels. :)

  • David

    The main problem I have with Jason’s email, aside from the points brought up, is that this misinformation is swallowed whole by people ignorant to how things *actually* work in China, who then contact me to say, well so-and-so said this and why don’t you, giving me a headache for a week while I try to set them straight!

  • Gabion

    Seems to me he’s just another lawyer trying to jump on the China bandwagon after the bus long ago left the station.

  • LJR

    The same BS was dished out in Japan years ago. That is, trade threats and sanctions that never led to any real action though kept lawyers busy as they often got into this “business”. The US had little leverage then when taking this route, and they have around 20% of the leverage they had then, now…dealing with a government that is 100 times more corrupt and recalcitrant. The US government has always been a joke when it comes to supporting domestic industry in such disputes. If they must go to the government, they should be going to the Navy, not the USTR….

  • http://www.foarp.blogspot.com FOARP

    @Dan – OK, but in the interest of 100% fairness, the quote from Zolno could be a throwaway comment which Milch (who appears to have zero undertanding of IP) has mis-interpreted.
    Or they may both be idiots.