Heike Wollgast
Senior Legal Officer, Building Respect for IP Division

2

Introduced into the multilateral trading system in the Uruguay Round (1994)
Formal framework for settling disputes between WTO Member States
Guidance on TRIPS interpretation
Priority: amicable settlement through consultations
Stages of procedure:
- 60 days: Consultations, mediation
- 45 days: Panel set up and 3 (possibly 5) panelists appointed by
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), following consultations with parties
- 6 months: Final panel report to parties
- 3 weeks: Final panel report to WTO members
- 60 days: DSB adopts report (if no appeal)
Total: 1 year (without appeal)
- 60-90 days: Appeals report
- 30 days: Dispute Settlement Body adopts appeals report
Total = 1y 3m (with appeal)
3

Previous IP enforcement case law
Few cases addressing Part III of the TRIPS Agreement
Cases subject to amicable settlement:
- US v Denmark (WT/DS/83) – Availability of provisional measures
- US v Sweden (WT/DS/86)
– Availability of provisional measures
- US v EC/Greece (WT/DS/124, 125) – Availability of civil and criminal measures against unauthorized broadcasting
- US v Argentina (WT/DS/196) – Availability of provisional measures against patent infringements
Panel reports (marginal role of enforcement)
- EC v US (WT/DS/176) - Access to civil judicial procedures (Art. 42)
- US/Australia v EC (WT/DS/174, 290) - Protection and (generally) enforcement relating to national treatment (GI)
4

Case DS362 - Parties
Complainant: US
Respondent: China
Third Parties: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Japan,
Korea, Mexico, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Turkey
5

Case DS362 – Measures at issue
Chinese legislation and implementing measures in three areas:
Thresholds for criminal procedures and penalties in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy
– Articles 61, 41.1 TRIPS
Disposal of goods confiscated by customs – Articles 46, 59 TRIPS
Denial of copyright protection and enforcement to works that have not been authorized in China – Articles 9.1, 41 TRIPS, Article 5 Berne
Convention
6

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
1.
Thresholds for criminal procedures and penalties in cases of counterfeiting and piracy – Articles 61, 41.1 TRIPS
Article 61 TRIPS: « Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. (…) Members may provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied in other cases of infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular where they are committed willfully and on a commercial scale. »
7

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
1.
Thresholds for criminal procedures and penalties in cases of counterfeiting and piracy – Articles 61, 41.1 TRIPS
Chinese criminal law introduces various thresholds for acts of trademark and copyright infringement (e.g., value of infringing goods; amount of illegal gains; number or reproduced works)
Motives: Significance of various illegal acts for public and economic order; prioritization of enforcement, prosecution and judicial resources
Key question: Levels in China’s thresholds too high to capture all cases on a commercial scale?
On a commercial scale ?
Parties’ approaches (examples):
“undertaken with a view to profiting”
“any commercial act with the exception of trivial commercial activities”
Panel definition: “If carried at the magnitude of typical or usual commercial activity with respect to a given product in a given market”
8

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
1.
Thresholds for criminal procedures and penalties in cases of counterfeiting and piracy – Articles 61, 41.1 TRIPS
Thresholds are not per se inconsistent, as long as levels comply with these benchmarks
Complainant has to prove that this is not the case – such evidence not established by the US
9

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
2. Disposal of goods confiscated by customs
“Compulsory scheme” of border measures under Chinese Customs IPR
Regulations :
- Donation to social welfare bodies (53%);
- Sale to right holder (0.65%);
- Auction (after eradicating the infringing features) (0.87%);
- Where the infringing features are impossible to eradicate, destruction
(44.9%).
In line with Articles 46, 59 TRIPS?
10

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
2. Disposal of goods confiscated by customs
Article 59 TRIPS: Remedies (Customs)
Without prejudice to other rights of action open to the right holder and subject to the right of the defendant to seek review by a judicial authority, competent authorities shall have the authority to order the destruction or disposal of infringing goods in accordance with the principles set out in
Article 46. In regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the authorities shall not allow the re-exportation of the infringing goods in an unaltered state or subject them to a different customs procedure, other than in exceptional circumstances.”
11

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
2. Disposal of goods confiscated by customs
Article 46 TRIPS: Other Remedies (Civil procedure)
« In order to create an effective deterrent to infringement, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order that goods that they have found to be infringing be, without compensation of any sort, disposed of outside the channels of commerce in such a manner as to avoid any harm caused to the right holder, or, unless this would be contrary to existing constitutional requirements, destroyed. (…) In regard to counterfeit trademark goods, the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed shall not be sufficient, other than in exceptional cases, to permit release of the goods into the channels of commerce .”
12

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
2. Disposal of goods confiscated by customs
Article 59 does not apply to goods destined for exportation (99.85%)
Remedies mentioned in Article 59 (disposal and destruction) are not exhaustive
Article 59 does not require that disposal and destruction can be ordered in all circumstances (conditions permissible), as long as one remedy is available that is in accordance with Articles 59, 46 (i.e., disposal outside the channels of commerce in such a way as to avoid harm to right holder )
Donation to welfare bodies – harm to right holder?
- Defective goods, quality problems (claim for compensation, harm to reputation):
Not demonstrated that defective goods have actually been donated; distribution through Red Cross to specific recipients (not
« normal consumers »)
- Later sales of donated goods: monitoring and control by customs under cooperation agreement with Red Cross
13

Case DS362 – Panel Findings
2. Disposal of goods confiscated by customs
Sale to right holder: Available only if right holder agrees; and available alternatively to donation
Auction (after « eradicating of infringing features »):
Not « outside channels of commerce », but Article 59 remedies not exhaustive
But: « simple removal of trademark » not sufficient under Article 46 to permit release into channels of commerce (other than in exceptional circumstances); necessary would be a sufficient alteration of the state of the goods
No exceptional cases demonstrated (sheer low number not sufficient to establish that criterion)
14

Case DS362 – Panel findings
3. Denial of copyright protection and enforcement to works that have not been authorized in China
Article 4 (1) Chinese Copyright Law: « Works the publication and/or dissemination of which are prohibited by law shall not be protected by this
Law
.»
Criteria for prohibited works (examples):
- are against fundamental principles established in the Constitution;
- jeopardize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State;
- propagate cults and superstition;
- disrupt public order and undermine social stability;
- insult others, or infringe upon legitimate rights and interests of others;
- other contents banned by laws and regulations; etc.
Procedure: Mandatory content review
15

Case DS362 – Panel findings
3. Denial of copyright protection and enforcement to works that have not been authorized in China
Article 5(1) Berne Convention (US and China both Members), Article 9.1
TRIPS (minimum rights)
- Protection of works and rights as set out under the Berne Convention
- Chinese Copyright Law excludes works that have failed content review from copyright protection
Article 17 Berne Convention as defense?
- Permits governments to control the exploitation of works to maintain public order
- But: does not provide for complete denial of copyright protection
Article 5(2) Berne Convention, Article 9.1 TRIPS (formality-free protection)
– no panel ruling
Articles 41, 61 TRIPS: enforcement procedures not available with respect to works that have been denied copyright protection
16

Case DS362 – Implementation of Panel report
March 2010: China reported on legislative amendments to Chinese
Copyright Law and Customs Regulations
No compliance proceedings initiated
17

18