This is consistent with my understanding...

Chinese watch Museum and travels to China

This is consistent with my understanding...

Postby AlbertaTime » January 5th 2018, 7:02pm

https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/how-china-is-emerging-as-a-leader-in-global-innovation-and-ip-rights/

A Santa Clara University School of Law study found that from 2006 to 2011, foreign patent owners won 70 percent of Chinese patent infringement cases brought against local firms. When the global law firm Rouse extended the time range to 2014, they found that this foreign success rate in getting Chinese courts to defend their patents against local infringement actually increased to approximately 80 percent.

China is also now seen as a more favorable venue for IP litigation because of the speed of its judicial process. Beijing’s IP court concluded cases within 125 days on average, compared to 18 months in Europe. In the United States, the median time-to-trial alone is 2.4 years for patent litigation, according to a study by PwC.

While China has made substantial progress to protect and promote intellectual property rights, it still faces a number of challenges. Items originating from China and Hong Kong still represent over 85 percent of the value of all infringing and counterfeit items seized by U.S. Customs, with a total estimated MSRP value of over $1.2 billion.


I think that's a pretty objective view.

Nearer the end, this, which is spot on:

As with many issues in China, the status of Chinese IP rights defies one-dimensional stereotypes.


This, from the article, may provide some insight into one style of Chinese brand *naming*.

Earlier this year, New Balance prevailed in court to shut down several Chinese “parasite brands,” which copy foreign brands but use slightly different names protected by Chinese trademarks. For example, New Balance competes in China with brands like New Boom, New Barlun, and New Bunren. In this case, New Balance received an injunction against five Chinese manufacturers, which were then fined $250,000 after violating the injunction.
Curator: Alberta Museum of Chinese Horology in Peace River

"That stone buddha deserves all the birdshit it gets. I wave my skinny arms like a tall flower in the wind." Ikkyu
User avatar
AlbertaTime
Master of Time
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: October 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Location: Peace River, Alberta

Re: This is consistent with my understanding...

Postby Hawk » January 5th 2018, 10:34pm

Pretty much mine as well though I would suggest the author is playing fast and loose with the distinction between trademarks and patents. Though both trademarks and patents rely on the holder of the IP to police the matter.

They've got decent IP protection but remain the single largest source of infringing goods. I tend to place much of the blame on the importers and criminals rather than the suppliers (who I am not suggesting are blameless) - which is to say I have less of a problem with Heromex than I do with the Lalo.

Too much of what is reported by the Western press involves violation of Chinese law while implying the government is complicit rather than simply clumsy or overwhelmed.

This got thrown back at me by a lovely Chinese lady who inquired if we had a lot of private individuals illegally imprisoning citizens. I pointed out that Ariel Castro was doing stuff that was illegal here and illegal behavior isn't indicative of the general populace. I could almost picture the smug nodding happening on the other end of the Line connection.

Chinese IP law is more or less similar to IP law elsewhere. However that similarity extends to the need for the trademark holder to police the issue. The US government would have never done any fucking thing about Eyal's dial markings - that required the Swiss FH getting off their butt. Same with Asian suppliers - complaining about IP infringement gets you nothing - the holder of the property has to initiate the action. And many don't.
And the fact I'm still living rent free in his head makes me grin and giggle.
...bobbee
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
 
Posts: 8461
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: This is consistent with my understanding...

Postby Pubbie » January 6th 2018, 11:11am

Sounds like the Chinese are putting a bit more than plastic courts into place, like the pretend ones they had a few years ago:

http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/12/19/bmw-l ... -x5-clone/

Lol
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Pubbie
Senior Member & WIS
 
Posts: 489
Joined: September 18th 2017, 5:35am

Re: This is consistent with my understanding...

Postby AlbertaTime » January 6th 2018, 12:44pm

Pubbie wrote:http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/12/19/bmw-loses-court-battle-to-chinese-x5-clone/


Well, if those are the two autos involved, I can see why BMW lost. That's way further from the BMW than, say, Steinhart is to Rolex.

But--more relevant to this discussion--did you notice that BMW lost the case in an *Italian* court, not a Chinese court?

Look, there are lots of good reasons to want improved patent and IP protection from (and in) China, and the article I posted addressed that clearly. But your example addresses a decision of a European court siding with the Chinese manufacturer that BMW was blowing smoke. So how does that reflect at all on Chinese IP protection. or Chinese courts?

In your particular example, I think it's probably best to recall the "Sin City" line that "modern cars--they all look like electric shavers" and that, for example, I'm constantly wondering whether the sorta-SUV in front of me is, say, Ford or Kia, until I get much closer...
Curator: Alberta Museum of Chinese Horology in Peace River

"That stone buddha deserves all the birdshit it gets. I wave my skinny arms like a tall flower in the wind." Ikkyu
User avatar
AlbertaTime
Master of Time
 
Posts: 3115
Joined: October 13th 2010, 10:00pm
Location: Peace River, Alberta


Return to AlbertaTime Museum and Travels

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron