China, IP enforcement, trade fairs and trade marks

China: are we progressing from unfair to funfair?

The IPKat's recent posts on IP enforcement in China have, not unsurprisingly, generated a good deal of interest and comment (see here, here, here and here).  Adding fuel to the fire of readers' interest is the IPKat's friend Michael Lin, who tells us:

"IP Enforcement at ChineseTrade fairs is possible, and relatively easy at the larger fairs -- if you have the proper documentation ready. This is because all Chinese trade fairs that last three days or longer are required to have an IP officer on-site to handle infringement complaints.

While this is an Administrative action, and not a court action, it pays to have the documents notarized and legalized, at least on the patent side. Trade marks officers may have looser requirements, and one should always check out the actual requirements of the trade show you intend to attend.

The required documents include, as originals (the IP right) or legalized copies (other documents):

• the IP right;
• a certificate of incorporation/good standing of the IP Right owner if it is a company. If the owner is an individual, proof of identity is needed;
• a certificate of legal representation, testifying as to the identity of the legal representative;
• a power of attorney signed by the legal representative, giving a named person the right to enforce the IP;
• Chinese translations of all the above.

Other documents may be required, depending on the requirements of each trade show. While legalized documents are not always needed, if they are legalized the officers have no excuse to refuse a request for enforcement.

The Canton Fair in Guangzhou (allegedly the largest export trade fair in the world), with which I am most familiar, always has groups of trade mark and patent officers in attendance. Following submission of the documents and the filing of a complaint identifying the specific booth(s) showing the allegedly infringing article(s), the officers will go to investigate. If they find the items, they will order the booth to remove them. If the booth contests the charge and/or the IP, they will have 24 hours to present the evidence.

In extreme cases, the officers can close the booth and, for repeat offenders, they can prevent them from displaying at the next show. In my experience, trade marks are the easiest to enforce, then designs, and finally utility models and patents.

If people want to enforce their IP in Chinese Trade Fairs, especially the larger ones, it is definitely possible. But it is worth it for IP owners to check what specific requirements there are at that specific trade fair, and to have the proper documentation ready well in advance.

Alternatively (or concurrently), some IP owners attend in order to collect evidence of infringement. By bringing a Chinese notary to the fair, you can gather notarized evidence that may be used in a future Chinese litigation or administrative enforcement action. IP owners can also find out other useful information, such as infringing manufacturers, sellers and volumes".

Michael has also provided a copy of the 6 May 2011 Consultation Paper on Measures for Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Involved in Exhibitions, which you can download as a Word document here.


Meanwhile, from the ever-excellent Paul Jones (Jones & Co., Toronto) comes news of a sudden development in the process for revision of China's trade mark legislation.  He writes

"The third set of amendments to the PRC Trademark Law Have been under way for some time, with several consultations having being conducted by the PRC State Administration for Industry and Commerce .... Eventually the draft was finalized and passed to the State Council ... for review and approval before being sent to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (the legislature) for debate. However last Thursday the State Council Legislative Affairs Office posted a draft online for public comment (in Chinese) here.

Comments are due October 8, 2011.

According to a brief article (in Chinese) on the web site of the State Intellectual Property Office, revisions have been made to allow sound marks and to limit the use of geographical names, both Chinese and foreign".

Paul adds that generally the proposed amendments are considered a significant improvement and that it is good to see them move forward through the legislative process.

The IPKat is delighted to see that the position of rights-owners, both foreign and local, appears to be improving. Let's see if the results match the good intentions.

Apple Stoer Story: now for more legal analysis

The shop was called "Harley Davidson", but the IPKat
still wasn't sure he'd bought a genuine one ...

Recent posts on the Apple Stoer Story have not extinguished interest in the subject of IP protection in China but have stimulated.  The Kats are very grateful to their man in China, Tom Carver (Wragge), for delving a bit further into the legal dimensions of this curious episode.

"The fake Apple stores of Kunming have already been reported on by the IPKat (here, here and here), but they are worth one more look because the law is not as clear-cut as one might imagine. The IPKat himself observed that it was curious that two of the stores had been closed on the ground that they did not have a business licence, rather than for infringing Apple’ rights; it seems that so far Apple has not brought any actions in China, but only in the US (the US actions may be unrelated to the Kunming stores claims that there is a fake Apple store in New York called Apple Story). Why might this be? The first point to note is that the stores have been closed by the local Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC), rather than a court. AICs are not legal institutions and, while they are extremely effective, they will only take action when the facts and law are clear-cut. Are the facts and law in the case of the fake Apple stores of Kunming clear-cut?

The Kunming stores offer genuine Apple products for sale. This activity does not infringe any rights, assuming the store owners bought the goods in question in China and that Apple’s rights had therefore been exhausted. The stores are therefore partially fake and partially genuine.

Do the stores infringe Apple’s rights by providing consultation on Apple goods, maintenance of Apple goods or display of Apple goods? Apple has registered a series of trade marks in various classes related to services, and so one might assume the answer to be a resounding "yes". However, Chinese trade mark law allows limited use of a third party's trade mark if it is intended as a description. Accordingly, the Kunming stores can argue that their use of "Apple Store" is descriptive because the stores offer genuine Apple products and all the services provided in the stores are inevitably about Apple products. This differs from the Porsche case mentioned in an earlier post because in that case the defendant was not selling Porsches, only offering to modify them; the defendant sold other brands of car and offered services on other brands of car. The court held that, since this caused confusion in the minds of the consumers, Porsche’s trade mark had been infringed. This difference probably meant that trade mark law was not sufficiently clear for the AIC to close stores on that basis.

Unfair competition is another potential cause of action for Apple to invoke, but again it is not clear whether such a claim would succeed. The PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law prohibits the unauthorised use of the name, packaging or trade dress unique to well-known products or false advertisement of products, thereby causing confusion with the products of another party and causing purchasers to mistake the products for such well-known products (Articles 5 and 9). The wording in the relevant articles is “products”. The PRC Trade Mark Law differentiates between products and services and so it is possible that the Unfair Competition Law might also be interpreted as doing so. If that is the case, then Apple would have no claim, because the products are genuine. If “products” applies also to services then Apple has a good claim. 

Unfortunately, whether “products” includes services is something of a grey area. The Harley-Davidson case mentioned in an earlier post is similar to this case, but not quite the same. In that case, as in Porsche , the defendant had been offering both Harley-Davidson and non-Harley-Davidson products and services; had given an undertaking from the infringer not to continue the infringement after a prior warning; maintained an infringing website (which amazingly included a notice to consumers to beware of infringing goods); and had been engaged in a prior dispute with Harley-Davidson over a domain name. The court held in Harley-Davidson’s favour that consumers would be confused. Again, the difference here is that the fake Apple stores of Kunming do not mislead their customers about the source of their products: all are genuine Apple products. Of course, customers are likely to be confused about the source of the service, but substantial and obvious evidence would be required to convince the local AIC to reach that conclusion and take action.

The curiousness of the stores being closed for not having business licences should now be a little less curious: there was no sufficiently clear guidance in IP law, but it was easy to ascertain whether the stores had business licences. The Kunming AIC therefore took the safest option and closed the stores on that basis.

The latest development is that the AIC has ordered the remaining fake stores to stop using the Apple logo, but has given no reason why and no legal basis for the order. The AIC is conducting further investigations and it will be interesting to see whether Apple takes legal action in Kunming".

The IPKat is delighted to learn a bit more about the way IP protection and the solution of commercial-legal problems are handled in China. Thanks, Tom, for this insight!

Cat Biker available from Mad About Cats here

Five bad Apples -- and look what's in store for IKEA ...

Recently this Kat wrote about a number fake Apple stores in Kunming in China. Since posting, Chinese officials have found five fake Apple stores in Kunming. However, only two of the five stores have been shut down. Somewhat surprisingly, the two stores were closed because they did not possess a business licence required for all commercial retail operations, not because they had infringed Apple's IP rights.

Apple has now taken matters into its own hands and filed a lawsuit for infringement of its trade marks in the US District Court in the Eastern District of New York against three companies and approximately 52 named and John Doe defendants. Exact details of the lawsuit are unknown at this stage because the documents are sealed to all except for legal counsel and the parties involved. However, CNET reports that Apple has filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order as well as a preliminary injunction on the named defendants.

It would appear that Apple is not the only target in Kunming: last week, a number of outlets reported that Kunming also has a fake IKEA, a store is called '11 Furniture'. The first thing to note is that 11 Furniture's Chinese name 'Shi Yi Jia Ju' sounds very much like IKEA's Chinese name 'Yi Jia Jia Ju'. The second is that, inside, the look and feel of the store is virtually identical to expected in an authorised IKEA outlet. For instance, there is the similar blue-and-yellow colour scheme, signage, mock-up rooms, rocking chairs, miniature pencils and mininalist wooden tables in the cafeteria.

In a statement to the Daily Mail, IKEA stated:

Inter IKEA Systems B.V, the worldwide franchisor and owner of the IKEA Concept, sees it as very important to protect the intellectual property rights. We have reported it to Inter IKEA Systems B.V and they are dealing with this matter together with their legal counsel. The best thing we can do to prevent such stores from opening up in the future is to open more stores and make the IKEA products available to more people.

Chinese law prohibits firms from copying the 'look and feel' of other brands' stores. However, Chinese businesses frequently take advantage of problems in enforcing the law (such as low awards of damages and difficulty in enforcing judgments), unfortunately resulting in situations such as those with Apple and IKEA.

"I'm sure this wasn't the way in",
muttered Merpel ...

The IPKat, a simple soul, is wondering whether someone was teasing him about that US application filed by a Chinese inventor for a business method patent that related to a means of attracting goodwill by replicating a target company’s store fittings, trade dress and other indicia of reputation. Merpel is of course far too brave to confess to such thing as a phobia of entering an IKEA store, legitimate or otherwise, for fear that she is going to get stuck in the middle of a furniture maze and will have to scratch, scratch, scratch all the way out ...

No shelter for Chinese IP infringers as Special Action Programme strikes home

"Hands up if you think the
Special Action Programme
is doing a good job ..."

While all good Americans are compiling their Watch Lists and all good Europeans are contemplating their border controls, what are all good Chinese folk doing?  The IPKat asked his friend Tom Carver (who has been appearing live this week on Supreme Court TV) if he knew, which he did.  The Chinese have been busy reviewing their Special Action Programme against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting [SAPAIIC? That's another difference between the Chinese and the rest of us, notes the Kat: the US and the EU would have twisted the name until there was a cute acronym for it ...]. As Tom explains:

"Back in November 2010 the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM: that's a better acronym, purrs the Kat) announced with masterly understatement that, despite China making good headway in IP protection,

“due to various kinds of factors, the actions of infringing IP and manufacturing and selling counterfeiting and shoddy commodities still occur now and then”. 

Accordingly, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) launched a Special Action Programme to combat the incidents of IP infringement which still occur “now and then” (you can read all about it here).

The Programme was initially planned as a six-month operation but was extended to last until the end of May, and aimed to

“... launch special campaigns on curbing IP infringement and the manufacture and sales of counterfeiting and shoddy commodities, sternly investigate a batch of serious eye-catching cases related to IP infringement at home and abroad and expose a group of enterprises violating laws and regulations so as to form high-handed posture to combat IP infringement actions; enhance enterprises’ law-abiding awareness, raise consumers’ ability in identifying fake goods, form a sound social atmosphere of consciously rejecting counterfeiting and shoddy commodities and valuing IP protection and positively create good environment for IP protection; strengthen law enforcement collaboration, improve law enforcement efficiency, intensify law enforcement, fully exert the role of administration and judicature protection, and wholly lift the capability of local governments and departments in IP protection and reinforcement of market regulations.” 

A tall order.

A veritable army of enforcement officers
has been deployed to deal with infringers

The results were presented at a press conference on 12 July by Jiang Zengwei, the MOFCOM deputy minister of the Ministry of Commerce and the numbers are spectacular: during the Special Action Programme the SAIC raided 8.048 million business units [goodness, says the Kat: there are more raided business units in China than inhabitants of Switzerland, Denmark or Finland] and investigated 731,000 markets (wholesale and retail), using a total of 3.484 million enforcement officer days in the process [that's not much less than 10,000 officer-years].  These raids resulted in 156,000 cases with a cumulative monetary value of 3.43 billion RMB being accepted by the SAIC, Public Security Bureau (PSB, the police), the Intellectual Property Office and the Copyright Office. Following from those cases local Administrations for Industry and Commerce destroyed 9,135 factories or shelters (many infringers work out of the spare bedroom/shed in the garden/etc, and ‘shelter’ is a term used to describe all such places of work) while the PSB destroyed 12,854 shelters, arresting 29,494 suspects in the process. There are plenty more figures, all available here, in Chinese).

Celebrating these achievements, the Chinese government has created an 'Achievement Exhibition of the Special Operation against IPR Infringement and Counterfeiting' website (available in English and Chinese), which includes remarks from Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao emphasising IP’s growing importance in China, and the government’s determination to improve China’s enforcement record. (nb The government has put its own house in order. China's National Copyright Administration reports that all computer software used by the 135 central government agencies was authorised and legitimate as of the end of May).

Whether the unmeasurable objectives of the programme (has no-one at MOFCOM heard of SMART targets?), such as ‘raising consumers’ ability to identify fake goods’, and ‘forming a sound social atmosphere of consciously rejecting counterfeit and shoddy commodities’ (aren’t branded commodities sometimes shoddy too?), have been met is anyone’s guess -- but progress does seem to be being made, at least anecdotally: I can report that the son of the director of the Zhongshan Bureau of IP ‘consciously rejects’ counterfeit goods and upbraids his father for buying them…".

Says the IPKat, bravo! These figures are truly amazing and show a welcome determination by China to nail counterfeiting and IP infringement on the head.  Says Merpel, the thing which enabled these achievements to be so remarkable was actually the sheer scale of IP infringement that was going on in the first place; in the light of these colossal figures, perhaps the victim-assessment figures given by IP owners and relating to loss through infringements, greatly criticised for over-estimating their losses, were an under-estimate after all.

Fake China here

China gets tough on locals over iPad trade secret theft

Part of the fun of attending the International Trademark Association (INTA) Annual Meeting is that you find yourself engaged in conversation with all sorts of good souls into whom one does not often have the opportunity to bump when wandering around the vicinity of The Old Nick in search of a pint of Badger.  One such soul is Michael Lin from Marks & Clerk's Hong Kong office.  Being based in Hong Kong, Michael is often fast asleep when the London Kats are awake, and vice versa, but blog team members Jeremy and Annsley were in the same time zone as Michael when they met in San Francisco, which made their dialogue a little easier.

Michael is our guest-blogger for the piece below, for which we thank him kindly:

"Shenzhen court convicts three Chinese of iPad 2 trade secret theft

The Guangzhou Daily Chinese-language microblog (which, funny enough, links to WSJ China) reports that a Shenzhen Court convicted three local Chinese of "violating commercial secrets" --in this case, trade secret theft -- related to the iPad2's casing design (see here, here and here).  This theft of trade secrets allegedly led to fake iPad 2s and/or iPad 2 covers (there seems to be some confusion in the reports over exactly which) being sold in China prior to Apple's official launch. 

Foxconn: bigger population than some EU member states

In short, Foxconn manufactures the iPad, iPhone, and many other products in a HUGE factory (No kidding: the factory, at ~400,000 people, is larger than many cities) in Shenzhen.  The head of a Chinese electronics company allegedly induced a Foxconn R&D employee to divulge iPad 2 design documents via an intermediary.  After a trial, the Shenzhen Court sentenced the head of the Chinese company, the intermediary and the Foxconn employee to jail and also imposed large (for China) fines.  

While trade secret theft cases are relatively common in many jurisdictions (cars, software), this case stands out for a few reasons.  First, it is rare for a Chinese court to convict Chinese citizens of stealing trade secrets.  Second, the aggrieved party in this case was a foreign company. Third, given that there is no "discovery" in China, and given how difficult it is to prove trade secret cases generally, it is quite interesting to see that this case was taken by the prosecutors (note: once a case is accepted by the prosecutors, the prosecutors invariably win in China). 

So what? 

Old Chinese proverb: he who plays
with fire has flash in pan

At least this case indicates that in some cases, trade secret theft and economic espionage may be taken seriously by the Chinese courts, even when the victim is a foreigner.  While this case may be atypical for now, at least the prosecutors accepted it, and more significantly the Chinese press reported it.  As everything reported by the Chinese press inherently possesses the government's stamp of approval, this may indicate a growing intolerance of such activites.  We can all just hope that this is the start of a trend, and not a flash-in-the-pan".

iPads here
iPeds here

A shout-out to Hannah Kuchler at FT tilt for discussing this case with Michael and helping him organize his thoughts

USPTO/AIPLA Roundtable Report: Chinese utility models and design patents

While the AmeriKat had her whiskers in a pile of papers (picture, left) last Monday, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) was busy hosting a travelling roundtable discussion on China’s system for the procurement and enforcement of utility model and design patents. The aim of the roundtable was to afford US lawyers, companies and the public understanding about how China’s utility model and design patent system. The AmeriKat and IPKat's good friend, Michael Lin, of Marks & Clerk (Hong Kong) was there reporting on the key issues discussed at the event:

The USPTO's Elaine Wu started off the roundtable, and key note speeches by the USPTO's Dave Kappos and AIPLA's President, David Hill, (picture right) emphasized the growing importance of understanding IP in China via actual discussion with on-the-ground experts vs. the reliance on hearsay. To this end, the AIPLA and USPTO are jointly sponsoring this traveling roundtable discussion program with subsequent events being planned in the US and China.

Microsoft's Director of International IP Policy Mark Cohen laid out the background and framework of Utility Models ("UMs") and Design Patents in China and their alternative as a cheap and fast form of IP protection. Mark also showed some interesting statistics that it is overwhelmingly Chinese entities who are filing and using UMs and Designs Patents. Discussion followed as to the root causes of this, and why relatively few foreign entities apply for Chinese Designs, and particularly UMs. US practitioners are typically unfamiliar with UMs because they are not available in the US, although some other countries (Germany, Japan, etc.) do have them. While many countries have Designs Patents, few foreigners file their Designs Patents in China, as their scope is generally regarded as being quite narrow as dotted-lines (i.e., partial designs) are not allowed.

Elaine chaired the first panel discussion with Thomas Moga (Shook, Hardy & Bacon) (picture, right) explaining his interesting uses for Design Patents in China beyond what is typically allowed in the US. Meanwhile, Toby Mak (Tee & Howe) explained that the subject matter of UMs in China is limited to physical objects whose novel element is related to the shape or construction thereof. Thus, protection of chemical compositions, methods of use, etc. are not allowed via UMs. Toby also discussed the procedure for concurrently filing for both Invention Patents (i.e., US-style Utility Patents) and UMs in China. Toby also explained that by filing for both a UM and an invention patent in China, you can obtain both short-term protection as well as long-term protection; once the invention patent is ready to grant, then the Examiner may ask you to elect to keep either the UM or the Invention patent and abandon the other one in order to avoid double-patenting. IBM's Associate General Counsel for IP, Manny Schecter explained that IBM does not file for such IP in China (or elsewhere) as they are not subject to substantive examination and therefore their enforceability is highly suspect, even when granted. It seems that IBM, for one, simply wishes to have greater assurance that any of its granted patents are actually ultimately enforceable.

Skip Fisher (Perkins Coie) (picture, left) then chaired the panel discussion about enforceability of UMs and Design Patents. Michael Lin (Marks&Clerk, Hong Kong) led off the discussion about enforcement via China-specific administrative routes such as at Customs, local raids, seizures, and at trade shows. Ultimately, Michael believes that UM and Design Patent enforcement is possible in trade fairs, especially for exact copies. However, enforcement via customs and other administrative routes are more difficult than, for example, trade mark enforcement. Ping Gu (Unitalen) discussed the many complicated issues involved with legal enforcement of IP via the Chinese court system. Geoffrey Lin (Hogan Lovells) described his personal involvement with the Chint v. Schneider case which resulted in the largest ever IP judgment in China of 330 Million CNY ( about US $44 Million). Although IP litigation in the courts is increasing and the judges are getting better, evidence collection, forum shopping, local court regulations, political factors, etc. may all greatly affect the result of first-instance litigation. However, the availability of appeals to a higher court may in some ways mitigate these effects. As China has virtually no "discovery" available to plaintiffs, all panelists agreed that the collection of court-acceptable evidence prior to initiating litigation is essential and remains a serious problem in China.

The roundtable concluded with USPTO's Albert Tramposch heading an open discussion with all participants identifying issues (e.g., susceptibility of UMs and Designs Patents for abuse by NPEs, lack of a duty of disclosure, lack of substantive examination before grant, etc.) and discussing potential future actions, law changes, administrative, changes, etc. to address some of the issues. Participants hope that China will pay special attention to legal and administrative transparency and further improve equal treatment under the law.

Overall, it was a highly informative roundtable with excellent questions and observations from both the audience, presenters and panellists.

The AmeriKat thanks Michael for reporting and AIPLA and USPTO for organizing this roundtable. She is often surprised daily about how many UK IP lawyers do not take action in China or are unaware of what is available to them and their clients in China. Does anyone know if the UK IPO has planned or will be planning something similar for the UK audience?

AIPLA-USPTO roundtable here.
Round pool table here.
A famous Round Table here.

A round robin here.

IP enforcement in China: myth or reality?

Louise Pentland (Senior VP and Chief Legal Officer, Nokia Corporation) opened the China and IP Enforcement slot in this year's Fordham Intellectual Property Conference. There are always solutions if you're prepared to look for them, she said, drawing on her company's experiences. Don't draw conclusions and make generalisations, she warned, since the country is far too big and varied to permit them to be valid. Issues however include local protectionism, varied quality of legal judgments, low levels of damages (though this is gradually changing).

The legal environment is also quite different -- there's no discovery of evidence; documents produced in court can be used outside it; courts can go straight to an infringing company's bank accounts or close its entire factory. Both parties can lobby and pressurise the courts -- which are also vulnerable to pressures from government. Parties that lose proceedings shouldn't blame the system, but rather should examine their own IP monitoring and exploitation policy. Best practices are easy to identity: file, just as the Chinese do, whenever there's something you can file for; then you can countersue. Employ forum-shopping and get the other party out of its home territory. Nokia's experiences of IP litigation have been very positive recently, being based also on efforts to do long-term relationship-building and showing that they're there for good, not just indulging in one-off raids. Nokia relies heavily on Chinese Customs, and has set up a programme with its own recyclers for the destruction of proven infringements; this is funded partly by Nokia, partly by the recycling companies. Patience is also required: the pace of change is fast by Chinese standards.

Professor Peter Yu (Drake University) then spoke on China's fortunes before the World Trade Organization, where that country has been charged with various failings under TRIPS. The WTO required some fairly small changes in China's copyright and customs laws, which have since been made. Peter made a plea to the audience to understand, as Louise Pentland mentioned, that the country is large, far from homogenous and not at all amenable to generalisations concerning attitudes towards IP. Encouraging local businesses in order to promote local innovation is more likely to change attitudes than anything else, since it makes local stakeholders.

Don't assume that the Chinese prefer administrative enforcement, but do appreciate and understand how it works, particularly in light of the manner in which the public sector operates on the basis of the exercise of discretion. This is a major concern regarding corruption, but the system can be made to work -- particularly if you remember that the big issue in China is not IP as an end in itself but market entry. And don't assume that all foreign business decisions are IP-or law-driven (for example, Google's withdrawal from the Chinese market for search services). The scope of disputes between Chinese and foreign businesses can be widened by emphasising cultural differences; this should not be done, since it serves only to exacerbate matters

Professor Haochen Sun (University of Hong Kong) then spoke about tackling infringing culture in terms of addiction (by analogy with drug addiction) and Shanzhai -- the creative counterfeiting which is so popular in some circles. Here, IP enforcement can be seen as an assault on Chinese culture itself.

In the discussion session, Jennifer Choe Groves (Hughes Hubbard & Reed) observed that China was able to suppress counterfeit products during the Beijing Olympics. If this could be done then (presumably without upsetting local cultural sensitivities), why could it not be done on other occasions too? Peter Yu thought otherwise: fake products might not have been on view in Beijing, but they were still on offer everywhere else, since the political will to get them off the streets could not be matched on the ground.

The future of Chinese paten litigation was raise by Jason Albert (Microsoft), asking whether that jurisdiction might be planning, as has been rumoured, to introduce an equivalent to the International Trade Commission in the USA.

Shaping policy; changing policy

Gowers update

The UK IPO is busy implementing another of Mr Gowers’ recommendations, in the shape of the Strategic Advisory Board on IP Policy (SABIP). SABIP will be a non-departmental public body, charged with strategic oversight of IP policy, challenging government policy-making and advising on how the UK’s interests should be pursued in international IP negotiations. Recruitment of its members has closed, but a chair is being sought. The lucky individual must be:

· a recognised and effective leader with a with strategic insight into the role of IP in the economy and society;

· experienced in chairing meetings at board level, analysing complex issues and reaching balanced, independent judgements;

· able to represent SABIP externally and to build consensus, communicate with, and influence a range of stakeholders.

The IPKat notes that applications must be in by 21 January 2008.

US DOJ rejects plans to strengthen its IP enforcement

Fun and games in the US of A. PC Magazine reports that the US Department of Justice has condemned the ProIP Bill, a bill which would establish an intellectual property enforcement divison within the Department of Justice. The DOJ already has an IP enforcement division, which is part of its criminal division, and the DOJ would like it to stay there. The deputy attorney general claimed that the change will disrupt important relationships within the criminal division and will make intradepartmental IP coordination more difficult. She also emphasised the close working relationship between the current IP division and the DOJ’s cybercrime laboratory, saying

“This close collaboration … could be jeopardized if the IP enforcement component were split off from computer crime and placed into a separate division…Moreover, it may lead to duplicative administration and training programs."

She also poured cold water on plans to create an IP office within the White House, noting

"We are always going to be concerned when you have somebody at the White House who may be in the position of directing our enforcement or what cases we do or don't do,"

she said.

"That would be contrary to the long-standing tradition of the department making independent decisions regarding law enforcement."

The IPKat can’t help but think that the new piece of legislation is looking a tad disproprtionate. For sure IP infringement is to be discouraged, but it seems to be being treated almost like a threat to national security, rather than a threat to private rights.