China's Move Against Trademark Trolls Isn't Sure Bet with U.S. Tech Companies
China is doubling down on its efforts to protect intellectual property, but some U.S. tech companies may remain wary about bringing their trademarks into the country absent proof that new additions to the law are more than just talk.
July 30, 2019 at 09:30 AM
4 minute read
Last week, new revisions were officially adopted into the People's Republic of China Trademark Law. Beginning November 1, 2019, trademarks that are filed in “bad faith” can be wiped from the books. Trademark agencies responsible for representing those bad faith actors will also be subject to a fine.
Taking a stronger hand with trademark squatters may go a long way towards enticing previously reluctant U.S. technology companies to take advantage of the Chinese marketplace, which from a regulatory perspective has been akin to the Wild West. However, many could just as easily hold back to ensure that the country's latest attempt to woo commerce is more than just an empty gesture.
“The real questions is going to be, what's going to happen? Because things do need to get clarified,” said Eric Giler, CEO of the IP protection group Ciprun Global.
One of the major problems companies seeking to bring their trademark into China are facing—and something that the country's new trademark revisions seek to remedy—is “squatting.” A bad actor will file a trademark with the intent of using it to either extort money or use as the basis for a lawsuit against companies with legitimate interests.
Mitigating that behavior could have significant value to U.S. tech companies operating at a limited size and scale.
“I think it will be particularly [helpful] to smaller companies who don't have the resources to fight against the trademark trolls in China. They now go over there with more confidence that their trademarks will not be already taken by somebody who has no intent to actually use them,” said Kory Christensen, a principal specializing in intellectual property at Polsinelli.
Still, companies eyeing China may not want to buy a plane ticket until they have an opportunity to see how the law is enforced. Per Christensen, the courts in China have traditionally sided with their own domestic companies in disputes with American entities over trademarks.
Fortunately, the revisions to the trademark law taking hold in November would allow an entity to challenge a trademark suspected of being made absent an intent for use during the application phase, which would potentially cut down on the number of expensive lawsuits.
But the question still remains as to what exactly constitutes “bad faith?” Giler thinks it's something that people will be able to recognize when they see it.
“Let's say you and I are in China and we're going to trademark the Puma sneaker brand, but neither you nor I work in the sneaker business. … Probably people would look at that and say that's not good faith. That's bad faith,” Giler explained.
Frank Ryan, global and U.S. co-chair of the intellectual property and technology practice at DLA Piper, is waiting to see the law in action, citing consistent regulatory application as key to China successfully attracting attention from foreign tech companies. However, don't expect a uniform reaction across the industry.
“I think you'll see everything on the spectrum, from 'OK, let's press this right away,' to 'let's see how the application proceeds,'” Ryan said.
To be sure, the trademark revisions are not the first move that China has made within the last year to address problems related to intellectual property abuse. In January, the country enacted a new e-commerce law that holds online platforms responsible for failing to “take necessary measures” to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods.
Still, the trademark law revisions may represent an effort to address an even more pressing issue. According to the 2018 Annual Report on Intellectual Property Cases compiled by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) and reported by China Law & Practice, the number of IP cases docketed by the SPC spiked from 897 in 2017 to 2018 1562.
Those statistics might come as less than welcome news to tech companies, many of whom have little to no choice but to eventually take the plunge into the Chinese market.
“The tech market in general in China is expanding so rapidly that for many of these tech businesses, having a successful operation there is important,” Ryan said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 2SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 3Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
- 4DOJ Takes on Largest NFT Scheme That Points to Larger Trend
- 5Arnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250