Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:17:45.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lessons for International Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises from Counterfeiting Civil Litigations in China

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2022

Chuanzi Cai Open the ORCID record for Chuanzi Cai [Opens in a new window]
Chuanzi Cai*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aims to assess the effect of the 2013 trademark law revision (2013 law revision) on judicial remedies in China. The 2013 law revision increased the remedies Chinese courts can grant to plaintiffs, including small and medium enterprise (SME) plaintiffs, thus leading to higher remedies granted to plaintiffs compared to the past years in prevailing cases. This study finds that right after the law revision, the average amount of judicial remedies granted to plaintiffs increased temporarily. Meanwhile, the detailed judicial reasonings, foreign plaintiffs, and company defendants have stronger positive effects than product types and the year of decisions on the amount of monetary relief. These findings suggest that certain factors in cases may increase the remedies in trademark civil litigation. Therefore, SME plaintiffs should pay attention to core factors for litigation strategies, including preliminary injunctions, choice of defendant, choice of venue, and evidence in remedy collection.

Keywords

Trademark counterfeitingcore factorsjudicial decisionssmall and medium-sized enterpriseslitigation planning
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , December 2022 , pp. 550 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, B. (2016) ‘Making the Best Use of Experts to Evaluate Damages in Intellectual Property Disputes’, The Trademark Reporter 106, 1094.Google Scholar
Assaf, K. (2009) ‘Protection of trade marks against dilution: a semiotic perspective’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 4(9), 643–657.Google Scholar
Barnes, D.W. (2010) ‘Free-Riders and Trademark Law's First Sale Rule’, Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 27, 457.Google Scholar
Bartow, A. (2011) ‘Counterfeits, copying and class’, Houston Law Review 48, 707.Google Scholar
Bone, R.G. (2007) ‘Schechter's ideas in historical context and dilution's rocky road’, Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L. J. 24, 469.Google Scholar
Brauer, T. (2012) ‘You Say 普拉达, I Say, Counterfeit: The Perils of Civil Litigation as a Trademark Protection Strategy in China’, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 12, 262.Google Scholar
Buccafusco, C., and Masur, J. (2013) ‘Innovation and Incarceration: An Economic Analysis of Criminal Intellectual Property Law’, Southern California Law Review 87, 275.Google Scholar
Cai, C. (2018) ‘An Empirical Examination of the Administrative Enforcement on Trademark Counterfeit and Infringement’, China Legal Science 6, 59.Google Scholar
Cai, C. (2020) ‘An Empirical Study of Criminal Sanction on Trademark Counterfeiting in China’, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 63, 100417.Google Scholar
Cheung, G.C. (2009) Intellectual property rights in China: Politics of piracy, trade and protection. Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
Chow, D.C. (2010) ‘Counterfeiting as an Externality Imposed by Multinational Companies on Developing Countries’, Virginia Journal of International Law 51, 785.Google Scholar
Corgill, D.S. (1996) ‘Measuring the Gains of Trademark Infringement’, Fordham Law Review 65, 1909.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, M. (2009) Piracy and the state: The politics of intellectual property rights in China. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dogan, S.L. (2006) ‘What is dilution, anyway’, Michigan Law Review First Impressions 105, 103.Google Scholar
Duan, Y., and Xie, X. (2014) ‘The Level of Damages in Trademark Infringement Cases’, Political and Science Journals 31(2), 14–23.Google Scholar
Fromer, J.C., and Lemley, M. (2013) ‘The Audience in Intellectual Property Infringement’, Michigan Law Review 112, 2151.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., and Goldstein, D.G. (1996) ‘Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality’, Psychological Review 4(103), 650.Google Scholar
Griffiths, A. (2007) ‘Trade marks plus? the role of trade marks in the global economy and the danger of over-protection’, Liverpool Law Review 28(1), 107–141.Google Scholar
Kur, A., and Senftleben, M.R. (2017) European Trade Mark Law–A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Lan, R. (2012) ‘Are intellectual property litigants treated fairer in China's courts? An empirical study of two sample courts’, Indiana University Research Center for Chinese Politics and Business, RCCPB Working Paper No. 16.Google Scholar
Lemley, M. (2004) ‘Property, intellectual property, and free riding’, Texas Law Review 83, 1031.Google Scholar
Lemley, M., and McKenna, M.P. (2010) ‘Owning Mark(et)s’, Michigan Law Review 109 (2), 137–189.Google Scholar
Long, C. (2006) ‘Dilution’, Columbia Law Review 106, 1029.Google Scholar
McKenna, M.P. (2012) ‘A Consumer Decision-Making Theory of Trademark Law’, Virginia Law Review 98(1), 67–141.Google Scholar
Park, W.G., and Ginarte, J.C. (1997) ‘Intellectual property rights and economic growth’, Contemporary Economic Policy 15(3), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rierson, S.L. (2007) ‘Pharmaceutical counterfeiting and the puzzle of remedies’, Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law 8, 433.Google Scholar
Rierson, S.L. (2012) ‘The myth and reality of dilution’, Duke Law & Technology Review 11, 212.Google Scholar
Schechter, F.I. (1927) ‘Fordham Intellectual Property’, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection 40(6), 813–833.Google Scholar
Sepetys, K., and Cox, A.J.. (2009) ‘Intellectual property rights protection in China: Trends in litigation and economic damages.’.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S.J. (2011) ‘Overcoming Under-Compensation and Under-Deterrence in Intentional Tort Cases: Are Statutory Multiple Damages the Best Remedy’, Mercer Law Review 62, 449.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2004) ‘A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making’, University of Chicago Law Review 71, 511.Google Scholar
Stigler, G.J. (1970) ‘The optimum enforcement of laws’, Journal of Political Economy 78(3), 526–536.Google Scholar
Sun, H., and Dong, Y. (2007) ‘An Analysis and Reflection of Public Nature of Intellectual Property Rights’, Science of Law 4, 20.Google Scholar
Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., and Pilcher, J. (1998) ‘Consumer demand for counterfeit goods’, Psychology & Marketing 15(5), 405–421.Google Scholar
Tushnet, R. (2016) ‘What's the Harm of Trademark Infringement’, Akron Law Review 49, 627.Google Scholar
Welkowitz, D.S. (2012) ‘Trademarks in 2010 (and 2011): Dilution Takes Center Stage’, Akron Intellectual Property Journal 6, 45.Google Scholar
Wilson, J., Brandon, S., and Hollis, M. (2016) ‘Measuring the “Unmeasurable” Approaches to Assessing the Nature and Extent of Product Counterfeiting’, International Criminal Justice Review 26(3), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M. (2006) ‘Procedural Relationship between Criminal Prosecution and Civil Litigations’, Journal of People's Prosecutorate 12(1), 5–24.Google Scholar