JAPANESE MISSION TO CHINA GETS WARM WELCOME,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 TOKYO 002325 SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/CM, EAP/J AND EB/IPE, E -FELSING USTR for China Office, Japan Office, IPR Office, and OCG - Mendenhall, McCoy Commerce for National Coordinator for IPR Enforcement - CIsrael SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KIPR ECON JP SUBJECT: JAPANESE MISSION TO CHINA GETS WARM WELCOME, BUT FEW ANSWERS ON IPR Ref: Tokyo 617 ¶1. SUMMARY: Chinese officials from 13 ministries and agencies warmly received Japan's joint government- industry mission to China in mid-April. Although the Chinese were remarkably well prepared, the Japanese delegation was not satisfied with the answers they got on China IPR laws. While the atmospherics had improved substantially, two members of the GOJ team told us that the situation on the ground in China is getting worse and losses are rising rapidly. End Summary ¶2. ECONOFF received similar, but separate readouts from two GOJ participants in the delegation, Masayasu Hosumi, Counsellor in the Office of Intellectual Property Protection of the Trade Ministry; and Kentaro Tanaka, Deputy Director, International Affairs Division of the Japan Copyright Office, Agency for Cultural Affairs. A New Chinese Attitude -------------- ¶3. The Japanese side felt a dramatic positive change in attitude by the Chinese officials. The hostility of recent years was gone. Their Chinese interlocutors were welcoming and sincere, admitting that there were serious problems and weaknesses in the system. The Chinese officials had obviously read the papers the GOJ had submitted and were prepared to respond, point by point. For the first time since these missions began four years ago, the GOJ received all of the appointments it requested; the appointments were confirmed in advance; and none were cancelled. The Chinese emphasized that IPR problems could be resolved through dialogue. Last year, many on the Chinese side had complained that China was the main victim of IPR infringement. ¶4. Commerce Minister Bo Xilai told the visiting delegation that the ministry had set up 50 centers in major cities around China to receive and handle information on IPR infringement. Chinese officials gave the Japanese delegation data showing that they had transferred 70 per cent more cases from administrative offices to the police in 2005 than in the year before. They asserted that arrests under the criminal code had gone up 50 per cent in 2004 and 300 per cent in 2005. Hosumi said that Bo mentioned the number of U.S. cases being prosecuted, but did not have similar information for the number of Japanese cases. The GOJ made a point of requesting it. But the problem is getting worse -------------- ¶5. Overall, according to the two delegation members we talked to, the IPR climate in China is worsening, and Japanese companies' losses and damages climbing. According to JETRO (Japan External Trade Organization) data, Japanese companies suffered 3000 cases of infringement in 2005 and have already suffered 5000 cases in 2006 as of early April. To make things worse, Hosumi pointed out, in many places around China the local media is actively opposed to enforcement of intellectual property rights and campaigns against it. Unsatisfactory Answers to Japanese Complaints -------------- ¶6. The friendlier atmosphere the Japanese delegation encountered did not mean that China was prepared to change its position on many issues. For example an International Intellectual Property Protection Forum (IIPPF) complaint to the Commerce Department about trademark infringement by look-alikes was greeted with the response that it was a "matter of law" and the ministry could not do anything about it because of the separation of the legislative and executive branches. (Hosumi labeled this ploy as using the "American TOKYO 00002325 002 OF 003 excuse.") ¶7. The Japanese delegation requested more stringent measures against repeat offenders, and recommended that criminal penalties should be imposed. The Chinese responded that it was impossible because the thresholds set in the law would not allow it. ¶8. A complaint about karaoke machines was also rejected. In China karaoke is considered a movie, which means that the rights go to the producer, according to Hosumi. Japan wants it to be considered broadcasting, allowing full rights to the artists, but Chinese officials told them that that was impossible because "there is no one around to collect the information" about what is played when, how many times. On falsely labeled goods, the Chinese Police officials also offered the excuse that some factories produce labels of multiple brands and it is difficult for them to identify the nationality of the IPR holder. ¶9. At the Supreme People's Court the Japanese recommended revising the unfair competition law because it did not address the problem of "slavish imitation" of a well-known design, e.g. the "Tamagochi" toys. The response was that the Chinese parliament may address the issue when it revises the Patent Law in 2008. The Chinese expect to complete a draft of the new law in 2007 and said that it would be opened for public comments in May or June of next year. ¶10. The Japanese also complained about the situation for agricultural chemicals which are covered by both the Patent Law and the Administrative Law on Pharmaceuticals. The latter has "special contingent application measures" which allow production of the chemicals. As a result Japanese companies have no Chinese licensees and are losing out. ¶11. This was the first time the Japanese mission was able to meet with the prosecutor's office (Supreme People's Procuratorate). The Japanese message to the prosecutors was that enforcement of IPR laws should be a government-wide priority and carried out by local officials wherever needed. ¶12. Some Chinese officials told them that dealing with villagers on IPR issues was politically sensitive and difficult because the villagers have so little information available to them. China is considering whether to "make copyright holders disclose information on the Internet." Hosumi was not sure what this would entail. Thresholds -------------- ¶13. Chinese officials explained that there are now three options for threshold criteria: 1) production or 2) sales or 3) profits. The Japanese side had previously thought it was necessary to meet all three, not just one of the three. The Japanese complained about the fact that the Chinese had raised the threshold in one category at the same time they lowered thresholds in the other two. The Japanese side also criticized the provision which sets the criminal thresholds for individuals at three times that for corporations, which the Japanese told the Chinese was the opposite of the way it should be. The Chinese response was that benefits and responsibilities are shared in corporations, but the Japanese believe it is because Chinese Communist Party members own the corporations. Japanese Technical Assistance -------------- ¶14. The GOJ, working with the private sector through JETRO, plans to continue and expand its programs to TOKYO 00002325 003 OF 003 provide training and textbooks for Chinese Customs and Trademark officials. (See reftel on Japan Intellectual Property Association's related activities in China.) They are compiling a list of names of those who have been convicted of IPR crimes for the Customs service and Fair Trade Bureau. Japanese electronics firms have pledged to provide training and technical information to Chinese Patent Office examiners on certain technologies such as liquid crystal displays, in order to speed up patent approvals. JETRO has compiled several textbooks for its workshops which include handbooks to distinguish real Japanese brand marks from counterfeits. Hosumi remarked that the head of the Chinese Customs office was especially positive during their meetings, appreciative of the training programs and displaying a complete change of attitude from earlier visits. ¶15. JETRO is also planning a METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry) funded seminar for the Supreme People's Court, Fair Trade Bureau and legislative officials in response to China's interest in studying the Japanese IPR legal framework, including anti-trust and fair competition laws. (Econoff shared information with Hosumi about upcoming IPR enforcement workshop at U.S. Consulate-General, Hong Kong.) ¶16. The GOJ will be watching to see if and how China enforces its IPR laws and will be keeping track of actual damages and losses by Japanese companies. Background on the Mission -------------- ¶17. This was the fourth year that the GOJ has sent a joint government-private mission to China. The April 10- 14 mission was lead by Trade Ministry (METI) Director General for Manufacturing Industries Policy DG Tomofuni Hiraku. The working level group paves the way for the high-level mission which will travel the first week in June. Although Hosumi did not want to share the full list of delegation members, the GOJ side included representatives of METI, the Japan Patent Office, the Agency for Cultural Affairs, the quasi-government trade promotion agency, JETRO, industry associations such as the Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA),The International Intellectual Property Protection Forum (IIPPF),and the Japan Electronics and Information Technology Association (JEITA),plus representatives of some large Japanese corporations. ¶18. List of Chinese government agencies visited by the Japanese mission (as given by METI): Supreme People's Court Supreme People's Procuratorate (prosecutors) Ministry of Public Security Ministry of Commerce Office of National Working Group for IPR Protection Ministry of Agriculture General Administration of Customs Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council State Intellectual Property Office State Administration for Industry and Commerce Trademark Office Fair Trade Bureau Administration of Quality Inspection, Supervision, and Quarantine National Copyright Administration State Forestry Administration Donovan