Page:Special 301 Report 2007.pdf/19

 Inadequate IPR enforcement is a key factor contributing to these shortcomings. Rights holders report that enforcement efforts, particularly at the local level, are hampered by poor coordination among Chinese Government ministries and agencies, local protectionism and corruption, high thresholds for initiating investigations and prosecuting criminal cases, lack of training, and inadequate and non-transparent processes.

Several factors contribute to China's poor IPR enforcement record. One major factor is China's chronic underutilization of deterrent criminal remedies. China channels the vast majority of enforcement to administrative authorities. The trademark and copyright industries continue to point out that administrative fines are too low to provide a deterrent, and as a result, infringers continue to consider administrative seizures and fines as a cost of doing business. Rules designed to promote transfer of cases to criminal authorities do not appear to have solved the problem. For example, China's 2006 data reportedly showed that the main administrative trademark enforcement body transferred 50 percent fewer cases to police in 2006 than in 2005.

At the 2005 JCCT, China agreed to increase the number of criminal prosecutions for IPR violations relative to the total number of IPR administrative cases. Unfortunately, there has been no sign yet of a significant shift in emphasis toward criminal enforcement. The safe harbors from criminal liability created by China's high thresholds for criminal liability (i.e., minimum values or volumes required to initiate criminal prosecution, normally calculated on the basis of the infringer's actual or marked price) continue to be a major reason for the lack of an effective criminal deterrent. These safe harbors are among the matters on which the United States has requested WTO consultations.

Other legal obstacles in the area of criminal enforcement include, for example, the lack of criminal liability for certain acts of copyright infringement, the profit motive requirement in copyright cases, the requirement of identical trademarks in counterfeiting cases, and the absence of minimum, proportionate sentences and clear standards for initiation of police investigations in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. At the same time, the United States has also been pressing China for a variety of changes to its administrative and civil enforcement regimes, such as the restoration of minimum (and deterrent) fines in administrative trademark enforcement cases, increased referral of administrative enforcement actions for criminal prosecution, elimination of the need for legalization and consularization of foreign evidence, implementation of a discovery process with compulsory measures for evidence protection, provision of meaningful injunctive relief, and enforcement of judicial orders.

In addition to urging China to address legal obstacles to criminal enforcement, the United States calls upon China to take more aggressive action to prosecute manufacturers of counterfeit goods, producers of pirated optical discs, and entities engaged in commercial reproduction of pirated books, journals, and periodicals. Authorities should investigate when right holders present evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion of illegal production, and should permanently close down, revoke the business licenses, and confiscate and destroy the machinery and materials of commercial pirates and counterfeiters, as well as criminally prosecute the persons responsible. Specific locations and products of concern are highlighted in the Special Provincial Review of China below.