A sculpture in Karamy, Xinjiang, China has recently caught a lot
of media attention because of its striking resemblance with a
famous bean-shaped sculpture in Chicago, known as "Cloud
Gate" (or colloquially as "the Bean"). The Cloud
Gate has been a major feature of Chicago's landscape since its
installation in 2006. While the Cloud Gate is shaped like a bean,
the Chinese installation is supposed to resemble an oil bubble.
Both sculptures have a mirror-like surface and passages that lead
to the under-belly of each sculpture. When Anish Kapoor,
the sculptor of the Cloud Gate, learned about the sculpture in
China, he said: "It seems that in China today it is permissible to
steal the creativity of others, I feel I must take this to the
highest level and pursue those responsible in the courts."
This statement begs the question of the extent to which copyright
protection is afforded to foreign creative works in China.
First of all, it has to be noted that there is no uniform set of
laws governing copyright protection all over the world. Thus,
copyright law is "territorial" in nature. The most
significant international treaty governing international protection
of copyright is the so-called Berne Convention, to which both China
and Hong Kong are signatory parties. However, the level of
protection afforded to a work in a certain jurisdiction ultimately
depends on its national laws. According to Chinese copyright law,
copyright can subsist in works of fine art and architecture,
including sculptures (Art. 3 of the Chinese Copyright Act and
Art. 4 of the regulation for its implementation). Any person
who copies another's work commits an act of copyright
infringement and should bear civil liability (Art. 47 of the
Chinese Copyright Act).
Despite there being some level of protection, foreign authors
still often face difficulties when enforcing copyright in China for
the following reasons: (1) there are differences between Chinese
copyright law and foreign copyright laws, (2) enforcement agencies
in China may often be (over-) protective of local companies and
individuals, (3) political institutions in China might have vested
interests in certain industry sectors and their interests may
collide with the interests of foreign investors, (4) there is
limited manpower and resources dedicated to enforcement in China,
especially in smaller and lower tier cities. As a result, many
foreign authors and innovators have been put off from enforcing
their IP rights in China.
In recent years, the Chinese government has made tremendous
efforts to address intellectual property rights problems and
improve enforcement efficiency, for example, by establishing
specialized IP courts. It is hoped that China will continue to
increase the transparency and certainty of enforcement actions, so
that intellectual property right owners will not hesitate to
enforce their rights and China will become a more IP- and
innovation-friendly country for both authors and innovators
domestically and internationally.
This article was authored by
Rosita Li and Maggie Lee
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider
comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the
"Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are:
Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both
limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer
Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales
number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France;
Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated
entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian
law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer
Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the
Mayer Brown Practices in their respective
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments
on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not
a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not
intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific
legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Trading under your name is an appealing idea, especially in the fashion world where designers frequently use their own names as brands (think Hugo Boss, Donatella Versace, and Tom Ford, to name but a few).
1.The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
The future of the European Unified Patent Court (UPC) appears to look a bit clearer following recent ratification activities. On 16 January 2017, the Preparatory Committee for the UPC announced on its website that it is working under the assumption that the UPC can become operational in December 2017.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).