Work with authorities in China to prosecute IP crimes

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Work with authorities in China to prosecute IP crimes

IP owners who want the Chinese authorities to prosecute counterfeiters under the criminal law face a number of challenges. Panelists at a session today will explain ways of overcoming them, says Emma Barraclough.

When it comes to fighting counterfeiters, trademark owners want the criminal law—and the police—on their side. Finding the makers of fakes is arduous, often dangerous work, and without the threat of time in jail there may be little incentive for counterfeiters to stop what can be a very lucrative trade.

There are few places where trademark owners have been more keen to see robust criminal measures in force to support their fight against knock-offs than China. But many brand owners have long complained that Chinese law makes it hard for the police and prosecutors to investigate and prosecute suspected IP infringers.

Panelists at a session today on criminal enforcement will explain how China’s criminal law can be used against infringers and what recent changes to the country’s trademark law mean for IP owners. The session will be moderated by Yunze Lian of Hylands Law Firm. Lan Li of Baker & McKenzie will discuss China’s rules on thresholds and explain how IP owners can initiate criminal proceedings, and two in-house counsel, Steven Wang of Philips Intellectual Property & Standards and Edward Haijiang Yang of Nokia, will outline some trends in the way that IP crimes are handled and explain what recent court rulings tell us about judicial thinking on criminal enforcement.

Thresholds

The issue of minimum thresholds for criminalizing trademark infringement has long frustrated IP owners in China. Chinese officials have argued that these thresholds are justified given that China has a multi-pronged approach to enforcement of its IP laws: the police and public prosecutors tackle serious counterfeiting, while agencies such as the Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Quality and Technical Supervision Bureau deal with smaller-scale infringements. Trademark owners, however, argue that only the jail sentences handed down by judges will deter committed counterfeiters.

The formula for calculating the thresholds for criminalization takes in a number of variables. For trademark counterfeiting, the basic threshold is Rmb50,000 (USD8,000). This falls to RMB30,000 (USD4,800) if two or more trademarks are being counterfeited by the same producer. The thresholds can also take into account the amount of money made by the infringer. Although these thresholds are often lower, IP owners generally struggle to prove how much profit the infringer has made from making fakes.

The threshold to bring a criminal case based on unsold goods is Rmb150,000 (USD$22,800). A Judicial Interpretation issued by the Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security in 2011 clarified that even if a label has not yet been fixed to unsold goods, those goods can still be taken into account for the purposes of calculating thresholds.

The 2011 Interpretation also makes it clear that revenues and profits generated from separate IP infringements in the past two years can be added together to meet the thresholds for an IP crime as long as the infringer has not already faced administrative or criminal punishment.

But Li Lan of Baker & McKenzie says that while this interpretation of the law represents a “substantial step forward” in removing some of the constraints on prosecuting IP-related crimes in China, the current thresholds “still function as a severe barrier to involvement of Chinese police in the investigation of IP crimes.”

Reasons to be cheerful

Although IP owners who want to use China’s criminal law against trademark infringers certainly face challenges, there are plenty of positive developments for IP owners. Edward Yang of Nokia will explain today how enforcement officials within China are getting better at cooperating with colleagues in other agencies and with those based in other regions of China. He will also praise officials for being increasingly likely to look at the bigger picture during anti-counterfeiting work, considering how the entire supply chain works rather than focusing on just one point along the chain.

Yang also says that there have been more successful cases criminalizing the counterfeiting of components in recent years. This has been a legal gray area that has long frustrated brand owners. Chinese law had traditionally been interpreted as saying that counterfeiting could only be a criminal offense if the goods were completed products. Yang will explain how a series of decisions in 2012 involving Nokia-branded goods has helped reshape interpretations of the law in trademark owners’ favor.

Another trend which should make life easier for trademark owners whose marks have been infringed in China is that enforcement agencies are becoming increasingly willing to accept evidence that the value of the case or the illegal turnover meets the thresholds for a criminal prosecution. China is often regarded as having very tough rules on evidence—evidence can be difficult to obtain and the formal requirements for submitting it to the courts often pose problems, particularly for foreign IP owners unfamiliar with Chinese judicial rules. But Yang will explain how the authorities are increasingly likely to accept evidence that infringement satisfies the threshold requirements by admitting records of bank transactions and lists of prior sales, corroborated by statements from the parties involved.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As Marshall Gerstein celebrates its 70-year anniversary, Jeffrey Sharp, managing partner, reflects on lessons that shaped both his career and the firm’s success
News of two pharma deals involving Novo Nordisk and GSK and a loss for Open AI were also among the top talking points
Howard Hogan, IP partner at Gibson Dunn, says AI deepfakes are driving lawyers to rethink how IP protects creativity and innovation
Vivien Chan joins us for our ‘Women in IP’ series to discuss gender bias in the legal profession and why the business model followed by law firms leaves little room for women leaders
Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of IPNote, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, has taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Gift this article