| |
Yeah!
I am glad the Coko company lost. Their copies are so close to the
originals, they were truely making a "clone brand".
Jeremy
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli writes:
> Got word of this on NPR:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2679811.stm
>
> It's good to see the Chinese courts ruled in LEGO's favor.
>
> Adr.
|
|
| |
Crossposted to lugnet.mediawatch
--------------------------------
In lugnet.general, Adrian Egli writes:
> Got word of this on NPR:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2679811.stm
BBC News Online
Tuesday, 21 January, 2003, 13:16 GMT
Lego Defeats the Chinese Pirates
* photo caption: Children first got their hands on Lego bricks in 1958
Danish toy-maker Lego Company has won a landmark court ruling in China to
protect its copyright against fake versions of its famous brick-shaped toys.
* photo caption: Lego's lawyer shows off the fakes
The Beijing High People's Court ruled in favour of Lego in a court battle which
began in 1999 after Lego spotted made-in-China copies of some of its castles
and pirate ship designs.
Lego said it was "the first time that the Chinese legal system has delivered a
judgment that confirms copyright protection of industrial design/applied art".
China pledged itself to uphold international patent laws when it joined the
World Trade Organisation in 2001 after 13 years of talks in which China's lax
copyright protection system often proved a sticking point.
'Remarkable ruling'
The court ruled that Coko Toy Company, based in the northern Chinese city of
Tianjin, must halt production of the items and turn over its moulds to court
officials to be destroyed, said Lego.
* photo caption: Boy wizard Harry Potter also fell under the fakers' spell
Coko was also ordered to publish an official apology in the Beijing Daily
newspaper and pay a fine to Lego, the Danish firm said.
"This is a remarkable ruling, which is sure to play an important role in the
future as more and more companies currently have to watch copies of their
products being sold in China," said Lego's lawyer Henrik Jacobsen.
In a BBC interview, Mr Jacobsen declined to say how much compensation Lego
would receive, though he described the fine as "pocket expenses".
The ruling found Lego's copyright over 33 out of 53 items in the case had been
infringed.
Lego is known for aggressively defending its copyright to the stick-together
bricks, whose success with children is partly a consequence of their simple
design.
Still suing
Lego said it was currently pursuing legal actions in Norway, Finland and
Denmark against importers of copy products from the same Chinese firm.
China's authorities have worked hard to create a framework of laws to protect
intellectual property rights, part of wider efforts to promote the authority of
the courts in commercial disputes.
Despite substantial progress, foreign analysts say there are still major
problems enforcing central government policy in China's huge provinces.
Double protection
The Beijing court judgement makes it possible to gain "double protection" under
Chinese law, Lego said on its website.
It allows the company to register its designs as well as gaining copyright
protection for the products involved in the court case.
Lego is not the only producer of children's toys and entertainment to encounter
problems in China; boy wizard Harry Potter also fell under the fakers' spell.
Last year, a copycat Harry Potter novel circulating via Beijing street markets
sparked a complaint from the agents for author JK Rowling.
- -
similar news stories
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030121/ap_wo_en_po/as_gen_c
hina_lego_1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20030121/bs_dowjones/20
0301210641000411
|
|
| |
China Court Backs Lego Copyright Claim
By AUDRA ANG, Associated Press Writer
January 21, 2003
BEIJING - As it opens to the world, China has vowed repeatedly to eliminate
counterfeit and pirated products. The latest test of its commitment appears to
build on that promise — brick by colorful plastic brick.
Lego, the Danish toy manufacturer that makes one of the Western world's most
recognizable toys, has won a case in the Beijing High People's Court, which
agreed that a Chinese company copied characteristics of its snap-together
plastic building blocks.
The Denmark-based Lego Company lauded the court's action, made public this
week, as a watershed, asserting on its Web site that the decision "confirms
copyright protection of industrial design."
From children's toys to Hollywood movies, soap and shampoo to name-brand
designer clothing, China is a battleground for companies fighting fakery and
intellectual-property theft. But since Beijing joined the World Trade
Organization (news - web sites) in 2001, the pressure has become even more
intense.
Foreign businesses have complained that China is failing to fully enforce the
laws, forcing them to spend extra money on anti-piracy technology and tactics
while worrying about seeing customers snatched away by unscrupulous
competitors.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance, a trade group, estimates
China's piracy of entertainment and computer goods cost businesses $979 million
in lost sales in 2000.
Movies are high on that list. On Tuesday, the state-controlled China Daily
newspaper said the government was taking "tough measures" to eliminate illegal
copies of the martial-arts epic "Hero," China's highest-grossing domestic film.
Since the movie's premiere in December, cities across China have been flooded
with illegal copies, the newspaper said. "Even unprecedented copyright
protection measures put in place at the first screening failed to safeguard the
film," the report said.
China often takes high-profile, sweeping measures to crack down on fakes.
Last summer, 27.5 million illegal audio and video discs were destroyed in 31
provinces, part of the 43.5 million pirated discs authorities seized from
January to June 2002, state media reported. Some were chipped into slivers at
public rallies.
But trying to eliminate fakes can pose unusual challenges.
Li Shunde, a professor and researcher at the Intellectual Property Rights
Center of the China Academy of Social Sciences, said violations remain rampant
nationwide because of a backward legal system and local protectionism.
In one case, Li said, officials in a village tipped off a factory before a
raid. Police found an empty building; days later, the same counterfeit goods
showed up in markets again.
Even so, he said, China has made progress over the past two years.
"Today you will think of the Chinese government and courts to protect your
rights and there is hope for a win," Li said Tuesday. "Even chances of getting
an official reply were difficult in the past."
Lego filed suit in 1999 against a Chinese company, alleging it had copied 53
characteristics of Lego toys, the statement said. It did not identify the
Chinese company. Some of the fake Lego blocks in China appear identical to the
real thing, right down to the logo.
The court ruled the Chinese company's design violated Lego's copyright on 33 of
those elements, Lego said. It said the court ordered the company to stop
production of the look alikes and turn over toy molds to the court to be
destroyed.
Additionally, the company has been ordered to print an official apology in the
Beijing Daily newspaper and to compensate Lego financially, the statement said.
It didn't say how much the company would pay.
"This is a remarkable ruling," said Henrik G. Jacobsen, Lego's corporate
lawyer. He said it was "sure to play an important role in the future as more
and more companies ... watch copies of their products being made and sold in
China."
A man who answered the telephone Tuesday at the Beijing High People's Court
media department said a case against a toy maker sounded familiar but he
"wasn't clear" which company was involved or what the details were.
The Lego decision suggests China is moving to protect the foreign companies it
needs to keep its economy moving, experts say.
"I think it's a positive response," said To-Hai Liou, director of the Center
for WTO Studies at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. "The violations will
still exist for a while. But within a few years, the cases will decrease
because of these kinds of verdicts."
--
|
|
|
