Improving the Extraterritorial Application System of China's Trademark Law-From the Perspective of a Comparison between Chinese and American Rules

Ziqing Diao

doi:10.62051/ijsspa.v10n7.07

Authors

Ziqing Diao Faculty of Law, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau SAR, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v10n7.07

Keywords:

Foreign-related Rule of Law, Extraterritorial Application of Domestic Law, Trademark Law, Jurisdiction

Abstract

Against the backdrop of deepening economic globalization and the advancement of foreign-related rule of law, the extraterritorial application of domestic law has become an important legal tool for States to defend their sovereignty and protect intellectual property rights and economic interests. Taking comparative law as its research method, this paper first reviews the legal basis and evolution of rules governing the extraterritorial application of domestic law in the United States, and systematically analyzes the adjudicative standards and operational mechanisms underlying the extraterritorial application of the U.S. Lanham Act. It then examines the overall development trend of the extraterritorial application of China's Trademark Law, clarifying the existing gaps, controversies, and practical shortcomings at the legislative, judicial, and law enforcement levels. By comparing the institutional differences between China and the United States in the extraterritorial application of trademark law across the three dimensions of legislation, law enforcement, and adjudication, and in light of China's objectives of building an IP powerhouse and a strong trading nation as well as the practical demands of improved foreign-related rule of law, this paper draws on the mature practical experience of the United States and proposes optimization schemes at four levels-legislative improvement, law enforcement standardization, judicial guidance, and talent guarantee-with a view to filling the institutional gaps in the extraterritorial application of China's Trademark Law, strengthening China's capacity to protect overseas trademark rights, constructing a systematized set of rules for the extraterritorial application of domestic law, and promoting the coordinated development of foreign-related rule of law in the new era.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Qu, W. S. (2021). From extraterritorial jurisdiction to extraterritorial regulation: From the perspective of jurisdiction theory. Social Sciences in China, (4), 44–66, 205.

[2] Dodge, W. S. (2020). The new presumption against extraterritoriality. Harvard Law Review, 133, 1582–1586.

[3] Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).

[4] Liu, Y. (2019). "Fragmentation" of the international legal system on intellectual property in the post-TRIPS era. Academic Research, (7), 53–63, 2.

[5] Huo, Z. X. (2022). The construction of China's extraterritorial application system of law: From the perspective of coordinating the promotion of domestic rule of law and foreign-related rule of law. China Law Review, (1), 41–51.

[6] Liao, S. P. (2019). Extraterritorial application of domestic law and countermeasures: Taking extraterritorial application measures of U.S. laws as an example. Global Law Review, 41(3), 166–178.

[7] Ma, Z. F., & Gong, W. N. (2020). The basis in international law for the extraterritorial application of law and China's practice. Wuling Journal, 45(5), 76–83.

[8] Barber, R. (2021). An exploration of the general assembly's troubled relationship with unilateral sanctions. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 70(2), 343–378.

[9] Lauterpacht, H. (Ed.). (1937). Oppenheim's international law (Vol. 1, 5th ed.). Longmans, Green & Co.

[10] Lotus Case, PCIJ Series A, No. 10, pp. 18–19.

[11] Knox, J. H. (2010). A presumption against extrajurisdictionality. American Journal of International Law, 14, 351–352.

[12] United States v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922).

[13] United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 444 (1945).

[14] Sun, N. X. (2021). The historical origins and modern development of the extraterritorial application of U.S. law—Also on the construction of China's legal system for extraterritorial application of law. Journal of Comparative Law, (3), 170–184.

[15] Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 261 (2010).

[16] RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2102–2103 (2016).

[17] Han, Y. H. (2020). Judicial Practice of Extraterritorial Application of United States Law and China's Response. Global Law Review, 42(4), 166–177.

[18] Yang, S. C. (2007). On the extraterritorial application of U.S. intellectual property law. Law Science Magazine, (5), 111–113.

[19] Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).

[20] Zhao, L. (2013). The extraterritorial expansion of trademark rights protection in the United States. Electronics Intellectual Property, (7), 74–80.

[21] Liu, X. S., & Zhang, J. Y. (2022). The extraterritorial application of U.S. trademark law and China's response. Journal of Soochow University (Law Edition), 9(3), 62–74.

[22] Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633 (1956).

[23] McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F.3d 107 (2005).

[24] Sun, N. X. (2021). The historical origins and modern development of the extraterritorial application of U.S. law-Also on the construction of China's legal system for extraterritorial application of law. Journal of Comparative Law, (3), 170–184.

[25] Shang, S. (2021). Construction challenges and structural priorities of China’s extraterritorial regulatory system: Also on the measures for blocking the improper extraterritorial application of foreign laws and measures. Chinese Journal of International Law, (2), 63–80.

[26] Han, Y. H. (2020). Judicial practice of extraterritorial application of U.S. law and China’s responses. Global Law Review, 42(4), 166–177.

[27] Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce Airport Branch. (2018). Administrative Penalty Decision No. Hu Gong Shang Ji An Chu Zi (2018) 200201810030.

[28] Ruan, K. X. (2015). A New Inquiry into the Issue of Trademark Infringement in Foreign-Related OEM Processing-From the Perspective of the Extraterritorial Application of Trademark Law. China Trademark, (12), 71–76.

[29] Zhang, W. J., & Zhang, T. L. (2017). On the trademark infringement issue in OEM processing from the perspective of extraterritorial application of trademark law and international comity. Journal of Tongji University (Social Science Section), 28(3), 110–124.

[30] Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China. (2014). Min Ti Zi No. 38.

[31] Hu 73 Min Zhong No. 37 (Shanghai Maritime Court, 2016).

[32] Liao, S. P. (2019). The legal system for the extraterritorial application of Chinese law: Current status, problems, and improvement. China Legal Science, (6), 20–38.

[33] Liu, X. S., & Zhang, J. Y. (2022). The extraterritorial application of U.S. trademark law and China's response. Journal of Soochow University (Law Edition), 9(3), 62–74.