./.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/W/362/Add.5 
12 January 2004 
 
 (04-0076) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights Original:   English 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION  
 
 
Follow-up Questions from Jap an addressed to China  
 
 
Addendum  
  
 The following communication, dated 22 December 2003, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Japan. 
_______________ 
 
   Questions are based on responses from China in document IP/C/W/374/Add.5. 
 
 
1. Regarding Ad response to question 4, have  the Regulations on Royalty Criteria for 
Broadcasting and Television Organizations been alr eady established?  Please provide us with a fixed 
copy of those.  And/or please explain details  about the draft including how the broadcast 
organizations distribute the royalty to right holders.  (Do broadcast organizations distribute the royalty 
directly to right holders?  Or is specific in stitution supposed to manage these distributions?) 
2. Regarding Ad responses to questions 5 and 17,  all the responses to these questions remain 
"under consideration" since last year.  Please explai n details of "the progress of discussion" about the 
criminal procedure threshold.  Moreover, please  let us know what obstacles in decreasing the 
threshold are.  Do you recognize illegal earnings by  selling off 10,000 copies of pirated CD, which we 
gave as an example in the last question, are not  regarded as "commercial scale" stipulated in 
Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement, and therefore, the reused example is not applicable to an "act that 
endangers society to a certain extent"? 
3. Regarding Ad response to question 11, we ar e concerned about whether the following two 
points, which might be inconsistent with Article  41.2 of the TRIPS Agreement stipulating that 
"Procedures shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted delays", have been improved by, fo r example, amending the Customs Law.  Please 
provide information on this matter. 
(1) After the Customs injunction, the right-holders have only 3 days to examine the item 
and pay a deposit.  (Article 14 of Regula tions on Customs Protection of Intellectual 
Property Rights). IP/C/W/362/Add.5 
Page 2  
 
 (2) After the Customs injunction, there is no provision stipulating who bears the cost of 
storage.  For Intellectual Property infringe ment, there have been some cases where 
the cost of storage is borne by the right-holders. 
4. Regarding Ad response to question 16, do you mean that establishing the amount of damage 
is not a legal requirement for bringing an administrati ve case, and therefore, that even if right-holders 
could not establish the amount of damage, the Chin ese authority could initiate the administrative 
procedure?  Also, please tell us which article in Copyright Law stipulates the evidence that right 
holders should submit. Article 47 of the Copyright La w, which you referred to in answer 6, seems to 
be nothing to do with the requirement of evidence.  Is the burden of proof, whic h is required to initiate 
the administrative procedures, alleviated by implementing the Regulation for Copyright 
Administrative Punishment this July? 
__________