Source: http://www.anallp.com/2008/12/
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 09:38:25
Document Index: 656585772

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art.1', 'Art.3', 'Art.4', 'Art.4', 'Art.7', 'Art.1', 'Art.2', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 4']

2008 December | Anderson & Anderson LLP│安与恩咨询有限公司│Андерсон энд Андерсон ХХК
About UsLocationsOur PeopleExperienceResourcesNews & Events
New Development of IPR Laws and Regulations in China
Anderson & Anderson LLP is an international firm, based in the USA, and founded in California in 1885. We have several offices in Asia, and have been active in China for over 35 years. Our practice includes a diverse range of fields including IP law (including trademark, patent, and copyright registration and protection), mining law (including related taxation law), general domestic and international tax law, litigation and arbitration both in China and internationally, direct foreign investment, banking law and structured cross-boarder loans, mergers and acquisitions, derivative contracts, securities law, real-estate and property law, due diligence and contract work related to all of the above fields, initial and secondary public offerings and offerings of bonds on stock exchanges domestic and foreign, other securities-related transactions, as well as establishment of Chinese subsidiaries and the franchising thereof.
Our clients come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including influential international organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), private banks and insurance companies, major media companies, foreign and domestic mining corporations ( including wholly-owned subsidiaries),major real estate developers, telecom and media firms, as well as manufacturers of construction equipment, soft-drink manufacturers , food manufacturers or automobile manufacturers, equipment manufacturers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
We send you this newsletter, China Lex, as an accommodation and to keep you abreast of the latest topical changes in Chinese law. If there are other areas of law you wish to be kept informed about, please do let us know.
Guangzhou/Shanghai Office
As of the end of December 2007, China has accepted over one million patent applications in the past 18 months, bringing the total to four million since 1985 when the country’s Patent Law came into force. Statistics from the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) showed that patent applications accepted by SIPO reached one million after 15 years. It took 50 months for the applications to reach two million, and only 27 months for three million. Of the latest one million patent applications accepted, about 40% were made by foreign applicants.
With regard to trademark, as of the end of November 2007, trademark registrations in China had amounted to 3,013,700 with the 2007 applications up 29.19% year on year. Furthermore, a more effective enforcement mechanism has also been established to protect IPR. The State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) became more vigilant in handling cases suspected of criminal nature to the police. AICs of all layers undertook 41,000 trademark infringement case, 143 of which would later be shifted to police jurisdiction[ China Intellectual Property New, 2nd January 2008.]. In 2007, China seized 149 million illegal publications of all sorts, 136 million of which were pirated publications, which were made up of 104 million audio video products, 13.987 million books, 5,882 million textbooks or reference books and 12,545 million pirated software and e-publications[ China Intellectual Property New, 23rd January 2008.]. Chinese customs handled 3,310 infringement cases, up 34% from 2006 and seized 320 million pieces of infringing goods, up 193%[ China Intellectual Property New, 23rd January 2008.].
To be more aggressive and effective in the IPR protection and enforcement, Chinese IPR laws and regulations presently are undergoing significant revisions.
China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2007
China’s Action Plan on IPR Protection 2007, issued on 2nd April 2007, details 276 measures in 10 areas. In line with the 2007 Action Plan, relevant authorities were to draft, formulate and revise 14 laws, regulations, rules and administrative measures on trademark, copyright, patent and customs protection, as well as 7 judicial interpretations and guidelines, some of which include:
1) to revise laws and regulations on trademark protection and unfair competition;
2) to draft, formulate and revise laws, regulations and rules regarding copyright protection;
3) to draft, formulate and revise laws, regulations and rules regarding patent protection;
4) to draft, formulate and revise laws, regulations and rules concerning IPR protection in foreign trade and through customs;
5) to study and formulate IPR judicial interpretations and regulatory documents.
The Chinese Copyright Law
The following laws, rules and regulations are to be drafted, formulated and revised for copyright protection:
1) to ensure successful research on the second amendment to the Copyright Law in response to new situations and challenges facing copyright protection;
2) to promulgate the Measures on Copyright Contract Registration Documentation (《著作权合同登记备案办法》)to facilitate the implementation of copyright laws and regulations;
3) to revise and promulgate the Measures on Voluntary Registration of Works (《作品自愿登记管理办法》)in order to lower the protection costs for right-holders and to secure copyright transactions;
4) to engage in research and formulation of the Regulations on Copyright Protection for Folk Literature and Artistic Works (《民间文学艺术作品著作权保护办法》) in order to strengthen the protection of folklore and literature;
5) to promulgate Measures on Remuneration for Statutory Licensing of Textbooks (《教科书法定许可付酬办法》); and
6) to speed up the formulation of the Measures on Remuneration by Radio and Television Stations for Broadcasting Statutory Licensed Phonograms in accordance with the Copyright Law (《广播电台电视台法定许可播放录音制品支付报酬办法》).
Draft Amendment to the Chinese Trademark Law
The Draft of the proposed Trademark Law amendments applies to the definition of registered trademark, the application procedure for multiple class filings, higher statutory damages cap, etc.
A broader definition of trademarks is given in the draft. The draft removes the term “visually perceptible” in the previous definition under the current Trademark Law, which means that any trademark that can distinguish itself from others and can be described is the subject of an application for registration as a trademark, and therefore, it broadens the protection of subject things as trademarks. Now, “Trademarks (brand)” means marks that are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one natural person, legal person or other organization from the goods or services of another, and they may be composed of elements such as words, figures, letters, numerals, three-dimensional signs and colors or any combination of the foregoing elements.
The method of filling trademark applications may be improved in the near future. The draft stipulates that relevant documentation, such as an application for trademark registration, may be submitted in written form or in other forms prescribed by the Trademark Office. As all know, some countries around the world have implemented online application and examination for trademarks, which costs the applicants less time and money, yet is more efficient. “Other methods” for submitting applications indicates that in the future, the trademark office in China may adopt online application and examination as well, which will definitely be great progress in trademark protection.
Improvements will also be made on the Law against Unfair Competition(《反不正当竞争法》), a law closely connected with the protection of IPR, especially for the protection of well-known commodities. Provisions for Identification and Protection of Well-Known Trademarks(《驰名商标认定和管理规定》) will also be revised.
Draft Amendment to the Chinese Patent Law
The third draft of Patent Law has a compulsory requirement for filing a Design Patent. A brief explanation or description of the design is required when filing a Design Patent, while under the current law, a brief explanation of the design is optional. Some scholars proposed not to change this provision in that it may limit the scope of protection once the description or explanation is given. The brief explanation or description may be used to interpret the drawings or photos when constructing the protection scope of the design patent concerned.
Also, a Search Report system will be established. In case the infringement relates to a design patent, the people’s court or the administrative authority for patent affairs may ask the patentee to furnish a search report made by the patent administration department under the State Council.
In addition, the relevant authorities will accelerate the revision of the Regulations on Patent Agency (《专利代理条例》) to standardize patent agency services, and formulate the Measures on Cross-Region Enforcement in Patent Cases(《跨区域专利案件联合执法办法》).
Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition 《最高人民法院关于审理不正当竞争民事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》
To correctly hear civil cases involving unfair competition, the Interpretation was adopted at the 1412th meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on 30th December 2006, and came into force as of 1st February 2007.
This Interpretation mainly deals with the protection of well-known commodities. Commodities that have certain market popularity within the territory of China and are known to the relevant public shall be regarded as “well-known commodities”, the copying of which is prescribed in the Anti-unfair Competition Law. When affirming a well-known commodity, the following elements shall be taken into consideration: the time, region, volume and targets for selling such commodities, the duration, degree and scope for any publicity of such commodities, and the protection situation as well-known commodities. It is the plaintiff that shall assume the burden of proof for the market popularity of its commodities. (Art.1).
If the decoration of the business place, the pattern of business tools, or the clothes of business staff of a business operator, etc. constitutes an overall business image with a unique style, it may be affirmed as a “decoration”, the copying of which is prescribed in the Anti-unfair Competition Law. (Art.3).
If it is sufficient to cause the relevant public to misunderstand the source of a commodity, including the misunderstanding of such a specific relationship as licensed use or affiliation with the business operator of a well-known commodity, it shall be affirmed as “causing confusion with the well-known commodity of someone else, and making the purchasers mistake it to be a well-known commodity” prescribed in the Anti-unfair Competition Law. (Art.4).
The use of a fundamentally similar name, package or decoration of a commodity or the one that is hardly different from the counterfeited one in terms of visual effect on the same commodity shall be regarded as sufficient to cause confusion with another person’s well-known commodity. (Art.4).
The commercial use by another party within the territory of China, including the use of the specific name, package or decoration of a well-known commodity, or the enterprise title or name of a commodity, commodity packages or commodity exchange documents, or for advertisements, exhibitions or other commercial activities, shall be affirmed as the “use” prescribed in the Anti-unfair Competition Law. (Art.7).
However, if an identical or similar name, package or decoration with that specific to a well-known commodity is used within a different region, if the later user can prove its good faith in using it, it will not constitute unfair competition prescribed by the Anti-unfair Competition Law. If the later business activities are conducted within the same region and it is sufficient to cause confusion, and if the first user pleads the court to order the later to add other marks to distinguish the sources of its commodities, the people’s court shall support it. (Art.1).
Also, if the specific name, package or decoration of a well-known commodity contains the name, graphics, or model common to the said commodity in question, or directly indicates the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity or any other characteristic of the said commodity, or contains the place name, if any, and other parties uses it for objectively describing commodities, it will not constitute an unfair competition. (Art.2).
Interpretation II of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of the Issues concerning the Specific Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights 最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理侵犯知识产权刑事案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释(二)
The above Interpretation was adopted at the 1422nd meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court and the 75th meeting of the Tenth Procuratorial Committee of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on 4th April 2007, effective 5th April 2007. The Interpretation lowered the threshold for prosecution of those making or selling counterfeit products. The “other serious circumstance” mentioned in the Criminal Law, Article 217, shall refer to any for-profit duplication and/or distribution, without permission from the copyright holder, of the literary, musical, cinematic, television or video works, computer software or other works of the copyright holder with at least 500 copies of duplicates in total; and the “other especially serious circumstance” mentioned in the Criminal Law, Article 217 shall refer to any for-profit duplication and/or distribution above with at least 2,500 copies of duplicates in total, and the “duplication and/or distribution” in a crime of infringement of copyright pursuant to the Criminal Law, Article 217, which refer to duplication or distribution or both duplication and distribution. (Art. 1). Therefore, anyone who manufactures 500 or more counterfeit copies (discs) of computer software, music, movies, TV series or other audio-video products can be prosecuted and imprisoned for up to 7 years.
Measures on Regulating Patent Application Activities 《关于规范专利申请行为的若干规定》
This Measure came into effect on 1st October 2007, which aims to regulate and standardize the patent application activities.
Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on Approving the Protocol on Revising the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
《全国人大常委会关于批准《修改＜与贸易有关的知识产权协定＞议定书》的决定》
It was decided on 28th October 2007 at the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee of the 10th National People’s Congress to approve the Protocol on Revising the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights which was adopted by the General Council of the World Trade Organization on 6th December 2005.
The above Protocol stipulates that under certain circumstances, members to the protocol can grant compulsory license to its domestic enterprises to manufacture and export certain patented medicines, while pursuant to the previous protocol, compulsory license could only be granted to supply the domestic market. The developing and the least-developed members of the WTO can, when facing public health crises resulted from AIDS, malaria, pulmonary tuberculosis, and other pandemic diseases, grant compulsory license to the domestic enterprises, without authorization from the patentee, to manufacture, use, sell the patented medicines to cure above-mentioned diseases, or import said medicines from other members having granted such compulsory license.
Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues Concerned in the Trial of Cases of Civil Disputes over the Conflict between Registered Trademark or Enterprise Name with Prior Right (Interpretation No.3 [2008])
《最高人民法院关于审理注册商标、企业名称与在先权利冲突的民事纠纷案件若干问题的规定》(法释〔2008〕3号)
Adopted at the 1444th meeting of the judicial committee of the Supreme People’s Court on 18th February 2008, this Interpretation aims to correctly try cases of civil disputes over the conflict between registered trademarks and enterprise names with prior rights, by taking judicial practices into account.
For a lawsuit filed on the grounds that the character or graphic used in the registered trademark of the other party infringes upon the plaintiff’s copyright, patent right for a design, right to enterprise name or other prior right, if the lawsuit conforms to the provision of the Civil Procedure Law, Article 108, the court shall accept the case. (Art. 1).
If a lawsuit is filed on the grounds that a registered trademark used by other party on approved commodities is identical or similar to its prior registered trademark, the court shall, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Law, Article 111 (3), inform the plaintiff to apply to the relevant administrative authorities for disposition. (Art. 1). If a lawsuit is filed on the grounds that a registered trademark used by other party beyond the scope of approved commodities, or by changing notable features of the registered trademark, splitting or combining the registered trademark, is identical or similar to plaintiff’s prior registered trademark, the court shall accept the case. (Art. 1).
If a lawsuit is filed on the ground that the enterprise name of the other party is identical or similar to the prior registered enterprise name of the complainant, which is sufficient to confuse the public of the source of commodities and is in breach of Article 5(3) of Anti-unfair Competition Law, the court shall accept the case. (Art. 2).
If the enterprise name of defendant infringes on the exclusive right of a registered trademark, or constitutes unfair competition, the court may, based on the claims of the plaintiff and the actual circumstances of the case, decide that the defendant shall cease and standardize the use of registered trademark. (Art. 4).
Special Courts for IPR Cases
Special courts for IPR cases were established across the country, including 172 courts of appeal and 140 collegial panels. Furthermore, a national service network in 50 cities to handle IPR complaints has been set up by the Office of the National Working Group for IPR Protection.
1. Sisley vs. Sistains for Copying the Package of Well-Known Commodity
On 24th January 2005, Sisley filed against Sistains with Shenzhen Intermediate Court for Sistains’ copying of Sisley’s package, which infringed on the package of Sisley as a well-know commodity. Sisley claimed that it was a world-famous brand of beauty and cosmetic products. Established in 1976, Sisley entered into China in February 2002, selling more than 100 products in 13 shoppes in China, with annual sales volume of RMB 11,128,000, RMB 14, 013, 000, and RMB 26, 023, 000 from 2002 to 2004. Besides, Sisley spent as much as RMB 5,000,000 annually in advertising its products in the most influential fashion newspapers and magazines in China. However, Shenzhen Intermediate Court ruled that although the packing box and bottles of Sistains were similar to those of Sisley, the law only protected package of well-known commodities. Although Sisley advertised in fashion magazines, the issue range and circulation of such magazines cannot be proved. Sisley sold its products in high-class shops, but high-class commodities did not mean well-known commodities, and an internationally well-known commodity did not mean it was also well-known in China. As Sisley only had 13 shoppes in China, the Intermediate Court denied the claims of Sisley.
Sisley appealed to the Higher Court of Guangdong Province. The Higher Court believed that Sisley’s advertising in the influential fashion newspapers and magazines had made it relatively highly recognized in the market. Although Sisley only had 13 shoppes, the sales volume and the market share were not the decisive factors of a well-known commodity. When affirming a well-known commodity, comprehensive consideration shall be given to the following factors: the time, region, volume and targets for selling such commodities, and the publicity scope. As the evidence presented by Sisley was sufficient to prove it was well-known in China, the Higher Court ruled that the activities of Sistains constituted unfair competition, and Sistains shall stop manufacturing and selling the infringing products, and compensate Sisley RMB 100,000.
2. Puma vs. Guangzhou Liyuan Trade Company Limited (“Liyuan”) for Sales of Products Infringing on Trademark
Puma filed against Liyuan for its sales of products counterfeiting Puma’s travelling bags, which infringed on Puma’s trademark. The court ruled that as Puma was the trademark owner, its exclusive trademark rights was protected by law. As Liyuan cannot prove that the products it sold were manufactured by Puma, or manufactured with authorization from Puma, the court determined that the products infringed on Puma’s trademark. The court ruled Liyuan shall stop selling travelling bags with Puma’s trademark and compensate Puma RMB 20,000.
3. Kohler vs. Beijing Meiliantiandi Building Material Limited, Shanghai Deli Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd., Wenzhou Kenai Sanitary Ware Co. Ltd for Sales of Products Infringing on Patent Right
Kohler, a world-famous producer of kitchen and bath products, filed against Meiliantiandi, Deli, and Kenai with Beijing No. 2 Intermediate Court, claiming the defendants were infringing on its patent right.
The court ruled: the Design Patent of Kohler is still within the validity period, and therefore protected by law. No unit or individual shall exploit the patent without authorization from Kohler, that is, to make, sell or import the patented product for production or business purposes. As the products sold by Meiliantiandi were the same as the patented products of Kohler, the involved product infringed the patent right of Kohler.
As the packing box, instruction book and quality certification of the involved products contained the name of Deli, the registered trademark of Kenai, Deli and Kenai shall be deemed as the producer and seller of the involved product. Besides, as Deli and Kenai had admitted they jointly produced and sold the product, both companies shall jointly bear civil liability for producing and selling infringing products, and compensate Kohler of RMB 27,000. As Meiliantiandi can prove its legitimate source of purchasing the products, it did not bear any liability, but it shall stop selling the products.
——by Anderson & Anderson LLP, Guo Xuehui
Posted in Experience, Newsletter | No Comments »
Arbitration Law of Mongolia
Anderson & Anderson LLP is an international law firm, based in the USA, founded in California in 1885. Our attorneys have been active in Asia since 1963, in China for more than 35 years, and in Mongolia for over 15. Our practice both inside and outside of Mongolia has included a diverse range of fields including IP law, including trademark, patent, and copyright registration and protection, mining law, including related taxation law, general domestic and international tax law, litigation and arbitration both in Mongolia and internationally, direct foreign investment, banking law and structured cross-boarder loans, mergers and acquisitions, derivative contracts, securities law, real-estate and property law, due diligence and contract work related to all of the above fields, initial and secondary public offerings and offerings of bonds on stock exchanges domestic and foreign, other securities-related transactions, as well as establishment of Mongolian subsidiaries and the franchising thereof.
Our clients come from a wide variety of backgrounds, including influential international organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), private banks and insurance companies, major media companies, foreign and domestic mining corporations, including wholly-owned subsidiaries, telecom and media firms, as well as manufacturers of construction equipment and the world’s largest soft-drink manufacturer.
We send you this newsletter, Mongolia Lex, as an accommodation and to keep you abreast of the latest topical changes in Mongolian law. If there are other areas of Mongolian law you wish to be kept informed about, please do let us know.
THE Arbitration law in Mongolia By Batchimeg Batbayar (Attorney)
1.Backround of Mongolian National Arbitration
Mongolia has one formal arbitration organization, which is called the Arbitration Court of the Mongolian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. There are also rules that permit enforceable ad hoc arbitration. The Mongolian National Arbitration Court was established under the “ Chamber of Commerce ” with one arbitrator on 2nd July, 1960, by Resolution 164/295 of the Central Committee of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party and the Council of Ministers. [ The Arbitration and Business Law, National Arbitration Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2005, №01 (06) Translation from Mongolia to English.] The Arbitration Commission Charter was adopted in 1962, creating the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission. The COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) countries ratified the Convention on the Settlement by Arbitration of Civil Law Disputes Arising out of Relations between Countries Engaging in Economic Scientific and Technological Cooperation on the 26th of May, 1972 in Moscow. The arbitration courts of the COMECON member countries jointly worked out a draft agreement to resolve disputes under to the above convention, with each country establishing their own system separately. Mongolia also followed this path, with the Head Hural of the Trade Chamber ratifying the treaty on 26th February, 1975, and amending the relevant regulations to conform thereto. On 1st March, 1975, the Trade Chamber leadership commenced their new activities, as stipulated by the COMECON treaty. The Arbitration Commission was changed into the Arbitration Court by a resolution of the leadership of the Trade Chamber in 1986.
In 1991, the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court was expanded to consider all commercial disputes involving foreign trade, regardless of nationality of disputants.
In 2003, a new Arbitration Law was adopted, changing the Foreign Trade Arbitration Court into the Mongolian National Arbitration Court, expanding its sphere of activities to include resolution of domestic and foreign business disputes through arbitration and mediation, and also to promote training and research in arbitration.
Mongolia was a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (adopted in 1958 and more commonly known as the New York Convention), and in 1995 arbitration awards made within Mongolia became enforceable in the 156 or so other states and territories that have ratified the convention, and their awards became enforceable in Mongolia.
The Arbitration Court hears and settles disputes arising in the result of agreements, contracts and other civil relations between legal entities in the process of foreign trade, international economic, scientific-technological exchange and other activities.
2.Treaties and Laws related to Arbitration in Mongolia
Arbitration in Mongolia is regulated by the following treaties and laws:
1. International Conventions
a) 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards;
b) 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other states; and
c) 1972 Moscow Convention on the Settlement by Arbitration of Civil Law Disputes Arising out of Relations between Countries Engaging in Economic Scientific and Technological Cooperation.
2. Domestic Laws
d) Arbitration Law, 2003;
e) Civil Code, 2002;
f) Civil Procedure Code, 2002; and
g) Law on Court Enforcement.
If domestic arbitration law is inconsistent with an international treaty to which Mongolia is a party, then the international treaty will have priority. 3. Arbitration Law of Mongolia
The Foreign Trade Arbitration Court has been consistently increasing its functions and powers since the end of Communism in Mongolia, especially in that it has been hearing more cases and hiring more specialist staff, so the legislation relating to its functions has also required similar updating and enhancement. Therefore, the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law of Mongolia was adopted by Parliament (the State Great Hural) on 22nd January, 1995. Only one arbitration institution had previously functioned in Mongolia, specifically the Foreign Trade Arbitration Court. Since 1995 the Foreign Trade Arbitration Court has been working to solve disputes arising from foreign trade and economic transactions and also to settle disputes between foreign investment companies.
On 9th May, 2003, the State Great Hural adopted a new Arbitration Law of Mongolia. This new law has 8 Sections and 43 Articles. The purpose of this law is to regulate arbitration disputes related to material and nonmaterial property arising between legal entities. This law is based on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted in 1985 by the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)[ The UNCITRAL Modal law on International Commercial Arbitration was prepared by UNCITRAL and adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21st June 1985. In 2006 the Model Law was amended. The Model Law is not binding, but individual state may adopt the model law by incorporating it into their domestic law.] and has conformed to the principle and view of modern arbitration. This law is still in effect today. Most sections of the law followed the opinions of the International Trade Arbitration Law adopted by UNCITRAL. When the draft of the Arbitration Law of Mongolia was being prepared, adherence to UNICITRAL’s recommendations to expand procedures which solve disputes out of court were adopted.
3.1 Arbitration Agreement
“Arbitration Agreements” are defined in the law as a specific type of bargain concluded between parties with the purpose of settling a dispute over any matter, which arose or which may arise out of legal relations or other particular types of dispute, Arbitration Law, Article 11.1. Arbitration agreements are the main basis for conducting arbitral proceedings in Mongolia, and they are typically prepared in written form. Arbitration agreements generally consist of independent arbitration agreements signed by the parties concerned. However, a letter, telegram, official note, fax or other similar document that expresses the parties’ willingness to conclude an arbitration agreement shall be considered as an arbitration agreement, as defined in the Arbitration Law, Article 11.3.
Moreover, if any document pertaining to the arbitration agreement is cited in the basic contract between the parties and this is specified in the contract as an inseparable part thereof, this shall be considered as an independent arbitration agreement between the parties concerned, Arbitration Law, Article 11.3.
If the parties choose to settle disputes by institutional arbitration, the name of the arbitration panel chosen must be entered correctly in the arbitration agreement. If the parties write the name of the permanent arbitration panel wrongly it may not be enforceable. The parties can also establish their own panel by resort to ad hoc arbitration.
3.2 Arbitral Tribunal and Jurisdiction
Mongolian domestic law defines the types of disputes which can be solved by arbitration. For example, the 1995 Foreign Trade Arbitration Law, allowed that to some type of international disputes could be placed under the jurisdiction of arbitration. However, the 2003 Arbitration Law, expanded the categories of disputes which could be subject to arbitration, and allowed certain contractual and non-contractual civil disputes to be resolved by arbitration. In this way, arbitration became a valid option for solving disputes which arose from international trade and economic relations, and certain Mongolian domestic civil disputes. In accordance with the Arbitration Law, Article 20.1, an arbitration tribunal shall decide whether the dispute is subject to the jurisdiction of arbitration. The arbitration tribunal must first check whether the dispute is related to the types of disputes resolved by arbitration in Mongolia, and secondly whether the parties actually have an arbitration agreement. If the parties negotiate an arbitration agreement about a dispute which may not be legally subject to arbitration, then the agreement may be declared invalid. However, even if the parties lack an arbitration agreement, if the dispute is in one of the categories which may legally be resolved by arbitration, then the arbitration panel will hear the dispute anyway.
3.3 Institutional and Temporary Arbitration
By the 1995 Foreign Trade Arbitration Law, only international arbitration was regulated. Therefore, Mongolian domestic disputes were resolved by only in Mongolian courts. However, the new (2003) Arbitration Law established a unified framework which regulates international and domestic arbitration, and in this way it differs from the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Arbitration in Mongolia may be either permanent or temporary (ad hoc). Temporary or Ad Hoc arbitration was not regulated by the previous law, but is now regulated by the 2003 law. “Permanent” and “Temporary” are defined by the 2003 law and permanent arbitration is no longer limited to just one person. The Chamber of Commerce & Industry and other nongovernmental organizations and associations protecting the rights and interests of producers and customers may set up an institutional arbitration center as its primary function. Governmental agencies, administration bodies and profit making legal persons are prohibited from establishing arbitration centers. Institutional arbitration centers are deemed as established when an organization permitted by this law decides to set up an institutional arbitration center and to establish both rules and a list of arbitrators. The organization and management of an institutional arbitration center are regulated by its internal statute.
An institutional arbitration center can conduct arbitration for any disputes mentioned in the Arbitration Law. In particular arbitration of disputes regarding intellectual property and foreign trade is encouraged. Ad hoc arbitration shall be set up by parties by means of written agreement. Institutional and Ad hoc arbitration panels both have the same rights, Arbitration Law, Article5.
3.4 Challenge of Arbitrators
When a person is approached in connection with possible appointment as an arbitrator, he will be required disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. An arbitrator from the time of their appointment, throughout the arbitral proceedings must disclose such circumstances that may give rise to such doubts as soon as he or she becomes aware of them. Either party may challenge an arbitrator appointed by themselves, or in whose appointment they participated, for reasons of which he becomes aware after the appointment of that arbitrator, Arbitration Law, Article 16.
3.5. Court Participation for Arbitral Proceedings
In accordance with the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law of 1995, there was no court involvement in arbitration activities, however the 2003 law provides that courts may participate in arbitral proceedings in some cases. Parties who conclude arbitration agreements by implication chose to have their disputes resolved by arbitration only. This choice is made by parties who would rather not have disputes resolved in court. In order to respect the parties’ arbitration agreement, courts will not participate in arbitral proceedings arising from matters covered in the parties’ contract. Also, the courts are completely barred from being involved in certain types of dispute, which are the exclusive domain of arbitration under Mongolian law. However, if either party finds arbitration proceeding to be conducted unfairly, they may demand court assistance from a Court of Appeals.
In order to facilitate the establishment of complete conditions for quick, cheap, and fair arbitral proceedings, a Court may participate in following method an applicable one of the parties[ The National Arbitration Journal, Mongolian National Arbitration Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2004, Translation from Mongolia to English ]
a) the Parties submitted a request to confirm their arbitral awards. Prior or during arbitral proceedings, parties may submit their request to a court of appeal to have measures taken confirming arbitral awards and a judge may take appropriate measures pursuant to Article 69 of the Law on Decision of Civil Cases upon such a request and this shall not be considered as violating the arbitration agreement, Arbitration Law, Article 13.1;
b) either party submitted a request to the Court to appoint an arbitrator, if the parties do not agree to appoint an arbitrator themselves;
c) either party may not submit a request to challenge an arbitrator, if the parties cannot resolve challenges to an arbitrator on their own;
d) if the parties realize that the arbitration panel is abusing its power, they may abolish that panel and create a new one, Arbitration Law, Article 20.4;
e) either party may submit a request to invalidate an arbitration award. A party may appeal to a higher level court than the place of arbitration proceedings in order to annul an arbitration award only on the grounds stipulated in Article 40.2 of this Law, Arbitration Law, Article 40.1; and
f) A party may submit a request to have an arbitration award recognized and enforced. If either of the parties fails to implement the award, the other may appeal to a Court of Appeals pursuant to the procedures on enforcement of court decisions, Arbitration Law, Article 42.1.
3.6. Arbitration Costs
Arbitral tribunals set their costs of based on the nature of the dispute heard, the size of the arbitral award, and the time taken by the arbitral proceedings. Arbitration cost includes: arbitrators’ fees, expenses incurred to the arbitrator during arbitral proceedings and other unpaid costs. Under the Arbitration Law, Article 31.2, also requires payment costs related to witnesses or other costs incurred by the arbitral tribunal during arbitration as well as an institutional arbitration fee. Unless the parties agree otherwise in advance, all of the aforementioned costs shall be paid by the respondent if the claimant’s claim is fully upheld and by the claimant if the claimant’s claim is dismissed. If only part of the claim is satisfied, then the costs shall be apportioned between the claimant and the respondent proportionate to the amount of the claim satisfied. If the actual cost is lower than the anticipated cost because a settlement is reached between the parties, the claimant withdraws their claim, or the respondent fully satisfies their claim, and there is only a sole arbitrator, the difference will be returned to the parties. Arbitral tribunals determine the advance costs, including fees for translators, expert witnesses, and other costs, of arbitral proceedings, and if the parties fail to pay these costs within the agreed timeframe, the arbitral tribunal may postpone or terminate the arbitral proceedings, Arbitration Law, Article 41.
Amount of Claim of Cases resolved by Arbitration in Mongolia
3.7. Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
There are difficulties regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Mongolia. In some case the party who has lost the lawsuit may refuse to recognize an arbitral award. The 1958 United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, ratified by a general meeting of the United Nations New York, is the main vehicle for enforcing arbitral awards at the international level. This convention established protections for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards which issued in states both participant and non-participant to the convention. Member countries have the duty to recognize and enforce arbitral awards, regardless of where they were made. However, this procedure may be adapted to the different laws of the participant countries. Mongolia’s 2003 Arbitration Law stipulates that the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards shall be in accordance with the 1958 New York Convention. However, the law does not apply to foreign arbitral awards generally, and it is unclear whether the law is intended to be applied to awards made in New York Convention member countries only, or is it intended to provide for relevant procedures. International Conventions are automatically part of Mongolian law. Arbitral tribunals in Mongolia decide disputes in accordance with the rules of the law chosen by the parties as applicable to the substance of dispute, Arbitration Law, Article 34. For arbitral proceedings involving more than one arbitrator, arbitral decisions are made, unless otherwise agreed, by majority vote of arbitrators involved. Awards are presented in writing and signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators, Arbitration Law, Article 37. Awards must provide the names of the arbitral tribunal, the place of arbitration, the date, and the legal reasons for the arbitral award and, unless otherwise agreed to or settled by parties, arbitration costs, Arbitration Law, Article 37.[ Translated from the Arbitration Law.
Within 30 days of receipt of an award, unless otherwise agreed, a party may, with notice, request an arbitral tribunal to correct computational and clerical or typographical errors, Arbitration Law, Article 39. Parties are required to execute the arbitral award. If a party fails to execute the award, then the other party may submit a request to the Court of Appeals to enforce the award, Arbitration Law, Article 42. [ Translated from the Arbitration Law.]
In 2004 there was one case that touched on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the 2004. On 15th January, in Stockholm arbitral panel ruled in favor of a claim of US$3.3 million against Erdenet Mining Corporation, which is a Mongolian legal entity. Erdenet has not yet paid the money to the claimant. Unfortunately, no proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of this award were ever conducted, to our knowledge.
Today there are many cases involving the recognition and enforcement of such foreign arbitral awards before the Mongolian Courts Decision Enforcement Authority, according to its staff. The Mongolian Courts Decision Enforcement Authority is handling enforcement of approximately 20 cases in this field over the course of 2008. Most of these cases involve payment execution. 3.8. The Confidentiality of Arbitral Proceedings
Confidentiality is an important issue in international arbitration proceedings. The main issue of confidential for arbitral proceedings is a topic of conversation between researchers since Australia Court’s decision on Esso Resources Ltd. Plowman. Keeping confidential of the parties may be an advantage of arbitration.
Under the Arbitration Law of Mongolia, 2003 there are no rules with regards to confidentiality for parties and arbitrators involved in the arbitration proceedings, there were the issues of confidentiality regulated in the Foreign Trade Arbitration Law of Mongolia, 1995, article 13. Following issues of confidentiality: the Arbitration trial shall be conducted in open trial, Foreign Trade Arbitration Law of Mongolia, Article 13.1;
if the case evidence is related to the confidentiality of State, Organization, Citizens and either parties the Arbitration may be conducted in closed-door trial, Foreign Trade Arbitration Law of Mongolia, Article 13.2; and
arbitral tribunals and participants are obligated to keep the confidentiality of State, organizations and citizens in arbitration proceedings, Foreign Trade Arbitration Law of Mongolia, Article 13.3.
Except for the legal regulations on confidentiality of arbitration decisions, the arbitration tribunal may provide some information on arbitration decisions, but little statistical information, not provide the name of disputing parties.
The Arbitration Court heard approximately 60 cases in 2007, and according to its staff, this number is set to increase. The Arbitration Court heard below cases between 1992 and 2005 years. – Disputes arising from Agreement for Transfer of Licenses
– Disputes arising from Lease Agreement
– Disputes arising from Agent Agreement – Disputes arising from Agreement for Sale and Purchase License
– Disputes arising from Agreement for Hired Work
– Disputes arising from Agreement for Execution of Construction
– Disputes between Founders of Joint Venture Company
– Disputes arising from Lease Agreement for Real Estate
– Disputes between Founders of Foreign Invested Joint Venture Company
– Disputes arising from Transportation Agreement – Disputes arising from Loan Agreement Because of the poor quality of its arbitrators, their lack of decent remuneration, and the tendency of the arbitrators to support the Mongolia party, there has been a substantial decrease in parties willingness to submit cases to the Mongolian National Arbitration Court. Ad hoc arbitration and arbitration out of Mongolian has become most common. Number of cases resolved by Arbitration (1992-2006)
4. Ad Hoc Arbitration
Other than the Institutional Arbitration described above, ad hoc arbitration requires the parties to make their own arrangements for selection of arbitrators. Ad hoc proceedings can be more flexible, and faster than institutional proceedings. Ad hoc arbitration was first specified in Mongolia in the 2003 Arbitration Law, however there are no very specific articles in that law governing its procedures or requirements. The provisions for ad hoc arbitration in the 2003 Arbitration Law read as follows:
Certain regulations also arise from the Mongolian National Arbitration Courts internal regulations, giving support to ad hoc arbitration. The Mongolian National Arbitration Court can support to ad hoc arbitration through the following services:[ Translated from the Regulation on Giving Support from the Mongolian National Arbitration Court to Ad Hoc Arbitration, 2003.]
a) to deliver and submit documents to the parties and arbitrators;
b) to keep a record of the arbitration sessions and meeting;
c) to provide translation services during arbitration sessions; d) to provide a location for the conduct of arbitration;
e) to arrange a date and place for conducting arbitration meetings and to notify the parties of this information;
f) to prepare lodging for arbitrators; and
g) to calculate and keep track of the expenses of the ad hoc arbitration.
There is no requirement in law, that these services must be utilized.
4.1 Ad Hoc Arbitration Proceeding
According to the aforementioned regulation, the party who wishes to initate arbitration proceedings, the claimant, can submit a request to the Arbitration Court and will then notify the other party. The claimant will have to pay a fee of US$150 to the Arbitration Court. If the respondent wishes to file a counter-claim in response, they will also pay US$150 to the Arbitration Court. The ad hoc tribunal established by the parties themselves, can correspond with the parties by arbitration.
4.2 Ad Hoc Arbitration Costs
The arbitration chairman of an ad hoc tribunal will determine in advance payment of arbitration expenses. Advance payment normally depends upon the amount of the claim. The parties may pay equal shares of advance payment. After receipt of advance payment, documents of the case are submitted to the arbitrators. The arbitration proceedings expense’s typically include arbitration administration costs, final payment for the arbitrators, travel expenses, food and lodging. Arbitrators may not receive their payment until the completion of proceedings, but must receive them within 30 days of that date. This of course can be varied by agreement between the parties.
1. International Private Law, Justice National Centre Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2004. ISBN 99929-0-318-x
2. The National Arbitration journals, Mongolian National Arbitration Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2004, №02( 05)
3. The National Arbitration journals, Mongolian National Arbitration Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2004, №03( 05)
4. The Arbitration and Business law, National Arbitration Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2005, №01( 06)
5. The Arbitration and Business law, National Arbitration Press; Ulaanbaatar, 2005, №02( 07)
6. The Arbitration law of Mongolia, 2003
7. The Foreign Trade Arbitration law of Mongolia, 1995
Know more about the history of our office
Categories	David C. Buxbaum (10)
Our People (28)
LocationsOur PeopleExperienceResourcesNews & EventsAbout UsRecruitmentContact Us Copyright © 2010 Anderson & Anderson LLP All Rights Reserved