Editing Intellectual property in China (section)

==International framework==
Historically, China began accepting foreign IP concepts at the start of the 20th century, abolished them when the PRC was established, and began acknowledging IP rights during [[Reform and opening up|Reform and Opening up]].<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=15}} In 1902, the Qing dynasty agreed to the [[Boxer Protocol]] and agreed to establish domestic laws on IP in bilateral treaties that followed.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=16–17}}

After the [[1972 visit by Richard Nixon to China|1972 visit of United States President Richard Nixon]] to the People's Republic of China, China increasingly sought to import technology.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=18}} The desire to important technology prompted China to begin integrating itself into the global IP framework.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=18}}

In 1980, China became a member of the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO). As of at least 2023, China's view is that WIPO should be the primary international forum for IP rule-making.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=184}} China acceded to the WIPO-administered<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=184}} the [[Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property]] on 19 December 1984 and became an official member on 19 March 1985.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Treaties and Contracting Parties > Contracting Parties > Paris Convention > China |url=https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/remarks.jsp?cnty_id=209C |access-date=2019-11-20 |website=wipo.int}}</ref> China also acceded to the WIPO-administered<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=184}} [[Madrid Agreement|Madrid Agreement for the International Registration of Trademarks]] in June 1989.<ref>{{Cite web |title=WIPO-Administered Treaties > Contracting Parties > Madrid Agreement (Marks) |url=https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=21 |access-date=2019-11-20 |website=www.wipo.int}}</ref> China is also a signatory to the WIPO-administered [[Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances]], which enhances performers' intellectual property rights.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=185–187}} It is the only IP treaty named after a Chinese city.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=185}}

China acceded to the [[Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works]] in 1992<ref>{{Cite web |title=From Beijing to Berne – Beijing Review |url=http://www.bjreview.com.cn/quotes/txt/2007-07/24/content_69996.htm |access-date=2023-06-07 |website=www.bjreview.com.cn}}</ref> and assumed its obligations under the [[Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]] (TRIPS Agreement) when it joined the [[World Trade Organization]] in 2001.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Yu |first=Peter K. |date=2018-02-01 |title=When the Chinese intellectual property system hits 35 |url=https://www.elgaronline.com/view/journals/qmjip/8-1/qmjip.2018.01.01.xml |journal=Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property |language=en-US |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=3–14 |doi=10.4337/qmjip.2018.01.01 |s2cid=54060810 |issn=2045-9807|doi-access=free }}</ref> China's adoption of TRIPS incentivized Chinese policymakers to improve the country's regulatory structure to encourage national innovation and resulted in significant domestic policy reforms.<ref>{{Cite book |title=China and the WTO: A Twenty-Year Assessment |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2023 |isbn=9781009291804 |editor-last=Gao |editor-first=Henry |doi=10.1017/9781009291804 |editor-last2=Raess |editor-first2=Damian |editor-last3=Zeng |editor-first3=Ka |doi-access=free}}</ref>{{Rp|page=2}} The TRIPS agreement is also the basis of China's domestic IP law, as China conformed its IP law, including regarding patents, trademark, and copyright, to the TRIPS standards.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=23}}

Following the TRIPS Agreement, a recurring issue for the WTO has been discussion over the creation of a [[geographical indication]]s register (protecting GI wine and spirits) or a geographical indication extension which would go beyond wines and spirits.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=61–63}} China's regional specialties are generally more geared towards agricultural products rather than wines and spirits, and tends to favor a geographical indication extension.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=63}}

IP was an important consideration during the course of China's negotiations to re-enter the [[General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade]] (GATT).<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=19}}

In 2012, China hosted the China-[[ASEAN]] Seminar on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, [[Traditional knowledge|Traditional Knowledge]], and Genetic Resources.<ref name="Loh">{{Cite book |last=Loh |first=Dylan M.H. |title=China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy |publisher=[[Stanford University Press]] |year=2024 |isbn=9781503638204 |pages=161}}</ref>

As of at least 2023, China's general approach in addressing IP issues in international forums is to maintain TRIPS Agreement standards and sometimes joining the proposals of other developing countries to oppose further increases in IP standards.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=25}} China has also been trending towards increased alignment with the positions taken by developed countries.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=27}} The global regulation of IP involves multiple non-hierarchical international institutions, and China sometimes adopts different or inconsistent proposals in different forums.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=25–27}} Since the creation of the [[Ministry of Commerce (China)|Ministry of Commerce]] (MOFCOM) in 2003, MOFCOM has generally been China's lead negotiator on IP issues in international forums.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=210–211}}

As part of the [[Like-Minded Megadiverse Countries]] (LMMC), China promotes international negotiations on the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources in the context of patents.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=83–84}} China is involved in discussions on the protection of genetic resources in a variety of international forums, including the TRIPS Council, the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee, and in its free-trade agreements.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=110}} As of at least 2023, multilateral negotiations on the disclosure obligation feature strong disagreements between LMMC, EU, and the United States regarding whether a disclosure obligation is necessary and if so, how one should be implemented.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=83}}