Home About RSS

Supreme People’s Court mentions our work; presentation at the World Bank

A small project that makes historic contributions…

The CGCP was established in February 2011. Since then, we have made significant progress. Some of our latest recognition and achievements include:

  • 1. In a speech on judicial openness, ZHOU Qiang, President of the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”), mentioned our work. An English translation of his words is available on our homepage.
  • 2.  The World Bank has just selected the CGCP to have a panel entitled The Role of ‘Precedent’/Guiding Cases in the Effective Application, Interpretation, and Implementation of Law during its Law, Justice and Development Week (November 16-19, 2015). Dr. Mei Gechlik, Founder and Director of the CGCP, will be joined by top judges/practitioners from mainland China, Japan, Taiwan and the U.S. in presenting the CGCP’s work and related experiences.
  • 3. Some members of the 150-strong CGCP team have shared kind words about their experience with the CGCP.
  • 4.  The CGCP team has been hard at work revamping our website for better search functionality, allowing scholars and practitioners to more effectively conduct GC-related research. We expect the new website to launch this fall.

 

We thank all parties for recognizing our efforts. We try to make historic contributions at a time when the SPC specifically requests judges to cite GCs in similar, subsequent cases.

Knowing the legal issues that will impact one’s life is a right, not a privilege. That’s why we firmly believe that our knowledge-base of high-quality products should be available to all for free. But this big goal can’t be achieved on a small budget.The CGCP is operating on a shoestring budget and is facing even less for 2016. You can help by making a donation today.

For every dollar donated, a generous sponsor will match your donation, up to $5k. We hope this marks the beginning of more offers for matching donations. For sponsorship opportunities or large-scale partnerships, please contact Dr. Mei Gechlik directly at mgechlik@law.stanford.edu.

New positions are available…

We are proud to announce the creation of two new CGCP Editor opportunities: Type D Candidates, who will primarily perform legal research in Chinese; and Type E Candidates, who can lend their technical expertise to improve our website and knowledge-base (or with other relevant skills – grant-writing and fundraising experience are also welcome!). We also need more volunteers with excellent language skills—in Chinese or English—to work on our publications (Type A, B, and C Candidates). A full description of all positions and application instructions can be found here.

Commentaries by Japan’s former IP Chief Judge and others

The CGCP proudly publishes two new commentaries.

The Supreme People’s Court of China’s (“SPC”) recent issuance of new rules on how to cite Guiding Cases (“GCs”), de facto binding precedents, in subsequent judgments was a milestone in the Chinese legal history. It has helped dispel some doubts about whether GCs should be explicitly referenced in judgments rendered by courts for cases similar to GCs. However, there are still some critical questions, as the following commentaries explore:

Commentary: The Binding Nature of Court Decisions in Japan’s Civil Law System.

Despite the release of new rules mandating that GCs be explicitly referred to in subsequent cases, doubts linger. Many commentators have argued that China, a civil law country, must not follow the principle of stare decisis (i.e., the notion that court decisions should be guided by precedent). However, the experience of quite a few other civil law jurisdictions shows the important role of precedent (see, e.g., the CGCP commentary on precedent in Taiwan). Using the civil law tradition of Japan as their focus, Toshiaki Iimura, Former Chief Judge of Japan’s Intellectual Property High Court, and two other scholars explain in their commentary entitled The Binding Nature of Court Decisions in Japan’s Civil Law System how the principle of stare decisis is often perceived as “even more pronounced in Japan than in common law countries”.

Commentary: Guiding Case No. 5, Monopoly in China’s Salt Industry and Amendments to the Legislation Law and the Administrative Litigation Law

The new rules on citing GCs require Chinese judges to quote “Main Points of the Adjudication” of relevant GCs in subsequent cases. This requirement prompts one to wonder how these main points are prepared and what their scope of coverage should be. In the commentary entitled Guiding Case No. 5, Monopoly in China’s Salt Industry, and Amendments to the Legislation Law and the Administrative Litigation Law, Dr. Mei Gechlik, CGCP Director, and DAI Di, an attorney in China, observe that the “Main Points of the Adjudication” of GC5 are broader than the scope allowed by the facts. Why did the SPC take this step? How is this related to its keen interest in abolishing the monopoly in China’s salt industry? Have these main points been incorporated into the recent amendments to the Legislation Law and the Administrative Litigation Law? This commentary seeks to answer these questions.

New English translation of GC No. 5 is released. The recent commentary on GC No. 5 led to new insights and an improved English translation of the case. A revised translation is available here.

For more discussion on the new rules on GCs and their implications watch our website in the coming months for the next issue of Guiding Cases Analytics.

Since the CGCP website was launched, it has attracted approximately 15,000 unique users and 100,000 page views.   

This success would not have been possible without the gracious support of our sponsors.  To continue producing high-quality products and analysis in 2016 and beyond, we need your support.  If you like our work, please consider joining the CGCP community as a sponsor now.  Thank you!

New rules on how to cite the Guiding Cases and more

The latest rules issued on the Guiding Cases are now available in English translation online.  

Five years after the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) established the groundbreaking system of Guiding Cases (“GCs”), the highest court finally issued a new set of rules which provide, among other things, the following directives: 

(1)  if a pending case is, in terms of the basic facts  (“基本案情”) and application of law (“法律适用”), similar to a GC, the deciding court should, in its judgment, quote the GC as a reason for its adjudication.  In particular, the court should quote the GC number and the “Main Points of the Adjudication” (“裁判要点”) of the GC (Articles 9-11).

(2) if a party relies on a GC to support his case, judges handling the case should, in providing their reasons for the adjudication, respond as to whether they referred to the GC in the course of their adjudication and explain their action (Article 11).

This further detail is welcome, but these new rules also leave open many issues for SPC clarification.  Two examples:   

(1) Can facts provided in the original judgment upon which a GC is based be used to determine whether a pending case is similar to a GC?  Because GCs are only summaries of select original judgments with only a brief description of facts, it is critical to know whether or not parties can turn to the original judgment.

(2) Given the importance of the “Main Points of the Adjudication”, how are they prepared?  Shouldn’t their content be restricted to the scope allowed by the facts of the GC?  Practice suggests otherwise: quite a few GCs have “Main Points of the Adjudication” that address issues beyond the facts of their original judgments (see CGCP commentaryGuiding Case No. 5, Monopoly in Salt Industries, and Amendments to the Legislation Law and the Administrative Litigation Law, forthcoming June 30).

For more discussion on the new rules on GCs and their implications watch our website in the coming months for the next issue of Guiding Cases Analytics.

It has been a busy spring for the CGCP.  We recently co-sponsored a China law and business event hosted by ACG Silicon Valley and Dr. Mei Gechlik gave a speech entitled Rule of Law with Chinese Characteristics: Why Guiding Cases? Why Now? at the Stanford China Law & Policy conference.  The CGCP was also featured in an interview with the Chinese-language publication, World Journal.  For more, check out our News and Events page.

Since the CGCP website was launched, it has attracted approximately 15,000 unique users and 100,000 page views.   

This success would not have been possible without the gracious support of our sponsors.  To continue producing high-quality products and analysis in 2016 and beyond, we need your support.  If you like our work, please consider joining the CGCP community as a sponsor or donate online now.  Thank you!

 

BREAKING NEWS: China’s Supreme Court explains how to cite Guiding Cases

The Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) just issued its Detailed Rules on Implementing the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Case Guidance” (“Detailed Rules”), giving Chinese judges much-needed instruction on how to refer to Guiding Cases (“GCs”) in subsequent cases.

According to the Detailed Rules, if the “basic facts” (“基本案情”) and issues involved in the “application of law” (“法律适用”) in a pending case are similar to those of a GC, the deciding court should refer to the “Major Points of the Adjudication” (“裁判要点”) of that GC (Article 9) and the GC should be explicitly mentioned as part of the reasons for the adjudication (“裁判理由”) (Article 10).   Full-text translation of the Detailed Rules will be available on the CGCP website on June 12, 2015. Discussion of the Detailed Rules and their implications will be included in the next issue of Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM.

The issuance of the Detailed Rules is a clear step to achieve one of the goals stated by China’s top leaders in their Fourth Plenum Decision adopted in October 2014: “to strengthen and standardize [the systems of] … case guidance to unify the applicable standards in law”. Since the first batch of GCs was released in 2011, legal actors in China—particularly judges—have been uncertain about how to refer to GCs (see Guiding Cases SurveysTM, Issue No. 1). The CGCP’s recent analysis of more than 200 subsequent cases in which parties and/or judges have mentioned the term “Guiding Cases” shows that in over 50% of all instances, the references are made incorrectly or without any relevance to the GCs (see Guiding Cases SurveysTM, Issue No. 2, forthcoming).

Seizing this unprecedented opportunity for meaningful judicial reform, the China Guiding Cases Project of Stanford Law School (“CGCP”) envisions its efforts in building a unique knowledge-base to be a critical complement to China’s reform agenda and advancements such as the Detailed Rules. The knowledge-base, which is accessible for free through the CGCP website, features the following six major and most up-to-date bilingual products produced by a global team of more than 150 members:

•   high quality full-text versions and English translations of all released GCs;

•   commentaries on GCs and related subjects;

•   Guiding Cases in Perspective™ series, a unique product that identifies the original judgments selected by the SPC, examines their transformation into GCs, and explores the treatment of the GCs in subsequent cases (see, e.g., Guiding Cases in Perspective™ for GC 9, available here);

•  Guiding Cases Analytics, a proprietary serial publication that aggregates information on all GCs released to date and performs quantitative analyses to identify trends and important issues for further study;

•  Guiding Cases Surveys, a publication of empirical data collected by the CGCP through its first-hand surveys of Chinese legal actors and analysis of subsequent cases referring to the GCs to illustrate how GCs are perceived and used; and

•  Guiding Cases Seminars™, which feature talks on GC-related subjects presented by scholars, lawyers, policymakers, and other experts and are disseminated in text summary and video to reach the CGCP’s global audience.

Since the CGCP website was launched, it has attracted approximately 15,000 unique users and 100,000 page views. This success would not have been possible without the gracious support of our sponsors. To continue producing high-quality products and analysis in 2016 and beyond, we need your support. If you like our work, please consider joining the CGCP community as a sponsor now. Thank you!

52 Guiding Cases: 8 on IP and Unfair Competition

Since 2011, the Supreme People’s Court of China has issued 52 Guiding Cases (“GCs”). The court did not issue any GCs on IP or unfair competition until 2013 Q4 and 2014 Q2, respectively.  Apparently triggered by its growing confidence in using GCs as a tool to provide more guidance, the court just issued another 5 GCs covering these two important areas (see Chart 1).

Chart 1:

Issue 04 Chart 3 ENGLISH

 

The “Main Points of the Adjudication” sections for Guiding Case Nos. 20, 29, and 30—the text prepared by the Supreme People’s Court to help subsequent courts understand the GCs and how to “refer to” them—read as follows:

Guiding Case No. 20, Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Kengzi Water Supply Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Kangtailan Water Treatment Equipment Co., Ltd., An Invention Patent Infringement Dispute

Where the Patent Law does not prohibit the manufacture, sale, and importation of an alleged patent-infringing product within the provisional protection period, which begins after the invention patent application is published and ends when the patent is granted, the subsequent use, offer for sale, and sale [of the product] are, despite the lack of a license from the patentee, not regarded as infringements of the patent.  But the patentee may, in accordance with law, demand that the entity or individual who exploits the invention within the provisional protection period pay an appropriate fee.

Guiding Case No. 29, Tianjin China Youth Travel Service v. Tianjin Guoqing International Travel Agency, A Dispute over an Unauthorized Use of Another Enterprise’s Name

1. An abbreviated enterprise name that has been widely used externally by an enterprise for a long period of time, that has a certain degree of market visibility and is known to the relevant public, and that actually already functions as a trade name, may be regarded as an enterprise name and [thus] be protected [under law].

2. Where, without authorization, [a business operator] uses another’s abbreviated enterprise name, which actually already functions as a trade name, as an Internet bid-for-ranking keyword in business activities, causing the relevant public to be confused and to misidentify [the enterprise], [the unauthorized use of the abbreviated enterprise name] is an act of unfair competition.

Guiding Case No. 30, LAN Jianjun and Hangzhou Suremoov Automotive Technology Company Limited v. Tianjin Xiaomuzhi Automobile Maintenance and Repair Services Co., Ltd. et al., A Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute

1. Whether or not a business operator has [carried out] an act that exceeds [its] legal business scope and violates administrative licensing laws and regulations does not affect its exercise, in accordance with law, of [its] civil rights to stop trademark infringement and unfair competition.

2. The [coverage of] the anti-unfair competition law is not limited to business operators having direct competitive relationships [amongst themselves] nor requires them to engage in the same industry. Where the business operators have indirect competitive relationships and the party [carrying out] the act [in question] violates the provisions of the anti-unfair competition law and adversely affects the legal rights and interests of the other business operators, [the act] should also be determined to be an act of unfair competition.

The full-text translations, including the “Main Points of the Adjudication” sections, of the other 5 GCs on IP and unfair competition are currently being prepared by Stanford Law School’s China Guiding Cases Project.

While we await final translation, please note the following new developments:

(1) For detailed analysis of the 52 GCs, see 

 

Untitled

(2) The inaugural Guiding Cases Seminar, Why China’s Guiding Cases Matter?, was held with tremendous success at Stanford Law School on April 22, 2015.  It featured an interactive panel discussion moderated by Yabo Lin, partner at Sidley Austin LLP’s Palo Alto office. Panelists included Dr. Mei Gechlik, founder and director of the CGCP, James McManis, Fellow of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and Co-Chair of its China Program, and Jason Zuocheng Hao, former Director of the Civil Law Department of the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress in Beijing and current visiting scholar at Stanford Law School.  Missed the event? Check out the full video and event summary here!

(3) Pro Bono opportunities

Contact jcbeck@law.stanford.edu if interested in joining the CGCP’s growing and global pro bono network.  Opportunities are available for both individuals and law firms.

Post-Arbitration Challenges for Foreign Companies in China

Guiding Cases Nos. 33 and 37 are the first two Guiding Cases (“GCs”) released by the Supreme People’s Court of China that are related to arbitration. Both cases reveal challenges facing foreign parties after arbitration has concluded.

1. Guiding Case No. 33: Cargill International S.A. received an arbitral award against a Chinese corporate group. According to the award, a member of the Chinese group had to mortgage its assets to Cargill as security for the repayment of the debt. In the end, however, these assets were transferred by the debtor to its affiliate companies. Despite the court’s determination that the related property transfer contracts were invalid, Cargill was not able to reach the debtor’s assets.Why not?

2. Guiding Case No. 37: Shanghai Jwell Machinery Co., Ltd. (上海金纬机械制造有限公司) received an arbitral award against Retech Aktiengesellschaft, Switzerland. Jwell applied to the Lenzburg Court of the Swiss Confederation for the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award, but to no avail. Later, Jwell discovered that Retech’s assets were in Shanghai and immediately applied to a court in Shanghai to “seal up” Retech’s assets. Retech raised an objection on the ground that Jwell’s application for enforcement had already exceeded the time limit set forth in the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. The court ruled against Retech. Why?

 

The China Guiding Cases Project (“CGCP”) finds these two GCs very interesting and believes that they provide lessons that can benefit all interested parties, especially foreign investors. We would like to collect more information to produce a piece of commentary. Help us unravel these two GCs by sending your insights to contactcgcp@law.stanford.edu (in the subject line, please use: Unravel GC33 and 37; in the body of your message, please let us know whether you want your contribution to remain anonymous if selected). In particular, we are looking for information, answers, and insights regarding the following issues:

1. Why was Jwell’s application to the Lenzburg Court unsuccessful? Did Jwell appeal?

2. The Supreme People’s Court used “译文由公设或宣誓之翻译员或外交或领事人员认证” (i.e., “the translation shall be certified by an official or sworn translator or by a diplomatic or consular agent”) in Guiding Case No. 37, rather than the text provided in the official Chinese text of the New York Convention (“译本应由公设或宣誓之翻译员或外交或领事人员认证之”; converted here from traditional Chinese characters). Why wasn’t this official Chinese text used in the GC?

3. Guiding Case No. 37 refers to these two original rulings: (2009)沪高执复议字第2号执行裁定and(2008)沪一中执字第640-1民事裁定. We have the former. Do you have the latter?

4. Guiding Case No. 33 also refers to(2007)闽民初字第37号民事判决. Do you have a copy?

 

For detailed discussion of GCs and their significance, please join our first Guiding Cases SeminarTM on April 22. Also, be sure to download free copies of the GCs from the CGCP website, including our latest products:

1. Guiding Case 32:《张某某、金某危险驾驶案》(A certain ZHANG and a certain JIN, A Dangerous Driving Case)

2. Guiding Case 33:《瑞士嘉吉国际公司诉福建金石制油有限公司等确认合同无效纠纷案》(Cargill International S.A. v. Fujian Jinshi Vegetable Oil Producing Co., Limited et al., A Dispute over Contracts Affirmed to be Invalid)

3. Guiding Case 34:《李晓玲、李鹏裕申请执行厦门海洋实业(集团)股份有限公司、厦门海洋实业总公司执行复议案》(Application by LI Xiaoling and LI Pengyu for Enforcement against Xiamen Marine Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Marine Industry Controlling Corporation, An Enforcement Reconsideration Case)

4. Guiding Case 35:《广东龙正投资发展有限公司与广东景茂拍卖行有限公司委托拍卖执行复议案》(Guangdong Longzheng Investment Development Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Jingmao Auction Co., Ltd., An Enforcement Reconsideration Case on an Entrusted Auction)

5. Guiding Case 36:《中投信用担保有限公司与海通证券股份有限公司等证券权益纠纷执行复议案》(Zhongtou Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. and Haitong Securities Co., Ltd. et al., An Enforcement Reconsideration Case on a Dispute over the Rights and Interests in Securities)

6. Guiding Case 37:《上海金纬机械制造有限公司与瑞士瑞泰克公司仲裁裁决执行复议案》(Shanghai Jwell Machinery Co., Ltd. and Retech Aktiengesellschaft, Switzerland, An Enforcement Reconsideration Case on an Arbitral Award)

 

 

 

13 NEW GUIDING CASES AND CGCP RECRUITING

During the holiday season, the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) of China gave us a pleasant surprise by releasing 13 new Guiding Cases (“GCs”) (See http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/)! Some of the characteristics are as follows:

1. TWO foreign-related GCs: Guiding Case No. 33 was a dispute over the validity of two contracts signed with a foreign company. Guiding Case No. 37 was an enforcement reconsideration case on an arbitral award.

2. SEVEN GCs whose original rulings/judgments were rendered by the SPC. This drastically increased the number of this type of GCs from two to nine.

3. MOST cases selected for release as GCs are about two years old, but the newest batch has two outliers: Guiding Case No. 38 (about 16 years old) and Guiding Case No. 41 (about 11 years old).

How to explain these trends? Please see Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM   (now also available in Chinese, 指导性案例分析TM) by clicking here.

In the past year, the CGCP has attracted approximately 4000 users and launched three brand new products: Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM, Guiding Cases SurveysTM , and Guiding Cases in PerspectiveTM. Beginning from February, we will publish subsequent cases that refer to Guiding Cases, along with our brief notes. The CGCP has a team of more than 150 volunteers around the world, but we need to hire a few experienced editors to sustain our high-quality work and to allow us to launch other useful products. We are running the project on a shoestring budget and asking you for your kind support. Please make a gift at https://makeagift.stanford.edu/give/home?mop=CC&gfty=G&pgnTPC=75&stp=212&gdso=5&tgso=6&cturl=close&olc=18125.

Please stay connected via LinkedIn, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and our mailing list: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/chinaguidingcasesproject.

Finally, we are recruiting! We are looking for Type A (native English with Chinese fluency) and Type C (native English with excellent editorial skills). For more information, please visit http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/volunteer/.

Thank you for your support!

Guiding Cases Nos 27-31 available in English now!

The CGCP is pleased to release the English translations of Guiding Cases Nos 27-31:

1. ZANG Jinquan et al., A Theft and Fraud Case, China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC27), Oct. 20, 2014 (Express Edition),available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-27.

2. HU Kejin, A Case of a Refusal to Pay Remuneration, China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC28), Oct. 20, 2014 (Express Edition), available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-28.

3. Tianjin China Youth Travel Service v. Tianjin Guoqing International Travel Agency, A Dispute over an Unauthorized Use of Another Enterprise’s Name, China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC29), Oct. 20, 2014 (Express Edition), available athttp://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-29.

4. LAN Jianjun and Hangzhou Suremoov Automotive Technology Company Limited v. Tianjin Xiaomuzhi Automobile Maintenance and Repair Services Co., Ltd. et al., A Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute, China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC30), Oct. 20, 2014 (Express Edition), available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-30.

5. Jiangsu Weilun Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Miranda Rose Limited, A Ship Collision Damages Dispute, China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC31), Oct. 20, 2014 (Express Edition), available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-31.

Please note that CGCP has also expanded to cover three other products: Guiding Cases in PerspectiveTMGuiding Cases AnalyticsTM, andGuiding Cases SurveysTM.

We welcome your contribution to the CGCP by submitting commentaries and/or becoming our volunteers.

In the meantime, please stay connected with us via LinkedIn, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and our mailing list: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/chinaguidingcasesproject. You may also add us on WeChat by searching “slscgcp” or “斯坦福大学中国指导性案例项目,” or by scanning the QR code provided below.

Screen Shot 2014-10-20 at 11.14.59 AM

Thank you for your support!

 

 

 

CGCP: Surveys of Chinese Judges and more…

Over the summer, the CGCP has made great progress!  We are excited to launch two new products to complement our Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM:

1.  Guiding Cases SurveysTM invites judges, lawyers, law professors, and law students to participate in surveys that analyze how Guiding Cases released by China’s Supreme People’s Court are perceived and used by legal actors.  Results of these surveys and their comparisons will help show legal actors’ changing attitudes towards Guiding Cases, and identify areas for improvement.  The first issue covers surveys of Chinese judges conducted in 2013 and 2014.

 2.  Guiding Cases in PerspectiveTM tracks the development of Guiding Cases (“GCs”) and analyzes related jurisprudence.  It examines, among other issues, how the Supreme People’s Court has transformed selected original judgments into their respective GCs, and explores the treatment of the GCs in subsequent cases.  The first set covers GC9, its original judgments, two subsequent cases, and CGCP annotations.

In addition, we are honored to receive two commentaries contributed by Judge Huang Huifang and Dr. Kristie Thomas.

3.  HUANG Huifang, Taiwan’s Criminal Case System and the Development Direction of the Guiding Cases System in the People’s Republic of China, available at https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/11-huang-huifang.

4.  Kristie Thomas, The (re)Birth of the Consumer Activist in China: The “Wang Hai Phenomenon” in the Light of Guiding Case No. 23https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/12-kristie-thomas.

We cannot sustain our good work without your financial support.  Please kindly make a giftat https://makeagift.stanford.edu/give/home?mop=CC&gfty=G&pgnTPC=75&stp=212&gdso=5&tgso=6&cturl=close&olc=18125 and stay connected via LinkedIn, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and our mailing list: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/chinaguidingcasesproject.

Thank you for your support!

China’s New Guiding Cases on IP and anti-unfair competition

Summer is here but the China Guiding Cases Project (“CGCP”) is not resting!

NEW GUIDING CASES ARE AVAILABLE. The seventh batch of GCs was justreleased. This batch includes China’s first two GCs on anti-unfair competition law, one of which is the longest GC. This batch is unusual in that its GCs were not released on the same day (To see more analysis, please refer to Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM by clicking here).

NOW RECRUITING new CGCP Editors and CGCP Junior Fellows. We have different roles for Chinese and English native speakers. Knowledge of Chinese is preferred but not required. IT knowledge and website development skills are greatly valued. For more information,seehttps://cgc.law.stanford.edu/volunteer/.

SHARING OUR GOOD WORK. Thanks to many parties’ support, our director Mei Gechlikhas had the opportunities to speak about the CGCP and GCs at various institutions over the past several months. They include Princeton University, University of Pennsylvania, New York University, Georgetown University, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Stanford Club in Hong Kong.

PLEASE DONATE & “LIKE” US. We cannot sustain our good work without your financial support. Kindly make a giftat https://makeagift.stanford.edu/give/home?mop=CC&gfty=G&pgnTPC=75&stp=212&gdso=5&tgso=6&cturl=close&olc=18125 and stay connected with us  via LinkedIn, Twitter, Sina Weibo, and our mailing list: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/chinaguidingcasesproject.

Thank you for your support!