3. Criminal Proceedings & Customs Enforcement Apart from civil litigation, trademark infringement also constitutes a criminal offense under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance which broadly prohibits the use of false trade descriptions, as well as the use of misleading and unauthorized trademarks. A party enforcing their right under this ordinance may request the Commissioner of the Customs and Excise Department to take enforcement action and seize the infringing goods. The Customs and Excise Department (“Customs”), has powers to search, seize, remove or detain any goods that they reasonably suspect to be an infringing good. To request Customs to take enforcement action against trademark activity, the trademark should making a complaint to the department and provide the following information: relevant trademark certificate as proof of trademark ownership in Hong Kong; a sample of the genuine product and information on the offending goods involved; name and address of the suspected offender; and an appointment letter, whereby the trademark owner authorizes an officer to take enforcement action, including conducting seizure identification, giving evidence and testifying in court. After making a complaint, Customs will immediately report to their front-line which will conduct an investigation. If Customs finds evidence of counterfeiting, they will take enforcement action accordingly. However, since the length of time required for investigations vary from case to case, there is no set time period for when enforcement action would take place. J. JAPAN The litigation process in intellectual property-related lawsuits in Japan has been considerably expedited in the past 10 years as a result of the efforts made by courts, legislators and practitioners under the overall judicial system reform that started in the late 1990s. The average duration of trials in the first instances has been shortened from 25 months in 1998 to 13.4 months in 2009 (12.5 months in 2006) whereas the counterpart in the second instances have been reduced more slowly but kept under 10 months or less. Behind these improvements are the new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force in 1998, amended in 2003, and in particular the introduction of keikaku shinri or planned proceedings mandated by Article 147bis and 147ter of this law. on the Merits
3. Criminal Proceedings & Customs Enforcement Apart from civil litigation, trademark infringement also constitutes a criminal offense under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance which broadly prohibits the use of false trade descriptions, as well as the use of misleading and unauthorized trademarks. A party enforcing their right under this ordinance may request the Commissioner of the Customs and Excise Department to take enforcement action and seize the infringing goods. The Customs and Excise Department (“Customs”), has powers to search, seize, remove or detain any goods that they reasonably suspect to be an infringing good. To request Customs to take enforcement action against trademark activity, the trademark should making a complaint to the department and provide the following information: relevant trademark certificate as proof of trademark ownership in Hong Kong; a sample of the genuine product and information on the offending goods involved; name and address of the suspected offender; and an appointment letter, whereby the trademark owner authorizes an officer to take enforcement action, including conducting seizure identification, giving evidence and testifying in court. After making a complaint, Customs will immediately report to their front-line which will conduct an investigation. If Customs finds evidence of counterfeiting, they will take enforcement action accordingly. However, since the length of time required for investigations vary from case to case, there is no set time period for when enforcement action would take place. J. JAPAN The litigation process in intellectual property-related lawsuits in Japan has been considerably expedited in the past 10 years as a result of the efforts made by courts, legislators and practitioners under the overall judicial system reform that started in the late 1990s. The average duration of trials in the first instances has been shortened from 25 months in 1998 to 13.4 months in 2009 (12.5 months in 2006) whereas the counterpart in the second instances have been reduced more slowly but kept under 10 months or less. Behind these improvements are the new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force in 1998, amended in 2003, and in particular the introduction of keikaku shinri or planned proceedings mandated by Article 147bis and 147ter of this law. on the Merits
INTAModelCaseManagementProceduresReport.docx