Guiding Case No. 47

Ferrero International S.A. in Italy v. Montresor (Zhangjiagang) Food Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area, An Unfair Competition Dispute

GC No.:
47
GC Date of Release:
2015/04/15
GC Batch No.:
10
Area(s) of Law:
Keyword(s):
Attachment:
Download Now

Full Text of the Guiding Case

Keyword(s)

Main Points of the Adjudication

  1. [The term] “known commodity” as used in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law [2] refers to a commodity that has a certain degree of being known in the market within the territory of China and is known to the relevant public. For a commodity that is already known internationally, China’s [3] [legal] protection of [the commodity’s] particular name, packaging, and decoration should still be premised upon its being known to the relevant public within the territory of China. Therefore, in order to determine [whether an internationally] known commodity is [a known commodity as used in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law], [the court] should make a comprehensive determination by [considering] a combination of various factors that demonstrate the circumstances under which the known commodity is protected -- including the sales period, sales regions, sales volume, and sales targets of that commodity within the territory of China, as well as the duration, extent, and geographical scope of publicity that has been carried out -- and by appropriately considering the fact that that commodity is already known outside of China.
  2. The particular packaging and decoration of a known commodity that are protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law refer to [such] packaging (including [any] elaborate packaging or container protecting the commodity) and decoration (consisting of words, patterns, and colors, and their permutations, added to the commodity or its packaging) that can distinguish the origin of the commodity.
  3. With respect to the particular packaging and decoration of a known commodity that [allow] others to distinguish the origin of the commodity, [any] full imitation of [such packaging and decoration] that may cause market confusion and misidentification is an act of unfair competition.

Article 5, Item 2 [4] of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China

 

Basic Facts of the Case

Plaintiff Ferrero International S.A. in Italy [5] (意大利费列罗公司) (hereinafter referred to as “Ferrero Company”) claimed: Defendant Montresor (Zhangjiagang) Food Co., Ltd.[6] (蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司) (hereinafter referred to as “Montresor Company”) counterfeited the plaintiff’s products. Without authorization, [the defendant] used packaging and decoration that were identical with or similar to the particular packaging and decoration of the plaintiff’s known commodity, causing confusion to consumers. The above-mentioned acts of Montresor Company and the sale of counterfeit products [carried out by] defendant Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd in the Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area [7] (天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司) (hereinafter referred to as “Zhengyuan Company”) caused enormous economic loss to the plaintiff. [The plaintiff] requested that [the court] order Montresor Company not to produce or sell, and Zhengyuan Company not to sell, [any] products [with packaging and decoration] that matched any or a combination of Ferrero Company’s chocolate products’ several [kinds of] particular packaging and decoration mentioned above or any chocolate products [with packaging and decoration] that were similar to Ferrero Company’s packaging and decoration as mentioned above and were sufficient to cause misidentification among consumers. [The plaintiff also requested that the court order the two defendants] to apologize, eliminate the effects [of their acts], and bear the costs of the litigation, and [that the court order] Montresor Company to pay 300 million yuan as compensation for its losses.

Defendant Montresor Company defended its position, claiming: In the market within the territory of China, the plaintiff’s products at issue in this case were not known to the relevant public. [In contrast,] Jin Sha chocolate products produced by Montresor Company enjoyed a high degree of being known among consumers within the territory of China and were known commodities. The packaging and decoration for which the plaintiff demanded protection in its litigation requests were the packaging and decoration commonly used for chocolate products of the same type inside and outside of China. [The packaging and decoration] lacked originality and distinctiveness. The packaging and decoration of Jin Sha chocolate products produced by Montresor Company were jointly developed by [the company] and professional design personnel; [Montresor Company] did not counterfeit the packaging and decoration of others’ [products]. Ordinary consumers only needed to pay an average [level of] attention to [avoid] confusing the chocolate products produced by the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively. The plaintiff believed that the packaging of its products covered various intellectual property rights, including trademarks, exterior designs, and copyrights. Yet, [the plaintiff] had not clearly pointed out which [of the plaintiff’s] rights the packaging and decoration of the allegedly infringing products specifically infringed upon. The object for which it demanded protection in the lawsuit was unclear. Therefore, the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff had no factual or legal basis and [the defendant] requested that [the court] reject the plaintiff’s litigation requests.

The court handled the case and ascertained: Ferrero Company was established in 1946 in Italy. In 1982, the Ferrero chocolates that it produced were launched to the market and [related] advertisements were placed on television, newspapers, periodicals, and magazines in multiple countries and regions in Asia. In the Taiwan and Hong Kong regions of China, the Ferrero chocolates were named “Jin Sha” chocolates. The “Jin Sha” trademarks were registered in the Taiwan and Hong Kong regions of China in June 1990 and 1993, respectively. In February 1984, the Ferrero chocolates entered into the Chinese market through [arrangements made by] China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation [8] to sell [the chocolates] by consignment. [These chocolates] were sold primarily at duty-free stores, airport stores, and [other] locations permitted by the policies [implemented] at that time. [This practice] continued until slightly before 1993.

In October 1986, Ferrero Company registered in China a series of trademarks [including] “FERRERO ROCHER”, [its] graphics (oval lace pattern), and the combination [of these]. [The company] used [these trademarks] on chocolate commodities sold within the territory of China. The main characteristics of the packaging and decoration of Ferrero chocolates were:

  1. each spherical chocolate was packaged in golden paper;
  2. the golden spherical packaging was decorated with a golden-rimmed oval label printed with the “FERRERO ROCHER” trademark;
  3. each golden spherical chocolate had as decoration a brown paper wrapper at the base;
  4. several [different] shapes of transparent plastic packaging [used] to show the inner golden spherical packaging; [and]
  5. golden-rimmed oval pattern used as decoration on the transparent plastic packaging and product patterns and the trademark inside the oval, from which red and gold ribbon-like patterns were extended.

In 1984, an application was put forward to the World Intellectual Property Organization to register the three-dimensional packaging of Ferrero chocolate products’ 8-piece packages, 16-piece packages, 24-piece packages, and 30-piece packages as three-dimensional trademarks. Starting in 1993, Ferrero Company used the regions of Guangdong, Shanghai, and Beijing as core [regions] for the gradual increase of its efforts to publicize Ferrero chocolates via domestic newspapers, periodicals, and outdoor advertisements, and began establishing counters in large and medium-sized cities to sell [the chocolates]. In addition, [the company] increased the degree that its products were known through [its] sponsorship of business and sports events. In June 2000, [Ferrero Company’s] “FERRERO ROCHER” trademark was included by the state administrative department of industry and commerce on the national key trademark protection list. The administrative departments of industry and commerce in places like Guangdong and Hebei investigated and punished multiple times others’ acts of counterfeiting the packaging and decoration of Ferrero chocolates.

Montresor Company was a Chinese-foreign equity joint venture to which Zhangjiagang Municipality No. 1 Dairy Factory and Fitradeal, Société Anonyme in Belgium [9] jointly contributed equity to establish in December 1991. [Montresor Company] produced and sold various colors of chocolates. Zhangjiagang Municipality No. 1 Dairy Factory started to produce Jin Sha chocolates in 1990, and, on April 23, 1990, applied to register the “Jin Sha” word trademark, which was examined and approved for registration by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce [10] in April 1991. On November 25, 2002, Zhangjiagang Municipality No. 1 Dairy Factory applied [to the authorities] for approval of the transfer of the “Jin Sha” [word] trademark to Montresor Company. The [application] was examined and approved by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on April 21, 2004. Then, Montresor Company started to produce and sell Jin Sha chocolates.

Except for changing the “Jin Sha” [word trademark] to the “Jin Sha TRESOR DORE” combination trademark, Jin Sha chocolate products produced and sold by Montresor Company continued to use the packaging and decoration used by Zhangjiagang Municipality No. 1 Dairy Factory’s Jin Sha chocolate products. The allegedly infringing packaging and decoration of the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolates [included]: each Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolate was spherical in shape and packaged in golden tin foil; at the top of the packaging of every golden spherical [chocolate] was a golden-rimmed oval label printed with the “Jin Sha TRESOR DORE” trademark; every golden spherical chocolate had a brown paper bowl-shaped base that was smooth without folds on the underside, and with wavy folds on the sides; the external packaging was transparent plastic paper or a plastic box; [and] the center of the external packaging [was decorated with] a golden-rimmed oval pattern, and inside [the oval pattern] were product patterns and the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE trademark, from which red and gold ribbon-like [patterns] were extended. The above characteristics were, in terms of overall impression and the main parts [of the design], similar to the packaging and decoration for which Ferrero Company requested protection in the lawsuit. Zhengyuan Company was the distributor in Tianjin of the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolates produced by Montresor Company. In January 2003, as notarized by the Tianjin Municipality Notary Office, Ferrero Company purchased the allegedly infringing products from [the store of] Zhengyuan Company in Hedong District, Tianjin Municipality.

Results of the Adjudication

On February 7, 2005, the No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality rendered the (2003) Er Zhong Min San Chu Zi No. 63 Civil Judgment: [the court] orders the rejection of Ferrero Company’s litigation requests against Montresor Company and Zhengyuan Company. Ferrero Company appealed. On January 9, 2006, the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality rendered the (2005) Jin Gao Min San Zhong Zi No. 36 Judgment: [11]

  1. [The court] revokes the first-instance judgment.
  2. [The court orders] Montresor Company to immediately cease the use of the infringing packaging and decoration of the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE series of chocolates.
  3. [The court orders] Montresor Company to pay Ferrero Company RMB 700,000 as compensation within 15 days of the judgment’s coming into effect. [12]
  4. [The court orders] Zhengyuan Company to immediately cease the sale and use of the infringing packaging and decoration of the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE series of chocolates.
  5. [The court] rejects Ferrero Company’s other litigation requests.

Montresor Company was dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment and applied to the Supreme People’s Court for retrial. On March 24, 2008, the Supreme People’s Court rendered the (2006) Min San Ti Zi No. 3 Civil Judgment:

  1. [The court] upholds Item 1 and Item 5 of the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality’s (2005) Jin Gao Min San Zhong Zi No. 36 Civil Judgment.
  2. [The court] alters Item 2 of the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality’s (2005) Jin Gao Min San Zhong Zi No. 36 Civil Judgment: [the court orders] Montresor Company to immediately cease the unfair competition act of using packaging and decoration which are similar to the particular packaging and decoration of Ferrero [Company’s] series of chocolate commodities on the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE series of chocolate commodities [at issue] in this case.
  3. [The court] alters Item 3 of the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality’s (2005) Jin Gao Min San Zhong Zi No. 36 Civil Judgment: [the court orders] Montresor Company to pay Ferrero Company RMB 500,000 as compensation within 15 days of the delivery of the judgment.
  4. [The court] alters Item 4 of the Higher People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality’s (2005) Jin Gao Min San Zhong Zi No. 36 Civil Judgment: [the court] orders Zhengyuan Company to immediately cease the sale of the above-mentioned Jin Sha TREDOR DORE series of chocolate commodities.

Reasons for the Adjudication

The Supreme People’s Court opined: This case primarily concerned [several] issues that were the focal points of the dispute, including whether the Ferrero chocolate was a prior known commodity, whether the packaging and decoration used for the Ferrero chocolate [constituted] particular packaging and decoration, and whether the use of [the allegedly infringing] packaging and decoration on Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolates produced by Montresor Company constituted an act of unfair competition.

1. On [the issue] of whether the Ferrero chocolate was a prior known commodity

Based on various evidence, including the consignment contract signed between China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation and Ferrero Company and a written confirmation of the consignment contract, the court of second instance’s ascertainment [of the fact that] Ferrero chocolates were sold within the territory of China starting in 1984 was not incorrect. [The term] “known commodity” as referred to in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law is a commodity that has a certain degree of being known in the market within the territory of China and is known to the relevant public. For a commodity that is already known internationally, the protection of its particular name, packaging, and decoration by China’s law should still be premised upon [its] being known to the relevant public within the territory of China. The degree of being known of a commodity or service alleged [by a company] to be [known] usually originates from the production and sale within the territory of China or from the [company’s] engagement in other business activities. To determine [whether an internationally] known commodity is [a known commodity as used in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law], [the court] should make a comprehensive determination [considering] the combination of various factors that demonstrate the circumstances under which the known commodity is protected, including the sales period, sales regions, sales volume, and sales targets of that commodity [within the territory of China], as well as the duration, extent, and geographical scope of publicity that has been carried out. This does not preclude the appropriate consideration of factors which [show that the commodity] is already known outside of China.

In the second-instance judgment of this case, this statement was not expressed well: “The assessment of the extent to which a commodity is known should be based on a comprehensive determination of the degree to which it is known in specific markets inside and outside of China. The [above statement] cannot be understood as merely referring to commodities being known within the territory of China.” [Despite the imprecision of this statement], [the court of second instance] was correct in basing [its] determination that [the Ferrero chocolates] were a known commodity that had a relatively high degree of being known in the relevant market within the territory of China on [considerations such as] the time the Ferrero chocolates entered the Chinese market, [its] sales situation, and the various publicity activities carried out by Ferrero Company. Montresor Company’s claim that the time the Ferrero chocolates [became] known in the market within the territory of China was later than that of Jin Sha TRESORE DORE chocolates could not stand. Moreover, Ferrero Company’s use of the packaging and decoration for Ferrero chocolates preceded Montresor Company’s [use of its packaging and decoration]. There was a lack of sufficient evidence to support Montresor Company’s claim that it autonomously developed [13] and designed the packaging and decoration used and at issue in this case. [The court of] second instance’s determination that Montresor Company used, without authorization, the particular packaging and decoration of Ferrero chocolates was correct.

2. On [the issue] of whether the packaging and decoration used for the Ferrero chocolates had particularity

When packaging (including [any] elaborate packaging or container for protecting a commodity) and decoration (consisting of words, patterns, and colors, and their permutations, added to a commodity or its packaging) can distinguish the origin of the commodity, they constitute particular packaging and decoration protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The packaging and decoration used for the Ferrero chocolates, for which Ferrero Company requested protection, were composed of a series of elements. If [only] simple combinations of [packaging and decoration] patterns are used, such as merely wrapping spherical chocolates in tin foil and using transparent plastic external packaging to show the internal packaging of the chocolates, the packaging and decoration thus formed do not have particularity because [combinations of this kind] lack notable features that distinguish the origin of the commodity. Furthermore, the various elements [used in] this kind of [simple] combination are packaging and decoration elements commonly used in the food packaging industry and cannot be used exclusively. However, there is ample room for choosing packaging material, such as [choice of] tin foil, paper trays, and plastic boxes, as well as shape and color permutations. There is also a large degree of freedom in designing the size, pattern, and patterning methods of the trademark label attached to the packaging. [If], within the scope of what can be freely designed, the various elements of packaging and decoration are uniquely permutated to make [the design] possess notable features that distinguish the origin of the commodity, [the design] may constitute particular packaging and decoration of the commodity.

The packaging and decoration used for the Ferrero chocolates formed a notable overall image because the constituent elements¾the permutations of words, patterns, colors, shapes, and sizes¾had unique qualities. Additionally, [the notable overall image] was not related to the functionality of the commodity. Long-term use [of the design] and a great deal of publicity were already sufficient to cause the relevant public to associate the overall image of the above-mentioned packaging and decoration with Ferrero Company’s Ferrero chocolate commodities. [The packaging and decoration used for the Ferrero chocolates] had the effect of identifying the origin of the commodity and should, therefore, be [considered] a type of specific packaging and decoration protected by Article 5, Item 2 [14] of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Montresor Company’s grounds [for supporting its argument] that a ruling that the packaging and decoration at issue in this case as particular would cause the common packaging and decoration of the chocolate industry to be solely and exclusively used by Ferrero Company and would [enable Ferrero Company] to monopolize the domestic spherical chocolate market could not stand.

3. On [the issue] of whether the relevant public would easily be confused by and misidentify the Ferrero chocolates and Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolates

With respect to the design of the packaging and decoration of commodities, different business operators may learn from and draw upon each other’s [ideas], and, on this basis, carry out innovative designs to form packaging and decoration for their respective commodities that are obviously distinguishable. This kind of practice is a necessary requirement for market operation and competition. As for this case, Montresor Company could fully utilize the common elements in the designs of the packaging and decoration for chocolates to freely design packaging and decoration that were obviously distinguishable from the particular packaging and decoration already used by another. However, with respect to the particular packaging and decoration of another that [allow] others to distinguish the origin of a commodity, [no one] can make a full imitation that may cause market confusion and misidentification, otherwise [this] will constitute unfair market competition.

[The terms] “confusion” and “misidentification” as provided in China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law refer to [a situation] that is sufficient to cause the relevant public to misidentify the origin of a commodity, including [a situation in which the public] misidentifies [a manufacturer of the commodity] as having a specific connection with the business operator of a known commodity, such as [through] a licensing [agreement] or as an associated enterprise. In this case, the overall image of the packaging and decoration used for the Ferrero chocolates had notable features that distinguish the origin of the commodity, and the packaging and decoration used by Montresor Company on its chocolate commodities were visually very similar to the particular packaging and decoration of Ferrero chocolates. As a result, even though there were differences in price, quality, taste and consumption levels between the two commodities, and they had different company names and trademarks, [their similarities] could still cause the relevant public to easily misidentify the existence of a certain economic connection between Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolates and Ferrero chocolates. Therefore, the retrial applicant’s grounds [supporting its argument that] the similarity of the packaging and decoration in this case would not constitute consumer confusion and misidentification could not stand.

In conclusion, Montresor Company’s unauthorized use of packaging and decoration that were similar to the particular packaging and decoration of Ferrero Company’s Ferrero chocolates, on the Jin Sha TRESOR DORE chocolate commodities that it produced was sufficient to cause the relevant public to confuse and misidentify the origin of the commodity, and [thus] constituted unfair competition.

Endnotes

*           The citation of this translation of the Guiding Case is: 《意大利费列罗公司诉蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案》(Ferrero International S.A. in Italy v. Montresor (Zhangjiagang) Food Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic - Technological Development Area, An Unfair Competition Dispute), China Guiding Cases Project, English Guiding Case (EGC47), Nov. 15, 2015 Edition, available at http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases/guiding-case-47.

This document was primarily prepared by Oma Lee, Jeremy Schlosser, Qin Xiao, and Bin Quan Zhuang. The document was finalized by Sean Webb, Jordan Corrente Beck, and Dr. Mei Gechlik. Minor editing, such as splitting long paragraphs, adding a few words included in square brackets, and boldfacing the headings to correspond with those boldfaced in the original Chinese version, was done to make the piece more comprehensible to readers. The following text, otherwise, is a direct translation of the original text and reflects the formatting of the Chinese document released by the Supreme People’s Court.

The following Guiding Case was discussed and passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China and was released on April 15, 2015, available at http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2015/04/id/1602343.shtml. See also 《最高人民法院关于发布第十批指导性案例的通知》 (The Supreme People’s Court’s Notice Concerning the Release of the Tenth Batch of Guiding Cases), Apr. 15, 2015, available at http://www.chinacourt.org/law/detail/2015/04/id/148149.shtml.

[1]           Translators’ note: the original text reads “知名商品” (“known commodity”). The term “知名” is translated as “known” to align with the terms used for distinguishing three different types of trademarks in China, namely, “驰名商标” (“well-known trademarks”), “著名商标” (“famous trademarks”), and “知名商标” (“known trademarks”). Well-known trademarks are recognized by the Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce or people’s courts, whereas famous trademarks and known trademarks are respectively recognized by administration departments of industry and commerce at the provincial level and local (municipal) level. Among these three types of trademarks, only well-known trademarks are covered by the Trademark Law of the People’s Republic of China.

[2]           Translators’ note: the term “反不正当竞争法” (“Anti-Unfair Competition Law”) as used in this Guiding Case refers to《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》(Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed and issued on Sept. 2, 1993, effective as of Dec. 1, 1993, available at http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/wxzl/2000-12/05/content_4600.htm。

[3]           Translators’ note: the original text reads “我国” (“my country”) and is translated throughout this Guiding Case as “China”.

[4]           Translators’ note: the original text reads “第五条第二项” (“Article 5, Item 2”), but it should be “第五条第(二)项” (“Article 5, Item (2)”).

[5]           Translators’ note: the name “意大利费列罗公司” is translated here as “Ferrero International S.A. in Italy”. The name “Ferrero International S.A.” is chosen in accordance with the name used on the company’s website, at http://www.ferrero.com/the-group/business/a-growing-turnover.

[6]           Translators’ note: the name “蒙特莎(张家港)食品有限公司” is translated here as “Montresor (Zhangjiagang) Food Co., Ltd.” in accordance with the name used on Ferrero International S.A.’s webpage that listed the lawsuit against this company, at http://www.ferrero.com.cn/en/fc-1827.

[7]           Translators’ note: the name “天津经济技术开发区正元行销有限公司” is translated here as “Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area”. The name “Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area” is chosen in accordance with the name used on the area’s website, at http://en.teda.gov.cn/html/ewwz/portal/index/index.htm.

[8]           Translators’ note: the name “中国粮油食品进出口总公司” is translated here as “China National Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corporation”, in accordance with the name used on a trademark record, at http://trademarks.justia.com/owners/china-national-cereals-oils-foodstuffs-import-export-corporation-578608/.

[9]           Translators’ note: the name “比利时费塔代尔有限公司” is translated here as “Fitradeal, Société Anonyme in Belgium”, in accordance with the name used on the trademark record available at http://www.rangbiao.com/tminfo/29_328979.html.

[10]           Translators’ note: the name “国家工商行政管理局商标局” is translated here as “Trademark Office of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce”, in accordance with the name used on the office’s website, at http://sbj.saic.gov.cn/.

[11]           Translators’ note: the term “判决” (“Judgment”) is used here, but “民事判决” (“Civil Judgment”) is likely the term meant, as the term was so used in later parts of the Guiding Case.

[12]           Translators’ note: the original text reads “判决生效” (“the judgment’s coming into effect”). According to Article 155 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, judgments and rulings that “have already come into legal effect” are judgments and rulings of the Supreme People’s Court as well as judgments and rulings which, according to law, may not be appealed or which have not been appealed within the prescribed time limit. See 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》 (Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China), passed, issued on, and effective as of Apr. 9, 1991, amended two times, most recently on Aug. 31, 2012, effective as of Jan. 1, 2013, available at http://www.gov.cn/flfg/2012-09/01/content_2214662.htm.

[13]           Translators’ note: the term “自主开发” is translated here as “autonomously develop”, instead of “independently develop” (“独立开发”), to note the difference of the Chinese terms “自主” (“autonomous”) and “独立” (“independent”). Leaders in China have been using the term “自主创新” (“autonomous innovation”) to emphasize the need to have innovations that are driven by the will of China and its people. See, e.g., 《“十二五”国家自主创新能力建设规划》 (“Twelve Five” Construction Plan on National Autonomous Innovation Ability), issued by the State Council on and effective as of Jan. 15, 2013, available at http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2013-05/29/content_2414100.htm.

[14]           Translators’ note: the original text reads “第五条第二项” (“Article 5, Item 2”), but it should be “第五条第(二)项” (“Article 5, Item (2)”).