Welcome to english.eastday.com.Today is
Follow us @
Contribute to us!

Shanghai

Business

Culture

China

World

Pictures

Topics

Life

Services

Home >> auto >> Article
Commerce Ministry questions US' 'notorious markets list'
From:chinadaily  |  2018-01-18 14:57

China's Ministry of Commerce raised doubts on Thursday about the objectivity and reliability of "notorious markets list" issued by the United States.

The list, released by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) last week, blacklisted three Chinese e-commerce platforms and six physical marketplaces over alleged sale of counterfeit products. Taobao.com, Alibaba Group's e-commerce platform, was included in the list for the second consecutive year.

Gao Feng, spokesperson of the commerce ministry, said the USTR findings were undermined by vague wordings and a lack of concrete evidence.

"The report, frequently using words like 'reportedly' and 'right holders' to describe Chinese companies, lacks concrete evidence and data support," he said at a news conference.

USTR said on its website that the report does not reflects findings of legal violations or the US government’s analysis of the general intellectual property rights protection and enforcement climate in the country concerned.

Such claim seams to conceal the untenable findings, Gao said.

The report, also known as the 2017 Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, lists 25 online markets and 18 physical markets around the world that are reported to be engaging in and facilitating substantial copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting. Chinese companies accounted for about a quarter of all listed in it.

Alibaba’s President Mike Evans said in a recent blog post: “In light of all this, it’s clear that no matter how much action we take and progress we make, the USTR is not actually interested in seeing tangible results. Therefore, our inclusion on its list is not an accurate representation of Alibaba’s results in protecting brands and IP, and we have no other choice but to conclude that this is a deeply flawed, biased and politicized process.”

Share