42. The representative of the Japan said that his delegation had raised questions regarding the future improvement of criminal enforcement and other issues at all TRMs from 2002-2006. With regard to further improvement of criminal enforcement, he noted that a new judicial interpretation in April 2007 had abolished the differences between criminal threshold for units and that for individuals, and had substantially lowered the threshold for units. Japan appreciated that the Chinese Government had recognized the importance of the protection of IPRs and had made efforts to improve enforcement. On the other hand, despite such efforts, a survey conducted by the Japanese Government in March and April 2007 showed that IPR enforcement in China had still room for improvement. While there had been some strengthening measures in IPR enforcement, such as an increase in the amount of confiscated illegally acquired income, which he understood was a relatively severe penalty, there continued to be some deficiencies in IPR enforcement, such as repeat offences, more sophisticated modus operandi of counterfeiters, and insufficient enforcement, especially in local areas. Therefore, his delegation had to conclude that IPR infringement in China continued to be severe for the Japanese industry. A deterrent effect through the strengthening of administrative punishment and criminal prosecution and through the enhancement of measures against the sophisticated modus operandi of counterfeiters and repeat offenders was essential to improve the situation. Japan was looking forward to China enhancing IPR protection and taking further steps to provide effective enforcement against any act of infringement of IPRs in China. Regarding the specific questions Japan had posed to China, in the interest of time and efficiency, he referred Members to document IP/C/W/498 that Japan had submitted.
