dirightDigital Law JournalЦифровое право2686-9136Maxim Inozemtsev10.38044/2686-9136-2023-4-4-73-90diright-198Research ArticleARTICLESСТАТЬИLiability of marketplaces for intellectual property rights infringement: the experience of the US and ChinaОтветственность информационного посредника за нарушение прав на результаты интеллектуальной деятельности: опыт США и Китаяhttps://orcid.org/0009-0002-6473-2027ПокровскаяА. В.PokrovskayaA. V.

Аспирант, стажер-исследователь, кафедра гражданского права и процесса и международного частного права, юридический институт; эксперт патентной практики

117198, Москва, ул. Миклухо-Маклая, 6

121205, Москва, ул. Луговая, 4-2

Anna V. Pokrovskaya — Ph.D. Student, Research Assistant, Department of Civil Law and Procedure and Private International Law; Expert, Patent Practice,

6, Miklukho-Maklaya str., Moscow, 117198

4-2, Lugovaya str., Moscow, 121205

1142220181@rudn.ruРоссийский университет дружбы народов имени Патриса Лумумбы ; Центр интеллектуальной собственности «Сколково»РоссияPeoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba ; Intellectual Property Center “Skolkovo”Russian Federation202330092024447390Copyright © Pokrovskaya A.V., 20242024Покровская А.В.Pokrovskaya A.V.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.digitallawjournal.org/jour/article/view/198

This study addresses the issues involved in holding information intermediaries accountable for infringement of intellectual property rights. The growing significance of online commerce and the necessity to protect intellectual property rights in a digital environment makes this research especially relevant. This study aims to identify the various approaches to holding intermediaries accountable and assess the effectiveness of existing legal regulations in the United States and China. The findings indicate significant differences in the approaches to this issue in the legal systems studied. For instance, in the United States, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act imposes fewer obligations on intermediaries to monitor user-generated content. This approach provides broad protection to platforms and encourages innovation, but leaves certain gaps in the protection of intellectual property rights. Conversely, China’s E-commerce Law places more responsibilities on platforms to prevent violations, offering them less protection. The conclusions drawn may contribute to the improvement of legal regulation concerning the activities of information intermediaries, the enhancement of enforcement mechanisms, and the development of strategies to combat intellectual property rights infringement.

В исследовании рассматриваются проблемы привлечения к ответственности информационных посредников в связи с нарушением интеллектуальных прав. Актуальность исследования обусловлена растущим значением интернет-торговли и необходимостью защиты прав интеллектуальной собственности в цифровой среде. Исследование направлено на выявление различных подходов к ответственности посредников, а также на оценку эффективности существующего правового регулирования в США и Китае. Результаты исследования указывают на существенные различия в подходах к ответственности посредников в изучаемых правопорядках. В США, в частности, раздел 230 Закона о пристойности в коммуникациях (Communication Decency Act) и Закон об авторском праве в цифровую эпоху (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) возлагают меньше обязанностей на посредников по контролю контента, создаваемого пользователями. Этот подход предоставляет широкую защиту платформам и поощряет инновации, однако оставляет определенные пробелы в защите интеллектуальных прав. Напротив, китайский Закон об электронной коммерции возлагает на платформы больше обязанностей за предотвращение нарушений, предоставляя им меньшую защиту. Полученные выводы могут способствовать совершенствованию правового регулирования деятельности информационных посредников, улучшению механизмов правоприменения, а также развитию стратегии борьбы с нарушениями интеллектуальных прав.

платформы электронной коммерциипосредникинарушения прав интеллектуальных правонлайн-средаe-commerce platformsintermediariesintellectual property rights infringementsonline environmentReferencesAn, B. (2009). Intellectual property rights in information and communications technology standardization: High-profile disputes and potential for collaboration between the United States and China. Texas International Law Journal, 45, 175–199.An, B. (2009). Intellectual property rights in information and communications technology standardization: High-profile disputes and potential for collaboration between the United States and China. Texas International Law Journal, 45, 175–199.Bieron, B., & Ahmed, U. (2012). Regulating e-commerce through international policy: Understanding the international trade law issues of e-commerce. Journal of World Trade, 46(3), 550–563.Bieron, B., & Ahmed, U. (2012). Regulating e-commerce through international policy: Understanding the international trade law issues of e-commerce. Journal of World Trade, 46(3), 550–563.Cheung, M. (2016). The e-commerce revolution: Ensuring trust and consumer rights in China. In M. Keane (Ed.), Handbook of cultural and creative industries in China (p. 412–430). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782549864.00040Cheung, M. (2016). The e-commerce revolution: Ensuring trust and consumer rights in China. In M. Keane (Ed.), Handbook of cultural and creative industries in China (p. 412–430). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782549864.00040Chow, D. (2000). Counterfeiting in the People’s Republic of China. Washington University Law Quarterly, 78(1), 1–57.Chow, D. (2000). Counterfeiting in the People’s Republic of China. Washington University Law Quarterly, 78(1), 1–57.Friedmann, D. (2017). Oscillating from safe harbor to liability: China’s IP regulation and omniscient intermediaries. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability (pp. 277–294). Oxford University Press.Friedmann, D. (2017). Oscillating from safe harbor to liability: China’s IP regulation and omniscient intermediaries. In G. Frosio (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability (pp. 277–294). Oxford University Press.Frosio, G. (2018). Why keep a dog and bark yourself? From intermediary liability to responsibility. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(1), 5–14.Frosio, G. (2018). Why keep a dog and bark yourself? From intermediary liability to responsibility. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 26(1), 5–14.Gao, F. (2004). The e-commerce legal environment in China: Status quo and issues. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 18, 51–75.Gao, F. (2004). The e-commerce legal environment in China: Status quo and issues. Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 18, 51–75.He, H. (2020). The mechanism for intellectual property protection under Chinese e-commerce law: More powerful than necessary. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 10(2), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.04He, H. (2020). The mechanism for intellectual property protection under Chinese e-commerce law: More powerful than necessary. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 10(2), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.02.04Huang, W., & Li, X. (2019). The E-commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China: E-commerce platform operators’ liability for third-party patent infringement. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(6), Article 105347, 1-14.Huang, W., & Li, X. (2019). The E-commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China: E-commerce platform operators’ liability for third-party patent infringement. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(6), Article 105347, 1-14.Lanfang, F. (2013). Liability for an Online Marketplace Provider’s Trademark Infringement–Practice and Latest Development of Chinese Law. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44(5), 569–584.Lanfang, F. (2013). Liability for an Online Marketplace Provider’s Trademark Infringement–Practice and Latest Development of Chinese Law. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44(5), 569–584.Leaffer, M. (2001). The uncertain future of fair use in a global information marketplace. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 849–867.Leaffer, M. (2001). The uncertain future of fair use in a global information marketplace. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 849–867.Lo, V. (2016). Towards the rule of law: Judicial lawmaking in China. Bond Law Review, 28(2), 149–168.Lo, V. (2016). Towards the rule of law: Judicial lawmaking in China. Bond Law Review, 28(2), 149–168.MacCarthy, M. (2010). What payment intermediaries are doing about online liability and why it matters. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25, 1037–1120.MacCarthy, M. (2010). What payment intermediaries are doing about online liability and why it matters. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25, 1037–1120.Nawab, D. (2023). Do e-commerce platforms provide safety to trademark owners against infringement? A comparative study between India and China. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6(1), 219-239.Nawab, D. (2023). Do e-commerce platforms provide safety to trademark owners against infringement? A comparative study between India and China. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6(1), 219-239.Nguyen, X. T. (2010). The China we hardly know: Revealing the new China’s intellectual property regime. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 55(3), 773–810.Nguyen, X. T. (2010). The China we hardly know: Revealing the new China’s intellectual property regime. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 55(3), 773–810.Oswald, L. J. (2008). International issues in secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringement. American Business Law Journal, 45(2), 247–282.Oswald, L. J. (2008). International issues in secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringement. American Business Law Journal, 45(2), 247–282.Pokrovskaya, A. (2023a). Liability for trademark infringement on e-commerce marketplaces. International Journal of Law in Changing World, 2(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i1.40Pokrovskaya, A. (2023a). Liability for trademark infringement on e-commerce marketplaces. International Journal of Law in Changing World, 2(1), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v2i1.40Pokrovskaya, A. (2023b). Narushenie prav na ob’ektyi intellektualnoy sobstvennosti na torgovyih ploschadkah elektronnoy kommertsii [Infringement of intellectual property rights on e-commerce trading platforms]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Eurasian Law Journal], 8(183), 185–188.Pokrovskaya, A. (2023b). Narushenie prav na ob’ektyi intellektualnoy sobstvennosti na torgovyih ploschadkah elektronnoy kommertsii [Infringement of intellectual property rights on e-commerce trading platforms]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Eurasian Law Journal], 8(183), 185–188.Pokrovskaya, A. (2023c). Intermediaries liability for copyright infringement: Application of the “safe harbor” model. In J. Kokoreva, S. Khasanov, A. Maidyrova and S. Ignateva (Eds.) E3S Web of Conferences: Vol. 420. EBWFF 2023 — International Scientific Conference Ecological and Biological Well-Being of Flora and Fauna (Part 1) (Article 06046). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342006046Pokrovskaya, A. (2023c). Intermediaries liability for copyright infringement: Application of the “safe harbor” model. In J. Kokoreva, S. Khasanov, A. Maidyrova and S. Ignateva (Eds.) E3S Web of Conferences: Vol. 420. EBWFF 2023 — International Scientific Conference Ecological and Biological Well-Being of Flora and Fauna (Part 1) (Article 06046). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342006046Pokrovskaya, A. (2024). Protection of trademark rights on e-commerce platforms: An updated outlook. Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research, 1(2), 65–73.Pokrovskaya, A. (2024). Protection of trademark rights on e-commerce platforms: An updated outlook. Journal of Comprehensive Business Administration Research, 1(2), 65–73.Tao, Q. (2012). Legal framework of online intermediaries’ liability in China. Info, 14(6), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636691211271235Tao, Q. (2012). Legal framework of online intermediaries’ liability in China. Info, 14(6), 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636691211271235Teague, E. J. (2012). Promoting trademark’s ends and means through online contributory liability. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 14(2), 461-493.Teague, E. J. (2012). Promoting trademark’s ends and means through online contributory liability. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 14(2), 461-493.Wang, J. (2021). How to utilize notice-and-takedown procedures in IP enforcement on e-commerce platforms — a lesson from China. Asia Pacific Law Review, 29(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033082Wang, J. (2021). How to utilize notice-and-takedown procedures in IP enforcement on e-commerce platforms — a lesson from China. Asia Pacific Law Review, 29(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2033082Tian, D. (2016). Innovation and copyright protection in the USA and China: A model for cooperation. China Media Research, 12(4), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.5795Tian, D. (2016). Innovation and copyright protection in the USA and China: A model for cooperation. China Media Research, 12(4), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.5795Wall, A. M. (2006). Intellectual property protection in China: enforcing trademark rights. Marquette Sports Law Review, 17(1), 341–426.Wall, A. M. (2006). Intellectual property protection in China: enforcing trademark rights. Marquette Sports Law Review, 17(1), 341–426.Wang, W. (2024). Deterring erroneous notices concerning intellectual property infringement on China’s internet platforms. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(2), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01474-4Wang, W. (2024). Deterring erroneous notices concerning intellectual property infringement on China’s internet platforms. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 55(2), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01474-4Weckström, K. (2012). Liability for trademark infringement for internet service providers. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 16(1), 1-50.Weckström, K. (2012). Liability for trademark infringement for internet service providers. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 16(1), 1-50.Ying, D. (2019). Secondary liability for trademark infringement online: Legislation and judicial decision in China. The Columbia Journal of Law and The Arts, 27(4), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v37i4.2135Ying, D. (2019). Secondary liability for trademark infringement online: Legislation and judicial decision in China. The Columbia Journal of Law and The Arts, 27(4), 541–556. https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v37i4.2135You, C. (2020). Law and policy of platform economy in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 39, Article 105493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105493You, C. (2020). Law and policy of platform economy in China. Computer Law & Security Review, 39, Article 105493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105493Zhang, L. F., & Zhang, F. J. (2011). Does E-commerce reputation mechanism matter? Procedia Engineering, 15, 4885–4889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.910Zhang, L. F., & Zhang, F. J. (2011). Does E-commerce reputation mechanism matter? Procedia Engineering, 15, 4885–4889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.08.910

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.