This newsletter covers:
- Another Step by China to Cultivate a Case-Based Legal Culture
- Guiding Case No. 15 and How China “Pierces the Corporate Veil”
- Guiding Case No. 113 and the Series of “??” Trademark Cases
- Useful Lessons from the United States
- Call for Annotations for Stanford CGCP Global Guide™ and Submissions to China Law Connect
The content of the September issue of China Law Connect (ISSN 2576-1927 (PRINT); ISSN 2576-1935 (ONLINE)) (“CLC”) published by the China Guiding Cases Project (the “CGCP”) highlights the continued efforts made by many Chinese judges and lawyers to improve China’s legal system despite all of the challenges taking place inside and outside the country.
Another Step by China to Cultivate a Case-Based Legal Culture
In July 2020, the Supreme People’s Court of China (the “SPC”) released a set of rules—Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Unifying the Application of Law and Strengthening the Search for Similar Cases (Trial Implementation)—guiding, inter alia, the use of Guiding Cases, cases adjudicated by the SPC, and other important cases in the country. The rules instruct all Chinese judges to search for these cases to determine whether at least one of them is “similar” to a pending case before the judges and, if yes, apply similar legal principles accordingly. This marks another progressive step taken by the SPC to cultivate a case-based legal culture in a country that has traditionally focused on legislation only.
In a CLC Spotlight™ piece, Dr. Mei Gechlik, Founder and Director of the CGCP, shares her meticulous English translation of this set of rules and provides key annotations. To what extent will Chinese judges follow these rules in the coming years? This is an important question, the answer to which will reveal whether judicial consistency can take root in China.
The translation and some annotations are also available here: https://cgc.law.stanford.edu/sgg-on-prc-guiding-opinions-search-similar-cases. We are delighted that this particular Stanford CGCP Global Guide™ was recently referenced in a blog post by the Law Library of Congress, “China Supreme People’s Court Issues Guidance on Similar-Case Searches”.
The exact impact of the above rules will not be known until a certain time in the future. However, two studies conducted by CGCP members show the importance of two Guiding Cases and the influence they and related cases have already exerted.
Guiding Case No. 15 and How China “Pierces the Corporate Veil”
In a commentary titled An In-Depth Analysis of a Guiding Case That Has Been Used in Hundreds of Subsequent Cases: Is Guiding Case No. 15’s Ground-Breaking Determination of Commingled Personalities of Affiliated Companies a Success?, David Wei Zhao, Associate Managing Editor of the CGCP and a lawyer in Kunming, and Ziwen Tan, Editor of the CGCP and a graduate student in Beijing, share findings of their empirical study of 171 select subsequent judgments/rulings rendered by Chinese courts that explicitly cited Guiding Case No. 15.
This Guiding Case has improved China’s system of denying the personality of a corporate legal person, which is similar to the principle of “piercing the corporate veil” in Anglo-American legal systems. The courts rendering the subsequent judgments/rulings have enriched the guiding content provided in Guiding Case No. 15, making the standards for determining “commingled personalities of affiliated companies” and related legal liabilities clearer and more specific. Overall, the authors conclude that “[this] shows that China’s Guiding Cases System is becoming more mature.”
Guiding Case No. 113 and the Series of “??” Trademark Cases
In another commentary titled The Series of “??” Trademark Cases: The Impact on the Infringing Company and the Implications for Celebrities, Yi Chen, Editor of the CGCP and a lawyer in Beijing, and Xinyue Zhu, Editor of the CGCP and a graduate student in Germany, explain the lines of reasoning used in the adjudication of a series of cases involving the “??” trademark and related trademarks, which were challenged by internationally recognized basketball star Michael Jordan.
The authors discuss the guiding significance of the eleven cases in this series of cases and Guiding Case No. 113 (which is based on one of the eleven cases) for Chinese courts when they adjudicate cases that are similar to these trademark cases in the future. In addition, the authors provide practical suggestions to help foreign natural persons better understand how to protect their names, translated names, stage names, pinyin transliterations of all such names, and their portrait silhouettes in China, and how to contest enterprise names maliciously registered by others.
Useful Lessons from the United States
In an Experts Connect™ piece titled June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Russo—Looking for Guidance, Mr. James McManis, a leading U.S. trial lawyer, analyzes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Russo, and discusses the real meaning of the stare decisis doctrine and the cornerstone upon which it is built. He concludes the commentary with a thoughtful statement about what this all means to China’s judiciary amid its efforts striving to decide like cases alike.
To allow all of our readers as well as Chinese judges and lawyers to benefit from Mr. McManis’s insights, the CGCP has made the commentary available via the Trial Version of e-China Law Connect. Visit this page to access the Trial Version of the journal and read the full text of the commentary.
We hope you enjoy the insights and information shared in this issue of CLC!
Call for Annotations for Stanford CGCP Global Guide™ and Submissions to China Law Connect
Leveraging its rapidly-growing international platform, the CGCP publishes the Stanford CGCP Global Guide™ (“SGG”) on select legal rules from China and related topics to share with the international community annotations and insights contributed by the CGCP team and various professionals.
Professionals around the world are welcome to contribute brief annotations and/or insights (preferably in the form of published works with hyperlinks) to the SGG. We are particularly interested in having annotations that can show how a Guiding Case issued by the SPC was applied OR distinguished by Chinese judges handling a similar subsequent case. If you would like to contribute annotations to the SGG, please contact us at contactcgcp@law.stanford.edu.
If you have first-hand knowledge about the use of a Guiding Case in a similar subsequent case and would like to share your insights, consider submitting an article to China Law Connect. You can find our submission guidelines here.
Since it was founded in February 2011 to help China establish a more transparent and accountable judiciary, the CGCP has shared significant insights about the country’s Guiding Cases and related developments, including the Belt and Road Initiative. To continue receiving messages that highlight these insights, please subscribe to our mailing list here.
To join us and offer your editorial assistance, please apply to be part of the CGCP team by following the instructions here.
A significant source of our funding is individual donors. Please make a gift to us today and help us advance our mission. Thank you for your support!
