New Delhi, Oct 1 (IANS): China is increasingly promoting its domestic intellectual property rights (IPR) but, at the same time, sidelining international law as its own companies infringe on patent rights of other countries, according to a new report.
Critics have highlighted that China’s model is less about aligning with international standards and more about consolidating domestic control. By framing IPR as a “strategic resource with Chinese characteristics,” Beijing signals that global treaties such as the WTO’s TRIPS agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) or WIPO conventions (World Intellectual Property Organization Conventions) are secondary to national priorities, according to an article in Uganda’s Nile Post news website.
It highlights that at the ‘2026 Frankfurt Auto Parts Show’, German customs seized 1,274 suspected infringing items, mostly from Chinese exhibitors. Booths were sealed and fines were imposed which exposed the true colours of Chinese companies.
Despite China’s claims of strengthening overseas IP protection, its companies continue to face accusations of counterfeiting and patent violations abroad. The CCP’s domestic-first approach means that while Chinese firms enjoy protection at home, they remain vulnerable internationally, undermining trust among foreign buyers, the article observes.
By tightening domestic IP enforcement while sidestepping global norms, China creates a parallel IP ecosystem. This allows it to shield domestic firms from foreign lawsuits while using IP as leverage in trade disputes. Such selective enforcement distorts markets, enabling Chinese companies to undercut competitors even when accused of IP theft, the article points out.
It underscores that as part of the backlash against China, Europe and the United States are erecting ESG-linked trade barriers, requiring compliance not only on IP but also on carbon footprints, labour rights, and environmental standards. This makes China’s “domestic-first” IP model increasingly incompatible with global supply chains.
Domestically, it promotes innovation, protects Chinese firms, and builds national pride. Internationally, it sidesteps global law, enabling continued disputes over forced technology transfers and counterfeit goods. This duality risks isolating China. Buyers are already shifting orders to Southeast Asia, neighbouring countries, and Taiwan, preferring transparent compliance over opaque Chinese practices. Unless Beijing harmonizes its IP regime with international law, its ambitious plan may backfire strengthening domestic control but eroding global trust, the article states.
The report highlights the corporate scandal involving BYD, China’s largest EV manufacturer, employees alleged that stainless steel parts were secretly replaced with cheaper carbon steel, quality control departments dissolved, and auditors pressured to falsify reports. Such practices, driven by extreme cost-cutting, raised serious safety concerns and eroded trust among European buyers.
Another example the report cites is that of Shing Yu, a publicly listed automotive lighting company, which forced newly recruited graduates to accept half salaries or resign, prompting them to appeal directly to European customers and the EU. These incidents highlight systemic flaws in Chinese corporate governance and labour protections, further undermining confidence in China’s IPR reforms.
