resolving concerns is through bilateral dialogue. Where these efforts are unsuccessful, the United States will not hesitate to use the dispute settlement procedures, as appropriate.
In April 2007, the United States requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China over deficiencies in China's legal regime for protecting and enforcing copyrights and trademarks on a wide range of products. After those consultations failed to resolve the matter, the United States requested the establishment of a WTO panel. A WTO panel was established to examine this matter on September 25, 2007. On March 20, 2009, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted a panel report finding in favor of the United States that found (1) China's denial of copyright protection to works that do not meet China's content review standards is impermissible under the TRIPS Agreement; and (2) China's Customs rules cannot allow seized counterfeit goods to be publicly auctioned after only removing the infringing mark. With respect to the third claim concerning China's thresholds for criminal prosecution and conviction of counterfeiting and piracy, while the United States prevailed on the interpretation of the important legal standards in Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement, including the finding that criminal enforcement measures must reflect and respond to the realities of the commercial marketplace, the panel found that it needed additional evidence before it could uphold the overall U.S. claim that China's criminal thresholds are too high. On April 15, 2009, China notified the DSB that China intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and stated it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation. On June 29, 2009, the United States and China notified the DSB that they had agreed on a one-year period of time for implementation, to end on March 20, 2010. On March 19, 2010, China announced that it had completed all the necessary domestic legislative procedures to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings. The United States continues to monitor China's implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute.
In addition, the United States requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China concerning certain other Chinese measures affecting distribution and market access for publications, movies, and music, and audio-visual home entertainment products (AVHE products). The U.S. claims challenged China's prohibition on foreign companies' importation of all products at issue; China's prohibitions and discriminatory requirements imposed on foreign distributors of publications, music, and AVHE products within China; and China's imposition of more burdensome requirements on the distribution of imported publications, movies, and music vis-à-vis their domestic counterparts. A WTO panel was established to examine this matter on November 27, 2007. On August 12, 2009, the panel found in favor of the United States on the vast majority of its claims. China subsequently appealed certain of the panel's findings. However, on December 21, 2009, the WTO Appellate Body rejected each of China's claims on appeal and sustained the panel's findings in those respects. On January 19, 2010, the DSB adopted the panel and Appellate Body reports. Despite its commitment to do so, China did not bring all of its measures into compliance with the DSB recommendations by the agreed-upon deadline of March 19, 2011. The United States is working closely with China to resolve the issues in this dispute on terms agreeable to both parties.
Following the 1999 Special 301 review, the United States initiated dispute settlement consultations concerning the EU regulation on food-related geographical indications (GIs), which appeared to discriminate against foreign products and persons, notably by requiring that EU trading partners adopt an "EU-style" system of GI protection, and appeared to provide insufficient protections to trademark owners. On April 20, 2005, the DSB adopted a panel report finding in favor of the United States that the EU GI regulation is inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement
16
