Talk:Trademark law of China

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disputed

There is a dispute between two versions. To see the other version: [1], to compare: [2]

This article was labeled controversial, but it's not. It's disputed. Nothing in the talk page suggests why. Can someone that disputes this article make a problem statement? SchmuckyTheCat 20:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This law is only valid, applicable and applied within mainland China. — Insta ntnood 06:21, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 14:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

revert

I reverted changing everything to mainland China and a disambiguation header. The first sentence limits the jurisdiction to mainland China. It isn't necessary to preface China with "mainland" another half-dozen times. In addition to the first sentence, the link to Hong Kong in the see also section makes it clear there is a seperate trademark law in that part of China. And - even though this is about the mainland, and HK has it's own laws, many of the general statements about piracy and such are just as applicable in HK. SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to the naming conventions, Chinese or China should not be used in place of PRC or mainland China. Similar notices are currently used in many mainland China-related articles. Not every reader would scroll all the way down to the see also section at the end of the article. Important information and disambiguation have to be provided in the beginning. Hong Kong has its own law and its own measures to tackle the problem of piracy. The general statements are just as applicable to many countries. — Insta ntnood 02:33, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

there is no confusion about "which" China is being discussed here and there is no reason to disambiguate. you abuse a singular interpretation of the naming conventions in order to put forth your POV. knock it off. SchmuckyTheCat 05:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of whether there is confusion. The aim of the naming conventions is to avoid equating "China" with any of the two, which would in effect endorsing the point of view of either one. Using "mainland China" also avoids the confusion on whether Hong Kong and Macao are included or excluded in the discussion, and the implications that Hong Kong and Macao are not part of the PRC. — Insta ntnood 11:01, July 12, 2005 (UTC)