However, under Article 3, point (a), of the Convention, a for agreement, which refers to the courts of a contracting state or one or more specific courts of a contracting state, is considered exclusive, unless the parties have expressly provided otherwise. In other words, the convention considers that the choice of the judicial agreement is in principle exclusive and, in exceptional cases, non-exclusive. “Adherence to the international agreement means that our patent protection still needs to be strengthened, or more precisely, that the duration of patent protection for industrial design must be extended,” Ma Yide, an IP professor at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, said on Sunday. The question is when and how China would ratify the convention. Justice Song commented on the potential impact of the agreement on China. In short, with respect to consensual jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgment, the convention is very different from current jurisprudence in China, particularly with regard to the law applicable to the choice of judicial agreement, the exclusivity of the choice of judicial agreement and the essential binding principle that may affect China`s ratification process of the convention. Therefore, if, in the above scenario, the parties elect a Singapore court without specifying the exclusivity of the choice of the court agreement, a Chinese court will likely accept the case on the grounds that the agreement is not exclusive. However, if China ratifies the convention, Chinese courts consider the agreement exclusive and refuse to accept the case for that reason. However, it has been found that the attitude of the Chinese courts is gradually approaching the convention. For example, in Cathay United Bank Co., Ltd. v. a certain Gao (商诉股份某案某案), The Shanghai High People`s Court heard in 2016 that the court considered that the choice of judicial agreement was solely due to the absence of a contrary intent. It should be noted that the Shanghai High People`s Court directly cited Article 3 of the convention in the judgment, since the text of the agreement is at the heart of the exclusivity of the forum selection clause.
If there is no clear intention that the agreement is not exclusive, the agreement should be considered exclusive. In Chinese judicial practice, the forum agreement is more likely to be considered “exclusive” unless the jurisdiction clause clearly states that it is “not exclusive.” His remarks came when Shen Changyu, director of the National Intellectual Property Administration, at the opening of the 15th China (Wuxi) International Design Expo said Saturday that China is negotiating with the World Intellectual Property Organization to join the agreement. Absoratory channels (bilateral or multilateral agreements or domestic law authorizing other channels of transmission) (s. 11, 19, 24 and 25) www.plass.com/en/actualites/plasseraud-ip-10th-china-intellectual-property-annual-conference-cipac#targetText=Plasseraud%20IP%2000%2000%20the,nd%20to%203rd%202019; According to Justice Song, the convention establishes clear rules for the applicable law of the court agreement, which contributes to the predictability and stability of the validity of the forum selection clause. If China ratifies the convention, its traditional jurisprudence will also have to be adapted. 1. The law applicable to the choice of judicial agreement With this clear directive and now the Hague Convention, we can expect more decisions such as the one of 30 June 2017, where the Wuhan Intermediate People`s Court recognized and executed a first civil decision of a US court. In that decision, the Court recognized a judgment of the California courts in a share purchase agreement that implied the amount owed, interest and litigation costs, and was considered enforceable in the PRC.