Letter bombs (19): The names have been changed to protect the guilty
Posted by ampontan on Monday, August 15, 2011
READER Camphortree lives in California. She sent this note to the Comment section, but I thought it deserved a wider audience:
*****
My husband’s friend owns a small business near Shenzheng (深圳), China. Many things still astonish him.
One industrial park manager was campaigning hard to change the name of a Chinese village into one from the U.S.A.
China has already changed some of the old names of their towns into the names of Japan’s prefectures and towns. Then China patents those new names and exports their products to the U.S.A. and the rest of the world.
For instance, Aomori (青森), the prefecture of the famous Fuji apples; Akita (秋田), the prefecture of the top rice brand (Akita-komachi), and Sanuki, a town famous for Japan’s traditional udon…
I have seen the kanji 青森 printed on cardboard boxes in my Albertson’s supermarket. I asked the store manager where those products came from. He replied, “China ma’am. Everything’s from China. Hahaha!”
Who knows how many more names of Japan’s prefectures and towns have been stolen in China?
*****
Ampontan addition: The South Koreans have done the same thing, but not with place names. They have a beverage called soju that is similar to the Japanese shochu. Koreans registered the name shochu and sold soju in the United States as shochu. The situation was resolved, but it required the Japanese to spend some money.
Why they would have bothered, unless they thought shochu was the superior product?
Joe Jones said
“Shinseng?” I think you are referring to “Shenzhen.”
———-
Thanks. Fixed it.
- A.
Ecoutez said
Ampontan,
What case are you referring to in the soju/shochu dispute? Is it a WTO case, or something else?
———
E: Something else. When I was doing research for this post on shochu four years ago, I ran across the information. Rereading the post, it turns out it wasn’t all the US, just California, and that the Japanese had to sell shochu as soju for a while. (I was working from memory.) Had nothing to do with the WTO, as I remember. I could probably find the information again, but it would also take some time.
Yoroshiku!
- A.
Ecoutez said
Thanks Ampontan! My wife found some more detailed information on this. It involved both California and New York regulations which required Japanese distilleries to market shochu in those states as soju. These regulations were actually in conflict with WTO guidelines.
Here is a link, and relevant text quoted:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/economy/report0710.pdf
“In the States of California and New York, on-sale licenses which permit the sale of wine for
consumption on the premises where sold also authorizes the sale of soju, an imported Korean
spirits with no more than 24% alcohol content by volume that is derived from agricultural products,
whereas the sale is not permitted for shochu, a Japanese spirits, though it is also derived from
agricultural products, even with no more than 24% alcohol content by volume. As this different
treatment raises concern from the standpoint of the WTO’s principle of most-favored-nation
treatment, the Government of Japan urges the Government of the United States to permit the sale
of shochu for consumption on the premises where sold with the on-sale license.
In the State of California, it is possible to sell Japanese-produced shochu with no more than 24%
alcohol content by volume with the on-sale license in case it is labeled as “soju.” However, since
“soju” is the name of the Korean alcoholic beverage, indicating this name on Japanese-produced
shochu would make the distinction between Japanese shochu and Korean-produced soju unclear
and mislead consumers with regard to the characteristics and the origin of shochu. Therefore, it
does not provide any solution to this issue.
The Government of Japan made this request to the State Governments of California and New York
and received official responses, both stating that the State Governments are not authorized to give
permission for Japanese-produced shochu to be treated in the same way as Korean-produced soju.
When regulations of State Governments are inconsistent with the WTO agreement, the
Government of the United States has an obligation, according to the Article 24.12 of GATT 1994,
to take such reasonable measures as may be available to it to ensure the observance of GATT by
State Governments. Therefore, the Government of Japan again urges the Government of the
United States to work on the State Governments of California and New York to permit the sale of
shochu for consumption on the premises where sold with the on- sale license. ”
It’s mad fun when regulatory bodies have to battle it out just to sell a drink, isn’t it?