There was also a gap of just one hour, between the time an IP lawyer was due to hear the verdict from the Beijing Court of Final Appeal, in favour of Mark Kitto and his company, which would have returned to them their rights to the trademark 'that's' for magazines in China, and the phone call from the court to that lawyer, who was on his way to the courtroom to collect the verdict, telling him that the decision, which had been made, was now postponed indefinitely.

There was then a gap of several months from that phone call to the time that an approach was made by a senior government media official offering to make an out of court settlement for the infringement (i.e. theft) of the said trademark.

There is currently a gap, amounting to several millions, in whichever currency you choose, between that offer, and the amount that the trademark and compensation for its infringement is worth.

It would seem there is a GAPPing hole in the legal protection for 'foreign (created) periodicals', at least in this case.

Mark Kitto, don't give an inch!