US 301 score card
Thanks to the IPKat for details of the USTR's 301 report.
This report provides the US's view on the adequacy of IP protection provided by states other than the US. As the requirement for being on this list is that the US is not satisfied with the protection provided, rather than the state necessarily not complying with international obligation, its preparation, and possible ultimate imposition of trade sanctions, is controversial. However, as the WTO DSS has previously held that 301 because of its "discretionary" element, is not in breach of WTO obligations, 301 is likely here to stay.
Although lack of effective enforcement regimes and actions against piracy do require SOME action, reference to bilateral agreements with a long list of countries is rather concerning. This is particularly so given the possibility, as has been seen in the past, for this to require wholly permissible exception regimes to be removed from national IP legislation.
This report provides the US's view on the adequacy of IP protection provided by states other than the US. As the requirement for being on this list is that the US is not satisfied with the protection provided, rather than the state necessarily not complying with international obligation, its preparation, and possible ultimate imposition of trade sanctions, is controversial. However, as the WTO DSS has previously held that 301 because of its "discretionary" element, is not in breach of WTO obligations, 301 is likely here to stay.
Although lack of effective enforcement regimes and actions against piracy do require SOME action, reference to bilateral agreements with a long list of countries is rather concerning. This is particularly so given the possibility, as has been seen in the past, for this to require wholly permissible exception regimes to be removed from national IP legislation.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home