Page:Special 301 Report 2009.pdf/14

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.

indications (GIs), which appeared to discriminate against foreign products and persons – notably by requiring that EU trading partners adopt an "EU-style" system of GI protection – and appeared to provide insufficient protections to trademark owners. On April 20, 2005, the DSB adopted a panel report ruling in favor of the United States that the EU GI regulation is inconsistent with the EU's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. The DSB found that the EU's GI regulation impermissibly discriminates against non-EU products and persons and that Europe could not, consistent with WTO rules, deny U.S. trademark owners their rights. The DSB ruled that, under the regulation, any exceptions to trademark rights for the use of registered GIs were narrow, and limited to the actual GI name as registered. On March 31, 2006, the EC published a revised GI Regulation that is intended to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings. There remain some concerns, however, with respect to this revised GI Regulation, which the United States has asked the EC to address, and the United States intends to continue monitoring this situation.

Positive Developments

Several countries made significant positive progress on IPR protection and enforcement in 2008 and early 2009. For example:

  • Korea – USTR is pleased to announce that Korea is being removed from the Special 301 Watch List in recognition of the significant improvements it has made during the past year, and the Korean Government's policy direction of continuing to place a priority on improving its IPR regime. This marks the first time in the history of the report that Korea has not appeared on either the Watch List or the Priority Watch List. USTR will, however, continue to monitor closely the ongoing problem of Internet piracy in Korea, and will be prepared to consider returning Korea to the Watch List in the future if it does not respond effectively to this challenge through its implementation of newly enacted legislation and other steps.
  • Taiwan – In January 2009, USTR announced the removal of Taiwan from the Watch List following an OCR. During this period of review, Taiwan established a Specialized IPR Court and made progress implementing the Ministry of Education Action Plan for Protecting IPR on School Campuses, and, in April 2009, Taiwan prosecutors initiated a significant prosecution involving a peer-to-peer (P2P) network under the 2007 amendments to Taiwan's copyright law. On April 21, 2009, Taiwan's Legislative Yuan enacted a new law to provide limitations on Internet Service Provider (ISP) liability if ISPs establish and follow certain procedures, including an expeditious notice-and-takedown regime.
  • China – During the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese Government went to unprecedented lengths to launch a coordinated crackdown on the unauthorized retransmission of sporting events as well as online activities related to the Olympic Games. These efforts reportedly resulted in 453 online infringement cases, through which 192 sites were shut down, 173 sites were required to remove infringing content, 88 sites received administrative punishment, and infringing activities related to 10 sites were transferred

10