Research On Legal Issues Of China-measures Affecting The Property And Enforcement Of Intellectual Property Rights

The21st century is the economy era of knowledge, and intellectual property isincreasingly becoming an important social factor of production and wealth resources, so thatthe protection of intellectual property rights for many countries has also become an importantmeans to promote national economic and social development. The current world intellectualproperty protection presents the trend of strong protection. The so-called strong intellectualproperty protection, is the theory that summed up for many years to strengthen protection ofintellectual property,reflecting the continuous advancement of world science, technology andhuman creativity, reflecting the growing of the value of the intellectual property, representingthe future development of the intellectual property. Strong protection of intellectual propertyrights is promoted by the United States.In2007, the USA brought China to the WTOconcerning intellectual property rights has become a sign of maturity of this trend.In July1979, the two countries signed the "Sino-US Agreement on Trade Relations”,which has made special provisions for protection on intellectual property, but due to objectivedifferences existing in social system, ideology, legal system from the outset, intellectualproperty disputes between China and the United States continue to appear again and again. Inrecent years, the trade deficit between the United States and China continued to increase. Inorder to reverse this situation, the United States, requested consultations with Chinaconcerning certain measures pertaining to the protection and enforcement of intellectualproperty rights in China. The United States to the Chinese intellectual property issues startedin the WTO dispute settlement procedures. The case is the first case requested forconsultations in the WTO between China and the United States in the field of intellectualproperty. This text is based on the case, to analysis if our legal measures involved in the caseare consistent with the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, and finally furtheranalysis its influence on our country and the revelation for the following legislation in ourcountry.The full text is divided into a total of six parts, as described below:Part Ⅰ: Case playback. This section is divided into two sections: the first section describesthe inevitability of the Sino-US intellectual property dispute. Because China’s economic isrising rapidly, the trade deficit between the United States and China is increasing, and in orderto reverse this situation,the United States only turns to the WTO litigation requests, for being restricted to the constraints of the relevant WTO rules. In this section, a full description of thedevelopment process of the dispute is on, from the request for consultations being filed to theWTO panel report released. The second section, summed up the main focus of controversy inthe dispute between China and the United States in concise language. In the subsequentsecond, third and fourth part, I will interpret them in detail.Part Ⅱ: Threshold for criminal penalties about China on intellectual property crime is inline with the TRIPS Agreement. The United States maintains that China’s "Criminal Law"213-220does not match the TRIPS Agreement, Article61. In this section, the threshold forcriminal penalties and commercial scale will be interpreted firstly, then further argues that theChinese Intellectual Property Crime punishment threshold is consistent with the provisions ofthe TRIPS Agreement.Part Ⅲ: The compliance of China Customs disposal of infringing goods with the59tharticle of the TRIPS Agreement. According to the provisions of the59article of the TRIPSAgreement, the United States pointed out that "China Customs IPR Protection Ordinance30"and" Regulations on Customs Protection of intellectual property rights measures forimplementation " of its customs disposal of confiscated goods infringing intellectual propertyrights sets a mandatory order, so this dose not fulfill obligations on the provisions of section59of the TRIPS Agreement. Controversial measures of that article, is the wronginterpretation of the United States for China Customs IPR Protection Ordinance30, theChinese customs disposal of infringing goods is appropriate, and is in line with the provisionsof section59of the TRIPS Agreement.Part Ⅳ: The compliance of Copyright Law Article IV with the TRIPS Agreement, BerneConvention (1971). This section is divided into three main sections: The first sectiondescribes the United States for the proposition of the clause controversial measures; thesecond section is the defense to the U.S. claims; the third part is the view of the author on themeasures of the dispute.Part Ⅴ: In this section, summed up the influence of the Sino-US intellectual propertydispute case on China and the United States, and the Enlightenment to China’s intellectualproperty legislation of the DSB report.Part Ⅵ: Conclusion.