Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> IP Dragon

International Law

: IP Dragon

WTO Report DS362: "Panellist On Your Marks, Get Set, Decide"

The first thing the WTO panel did was to get translations of the People's Republic of China's both countries agreed upon (so called mutally agreed translations, forteen of them).

• (MAT-1) Criminal Law (Articles 213, 214, 215, 217, 218 and 220);
• MAT-2) 2007 Judicial Interpretation (Articles 1 through 7);
• (MAT-3) 2004 Judicial Interpretation (Articles 1 through 17);
• (MAT-4) 1998 Judicial Interpretation (Article 17 paragraph 2);
• (MAT-5) Prosecution Standards on Economic Crimes (Articles 8, 16, 23, 38, 39 and 70);
• (MAT-6) Regulations on Customs Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (Article 27);
• (MAT-7) Customs IPR Implementing Measures (Article 30);
• (MAT-8) Customs Announcement No. 16/2007;
• (MAT-9) Measures on the Administration of Property Confiscated by Customs (Articles 1, 2, 3, 17 and 18);
• (MAT-10) Law on Donations for Public Welfare;
• (MAT-11) Copyright Law (Articles 2 and 4);
• (MAT-12) Regulations on the Administration of Films (Articles 2, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 42 and 55);
• (MAT-13) Regulations on the Administration of Audiovisual Products (Articles 2, 4, 28 and 36);
• (MAT-14) Regulations on the Administration of Publication (Articles 6, 26, 27, 40, 44, 45 and 56).

Then they requested the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) to give them factual information available to it relevant to the interpretation of the Berne Convention for the Protecition of Literary and Artistic Works (1971).

The factual information provided by the International Bureau consists of a note that it prepared and 16 annexes containing excerpts from the Official Records of the various Diplomatic Conferences which adopted, amended or revised the provisions currently contained in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 17 of the Berne Convention. Unfortunately, the International Bureau's Note is attached as Annex D-3 to the WTO report, but not the 16 annexes. Why they didn't ask for the factual information available to WIPO relevant to the interpretation of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967), I don't know. I do know that the complaints were also directly based on China's obligation to comply to the provisions of the Paris Convention and indirectly to the Berne and Paris Convention provisions incorporated in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).

To be continued.

Full post as published by IP Dragon on February 09, 2009 (boomark / email).