, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). (1) The reasons for the emergence of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Since the 1980s, with the acceleration of world economic, technological integration and world trade liberalization, the relationship between trade issues and intellectual property protection issues has become increasingly close. Before the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), there were already some conventions for international protection of intellectual property rights, such as the Paris Convention (industrial property), the Berne Convention (copyright), and the Rome Convention (Neighboring Rights) and the Intellectual Property Treaty on Integrated Circuits, among others. Although a series of international agreements on the protection of intellectual property rights have been signed, which have played an important role in the international protection of intellectual property rights, there are still many problems. Previous agreements to protect intellectual property rights have made most exporters of intellectual property products dissatisfied: 1. The current The intellectual property agreement fails to provide realistic provisions for dispute settlement. Once an intellectual property dispute occurs between member states, they can only negotiate or file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice. 2. The current intellectual property agreement was concluded earlier and is no longer able to meet the needs of today's international trade and technological development. Intellectual property rights must be protected at a high level. For example: Domestic legislative provisions vary widely among countries, and some countries have not even enacted laws to protect intellectual property rights. Intellectual property agreements have limited binding force and limited scope of protection. Specifically, they believe that: (1) The Paris Convention does not stipulate the minimum protection period for patents. (2) There is no special international treaty for the protection of trade secrets. (3) International protection should be strengthened for computer software and sound recordings. (4) Existing conventions are not effective enough in dealing with counterfeit goods. (5) They also requested the identification of an effective dispute settlement mechanism to deal with issues related to intellectual property rights. These phenomena have made countries increasingly pay attention to the protection of intellectual property rights. (2) The creation process of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. 1. Question. In the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, intellectual property issues were also covered, but there was no explicit mention of intellectual property protection. Theoretically, the GATT’s most-favored-nation treatment (Article 1), national treatment (Article 3), transparency (Article 10) and loss or damage of interests (Article 23) can all be applied to knowledge Protection of property rights. However, the provisions and contents directly mentioning intellectual property rights in the GATT are very limited: (1) only origin markings (Article 9), requiring contracting parties to prevent the abuse of origin markings; (2) for balance of payments purposes The use of quotas must not violate intellectual property laws (Article 12, paragraph 3, Article 18, paragraph 10); (3) General exceptions (Article 20, paragraph 4) stipulate that measures to protect intellectual property rights should be non-discriminatory. 2. Contradiction. The intellectual property issues involved in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are mainly trade in counterfeit goods. The issue of trade in counterfeit goods was first placed on the agenda of the GATT in November 1982. Ministers asked the Council to decide whether joint action against trade in counterfeit goods was appropriate within the framework of the GATT and, if so, what should be done action. Negotiations on this issue began during the Tokyo Round. The United States proposed a draft code on this issue, but failed to reach an agreement. In 1985, an expert group established by the Council concluded that the trade in counterfeit goods was becoming increasingly serious and that multilateral action should be taken. However, there is great controversy among all parties as to whether the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is the appropriate place to resolve this issue. To this end, two diametrically opposed camps have been formed between developed countries and developing countries: 1. Developed countries represented by the United States, Switzerland, etc. The country advocates that intellectual property rights should be included in multilateral negotiations. The U.S. representative even suggested that the United States would refuse to participate in the eighth round of negotiations if intellectual property rights were not included as a new issue. In addition, developed countries also advocate that standards for the protection of all intellectual property rights should be formulated and that intellectual property rights must be protected through the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. 2. Developing countries represented by India, Brazil, Egypt, Argentina and Yugoslavia believe that protecting intellectual property rights is the task of the World Intellectual Property Organization; stopping counterfeit trade in goods should be distinguished from extensive intellectual property protection.
Developing countries are worried that the protection of intellectual property rights will constitute an obstacle to legitimate trade; strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights will be conducive to the monopoly of multinational companies and increase the prices of medicines and food, thus having an adverse impact on public welfare. Until the official start of the Uruguay Round negotiations in 1986, countries had not yet reached an agreement on whether to include intellectual property rights as a negotiating topic. From a political and technical perspective, intellectual property issues are one of the most difficult issues in the Uruguay Round negotiations. 3. Results. Finally, the Ministerial Declaration that launched the Uruguay Round of negotiations in September 1986 (the Punta del Este Declaration) decided that the parties to the GATT should negotiate a multilateral agreement to define the principles and rules for the protection of intellectual property rights in order to promote the protection of intellectual property rights. development, and so that intellectual property enforcement procedures do not become unfair barriers to trade. Therefore, three authorizations for trade-related intellectual property rights (including trade in counterfeit goods) were determined: first, to reduce distortions and obstacles to international trade, taking into account the need to fully and effectively protect intellectual property rights, to ensure the implementation of knowledge Property rights measures and procedures do not in themselves constitute obstacles to legitimate trade, and negotiations should be aimed at clarifying GATT rules and developing new rules and disciplines on a case-by-case basis. Second, the negotiations should aim at formulating a framework of multilateral rules, principles and disciplines to deal with the international trade in counterfeit goods, taking into account the work already undertaken by the General Agreement. Third, the negotiations do not exclude other auxiliary actions that the World Intellectual Property Organization and other institutions may take in dealing with these issues. After the above three authorizations, the negotiating parties conducted intense discussions and finally reached multiple agreements, including this agreement, at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round in December 1993, which came into effect on July 1, 1995. (3) The main content of the dispute between the negotiating parties. 1. Protection standards. One of the most difficult questions is how the rules should be formulated, that is, if an agreement is adopted to determine substantive standards for the protection of intellectual property rights, whether the contracting parties to the GATT can accept it. Some developing countries are concerned that setting new standards for intellectual property rights will mean that the interests of intellectual property owners override the social and development needs of low-income countries. 2. Stop unilateral sanctions. Over the years, some developed countries, especially the United States, have often threatened to use trade retaliation against Southeast Asia, Latin America and some developed countries that have allegedly seriously violated intellectual property rights. Countries threatened by trade retaliation believe that if they are required to sign the intellectual property agreement, developed countries that adopt unilateral sanctions must abandon the use of unilateral trade sanctions to solve intellectual property issues. They want to ensure that the multilateral resolution of disputes provided by the IP Agreement can replace, not merely supplement, unilateral approaches. In 1990, a GATT panel issued a ruling that U.S. regulations on patent infringement were discriminatory, but the U.S. refused to amend the law. The debate over ending unilateral sanctions has become more complicated after this case. The United States claims that it will only amend its laws in accordance with the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade after the Uruguay Round provides stronger protection for intellectual property rights. 3. Restrictions on restrictive business practices. Negotiations on intellectual property agreements are not about freer trade, but more protection. Intellectual property rights such as patents and copyrights provide inventors or authors with a temporary exclusive right to prevent others from using their inventions or copying their works without payment. Developing countries require large companies not to abuse their exclusive rights to the detriment of the interests of developing countries. 4. Transition period. Changing domestic legislation takes time. The IP Agreement requires major changes to IP laws and practices in countries where piracy and counterfeiting have become an "emerging" industry. Therefore, these countries need more time to make these changes. The final result is that in order to implement the agreement, developed countries have a one-year transition period to amend their domestic legislation and practices to meet the requirements of the agreement. For developing countries and countries transforming from a "centrally planned economy" to a "market economy", there is a 5-year transition period. For low-development countries, a 10-year period is given to adjust relevant measures. If it is a developing country and has not yet established a patent system, it will be given a maximum period of 10 years. Regarding patents for pharmaceuticals and agrochemical products, such applications should be accepted at the beginning of the transition period. Although patents cannot be obtained before the expiration of the transition period, they should be retained from the date of filing the application. 5. Whether the intellectual property agreement should become an agreement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Some developing countries are worried that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is not the place to establish intellectual property standards. This work should be left to the World Intellectual Property Organization, because this organization manages about 20 intellectual property conventions. Developed countries want a strong convention. They believe that even such a convention with limited participants is better than a low-level convention in which everyone participates. In 1991, the Director-General of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade proposed the framework of the final draft text of the Uruguay Round, in which the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, was basically adopted. Since the agreement undoubtedly covers the trade in counterfeit goods, the concept does not appear in the title of the agreement.