DOCSLIB.ORG

2011 Special 301 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2011 Special 301 Report 2011 Special 301 Report Ambassador Ronald Kirk Office of the United States Trade Representative ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this report. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk gratefully acknowledges in particular the contributions of Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro; USTR General Counsel Timothy Reif; Chief of Staff Lisa Garcia; Assistant USTR for Public/Media Affairs Carol Guthrie, Special Assistant Stephen Ostrowski and all USTR staff who contributed to the drafting and review of this report. Thanks are extended to partner agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and State, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office. In preparing the report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. Embassies around the world and from interested stakeholders. The draft of this report was circulated through the Special 301 Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee. April 2011 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 SECTION I. DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.................................................................... 5 PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................................... 5 Initiative for Special 301 Action Plans ............................................................................................................ 5 Positive Developments................................................................................................................................... 5 Initiatives to Strengthen IPR Protection and Enforcement Internationally ................................................... 6 Best Practices by Trading Partners – IPR Enforcement .................................................................................. 7 Capacity Building Efforts ................................................................................................................................ 8 Trends in Trademark Counterfeiting and Copyright Piracy ........................................................................... 9 Piracy Over the Internet and Digital Piracy .................................................................................................. 11 Trademarks and Domain Name Disputes .................................................................................................... 12 Government Use of Software ...................................................................................................................... 12 Intellectual Property and Health Policy ....................................................................................................... 13 Supporting Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Innovation through Improved Market Access ................ 13 Implementation of the WTO TRIPS Agreement ........................................................................................... 15 WTO Dispute Settlement ............................................................................................................................. 15 SECTION II. COUNTRY REPORTS ....................................................................................................................... 19 PRIORITY WATCH LIST .................................................................................................................................. 19 China ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 Russia ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Algeria ...................................................................................................................................................... 27 Argentina ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Canada ..................................................................................................................................................... 27 Chile ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 India ......................................................................................................................................................... 28 Indonesia .................................................................................................................................................. 29 Israel ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Pakistan .................................................................................................................................................... 30 Thailand.................................................................................................................................................... 30 Venezuela ................................................................................................................................................. 31 WATCH LIST .................................................................................................................................................. 31 Belarus ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Bolivia ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Brazil......................................................................................................................................................... 32 Brunei ....................................................................................................................................................... 32 Colombia .................................................................................................................................................. 33 Costa Rica ................................................................................................................................................. 33 Dominican Republic ................................................................................................................................. 34 Ecuador .................................................................................................................................................... 34 i Egypt ........................................................................................................................................................ 34 Finland ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 Greece ...................................................................................................................................................... 35 Guatemala ................................................................................................................................................ 35 Italy .......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Jamaica ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 Kuwait ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Malaysia ................................................................................................................................................... 37 Mexico ...................................................................................................................................................... 37 Norway ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 Peru .......................................................................................................................................................... 38 Philippines ................................................................................................................................................ 39 Romania ................................................................................................................................................... 39 Spain ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 Tajikistan .................................................................................................................................................. 40 Turkey .....................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2004 Special 301 Report
    2004 SPECIAL 301 REPORT Executive Summary United States Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick today announced the results of the 2004 “Special 301” annual review, which examined in detail the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property protection in approximately 85 countries. USTR notes with disappointment Ukraine’s persistent failure to take effective action against significant levels of optical media piracy and to implement intellectual property laws that provide adequate and effective protection. As a result, Ukraine will continue to be designated a Priority Foreign Country and the $75 million in sanctions imposed on Ukrainian products on January 23, 2002 will remain in place. This continued failure to protect intellectual property rights (IPR) could also jeopardize Ukraine’s efforts to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) and seriously undermine its efforts to attract trade and investment. The U.S. Government continues to encourage Ukraine to combat piracy and to enact the necessary IPR laws and regulations. Addressing weak IPR protection and enforcement in China is one of the Administration’s top priorities. At the April 2004 meeting of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), the United States secured a commitment from China’s Vice Premier Wu Yi that China will undertake a series of actions to significantly reduce IPR infringements throughout the country. These actions, outlined in the China section of the report, are critical in light of the rampant counterfeit and piracy problems that plague China’s domestic market and the fact that China has become a leading exporter of counterfeit and pirated goods to the world. We will be monitoring implementation of these commitments closely through a Joint IPR Working Group formed through the JCCT and will assess China’s progress on their commitments through an out-of-cycle review in early 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Special 301 Submission
    SPECIAL 301 SUBMISSION February 9, 2017 Docket No. USTR-2016-0026 Christine Peterson Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation, Office of the United States Trade Representative 600 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20508 Dear Ms. Peterson, BSA | The Software Alliance1 provides the following information pursuant to your request for written submissions on whether US trading partners should be designated Priority Foreign Country, Priority Watch List, or Watch List in the 2017 Special 301 Report. Pursuant to the Special 301 statutory mandate, Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (19 USC § 2242), requires USTR to identify countries based on two separate sets of criteria: • “Those foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, or • Deny fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property protection” (emphasis added). In this submission, we address both elements of Section 182 of the Trade Act. The report describes US trading partners with deficiencies in protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights and US trading partners that have erected unfair market access barriers to BSA member software, computer, and technology products and services. In many cases, US trading partners are deficient on both counts. For some countries, the market access barriers present the higher threat to BSA members’ ability to do business in the market. 1 BSA | The Software Alliance (www.bsa.org) is the leading advocate for the global software industry before governments and in the international marketplace.
    [Show full text]
  • EFF ACTA Submission 110215 Final.Pdf
    IN THE MATTER OF THE ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT Docket No. USTR-2010-0014 SUBMISSION OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in response to the Request for Comments from the Public on the December 3, 2010 text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 242, pages 79069-79070). The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a non-profit organization with over 14,000 members worldwide, dedicated to the protection of online freedom of expression, civil liberties, digital consumer rights, privacy, and innovation, through advocacy for balanced intellectual property laws and information policy. EFF is based in San Francisco, California. 1. Constitutional Issues Raised by Negotiating ACTA as a Sole Executive Agreement There has been significant debate amongst U.S. constitutional law scholars about the constitutionality of negotiating ACTA as an agreement under the President’s sole executive power, given that ACTA is an agreement that is exclusively about intellectual property standards and enforcement powers, one of the enumerated heads of power in the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution does not give the President sole authority to make binding international commitments concerning intellectual property issues.1 We note the repeated assurances from officers of the USTR that ACTA will not require changes to current U.S. law. In keeping with those statements, we respectfully request that the statement accompanying the signing of ACTA by Ambassador Kirk, the President or any other officer of the Obama administration, expressly confirm that ACTA will not require any changes to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • USTR 2021 Special 301 Report
    2021 Special 301 Report Office of the United States Trade Representative ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this Report. United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai gratefully acknowledges the contributions of staff to the writing and production of this Report and extends her thanks to partner agencies, including the following Departments and agencies: State; Treasury; Justice; Agriculture; Commerce, including the International Trade Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office; Labor; Health and Human Services, including the Food and Drug Administration; Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center; and the United States Agency for International Development. USTR also recognizes the contributions of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, as well as those of the United States Copyright Office. In preparing the Report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. embassies around the world, from U.S. Government agencies, and from interested stakeholders. The draft of this Report was developed through the Special 301 Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 4 SECTION I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection, Enforcement, and
    [Show full text]
  • Specialspecial
    K USA SPECIALSPECIAL IN SUMMARY – USTR considers Special 301 to be a 301301 critical policy tool for pinpointing countries that are providing weak KK protections for U.S. intellectual ChinaChina andand RussiaRussia toptop thethe property rights abroad annualannual U.S.U.S. listlist of of IPRIPR offendersoffenders – The threat of such sanctions is often enough to compel nations to improve By Lisa Peets, Partner and Head of European IP Policy, their intellectual property regimes Mark Young, Associate and Marney Cheek, Special Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP – USTR designated 36 countries in this n 30 April this year, the United process also provides a basis for constructive year’s Special 301 Report in the States’ trade ministry, the Office of engagement with U.S. trading partners in categories of Priority Watch List and Othe U.S. Trade Representative order to address those challenges2. Given the Watch List (USTR), released its “Special 301” report. political factors involved, however, a degree of “Special 301” is the name given to an annual controversy inevitably attaches to the process. process whereby the United States Not surprisingly, Special 301 has been AUTHORS Government identifies countries that, in its criticized by other countries because of its estimation, deny adequate and effective unilateral approach3. Trademark owners and Lisa Peets is a partner at Covington & Burling LLP. She leads the technology, protection of intellectual property rights other intellectual property right holders, in media, and communications group in (including trademark protection), or deny contrast, find the Special 301 process to be a the firm’s London office. Her practice fair and equitable market access to American highly effective way to get their issues before focuses on intellectual property and industries who rely on such protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Origin, Evolution, and Use
    Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Origin, Evolution, and Use Updated December 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46604 SUMMARY R46604 Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Origin, December 14, 2020 Evolution, and Use Andres B. Schwarzenberg Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 grants the Office of the United States Trade Representative Analyst in International (USTR) a range of responsibilities and authorities to investigate and take action to enforce U.S. Trade and Finance rights under trade agreements and respond to certain foreign trade practices. From the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations in 1994, which resulted in the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, until the start of the Trump Administration, the United States used Section 301 authorities primarily to build cases and pursue dispute settlement at the WTO. The Trump Administration has shown more willingness to go outside of the WTO to act unilaterally under these authorities to promote what the Administration touts as “free,” “fair,” and “reciprocal” trade. The Trump Administration’s use of Section 301 to impose tariffs as punitive measures has been the subject of congressional and broader international debate, and some in Congress have raised a number of questions regarding USTR’s actions, including the scope of USTR’s authorities, the types of trade actions allowed, and the tariff exclusion process. The Trump Administration has attributed its use of Section 301 to impose tariffs as punitive measures to its determination to close a large and persistent gap between U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Special 301 Report
    2018 Special 301 Report Office of the United States Trade Representative ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this Report. United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer gratefully acknowledges the contributions of staff to the writing and production of this Report and extends his thanks to partner agencies, including the following Departments and agencies: State; Treasury; Justice; Agriculture; Commerce, including the International Trade Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office; Labor; Health and Human Services, including the Food and Drug Administration; Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center; and the United States Agency for International Development. USTR also recognizes the contributions of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, as well as those of the United States Copyright Office. In preparing the Report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. embassies around the world, from U.S. Government agencies, and from interested stakeholders. The draft of this Report was developed through the Special 301 Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection,
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Special 301 Report
    2019 Special 301 Report APRIL 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for the preparation of this Report. United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer gratefully acknowledges the contributions of staff to the writing and production of this Report and extends his thanks to partner agencies, including the following Departments and agencies: State; Treasury; Justice; Agriculture; Commerce, including the International Trade Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office; Labor; Health and Human Services, including the Food and Drug Administration; Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center; and the United States Agency for International Development. USTR also recognizes the contributions of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, as well as those of the United States Copyright Office. In preparing the Report, substantial information was solicited from U.S. embassies around the world, from U.S. Government agencies, and from interested stakeholders. The draft of this Report was developed through the Special 301 Subcommittee of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection, Enforcement, and Related Market
    [Show full text]
  • AFTE 2021 Special 301 Report Comments
    January 28, 2021 Mr. Daniel Lee Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property (Acting) Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Executive Office of the President 600 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20508 RE: Comments Regarding the 2021 Special 301 Review (Docket Number USTR-2020- 0041) Dear Mr. Lee: The Alliance for Trade Enforcement (“AFTE”) is a coalition of trade associations and business groups that advocates for foreign governments to end unfair trade practices that harm American companies and workers from every sector of the economy and supports U.S. policymakers in their efforts to hold our trading partners accountable. Our members operate in the manufacturing, services, technology, and agriculture sectors, among others. On behalf of AFTE, we provide the following comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) for its 2021 Special 301 Review. As described in detail in these comments, AFTE members are concerned regarding policies of a number of countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property (“IP”) rights and deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on IP protection. The United States is party to important bilateral and multilateral trade agreements with these countries that provide for protection of IP rights and market access, and the United States should take urgent action to enforce those rights. We first provide general comments on foreign trade barriers that are not specific to any single country. The subsequent sections then contain comments specific to each of the following countries: Brazil, Canada, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and South Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2019 Global Mercantilist Index: Ranking Nations’ Distortive Trade Policies
    The 2019 Global Mercantilist Index: Ranking Nations’ Distortive Trade Policies CALEB FOOTE AND STEPHEN EZELL | NOVEMBER 2019 The Global Mercantilist Index, ranking 60 nations on 18 variables ranging from market access and forced localization to currency manipulation and intellectual property protections, finds that China is the world’s most innovation-mercantilist nation. KEY TAKEAWAYS ▪ In the global race for leadership in the most advanced technology industries, many countries are resorting to “innovation mercantilism” to create unfair advantages for own industries at the expense of foreign competitors and global innovation progress. ▪ Ranking 60 nations on 18 variables such as market access, forced localization, currency manipulation and intellectual property protections, the 2019 Global Mercantilist Index finds that China is the world’s most innovation-mercantilist nation. ▪ While China ranks as the most mercantilist nation, others such as India, Indonesia, and Russia have also engaged in innovation mercantilist practices, placing them in the report’s “moderate-high” category. ▪ To counter global mercantilist policies, the U.S. government should pursue three types of reforms: government restructuring, diplomatic pressure, and systemic funding. ▪ The U.S. Trade Representative should also construct its own biennial index to better understand other nations’ mercantilist practices and identify which are the worst offenders. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | NOVEMBER 2019 INTRODUCTION As countries increasingly vie to both
    [Show full text]
  • February 2019 Submission to USTR's Special 301 Report
    Linda Dempsey Vice President International Economic Affairs February 7, 2019 Mr. Sung Chang Director for Intellectual Property and Innovation Office of the United States Trade Representative 600 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503 Ref. Docket No.: USTR-2018-0037 Dear Mr. Chang: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) welcomes the opportunity to provide these written comments for the 2019 Special 301 Review. The NAM is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing more than 14,000 businesses of all sizes in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs more than 12.7 million women and men across the country1 and drives innovation more than any other sector with roughly 65 percent of private-sector research and development.2 In total, manufacturing contributes $2.33 trillion to the U.S. economy, up from $1.7 trillion in 2009.3 Innovation and intellectual property (IP) remain the lifeblood of our economy and the foundation for a globally competitive manufacturing base here at home and U.S. global leadership in manufacturing abroad. The United States has long made vigorous protection of IP rights at home and abroad against those who seek to steal our innovative ideas and products a core component of national competitiveness strategies and trade policy. The United States has spent decades both building a strong domestic legal framework to protect and enforce manufacturers’ IP and pushing for stronger global protection and enforcement of IP rights through direct bilateral negotiation, robust investigations such as the Special 301 process and a robust set of global IP rules and standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A top trade priority for the Administration is to use all possible sources of leverage to encourage other countries to open their markets to U.S. exports of goods and services, and provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights. Toward this end, a key objective of the Administration’s trade policy is ensuring that U.S. owners of IP have a full and fair opportunity to use and profit from their IP around the globe. The Special 301 Report (Report) is the result of an annual review of the state of IP protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners around the world, which the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (19 U.S.C. § 2242). The Report reflects the resolve of this Administration to call out foreign countries and expose the laws, policies, and practices that fail to provide adequate and effective IP protection and enforcement for U.S. inventors, creators, brands, manufacturers, and service providers. The identification of the countries and IP-related market access barriers in this Report and of steps necessary to address those barriers are a critical component of the Administration’s aggressive efforts to defend Americans from harmful IP-related trade barriers. The Report identifies foreign trading partners where IP protection and enforcement has deteriorated or remained at inadequate levels and where U.S.
    [Show full text]