DOCSLIB.ORG

2019 Special 301 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 Access ............................................................................................................................................. 12 SECTION II: Country Reports ....................................................................................................................... 40 PRIORITY WATCH LIST ................................................................................................................... 40 CHINA ............................................................................................................................................... 40 INDONESIA ...................................................................................................................................... 49 INDIA ................................................................................................................................................. 51 ALGERIA .......................................................................................................................................... 54 KUWAIT ............................................................................................................................................ 55 SAUDI ARABIA ................................................................................................................................ 57 RUSSIA .............................................................................................................................................. 59 UKRAINE .......................................................................................................................................... 61 ARGENTINA ..................................................................................................................................... 63 CHILE ................................................................................................................................................ 65 VENEZUELA .................................................................................................................................... 67 WATCH LIST ....................................................................................................................................... 68 THAILAND ....................................................................................................................................... 68 VIETNAM .......................................................................................................................................... 69 PAKISTAN ........................................................................................................................................ 70 TURKMENISTAN ............................................................................................................................ 70 UZBEKISTAN ................................................................................................................................... 71 EGYPT ............................................................................................................................................... 72 LEBANON ......................................................................................................................................... 72 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES .......................................................................................................... 73 GREECE ............................................................................................................................................ 74 ROMANIA ......................................................................................................................................... 74 SWITZERLAND ............................................................................................................................... 75 TURKEY ............................................................................................................................................ 75 BARBADOS ....................................................................................................................................... 77 BOLIVIA ............................................................................................................................................ 77 BRAZIL ............................................................................................................................................. 78 CANADA............................................................................................................................................ 79 COLOMBIA ...................................................................................................................................... 80 3 COSTA RICA .................................................................................................................................... 80 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................... 81 ECUADOR ......................................................................................................................................... 81 GUATEMALA ................................................................................................................................... 82 JAMAICA .......................................................................................................................................... 82 MEXICO ............................................................................................................................................ 83 PARAGUAY ...................................................................................................................................... 84 PERU .................................................................................................................................................. 84 ANNEX 1: Special 301 Statutory Basis .......................................................................................................... 86 ANNEX 2: U.S. Government-Sponsored Technical Assistance and Capacity Building ......................... 88 4 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 (the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2242). Congress amended the Trade Act in 1988 specifically “to provide for the development of an overall strategy to ensure adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights and fair and equitable market access for United States persons that rely on protection of intellectual property rights.”1 In particular, Congress expressed its concern that “the absence of adequate and effective protection of United States intellectual property rights, and the denial of equitable market access, seriously impede the ability of the United States persons that rely on protection of intellectual property rights to export and operate overseas, thereby harming the economic interests of the United States.”2 This Report provides an opportunity 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
Recommended publications
  • Arabs at the Crossroads: Political Identity and Nationalism

    Arabs at the Crossroads: Political Identity and Nationalism

    Book Review of Hilal Khashan's Arabs at the Crossroads: Political Identity and Nationalism (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), The Arab World Geographer/Le Géographe du monde arabe 3(2):141-147, 2000. In the book Arabs at the Crossroads, Hilal Khashan, an associate professor of political science at the American University of Beirut, provides a vivid description of Arab political performance since the decline of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century and the subsequent formal abrogation of the Islamic Caliphate in 1924 amidst rising European colonialism and Zionism. The book is small (149 pages of text) but concise and well written. Despite raising some very controversial issues, Khashan has combined the coolness of scholarship with intellectual rigor and political concern. His dispassionate perspective is refreshing and makes the book unapologetically independent and provocative. The book consists of nine chapters mostly focused on Arab political experience during the twentieth century. Chapter 1 examines the roots of the identity crisis in the Arab world, especially the ways in which “nineteenth-century reformers disturbed the Arab mind by sowing distrust in the Ottoman empire, without securing a tenable ideological alternative to that religious state and to Islam which it embodied” (page 1). Chapter 2 discusses the birth and the universalization of the European nation-state model of secular nationalism and its many incomplete versions in non-Western cultures, particularly in Muslim countries where “the clash between ethnocentrism and religion seems to resolve itself to the detriment of the former, without the latter emerging as a clear victor” (page 24). While this is a brilliant description of how modern Arab identity seems to swing constantly from Arab nationalism to Islamic identity and back, it stops short of an in-depth theoretical analysis of what constitutes the essence of identity in the Arab world.
  • Saudi Arabia 2019

    Saudi Arabia 2019

    Saudi Arabia 2019 Saudi Arabia 2019 1 Table of Contents Doing Business in Saudi Arabia ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Market Overview ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Market Challenges ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Market Opportunities ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Market Entry Strategy ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Political Environment................................................................................................................................................... 10 Selling US Products & Services .................................................................................................................................... 11 Agents and Distributors ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Establishing an Office .............................................................................................................................................
  • 2004 Special 301 Report

    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.
  • Special 301 Submission

    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.
  • Qatar Wins Legal Battle Over Air Blockade

    Qatar Wins Legal Battle Over Air Blockade

    www.thepeninsula.qa Wednesday 15 July 2020 Volume 25 | Number 8319 24 Dhul-Qa'da - 1441 2 Riyals BUSINESS | 14 PENMAG | 15 SPORT | 20 Profits hit as US Classifieds AFC shortlists banks set aside and Services Qatar coach billions for section Sanchez for top bad loans included award Do it online now. Get a new SIM from the Online safety of your home! Qatar wins legal battle over air blockade THE PENINSULA & AGENCIES Qatar emerged victorious at top UN court as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled In the dispute under the Chicago yesterday that the country has the right to challenge airspace Convention, the ICJ ruled that: restrictions imposed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt before the UN’s aviation body With respect to the blockading states’ first ground of appeal, which — the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). alleged that the ICAO Council “failed to uphold fundamental principles Since June 2017, the block- of due process,” the ICJ unanimously found that “the procedures ading countries (Saudi Arabia, followed by the Council did not prejudice in any fundamental way the the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt) have pro- requirements of a just procedure.” hibited Qatar-registered aircraft from flying to or from their air- The ICJ also rejected the blockading states’ second ground of appeal, ports and overflying their We welcome the decision by the ICJ that which claimed that the “real issue” in dispute was not their violations national airspaces, in flagrant will see the blockading countries finally of the Chicago Convention and IASTA, but their blatantly false violation of international law.
  • UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK STRENGTH Timothy Denny Greene

    UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK STRENGTH Timothy Denny Greene

    STANFORD TECHNOLOGY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 16, NUMBER 3 SPRING 2013 UNDERSTANDING TRADEMARK STRENGTH Timothy Denny Greene & Jeff Wilkerson* CITE AS: 16 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 535 (2013) http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/understandingtrademarkstrength.pdf ABSTRACT Trademark strength, properly understood, refers to the scope of protection afforded a trademark by courts based on that mark’s inherent and acquired: (1) tendency to signify to consumers a consistent source of the products to which the mark is affixed; and (2) ability to influence a consumer’s purchasing decisions. The stronger the mark, the more uses the mark’s owner may exclude from the marketplace through a trademark infringement or dilution action. We argue that the acquired strength prong is insufficiently theorized and lacking in analytical rigor, which results in inconsistent results as judges in each jurisdiction (and indeed, each judge within a jurisdiction) rely on their own peculiar heuristics for determining whether a trademark is strong or weak. Our goal in this Article is to develop a better understanding of what is at stake when judges and practitioners think about trademark strength and to provide analytical guideposts that judges and practitioners can use to improve outcomes. By describing mark strength in a more articulate, consistent manner we can work towards eliminating inconsistency across circuits, thereby promoting more uniform national application of the Lanham Act. And by predicting accurately how strong a court will hold a mark to be in litigation, practitioners and markholders can better calculate the risk of bringing suit against an alleged infringer (or diluter). * We thank Uli Widmaier and Chad Doellinger for providing vital comments and encouragement in early drafts of this Article.

  • Totally Blank Broadsheet

    A8 • Adirondack Daily Enterprise • adirondackdailyenterprise.com • Wednesday, June 17, 2020 Want to see your sports news and photos in the Enterprise? Contact the sports department at 891-2600 ext. 26 Sports or [email protected] 19 students earn black belts as local school closes By LOU REUTER Senior Sports Writer SARANAC LAKE — Grand Master Jon O’Kelly’s final day of being a Taekwondo instructor was one of his most memorable ones. After a 35-year career of teaching the martial art, O’Kelly has retired. A Saranac Lake resident, O’Kelly opened the Northeast Taekwondo school in this village in Sept. 2016. On Saturday, he performed his final duty as the head of the school, pro - moting 19 local students to black belts during an outdoor ceremony held on the North Country Commu - nity College soccer field. O’Kelly said all 19 who were promoted were original students of the Saranac Lake-based school when it opened nearly four years ago, and the youngest new black belt earner was 9-year-old Cole Davide. The ceremony was held on a chilly, damp day with plenty of space between the students, who all wore matching black facemasks that included an image of a martial artist. The day began with testing and ended with the handing out of black belts and certificates. O’Kelly said Easton Crary is presented his black belt by Northeast Taek - he was especially impressed with wondo school instructor Grand Master Jon O’Kelly. the display by his students because the school has been shut down for itself.” he said.
  • Saudi Pirate Beoutq Steals Opening Games of Premier League And

    Saudi Pirate Beoutq Steals Opening Games of Premier League And

    Saudi pirate beoutQ steals opening games of Premier League and Ligue 1 as Cisco, NAGRA and Overon conclusively confirm that pirate channels are distributed on Riyadh-based Arabsat LONDON, PARIS, DOHA, NEW YORK – August 16, 2018 – Pressure has intensified on Saudi Arabia to end the industrial-scale piracy of world sport as three of the world’s leading digital security, media solutions and technology companies, Cisco Systems, NAGRA and Overon, have today independently and definitively confirmed that the Saudi-based pirate TV channel beoutQ – which has orchestrated a plague of piracy on world sport over the past year – is being distributed on the satellite provider Arabsat. This technical evidence establishes beyond any doubt the involvement of Riyadh- based Arabsat in the most widespread piracy of sports broadcasting that the world has ever seen. Having stolen every single game of the recent FIFA World Cup in Russia, the spectre of Saudi piracy returned with renewed vigour this weekend. Two of European football’s highest profile leagues, the English Premier League and France’s Ligue 1, kicked off their widely anticipated 2018/19 seasons but their broadcasts were, once again, stolen and distributed illegally across Saudi Arabia. Starting with the Premier League’s curtain-raiser of Manchester United v Leicester City on Friday through to Manchester City v Arsenal on Sunday, all 10 of the Premier League’s games were illegally broadcast live by beoutQ and Arabsat; while 6 of the 10 opening games of Ligue 1, including PSG v Caen, were also stolen. The pirate channel also brazenly promoted coverage of upcoming games it will show from LaLiga and the Bundesliga, both which start in the coming weeks, as a sign of beoutQ’s endless pipeline of piracy.
  • Duane Morris Cannabis Trademark and Brand Protection at a Glance

    Duane Morris Cannabis Trademark and Brand Protection at a Glance

    CANNABIS TRADEMARK AND BRAND PROTECTION With an increasing number of states coming “online” with respect to medicinal and adult-use cannabis products, and with the changes in the legality of cannabis extracts (namely CBD) following the 2018 Farm Bill, there is a strategic need for cannabis companies to brand their products and services. The branding of cannabis products and services—as with all products and services—is crucial for garnering consumer recognition, gaining and increasing market share, and attracting investment dollars. Cannabis companies that are developing and strengthening their brand equity now will be best-positioned for the market and legal changes that are sure to come in the future. Duane Morris attorneys work closely with clients operating or looking to operate in a wide array of verticals, and assist with developing brand strategies that make sense for their businesses from both practical and legal perspectives, and in the most cost-efficient manner possible. We’ve helped clients operating in both the medicinal and adult-use spaces in developing and implementing corporate structures that facilitate the growth and marketing of their brands. RANGE OF SERVICES 2018 Farm Bill Spurs Cannabis Trademark Clarification • Brand Clearance In response to the 2018 Farm Bill, the United States Patent • Trademark, Prosecution, Registration and Protection and Trademark Office (USPTO) released an examination • Product Licensing guide aimed at clarifying the procedure for trademarks used • Enforcement in connection with cannabis and cannabis-derived goods and • Trade Secret Protection services. • Intellectual Property Strategy • State, Federal and International Brand Protection Under these guidelines, applications filed before December 20, 2018, that identify goods and/or services encompassing • Advice on Marketability CBD or other cannabis products will be issued a refusal based on unlawful use or lack of bona fide intent to use in lawful LEADERS IN THE FIELD commerce under the CSA.
  • EFF ACTA Submission 110215 Final.Pdf

    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.
  • Newspaper Archiving in the UAE Phillip Cass

    Newspaper Archiving in the UAE Phillip Cass

    Newspaper Archiving in the UAE Phillip Cass NEWSPAPER ARCHIVING IN THE UAE by Phillip Cass This paper is a preliminary survey of newspaper archives and holdings in the United Arab Emirates. In order to provide an indication of the extent of the holdings available to researchers it looks at commercial, government and university archives in the emirates of Sharjah, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. The paper also presents a brief explanation of the origins of the UAE press and compares the fate of those early newspapers with the effort being made to preserve the second generation of Emirati publications Ten years ago I addressed the annual conference of the Australian Journalism Education Association in Vanuatu. I had just started work on what would eventually become my MA thesis on the missionary press in German New Guinea and was enthusiastically describing all the fascinating things I had found out. Little did I know at that stage how difficult it would be to actually find copies of those early newspapers. A century of humidity and two world wars had wiped out most of what I was after, although in the end I did, with a great deal of help, manage to piece together a fairly accurate picture of what had happened. I have two of those early newspapers – or at least what remains of them - at home. One is a roll of microfilm from the ANU and the other is a set of photocopies made from the original newspapers in the Micheal Somare library at UPNG. Now, I can’t read the languages in which either newspaper was written, but at least I’ve managed to preserve them.
  • Dollars and Decadence Making Sense of the US-UAE Relationship

    Dollars and Decadence Making Sense of the US-UAE Relationship

    Dollars and Decadence Making Sense of the US-UAE Relationship Colin Powers April 2021 Noria Research Noria Research is an independent and non-profit research organization with roots in academia. Our primary mandates are to translate data gathered on the ground into original analyses, and to leverage our research for the purpose of informing policy debates and engaging wider audiences. It is our institutional belief that political crises cannot be understood without a deep grasp for the dynamics on the ground. This is why we are doctrinally committed to field-based research. Cognizant that knowledge ought to benefit society, we also pledge to positively impact civil society organizations, policymakers, and the general public. Created in Paris in 2011, Noria’s research operations now cover the Americas, Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Licence Noria Research encourages the use and dissemination of this publication. Under the cc-by-nc-nd licence, you are free to share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. Under the following terms, you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of Noria Research. Author: Colin Powers Program Director: Robin Beaumont Program Editor: Xavier Guignard Graphic Design: Romain Lamy & Valentin Bigel Dollars and Decadence Making Sense of the US-UAE Relationship Colin Powers April 2021 About Middle East and North Africa Program Our research efforts are oriented by the counter-revolution that swept the Middle East and North Africa in the aftermath of 2011.