DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Special 301 Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Special 301 Report 2017 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. USTR extends its thanks to partner agencies, including the following Departments and agencies: State; Treasury; Justice; Agriculture; Commerce, including the International Trade Administration and the United States 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 ............................................................................................................ 1 SECTION I: Developments in Intellectual Property Rights Protection, Enforcement, and Related Market Access ................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION II: Country Reports ..................................................................................................... 28 PRIORITY WATCH LIST ........................................................................................................ 28 CHINA................................................................................................................................... 28 INDONESIA ......................................................................................................................... 38 THAILAND........................................................................................................................... 40 INDIA .................................................................................................................................... 42 ALGERIA .............................................................................................................................. 45 KUWAIT ............................................................................................................................... 46 RUSSIA ................................................................................................................................. 47 UKRAINE ............................................................................................................................. 49 ARGENTINA ........................................................................................................................ 51 CHILE ................................................................................................................................... 53 VENEZUELA ....................................................................................................................... 54 WATCH LIST ........................................................................................................................... 55 VIETNAM ............................................................................................................................. 55 PAKISTAN ........................................................................................................................... 56 TURKMENISTAN ................................................................................................................ 56 UZBEKISTAN ...................................................................................................................... 56 EGYPT .................................................................................................................................. 58 LEBANON ............................................................................................................................ 58 BULGARIA........................................................................................................................... 59 GREECE ................................................................................................................................ 59 ROMANIA ............................................................................................................................ 60 SWITZERLAND ................................................................................................................... 60 TURKEY ............................................................................................................................... 61 CANADA .............................................................................................................................. 62 MEXICO ............................................................................................................................... 62 COSTA RICA........................................................................................................................ 63 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.................................................................................................... 64 GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... 64 BARBADOS ......................................................................................................................... 65 JAMAICA ............................................................................................................................. 65 BOLIVIA ............................................................................................................................... 66 BRAZIL ................................................................................................................................. 66 COLOMBIA .......................................................................................................................... 67 ECUADOR ............................................................................................................................ 68 PERU ..................................................................................................................................... 68 ANNEX 1: Special 301 Statutory Basis ....................................................................................... 70 ANNEX 2: U.S. Government-Sponsored Technical Assistance and Capacity Building ............. 71 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY One of the top trade priorities for the Trump 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 for the Administration’s trade policy will be 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 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 unacceptable levels and where market access for Americans who rely on IP protection has been unfairly compromised. For example: USTR continues to place China on the Priority Watch List because longstanding and new IP concerns strongly merit attention. China is home to widespread infringing activity, including trade secret theft, rampant online piracy and counterfeiting, and high levels of physical pirated and counterfeit exports to markets around the globe. China imposes requirements that U.S. firms develop their IP in China or transfer their IP to Chinese entities as a condition to accessing the Chinese market. China also requires that mandatory adverse terms be applied to foreign IP licensors, and requires that U.S. firms localize research and development activities. Structural impediments to civil and criminal IPR enforcement are also problematic, as are impediments to pharmaceutical innovation. USTR identifies India on the Priority Watch List for lack of sufficient measurable improvements to its IP framework on longstanding and new challenges that have negatively affected U.S. right holders over the past year. Longstanding IP
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]
  • Democratizing Production Through Open Source Knowledge: from Open Software to Open Hardware Article (Accepted Version) (Refereed)
    Alison Powell Democratizing production through open source knowledge: from open software to open hardware Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Powell, Alison (2012) Democratizing production through open source knowledge: from open software to open hardware. Media, Culture & Society, 34 (6). pp. 691-708. ISSN 0163-4437 DOI: 10.1177/0163443712449497 © 2012 The Author This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/46173/ Available in LSE Research Online: July 2013 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Democratizing Production through Open Source Knowledge: From Open Software to Open Hardware Alison Powell London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Media and Communications Final revised submission to Media, Culture and Society March 2012 1 Acknowledgements Research results presented in this paper were developed with the support of a Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council postdoctoral fellowship.
    [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]
  • Modeled Interdependencies Between Intellectual Capital, Circular Economy and Economic Growth in the Context of Bioeconomy
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Nedelea, Alexandru-Mircea; Mironiuc, Marilena; Huian, Maria Carmen; Bȋrsan, Mihaela; Bedrule-Grigoruţă, Maria Viorica Article Modeled interdependencies between intellectual capital, circular economy and economic growth in the context of bioeconomy Amfiteatru Economic Journal Provided in Cooperation with: The Bucharest University of Economic Studies Suggested Citation: Nedelea, Alexandru-Mircea; Mironiuc, Marilena; Huian, Maria Carmen; Bȋrsan, Mihaela; Bedrule-Grigoruţă, Maria Viorica (2018) : Modeled interdependencies between intellectual capital, circular economy and economic growth in the context of bioeconomy, Amfiteatru Economic Journal, ISSN 2247-9104, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Vol. 20, Iss. 49, pp. 616-630, http://dx.doi.org/10.24818/EA/2018/49/616 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/196454 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.
    [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]
  • 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
    [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]
  • Online Media Piracy: Convergence, Culture, and the Problem of Media
    Online Media Piracy: Convergence, Culture, and the Problem of Media Change Sean Fuller Department of Gender and Cultural Studies The University of Sydney A thesis submitted to fulfil requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Sydney i DECLARATION I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or any other institute of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text. Sean Fuller April 7, 2018 ii Abstract This thesis proposes that there is a symbiotic relationship between the emergence of online media piracy and the industrial, economic and legal changes that have shaped contemporary popular media in the early 21st century. The Internet is at the heart of most recent transformations of the popular media environment, such as the emergence of video- on-demand formats for film and television consumption and the impact this has had on the nature of those media forms. This thesis discusses the powerful role played by online media piracy in shaping these developments, both through changing the expectations of consumers, and the options that are available for distributors of media content. As well as exploring the diverse forms and practices of online media piracy today, this thesis also explores theories of media change, considering how we might understand such piracy as a force underpinning media change, and how the changes it has helped shape might be placed in a broader historical context.
    [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]
  • Quantifying the Heterogeneous Effects of Piracy on the Demand for Movies
    Quantifying the Heterogeneous Effects of Piracy on the Demand for Movies Zhuang Liu∗ University of Western Ontario February 10, 2019 Latest Version: http://publish.uwo.ca/~zliu328/jobmarketpaper.pdf Abstract The debate on digital piracy has attracted significant public attention. An accurate estimate of the loss due to piracy relies crucially on correctly identi- fying the substitution between pirated and paid consumption. Using a novel dataset of weekly piracy downloads collected from the BitTorrent network, I estimate a random-coefficient logit demand model of movies to quantify the effect of movie piracy on movie revenue from two distribution channels: box office and DVD sales. Counterfactual results reveal that digital piracy has het- erogeneous effects on different channels of sales. When all piracy is removed, US box office revenue will only increase by 2.71% ($ 231 million) while US DVD sales will increase by 36% ($ 527 million) over 40 weeks in 2015. In addition, the effects on sales differ substantially by quality of pirated videos. I find strong evidence that one movie's piracy have negative indirect effects on other movie's revenue. Decomposition exercises show that the magnitude of piracy's indirect effects is much larger than the direct effects on its own rev- enue. Lastly, I allow piracy to have potentially positive effects on sales through word of mouth (WOM). The positive WOM effects from all pirated consump- tion have relatively moderate contributions to the industry revenue amounted to $ 68.7 million over 40 weeks in 2015. ∗This paper was previously titled \A Structural Model of Movie Piracy with Word-of-mouth", \Estimating the Effects of fil-sharing on Movie Box office".
    [Show full text]