FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

8 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 47

John Marshall Review Intellectual Property Law

Fall, 2008

Article

*47 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT: A REALITY GAP (INSUFFICIENT

ASSISTANCE, INEFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION)?

Timothy P. Trainer [FNa1]

Copyright © 2008 The John Marshall Law School, Timothy P. Trainer

INTRODUCTION
The World Trade Organization's ("WTO") Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS") [FN1] held the promise of great strides in the ability to
protect and enforce intellectual property. [FN2] From a strict enforcement perspective, the
TRIPS provisions addressing requirements for civil, criminal, and border enforcement [FN3]
procedures were major strides forward because they required national laws to include some basic
provisions regarding civil enforcement of intellectual property, actions to stop the importation of
certain infringing goods, and imposition of criminal penalties for certain violations of intellectual
property rights ("IPR"). [FN4]
The combination of evolving and increased trade in counterfeit and pirate goods and
experience with the implementation of the TRIPS requirements have exposed the fact that the
manufacturers and distributors of infringing goods are creative and that TRIPS may suffer from
vagueness and ambiguity resulting in less than effective IPR enforcement. [FN5] The experience
of companies and governments in addressing IPR violations has resulted in a trend among some
members of the WTO to raise the *48 standards of enforcement beyond the internationally
recognized minimum standards established by TRIPS. [FN6]
Thus, as some WTO members seek aggressive enforcement and negotiate higher standards of
IPR enforcement, "TRIPS-plus" ("TRIPS+"), there are other WTO members that lag behind in
effective implementation of TRIPS requirements, leading to ineffective IPR enforcement as
perceived by some IPR owners and governments. [FN7] As a result, friction has been created
between governments seeking the so-called TRIPS+ enforcement standards and other
governments that are willing to implement TRIPS level enforcement, but resist enforcement
standards above the TRIPS minimum standards. [FN8]
In the following pages, this article will identify some select provisions of TRIPS and how
TRIPS provisions can contribute to confusion concerning implementation of these minimum
standards and why there is a trend among some WTO members to heighten enforcement
standards. In addition, an attempt will be made to explain why there may be resistance to
heightened standards. In an effort to highlight some of these problems, the article will rely on the
TRIPS border measures provisions, but not exclusively, as the bases for discussion. Finally, the
article will address briefly some IPR-related training and education issues that arise from the
enforcement focus.

I. TRIPS: PROMISE V. PRACTICE

At the outset, it is necessary to understand that not all WTO members were required to bring
the enforcement provisions to life at the same time. [FN9] TRIPS, Part VI, contained transition
periods for developed, developing, and least developed countries so that governments would
have time to amend national laws and implement the new requirements. [FN10] Moreover,
governments could self-designate the *49 group into which they belonged: developed,
developing, or least developed. [FN11] Based on the language of Article 65.1, developed
countries such as the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, and others were
expected to apply the provisions as of January 1996, which was a year after entry into force of
the WTO agreement. [FN12] Accordingly, developing countries, having an additional four years,
had a total of five years for their transition period. [FN13]
In part, the transition periods were meant to provide governments with time to amend and
incorporate necessary provisions into national law, but also to train and educate relevant
government officials about new tasks, missions, and obligations. [FN14] WTO members
anticipated the need for training and education as evidenced by the TRIPS provision regarding
technical cooperation. [FN15] It is important to note that Article 67 states:
*50 In order to facilitate the implementation of this Agreement, developed country Members
shall provide, on request and on mutually agreed terms and conditions, technical and financial
cooperation in favour of developing and least-developed country Members. Such cooperation
shall include assistance in the preparation of laws and regulations on the protection and
enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as on the prevention of their abuse, and shall
include support regarding the establishment or reinforcement of domestic offices and agencies
relevant to these matters, including the training of personnel. [FN16]
In simple terms, the promise of the TRIPS enforcement provisions in Articles 41 through 61
is that WTO members would have established effective IPR enforcement systems so that owners
of the various forms of IPR covered by TRIPS would, at the very least, have more effective
procedures in place for civil enforcement of IPR. Additionally, copyright and trademark owners
would be able to rely on new and improved measures to stop importation of infringing goods and
have criminal remedies available to punish counterfeiters and pirates.
By 2008, the transition periods with regard to the enforcement provisions have expired
[FN17] and WTO members should be providing the level of protection and enforcement that
TRIPS outlines in Articles 41-61. Generally, national laws have been amended to incorporate the
changes necessary. [FN18] Regarding actual implementation and how governments are affording
IPR owners with protection and enforcement, there are no WTO panel decisions at the time of
this writing to provide insight into how TRIPS enforcement provisions are interpreted. [FN19]
Countries have *51 attempted to do the best they can to come into compliance based on their
understanding of the TRIPS text. [FN20]
Without looking at every Article of TRIPS Part III, [FN21] it is worth examining a sampling
of Part III, because of the challenges raised by the text and why some WTO Member States have
problems in effective implementation. [FN22] Article 41.1 sets forth ambitious goals for IPR
enforcement. It states that
 Members shall ensure that enforcement procedures as specified in this Part are available
under their law so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual
property rights covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent
infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These
procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate
trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse. [FN23]
An examination of the TRIPS text must be read with many interests in mind. First, how do
the various Member States interpret these words? For Member States that have little or no IPR
enforcement experience, what do some of these phrases mean and how will they be
implemented? From the perspective of IPR owners, specifically, multinational companies, this
provision and its lofty goals, albeit general in nature, gives corporate IPR owners expectations as
to what they will receive in markets around the world. [FN24] Thus, for the IPR owner, there
appears to be the promise of an improved IPR environment. [FN25]
But, Article 41 contains a provision that should temper IPR owners' expectations. Article
41.5 reflects the difficulty of negotiating aggressive enforcement provisions without
compromise. The negotiators seeking aggressive IPR enforcement provisions must also
acknowledge that the TRIPS enforcement provisions are new for many countries and may be
beyond the capabilities of many *52 Member States in the short or medium term. [FN26] Thus,
the question should be asked as to whether Article 41.5 undermines the very things Part III is
supposed to provide. Article 41.5 states that
It is understood that this Part does not create any obligation to put in place a judicial system
for the enforcement of intellectual property rights distinct from that for the enforcement of law in
general, nor does it affect the capacity of Members to enforce their law in general. Nothing in
this Part creates any obligation with respect to the distribution of resources as between
enforcement of intellectual property rights and the enforcement of law in general. [FN27]
One can understand that no government is required to establish a separate judicial system for
IPR, but the last sentence raises an interesting question: If a Member State has no resources
dedicated to IPR enforcement, does this mean that once its TRIPS obligations are triggered the
Member State is complying with its enforcement obligations by having no resources for IPR
enforcement? This issue has not been the subject of any WTO Dispute Settlement case. Thus,
until there is a need to obtain an official interpretation, it remains to be seen what Article 41.5
means in practice. Nevertheless, IPR owners are left to wonder what the last sentence means
with regard to enforcement, in general, under any national IPR enforcement system if laws are
changed to provide for enforcement, but no human resources are provided to take the actions
necessary for enforcement at the border or for IPR crimes that require the involvement of law
enforcement, prosecutors, and judges.
In the area of border measures, Article 51 creates numerous challenges for Member States
that have no pre-TRIPS border enforcement experience. [FN28] The Article states that
Members shall, in conformity with the provisions set out below, adopt procedures to enable a
right holder, who has valid grounds for suspecting that the importation of counterfeit trademark
or pirated copyright goods may take place, to lodge an application in writing with competent
authorities, administrative or judicial, for the suspension by the customs authorities of the release
into free circulation of such goods. Members may enable such an application to be made in
respect of goods which involve other infringements of intellectual property rights, provided that
the requirements of this Section are met. Members may also provide for corresponding
procedures concerning the suspension by the customs *53 authorities of the release of infringing
goods destined for exportation from their territories. [FN29]
This provision promises IPR owners that all WTO Member States must have a system that
will permit copyright and trademark owners to apply for protection against pirate and counterfeit
products that are being imported. [FN30] At first glance, a WTO Member State is confronted by
a number of unanswered questions such as:
1. What authorities within the government could be the competent authority for purposes of
Article 51?
a. Customs?
b. Ministry of Trade and Industry (a parent ministry for the government's trademark office)?
[FN31]
c. Trademark Office?
d. Copyright Office?
e. Ministry of Culture (in some governments, the Ministry of Culture is the parent Ministry
for copyrights)? [FN32]
f. Any other government agency that is selected?
2. Should the application that is lodged for border measures have national effect or will the
copyright or trademark owner have to apply for protection at each port of entry in the country?
3. What constitutes valid grounds for suspecting that an importation of infringing goods may
take place?
The answers are enough to cause much confusion for a government not experienced in IPR
enforcement. Basically, a Member State could designate any court or government agency as the
competent authority to receive an application for border enforcement. [FN33] This may, in fact,
be too much flexibility. An IPR owner that *54 operates commercially in many countries is faced
with the challenge of determining who the competent authorities are in every country where it
operates. [FN34]
Here are a few examples of the challenges for IPR owners. A company that wants to file an
application for border measures in the United States would file with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection. [FN35] In Canada, the IPR owner must apply to a court for border measures and must
also notify the Minister of Public Safety. [FN36] In Egypt, it appears that the IPR owner must
file with Egyptian Customs, [FN37] but these regulations appear to require that the IPR owner
also file the complaint with the Trade Agreements Sector of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and
Industry, [FN38] thus raising the question which agency is the "real" competent authority.
In addition, nothing in TRIPS, Article 51, prohibits a Member State from imposing on IPR
owners the requirement to file multiple applications at multiple Customs ports of entry within the
country. [FN39] In 2002, one U.S.-based trade association, representing dozens of multinational
companies, filed comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative complaining
of onerous application filing requirements in order to obtain nationwide border enforcement in
Japan. [FN40] The possible "prohibition" against onerous application requirements may be to
argue that TRIPS' General Obligations regarding enforcement states that procedures concerning
enforcement shall be "fair" and "shall not be unnecessarily complicated or costly." [FN41] While
this argument may be a good argument, there has not been a WTO dispute settlement case
involving the issue of application procedures related to having nationwide effect.
The third point raised above with regard to having valid grounds for suspecting an
importation of infringing goods is also an issue that has not been the subject of a WTO dispute
settlement case. Thus, a WTO Member State could deny an application for border measures
because of an IPR owner's lack of any grounds to suspect that infringing goods will be imported.
[FN42] In order to have any understanding of what "valid grounds" might mean, it is helpful to
look at TRIPS Article 52 for additional information regarding the application for border
measures. Article 52 states that the IPR owner initiating the application procedures for border
measures "shall be required to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that
... there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder's intellectual *55 property right ...."
[FN43] The interaction between Articles 51 and 52 concerning the "valid grounds" related to
"prima facie" raise another set of problems for IPR owners because of Article 52's additional
requirement that the IPR owner provide a "sufficiently detailed description of the goods to make
them readily recognizable by the customs authorities." [FN44]
The inter-relationship between Articles 51 and 52 regarding required information submitted
by an IPR owner raises questions regarding the specificity of information about the infringing
goods that is necessary for an application to be accepted. How will the IPR owner know what
goods will be imported that infringes its copyright or trademark? If too much specificity is
required, it will render the procedures meaningless and, in practice, few, if any, IPR owners
would be able to get any protection at the border.
TRIPS' only criminal IPR enforcement provision is another example of raising expectations
among IPR owners that governments would begin to initiate criminal enforcement through police
actions and prosecutions of trademark counterfeiters and copyright pirates. From a government
perspective, the provision includes a few ambiguous terms and created confusion for Member
States that have little or no experience in IPR enforcement, attempting to understand the
Agreement's requirements. Article 61 states
Members shall provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of
wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. Remedies available
shall include imprisonment and/or monetary fines sufficient to provide a deterrent, consistently
with the level of penalties applied for crimes of a corresponding gravity. In appropriate cases,
remedies available shall also include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of the infringing
goods and of any materials and implements the predominant use of which has been in the
commission of the offence. Members may provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be
applied in other cases of infringement of intellectual property rights, in particular where they are
committed wilfully and on a commercial scale. [FN45]
Just a few of the questions raised by Article 61 are:
1. How does the Member State determine "commercial scale" counterfeiting or piracy?
2. What level of fine or term of imprisonment will deter this type of conduct?
3. For purposes of establishing penalties, what other crimes are of a corresponding gravity to
counterfeiting and piracy?
4. What is meant by "In appropriate cases, remedies available shall include ...."?
*56 The implementation of the words in Article 61 into law and practice is based on what
each Member State deems appropriate in its country. [FN46] Thus, Member States that had never
before enforced IPR through criminal laws were confronting a wholly new type of crime
requiring the government's involvement. Perhaps fortunate for many Member States, no specific
manner of implementation is non-compliant until a dispute settlement case arises and a panel
rules that a particular practice is non-compliant. [FN47] At present, the U.S.-China case has
placed some Article 61-related issues before a WTO Dispute Settlement panel, but there is no
ruling as of the time of this writing. [FN48]
 Based on this superficial examination of a few TRIPS enforcement provisions, it becomes
clearer that the TRIPS enforcement text provided little more than a bullet point list of required
elements for an IPR enforcement system. Translating these required elements into practice was
and continues to be a major challenge. The implementation challenge was supposedly addressed
by Article 67 ("Technical Cooperation") including the previously mentioned provision on
technical assistance. [FN49]

II. TRIPS: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE--HIGH DEMAND, LIMITED RESOURCES

One early development regarding technical and legal assistance was an agreement between
two Geneva-based intergovernmental organizations: the WTO and the World Intellectual
Property Organization ("WIPO"). [FN50] On December 22, 1995, the organizations concluded
the agreement for cooperation that would formally provide for WIPO to be involved in providing
assistance in IPR. [FN51] Despite this agreement, however, neither WIPO nor WTO had the
staff to deliver enforcement training simply because IPR enforcement was not the mission of the
organizations. [FN52]
Thus, the technical assistance provision of TRIPS [FN53] is critical to any degree of success
in the implementation of the enforcement provisions and delivering the promise of effective
enforcement to the IPR owners expecting an improved commercial environment around the
world. But, in order to understand the reality of what the developed countries could do in the
area of technical assistance, it may be *57 worth reviewing the resources available to one U.S.
Government agency in the early and mid 1990s. [FN54]
The TRIPS border measures raised a number of issues related to government actions that
would be necessary to provide effective enforcement. Given the new and significant
development of border enforcement, [FN55] this is one area in which many governments would
need assistance. Many may view the U.S. IPR border enforcement system as an old fixture of
Customs enforcement, [FN56] but the heightened focus of a more aggressive and "advanced"
system is a relatively recent development. [FN57] A Customs IPR Task Force was formed in the
1988-1989 time frame [FN58] and included three Customs attorneys when the IPR Task Force
became a formal "Branch" within Customs' Office of Regulations and Rulings in 1991. [FN59]
*58 The enhanced U.S. Customs IPR program predates the implementation of TRIPS
obligations by only a handful of years. [FN60] At the time of the formal creation of the IPR
Branch, the Branch consisted of only three attorneys, one paralegal and an administrative
assistant. [FN61] In total, only five people were dedicated full time to IPR. [FN62] In the
description of the IPR Branch's responsibilities published in the Federal Register, one significant
role of the Branch is not mentioned: training U.S. Customs officers about Customs regulations,
their application to shipments containing suspect goods and the basic forms of intellectual
property that are to be protected. [FN63] At the outset, before one begins to consider training of
foreign officials, the IPR Task Force had to acquaint U.S. Customs officials about procedures
under U.S. regulations and laws. [FN64]
Thus, in the early 1990s during the same period that negotiators were debating the TRIPS
text, U.S. Customs' enhanced IPR enforcement program was still in its early stages.
Nevertheless, the few years of experience that U.S. Customs gained between 1989 and 1996, the
year in which TRIPS obligations went into effect for developed countries, provided the agency
with a small corps of lawyers, inspectors, and agents who gained experience in IPR border
enforcement cases.
 The reality is that this small corps of U.S. Customs officials would never be sufficient to
provide the technical assistance needed in many Member States. [FN65] Assuming that the U.S.
had one of the most active IPR border enforcement systems in the world as of January 1, 1996,
and the staff dedicated solely to IPR enforcement could be counted on two hands, it should not
have been a surprise that the global expertise available in the developed countries would never
be adequate to prepare scores of developing and least developed countries to both amend laws
and to train foreign officials to carry out the daily enforcement activities needed to make a
TRIPS border enforcement system function effectively. [FN66] In hindsight, if one considers the
time and resource commitment that was required to train U.S. Customs officials, it *59 should
have been more obvious that it would be unlikely that effective enforcement would be provided
by developing and least developed countries "on time." [FN67]
Indeed, the "team" of globe traveling technical assistance providers during the first transition
period (1996-2000) that was for the benefit of developing countries was a small cadre of people
often known to each other. [FN68] A similar training challenge existed for criminal enforcement
of IPR. [FN69] The new reality was that governments that had never criminalized IPR violations
were now required to establish a new set of crimes and needed law enforcement to become
familiar with the various forms of IPR and how to identify a possible IPR crime. [FN70] Thus,
the TRIPS criminal enforcement requirements added to the scope of enforcement falling within
the jurisdiction of the police, prosecutors and the courts.
The challenges of limited resources available to be deployed for technical assistance in the
area of criminal IPR enforcement were and continue to be similar to that relating to border
enforcement. [FN71] In view of the fact that the TRIPS Article 61 requirement to adopt criminal
procedures for copyright and trademark violations was new to many Member States, it is likely
that criminal investigations and prosecutions for IPR crimes were not numerous around the
world prior to implementation of the TRIPS provision. [FN72] In the United States, the U.S.
Department of Justice's Annual Reports indicate that, by comparison, in fiscal years 1997, 1998
and 2007, [FN73] the number of criminal copyright and trademark cases filed were 100, 97, and
200, respectively. [FN74]
In general, reflecting back on a decade of efforts to assist governments in meeting their
respective IPR enforcement obligations, it is somewhat safe to say that negotiating the TRIPS
text was easier than the ongoing effort to try and create an effective global IPR enforcement
system country-by-country. If statistics and the volume of complaints are any indication, the
multilateral effort to create enforcement *60 "standards" has not had the effect that many may
have expected in view of the volume of trade in infringing goods. [FN75] The European
Commission's official statements reference a growing, not lessening, threat posed by counterfeit
and pirated products. [FN76] U.S. Customs and Border Protection's May 2008 IPR overview
also references a growing problem in counterfeit and pirate products. [FN77] The World
Customs Organization has also stated that the negative impact of counterfeit goods on the global
economy is growing every year. [FN78] There are also dozens of industry groups that have
created special programs and initiatives on IPR enforcement, including the International
Chamber of Commerce's Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy ("BASCAP") that
believes that IPR theft is "spiraling out of control." [FN79]
A vast majority of today's 153 WTO Member States and a number of others that are in the
process of joining the WTO need technical assistance. [FN80] Today's army of assistance
providers has expanded to include government experts from WTO Member States,
intergovernmental organizations, companies, industry groups, and others. Despite the expanded
group of people who may be involved in providing training, generally, most of the assistance
programs consist of a few days or a week of workshops, seminars and lectures, rather than the
exception of long-term, on the ground programs. [FN81] The reality is that practically everyone
involved in providing the needed assistance is diverted from his or her "real" job in order to
participate in delivering the training, which limits the amount of time available for training.
One conclusion that can be drawn from the experiences of the past dozen years is that the
technical assistance needs were not fully considered. [FN82] The inadequacies *61 regarding
funding and human resources dedicated to training and education [FN83] reflect the lack of
priority on these issues at the time of negotiations. The result has been an increasingly visible
tension over IPR enforcement in many countries. [FN84]

III. U.S. FTAS: RAISING THE ENFORCEMENT BAR--RESOLVING AMBIGUITIES

In the absence of any new global multilateral trade agreement in recent years, governments
around the world have engaged in negotiating free trade agreements ("FTA") or economic
partnership agreements ("EPA") in order to improve trade relations for mutual trade benefits.
[FN85] The FTAs and EPAs have often included IPR, which has resulted in some effort to
strengthen enforcement provisions. [FN86] The following discussion will reference primarily the
FTAs concluded between the United States and its trading partners to illustrate some trends
based upon what has been learned by operating under the TRIPS IPR enforcement provisions.
In the post-TRIPS period, i.e., since the implementation date of the TRIPS obligations, the
United States has concluded numerous FTAs. [FN87] In many of these FTAs, the United States
has undertaken efforts to eliminate ambiguities in the TRIPS enforcement provisions and to raise
the enforcement standards. [FN88] As attempted in the discussion above, a few examples of
ambiguous or troublesome TRIPS provisions were provided. Turning to the FTAs, some
comparisons will be provided between the TRIPS text and the FTA texts in order to highlight the
effort to increase the level of IPR enforcement and to clarify TRIPS.
First, it is worth noting that the United States has entered into and concluded FTAs with
trading partners whose level of economic development vary broadly. [FN89] Nevertheless, the
United States has attempted to build upon the TRIPS IPR enforcement text by negotiating
stronger IPR enforcement provisions. [FN90] Second, it is important to be aware of the subtle
changes from one FTA to another. While many of the FTA texts may appear similar or identical,
it is important to be cognizant of the fact that FTAs are rarely identical.

*62 A. U.S.-Jordan FTA

The U.S.-Jordan FTA was concluded in October 2000. [FN91] This was the third FTA that
the United States had concluded. [FN92] Being one of the early FTAs, the IPR provisions and its
enforcement text are less detailed than more recently concluded FTAs. The FTA, however,
recognizes IPR developments subsequent to the conclusion of the Uruguay Round that resulted
in TRIPS and imposes mutual obligations for IPR protections. [FN93] Specifically, trademark
owners could expect increased protections for famous trademarks, [FN94] patent protections
extended to plant varieties, [FN95] and copyright owners would have added protections because
of the FTA's incorporation of copyright treaties addressing the internet and digital content issues.
[FN96]
In the civil enforcement provisions, the FTA makes clear that "injury to the right holder shall
be based upon the value of the infringed-upon item, according to the suggested retail price of the
legitimate product, or other equivalent measures established by the right holder for valuing
authorized goods." [FN97] The TRIPS text has no such specificity regarding the basis for this
type of valuation. In addition, the FTA created a presumption of copyright in favor of the
"natural person or legal entity whose name is indicated as the author, producer, performer or
publisher of a work," [FN98] which is not in TRIPS.
Concerning border measures and criminal IPR enforcement, the FTA imposed a requirement
that the authorities responsible for border and criminal enforcement be given the legal authority
to undertake enforcement actions against copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting without
the need for a formal complaint, i.e, ex officio authority. [FN99] TRIPS Article 61, dealing with
criminal procedures, does not address this issue as it is silent about a complaint requirement.
[FN100] Because Article 61 does not address the issue of a complaint requirement, WTO
Member States have been free to choose whether or not to impose a complaint requirement in
cases involving criminal piracy and counterfeiting. [FN101] The FTA text makes clear that the
authorities must be empowered to undertake criminal enforcement on their own initiative.
[FN102]
The FTA's requirement that authorities also have ex officio authority to stop the importation
of pirate and counterfeit goods imposes another TRIPS+ requirement. *63 By comparison,
TRIPS, Article 51 states that "Members shall ... adopt procedures to enable a right holder ... to
lodge an application in writing ... for the suspension ...." [FN103] The FTA requirement that the
authorities must be able to act ex officio eliminates an absolute application filing requirement.
[FN104] In addition, the FTA text clarifies that the authorities must have ex officio legal
authority to act whereas TRIPS, Article 58 allowed WTO members to choose to give or withhold
such legal powers to the competent authorities responsible for border enforcement. [FN105]
Although the IPR enforcement provisions in the U.S.-Jordan FTA are not as detailed and
extensive as in more recent FTAs, one can see the beginnings of an effort to raise the TRIPS
enforcement standards through the FTA process.

B. U.S.-Chile FTA
The U.S.-Chile FTA was approved by the U.S. Congress in 2003. [FN106] This FTA makes
major strides in raising IPR enforcement beyond what appears in the U.S.-Jordan FTA and,
therefore, includes significant TRIPS+ provisions. [FN107]
One of the first things attempted to be corrected in the FTA was to improve on the TRIPS
Article 41.5 language regarding the dedication of resources for IPR enforcement. [FN108] While
the FTA recognizes that neither government is required to establish an IPR focused judicial
system or to redistribute resources for IPR enforcement, the FTA states that neither government
is excused from its IPR enforcement obligations arising from the FTA based on decisions made,
or not made, regarding resource distribution. [FN109] The text improves upon TRIPS Article
41.5 by clarifying that the enforcement obligations must be met regardless of how the
government decides to dedicate IPR enforcement resources. [FN110] In addition, the FTA makes
clear that final decisions on the merits of an IPR case of general application shall be in writing,
[FN111] which clarifies the unusual wording in TRIPS that states that decisions on the merits
shall preferably be in writing. [FN112]
*64 One interesting difference between the U.S.-Jordan FTA and the U.S.- Chile FTA, which
may be viewed as a retreat by IPR owners, is that the U.S.- Jordan FTA stated that "injury to the
right holder shall be based upon the value of the infringed-upon item ...," [FN113] but the U.S.-
Chile FTA states that "in determining injury to the right holder, the judicial authorities shall,
inter alia, consider the legitimate retail value of the infringed goods." [FN114] This is a
significant difference in practice as judges can easily consider something and disregard it. Thus,
this provision is one reason for cautiously reviewing FTAs and keeping in mind that the texts are
always negotiated between the governments and compromises are made in the process.
Another of the many improvements made in the U.S.-Chile FTA is the requirement that the
judicial authorities are required to have the authority to order an infringer to provide information
it may possess regarding others involved in the infringement activity. [FN115] Related to the
new legal power of the judiciary, the FTA requires that the judiciary be empowered to impose
fines or terms of imprisonment on infringers who fail to comply with the court's order. [FN116]
Interestingly, TRIPS gave Member States the option of empowering the judiciary in this manner.
[FN117] Thus, a WTO Member State that prefers meeting its absolute minimum requirements
would not have changed its law to require that the courts have the power to order disclosure of
information regarding others involved in the infringement and, thereby, limit the ability to take
actions against potentially large infringement operations.
Regarding border measures, several developments are reflected in the U.S.-Chile FTA. First,
language appears in the text to try and prevent onerous and overly burdensome information
requirements imposed on IPR owners seeking border measures. [FN118] As discussed above
relating to TRIPS Article 52, the IPR owner is supposed to provide information that will make
the possibly infringing goods readily recognizable to customs. [FN119] But, what does it mean
to have information making possibly infringing goods readily recognizable?
The World Customs Organization ("WCO") attempted to answer the question for customs
agencies when it issued its Model Provisions regarding the implementation of TRIPS. [FN120]
In its notes related to IPR owners' applications requesting border *65 enforcement, the WCO
suggested the following as information that would assist customs officers in readily recognizing
possibly infringing goods:
• The name and business address of the importer(s) and/or consignee(s) of the allegedly
infringing goods;
• A sufficiently detailed description of the suspect goods in order to make them readily
recognisable by Customs, including a sample of the infringing article(s), a photograph or other
likeness;
• The country or countries of origin of the suspect goods or the country or countries of
manufacture of the allegedly infringing goods;
• The name and principal business address of each foreign person or business entity involved
in the manufacture and/or distribution of suspect goods;
• The mode of transportation and the identity of the transporter(s) of the allegedly infringing
goods; and
• The Customs office where it is anticipated that the suspect articles will be presented to
Customs. [FN121]
Because these data elements were the WCO's recommendation, some WTO Member States
adopted these data elements as a requirement for applications requesting border measures.
[FN122] The result was that IPR owners were confronted by a process that included an
insurmountable obstacle. How would IPR owners obtain the information listed? In many cases,
IPR owners would be unable to meet the application requirements without first engaging in
activities that are more appropriate for an undercover criminal investigation, which in some
countries might be illegal. [FN123]
Upon realizing that Member States had adopted WCO recommendations as part of the formal
procedures, the U.S.-Chile FTA attempted to incorporate language to eliminate or clarify the
TRIPS text. [FN124] The result is that the information required of the IPR owner requesting
border enforcement "shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures." [FN125] The
new FTA text implies that the WCO's list of recommended data elements is unreasonable and
should not be expected from IPR owners hoping to employ border measures as part of an overall
enforcement program.
The border enforcement provisions retained the required ex officio enforcement authority
found in the early U.S.-Jordan FTA, but expanded on this by requiring the *66 border
enforcement authorities to have the legal authority to exercise this power with regard to
suspected infringing goods whether they are imported, destined for export, or moving through
the country in-transit. [FN126] Thus, this is a major TRIPS+ provision as it subjects exports and
goods in-transit to border measures whereas the TRIPS minimum requirement is to subject
imports only to border enforcement based upon an underlying application. [FN127]
The criminal enforcement provisions retained the U.S.-Jordan FTA requirement that the law
enforcement authorities have ex officio authority to initiate criminal investigations and
prosecutions, i.e., without a formal complaint filed by an IPR owner. [FN128] Additionally with
regard to criminal enforcement, each Party must ensure that
• Willful infringement of copyright and related rights for a commercial advantage or financial
gain is subject to criminal procedures and penalties;
• Copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale includes the willful infringing
reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, copies with a significant aggregate
monetary value, calculated based on the legitimate retail value of the infringed goods;
• Remedies include imprisonment and/or monetary fines that are sufficient to provide a
deterrent to future infringements;
• Judicial authorities have the authority to order the seizure of suspected counterfeit and
pirated goods, assets legally traceable to the infringing activity, documents and related materials,
and implements that constitute evidence of the offense;
• Items that are subject to seizure pursuant to a search order need not be individually
identified so long as they fall with in general categories specified in the order; and
• Judicial authorities have the authority to order the forfeiture of any assets legally traceable
to the infringing activity and the destruction of all counterfeit and pirated goods. [FN129]
The criminal procedures and remedies have been expanded to require that the courts have
more authority and that criminal procedures and remedies extend to encompass other assets that
can be proved to be ill-gotten gains. [FN130] In addition, the FTA reduces the burden on IPR
owners upon conducting an enforcement action and seizing thousands of items because the FTA
text provides that IPR owners need not identify each individual item seized, but allows for
seizure of goods that generally fall within the category specified in the order. [FN131]
The criminal provisions also recognize the development of the internet as a tool used by
infringers with the reference to copying and distribution by electronic *67 means. [FN132] At
the time of the TRIPS negotiations, the issue of internet based criminal conduct was not an issue
and, therefore, not addressed. [FN133]
The U.S.-Chile FTA, similar to the subsequent FTA with Central America that the Office of
the U.S. Trade Representative signed in August 2004, provides for a more aggressive approach
to IPR enforcement and requires that the U.S.'s trading partners actively undertake increased
enforcement activity. [FN134]

C. U.S.-South Korea FTA ("KORUS")

 KORUS builds on previous FTAs and is one of the most recent IPR chapters in a FTA.
[FN135] Although the basic provisions appear to be the same, it is, again, worthy of mention that
FTAs do change and changes occur due to the varying negotiating positions that different
governments have with respect to specific issues.
In the civil enforcement provisions, KORUS appears to be broader in scope regarding court
costs, fees and attorney's fees. [FN136] While the U.S.- Chile FTA provides that the judicial
authorities must have the authority to order payment of costs or fees and reasonable attorney's
fees to the prevailing right holder in an infringement action involving copyright, related rights or
trademark counterfeiting case, [FN137] KORUS expands on this by stating that the prevailing
patent owner should also receive reimbursement of costs or fees. [FN138] KORUS does instruct
that the judicial authorities must have the authority to order payment of reasonable attorney's
fees to a winning patent owner in a civil infringement case if exceptional circumstances exist.
[FN139] However, one must bear in mind that a court that has such authority is not required to
exercise it. [FN140]
The border measures provisions are also improved. Whereas TRIPS and most of the previous
FTAs require border measures for protection against copyright pirated goods and trademark
counterfeit goods, KORUS requires border measures to protect against confusingly similar
marks, thereby expanding the scope of protection for trademark owners. [FN141] Moreover, the
agreement makes clear that an application that *68 is accepted shall apply to all points of entry to
its territory, i.e., have national effect. [FN142]
The criminal procedures and remedies are also broader in scope. KORUS obligates both
governments to apply criminal procedures and penalties even absent willful counterfeiting and
piracy if there is knowing trafficking in counterfeit or illicit labels and counterfeit documentation
or packaging. [FN143] Criminal penalties must also be available to be applied "against any
person who, without authorization, knowingly uses or attempts to use an audiovisual recording
device to transmit or make a copy of the motion picture or other audiovisual work from a
performance of the motion picture or other audiovisual work in a public motion picture
exhibition facility." [FN144]
A lengthy provision is included regarding the liability of internet service providers, [FN145]
which builds on the provisions that are also included in the U.S.-Chile FTA. [FN146] Because of
the developments related to copyright infringement on the internet occurring in the post-TRIPS
years, these extensive provisions attempt to give copyright owners measures to protect content,
but to balance the protections by including some limitations on liability for service providers.
[FN147]
The challenges of the internet related to online infringement also prompted the inclusion of a
letter as part of the IPR enforcement commitment. The June 30, 2007 letter to the U.S. Trade
Representative obligates South Korea to take criminal enforcement actions to shut down internet
sites that permit unauthorized downloading of copyrighted works and increased efforts to shut
down peer-to-peer services. [FN148]
KORUS continues to build upon prior FTAs and includes numerous provisions that provide
for stronger IPR enforcement. In an April 2007 report to the Bush Administration and the U.S.
Congress, the Industry-Trade Advisory Committee for Intellectual Property stated that the
KORUS intellectual property provisions are very supportive of the IPR chapter in the agreement.
[FN149]

IV. FTAS: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE--HIGH DEMAND, LIMITED RESOURCES

 The "success" of the FTAs concluded by the United States is that higher IPR enforcement
standards have become the norm. There have been clarifications of TRIPS provisions and
expansion of the scope of protection to address developments in the post-TRIPS period. [FN150]
*69 The heightened levels of required IPR enforcement are accompanied by the same
technical assistance challenges that existed at the time that TRIPS was agreed to and entered into
force. [FN151] The extreme challenge of providing adequate assistance arises from some
unspoken realities.
First, when one looks at the FTAs concluded by the U.S. or bilateral FTAs and EPAs
concluded between other governments, [FN152] are there IPR enforcement obligations being
imposed on trading partners who had failed to implement effectively their TRIPS obligations and
are now expected to meet TRIPS+ standards?
Second, if there was inadequate technical assistance to help developing and least developed
countries to meet their TRIPS obligations during the TRIPS transition periods, how will
additional transition periods in FTAs/EPAs help countries reach TRIPS+ enforcement levels
absent increased technical assistance resources?
Third, what human and monetary resource commitments are being made explicitly by the
governments/industries that seek higher enforcement standards so that future disputes over the
IPR obligations can be averted?
Finally, taking into consideration the current state of IPR enforcement in a developing
country (not yet providing TRIPS level enforcement effectively) and the new TRIPS+ standards
required by an FTA or EPA, how does widening the gap that must be bridged improve IPR
enforcement?
Essentially, what has occurred is a successful effort by various industries to get some
governments to negotiate high IPR enforcement standards. The technical assistance issue is a real
problem that has not been satisfactorily confronted. For some governments that had practically
no national IPR enforcement systems in place, they have agreed to TRIPS+ enforcement regimes
that are complicated and require significant resources. [FN153]
As illustrated by the few examples above, the civil enforcement systems have had additional
elements added in order to provide better civil enforcement mechanisms for IPR owners.
[FN154] The additional elements impose increased duties on the court systems of these
countries. [FN155] Moreover, expanded protections for different forms of IPR means that there
will be more complicated legal challenges before the courts, which requires increased training
for judges on various complex IPR issues so *70 that the courts can properly consider the various
issues and issue well-reasoned decisions.
For judicial systems that require judges to hear cases in numerous legal areas, the IPR area
has grown increasingly complicated because of the internet and scientific areas. [FN156] The
pressures on the judiciary will require constant training in technical areas because of the
increasingly technical issues arising in IPR cases. Thus, even in countries that have judicial
training centers, they require constant upgrading in training and education content. The question
is whether there are sufficient resources for this to occur and to what extent have developed
countries committed to an ongoing program of assistance while a country's judiciary works to
reach a minimum level of competence in IPR.
Turning to the enforcement authorities, police and prosecutors may be able to take their
criminal investigative and prosecutorial experiences and apply them to criminal IPR cases, but
they will still need to understand the fundamental IPR issues and what constitutes criminal
conduct. [FN157] Unlike "traditional" crimes such as assault with a weapon, bank robbery, and
other such crimes, IPR crimes may not be as obvious given the type of conduct that constitutes
criminal conduct. Therefore, prosecutors and police will need training to understand the conduct
that rises to the level of a crime. In addition, the constant improvements in technology have
shown the adaptability of IPR infringers to use new technologies to commit IPR crimes, which
means that the technical assistance program should be a long-term commitment that will require
significant funding. [FN158] It is important to remind the international community that an
international standard mandating criminal enforcement of any forms of IPR occurred for the first
time in TRIPS, which is still a recent development. [FN159]
In view of the rather recent developments regarding the criminalization of IPR-related
conduct, it should not come as a surprise that many developing countries have had problems,
first, in creating new IPR crimes and, second, putting into *71 practice the criminal enforcement
activities that have to be undertaken by police, prosecutors and the courts. [FN160] Adding to
the basic challenge of creating a criminal IPR enforcement system is the fact that there are no
permanent on-the-ground technical assistance teams that stay with any country's criminal
enforcement teams for extended periods of time, e.g., six to twelve months.
The expanded scope of border enforcement measures to include exports and goods in-transit
will also add to the technical assistance needs. [FN161] More importantly, the expansion
requires an increased level of government-industry cooperation in order for border enforcement
authorities to learn more about IPR and maintain information about ways to detect suspect
goods. [FN162] The increased responsibilities at the border highlight the necessity of an internal
system so that customs offices can communicate through information dissemination regarding
specific IPRs. Thus, not only are border enforcement authorities in need of basic IPR training
regarding the different types of IPR, but also about ways to develop and maintain a database of
IPRs as well as a database that includes information about importers, shippers, and other
"persons" who are found to be involved in the import and export of infringing goods. [FN163]
Essentially, the FTAs have raised the enforcement bar as it relates to civil, criminal and
border enforcement. [FN164] Along with the increased levels of enforcement, there is likely to
be an expectation by IPR owners that they will receive heightened levels of enforcement as the
FTAs intend. While the IPR owning community may have some patience as developing
countries work to improve their enforcement systems, the past teaches that patience is limited.
Thus, the question that should be at the center is whether the governments and IPR industries
that expect to receive the benefits of increased levels of enforcement can provide the necessary
technical assistance that will help developing governments deliver on the promises made.
In blunt terms, one must question why developing countries are expected to meet their
TRIPS+ obligations, even with the benefit of transition periods, when they had not been
providing TRIPS level enforcement at the time of committing to TRIPS+. There is little to
indicate that the type or form of technical assistance that will be provided is any different from
past practice and, looking back, it is apparent *72 that the resources available were not sufficient
given the continuing complaints of high rates of IPR infringement. [FN165]

V. BEYOND FTAS--ACTA
In October 2007, the U.S. Trade Representative announced that negotiations on an Anti-
Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ("ACTA") would begin and include the United States,
European Union, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and Switzerland. [FN166]
Why an ACTA? The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative made clear in announcing the
launch of the ACTA initiative that it will not involve any changes to TRIPS. [FN167] "Rather,
the goal is to set a new, higher benchmark for enforcement that countries can join on a voluntary
basis." [FN168] "The negotiations represent a cooperative effort by the governments involved,
and will not be conducted as part of any international organization." [FN169]
The Government of New Zealand provides some of the reasons for pursuing ACTA:
The proliferation of infringements of intellectual property rights ("IPR") particularly in the
context of counterfeiting and piracy poses an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable
development of the world economy. The consequences of such IPR infringements include (1)
depriving legitimate businesses and their workers of income; (2) discouraging innovation and
creativity; (3) threatening consumer health and safety; (4) providing an easy source of revenue
for organized crime; and (5) loss of tax revenue. [FN170]
The Government of New Zealand adds that the goals of ACTA are to:
Establish, among nations committed to strong IPR protection, a common standard for IPR
enforcement to combat global infringements of IPR particularly in the context of counterfeiting
and piracy that addresses today's challenges, in terms of increasing international cooperation,
strengthening the framework of practices that contribute to effective *73 enforcement of IPRs,
and strengthening relevant IPR enforcement measures themselves. [FN171]
The number of countries that are participating in the discussions has increased since the
initial October 2007 announcement and by August 2008 the additional governments included
Australia, Morocco and Singapore. [FN172] Although the actual details of the July 2008
meetings were not disclosed, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office did provide a summary
indicating that meeting participants discussed civil remedies for infringements of intellectual
property rights, including the availability of preliminary measures, preservation of evidence,
damages, legal fees, and costs. [FN173] They also continued their previous discussions of border
enforcement. [FN174]
From the perspective of the United States, it has FTAs with Australia, Morocco and
Singapore. [FN175] The three FTAs include significant IPR provisions, many that are similar to
those discussed above. The United States is also a Party to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, [FN176] but the IPR enforcement provisions of
NAFTA track closely to TRIPS. [FN177]
Canada and Mexico have come under strong industry criticism concerning their IPR
enforcement regimes. In February 2008, the International Intellectual Property Alliance ("IIPA"),
in its Special 301 submission to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, recommended that
Canada be designated as a Priority Watch List country because Canada has taken no meaningful
steps to modernize its copyright law, has an ineffective border enforcement system and
insufficient enforcement resources. [FN178] Regarding Mexico, the IIPA stated that at the macro
level copyright piracy levels remain high and there is no deterrent effect in curtailing the
pervasive economic crime of piracy. [FN179]
Going forward in the negotiations, it will be interesting to monitor developments. Given the
ACTA's focus on IPR enforcement, USTR's annual report, *74 i.e., Special 301, [FN180] is
insightful as to some of the challenges that may face the governments participating in the
negotiations. For example, USTR has reported that Mexico should increase border enforcement
efforts and pass legislation that empowers law enforcement and customs to take ex officio
enforcement actions. [FN181] Concerning Canada, USTR stated that Canada should improve its
enforcement system to enable authorities to take effective action against the trade in counterfeit
and pirated products as well as curb the volume of infringing goods that are transshipped and
transiting Canada, identifying its weak border enforcement and need for stronger legislation to
empower customs. [FN182]
In view of the USTR annual report, which is based, in part, on the experiences of IPR owners
doing business in foreign countries and, therefore, reflects what obstacles exist, can an improved
enforcement system be provided within a year or two years after an agreement is formally
reached? Given the fact that the TRIPS enforcement obligations went into effect in some of these
countries on January 1, 1996, [FN183] and there are still fundamental problems in enforcement
systems among the ACTA negotiating countries, IPR owners would be prudent to temper their
expectations.
Moreover, the question needs to be asked, how far are the governments willing to go to
strengthen criminal IPR provisions. As recently as May 2008, the European Commission's
Commissioner for the Internal Market ruled out the possibility of new legislation to combat
piracy. [FN184]
Thus, the ACTA discussions may involve more negotiating than the parties expected at the
outset. In view of the IPR enforcement provisions found in FTAs concluded between the United
States and its trading partners, and especially the more recently concluded FTAs, the question is:
Whether ACTA will contain aggressive enforcement text that mirrors the U.S. FTAs or
something less?
Finally, it is important to be reminded that ACTA is an initiative that allows governments to
voluntarily commit themselves to whatever TRIPS+ standards are agreed. [FN185] This raises
the old question concerning technical assistance and to what degree are the developed countries
committing resources to assist developing countries that voluntarily submit to new enforcement
standards. If ACTA is to be meaningful and welcoming to developing countries (or developed
countries that are having implementation problems) that voluntarily agree to new and higher
standards, there must be an assistance program that is better developed than what has been
available in the past.
Developing countries that wish to be a part of ACTA and commit to higher enforcement
standards may need significant assistance in all aspects of *75 enforcement. [FN186] Thus,
while ACTA may look inviting for some developing countries to be part of this effort, technical
assistance shortcomings of the past with regard to assistance in helping willing developing
countries should be avoided by an upfront commitment to provide more resources than has been
available in the past. There is a need for training teams made up of people with different areas of
expertise able to be on the ground in countries for extended periods of time in order to assist in
implementation of day-to-day enforcement activities. [FN187]
As always, translating words in an agreement into action is a formidable task. The past dozen
years of experience with TRIPS should be a constant reminder of this difficulty and the
consequences of failing to devote resources to assistance.

VI. COUNTERFEITING-PIRACY: THE TRAINING/EDUCATION/AWARENESS

DILEMMA
One reference to the current state of global counterfeiting and piracy is that it is spiraling out
of control. [FN188] In its annual report, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office reported that the
continuing growth in IPR theft and trade in fakes and pirated materials threatens innovative and
creative economies worldwide. [FN189] As a result, stronger and more effective criminal and
border enforcement is required to stop the manufacture, import, export, transit, and distribution
of pirate and counterfeit goods. [FN190] The office of the Australian Minister of Trade indicated
that Australia would join the ACTA negotiations because the negative impacts of the counterfeit
and pirate trade are wide-ranging, creating significant costs for governments, consumers and
businesses. [FN191]
From an industry perspective, the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") has:
[R]ecommended that G8 [FN192] ministers commit the resources and political direction
necessary for the Heiligendamm Process to work effectively against intellectual property theft
and facilitate innovation and economic development. The Heiligendamm Process was
established at ... [the 2007] *76 G8 Summit in Germany to address the issues of product
counterfeiting and copyright piracy." [FN193]
The ICC has stated that "While we're pleased that protection of intellectual property rights will
be tabled in Japan, we're just not seeing the political attention warranted by a problem of this
global scale." [FN194]
The number of IPR enforcement training programs that are delivered globally is extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to monitor because there are many and they are provided by
numerous different governments, intergovernmental organizations, and industry groups. [FN195]
One effort to capture this activity is the U.S. State Department's IPR training database. [FN196]
For an example of European Union Activity, IPR related assistance programs are included in a
list that identifies programs under the EUASEAN Technical Assistance ECAP II. [FN197] The
World Customs Organization makes a brief reference to its efforts in describing its IPR program.
[FN198] INTERPOL's involvement began in 2000 and has steadily increased its activity
regarding training and other efforts. [FN199]
Generally, there has been a great emphasis on IPR enforcement training since the creation of
the WTO. To a large extent, it seemed reasonable to focus on IPR enforcement training because
of the requirements to create national IPR enforcement systems that complied with the
enforcement elements as outlined in TRIPS.
In view of some of statements being made today by governments, industry representatives,
and intergovernmental organizations that the problem of IPR crimes continues to grow, it would
seem to suggest that the IPR enforcement training strategy employed since 1995 needs to be
reassessed. At a time when the TRIPS enforcement provisions are ineffectively implemented by
many governments, [FN200] when some governments are committing to TRIPS+ standards,
despite their inability to provide TRIPS level enforcement, [FN201] and an ACTA is being
negotiated, why should *77 IPR owners expect that there will be significant improvements in
IPR enforcement results?
Since 1995, there has been an unending wave of workshops, seminars and conferences
addressing IPR enforcement around the world, but there has also been a constant chorus of
complaints from the IPR industries and owners that IPR enforcement is inadequate. [FN202]
Some of the possible explanations for this are:
1. those delivering the training may be ineffective;
a. Lack sufficient experience/expertise, and
b. Utilize ineffective training formats;
2. the content of the training is deficient or inadequate;
3. the people attending are not the "right" people to receive the training:
4. the people attending have no interest in IPR enforcement; and
5. insufficient time committed to specific country deficiencies.
There are many potential reasons for ineffective IPR enforcement systems, including issues
such as the lack of political will or corruption. [FN203] Nevertheless, there must be some serious
assessments made to consider what fundamental changes may be necessary to make IPR training
and education more effective. The statements issued by governments, industry representatives,
and others would suggest that, fundamentally, something needs to change because the training
that has been provided is not having the desired effect.
While IPR enforcement is important, how have training programs demonstrated and shown
the link between IPR enforcement and economic development in developing and least developed
countries? Or, have there been serious and sustained attempts to provide IPR training that
emphasize the important role of IPR recognition and use to generate business revenues and,
thereby, contribute to local governments and economies? Has the idea of IPR enforcement as a
tool for economic development been simply stated, but not shown and demonstrated?
Has the IPR community over-emphasized enforcement to its own detriment? Has the IPR
community failed to project an image of wanting to be helpful to all potential beneficiaries, not
just a select few industries from developed countries? After a dozen years, has the IPR
community tainted itself with a perceived overemphasis on enforcement and lack of programs
that demonstrate the more positive aspects of IPR?
Another issue that must be considered is the target of all this IPR enforcement training.
While it is obvious that IPR enforcement training is necessary for police, *78 prosecutors,
judges, customs officers, and any other government agency officials involved in IPR
enforcement, a focus on government agencies and officials overlooks and ignores a country's
IPR generating sectors. [FN204] To generate a greater respect and appreciation for IPR
protection and enforcement, it may be necessary to spend as much time with college-aged
students, business groups, and others from the private sector in order to demonstrate how
pervasive IPR can be in practically any endeavor that is pursued and, thus, the relationship
between IPR creation, the need to consider protection and how enforcement contributes to
generating increased revenues in the long term.
IPR enforcement training and education that is provided in a vacuum, without demonstrating
its role in an IPR/commercial/economic system, is lost on those who can not appreciate its
potential value. Indeed, the government's IPR enforcement authorities may never appreciate the
linkage because they have never or will never be creators and entrepreneurs who will have any
direct benefits from IPR.

CONCLUSION
The IPR enforcement issue and how it is to be pursued in the future needs to be re-examined.
Although ACTA seeks to raise minimum IPR enforcement standards, [FN205] it is an initiative
that is, generally, one involving developed countries. [FN206] If the 2006 WTO TRIPS Council
meeting is an indicator that there is a divide between developed and developing countries on this
issue, then it appears that new approaches to the IPR enforcement issue need to be added to
existing training and education efforts. [FN207]
*79 As we move toward nearly a decade and a half of IPR enforcement training that has not
achieved the desired effect, it should be clear that IPR enforcement needs new and fresh
approaches. This is not to say that existing content needs to be eliminated, but it may be time to
press the "refresh" key so that something new and different can be added.
It is a difficult task to clarify ambiguities of existing standards and to raise minimum levels
of IPR enforcement when IPR education programs do not adequately expand to include potential
local beneficiaries. [FN208] IPR enforcement training and education, which is a complex task,
needs to have sufficient flexibility in content so that there is something demonstrable that links
the enforcement to business and economic development.
Finally, those involved in training and education should consider greater use of today's
technologies in reaching out to more people and beyond the usual enforcement community.
Looking at IPR enforcement training and education in its broadest sense, some progress in
attaining higher levels of protection and education may occur if more local beneficiaries in
developing and least developed countries are convinced to become proponents of IPR protection
and enforcement because they understand how IPR can be "practiced" through use of these
concepts in their day-today commercial activities. [FN209]
Thus, while efforts at clarifying existing IPR requirements and raising standards are worthy
objectives, the fact that governments and IPR owners continue to see a worsening situation is
indicative of a need for reassessment of IPR enforcement training programs. After years of
repeating the notion that IPR enforcement contributes to economic development, it may be time
to restate the idea in order to focus on demonstrating that the use and application of intellectual
property concepts should generate value to a company, the local economy in which it operates
and, thereby, necessitate protection and enforcement. [FN210] The need is to emphasize that IPR
is important in and of itself.

[FNa1]. Mr. Trainer's intellectual property background includes work at the U.S. Customs
Service's IPR Branch, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Office of Legislative and
International Affairs, private practice and past president of the Washington, D.C.-based
International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. In 2005, he established the Global Intellectual
Property Strategy Center, P.C., in Washington, D.C. and has done short-term projects for the
State Department, World Bank and organizations under U.S. AID projects. He has been teaching
as an adjunct professor at American University's Washington College of Law since 2005.

[FN1]. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994,
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal
Instruments--Results of the Uruguay Round, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS
Agreement], available at http:// www.wto.int/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-TRIPS.pdf.

[FN2]. See generally id. (attempting to reduce distortions in international trade by promoting the
protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights).

[FN3]. Id. arts. 41-61.

[FN4]. Id. art. 1.1; see, e.g., id. arts. 41.1 (civil enforcement), 44.1 (injunction to prevent
imports), 61 (criminal penalties).

[FN5]. Laurence R. Helfer, Adjudicating Copyright Claims Under the TRIPS Agreement: The
Case for a European Human Rights Analogy, 39 HARV. INT'L L.J. 357, 386-87 (1998)
(describing that opposing countries may each interpret vague terms in the TRIPS Agreement in
their own favor); Doris Estelle Long, "Democratizing" Globalization: Practicing the Policies of
Cultural Inclusion, 10 CARDOZO J. INT'L & COMP. L. 217, 264 (2002) (suggesting that the
"ambiguity in TRIPS may be the result of a desire to 'patch over' differences in an effort to
achieve the appearance of agreement"); Kal Raustiala, Compliance & Effectiveness in
International Regulatory Cooperation, 32 CASE W. RES. J. INT'L L. 387, 438 (2000) (listing a
number of problems resulting from the vague and ambiguous terms of TRIPS); Susan K. Sell,
Industry Strategies for Intellectual Property and Trade: The Quest for TRIPS, and Post-TRIPS
Strategies, 10 CARDOZO J. INT'L & COMP. L. 79, 104 (2002) (noting that a number of
scholars have pointed out that vagueness, ambiguities, and loopholes are commonplace in the
TRIPS Agreement).

[FN6]. Peter K. Yu, The International Enclosure Movement, 82 IND. L.J. 827, 867-68 (2007)
(describing TRIPS-plus and TRIPS-extra agreements).

[FN7]. Brook K. Baker, Arthritic Flexibility for Accessing Medicines: Analysis of WTO Action
Regarding Paragraph 6 of the DOHA Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health,
14 IND. INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 613, 622-23 (2004) (noting how the United States has
threatened some developing countries for failing to grant TRIPS-plus rights to patent holders).

[FN8]. Id.

[FN9]. TRIPS Agreement arts. 65-66.

[FN10]. Id.
1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, no Member shall be obliged to apply
the provisions of this Agreement before the expiry of a general period of one year following the
date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.
2. A developing country Member is entitled to delay for a further period of four years the
date of application, as defined in paragraph 1, of the provisions of this Agreement other than
Articles 3, 4 and 5.
3. Any other Member which is in the process of transformation from a centrally-planned into
a market, free-enterprise economy and which is undertaking structural reform of its intellectual
property system and facing special problems in the preparation and implementation of
intellectual property laws and regulations, may also benefit from a period of delay as foreseen in
paragraph 2.
4. To the extent that a developing country Member is obliged by this Agreement to extend
product patent protection to areas of technology not so protectable in its territory on the general
date of application of this Agreement for that Member, as defined in paragraph 2, it may delay
the application of the provisions on product patents of Section 5 of Part II to such areas of
technology for an additional period of five years.
5. A Member availing itself of a transitional period under paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 shall ensure
that any changes in its laws, regulations and practice made during that period do not result in a
lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of this Agreement.
Id. art. 65.
1. In view of the special needs and requirements of least-developed country Members, their
economic, financial and administrative constraints, and their need for flexibility to create a viable
technological base, such Members shall not be required to apply the provisions of this
Agreement, other than Articles 3, 4 and 5, for a period of 10 years from the date of application as
defined under paragraph 1 of Article 65. The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated
request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period.
 2. Developed country Members shall provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in
their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least-
developed country Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological
base.
Id. art. 66.

[FN11]. Id.; see also Michael S. Mireles, The Bayh-Dole Act and Incentives for the
Commercialization of Government-Funded Invention in Developing Countries, 76 UMKC L.
REV. 525, 525 n.3 (2007) (stating that "there is no universal definition of what constitutes
'developed' or 'developing' country").

[FN12]. Final Act embodying the results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade
Negotiations ¶ 3, Apr. 15 1994, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994) [hereinafter Final Act], available at
http://www.wto.int/english/docs_e/legal_e/03-fa.pdf.
3. The representatives agree on the desirability of acceptance of the WTO Agreement by all
participants in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (hereinafter referred to as
"participants") with a view to its entry into force by 1 January 1995, or as early as possible
thereafter. Not later than late 1994, Ministers will meet, in accordance with the final paragraph of
the Punta del Este Ministerial Declaration, to decide on the international implementation of the
results, including the timing of their entry into force.
Id.

[FN13]. TRIPS Agreement art. 65.2.

[FN14]. Id. art. 67.

[FN15]. Id.

[FN16]. Id. (emphasis added).

[FN17]. Id. art. 66.1.

[FN18]. Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution, Sweden--Measures Affecting Enforcement of

Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS86/2 (Dec. 11, 1998) [hereinafter Sweden-Solution]. In
1997, the United States initiated consultations with Denmark and Sweden because their national
laws failed to provide IPR owners with the possibility of obtaining provisional measures for the
protection of IPR in accordance with TRIPS, Article 59. Id.; Notification of Mutually Agreed
Solution, Denmark--Measures Affecting Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights,
WT/DS83/2 (June 13, 2001) [hereinafter Denmark-Solution]. Both cases were resolved without
the need for full proceedings under the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding. Sweden-
Solution, supra; Denmark-Solution, supra.

[FN19]. Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution, European Communities-- Enforcement of

Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs, WT/DS124/2 (Mar.
26, 2001) [hereinafter Eur. Cmtys.-Solution]; Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution, Greece-
-Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs,
WT/DS125/2 (Mar. 26, 2001) [hereinafter Greece-Solution]. U.S. v. European Union and U.S. v.
Greece, respectively, dealt with Greece's failure to provide enforcement as required under
Articles 41 and 61. Eur. Cmtys.-Solution, supra; Greece-Solution, supra. The parties reached
agreement in March 2001. Eur. Cmtys.- Solution, supra; Greece-Solution, supra. The U.S. case
against China raises several enforcement issues, including the U.S. challenge to China's
thresholds to trigger criminal cases of counterfeiting and piracy and the manner of disposition of
infringing goods that China customs seizes for infringement. Request for Consultations by the
United States, China--Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual
Property Rights, pt. II, WT/DS362/1 (Apr. 16, 2001) [hereinafter China-Solution]. Thus, the U.S.
v. China case has the potential of significant enforcement implications in practice in many
countries. See id.

[FN20]. See, e.g., China-Solution, supra note 19, pt. III (discussing the attempts of China to
come into compliance with certain TRIPS articles).

[FN21]. TRIPS Agreement arts. 51-60; see generally TIMOTHY P. TRAINER & VICKI E.
ALLUMS, PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ACROSS BORDERS
(Thomson-West 2008) (providing an in depth article-by-article discussion about TRIPS, Part III,
Section 4 regarding border measures).

[FN22]. While much can be said and debated about the motives of some governments, this
discussion will focus strictly on the text and the issues raised by the text itself.

[FN23]. TRIPS Agreement art 41.1 (emphasis added).

[FN24]. See Timothy P. Trainer, IP Enforcement: Agreements, Expectations, and Frustrations?,

19 WORLD INTELL. PROP. REPORT 12 (2005), http://
pubs.bna.com/NWSSTND/IP/BNA/wipr.nsf/SearchAllView/FC17D3DC43A484FC852570C700
60170E? Open&highlight=IP,ENFORCEMENT:,AGREEMENTS (raising issues with TRIPS,
while addressing the possibly unrealistic expectations as more free trade agreements are
negotiated and concluded).

[FN25]. See TRIPS Agreement ("Desiring to reduce distortions and impediments to international
trade, and taking into account the need to promote effective and adequate protection of
intellectual property rights, and to ensure that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual
property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade ....").

[FN26]. Roberto Garza Barbosa, Revisiting International Copyright Law, 8 BARRY L. REV. 43,
73 (2007) (noting that developing countries cannot be expected to change their entire legal
systems simply to bring themselves into compliance with TRIPS).

[FN27]. TRIPS Agreement art. 41.5.

[FN28]. Id. art. 51.

[FN29]. Id. (emphasis added).

[FN30]. Id. In addition to copyrights and trademarks, TRIPS covers geographical indications,
industrial designs, patents, lay-out designs of integrated circuits, undisclosed information and
anti-competitive practices in licensing. See TRIPS Agreement arts. 9-40.

[FN31]. See, e.g., Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, http://
www.meti.go.jp/english/index.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2008). Japan's Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry, is the parent ministry for the Japan Patent Office that also includes the
administration of trademark functions. See Organization Chart of the Ministry of Economy,
Trade, and Industry, http://
www.meti.go.jp/english/aboutmeti/data/aOrganizatione/2007/organization_ chart.html (last
visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN32]. See, e.g., Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright, No. 83 (1) (2003) (Slovk.);
Ministry of Culture of the Slovak Republic, http:// www.culture.gov.sk/en/ministry (last visited
Oct. 26, 2008) (explaining that the Slovak Republic's Ministry of Culture's mission includes the
administration of copyright law); Ministry of Culture of Lithuania, http://
www.muza.lt/go.php/lit/English (last visited Oct. 13, 2008) (explaining that Lithuania's Ministry
of Culture is also responsible for copyright protection).

[FN33]. TRIPS Agreement art. 51.

[FN34]. Cf. Jeffery Latik & Hans Henrik Lidgard, Embracing Price Discrimination: TRIPS and
the Suppression of Parallel Trade in Pharmaceuticals, 27 U. PA. J. INT'L ECON. L. 1043, 1073-
74 (2006) (discussing international trade in pharmaceutical products in comparison to IP rights
enforcement).

[FN35]. 19 C.F.R. § 133.0 (2007).

[FN36]. Memorandum D 19-4-3 from the Can. Border Servs. Agency on Copyrights and
Trademarks 2 (June 17, 2008), available at http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/dm-md/d19/d19-4-
3-eng.pdf.

[FN37]. Executive Regulation to Implement Import and Export Law, No. 118/1975 (2005)
(Egypt), available at http://www.eu-delegation.org.eg/en/EU-
Egypt_Trade_issues/Docs/IIEgypt/Ministerial%20Decree%CC20No.%20770-2005.pdf.

[FN38]. Id. art 33.

[FN39]. See TRIPS Agreement art. 51.

[FN40]. Submission of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, Inc., to the United States
Trade Representative: Special 301 Recommendations 10 (February 14, 2002), available at
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_
Library/Reports_Publications/2002/2002_Special_301_Report/asset_upload_file567_ 6367.pdf.
[FN41]. TRIPS Agreement art. 41.2.

[FN42]. Id. art 41.1.

[FN43]. Id. art. 52 (emphasis added).

[FN44]. Id.

[FN45]. Id. art. 61.

[FN46]. Id. art. 1.1.

[FN47]. Id. art. 68.

Members' compliance with their obligations hereunder, and shall afford Members the
opportunity of consulting on matters relating to the trade-related aspects of intellectual property
rights. It shall carry out such other responsibilities as assigned to it by the Members, and it shall,
in particular, provide any assistance requested by them in the context of dispute settlement
procedures.
Id.

[FN48]. China-Solution, supra note 19.

[FN49]. TRIPS Agreement art. 67.

[FN50]. Agreement Between the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade
Organization, WIPO-WTO, Dec. 22, 1995, 35 I.L.M. 754.

[FN51]. Id. art. 4.

[FN52]. See id. pmbl (stating that the desire of the agreement was to establish a mutually
supportive relationship).

[FN53]. TRIPS Agreement art. 67.

[FN54]. This discussion is based upon actual experience in providing IPR technical assistance
while working at two U.S. Government agencies, U.S. Customs Service between 1988-1993 and
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between 1996-1999.

[FN55]. TRIPS Agreement arts. 51-60.

[FN56]. Use of the Term Ping Pong, 13 Cust. B. & Dec. 1015 (Dep't of Treas. June 15, 1978).
The basic laws enforced by Customs against the importation of infringing goods have been in
place for many years. See, e.g., id. One can find Customs administrative infringement rulings
dating back to 1978. See id. (ruling that imported products must not bear a mark that copies or
simulates a registered trademark already recorded with Customs); see also Whether Toy Dog
Skins and Stuffed Toy Dogs Are Substantially Similar to Copyrighted Cartoon Dog, 13 Cust. B.
& Dec. 1334 (Dep't of Treas. Nov. 16, 1978) (ruling that imported stuffed toy dogs infringed a
copyright already recorded with Customs).

[FN57]. See TRAINER & ALLUMS, supra note 21, § 1:2 (stating that while U.S. IPR
enforcement has been around for many decades, the increased IPR enforcement priority was
instituted in the late 1980s).

[FN58]. See Enforcement of Production of Semiconductor Chip Products: Patent Surveys, 54

Fed. Reg. 40,882 (proposed Oct. 4, 1989) (to be codified at 19 C.F.R. pts. 12, 24, 133)
[hereinafter Semiconductor-Enforcement] (referencing the submission of comments to the
Customs Intellectual Property Rights Task Force).

[FN59]. See "Knott's Berry Farm", 56 Fed. Reg. 2064 (Dep't of Treas. Jan. 18, 1991)
(recognizing the change from "Task Force" to "Branch" because of the reference to the
"Intellectual Property Rights Branch"); see also Reorganization of the Office of Regulations and
Rulings, 56 Fed. Reg. 41,159 (Dep't of Treas. Aug. 19, 1991) [hereinafter Reorganization-
Notice] (providing the public with information regarding the divisions and branches within the
Office of Regulations and Rulings). The reorganization notice identified the Intellectual Property
Rights Branch and described the Branch's mission as:
Issuing decisions and formulating policy and regulations to ensure the protection of U.S.
intellectual property rights (IPR) which encompass trademarks, tradenames, copyrights, patents
and trade dress; coordinating the identification of legislative requirements for modernizing,
clarifying and strengthening Customs statutory authority in the IPR area; informing the public,
principally through existing trade associations and other industry groups, of Customs interest in
identifying unfair trade practices and of Customs ability to assist in protecting intellectual
property rights; recordation of trademarks, tradenames and copyrights in order to protect against
imports which constitute infringement; implementation of exclusion orders issued by the ITC
and patent surveys, as a means of protecting patent owners against infringement; resolving issues
concerning the entry of restricted or prohibited merchandise, including the importation of
seditious, treasonable, obscene or immoral materials; and issuing decisions and guidance
concerning the importation or exportation of cultural property, including pre- Columbian art and
artifacts and items subject to the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Property.
Reorganization-Notice, supra.

[FN60]. Compare Semiconductor-Enforcement, supra note 58 (stating that the Semiconductor

Chip Protection Act was approved by Congress on September 28, 1989), with 19 U.S.C. §
3511(a), (d)(15) (2006) (stating that TRIPS was implemented by Congress on September 27,
1994).

[FN61]. TRAINER & ALLUMS, supra note 21, § 1:2 n.3.

[FN62]. Id.

[FN63]. Id. § 1:2 (stating that the internal training program is what required the IPR task force to
provide instruction to foreign customs officials).
[FN64]. Id.

[FN65]. Robert M. Sherwood, The TRIPS Agreement: Implications for Developing Countries,
37 IDEA 491, 543 (1997); WTO, Members and Observers,
http://www.wto.int/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm (last visited Oct. 13, 2008)
[hereinafter Current WTO Signatories] (stating that there are currently 153 different GATT
signatories). The original 128 governments that had signed the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade ('GATT') were officially known as "GATT contracting parties." WTO, 1994 GATT
Signatories, http:// www.wto.int/english/thewto_e/gattmem_e.htm (last visited Oct. 13, 2008).
"On 1 January 1995, the WTO replaced GATT, which had been in existence since 1947, as the
organization overseeing the multilateral trading system." Id. "Upon signing the new WTO
agreements (which include the updated GATT, known as GATT 1994), they officially became
known as 'WTO members."' Id. As of this writing, there are 153 WTO members. Current WTO
Signatories, supra.

[FN66]. See Kirsten M. Koepsel, How Do Developed Countries Meet Their Obligations Under
Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement?, 44 IDEA 167, 174 (2004) (discussing the extensive
assistance that developed countries would need to provide developing countries or less
developed countries).

[FN67]. Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Rules, No. 47.1 (2007) (India) (allowing for
the maximum transition periods in Articles 65 and 66, India's new border enforcement provisions
went into effect after the expiration of the transition periods). The Indian implementing
instructions regarding the new IPR border enforcement rules were issued in October 2007. See
Letter from P. S. Pruthi, Commissioner, Central Board of Excise & Customs, to Chief
Commissioners of Customs et. al. (Oct. 29, 2007), available at, http://
www.cbec.gov.in/customs/cs-circulars/cs-circulars07/circ41-2k7-cus.htm (discussing the Indian
Implementation Instructions).

[FN68]. See TRAINER & ALLUMS, supra note 21, § 1:2 (discussing the educational nature of
the IPR branch attorneys when they dealt with Customs officials).

[FN69]. Mark Wu, Intellectual Property Rights In Global Trade Framework: IP Trends In
Developing Countries, 98 AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. PROC. 95, 103 (2004).

[FN70]. TRIPS Agreement art. 61.

[FN71]. TOM PENGELLY, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE FORMULATION AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES AND TRANSITION ECONOMIES 2 (11th ed. 2005).

[FN72]. TRIPS Agreement art. 61.

[FN73]. 1997 ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. 1 n.1; 1998 ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. 1 n.1; 2007
ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. III-1. The U.S. Federal Government's fiscal years run from October 1
to September 30. See 1997 ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. 1 n.1. Fiscal year 1997 would be from
October 1, 1996, to September 30, 1997. Id.

[FN74]. 1997 ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. 90; 1998 ATT'Y GEN. ANN. REP. B-6; 2007 ATT'Y
GEN. ANN. REP. F-4; see also USDOJ: Office of the Attorney General-Annual Reports,
http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2008). Each annual report,
beginning from 1997, has a statistical summary of IPR cases. See, e.g., 1998 ATT'Y GEN. ANN.
REP. B-1.

[FN75]. Compare Yearly Comparisons: Seizure Statistics for Intellectual Property Rights,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_ trade/ipr/seizure/seizure_stats.xml (last visited Oct.
26, 2008) (stating the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's annual seizure statistics), with Eur.
Comm'n for Tax & Custs. Union, Report on the Community Customs Activities on Counterfeit
Piracy: Results at the European Border, at 7-8 (2007), available at
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_
controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics2007.pdf (stating the European Community's Customs IPR
seizure statistics by country and products).

[FN76]. See European Commission, Counterfeiting and Piracy, http://

ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_
piracy/combating/index_en.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN77]. See U.S. Customs & Border Protection, Intellectual Property Rights Overview,
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/ipr_fact_
sheets/ipr_facts_overview.xml (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN78]. WCO Protection of Intellectual Property Rights, http://

www.wcoomd.org/home_wco_topics_epoverviewboxes_responsibilities_epipr.htm (last visited
Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN79]. Int'l Chamber of Commerce, World Business Organization & BASCAP,

http://www.iccwbo.org/bascap/id883/index.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN80]. See Yu, supra note 6, at 888-89 (stating that TRIPS does not guarantee technical
assistance to less developed countries).

[FN81]. See U.S. Dept. of State, Intellectual Property Training Programs Funded,
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/sep/92653.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2007). In September
2007, the U.S. State Department announced funding for a number of programs, including a
program for Indonesia for two full-time U.S. senior technical advisors to assist Indonesia in
implementing new optical disc anti-piracy laws. Id.

[FN82]. See Yu, supra note 6, at 888-89 (stating that TRIPS does not guarantee technical
assistance to less developed countries).

[FN83]. PENGELLY, supra note 71, at 2.

[FN84]. See, e.g., China-Solution, supra note 19, pt. I (documenting the tension between the U.S.
and China in TRIPS enforcement).

[FN85]. Nina Rohe, The Central American Free Trade Agreement--A Survey and Comparison to
the Treaty of the European Community, 12 L. & BUS. REV. AM. 73, 74 (2006).

[FN86]. See, e.g., North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-Can.-Mex., art. 102.1(d), Dec.
17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993) [hereinafter NAFTA].

[FN87]. Anselm Kamperman Sanders, Intellectual Property, Free Trade Agreements And
Economic Development, 23 GA. ST. U. L. REV. 893, 897 (2007); U.S. Trade Agreements,
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Section_Index.html (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN88]. Susan Scafidi, The "Good Old Days" of TRIPS: The U.S. Trade Agenda and the
Extension of Pharmaceutical Test Data Protection, 341 YALE J. HEALTH POL'Y L. & ETHICS
341, 343 (2004).

[FN89]. See Frederick M. Abbott, The WTO Medicines Decision: World Pharmaceutical Trade
And The Protection Of Public Health, 99 AM. J. INT'L L. 317, 349 (2005) ("[T]he United States
has negotiated various free trade agreements (FTAs) with developing (and developed) countries
that include chapters addressing intellectual property rights.").

[FN90]. Sanders, supra note 87, at 897 (discussing inclusion of TRIPS-plus provisions in free
trade agreements and indicating that the United States negotiates high levels of protection for
international intellectual property rights).

[FN91]. Establishment of a Free Trade Area, U.S.-Jordan, art. 19.2, Oct. 24, 2002, 41 I.L.M. 63
[hereinafter U.S.-Jordan FTA], available at http://
www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Jordan/asset_upload_file250_ 5112.pdf.

[FN92]. Opinion, Trade Authority; Senate Hands President Timely Victory, SAN DIEGO
UNION-TRIBUNE, May 29, 2002, at B-10; U.S.-Jordan FTA Statistics, http://
www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Jordan/Section_Index.html (last visited Oct. 26,
2008).

[FN93]. See U.S.-Jordan FTA, supra note 91, art. 4.1(c)-(d) nn.4-5.

[FN94]. Id. art. 4.1(a).

[FN95]. Id. art. 4.1(b).

[FN96]. Id. art. 4.1(c)-(d).

[FN97]. Id. art. 4.24.

[FN98]. Id. art. 4.27.

[FN99]. Id. art. 4.26.

[FN100]. TRIPS Agreement art. 61.

[FN101]. Thomas E. Volper, TRIPS Enforcement in China: A Case for Judicial Transparency,
33 BROOKLYN J. INT'L L. 309, 321 (2007) (referencing the bar of certain complaints hinders
the enforcement of TRIPS).

[FN102]. U.S.-Jordan FTA, supra note 91, art. 4.26.

[FN103]. TRIPS Agreement art. 51.

[FN104]. U.S.-Jordan FTA, supra note 91, art. 4.26.

[FN105]. TRIPS Agreement art. 58 (beginning with "[w]here Members require competent
authorities to act upon their own initiative" (emphasis added)).

[FN106]. Compare Establishment of a Free Trade Area, U.S.-Chile, June 6, 2003, art. 24.5,
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Chile_ FTA/Final_Texts/Section_Index.html
[hereinafter U.S.-Chile FTA] (establishing the free trade area on June 6, 2003), with U.S.-Chile
FTA Implementation Act, Pub. L. No. 108-77, § 101(a)-(b), 117 Stat. 909, 910-11 (2003)
(approving the U.S.-Chile FTA on July 15, 2003 and entering it into force on January 1, 2004).

[FN107]. See U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 16.9 ("Desiring to build on the foundations
established in existing international agreements in the field of intellectual property, including the
World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and affirming the rights and obligations set forth in the TRIPS
Agreement").

[FN108]. Compare id. art. 17.11 (requiring a judicial system of enforcement), with TRIPS
Agreement art. 41.5 (requiring no obligation to put a judicial system of enforcement in place).

[FN109]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.1.

[FN110]. Id. art. 17.11.2.

[FN111]. Id. art. 17.11.3 (emphasis added).

[FN112]. TRIPS Agreement art. 41.3 (emphasis added).

[FN113]. U.S.-Jordan FTA, supra note 91, art. 4.24 (emphasis added).

[FN114]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.8(b).

[FN115]. Id. art. 17.11.13 ("In civil judicial proceedings, each Party shall provide that the
judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the infringer to provide any information the
infringer may have regarding persons involved in the infringement, and regarding the
distribution channels of infringing goods").

[FN116]. Id.

[FN117]. TRIPS Agreement art. 47.

[FN118]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.17 (stating that requirements related to
border measures "shall not unreasonably deter recourse to these procedures").

[FN119]. TRIPS Agreement art. 52.

[FN120]. World Customs Organization [WCO], Model Provisions for National Legislation to
Implement Fair and Effective Border Measures Consistent With the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, at 1 (May 19, 2004), available at
http://www.wcoipr.org/wcoipr/gfx/ModelLawfinal.doc. The 2004 Model Provisions were
preceded by an earlier version that is no longer available on the World Customs Organization
website, but is reproduced in Border Enforcement of Intellectual Property, Oceana Publications,
Inc. (2000). Id. The 2004 Model Provisions recommend that customs administrations raise the
enforcement standards above the TRIPS minimums. Id.

[FN121]. Id. at 12. Generally, these same notes appeared as a note to Article 6 in the initial set of
Model Provisions. Id.

[FN122]. See An Qinghu, Well-Known Marks & China's System Of Well-Known Mark
Protection, THE TRADEMARK REPORTER, May-June, 2005, at 754-57 (detailing China's
adoption of similar elements in its Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Customs'
Protection for Intellectual Property Rights).

[FN123]. Cf. Alan S. Gutterman, The North-South Debate Regarding the Protection of
Intellectual Property Rights, 28 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 89, 100 (stating that enforcement is
lacking in countries where injunctive relief is not available in certain member countries).

[FN124]. See Haochen Sun, The Road To Doha And Beyond: Some Reflections On the TRIPS
Agreement And Public Health, 15 EUR. J. INT'L LAW 123, 146 (2004) (indicating that the US-
Chile FTA modified the protection afforded in TRIPS, resulting in the highest level of protection
and enforcement standards yet achieved by an FTA).

[FN125]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.17.

[FN126]. Id. art. 17.11.20.

[FN127]. TRIPS Agreement art. 51.

[FN128]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.22(e).

[FN129]. Id. art. 17.11.22.

[FN130]. Id. art. 17.11.22(c)-(d).

[FN131]. Id.

[FN132]. Id.

[FN133]. See generally TRIPS Agreement (neglecting to mention the Internet or the World Wide
Web because the role of the internet was relatively insignificant during 1987-1993, the time
period corresponding to the TRIPS negotiations).

[FN134]. See The Dom. Rep.-Cent. Am.-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Statement of
Administrative Action, http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_
Agreements/Regional/CAFTA/Transmittal/asset_upload_file816_7815.pdf. The Central
American countries are Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Id.

[FN135]. Establishment of a Free Trade Area, U.S.-S. Korea, art. 24.6, June 30, 2007,
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Republic_of_Korea_
FTA/Final_Text/Section_Index.html [hereinafter KORUS FTA]. The U.S. and the Republic of
Korea both signed the agreement, however, the agreement has not been acted upon by the U.S.
Congress. Id.

[FN136]. See id. art. 18.10.7 (obligating the losing party to pay the winning party's court costs,
attorney and other fees).

[FN137]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.10.

[FN138]. KORUS FTA, supra note 135, art. 18.10.7.

[FN139]. Id.

[FN140]. Id.

[FN141]. Id. art. 18.10.19.

[FN142]. Id.

[FN143]. Id. art. 18.10.28.

[FN144]. Id. art. 18.10.29.

[FN145]. Id. art. 18.10.30.

[FN146]. U.S.-Chile FTA, supra note 106, art. 17.11.23.

[FN147]. KORUS FTA, supra note 136, art. 18.10.30(a)(ii).

[FN148]. Id. art. 18.Confirmation Letter (Online Piracy Prevention).

[FN149]. Report of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights 2
(April 27, 2007), http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_
Agreements/Bilateral/Republic_of_Korea_FTA/Reports/asset_upload_file196_ 12780.pdf.

[FN150]. Sanders, supra note 87, at 897-99 (discussing inclusion of TRIPS-plus provisions in
free trade agreements and indicating that the United States negotiates high levels of protection
for international intellectual property rights).

[FN151]. TRAINER & ALLUMS, supra note 21, § 1:2; Christine Thelen, Comment, Carrots
And Sticks: Evaluating The Tools For Securing Successful TIPS Implementation, 24 TEMP. J.
SCI. TECH. & ENVTL. L. 519, 525 (2005). Although the term "capacity building" is now
popular to use in place of "technical assistance," the older term will be used. See, e.g., id.

[FN152]. Kristy L. Balsanek et. al., International Legal Development In Review: 2005 Business
Regulation, 40 INT'L LAW. 217, 222 (2006). The Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership
Agreement reached in 2006, obligates the Philippines to extend border enforcement to patents,
utility models and industrial designs and to provide criminal penalties for all IPRs. JAPAN
MINISTRY OF ECONOMY TRADE AND INDUSTRY, REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH
MAJOR TRADING PARTNERS WITH TRADE AGREEMENTS 597 (2007), available at
www.meti.go.jp/english/report/downloadfiles/2007WTO/3- 4IntellectualProperty.pdf.

[FN153]. See TRIPS Agreement arts. 65-66 (providing transitional periods for developing and
least developed countries, who did not have or merely had limited IPR enforcement mechanisms
at the time TRIPS was enacted).

[FN154]. See, e.g., Julia Cheng, China's Copyright System: Rising To The Spirit of TRIPS
Requires An Internal Focus And WTO Membership, 21 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 1941, 1988
(1998) (indicating the additional mechanisms that courts in China developed in order to provide
an adequate civil enforcement system for intellectual property rights).

[FN155]. Id.

[FN156]. See, e.g., David Ludwig, Shooting the Messenger: ISP Liability for Contributory
Copyright Infringement, 2006 B.C. INTELL. PROP. & TECH. F. 478, 478 (2006) (stating that
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's purpose was to strengthen copyright protection).

[FN157]. See Graeme W. Austin, Domestic Laws and Foreign Rights: Choice of Law in
Transnational Copyright Infringement Litigation, 23 COLUM.-VLA J.L. & ARTS 1, 22 (1999).
The Internet causes a difficulty of the choice of law with many international courts. Id. Thus, one
country's courts may be dictating the law in another country. Id.
[FN158]. Cf. Matthew Helton, Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement: BitTorrent as a
Vehicle for Establishing a New Copyright Definition for Staple Articles of Commerce, 40
COLUM. J.L. & SOC. PROBS. 1, 36- 37 (2006) (concluding that there should be an initiative to
aid industries with new technologies, instead of having these technologies destroy these
industries with copyright infringement).

[FN159]. Maureen Walterbach, International Illicit Convergence: The Growing Problem Of

Transnational Organized Crime Groups' Involvement In Inteelectual Property Rights Violations,
34 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 591, 608-09 (indicating the threat posed to organized crime's
intellectual property right violations due to criminal enforcement provisions included in TRIPS).
By way of comparison, Section 2319 of the Criminal Infringement of Copyright, was made part
of Title 18, United States Code, in 1982, only a dozen years before the signing of the agreements
creating the WTO and TRIPS. Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act of 1982, Pub. L. No.
97-180, 96 Stat. 91 (1982). Section 2320 of Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods, was made part of
Title 18, United States Code, in 1984. Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-
473, § 1502(a), 98 Stat. 1837 (1984).

[FN160]. Robert M. Sherwood, Intellectual Property Systems And Investment Stimulation: The
Rating Of Systems In Eighteen Developing Countries, 37 IDEA 261, 288, 291, 293, 295, 298-99,
301, 304, 306-07, 309-10, 312, 314-16, 318-19, 322, 325-26, 329, 331-32, 337, 341 (1997)
(detailing the civil enforcement systems for intellectual property rights, and challenges facing
enforcement authorities in eighteen countries, including Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Brazil,
Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, and Uruguay).

[FN161]. See Kearston G. Everitt, The Latin American Musician's "Life Would Be Meaningless
Without Music": The Fight Against CD Piracy In Latin America, 27 WHITTIER L. REV. 495,
525-26 (2005) (detailing technical assistance needs of Latin American countries regarding border
enforcement measures as well as attempts to improve border enforcement procedures).

[FN162]. Id.

[FN163]. See Maria Nelson, Michelle Vizurraga, & David Chang, Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals:
A Worldwide Problem, 96 TRADEMARK REP. 1068, 1088 (2006) (discussing improvements in
customs procedures enacted in the European Union in February, 2005).

[FN164]. See Yu, supra note 6, at 866-67 (explaining the implications of TRIPS+ agreements in
FTAs).

[FN165]. Id. at 866-70 (indicating that many developing countries were still determining how
they could achieve compliance under the minimum TRIPS requirements when developed
countries began utilizing agreements with more stringent requirements).

[FN166]. Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., U.S. Will Seek Anti-Counterfeiting
Trade Agreement (Oct. 23, 2007), available at http://
www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2007/October/Ambassador_Schwab_
Announces_US_Will_Seek_New_Trade_Agreement_to_Fight_Fakes.html [hereinafter Press
Release on ACTA]; European Comm'n, Sectoral Trade Issues on Intellectual Property (Oct. 23,
2007), http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_ property/pr231007_en.htm.

[FN167]. Press Release on ACTA, supra note 166.

[FN168]. Id.

[FN169]. Id.

[FN170]. Ministry of Econ. Dev. of N.Z., Information Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade

Agreement, http:// www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____34358.aspx.

[FN171]. Id.

[FN172]. Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., Statement from Spokesperson Scott
Elmore on ACTA 1 (Aug. 1, 2008), available at http://
www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2008/August/asset_upload_
file308_15055.pdf.

[FN173]. Id.

[FN174]. Id.

[FN175]. Establishment of a Free Trade Area, U.S.-Morocco, June 15, 2004,

http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Morocco_FTA/FInal_Text/Section_
Index.html; Establishment of a Free Trade Area, U.S.-Austl., May 18, 2004,
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Australia_FTA/Final_
Text/asset_upload_file148_5168.pdf; Establishment of a Free Trade Area, U.S.- Sing., May 6,
2003, http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_
Agreements/Bilateral/Singapore_FTA/Final_Texts/asset_upload_file708_4036.pdf.

[FN176]. NAFTA, supra note 86, pmbl.

[FN177]. Id. art 102.1(d).

[FN178]. Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., Special 301 Report: Canada, Int'l
Intellectual Prop. Alliance 8 (Feb. 11, 2008), available at
http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2008/2008SPEC301CANADA.pdf.

[FN179]. Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., Special 301 Report: Mexico, Int'l
Intellectual Prop. Alliance 51 (Feb. 11, 2008), available at
http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2008/2008SPEC301MEXICO.pdf.

[FN180]. See 19 U.S.C. § 2242(a) (2006) (requiring the U.S. Trade Representative to submit a
report to Congress that identifies countries that deny adequate and effective IPR protection).
Special 301 reports are available at
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Sectors/Intellectual_Property/Section_Index.html.

[FN181]. 2008 USTR Spec. 301 Rep. 43 [hereinafter 2008 301-Rep.], available at
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_ Publications/2008/2008_
Special_301_Report/asset_upload_file553_14869.pdf.

[FN182]. Id. at 39.

[FN183]. See TRIPS Agreement, art. 1

[FN184]. See Nikki Tait, EU to Rule Out New Piracy Laws, FIN. TIMES (London), May 13,
2008, at 5.

[FN185]. Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement 1 (Oct. 23,2007), available at http://
ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2007/asset_upload_ file122_13414.pdf

[FN186]. Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement 3 (Aug. 4, 2008) [hereinafter Aug. 4-Press Release], available at
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_
Publications/2008/asset_upload_file760_15084.pdf

[FN187]. See Yu, supra note 6, at 847.

[FN188]. Charlie McCreevy, European Comm'r for Internal Market and Servs., Speech 08/237 at
Conference on Counterfeiting and Piracy (May 13, 2008) (transcript available at
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?
reference=SPEECH/08/237&format=HTML&aged=0&language =EN&guiLanguage=en); see
The 2008 High Level Conf. on Counterfeiting and Privacy, http://
ec.europa.eu/internal_market/iprenforcement/index_en.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN189]. 2008 301-REP., supra note 181, at 6.

[FN190]. Id.

[FN191]. Austl. Minister for Trade, Australia to Negotiate an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade

Agreement (February 1, 2008), http:// www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2008/sc_012.html (last
visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN192]. G8 Members, http://www.g8.gc.ca/members-en.asp (last visited Oct. 26, 2008) (stating

that the G8 is made up of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russian Federation, United
Kingdom, and the United States).

[FN193]. Int'l Chamber of Commerce, ICC targets ministers to advance IP protection at G8

summit (June 6, 2008), http:// www.iccwbo.org/bascap/icccbcee/index.html (last visited Oct. 26,
2008).

[FN194]. Id.

[FN195]. 2004 USTR. Spec. 301 Rep. 4 [hereinafter 2004 301-Rep.], available at
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_ Publications/2004/2004_
Special_301/asset_upload_file963_5996.pdf?ht= (noting the several agencies within the U.S.
government that provide "technical assistance and training" on the implementation of TRIPS and
other international IP agreements).

[FN196]. See Intellectual Property Rights Training Program Database, http://

www.training.ipr.gov/ (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN197]. See List of All Activities and Events, http://www.ecap-project.org/activitiesevents.html

(last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN198]. See WCO Responsibilities, http://www.wcoomd.org/home_wco_topics_

epoverviewboxes_responsibilities_epipr.htm (last visited Oct. 26, 2008).

[FN199]. See INTERPOL Intellectual Property Crime, http://

www.interpol.int/Public/FinancialCrime/IntellectualProperty/Default.asp (last visited Oct. 26,
2008).

[FN200]. 2004 301-REP., supra note 195, at 2.

[FN201]. 2007 USTR ANN. CHINA REP. 6, available at http://

www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2007/asset_upload_
file625_13692.pdf.

[FN202]. See, e.g., Press Release, Office of the U.S. Trade Rep., U.S. Expands Outreach in
Campaign to STOP! Trade in fakes (June 6. 2005), available at
http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2005/June/US_Exps_
Outreach_in_Campaign_to_STOP-Trade_in_Fakes.html (stating that in June 2005, several
officials from U.S. Government agencies traveled to Europe to meet with officials from
Germany, UK, France and other European nations to address strategies for improving IPR
enforcement strategy in the form of a crackdown on global piracy and counterfeiting).

[FN203]. 2003 USTR Spec. 301 Rep. 10, available at http://

www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2003/2003_Special_
301_Report/asset_upload_file665_6124.pdf (discussing the political corruption influence on IPR
enforcement in China).

[FN204]. See Susan C. Schwab, U.S. Trade Rep., Remarks on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement 2 (Oct. 23, 2007) (transcript available at
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Transcripts/2007/October/asset_
upload_file110_13428.pdf) (noting that those with jobs in sectors such as software,
pharmaceuticals, movies, music and literature "depend on strong intellectual property
protection").

[FN205]. Aug. 4-Press Release, supra note 186, at 1 (indicating the goal of the ACTA effort is to
strengthen legal frameworks, enforcement, and cooperation initiatives regarding intellectual
property rights).

[FN206]. Id. at 2 (indicating participants in the first round of negotiations as including Australia,
Canada, EU, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland, the
United Arab Emirates and the United States).

[FN207]. See TRIPS Council Discussions Fall Apart Over Enforcement Issue, BRIDGES
WKLY. TRADE NEWS DIG., Nov. 1, 2006, at 1, http://
ictsd.net/downloads/bridgesweekly/bridgesweekly10-36.pdf. At the TRIPS Council meeting,
developing countries opposed the European Union's ("EU") initiative to introduce the
enforcement topic in the Council, arguing that this was an issue subject to domestic jurisdictions
alone. Id. "The EU highlighted the need for intervention from the TRIPS Council to assist efforts
to curb the rapid increase in piracy and counterfeiting world wide." Id. While the EU recognized
that WTO Members are allowed to implement enforcement provisions domestically, it felt that
such measures must ultimately help to achieve the objectives of the TRIPS Agreement. Id. at 1-2.
"The EU has previously submitted a paper suggesting that the Council should assess Members'
compliance with the TRIPS Agreement's enforcement provisions." Id. at 2. Several developing
countries, including China, Chile, India, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil, strongly opposed
the initiative and objected to a presentation by the EU on its experiences, which they felt would
amount to implicitly accepting the EU's proposal to share country experiences. Id. The
developing countries felt that enforcement was an issue outside the scope of the TRIPS
Agreement. Id.

[FN208]. See TRAINER & ALLUMS, supra note 21, § 1:2 (discussing the difficulty in
educating the local customs officials on how to protect intellectual property); see also Ruth L.
Okediji, The Institutions of Intellectual Property: New Trends in an Old Debate, 98 AM. SOC'Y
INT'L L. PROC. 219, 221 (2004) (discussing the impact of TRIPS on the ability of developing
countries to ensure the welfare of their citizens).

[FN209]. Laurence R. Helfer, Regime Shifting: The TRIPS Agreement and New Dynamics of
International Intellectual Property Lawmaking, 29 YALE J. INT'L L. 1, 2 (2004) (stating that the
proponents of TRIPS argue that strong intellectual property rules are essential to a country's
economic growth and development); see also Thelen, supra note 151, at 528 ("'[C]arrots' dangled
by ... developed nations would be significant motivators for developing countries to comply with
the TRIPS agreement. These positive incentives focus on providing support in the
implementation of TRIPS through technical assistance and additional time to become compliant
as well as creating short and long-term economic incentives.").

[FN210]. Helfer, supra note 209, at 2-3 (stating that the proponents of TRIPS argue that strong
intellectual property rules are essential to a country's economic growth and development). For
further reading, the reader should review www.galaxysystemsinc.com for a new initiative and
IPR tool that attempts to inject "fun" into IPR learning.
END OF DOCUMENT
(c) 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
HANYA UNTUK PENGGUNAAN PENDIDIKAN
8 J. Marshall Rev Intell. Prop L. 47

John Marshall Law Review Kekayaan Intelektual

Fall, 2008

Pasal

* 47 INTELLECTU AL PROPERTI PENEGAKAN: Sebuah GAP KENYATAAN (TIDAK

MEMADAI
BANTUAN, IMPLEMENTASI EFEKTIF)?

Timothy P. Trainer [FNa1]

Copyright © 2008 John Marshall Law School, Trainer Timothy P.

PENDAHULUAN
("WTO") Perjanjian Organisasi Perdagangan Dunia tentang Trade-Related Aspek Hak
Kekayaan Intelektual ("TRIPS") [FN1] memegang janji langkah besar dalam kemampuan untuk
melindungi dan menegakkan hak kekayaan intelektual. [FN2] Dari perspektif penegakan ketat,
ketentuan TRIPS menangani persyaratan untuk perdata, pidana, dan penegakan perbatasan
[FN3] prosedur langkah besar maju karena mereka membutuhkan hukum nasional untuk
memasukkan beberapa ketentuan dasar mengenai penegakan sipil kekayaan intelektual,
tindakan untuk menghentikan impor barang pelanggaran tertentu, dan pengenaan sanksi
pidana atas pelanggaran tertentu dari hak kekayaan intelektual ("HKI"). [FN4]
Kombinasi berkembang dan peningkatan perdagangan barang palsu dan bajakan dan
pengalaman dengan pelaksanaan persyaratan TRIPS telah terkena fakta bahwa produsen dan
distributor melanggar barang kreatif dan bahwa TRIPs mungkin menderita dari ketidakjelasan
dan ambiguitas sehingga dalam waktu kurang dari HKI yang efektif penegakan hukum. [FN5]
Pengalaman perusahaan dan pemerintah dalam menangani pelanggaran HKI telah
menghasilkan sebuah tren di antara beberapa anggota WTO untuk meningkatkan * 48 standar
penegakan luar standar minimum yang diakui secara internasional ditetapkan oleh
TRIPS. [FN6]
Jadi, karena beberapa anggota WTO berusaha penegakan agresif dan menegosiasikan standar
yang lebih tinggi penegakan HAKI, "TRIPS-plus" ("TRIPS +"), ada yang lain anggota WTO yang
tertinggal dalam pelaksanaan yang efektif dari persyaratan TRIPS, yang mengarah ke
penegakan HKI tidak efektif seperti yang dirasakan oleh beberapa pemilik HKI dan
pemerintah. [FN7] Akibatnya, gesekan telah dibuat antara pemerintah mencari yang disebut
TRIPs + standar penegakan hukum dan pemerintah lain yang bersedia untuk melaksanakan
penegakan TRIPs tingkat, tetapi menentang penegakan standar di atas standar minimum
TRIPS. [FN8]
Pada halaman berikut, artikel ini akan mengidentifikasi beberapa ketentuan pilih TRIPS dan
bagaimana ketentuan-ketentuan TRIPS dapat berkontribusi untuk implementasi kebingungan
mengenai standar-standar minimum dan mengapa ada kecenderungan di antara beberapa
anggota WTO untuk meningkatkan standar penegakan hukum. Selain itu, sebuah usaha akan
dibuat untuk menjelaskan mengapa mungkin ada perlawanan terhadap standar tinggi. Dalam
upaya untuk menyoroti beberapa masalah ini, artikel akan bergantung pada perbatasan TRIPs
ketentuan langkah-langkah, tetapi tidak eksklusif, sebagai dasar untuk diskusi. Akhirnya, artikel
tersebut akan membahas secara singkat beberapa pelatihan HKI yang terkait dan isu-isu
pendidikan yang timbul dari fokus penegakan hukum.

I. TRIPS: PROMISE V. PRAKTEK

Pada awalnya, perlu untuk memahami bahwa tidak semua anggota WTO diharuskan untuk
membawa ketentuan penegakan hidup pada waktu yang sama. [FN9] TRIPs, Bagian VI,
periode transisi yang terkandung untuk maju, mengembangkan, dan paling tidak negara-negara
maju sehingga pemerintah akan punya waktu untuk mengubah hukum nasional dan
menerapkan persyaratan baru. [FN10] Selain itu, pemerintah dapat menunjuk diri * 49 kelompok
di mana mereka termasuk: maju, berkembang, atau terbelakang. [FN11] Berdasarkan Pasal
65,1 bahasa, negara-negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat, Jepang, Inggris, Perancis, dan lain-
lain diharapkan untuk menerapkan ketentuan sebagaimana Januari 1996, yang merupakan
tahun setelah berlakunya darikesepakatan WTO. [FN12] Oleh karena itu, negara-negara
berkembang, memiliki empat tahun tambahan, memiliki total lima tahun untuk masa transisi
mereka. [FN13]
Pada bagian, periode transisi ini dimaksudkan untuk memberikan pemerintah dengan waktu
untuk mengubah dan memasukkan ketentuan yang diperlukan ke dalam hukum nasional, tetapi
juga untuk melatih dan mendidik pejabat pemerintah yang relevan tentang tugas baru, misi, dan
kewajiban. [FN14] anggota WTO mengantisipasi kebutuhan untuk pelatihan dan pendidikan
yang dibuktikan dengan ketentuan TRIPS mengenai kerjasama teknis. [FN15] Penting untuk
dicatat bahwa Pasal 67 menyatakan:
* 50 Dalam rangka memfasilitasi pelaksanaan Perjanjian ini, Anggota negara maju wajib
memberikan, atas permintaan dan atas dasar persetujuan bersama dan kondisi, teknis dan
kerjasama keuangan dalam mendukung pengembangan dan paling berkembang Anggota
negara. Kerja sama tersebut mencakup bantuan dalam penyusunan undang-undang dan
peraturan tentang perlindungan dan penegakan hak kekayaan intelektual serta pada
pencegahan pelecehan mereka, dan harus mencakup dukungan tentang pembentukan atau
penguatan kantor domestik dan instansi terkait untuk hal ini,termasuk pelatihan personil. [FN16]
Dalam istilah sederhana, janji penegakan TRIPS ketentuan dalam Pasal 41 melalui 61 adalah
bahwa anggota WTO akan membentuk sistem yang efektif penegakan HKI sehingga pemilik
dari berbagai bentuk HAKI yang dicakup oleh TRIPS akan, setidaknya, memiliki prosedur yang
lebih efektif di tempat untuk penegakan sipil HKI. Selain itu, hak cipta dan merek dagang
pemilik akan dapat mengandalkan langkah-langkah baru dan ditingkatkan untuk menghentikan
impor barang hasil pelanggaran dan memiliki obat yang tersedia untuk menghukum kriminal
pemalsu dan pembajak.
Pada tahun 2008, periode transisi berkaitan dengan ketentuan penegakan telah berakhir [FN17]
dan anggota WTO harus menyediakan tingkat perlindungan dan penegakan yang TRIPS
menguraikan dalam Pasal 41-61. Umumnya, hukum nasional telah diubah untuk memasukkan
perubahan yang diperlukan.[FN18] Mengenai implementasi aktual dan bagaimana cara
pemerintah affording pemilik HKI dengan perlindungan dan penegakan hukum, tidak ada
keputusan panel WTO pada saat penulisan ini untuk memberikan wawasan tentang bagaimana
penegakan ketentuan TRIPS diinterpretasikan. [FN19] Negara-negara telah * 51 berusaha
untuk melakukan yang terbaik yang mereka bisa untuk datang ke kepatuhan berdasarkan
pemahaman mereka terhadap teks TRIPS. [FN20]
Tanpa melihat pada setiap pasal dari Bagian TRIPS III, [FN21] patut memeriksa sampling dari
Bagian III, karena tantangan yang diajukan oleh teks dan mengapa beberapa negara anggota
WTO memiliki masalah dalam pelaksanaan yang efektif. [FN22] Pasal 41.1 menetapkan tujuan
ambisius untuk penegakan HKI. Ini menyatakan bahwa
Anggota harus memastikan bahwa prosedur penegakan yang ditentukan dalam Bab ini tersedia
di bawah hukum mereka sehingga memungkinkan tindakan yang efektif terhadap setiap
tindakan pelanggaran hak kekayaan intelektual dilindungi oleh Perjanjian ini, termasuk upaya
singkat untuk mencegah pelanggaran dan upaya yang dapat membuat jera untuk
lebihpelanggaran. Prosedur ini harus diterapkan sedemikian rupa untuk menghindari
penciptaan hambatan perdagangan yang sah dan untuk menyediakan perlindungan terhadap
penyalahgunaan mereka. [FN23]
Pemeriksaan teks TRIPS harus dibaca dengan banyak kepentingan dalam pikiran. Pertama,
bagaimana berbagai Negara Anggota menafsirkan kata-kata ini? Untuk negara anggota yang
memiliki sedikit pengalaman atau tidak ada penegakan HAKI, apa yang beberapa frase berarti
dan bagaimana mereka akan dilaksanakan? Dari perspektif pemilik HKI, khususnya,
perusahaan multinasional, ketentuan dan tujuan mulia tersebut, meskipun bersifat umum,
memberikan perusahaan pemilik HKI harapan untuk apa yang mereka akan menerima di pasar
di seluruh dunia. [FN24] Jadi, bagi pemilik HKI, tampaknya ada janji lingkungan HKI
ditingkatkan. [FN25]
Namun, Pasal 41 memuat ketentuan yang harus marah harapan pemilik HKI '. Pasal 41.5
mencerminkan kesulitan negosiasi ketentuan penegakan agresif tanpa kompromi. Negosiator
mencari ketentuan agresif penegakan HKI juga harus mengakui bahwa ketentuan TRIPS
penegak baru bagi banyak negara dan mungkin di luar kemampuan banyak 52 * Negara-negara
Anggota dalam jangka pendek atau menengah. [FN26] Jadi, pertanyaan harus ditanyakan,
apakah Pasal 41,5 merusak hal-hal yang sangat Bagian III seharusnya memberikan. Pasal 41.5
menyatakan bahwa
Hal ini dimengerti bahwa bagian ini tidak menciptakan kewajiban untuk menempatkan sistem
peradilan untuk penegakan hak kekayaan intelektual yang berbeda dari yang untuk penegakan
hukum pada umumnya, juga tidak mempengaruhi kewenangan Anggota untuk menegakan
hukum secara umum . Tidak ada dalam Bagian ini yang menimbulkan kewajiban berkenaan
dengan distribusi sumber daya antara penegakan hukum dibidang hak kekayaan intelektual dan
penegakan hukum pada umumnya. [FN27]
Satu dapat memahami bahwa pemerintah tidak diperlukan untuk membentuk sistem peradilan
terpisah untuk HKI, tapi kalimat terakhir menimbulkan pertanyaan menarik: Jika suatu Negara
Anggota tidak memiliki sumber daya yang didedikasikan untuk penegakan HAKI, apakah ini
berarti bahwa sekali TRIPS kewajibannya dipicu Anggota Negara memenuhi kewajiban
penegakan dengan tidak memiliki sumber daya untuk penegakan HAKI? Masalah ini belum
menjadi subyek dari setiap kasus Penyelesaian Sengketa WTO. Jadi, sampai ada kebutuhan
untuk mendapatkan penafsiran resmi, masih harus dilihat apa yang Pasal 41,5 artinya dalam
praktek. Namun demikian, pemilik HKI dibiarkan bertanya-tanya apa kalimat terakhir berarti
berkaitan dengan penegakan hukum, secara umum, di bawah setiap sistem penegakan HKI
nasional jika hukum berubah untuk menyediakan penegakan hukum, tetapi tidak ada sumber
daya manusia yang disediakan untuk mengambil tindakan yang diperlukan untuk penegakan
hukum diperbatasan atau untuk kejahatan HKI yang membutuhkan keterlibatan penegak
hukum, jaksa, dan hakim.
Di bidang tindakan perbatasan, Pasal 51 menciptakan berbagai tantangan bagi negara anggota
yang tidak memiliki pra-TRIPS pengalaman penegakan perbatasan. [FN28] menyatakan bahwa
Pasal
Anggota wajib, sesuai dengan ketentuan di bawah ini, mengadopsi prosedur untuk
memungkinkan pemegang hak, yang memiliki dasar sah bahwa impor dagang palsu atau
barang hak cipta bajakan dapat mengambil tempat, untuk mengajukan aplikasi secara tertulis
dengan pihak yang berwenang, administratif, atau yudikatif, untuk suspensi oleh pihak pabean
rilis ke dalam sirkulasi bebas barang tersebut.Anggota dapat memungkinkan pengajuan
permohonan seperti dilakukan terhadap barang-barang yang melibatkan pelanggaran lain hak
kekayaan intelektual, asalkan persyaratan Bagian ini terpenuhi. Anggota juga dapat
menetapkan prosedur terkait tentang suspensi oleh * 53 kebiasaan kewenangan pelepasan
barang hasil pelanggaran ditakdirkan untuk ekspor dari wilayah mereka. [FN29]

Ketentuan ini menjanjikan pemilik HKI bahwa semua Negara Anggota WTO harus memiliki
sistem yang akan memungkinkan pemilik hak cipta dan merek dagang untuk mengajukan
permohonan untuk perlindungan terhadap bajak laut dan produk palsu yang sedang
diimpor. [FN30] Pada pandangan pertama, suatu Negara Anggota WTO dihadapkan oleh
sejumlah pertanyaan yang tak terjawab seperti:
1. Apa yang berwenang dalam pemerintah bisa menjadi otoritas yang kompeten untuk tujuan
Pasal 51?
a. Bea Cukai?
b. Departemen Perdagangan dan Industri (pelayanan orang tua untuk kantor merek dagang
pemerintah)? [FN31]
c. Trademark Office?
d. Kantor Hak Cipta?
e. Departemen Kebudayaan (di beberapa pemerintah, Departemen Kebudayaan adalah
Departemen induk untuk hak cipta)? [FN32]
f. Instansi pemerintah lainnya yang dipilih?
2. Jika aplikasi yang diajukan untuk tindakan perbatasan memiliki efek nasional atau akan
pemilik hak cipta atau merek dagang harus mendaftar untuk perlindungan pada setiap
pelabuhan masuk di negara ini?
3. Apa yang merupakan dasar sah bahwa impor barang pelanggaran mungkin terjadi?
Jawaban sudah cukup untuk menimbulkan banyak kebingungan bagi pemerintah tidak
berpengalaman dalam penegakan HKI.Pada dasarnya, suatu Negara Anggota dapat
menetapkan pengadilan atau instansi pemerintah sebagai otoritas yang kompeten untuk
menerima aplikasi untuk penegakan perbatasan. [FN33] Hal ini mungkin, pada kenyataannya,
fleksibilitas terlalu banyak. Pemilik HKI * 54 beroperasi secara komersial di banyak negara
dihadapkan dengan tantangan menentukan siapa pihak yang berwenang di setiap negara
dimana perusahaan beroperasi. [FN34]
Berikut adalah beberapa contoh tantangan bagi pemilik HKI.Sebuah perusahaan yang ingin
mengajukan aplikasi untuk mengukur perbatasan di Amerika Serikat akan file dengan US
Customs dan Perlindungan Perbatasan. [FN35] Di Kanada, pemilik HKI harus mengajukan
permohonan ke pengadilan untuk langkah-langkah perbatasan dan juga harus memberitahukan
Menteri Keamanan Publik. [FN36] Di Mesir, tampak bahwa pemilik HKI harus mengajukan
dengan Bea Cukai Mesir, [FN37] tetapi peraturan ini tampaknya mengharuskan pemilik HKI
juga mengajukan pengaduan dengan Perjanjian Sektor Perdagangan Departemen
Perdagangan Luar Negeri dan Industri, [ FN38] sehingga meningkatkan pertanyaan yang
lembaga adalah "nyata" pejabat yang berwenang.
Selain itu, tidak ada dalam TRIPs, Pasal 51, melarang suatu Negara Anggota dari pemilik HKI
memaksakan persyaratan untuk mengajukan beberapa aplikasi di pelabuhan beberapa Bea
masuk di dalam negeri. [FN39] Pada tahun 2002, satu yang berbasis asosiasi perdagangan,
mewakili puluhan perusahaan multinasional, komentar diajukan ke Kantor Perwakilan Dagang
Amerika Serikat mengeluhkan persyaratan pengajuan aplikasi berat dalam rangka untuk
memperoleh penegakan perbatasan nasional di Jepang. [FN40] The "larangan" mungkin
terhadap persyaratan aplikasi berat mungkin untuk menyatakan bahwa Kewajiban Umum
TRIPS 'tentang penegakan menyatakan bahwa prosedur mengenai penegakan harus "adil" dan
"tidak akan perlu rumit atau mahal." [FN41] Meskipun argumen ini mungkin argumen yang baik,
belum ada sengketa WTO penyelesaian kasus yang melibatkan masalah prosedur aplikasi
yang berhubungan untuk memiliki efek nasional.
Titik ketiga dinaikkan di atas berkenaan dengan memiliki dasar sah suatu importasi barang hasil
pelanggaran juga merupakan masalah yang belum subyek kasus penyelesaian sengketa
WTO. Jadi, suatu Negara Anggota WTO bisa menyangkal sebuah aplikasi untuk mengukur
perbatasan karena kurangnya pemilik HKI dari setiap alasan untuk mencurigai bahwa barang-
barang yang melanggar akan diimpor. [FN42] Dalam rangka untuk memiliki pemahaman
tentang apa yang "dasar yang valid" mungkin berarti, akan sangat membantu untuk melihat
Pasal 52 TRIPs untuk informasi tambahan mengenai aplikasi untuk tindakan perbatasan. Pasal
52 menyatakan bahwa pemilik HKI memulai prosedur aplikasi untuk langkah-langkah
perbatasan "wajib untuk memberikan bukti yang memadai untuk memuaskan pihak yang
berwenang ... ada prima facie suatu pelanggaran hak intelektual pemegang hak itu 55 properti *
.... "[FN43] Interaksi antara Pasal 51 dan 52 tentang "alasan-alasan yang valid" yang terkait
dengan "prima facie" menaikkan satu set masalah bagi pemilik HKI karena kebutuhan
tambahan Pasal 52 bahwa pemilik HKI memberikan penjelasan "cukup rinci tentang barang
ke membuat mereka mudah dikenali oleh pihak pabean. " [FN44]
Hubungan antar-antara Pasal 51 dan 52 informasi yang diperlukan mengenai diserahkan oleh
pemilik HKI menimbulkan pertanyaan mengenai kekhususan informasi tentang barang
pelanggaran yang diperlukan untuk aplikasi yang akan diterima.Bagaimana pemilik HKI tahu
apa barang akan diimpor yang melanggar hak cipta atau merek dagang? Jika spesifisitas terlalu
banyak diperlukan, akan membuat prosedur berarti dan, dalam prakteknya, hanya sedikit, jika
ada, pemilik HKI akan bisa mendapatkan perlindungan di perbatasan.
Ketentuan pidana hanya TRIPS 'penegakan HKI adalah contoh lain meningkatkan harapan
kalangan pemilik HKI bahwa pemerintah akan mulai menjalankan penegakan kriminal melalui
tindakan polisi dan penuntutan pemalsu merek dagang dan hak cipta bajak laut. Dari perspektif
pemerintah, ketentuan termasuk beberapa istilah yang ambigu dan kebingungan dibuat untuk
negara anggota yang memiliki sedikit pengalaman atau tidak ada dalam penegakan HKI,
mencoba untuk memahami persyaratan Perjanjian ini. Pasal 61 menyatakan
Anggota wajib menyediakan prosedur dan sanksi kriminal untuk diterapkan setidaknya dalam
kasus pemalsuan merek dagang disengaja atau pembajakan hak cipta pada skala
komersial.Obat yang tersedia meliputi penjara dan / atau denda moneter yang cukup untuk
memberikan pencegahan, konsisten dengan tingkat hukuman diterapkan untuk kejahatan dari
gravitasi sesuai. Dalam kasus yang tepat, obat yang tersedia juga mencakup penyitaan,
perampasan dan perusakan barang melanggar dan setiap bahan dan mengimplementasikan
penggunaan dominan yang telah di komisi pelanggaran.Anggota dapat menetapkan prosedur
dan sanksi kriminal untuk diterapkan dalam kasus-kasus lain pelanggaran hak kekayaan
intelektual, khususnya di mana mereka dilakukan dengan sengaja dan pada skala
komersial. [FN45]
Hanya beberapa dari pertanyaan yang diajukan oleh Pasal 61 adalah:
1. Bagaimana Negara Anggota menentukan "skala komersial" pemalsuan atau pembajakan?
2. Apa tingkat denda atau hukuman penjara akan menghalangi jenis perilaku?
3. Untuk tujuan hukuman membangun, kejahatan apa yang lainnya adalah dari gravitasi sesuai
dengan pemalsuan dan pembajakan?
4. Yang dimaksud dengan "Dalam kasus yang tepat, obat yang tersedia meliputi ...."?
* 56 Pelaksanaan kata-kata dalam Pasal 61 ke dalam hukum dan praktek didasarkan pada apa
yang setiap Negara Anggota dianggap perlu di negaranya. [FN46] Dengan demikian, Negara-
negara Anggota yang belum pernah ditegakkan HKI melalui hukum pidana menghadapi tipe
baru sepenuhnya kejahatan yang memerlukan keterlibatan pemerintah. Mungkin beruntung
untuk banyak negara anggota, tidak ada cara khusus implementasi adalah non-compliant
sampai kasus penyelesaian sengketa timbul dan aturan panel bahwa suatu praktek tertentu
adalah non-compliant. [FN47] Saat ini, kasus AS-China telah menempatkan beberapa Pasal 61
terkait masalah sebelum sebuah panel Penyelesaian Sengketa WTO, tetapi tidak ada yang
berkuasa pada saat penulisan ini. [FN48]
Berdasarkan pemeriksaan yang dangkal dari ketentuan TRIPs penegakan sedikit, maka
menjadi jelas bahwa teks penegakan TRIPS memberikan sedikit lebih dari daftar poin-poin dari
unsur-unsur yang dibutuhkan untuk sebuah sistem penegakan HKI.Menerjemahkan elemen-
elemen yang diperlukan dalam praktek itu dan terus menjadi tantangan utama. Tantangan
implementasi itu seharusnya ditangani oleh Pasal 67 ("Kerjasama Teknis") termasuk ketentuan
yang telah disebutkan sebelumnya pada bantuan teknis. [FN49]

II. TRIPS: BANTUAN TEKNIS - PERMINTAAN TINGGI, SUMBER DAYA TERBATAS

Salah satu pengembangan awal tentang bantuan teknis dan hukum merupakan perjanjian
antara dua yang berbasis di Jenewa organisasi antar pemerintah: WTO dan Organisasi
Kekayaan Intelektual Dunia ("WIPO"). [FN50] Pada tanggal 22 Desember 1995, organisasi
menyimpulkan perjanjian kerjasama yang secara resmi akan menyediakan WIPO untuk terlibat
dalam memberikan bantuan dalam HKI. [FN51] Meskipun perjanjian ini, bagaimanapun, tidak
WIPO atau WTO memiliki staf untuk memberikan pelatihan penegakan hanya karena
penegakan HAKI bukan misi organisasi. [FN52]
Dengan demikian, penyediaan bantuan teknis dari TRIPS [FN53] adalah penting untuk setiap
tingkat keberhasilan dalam pelaksanaan ketentuan penegakan dan memberikan janji
penegakan yang efektif untuk pemilik HKI mengharapkan lingkungan komersial ditingkatkan di
seluruh dunia. Tapi, untuk memahami realitas apa yang negara-negara maju bisa dilakukan di
bidang bantuan teknis, mungkin * 57 untuk meninjau sumber daya yang tersedia untuk satu
lembaga Pemerintah AS pada 1990-an awal dan pertengahan. [FN54]
Langkah-langkah TRIPS perbatasan mengangkat sejumlah isu yang terkait dengan tindakan
pemerintah yang akan diperlukan untuk memberikan penegakan hukum yang efektif. Mengingat
perkembangan baru dan signifikan penegakan perbatasan, [FN55] ini adalah salah satu area di
mana banyak pemerintah akan membutuhkan bantuan. Banyak dapat melihat AS HKI sistem
penegakan perbatasan sebagai fixture lama Bea penegakan, [FN56] tetapi fokus tinggi dari
sistem yang lebih agresif dan "maju" adalah sebuah perkembangan yang relatif baru. [FN57]
Sebuah Bea HKI Task Force dibentuk dalam kerangka waktu 1988-1989 [FN58] dan termasuk
tiga pengacara Bea Cukai ketika Task Force HKI menjadi "Cabang" formal dalam Kantor Bea
Cukai 'Peraturan dan Ketentuan pada tahun 1991. [FN59]
* 58 Para ditingkatkan US Customs Program HKI mendahului pelaksanaan kewajiban TRIPS
oleh hanya segelintir tahun.[FN60] Pada saat penciptaan formal Cabang HKI, Cabang terdiri
dari hanya tiga pengacara, paralegal dan satu asisten administrasi. [FN61] Secara total, hanya
lima orang yang berdedikasi penuh waktu untuk HKI. [FN62] Dalam uraian tanggung jawab
Cabang HKI yang diterbitkan dalam Daftar Federal, salah satu peran yang signifikan dari
Cabang tidak disebutkan: pelatihan US Customs petugas tentang Cukai peraturan, aplikasi
mereka untuk pengiriman yang berisi barang-barang tersangka dan bentuk-bentuk dasar dari
kekayaan intelektual yang harus dilindungi. [FN63] Pada awalnya, sebelum orang mulai untuk
mempertimbangkan pelatihan pejabat asing, Gugus Tugas HAKI harus memperkenalkan para
pejabat AS Bea Cukai tentang prosedur di bawah US peraturan dan hukum.[FN64]
Dengan demikian, pada awal 1990-an selama periode yang sama bahwa negosiator yang
memperdebatkan teks TRIPS, program ditingkatkan US Customs 'penegakan HKI masih dalam
tahap awal. Namun demikian, beberapa tahun pengalaman yang diperoleh US Customs antara
tahun 1989 dan 1996, tahun di mana kewajiban TRIPs mulai berlaku bagi negara maju, asalkan
lembaga dengan korps kecil pengacara, inspektur, dan agen yang mendapatkan pengalaman
dalam penegakan perbatasan HKI kasus.
Kenyataannya adalah bahwa korps kecil pejabat US Customs tidak akan pernah cukup untuk
memberikan bantuan teknis yang diperlukan dalam banyak negara-negara anggota. [FN65]
Dengan asumsi bahwa AS memiliki salah satu perbatasan paling aktif penegakan sistem HKI di
dunia sebagai tanggal 1 Januari 1996, dan staf yang didedikasikan sepenuhnya untuk
penegakan HAKI bisa dihitung dengan dua tangan, tidak seharusnya mengejutkan
bahwa keahlian global yang tersedia di negara-negara maju tidak akan cukup untuk
mempersiapkan sejumlah negara berkembang dan terbelakang baik mengamandemen hukum
dan melatih pejabat asing untuk melaksanakan kegiatan penegakan harian yang dibutuhkan
untuk membuat perbatasan TRIPS fungsi penegakan sistem secara efektif. [FN66] Kalau
dipikir-pikir, jika mempertimbangkan waktu dan komitmen sumber daya yang diperlukan untuk
melatih para pejabat AS Bea Cukai, itu * 59 seharusnya sudah lebih jelas bahwa akan tidak
mungkin bahwa penegakan hukum yang efektif akan disediakan oleh negara berkembang dan
negara kurang berkembang "pada waktu. "[FN67]
Memang, "tim" dunia bepergian penyedia bantuan teknis selama periode transisi pertama
(1996-2000) itu untuk kepentingan negara-negara berkembang adalah kader kecil orang sering
dikenal satu sama lain. [FN68] Sebuah tantangan pelatihan serupa ada untuk penegakan
pidana HKI. [FN69] Realitas baru ini adalah pemerintah yang tidak pernah dikriminalkan
pelanggaran HKI sekarang diperlukan untuk membentuk satu set baru kejahatan dan
penegakan hukum yang diperlukan untuk menjadi akrab dengan berbagai bentuk HKI dan
bagaimana mengidentifikasi kejahatan HKI mungkin. [FN70] Dengan demikian, persyaratan
TRIPS penegakan pidana ditambahkan ke lingkup penegakan jatuh dalam yurisdiksi polisi,
jaksa dan pengadilan.
Tantangan sumber daya yang terbatas yang tersedia akan dikerahkan untuk bantuan teknis di
bidang penegakan HKI pidana dan terus untuk menjadi serupa dengan yang berkaitan dengan
penegakan perbatasan. [FN71] Mengingat fakta bahwa Pasal 61 TRIPS persyaratan untuk
mengadopsi prosedur pidana hak cipta dan pelanggaran merek dagang yang baru untuk
negara-negara anggota banyak, ada kemungkinan bahwa investigasi kriminal dan penuntutan
atas kejahatan HKI tidak banyak di seluruh dunia sebelum implementasi ketentuan
TRIPS. [FN72] Di Amerika Serikat, US Department of Laporan Tahunan Kehakiman
menunjukkan bahwa, dengan perbandingan, di tahun fiskal 1997, 1998 dan 2007, [FN73]
jumlah cipta kriminal dan kasus merek dagang yang diajukan adalah 100, 97, dan 200, masing-
masing. [FN74]

Secara umum, mencerminkan kembali pada dekade upaya untuk membantu pemerintah dalam
memenuhi kewajiban masing-masing penegakan HKI, agak aman untuk mengatakan bahwa
negosiasi teks TRIPS lebih mudah daripada upaya untuk mencoba dan menciptakan global
yang efektif sistem penegakan HKI negara- oleh-negara. Jika statistik dan volume keluhan
indikasi, upaya multilateral untuk menciptakan penegakan * 60 "standar" tidak memiliki efek
bahwa banyak mungkin telah diharapkan mengingat volume perdagangan barang hasil
pelanggaran. [FN75] resmi Komisi Eropa pernyataan referensi, tumbuh tidak mengurangi,
ancaman yang ditimbulkan oleh produk palsu dan bajakan. [FN76] US Customs dan
Perlindungan Perbatasan di Mei 2008 juga referensi HKI gambaran masalah yang berkembang
di produk palsu dan bajak laut. [FN77] Organisasi Pabean Dunia juga telah menyatakan bahwa
dampak negatif dari barang palsu pada ekonomi global tumbuh setiap tahun. [FN78] Ada juga
puluhan kelompok industri yang telah menciptakan program khusus dan inisiatif penegakan
hukum HKI, termasuk International Chamber of Action Bisnis Perdagangan Berhenti Pemalsuan
dan Pembajakan ("BASCAP") yang percaya bahwa pencurian HKI adalah "di luar kendali .
" [FN79]
Sebagian besar saat ini 153 negara anggota WTO dan sejumlah orang lain yang dalam proses
bergabung dengan WTO perlu bantuan teknis. [FN80] tentara Hari ini pemberi bantuan telah
diperluas untuk mencakup para ahli pemerintah dari negara-negara anggota WTO, organisasi
antar pemerintah, perusahaan, kelompok industri, dan lain-lain. Meskipun kelompok diperluas
orang yang mungkin terlibat dalam memberikan pelatihan, umumnya, sebagian besar program
bantuan terdiri dari beberapa hari atau seminggu lokakarya, seminar dan kuliah, bukan
pengecualian jangka panjang, pada program tanah. [FN81] Kenyataannya adalah bahwa
hampir semua orang yang terlibat dalam memberikan bantuan yang dibutuhkan dialihkan dari
nya atau "nyata"-nya pekerjaan untuk berpartisipasi dalam memberikan pelatihan, yang
membatasi jumlah waktu yang tersedia untuk pelatihan.
Salah satu kesimpulan yang dapat ditarik dari pengalaman dua belas tahun terakhir adalah
bahwa kebutuhan bantuan teknis belum sepenuhnya dipertimbangkan. [FN82] Para kekurangan
* 61 tentang pendanaan dan sumber daya manusia yang didedikasikan untuk pelatihan dan
pendidikan [FN83] mencerminkan kurangnya prioritas pada isu-isu pada saat
negosiasi. Hasilnya telah menjadi ketegangan semakin terlihat dari penegakan HKI di banyak
negara. [FN84]

III. FTA AS: MENINGKATK AN BAR PEMBERLAKUAN - ambiguitas MEMECAHKAN

Dengan tidak adanya perjanjian perdagangan baru multilateral global dalam beberapa tahun
terakhir, pemerintah di seluruh dunia telah terlibat dalam negosiasi perjanjian perdagangan
bebas ("FTA") atau perjanjian kemitraan ekonomi ("EPA") dalam rangka meningkatkan
hubungan perdagangan untuk keuntungan perdagangan bersama. [FN85] Para FTA dan EPA
telah sering dimasukkan HKI, yang telah menghasilkan beberapa upaya untuk memperkuat
ketentuan penegakan hukum. [FN86] Pembahasan berikut akan referensi terutama FTA
menyimpulkan antara Amerika Serikat dan mitra dagang untuk menggambarkan beberapa tren
berdasarkan apa yang telah dipelajari oleh beroperasi di bawah ketentuan penegakan HKI
TRIPS.
Dalam periode pasca-TRIPs, yaitu, sejak tanggal pelaksanaan kewajiban TRIPS, Amerika
Serikat telah menyimpulkan banyak FTA. [FN87] Dalam banyak FTA, Amerika Serikat telah
melakukan upaya-upaya untuk menghilangkan ambiguitas dalam ketentuan penegakan TRIPS
dan untuk meningkatkan standar penegakan hukum. [FN88] Seperti berusaha dalam
pembahasan di atas, beberapa contoh ketentuan TRIPS ambigu atau bermasalah
diberikan. Beralih ke FTA, beberapa perbandingan akan diberikan antara teks TRIPS dan teks-
teks FTA dalam rangka untuk menyoroti upaya untuk meningkatkan tingkat penegakan HKI dan
mengklarifikasi TRIPS.
Pertama, perlu dicatat bahwa Amerika Serikat telah memasuki dan menyimpulkan FTA dengan
mitra dagang yang tingkat perkembangan ekonomi bervariasi luas. [FN89] Namun demikian,
Amerika Serikat telah berusaha untuk membangun teks penegakan HKI TRIPS dengan
menegosiasikan ketentuan-ketentuan kuat penegakan HKI. [FN90] Kedua, adalah penting untuk
menyadari perubahan halus dari satu FTA untuk yang lain.Sementara banyak dari teks FTA
mungkin tampak mirip atau identik, adalah penting untuk menyadari fakta bahwa FTA jarang
identik.

* 62 A. FTA AS-Yordania
AS-Yordan FTA disimpulkan pada bulan Oktober 2000. [FN91] Ini adalah FTA ketiga bahwa
Amerika Serikat telah menyimpulkan. [FN92] Menjadi salah satu FTA awal, ketentuan HKI dan
teks pelaksanaannya kurang rinci daripada FTA lebih baru menyimpulkan. FTA, bagaimanapun,
mengakui perkembangan HKI setelah kesimpulan dari Putaran Uruguay yang mengakibatkan
TRIPS dan membebankan kewajiban bersama untuk perlindungan HKI. [FN93] Secara khusus,
pemilik merek dagang dapat mengharapkan perlindungan meningkat untuk merek dagang
terkenal, [FN94] paten perlindungan diberikan kepada varietas tanaman, [FN95] dan pemilik
hak cipta akan ditambahkan perlindungan karena penggabungan FTA dari perjanjian hak cipta
menangani internet dan masalah konten digital . [FN96]
Dalam ketentuan penegakan sipil, FTA membuat jelas bahwa "cedera pada pemegang hak
harus didasarkan pada nilai dari item melanggar-atas, sesuai dengan harga eceran yang
disarankan dari produk yang sah, atau tindakan lain yang setara yang ditetapkan oleh
pemegang hak untuk menilai barang yang berwenang. " [FN97] Naskah TRIPS tidak memiliki
kekhususan seperti tentang dasar untuk jenis penilaian. Selain itu, FTA menciptakan anggapan
hak cipta dalam mendukung "orang atau badan hukum yang namanya diindikasikan sebagai
penulis, produser, pemain atau penerbit karya," [FN98] yang tidak dalam TRIPS.
Mengenai langkah-langkah perbatasan dan pidana penegakan hukum HKI, FTA dikenakan
persyaratan bahwa pihak berwenang yang bertanggung jawab untuk perbatasan dan
penegakan pidana harus diberikan kewenangan hukum untuk melakukan tindakan penegakan
hukum terhadap pembajakan hak cipta dan pemalsuan merek dagang tanpa perlu keluhan
formal, yaitu, ex officio otoritas . [FN99] TRIPs Pasal 61, berurusan dengan prosedur pidana,
tidak membahas masalah ini karena diam tentang persyaratan keluhan. [FN100] Karena Pasal
61 tidak membahas masalah persyaratan pengaduan, Negara Anggota WTO telah bebas untuk
memilih apakah atau tidak untuk memaksakan persyaratan pengaduan dalam kasus yang
melibatkan pembajakan kriminal dan pemalsuan. [FN101] Teks FTA membuat jelas bahwa
otoritas harus diberdayakan untuk melakukan penegakan pidana atas inisiatif mereka
sendiri. [FN102]
Persyaratan FTA yang berwenang juga memiliki otoritas ex officio untuk menghentikan impor
barang bajakan dan palsu memberlakukan persyaratan lain TRIPS +. * 63 Sebagai
perbandingan, TRIPs, Pasal 51 menyatakan bahwa "Anggota harus ... mengadopsi prosedur
untuk memungkinkan pemegang hak ... untuk mengajukan permohonan secara tertulis ... untuk
suspensi ...." [FN103] Persyaratan FTA bahwa pemerintah harus mampu bertindak secara ex
officio menghilangkan syarat pengajuan aplikasi mutlak. [FN104] Selain itu, teks FTA
menjelaskan bahwa otoritas harus memiliki kewenangan ex officio hukum untuk bertindak
sedangkan TRIPs, Pasal 58 mengizinkan anggota WTO untuk memilih untuk memberikan atau
menahan kekuatan hukum tersebut kepada pihak yang berwenang yang bertanggung jawab
untuk penegakan perbatasan. [FN105]
Meskipun ketentuan penegakan HKI di AS-Yordan FTA tidak rinci dan luas seperti dalam FTA
lebih baru, kita dapat melihat awal dari upaya untuk meningkatkan standar TRIPS penegakan
melalui proses FTA.

B. AS-Chili FTA
AS-Chili FTA telah disetujui oleh Kongres AS pada tahun 2003.[FN106] FTA ini membuat
langkah besar dalam meningkatkan penegakan HKI di luar apa yang muncul di AS-Yordania
FTA dan, karenanya, termasuk TRIPs signifikan + ketentuan. [FN107]
Salah satu hal pertama yang dicoba untuk diperbaiki dalam FTA adalah untuk memperbaiki
bahasa TRIPs Pasal 41.5 tentang dedikasi sumber daya untuk penegakan HKI. [FN108]
Sementara FTA mengakui bahwa pemerintah tidak diperlukan untuk membangun sistem HKI
peradilan terfokus atau ke sumber daya mendistribusikan untuk penegakan HKI, menyatakan
bahwa pemerintah tidak FTA yang dibebaskan dari kewajibannya penegakan HKI yang timbul
dari FTA berdasarkan keputusan yang dibuat, atau tidak dibuat, berkaitan dengan distribusi
sumber daya. [FN109] Teks meningkatkan pada Pasal TRIPS 41,5 dengan mengklarifikasi
bahwa kewajiban penegakan harus dipenuhi terlepas dari bagaimana pemerintah memutuskan
untuk mendedikasikan sumber daya penegakan HKI. [FN110] Selain itu, FTA membuat jelas
bahwa keputusan akhir pada manfaat dari kasus HKI yang berlaku umum akan dilakukan
secara tertulis, [FN111] yang menjelaskan kata-kata yang tidak biasa dalam TRIPS yang
menyatakan bahwa keputusan mengenai manfaat sebaiknya harus dalam bentuk
tertulis . [FN112]
* 64 Satu perbedaan menarik antara AS-Yordania FTA dan US-Chile FTA, yang dapat
dipandang sebagai suatu retret oleh pemilik HKI, adalah bahwa AS-Yordania FTA menyatakan
bahwa "cedera pada pemegang hak harus didasarkan pada nilai dari pada item yang
melanggar-...," [FN113] tetapi AS-Chili FTA menyatakan bahwa "dalam menentukan cedera
pada pemegang hak, kekuasaan kehakiman harus, antara lain, mempertimbangkan nilai eceran
sah dari barang dilanggar."[FN114] Ini adalah perbedaan yang signifikan dalam praktek sebagai
hakim dengan mudah dapat mempertimbangkan sesuatu dan mengabaikannya. Dengan
demikian, ketentuan ini adalah salah satu alasan untuk hati-hati meninjau FTA dan tetap diingat
bahwa teks-teks selalu dinegosiasikan antara pemerintah dan kompromi yang dibuat dalam
proses.
Lain dari banyak perbaikan yang dibuat di AS-Chili FTA adalah persyaratan bahwa kekuasaan
kehakiman yang diperlukan untuk memiliki wewenang untuk perintah pelanggaran untuk
memberikan informasi yang dimilikinya tentang orang lain yang terlibat dalam kegiatan
pelanggaran. [FN115] Terkait dengan kekuatan hukum baru dari pengadilan, FTA
mensyaratkan bahwa pengadilan harus diberdayakan untuk mengenakan denda atau hukuman
penjara pada pelanggaran yang gagal untuk mematuhi perintah pengadilan. [FN116]
Menariknya, TRIPs memberikan Negara Anggota pilihan pemberdayaan peradilan dengan cara
ini. [FN117] Dengan demikian, Anggota WTO Negara yang lebih suka memenuhi persyaratan
minimum mutlak tidak akan berubah hukumnya yang mengharuskan pengadilan memiliki
kekuasaan untuk memerintahkan pengungkapan informasi mengenai orang lain yang terlibat
dalam pelanggaran dan, dengan demikian, membatasi kemampuan untuk mengambil tindakan
terhadap operasi pelanggaran berpotensi besar.
Mengenai langkah-langkah perbatasan, beberapa perkembangan yang tercermin dalam FTA
AS-Chili. Pertama, bahasa muncul dalam teks untuk mencoba dan mencegah kebutuhan
informasi berat dan terlalu memberatkan dikenakan pada pemilik HKI mencari langkah-langkah
perbatasan. [FN118] Sebagaimana dibahas di atas berkaitan dengan TRIPs Pasal 52, pemilik
HKI seharusnya memberikan informasi yang akan membuat barang-barang yang mungkin
melanggar mudah dikenali dengan kebiasaan. [FN119] Tapi, apa artinya memiliki informasi
membuat kemungkinan melanggar barang mudah dikenali?

Organisasi Pabean Dunia ("WCO") berusaha untuk menjawab pertanyaan untuk lembaga adat
ketika mengeluarkan model nya Ketentuan tentang pelaksanaan TRIPS. [FN120] Dalam
catatan yang terkait dengan aplikasi HKI pemilik meminta perbatasan * 65 penegakan hukum,
dengan WCO disarankan berikut sebagai informasi yang akan membantu petugas bea cukai di
mudah mengenali kemungkinan barang hasil pelanggaran:
• Alamat Nama dan bisnis importir (s) dan / atau penerima (s) barang yang diduga melanggar;
• Penjelasan yang cukup rinci tentang barang tersangka dalam rangka untuk membuat mereka
mudah dikenali oleh Bea Cukai, termasuk sampel dari artikel melanggar (s), foto atau rupa
lainnya;
• Negara atau negara asal barang tersangka atau negara atau negara-negara pembuatan
barang yang diduga melanggar;
• Nama dan alamat bisnis utama dari setiap orang atau badan usaha asing yang terlibat dalam
pembuatan dan / atau distribusi barang tersangka;
• Modus transportasi dan identitas dari transporter (s) barang yang diduga melanggar, dan
• Kantor Bea Cukai di mana diantisipasi bahwa artikel tersangka akan disajikan kepada Bea
Cukai. [FN121]
Karena unsur-unsur data rekomendasi WCO, beberapa Anggota WTO mengadopsi elemen
data Amerika ini sebagai persyaratan untuk aplikasi meminta tindakan perbatasan.[FN122]
Hasilnya adalah bahwa pemilik HKI berhadapan dengan suatu proses yang mencakup
hambatan dapat diatasi.Bagaimana pemilik HKI mendapatkan informasi yang
tercantum? Dalam banyak kasus, pemilik HKI akan mampu memenuhi persyaratan aplikasi
tanpa terlebih dahulu terlibat dalam kegiatan yang lebih sesuai untuk penyelidikan kriminal yang
menyamar, yang di beberapa negara mungkin ilegal.[FN123]
Setelah menyadari bahwa Negara Anggota telah mengadopsi rekomendasi WCO sebagai
bagian dari prosedur formal, AS-Chili FTA berusaha untuk menggabungkan bahasa untuk
menghilangkan atau mengklarifikasi teks TRIPS. [FN124] Hasilnya adalah bahwa informasi
yang diperlukan dari pemilik perbatasan penegakan HKI meminta "tidak akan masuk akal
menghalangi jalan lain untuk prosedur ini." [FN125] Teks FTA baru menunjukkan bahwa daftar
WCO dari elemen data yang direkomendasikan adalah tidak masuk akal dan tidak harus
diharapkan dari pemilik HKI berharap untuk menggunakan langkah-langkah perbatasan sebagai
bagian dari program penegakan hukum secara keseluruhan.
Ketentuan perbatasan penegakan mempertahankan ex officio diperlukan otoritas penegak
ditemukan di AS-Yordania awal FTA, tetapi diperluas ini dengan meminta otoritas perbatasan
66 * penegakan hukum untuk memiliki kewenangan hukum untuk menjalankan kekuasaan ini
berkenaan dengan barang yang diduga melanggar apakah mereka diimpor, ditakdirkan untuk
ekspor, atau bergerak melalui negara transit. [FN126] Dengan demikian, ini adalah TRIPS
utama + ketentuan sebagaimana subyek ekspor dan barang dalam transit untuk mengukur
perbatasan sedangkan persyaratan minimum TRIPS adalah untuk impor hanya tunduk kepada
penegakan perbatasan berdasarkan aplikasi yang mendasarinya. [FN127]
Ketentuan penegakan pidana mempertahankan persyaratan AS-Yordania FTA bahwa pihak
berwenang penegak hukum memiliki otoritas ex officio untuk memulai investigasi kriminal dan
penuntutan, yaitu, tanpa keluhan resmi yang diajukan oleh pemilik HKI. [FN128] Selain itu
berkaitan dengan penegakan pidana, masing-masing Pihak harus memastikan bahwa
• pelanggaran disengaja dari hak cipta dan hak terkait untuk keuntungan komersial atau
keuntungan finansial tunduk pada prosedur dan sanksi kriminal;
• Hak Cipta atau hak terkait pembajakan pada skala komersial termasuk reproduksi melanggar
sengaja atau distribusi, termasuk melalui sarana elektronik, salinan dengan nilai moneter yang
signifikan agregat, dihitung berdasarkan nilai eceran sah dari barang dilanggar;
• remedies termasuk hukuman penjara dan / atau denda moneter yang cukup untuk
memberikan jera untuk pelanggaran masa depan;
• otoritas Yudisial memiliki wewenang untuk memerintahkan penyitaan barang palsu dan
bajakan dicurigai, aset secara hukum dapat ditelusuri ke aktivitas pelanggaran, dokumen dan
bahan terkait, dan mengimplementasikan yang merupakan bukti dari pelanggaran;
• Item yang tunduk pada kejang sesuai dengan urutan pencarian tidak perlu diidentifikasi secara
individu asalkan mereka jatuh dengan dalam kategori umum yang ditentukan dalam urutan, dan
• otoritas Yudisial memiliki wewenang untuk memerintahkan penyitaan atas aset-aset secara
hukum dapat ditelusuri ke aktivitas pelanggaran dan penghancuran semua barang palsu dan
bajakan. [FN129]
Prosedur kriminal dan obat telah diperluas untuk meminta bahwa pengadilan memiliki
wewenang lebih dan bahwa prosedur kriminal dan obat memperpanjang untuk mencakup aset
lain yang dapat terbukti menjadi haram keuntungan.[FN130] Selain itu, FTA mengurangi beban
pada pemilik HKI pada melakukan tindakan penegakan hukum dan menyita ribuan item karena
teks FTA menyatakan bahwa pemilik HKI tidak perlu mengidentifikasi setiap individu item disita,
namun memungkinkan untuk penyitaan barang yang umumnya berada dalam kategori yang
ditetapkan dalam urutan. [FN131]
Ketentuan pidana juga mengakui perkembangan internet sebagai alat yang digunakan oleh
pelanggar dengan referensi untuk menyalin dan distribusi oleh elektronik * 67 berarti.[FN132]
Pada saat negosiasi TRIPS, masalah perilaku internet pidana berdasarkan itu tidak menjadi
masalah dan, karenanya, tidak ditangani. [FN133]
AS-Chili FTA, mirip dengan FTA berikutnya dengan Amerika Tengah bahwa Kantor Perwakilan
Perdagangan Amerika Serikat yang ditandatangani pada bulan Agustus 2004, memberikan
pendekatan yang lebih agresif untuk penegakan HKI dan membutuhkan mitra dagang AS
secara aktif melakukan kegiatan penegakan meningkat . [FN134]

C. AS-Korea Selatan FTA ("KORUS")

KORUS dibangun pada FTA sebelumnya dan merupakan salah satu bab HKI terbaru dalam
FTA. [FN135] Meskipun ketentuan dasar tampaknya sama, itu, sekali lagi, layak menyebutkan
bahwa FTA melakukan perubahan dan perubahan terjadi karena posisi negosiasi bervariasi
bahwa pemerintah yang berbeda memiliki sehubungan dengan isu-isu spesifik.
Dalam ketentuan penegakan sipil, KORUS tampaknya lebih luas dalam lingkup tentang biaya
pengadilan, biaya dan biaya pengacara. [FN136] Sementara AS-Chili FTA menetapkan bahwa
kekuasaan kehakiman harus memiliki wewenang untuk memerintahkan pembayaran biaya atau
biaya dan biaya pengacara yang wajar kepada pemegang hak yang berlaku dalam suatu
tindakan pelanggaran yang melibatkan hak cipta, hak terkait atau kasus merek dagang
pemalsuan, [FN137 ] KORUS memperluas ini dengan menyatakan bahwa pemilik paten yang
berlaku juga harus menerima penggantian biaya atau biaya. [FN138] KORUS tidak
menginstruksikan bahwa kekuasaan kehakiman harus memiliki kewenangan untuk
memerintahkan pembayaran biaya pengacara yang wajar untuk pemilik paten menang dalam
kasus pelanggaran perdata jika ada keadaan luar biasa. [FN139] Namun, satu harus diingat
bahwa pengadilan yang memiliki otoritas seperti itu tidak diperlukan untuk latihan itu. [FN140]
Langkah-langkah perbatasan ketentuan juga ditingkatkan.Sedangkan TRIPS dan sebagian
besar FTA sebelumnya memerlukan tindakan perbatasan untuk perlindungan terhadap hak
cipta barang bajakan dan barang dagang palsu, KORUS perbatasan membutuhkan langkah-
langkah untuk melindungi terhadap tanda membingungkan mirip, sehingga memperluas lingkup
perlindungan bagi pemilik merek dagang. [FN141] Selain itu, perjanjian tersebut membuat jelas
bahwa aplikasi yang * 68 diterima berlaku untuk semua titik masuk ke wilayahnya, yaitu,
memiliki efek nasional. [FN142]
Prosedur kriminal dan obat-obatan juga lebih luas dalam lingkup. KORUS mewajibkan kedua
pemerintah untuk menerapkan prosedur dan sanksi kriminal pemalsuan yang disengaja dan
bahkan tidak ada pembajakan jika ada mengetahui perdagangan label palsu atau terlarang dan
dokumentasi palsu atau kemasan. [FN143] hukuman Pidana juga harus tersedia untuk
diterapkan "terhadap orang yang, tanpa izin, dengan sengaja menggunakan atau mencoba
menggunakan perangkat rekaman audiovisual untuk mengirimkan atau membuat salinan dari
film atau pekerjaan audiovisual lainnya dari kinerja film atau bekerja audiovisual lainnya di
fasilitas film pameran publik. " [FN144]
Suatu ketentuan panjang termasuk mengenai kewajiban penyedia layanan internet, [FN145]
yang dibangun di atas ketentuan yang juga termasuk di AS-Chili FTA. [FN146] Karena
perkembangan yang berkaitan dengan pelanggaran hak cipta di internet terjadi di pos-TRIPS
tahun, ketentuan-ketentuan yang luas upaya untuk memberikan pemilik hak cipta untuk
melindungi konten, tetapi untuk menyeimbangkan perlindungan dengan memasukkan beberapa
keterbatasan pada kewajiban bagi penyedia layanan. [FN147]
Tantangan dari internet yang berkaitan dengan pelanggaran online juga mendorong
dimasukkannya surat sebagai bagian dari komitmen penegakan HKI. The 30 Juni 2007 surat
kepada Perwakilan Dagang AS mewajibkan Korea Selatan untuk mengambil tindakan
penegakan hukum pidana untuk menutup situs internet yang memungkinkan download tidak
sah karya cipta dan upaya peningkatan untuk menutup peer-to-peer.[FN148]
KORUS terus membangun FTA sebelum dan mencakup berbagai ketentuan yang memberikan
untuk penegakan HKI kuat. Dalam laporan April 2007 kepada pemerintahan Bush dan Kongres
AS, Komite Industri-Perdagangan Penasehat untuk Kekayaan Intelektual menyatakan bahwa
ketentuan KORUS kekayaan intelektual sangat mendukung bab HKI dalam perjanjian. [FN149]

IV. FTA: BANTUAN TEKNIS - PERMINTAAN TINGGI, SUMBER DAYA TERBATAS

"Keberhasilan" dari FTA disimpulkan oleh Amerika Serikat adalah bahwa standar penegakan HAKI yang lebih tinggi
telah menjadi norma. Ada klarifikasi ketentuan TRIPS dan perluasan ruang lingkup perlindungan untuk mengatasi
perkembangan dalam periode pasca-TRIPS. [FN150]
* 69 Tingkat tinggi penegakan HKI yang diperlukan disertai dengan bantuan yang sama tantangan teknis yang ada
pada waktu itu TRIPS disetujui dan diberlakukan. [FN151] Tantangan ekstrim menyediakan bantuan yang memadai
muncul dari beberapa realitas yang tak terucapkan.
Pertama, ketika seseorang melihat pada FTA disimpulkan oleh AS atau FTA bilateral dan EPA menyimpulkan antara
pemerintah lainnya, [FN152] ada kewajiban penegakan HKI yang dikenakan pada mitra dagang yang telah gagal
untuk melaksanakan kewajibannya secara efektif TRIPS mereka dan sekarang diharapkan untuk memenuhi TRIPS +
standar?
Kedua, jika ada bantuan teknis tidak memadai untuk membantu negara berkembang dan negara kurang berkembang
untuk memenuhi kewajiban TRIPs mereka selama periode transisi TRIPS, bagaimana masa transisi tambahan di
FTA / EPA negara membantu mencapai tingkat penegakan TRIPS + ada peningkatan sumber daya bantuan teknis?
Ketiga, apa komitmen sumber daya manusia dan moneter sedang dibuat eksplisit oleh pemerintah / industri yang
mencari standar penegakan yang lebih tinggi sehingga sengketa atas kewajiban masa HKI dapat dihindari?
Akhirnya, dengan mempertimbangkan kondisi saat ini penegakan HKI di negara berkembang (belum memberikan
tingkat efektif penegakan TRIPS) dan TRIPS baru + standar yang diperlukan oleh FTA atau EPA, bagaimana
memperlebar jurang yang harus dijembatani meningkatkan penegakan HAKI?
Pada dasarnya, apa yang telah terjadi adalah upaya sukses dengan berbagai industri untuk mendapatkan beberapa
pemerintah untuk menegosiasikan standar yang tinggi penegakan HKI. Isu bantuan teknis adalah masalah nyata
yang belum memuaskan dihadapi. Untuk beberapa pemerintah yang praktis tidak ada sistem HKI nasional
penegakan di tempat, mereka telah sepakat untuk TRIPs + rezim penegakan yang rumit dan membutuhkan sumber
daya yang signifikan. [FN153]
Seperti digambarkan oleh beberapa contoh di atas, sistem penegakan sipil memiliki unsur-unsur tambahan yang
ditambahkan dalam rangka untuk menyediakan mekanisme penegakan yang lebih baik sipil bagi pemilik
HKI. [FN154] Unsur-unsur tambahan yang memaksakan tugas meningkat pada sistem pengadilan negara
tersebut. [FN155] Selain itu, perlindungan diperluas untuk berbagai bentuk HKI berarti bahwa akan ada tantangan
hukum yang lebih rumit sebelum pengadilan, yang membutuhkan peningkatan pelatihan untuk para hakim mengenai
berbagai masalah HKI kompleks sehingga * 70 bahwa pengadilan benar dapat mempertimbangkan berbagai isu dan
masalah beralasan keputusan.
Untuk sistem peradilan yang memerlukan hakim untuk mengadili kasus di bidang hukum banyak, daerah HKI telah
tumbuh semakin rumit karena internet dan bidang ilmiah. [FN156] Tekanan pada lembaga peradilan akan
membutuhkan pelatihan konstan di bidang teknis karena masalah teknis yang timbul semakin dalam kasus-kasus
HKI. Jadi, bahkan di negara-negara yang memiliki pusat pelatihan yudisial, mereka memerlukan peningkatan konstan
dalam konten pendidikan dan pelatihan. Pertanyaannya adalah apakah ada sumber daya yang cukup untuk hal ini
terjadi dan sejauh mana negara-negara maju telah berkomitmen untuk program berkelanjutan bantuan sementara
peradilan suatu negara bekerja untuk mencapai tingkat minimum kompetensi dalam HKI.
Beralih ke penegak berwenang, polisi dan jaksa dapat mengambil pengalaman kriminal mereka investigasi dan
kejaksaan dan menerapkannya pada kasus-kasus HKI kriminal, tapi mereka masih akan perlu memahami isu-isu HKI
mendasar dan apa yang merupakan tindak pidana. [FN157] Tidak seperti "tradisional" kejahatan seperti penyerangan
dengan senjata, perampokan bank, dan kejahatan lain seperti, kejahatan HKI mungkin tidak jelas diberikan jenis
perilaku yang merupakan tindak pidana. Oleh karena itu, jaksa dan polisi akan membutuhkan pelatihan untuk
memahami perilaku yang naik ke tingkat kejahatan. Selain itu, perbaikan konstan dalam teknologi telah menunjukkan
adaptasi dari pelanggaran HKI untuk menggunakan teknologi baru untuk melakukan kejahatan HKI, yang berarti
bahwa program bantuan teknis harus komitmen jangka panjang yang akan membutuhkan dana yang
signifikan.[FN158] Hal ini penting untuk mengingatkan masyarakat internasional bahwa standar internasional
mewajibkan penegakan pidana segala bentuk HKI terjadi untuk pertama kalinya dalam TRIPs, yang masih
merupakan perkembangan baru. [FN159]
Mengingat perkembangan agak baru tentang kriminalisasi HKI terkait melakukan, seharusnya tidak mengejutkan
bahwa banyak negara berkembang memiliki masalah, pertama, dalam menciptakan kejahatan baru HKI, dan kedua,
memasukkan ke * 71 praktek penegakan pidana kegiatan yang harus dilakukan oleh polisi, jaksa dan
pengadilan. [FN160] Menambah tantangan dasar untuk menciptakan sistem HKI penegakan pidana adalah
kenyataan bahwa tidak ada on-the-tanah permanen tim bantuan teknis yang tinggal dengan tim kriminal setiap
negara penegak untuk waktu yang lama, misalnya, enam sampai dua belas bulan.
Ruang lingkup diperluas penegakan perbatasan langkah-langkah untuk memasukkan ekspor dan barang dalam
transit juga akan menambah kebutuhan bantuan teknis. [FN161] Lebih penting lagi, ekspansi membutuhkan tingkat
peningkatan kerjasama pemerintah-industri agar otoritas penegak perbatasan untuk mempelajari lebih lanjut tentang
HKI dan memelihara informasi tentang cara untuk mendeteksi barang-barang tersangka. [FN162] Tanggung jawab
yang meningkat di perbatasan menyoroti perlunya sistem internal sehingga kantor pabean dapat berkomunikasi
melalui penyebaran informasi mengenai HKI yang spesifik. Jadi, tidak hanya perbatasan penegak membutuhkan
pelatihan HKI dasar tentang berbagai jenis HKI, tetapi juga tentang cara-cara untuk mengembangkan dan
memelihara database HKI serta database yang meliputi informasi mengenai importir, pengirim, dan lainnya
"orang "yang ditemukan terlibat dalam impor dan ekspor barang hasil pelanggaran. [FN163]
Pada dasarnya, FTA telah mengangkat bar penegakan yang berhubungan dengan penegakan perdata, pidana dan
perbatasan. [FN164] Seiring dengan peningkatan tingkat penegakan hukum, ada kemungkinan menjadi harapan oleh
pemilik HKI bahwa mereka akan menerima tingkat tinggi penegakan sebagai FTA berniat. Sementara masyarakat
HKI mungkin memiliki kesabaran memiliki beberapa sebagai negara berkembang bekerja untuk meningkatkan sistem
penegakannya, melewati mengajarkan bahwa kesabaran adalah terbatas. Dengan demikian, pertanyaan yang harus
di pusat adalah apakah pemerintah dan HKI industri yang mengharapkan untuk menerima manfaat dari peningkatan
tingkat penegakan dapat memberikan bantuan teknis yang diperlukan yang akan membantu pemerintah
mengembangkan memenuhi janji yang dibuat.
Dalam hal tumpul, kita harus mempertanyakan mengapa negara-negara berkembang diharapkan untuk memenuhi
kewajiban TRIPs + mereka, bahkan dengan keuntungan periode transisi, ketika mereka belum memberikan tingkat
penegakan TRIPs pada saat berkomitmen untuk TRIPS +. Ada sedikit untuk menunjukkan bahwa jenis atau bentuk
bantuan teknis yang akan diberikan adalah berbeda dari praktek masa lalu dan, melihat ke belakang, itu adalah *
jelas 72 bahwa sumber daya yang tersedia tidak cukup diberi keluhan terus tingginya tingkat pelanggaran
HKI . [FN165]
V. LUAR FTA - ACTA
Pada bulan Oktober 2007, Perwakilan Perdagangan AS mengumumkan bahwa perundingan tentang Perjanjian
Perdagangan Anti-Pemalsuan ("ACTA") akan dimulai dan mencakup Amerika Serikat, Uni Eropa, Jepang, Kanada,
Korea Selatan, Meksiko, Selandia Baru dan Swiss. [FN166] Mengapa sebuah ACTA? Kantor Perwakilan
Perdagangan Amerika Serikat dibuat jelas dalam mengumumkan peluncuran inisiatif ACTA bahwa hal itu tidak akan
melibatkan perubahan pada TRIPs. [FN167] "Melainkan, tujuannya adalah untuk menetapkan patokan baru yang
lebih tinggi untuk penegakan bahwa negara-negara dapat bergabung secara sukarela." [FN168] "Negosiasi
merupakan upaya koperasi oleh pemerintah yang terlibat, dan tidak akan dilakukan sebagai bagian dari organisasi
internasional." [FN169]
Pemerintah Selandia Baru menyediakan beberapa alasan untuk mengejar ACTA:
Perkembangan pelanggaran hak kekayaan intelektual ("HKI") khususnya dalam konteks pemalsuan dan pembajakan
merupakan ancaman yang terus meningkat untuk pengembangan berkelanjutan ekonomi dunia. Konsekuensi dari
pelanggaran HKI tersebut meliputi (1) merampas bisnis yang sah dan pekerja pendapatan mereka, (2) inovasi
menghambat dan kreativitas; (3) mengancam kesehatan konsumen dan keamanan; (4) menyediakan sumber yang
mudah pendapatan untuk kejahatan terorganisir, dan (5) hilangnya pendapatan pajak. [FN170]
Pemerintah Selandia Baru menambahkan bahwa tujuan ACTA adalah untuk:
Menetapkan, antara bangsa-bangsa berkomitmen untuk perlindungan IPR yang kuat, standar umum untuk
penegakan HKI untuk memerangi pelanggaran global HKI khususnya dalam konteks pemalsuan dan pembajakan
yang membahas tantangan hari ini, dalam hal kerjasama internasional meningkat, memperkuat kerangka praktek-
praktek yang berkontribusi terhadap efektif * 73 penegakan HKI, dan penguatan penegakan HKI yang relevan
tindakan sendiri. [FN171]
Jumlah negara yang berpartisipasi dalam diskusi telah meningkat sejak pengumuman awal Oktober 2007 dan pada
bulan Agustus 2008 pemerintah tambahan yang termasuk Australia, Maroko dan Singapura. [FN172] Meskipun
rincian sebenarnya dari 2.008 pertemuan Juli itu tidak diungkapkan, Kantor Perwakilan Dagang AS itu tidak
memberikan ringkasan menunjukkan bahwa peserta pertemuan mendiskusikan obat sipil untuk pelanggaran hak
kekayaan intelektual, termasuk ketersediaan langkah awal, pelestarian bukti, kerusakan, biaya hukum, dan
biaya. [FN173] Mereka juga melanjutkan pembicaraan mereka sebelumnya penegakan perbatasan.[FN174]
Dari perspektif Amerika Serikat, ia memiliki FTA dengan Australia, Maroko dan Singapura. [FN175] Tiga FTA
mencakup ketentuan-ketentuan signifikan HKI, banyak yang serupa dengan yang dibahas di atas. Amerika Serikat
juga Pihak Perjanjian Perdagangan Amerika Utara Gratis (NAFTA) dengan Kanada dan Meksiko, [FN176] tetapi
ketentuan penegakan HKI NAFTA melacak erat dengan TRIPS. [FN177]
Kanada dan Meksiko telah mendapat kecaman industri yang kuat tentang mereka rezim HKI penegakan
hukum. Pada bulan Februari 2008, Aliansi Kekayaan Intelektual Internasional ("IIPA"), dalam penyerahan 301
Khusus untuk Kantor Perwakilan Perdagangan Amerika Serikat, merekomendasikan bahwa Kanada ditunjuk sebagai
negara Perhiasan Daftar Prioritas karena Kanada telah mengambil langkah yang berarti untuk memodernisasi
nya hukum hak cipta, memiliki sistem penegakan perbatasan tidak efektif dan sumber daya penegakan hukum tidak
cukup. [FN178] Mengenai Meksiko, IIPA menyatakan bahwa pada tingkat pembajakan hak cipta tingkat makro tetap
tinggi dan tidak ada efek jera dalam membatasi kejahatan ekonomi meresap pembajakan. [FN179]
Maju dalam negosiasi, maka akan menarik untuk memantau perkembangan. Mengingat fokus ACTA pada
penegakan HKI, laporan tahunan USTR itu, * 74 yaitu, Khusus 301, [FN180] adalah wawasan untuk beberapa
tantangan yang mungkin dihadapi pemerintah berpartisipasi dalam negosiasi. Misalnya, USTR telah melaporkan
bahwa Meksiko harus meningkatkan upaya penegakan perbatasan dan lulus undang-undang yang memberdayakan
penegak hukum dan kepabeanan untuk mengambil tindakan ex officio penegakan hukum. [FN181] Tentang Kanada,
USTR menyatakan bahwa Kanada harus meningkatkan sistem penegakan untuk memungkinkan pihak berwenang
untuk mengambil tindakan efektif terhadap perdagangan produk-produk palsu dan bajakan serta mengekang volume
barang hasil pelanggaran yang kapalkan dan transit Kanada, mengidentifikasi perbatasan lemahpenegakan dan
kebutuhan untuk perundang-undangan yang lebih kuat untuk memberdayakan kebiasaan. [FN182]
Mengingat laporan tahunan USTR, yang berbasis, sebagian, pada pengalaman pemilik HKI melakukan bisnis di
negara-negara asing dan, karenanya, mencerminkan apa hambatan yang ada, dapat meningkatkan sistem
penegakan diberikan dalam waktu satu tahun atau dua tahun setelah kesepakatan resmi tercapai? Mengingat fakta
bahwa kewajiban TRIPS penegakan mulai berlaku di beberapa negara-negara ini pada tanggal 1 Januari 1996,
[FN183] dan masih ada masalah mendasar dalam sistem penegakan antara negara-negara ACTA negosiasi, pemilik
HKI akan lebih bijaksana untuk marah harapan mereka.
Selain itu, pertanyaan perlu diajukan, seberapa jauh pemerintah bersedia untuk pergi untuk memperkuat ketentuan
pidana HKI.Baru-baru ini Mei 2008, Komisaris Komisi Eropa untuk Pasar Internal mengesampingkan kemungkinan
undang-undang baru untuk memerangi pembajakan. [FN184]
Dengan demikian, diskusi ACTA mungkin melibatkan negosiasi lebih dari pihak-pihak yang diharapkan pada
awal. Mengingat ketentuan penegakan HKI ditemukan dalam menyimpulkan FTA antara Amerika Serikat dan mitra
dagang, dan terutama FTA baru-baru ini menyimpulkan, pertanyaannya adalah: Apakah ACTA akan berisi teks
penegakan agresif yang mencerminkan FTA AS atau sesuatu yang kurang?
Akhirnya, penting untuk diingatkan bahwa ACTA adalah sebuah inisiatif yang memungkinkan pemerintah untuk
secara sukarela berkomitmen untuk TRIPs apapun + standar yang disepakati.[FN185] Hal ini menimbulkan
pertanyaan mengenai bantuan teknis yang lama dan untuk apa gelar yang negara-negara maju melakukan sumber
daya untuk membantu negara-negara berkembang yang secara sukarela tunduk kepada penegakan standar
baru. Jika ACTA harus bermakna dan ramah kepada negara-negara berkembang (atau negara-negara maju yang
mengalami masalah implementasi) yang secara sukarela setuju untuk standar baru dan lebih tinggi, harus ada
program bantuan yang lebih baik dikembangkan dari apa yang telah tersedia di masa lalu.
Negara-negara berkembang yang ingin menjadi bagian dari ACTA dan berkomitmen untuk penegakan standar yang
lebih tinggi mungkin membutuhkan bantuan yang signifikan dalam semua aspek penegakan * 75. [FN186] Jadi,
sementara ACTA mungkin terlihat mengundang untuk beberapa negara berkembang untuk menjadi bagian dari
upaya ini, kekurangan bantuan teknis dari masa lalu berkaitan dengan bantuan dalam membantu negara-negara
berkembang bersedia harus dihindari oleh komitmen dimuka untuk menyediakan sumber daya lebih dari yang
telah tersedia di masa lalu. Ada kebutuhan untuk tim pelatihan terdiri dari orang-orang dengan berbagai bidang
keahlian yang mampu berada di tanah di negara-negara untuk waktu yang lama dalam rangka untuk membantu
dalam pelaksanaan sehari-hari kegiatan penegakan hukum. [FN187]
Seperti biasa, menerjemahkan kata-kata dalam perjanjian ke dalam tindakan adalah tugas berat. Dua belas tahun
terakhir pengalaman dengan TRIPS harus menjadi pengingat konstan kesulitan ini dan konsekuensi dari kegagalan
untuk mencurahkan sumber daya untuk bantuan.

VI. Pemalsuan-PEMBAJAKAN: PELATIHAN / PENDIDIKAN / KESADARAN DILEMA

Satu referensi untuk keadaan saat ini pemalsuan global dan pembajakan adalah bahwa hal itu
di luar kendali. [FN188] Dalam laporan tahunan, Kantor Perwakilan Dagang AS melaporkan
bahwa pertumbuhan berkelanjutan dalam pencurian IPR dan perdagangan palsu dan bahan
bajakan mengancam ekonomi inovatif dan kreatif di seluruh dunia. [FN189] Akibatnya,
penegakan pidana dan perbatasan lebih kuat dan efektif diperlukan untuk menghentikan
pembuatan, impor, ekspor, transit, dan distribusi bajak laut dan barang palsu. [FN190] Kantor
Menteri Perdagangan Australia menunjukkan bahwa Australia akan bergabung dengan
negosiasi ACTA karena dampak negatif dari perdagangan palsu dan bajak laut yang luas,
menciptakan biaya yang signifikan bagi pemerintah, konsumen dan bisnis. [FN191]
Dari perspektif industri, International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") memiliki:
[R] ecommended bahwa G8 [FN192] menteri komitmen sumber daya dan arah politik yang
diperlukan untuk Proses Heiligendamm untuk bekerja secara efektif terhadap pencurian
kekayaan intelektual dan memfasilitasi inovasi dan pembangunan ekonomi. Proses
Heiligendamm didirikan di ...[Tahun 2007] * 76 G8 di Jerman untuk mengatasi masalah
pemalsuan produk dan pembajakan hak cipta. "[FN193]
ICC telah menyatakan bahwa "Sementara kami senang bahwa perlindungan hak kekayaan
intelektual akan diajukan di Jepang, kami hanya tidak melihat perhatian politik dijamin oleh
masalah ini skala global." [FN194]
Jumlah program pelatihan penegakan HKI yang disampaikan secara global sangat sulit, jika
tidak mustahil, untuk memantau karena ada banyak dan mereka disediakan oleh pemerintah
yang berbeda-beda, organisasi antar pemerintah, dan kelompok industri. [FN195] Salah satu
upaya untuk menangkap kegiatan ini adalah Departemen Luar Negeri AS HKI basis data
pelatihan. [FN196] Untuk contoh Kegiatan Uni Eropa, program-program bantuan yang berkaitan
HKI termasuk dalam daftar yang mengidentifikasi program-program di bawah EUASEAN
Bantuan Teknis ECAP II. [FN197] Dunia Pabean Organisasi membuat referensi singkat upaya
dalam menjelaskan programnya HKI. [FN198] keterlibatan Interpol dimulai pada 2000 dan telah
terus meningkat aktivitasnya mengenai usaha-usaha pelatihan dan lainnya. [FN199]
Umumnya, telah ada penekanan besar pada pelatihan penegakan HKI sejak penciptaan
WTO. Untuk sebagian besar, tampaknya masuk akal untuk fokus pada pelatihan penegakan
HKI karena persyaratan untuk menciptakan sistem nasional penegakan HKI yang memenuhi
unsur-unsur penegakan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam TRIPS.
Dalam pandangan beberapa pernyataan yang dibuat hari ini oleh pemerintah, perwakilan
industri, dan organisasi-organisasi antar pemerintah bahwa masalah kejahatan HKI terus
tumbuh, akan terlihat untuk menyarankan bahwa penegakan HKI strategi pelatihan yang
digunakan sejak tahun 1995 perlu ditinjau kembali. Pada saat ketentuan-ketentuan TRIPS
penegak tidak efektif diterapkan oleh banyak pemerintah, [FN200] ketika beberapa pemerintah
berkomitmen untuk TRIPs + standar, meskipun ketidakmampuan mereka untuk memberikan
penegakan TRIPs tingkat, [FN201] dan ACTA sedang dinegosiasikan, mengapa harus *
77 pemilik HKI berharap bahwa akan ada perbaikan yang signifikan dalam hasil penegakan
HKI?
Sejak tahun 1995, telah terjadi gelombang tanpa akhir lokakarya, seminar dan konferensi
menangani penegakan HKI di seluruh dunia, tetapi ada juga paduan suara yang konstan
keluhan dari industri HKI dan pemilik yang penegakan HKI tidak memadai. [FN202] Beberapa
penjelasan yang mungkin untuk hal ini adalah:
1. mereka memberikan pelatihan mungkin tidak efektif;
a. Kurangnya cukup pengalaman / keahlian, dan
b. Memanfaatkan format pelatihan yang tidak efektif;
2. isi dari pelatihan ini adalah kurang atau tidak memadai;
3. orang yang menghadiri bukan "hak" orang untuk menerima pelatihan:
4. orang yang menghadiri tidak memiliki kepentingan dalam penegakan HKI, dan
5. waktu yang cukup berkomitmen untuk kekurangan negara tertentu.
Ada banyak alasan potensial untuk penegakan sistem HKI tidak efektif, termasuk isu-isu seperti
kurangnya kemauan politik atau korupsi. [FN203] Namun demikian, harus ada penilaian serius
yang dibuat untuk mempertimbangkan perubahan mendasar apa yang mungkin diperlukan
untuk membuat pelatihan HKI dan pendidikan lebih efektif. Laporan yang dikeluarkan oleh
pemerintah, perwakilan industri, dan lain-lain akan menunjukkan bahwa, pada dasarnya,
sesuatu yang perlu diubah karena pelatihan yang telah diberikan tidak memiliki efek yang
diinginkan.
Sementara penegakan HKI adalah penting, bagaimana program pelatihan ditunjukkan dan
menunjukkan hubungan antara penegakan HKI dan pembangunan ekonomi di negara
berkembang dan kurang berkembang? Atau, apakah ada upaya serius dan berkelanjutan untuk
memberikan pelatihan HKI yang menekankan peran penting pengakuan HKI dan gunakan
untuk menghasilkan pendapatan bisnis dan, dengan demikian, memberikan kontribusi kepada
pemerintah daerah dan ekonomi? Apakah gagasan penegakan HKI sebagai alat untuk
pembangunan ekonomi telah hanya menyatakan, tetapi tidak ditampilkan dan menunjukkan?
Apakah HKI masyarakat atas-menekankan penegakan hukum untuk merugikan
sendiri? Apakah komunitas HKI gagal untuk memproyeksikan citra ingin menjadi bermanfaat
bagi semua penerima manfaat potensial, bukan hanya beberapa industri dari negara maju
pilih? Setelah belasan tahun, memiliki komunitas HKI tercemar itu sendiri dengan penekanan
yang berlebihan yang dirasakan pada penegakan dan kurangnya program yang menunjukkan
aspek yang lebih positif HKI?
Isu lain yang harus diperhatikan adalah target dari semua ini pelatihan penegakan
HKI. Meskipun jelas bahwa pelatihan penegakan HKI diperlukan untuk polisi, * 78 jaksa, hakim,
petugas bea cukai, dan petugas lembaga lain pemerintah yang terlibat dalam penegakan HKI,
fokus pada instansi pemerintah dan pejabat menghadap dan mengabaikan suatu negara sektor
HKI menghasilkan. [FN204] Untuk menghasilkan penghormatan dan penghargaan yang lebih
besar untuk perlindungan dan penegakan HKI, mungkin perlu untuk menghabiskan banyak
waktu dengan perguruan tinggi-usia mahasiswa, kelompok bisnis, dan lain-lain dari sektor
swasta dalam rangka untuk menunjukkan bagaimana meresap HKI dapat di hampir setiap
usaha yang dikejar dan, dengan demikian, hubungan antara HKI penciptaan, perlu
mempertimbangkan perlindungan dan bagaimana penegakan hukum memberikan kontribusi
untuk menghasilkan peningkatan pendapatan dalam jangka panjang.
Penegakan HKI pelatihan dan pendidikan yang disediakan dalam ruang hampa, tanpa
menunjukkan perannya dalam sistem HKI / komersial / ekonomi, hilang pada mereka yang tidak
dapat menghargai nilai potensinya. Memang, pemerintah HKI penegak mungkin tidak pernah
menghargai hubungan karena mereka tidak pernah atau tidak pernah akan pencipta dan
pengusaha yang akan memiliki manfaat langsung dari HKI.

KESIMPULAN
Penegakan HKI masalah dan bagaimana hal itu harus dikejar di masa depan perlu dikaji
ulang. Meskipun ACTA berusaha untuk meningkatkan standar minimum penegakan HKI,
[FN205] itu adalah sebuah inisiatif yang, umumnya, yang melibatkan negara-negara
maju. [FN206] Jika TRIPS WTO 2006 pertemuan Dewan merupakan indikator bahwa ada
kesenjangan antara negara maju dan berkembang tentang masalah ini, maka tampak bahwa
pendekatan baru untuk masalah penegakan HKI perlu ditambahkan dengan pelatihan yang ada
dan upaya pendidikan.[FN207]
* 79 Ketika kita bergerak menuju hampir satu dekade dan setengah dari pelatihan penegakan
hukum HKI yang belum mencapai efek yang diinginkan, harus jelas bahwa penegakan HKI
kebutuhan pendekatan baru dan segar. Ini bukan untuk mengatakan bahwa konten yang ada
harus dihilangkan, tetapi mungkin sudah saatnya untuk tekan tombol "refresh" kunci sehingga
sesuatu yang baru dan berbeda dapat ditambahkan.
Ini adalah tugas yang sulit untuk mengklarifikasi ambiguitas standar yang ada dan untuk
meningkatkan tingkat minimum penegakan HAKI saat HKI program pendidikan tidak cukup
diperluas untuk mencakup penerima manfaat lokal potensial.[FN208] HKI penegakan pelatihan
dan pendidikan, yang merupakan tugas yang kompleks, perlu memiliki fleksibilitas yang cukup
dalam konten sehingga ada sesuatu yang menunjukkan bahwa link penegakan untuk bisnis dan
pembangunan ekonomi.
Akhirnya, mereka yang terlibat dalam pelatihan dan pendidikan harus mempertimbangkan
penggunaan lebih besar teknologi saat ini dalam menjangkau lebih banyak orang dan di luar
komunitas penegakan biasa. Melihat pelatihan penegakan HKI dan pendidikan dalam arti luas,
beberapa kemajuan dalam mencapai tingkat yang lebih tinggi perlindungan dan pendidikan
dapat terjadi jika lebih lokal penerima manfaat di negara berkembang dan negara maju paling
yakin untuk menjadi pendukung perlindungan dan penegakan HKI karena mereka memahami
bagaimana HKI dapat menjadi "dipraktekkan" melalui penggunaan konsep-konsep ini dalam
sehari-hari mereka kegiatan komersial. [FN209]
Jadi, sementara upaya untuk mengklarifikasi persyaratan yang ada HKI dan meningkatkan
standar merupakan tujuan yang layak, fakta bahwa pemerintah dan pemilik HKI terus melihat
situasi memburuknya merupakan indikasi dari kebutuhan untuk penilaian ulang program
pelatihan penegakan HKI. Setelah bertahun-tahun mengulang gagasan bahwa penegakan HKI
memberikan kontribusi untuk pembangunan ekonomi, mungkin sudah saatnya untuk
menyatakan kembali gagasan dalam rangka untuk fokus pada menunjukkan bahwa
penggunaan dan penerapan konsep kekayaan intelektual harus menghasilkan nilai perusahaan,
perekonomian lokal di mana ia beroperasi dan, dengan demikian, memerlukan perlindungan
dan penegakan hukum. [FN210] perlu adalah untuk menekankan bahwa HKI adalah penting
dalam dan dari dirinya sendiri.

[FNa1]. Latar belakang kekayaan intelektual Mr Pelatih mencakup pekerjaan di US Customs

Service HKI Cabang, US Patent dan Trademark Office Kantor Urusan Legislatif dan
Internasional, praktek swasta dan mantan presiden Koalisi AntiCounterfeiting Washington, DC
berbasis Internasional. Pada tahun 2005, ia mendirikan Pusat Properti Strategi global
Intelektual, PC, di Washington, DC dan telah melakukan proyek jangka pendek untuk
Departemen Luar Negeri, Bank Dunia dan organisasi dalam proyek-proyek US AID. Dia telah
mengajar sebagai profesor di American University Washington College of Law sejak tahun
2005.