| Summary: | 自19世紀以降，各國體認以國內法律為基礎的保護方式具有侷限性，因此開始嘗試以國際條約的方式對智慧財產權進行規範，產生了巴黎公約、伯恩公約、羅馬公約等國際協定，可定位為智慧財產權保護多邊貿易架構形成的第一階段，也是第一次各國國內立法朝國際保護靠攏的現象。1967年WIPO成立使多邊貿易架構顯得較為完備，然而在WIPO之運作架構下又因為不同國家的立場分歧未能進一步修正智慧財產權公約，多邊架構發展出現瓶頸，已開發國家未因此退出多邊貿易架構，反而選擇持續完善此多邊架構。TRIPS於1995年烏拉圭回合後生效，規定了嚴格且具體的執行規範，但是多邊架構未能於TRIPS後再取得重大成果，已開發國家和開發中國家在智慧財產權利益之立場分歧使得多邊架構之發展陷入僵局。已開發國家於TRIPS後時期選擇了另一種途徑，本文舉美國FTAs貿易政策為例，發現此時出現了暫時偏離多邊架構，改以雙邊架構為政策重心的分離，惟雙邊貿易政策經本文分析並無法產生美國的預期效果。
ACTA的發展可以定位出美國目前的政策走向，改採協商複邊貿易協定的方式，希望可以循FTAs政策的途徑，企圖讓ACTA此複邊架構的成果可以擴張到多邊架構中。本文認為2010年12月公布最終版本的ACTA能否順利生效仍屬未知數，即便順利生效，依其談判成果可以推定，已無法達到所有參與談判國的預期。不論已開發國家之後的政策走向為何，我們可以發現擁有智慧財產權利益國家的最終目標仍是提升國際間智慧財產權保護水準，過程中則變動地、持續地在多邊、複邊貿易架構中，選擇性執行能達成最終目標的政策，國際智慧財產權保護貿易架構中存在著各國政策反覆於多邊、複邊架構間來回擺盪的分合現象。
關鍵字：TRIPS、反仿冒貿易協定、智慧財產權保護、TRIPS-Plus
=== Countries found out that the protection of intellectual property based only on national law was insufficient. They chosen to base on international agreement from 19 century and concluded important treaties such as Paris Convention, Berne Convention and Rome Convention. This is the first phase in the process of which the intellectual property protection under the multilateral trade framework forming. WIPO was established at 1967 and completed the multilateral trade framework a little further. But countries had different positions thus could not obtain mutual recognition on specific issues. The developed countries did not walk away from the framework; nevertheless, they worked even harder to try to get some result. TRIPS came into force at 1995 after the Uruguay Round which is the most important multilateral agreement at the present day. The multilateral trade framework was stuck after TRIPS resulting from the gap between the developed and developing countries. The former began to work in other direction. We took the U.S. bilateral trade policy of FTAs as an example and found out there is a temporary departure from the multilateral trade framework at this phase. The U.S. policy of FTAs however didn’t achieve the goal expected.
We could point out the next step of U.S. by observing the negotiation of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). U.S. took a different approach by negotiating the ACTA and hoped there will be a spillover effect from the plurilateral agreement to the multilateral framework. Negotiating parties announced the final draft of ACTA on December 3rd, 2010. After analyzing the final draft, we could make a conclusion that the result from the negotiation is not outstanding; moreover, it is not clear whether the agreement will come into force in time. No matter what kind of action will the developed countries take in the next, their final and utmost goal is always trying to protect the intellectual property and their related interest. Changing policy becomes the normal condition. This leads to the phenomenon that the intellectual property protection is continuously swaying from the multilateral side to the bilateral or plurilateral trade framework, and vice versa.
Key Words: TRIPS, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Intellectual Property Protection, TRIPS-Plus
|
|---|
