Policy Studies on the Protection of the Intellectual Property Right by Border Control of Customs System

• Main Authors: Wen-Ying Wang, 王文瑛
• Other Authors: Chih-Cheng Yang
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2006
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/28774945048876662180

碩士 === 逢甲大學 === 公共政策所 === 94 === Whether it is now or future, the most crucial economic resources would be knowledge. In the commercial war of knowledge, the strength of a country depends on the protection of intellectual property right (IPR), and the advantage of having customs to execute border control policy for IPR would: it can, via protective measure, help prevention of import and export of product in violation of IPR into market, and prevent such in advance. Second, with sampling or detention by customs for release, it can help retain relevant evidence for law-suit of subsequent violation of IPR. Therefore, border control policy for IPR is worthwhile for investigation, and is a brand new and use area of application. The structure of the study will base on the international regulation of “Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)”, and attempt to learn about the compatibility of control policy and legal provisions of IPR protection at the border. Then, the theory of policy execution, conducted with top–down model, bottom–up model, and integrated model, will investigate the difficulties confronted at the border control for protection of IPR. Since it is unlikely to interpret such a complicated of border control for IPR with a single model, an integrated model is thus deduced to interpret theory idea and practice, and put forth possible counter-measures for the research problems. It is found from the results of the study that first of all it is difficult for the customs to determine if there any violation of IPR; second, the customs is now equipped with relevant resources; third, the customs find it hard to apply colossal and diversified legal provisions, and there is not any special law on “IPR protection laws by customs”; fourth, in contrast of article 51 of TRIPS, we have added border customs protection for patent rights, which can be considered of its applicability. Fifth, we should be released of pressure from article 301 from the US as we have already accommodated to the stipulation of TRIPS. Last, it is suggested that to improve aspects of implementation: first, we should set up specialized unit for IPR protection in the customs; second, we should train customs staff equipped with professional capability of IPR; third, we should reinforce investigation capability and information exchange of the customs; fourth, we should increase the flexibility dealing with goods infringed with IPR; fifth, we should educated export and import personnel not to violate IPR. In view of the entirety of IPR protection, it is suggested that we should reinforce policy in; first, we should reinforce just implementation and conduct legal implementation strictly to protect the competition order of IPR protection; second, we should help enhance the protection of IPR among the people; third, we should help set up contingent and advance warning mechanism for IPR protection; fourth, we should help enact laws systematically to make up for the legal loop-holes, and maintain favorable international competition market for IPR.