Special 301 Report

Last updated

Special 301 Report 2013
.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{}
Priority Foreign Country
Priority Watch List
Watch List
Section 306 Monitoring
Status Pending Annual Special 301 Report countries.png
Special 301 Report 2013
  Priority Foreign Country
  Priority Watch List
  Watch List
  Section 306 Monitoring
  Status Pending

The Special 301 Report is prepared annually by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) that identifies trade barriers to United States companies and products due to the intellectual property laws, such as copyright, patents and trademarks, in other countries. By April 30 of each year, the USTR must identify countries which do not provide "adequate and effective" protection of intellectual property rights or "fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property rights". [1]

Contents

The Special 301 Report is published pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  93–618, 19 U.S.C.   § 2242) as amended by Section 1303 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. [2] The Special 301 Report was first published in 1989. [3]

By statute, the annual Special 301 Report includes a list of "Priority Foreign Countries", that are judged to have inadequate intellectual property laws; these countries may be subject to sanctions. In addition, the report contains a "Priority Watch List" and a "Watch List", containing countries whose intellectual property regimes are deemed of concern.

Preparation

Special 301 Sub-Committee

The Special 301 Sub-Committee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) advises the United States Trade Representative on which countries to designate as "priority foreign countries" or to include in the watchlists. The Special 301 Sub-Committee is chaired by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and its members include the Department of Commerce, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Agriculture, the Copyright Office, the Council of Economic Advisers, and other agencies. U.S. companies provide extensive comments in the annual National Trade Estimate Report. The Special 301 Sub-Committee also takes the views of foreign governments and the views of U.S. embassies on intellectual property rights. [4]

Complaints by U.S. companies

U.S. companies and intellectual property owners, including copyrights, patents and trademarks, can submit complaints (i.e., a petition alleging that a country has violated an international agreement with the United States that adversely affects the company or industry) to the Trade Compliance Centre, which provides a template for such complaints, or the country or industry desk at the International Trade Administration (ITA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The ITA then reviews trade-related complaints with co-operation from the Office of General Counsel and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The complaint cannot be in relation to disputes between companies on intellectual property rights, but must be about instances where a country has violated an international agreement with the United States. Complaints can be made in relation to the intellectual property law of the country, judicial or administrative procedures that discriminate against the US company, and failure to enforce intellectual property laws, particularly in relation to trade in counterfeit goods, and lately online copyright infringement. Complaints do not need to reference specific international agreements or provisions that are being breached. Complaints will focus on a country's failure to protect the intellectual property rights of a US company or lack of intellectual property rights relates market access. Complaints are expected to include a description of the efforts the company has made to enforce its intellectual property rights in that country and provide estimates of economic losses resulting from the infringement of intellectual property rights in that country. [5] [6]

Most countries included in the Priority Watch List and Watch List between 1996 and 2000 were requested by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) or the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA). [7] According to Andres Guadamuz of the University of Edinburgh, the IIPA, which represents the U.S. media industry, urged the U.S. government to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and India for inclusion in the Special 301 Watchlist in early 2010 because they either mandated or suggested the use of open-source software. [8]

NGO submissions

In 2010, NGOs such as PhRMA, Oxfam, and MSF made submissions to the USTR. [9]

Designations

Priority Foreign Country

Special 301 Report 2013
Priority Foreign Country
Priority Watch List
Watch List
Section 306 Monitoring
Status Pending Annual Special 301 Report countries.png
Special 301 Report 2013
  Priority Foreign Country
  Priority Watch List
  Watch List
  Section 306 Monitoring
  Status Pending

A Priority Foreign Country is the worst classification given to "foreign countries that deny "adequate and effective" protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or "fair and equitable market access" to U.S. persons relying upon IPR protection" under the Trade Act.

On 13 March 2001, the United States Trade Representative designated Ukraine as a Priority Foreign Country citing the massive amounts of unlicensed CDs sold in Europe that originate in the Ukraine. In 2011 and 2012, no countries were classified as a Priority Foreign Country; however, Paraguay was made subject to Section 306 Monitoring. In 2013, Ukraine was redesignated as a Priority Foreign Country. In 2014, the US was in talks with the WTO to designate India as a "Priority Foreign Country" especially for the pharmaceutical sector.

Under the amended Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 the USTR must by April 30 of each year:

"identify (1) those foreign countries that (A) deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, or (B) deny fair and equitable markets access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property protection, and (2) those foreign countries identified under paragraph (1) that are determined by the Trade Representative to be priority foreign countries". [2] [10] [11]

The Act defines "priority foreign countries" as:

"those foreign countries - (A) that have the most onerous or egregious acts, policies, or practices that (i) deny adequate and effective intellectual property rights, or (ii) deny fair and equitable market access to United States persons that rely upon intellectual property protection, (B) whose acts, policies, or practices described in subparagraph (A) have the greatest adverse impact (actual or potential) on the relevant United States products, and (C) that are not (i) entering into good faith negotiations, or (ii) making significant progress in bilateral or multilateral negotiations to provide adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights". [2] [11]

The Uruguay Round Agreement Act furthermore states that countries may be identified under Special 301 "taking into account the history of intellectual property laws and practices of the foreign country, including any previous identifications" and "the history of efforts of the United States, and the response of the foreign country, to achieve adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights". It also states that compliance with the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) does not preclude a country from being identified as denying "adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights". [10] [11]

The USTR acts on the information available at the time and can identify new "priority foreign countries" on an annual basis. The Special 301 Sub-Committee conducts additional reviews throughout the year for countries that "merit additional monitoring". The Trade Act of 1974 requires that the USTR to start investigations within 30 days of a country being identified as "priority foreign country", unless the USTR concludes that such an investigation "would be detrimental to United States economic interests". Unless the "priority foreign country" is regarded as being in breach of a trade agreement, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), investigations must conclude within six months, with the possibility of a three-month extension. [11] Reasons for extension include "substantial progress in drafting or implementing legislative or administrative measures that will provide adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights" by the "priority foreign country". [11] [4] If the USTR believes that a trade agreement is being breached the USTR must conclude the investigation within 18 months, or within 30 days after the "dispute settlement procedure" has finished. If the USTR concludes that a trade agreement is being breached, "retaliation actions" may be taken under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. [4]

Priority Watch List and Watch List Countries

Two non-statutory categories have been created in addition to the statutory category of "priority foreign country", which once identified as such needs to be investigated and if found in breach with a trade agreement is subject to possible "retaliation actions" under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. "Priority Watch List" and "Watch List" countries are identified by the annual Special 301 Report. "Priority Watchlist countries" are judged by the USTR as having "serious intellectual property rights deficiencies" that require increased USTR attention. "Watch List" countries have been identified by the USTR as having "serious intellectual property rights deficiencies" but are not yet placed on the "Priority Watchlist". The USTR can move countries from one list to the other, or remove them from the lists, throughout the year. [4]

Historical designations

The International Intellectual Property Alliance keeps these statistics since 1989.

Country2005 [12] 2006 [13] 2007 [14] 2008 [15] 2009 [16] 2010 [17] 2011 [18] 2012 [19] 2013 [20] 2014 [21] 2015 [22] 2016 [23] 2017 [24] 2018 [25]
Algeria *WL*PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Argentina PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Azerbaijan WL*
Bahamas WLWL*
Barbados *WLWLWLWLWLWL
Belarus WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL**WL*
Belize WL*PWL*WL*
Bolivia WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Brazil PWLPWL*WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Brunei *WLWLWLWL*
Bulgaria WLWL**WLWLWLWLWL
Canada WLWLWLWL*PWLPWLPWLPWL*WLWLWLWLWLPWL
Chile WLWL*PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
China *PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Colombia WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLPWL
Costa Rica WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Croatia WLWL*
Czech Republic *WLWL*
Dominican Republic WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Ecuador WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL*PWL*WLWLWL
Egypt PWLPWLPWL*WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
European Union WLWL*
Finland *WLWLWLWLWLWL*
Greece *WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Guatemala WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Hungary WLWLWLWLWL*
India PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Indonesia PWLPWL*WLWL*PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Israel PWLPWLPWLPWLPWL*Pending*PWLPWL*WL*
Italy WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL*
Jamaica WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Kuwait PWL*WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL*PWLPWLPWLPWL
Kazakhstan WL*
Latvia WLWL*
Lebanon PWLPWLPWL*WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Lithuania WLWLWL*
Malaysia WLWLWLWLWLWLWL*
Mexico WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Norway WLWLWLWLWL*
Pakistan PWL*WLWL*PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL*WLWLWL
Paraguay MonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoring*WLWLWL*
Peru WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Philippines PWL*WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL*
Poland WLWLWLWLWL*
Romania WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Russia PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Saudi Arabia WLWLWLWLWL*WL
Slovakia WL*
South Korea WLWLWLWL*
Spain *WLWLWLWL*
Switzerland *WLWLWL
Taiwan WLWLWLWL*
Tajikistan WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL*WL
Thailand WLWL*PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLWL
Trinidad and Tobago *WLWLWL*
Turkey PWLPWLPWL*WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Turkmenistan WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Ukraine PFC*PWLPWL*WLWLWLWL*PWL*PFCPFC*PWLPWLPWLPWL
United Arab Emirates WL
Uruguay WL*
Uzbekistan WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL
Venezuela PWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWLPWL
Vietnam WLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWL

Consequences

In response to countries being included on the Special 301 Report Watchlists the U.S. government may initiate dispute settlement proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) or other relevant trade agreement, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The U.S. government can also eliminate tariff preferences unilaterally granted, such as the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). [4] [5]

If an USTR investigation concludes that a country has violated a trade agreement Section 301 allows the U.S. government to impose unilateral trade sanctions if the country is not a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) or any other trade agreement establishing dispute settlement provisions, such as free trade agreements, which are relevant to the alleged violation. Unilateral trade sanctions under section 301 were imposed on December 20, 2001, on Ukraine, which was not yet a WTO member, by imposing a prohibitive tariff on metals, footwear, and other imports because the USTR concluded that the country had failed to enact legislation to enforce copyright in relation to music CDs and their export. [4] [5] Section 301 was also invoked by President Trump in March 2018, setting off the 2018 China–United States trade dispute.

According to the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) the Special 301 Report and the Watchlists is used to pressure other nations to adopt stricter copyright laws and take a more active role in combating copyright infringement. [26]

WTO dispute settlement proceedings

The USTR has used the Special 301 Reports to initiate formal dispute settlement proceedings at the World Trade Organization (WTO) if it believes a country does not comply with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). WTO dispute settlement proceedings are initiated when the country's noncompliance with TRIPS is judged to be too narrow to make the country a "priority foreign country". The countries against which the USTR intends to pursue dispute settlement proceedings are announced every April in the Special 301 Report. [4]

Criticism

Lobbying power

Peter Drahos, a law professor at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies at Queen Mary University of London's School of Law, has called the Special 301 Report "a public law devoted to the service of private corporate interests". [27] It protects and acts in favor of U.S. intellectual property owners, most often large corporations, against any foreign national policy or unofficial action that does not conform to the United States' position on international copyright and IP. Threat of action under Special 301 has been used to insert U.S. trade lobby backed advisers into states' domestic legislative process in order to ensure compliance with U.S. trade norms. One of the most direct examples comes from a former U.S. trade lobbyist, speaking in 1993:

"Jamaica had no intellectual property law, but they wrote one (with our help). Similarly the Dominican Republic. I sat down with their lawyer and together we wrote their copyright law." [28]

On the other hand, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), concerns about foreign IP policies that are overly restrictive, such as a lack of fair use in some countries, are not included in Special 301 reports. [29]

Trade warring

Most countries included in the Priority Watch List and Watch List between 1996 and 2000 were requested by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America or International Intellectual Property Alliance. [30] For example, Finland was blacklisted in retaliation to unanimously adopted legislation requiring the tax-funded Social Insurance Institution to reimburse the cost of medications only up to the price of the cheapest generic. Intellectual property is not violated, as this affects all manufacturers equally; nevertheless, this retaliatory measure has had a negative impact on investment decisions unrelated to the pharmaceutical industry. [31]

See also

Bibliography

Related Research Articles

In international law, the Berne three-step test is a clause that is included in several international treaties on intellectual property. Signatories of those treaties agree to standardize possible limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights under their respective national copyright laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Office of the United States Trade Representative</span> United States trade body

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is an agency of the United States federal government responsible for developing and promoting American trade policy. Part of the Executive Office of the President, it is headed by the U.S. Trade Representative, a Cabinet-level position that serves as the U.S. President's primary advisor, negotiator, and spokesperson on trade matters. USTR has more than two hundred employees, with offices in Geneva, Switzerland, and Brussels, Belgium.

The Uruguay Round was the 8th round of multilateral trade negotiations (MTN) conducted within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), spanning from 1986 to 1993 and embracing 123 countries as "contracting parties". The Round led to the creation of the World Trade Organization, with GATT remaining as an integral part of the WTO agreements. The broad mandate of the Round had been to extend GATT trade rules to areas previously exempted as too difficult to liberalize and increasingly important new areas previously not included. The Round came into effect in 1995 with deadlines ending in 2000 under the administrative direction of the newly created World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) is a law adopted by the U.S. Government in October 2000 to delineate enhanced trade preferences and eligibility requirements for the 24 beneficiary countries of the Caribbean Basin region.

In patent law, industrial design law, and trademark law, a priority right or right of priority is a time-limited right, triggered by the first filing of an application for a patent, an industrial design or a trademark respectively. The priority right allows the claimant to file a subsequent application in another country for the same invention, design, or trademark effective as of the date of filing the first application. When filing the subsequent application, the applicant must claim the priority of the first application in order to make use of the right of priority. The right of priority belongs to the applicant or his successor in title.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) is a coalition of seven trade associations representing American companies that produce copyright-protected material, including computer software, films, television programs, music, books, and journals. Formed in 1984, it seeks to strengthen international copyright protection and enforcement by working with the U.S. government, foreign governments, and private-sector representatives.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have been acknowledged and protected in China since 1980. China has acceded to the major international conventions on protection of rights to intellectual property. Domestically, protection of intellectual property law has also been established by government legislation, administrative regulations, and decrees in the areas of trademark, copyright, and patent. Although this IP framework is developing quickly, as of 2023 it remains less developed than most industrialized countries.

A compulsory license provides that the owner of a patent or copyright licenses the use of their rights against payment either set by law or determined through some form of adjudication or arbitration. In essence, under a compulsory license, an individual or company seeking to use another's intellectual property can do so without seeking the rights holder's consent, and pays the rights holder a set fee for the license. This is an exception to the general rule under intellectual property laws that the intellectual property owner enjoys exclusive rights that it may license—or decline to license—to others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trans-Pacific Partnership</span> 2016 proposed trade agreement

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, was a highly contested proposed trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim economies: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. In the United States, the proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 but not ratified, being opposed by many Democrats and Republicans, including both major-party presidential nominees, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. After taking office, the newly elected President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from TPP in January 2017, therefore the TPP could not be ratified as required and did not enter into force. The remaining countries negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, defines a trademark as “any visible sign capable of distinguishing goods”. Early jurisprudence has taken it to mean “a sign, device or mark by which the articles produced or dealt in by a particular person or organization are distinguished or distinguishable from those produced or dealt in by others, and must be affixed to goods or articles”.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trade Act of 1974</span> Comprehensive United States trade law

The Trade Act of 1974 was passed to help industry in the United States become more competitive or phase workers into other industries or occupations.

Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including tariff-based and non-tariff-based retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Section 301 cases can be self-initiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) or as the result of a petition filed by a firm or industry group. If USTR initiates a Section 301 investigation, it must seek to negotiate a settlement with the foreign country in the form of compensation or elimination of the trade barrier. For cases involving trade agreements, the USTR is required to request formal dispute proceedings as provided by the trade agreements. The law does not require that the U.S. government wait until it receives authorization from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take enforcement actions, and the President is increasingly focused on enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights under the "Special" 301 amendments but the U.S. has committed itself to pursuing the resolution of disputes under WTO agreements through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which has its own timetable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Cape Verde</span> Economy of the country

The economy of Cape Verde is a service-oriented economy that is focused on commerce, trade, transport and public services. Cape Verde is a small archipelagic nation that lacks resources and has experienced severe droughts. Agriculture is made difficult by lack of rain and is restricted to only four islands for most of the year. Cape Verde's economy has been steadily growing since the late 1990s, and it is now officially considered a country of average development, being only the second African country to have achieved such transition, after Botswana in 1994. Cape Verde has significant cooperation with Portugal at every level of the economy, which has led it to link its currency first to the Portuguese escudo and, in 1999, to the euro.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TRIPS Agreement</span> International treaty on intellectual property protections

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international legal agreement between all the member nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation by national governments of different forms of intellectual property (IP) as applied to nationals of other WTO member nations. TRIPS was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990 and is administered by the WTO.

Egyptian copyright law has evolved over time. The currently applicable legislation in Egypt with regard to copyright is Book Three of the Law on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights 82 of 2002, which entered into force on 3 June 2002, the day following its publication in the Official Gazette. The implementing decree is Prime Ministerial Decree 497 of 2005.

Iran is a member of the WIPO since 2001 and has acceded to several WIPO intellectual property treaties. Iran joined the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in 1959. In December 2003 Iran became a party to the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol for the International Registration of Marks. In 2005 Iran joined the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration, which ensures the protection of geographical names associated with products. As at February 2008 Iran had yet to accede to The Hague Agreement for the Protection of Industrial Designs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iran and the World Trade Organization</span>

Iran officially submitted an application to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 19 July 1996. From July 1996 to May 2001, Iran’s application had not been considered, mainly as a result of US objections and the US veto power in the WTO Council. From May 2001 Iran’s application for WTO membership has been brought up 22 times. At the 22nd time, on 26 May 2005, Iran’s application for WTO membership was approved unanimously by the organization’s members. Thus the process of Iran’s membership in the WTO started. Once Iran’s application was accepted and examined by WTO General Council, Iran became WTO observer member and started the process of full membership in the organization. In November 2009 Iran submitted the Foreign Trade Regime Memorandum as the process of accession entered a new phase.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ley Sinde</span>

Ley Sinde, is a provision in Spain's Sustainable Economy Act designed to address internet copyright infringements. The bill passed the final legislative hurdle and was made law Friday December 30, 2011. The law created a new intellectual property commission designed to review requests from copyright holders about websites that they claim infringe upon their copyright. The commission has the authority to determine whether to take action against the website or content intermediaries such as the internet service provider (ISP) or hosting provider. The commission's ruling is evaluated by a judge, with the goal of completing the entire review process within 10 days. The law has a provision that also requires content intermediaries to respond more quickly than under previous law: websites determined to be in violation of copyright law must be taken down within 48 hours. Finally, the law has a significant impact on individual privacy rights: it allows impacted parties to seek the identity of those they believe to have infringed on their copyright. This clause reversed precedent set by a 2008 European Court of Justice’s ruling in Promusicae v. Telefónica barring IP holders from demanding the identity of copyright infringers from ISPs. There was strong international pressure, predominantly from the United States, for the creation of this legislation while it was strongly opposed by bloggers, journalists and tech professionals in Spain. Deputy Prime Minister Soraya Sáenz de Santamaría said that the aim of the law was "to safeguard intellectual property, boost our culture industries and protect the rights of owners, creators and others in the face of the lucrative plundering of illegal downloading sites."

A notorious market is a website or physical market where, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), large-scale intellectual property infringement takes place. Officially termed Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, the USTR has generated a yearly list of such notorious markets since 2006 with input from various industry groups.

In 1996, the European Community and United States filed complaints with the WTO against Japan concerning their distribution and protection of sound recordings that originated in their respective states. Both disputes accused Japan of violating numerous articles of the TRIPS Agreement. Both disputes were settled in December 1997, with the involved parties finding mutually agreeable solutions. DS28 was the first case ever brought to the WTO's dispute settlement body based on the TRIPS Agreement.

References

  1. Shayerah, Ilias; Fergusson, Ian F. (2008). Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade. Nova Publishers. p. 43. ISBN   978-1-60456-562-1.
  2. 1 2 3 "19 U.S.C. 2242 - Identification of countries that deny adequate protection, or market access, for intellectual property rights". gpo.gov.
  3. "1989 Special 301 Report" (PDF). USTR. May 25, 1989. Retrieved April 8, 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Masterson (2004), p. 20
  5. 1 2 3 Masterson (2004), p. 21
  6. Masterson (2004), p. 22
  7. Sell, Susan K. (2003), Private Power, Public Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–129
  8. When using open source makes you an enemy of the state, Bobbie Johnson, guardian.co.uk, 23 February 2010.
  9. "The US Special 301 Reports, 1989-2010". USTR. Knowledge Ecology International. Retrieved April 8, 2013.
  10. 1 2 Masterson (2004), p. 18
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 Masterson (2004), p. 19
  12. "2005 SPECIAL 301 REPORT" (PDF). Retrieved April 29, 2005.
  13. "2006 SPECIAL 301 REPORT" (PDF). Retrieved December 13, 2014.
  14. "2007 SPECIAL 301 REPORT" (PDF). Retrieved December 13, 2014.
  15. "2008 SPECIAL 301 REPORT" (PDF). Retrieved December 13, 2014.
  16. "2009 Special 301 Report" (PDF). Retrieved December 13, 2014.
  17. "2010 Special 301 Report" . Retrieved December 13, 2014.
  18. "2011 Special 301 Report". Office of the United States Trade Representative. April 2011. p. 2. Archived from the original on October 17, 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2011.
  19. "2012 Special 301 Report" (PDF). USTR. April 2013. Retrieved April 8, 2013.
  20. "2013 Special 301 Report" (PDF). USTR. May 2013. Retrieved May 25, 2013.
  21. "2014 Special 301 Report" (PDF). Retrieved December 13, 2014.
  22. "2015 Special 301 Report" (PDF). Retrieved April 13, 2015.
  23. "2016 Special 301 Report" (PDF). Retrieved April 12, 2016.
  24. "2017 Special 301 Report" (PDF). Retrieved April 1, 2017.
  25. "2018 Special 301 Report" (PDF).
  26. "Copyright Industries Urge Greater Global Protection of American Jobs and Exports Threatened by Piracy" (PDF). IIPA. February 18, 2010. Retrieved April 8, 2013.
  27. Peter Drahos, Information Feudalism, The New Press, 2002, p89
  28. Peter Drahos, Information Feudalism, The New Press, 2002, p87
  29. Malcolm, Jeremy (May 1, 2018). "U.S. IP Policy Spins Out of Control in the 2018 Special 301 Report". Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  30. Sell, Susan K. (2003), Private Power, Public Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 126–129
  31. "Hätähuuto: Suomi luisuu takapajulaksi" (in Finnish). Kauppalehti. June 15, 2010. Retrieved April 8, 2013.