Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014
Articles

Criminal Enforcement and International Intellectual Property Law

PDF
  • Siddharth Partap Singh
Siddharth Partap Singh
Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, Delhi University
Bio

Published 2014-04-30

Keywords

  • No Keywords.

How to Cite

Singh, S. P. . (2014). Criminal Enforcement and International Intellectual Property Law. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 4(1), 134–153. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/194

Abstract

There is a global consensus that domain of Intellectual Property should be subjected to criminal enforcement in order to secure the rights of owners of such Intellectual Property Rights. The TRIPS Agreement was, to some extent, successful in crystallizing the consensus as regards the criminal measures to be taken by States in the event of the infringement of Intellectual Property Rights through article 61. However, the standard set by the provision by minimal, to say the least. The advent of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement has broader obligations, while also addressing some unsettled issues that have surfaced in disputes such as the China-IPRs case.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. R. Dhiraj, ‘The Law of Copyright in India’, saprlaw, p. 4 available at http://www.saprlaw.com/taxblog/copyright_final.pdf , accessed on 15 October 2014.
  2. The Commission on Intellectual (ICC), ‘The fight against piracy and counterfeiting of intellectual property, for submission to the 35th ICC World Congress, Marrakesh, 7 June 2004’, United States Council for International Business, 2004, p. 1 available at http://www.uscib.org/docs/icc_counterfeiting.pdf , accessed on 15 October 2014.
  3. In order to strengthen further the enforcement of IPR in a focused manner, an Alliance in the name of CII Alliance for Anti-Counterfeiting/Piracy was formed with the leadership and initiatives of Indian industry and right holders who are affected by the counterfeiting/piracy menace in 2004. Sudhir Ravindran & S.A. Chenthil Kumara, ‘Intellectual Property Crime’, Novience, 2003, para 1 available at http://www.novience.com/articles/ip-articles/intellectual_property_crime.html, accessed on 15 October 2014.
  4. Ibid, para. 4.
  5. Ibid, para. 5.
  6. Dhakad Keshav S & Kher Priyanka of Anand and Anand, ‘India strengthens software protection’, Managing Intellectual Property, 2008 available at http://www.managingip.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=1321252, accessed on 15 October 2014.
  7. Davey Hemi Paresh Kumar, ‘Criminal Implications of IP Infringement in India’, IP Frontline, 2009, para. 4 available at http://ipfrontline.com/2009/10/criminal-implications-of-ip-infringement-in-india/, accessed on 15 October 2014.
  8. Trade Marks Act, 1999, India, s. 2(1)(zb).
  9. T. Ramakrishna, Basic Principles and Acquisition of IPR, Center for Intellectual Prperty Rights and Advocacy, National Law School of India University, Bangalore, 2005.
  10. Copyrights Act, 1957, India, s. 14.
  11. Infringment’, Mnemonic Dictionaryavailable athttp://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/infringement, accessed on 17 April 2014.
  12. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 828 United Nations Treaty Series 305, adopted on 20 March 1883, art. 6 (1) (a).
  13. Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol, adopted on 26 September 1981, art. 1(1).
  14. Paris Convention(n 13), art. 9(3) (emphasis added).
  15. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 287 (E) WIPO 1992, adopted on 9 September 1886, art. 16(1) and (2).
  16. Daniel J. Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement – Drafting History and Analysis, 3rdedn, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2008, p. 352.
  17. C. Correa, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – A Commentary on the TRIPS Agreement, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005, p. 409; ICTSD/UNCTAD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development: An Authoritative and Practical Guide to the TRIPS Agreement, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 409 available at www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/resourcebookindex.htm, accessed on 17 April 2014.
  18. Article 41(1), however, equally emphasizes that ‘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.’ 19. J. S. Busche Vander & Peter T. Stoll (eds), TRIPs –Internationales und Europäisches Recht Geistigen Eigentums, Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne, 2007, p.688; C. Correa, ‘The Push for Stronger Enforcement Rules:Implicationsfor Developing Countries’, The Global Debate on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and Developing Countries Issue Paper No. 22, ICTSD, 2008, p. 42.
  19. Christophe Geiger (ed.), Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Massachusetts, 2012, p. 174.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Negotiating Group on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, Status of Work in the Negotiating Group, Chairman’s Report to the GNG, 23 July 1990, Doc. no. MTN.GNG/NG11/W/7, para. 24.
  22. H. Xue, ‘An Anatomical Study of the United States versus China at the World Trade Organisation on Intellectual Property Enforcement’, vol.6, European Intellectual Property Review 292, p. 295.
  23. See WTO, Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting theProtection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (China-IPRs), 2009, Doc. No. WT/DS3262/R.
  24. Ibid.
  25. Ibid.
  26. Ibid.
  27. See World Trade Organization, Request for Consultation by the United States, China-Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, 16 April 2007, Doc no. WT/DS362/1.
  28. . The Panel exercised judicial economy with respect to the further claims regardingChina’s criminal enforcement laws under the second sentence of Art. 61 as well as Art. 41(1) TRIPS. Neither party has appealed the ruling which was accepted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) on 20 March 2009. WTO (n 25), no. 7.669, 7.681 and 8.1.
  29. Ibid.
  30. The jurisdiction over TRIPSdisputes is, by virtue of Art. 23(1) and 2(a) DSU, exclusive de jure. By incorporating inter aliathe main substantive provisions of the Parisand Berne Conventioninto TRIPS, WTO Panels enjoy jurisdiction also over the two classic IP treaties. This jurisdiction is de factoan exclusive one since the theoretical option of bringing a case on Parisor Berne Conventionrules to the ICJ under article 33 of the Berne Conventionor article 28 of the Paris Convention, which has never been used.
  31. WTO jurisprudence, from the beginning, has interpreted the reference under article 3(2) of DSU to primarily refer to article 31-33 of the VCLT.Michael Lennard, ‘Navigating by the Stars: Interpreting WTO Agreements, vol. 5, no.1, Journal of International Economic Law 17, 2002, pp. 17-89.
  32. Ian McTaggart Sinclair, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 2ndedn, Manchester University Press, 1984, p.153.
  33. Article 31(1) of the VCLT explains that ‘a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose’.
  34. See ‘Commentary on Final Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties’ in International Law Commission (herein after ILC), Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, 1996, arts. 27-29, pp. 217-226.
  35. WTO (n 25), no. 7.501.
  36. Ibid, no. 7.513.
  37. Ibid, no. 7.514.
  38. The number of parties negotiating ACTA has changed subsequently. At the time of writing (April 2010), Morocco, Singapore, Australia and Canada have joined the negotiations alongside those mentioned above. For an updated detail, see ‘Joint Press Statement of the Anti-Counterfeiting TradeAgreement Negotiating Parties’, Office of the United States Trade Representatives, 2011 available at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/october/joint-press-statement-anti-counterfeiting-trade-ag, accessed on 20 October 2014.
  39. 'European Commission seeks mandate to negotiate major new international anti-counterfeiting pact’, European Commission Press Release Database, 23 October 2007, IP/07/1573 available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-07-1573_en.htm?locale=en, accessed on 20 October 2014.
  40. Michael Geist, ACTA Guide, Part Three: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy, Michael Geist’sOfficial Website, 27 January 2010 available at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4737/125/, accessed on 17 April 2014.
  41. ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Informal Predecisional/Deliberative Draft’, PIJIP IP Enforcement Database, 18 January 2010 available at http://sites.google.com/site/iipenforcement/acta, accessed on 17 April 2014.
  42. Ibid.
  43. Gieger (n 21), p. 184.
  44. ‘Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement’, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan, 1 October 2011 available at http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/pdfs/acta1105_en.pdf, accessed on 20 October 2014.
  45. ACTA (n 46) arts. 23-26. 48Ibid, Art. 23(1).
  46. Ibid, Art.2450Ibid, Art. 25.
  47. Ibid, Art. 23(2), (3).
  48. While the addition of related rights piracy apparently enjoyed the consent of all negotiating parties, Australia, Mexico and Canada rejected the addition of ‘confusingly similar trademark goods.
  49. Gieger (n 21), p. 185.
  50. Ibid.
  51. ACTA(n 46), art. 2(3).
  52. Copyright Criminal Measures in the ACTA’, Foundation for a Free Informative Infrastructure, p.1available at http://people.ffii.org/~ante/acta/ACTA-FFII-Criminal-Measures.pdf, accessed on 20 October 2014.