Skip to main content

The Relevance of the Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements vis-à-vis European Preferential Trade Agreements

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Number resulting from the analysis of the intellectual property provisions enshrined in EU regional trade agreements found in the WTO regional trade agreements database in June 2013 (http://rtais.wto.org), plus some other recent agreements not yet counted therein.

  2. 2.

    Among other activities, it announced the promotion of the adoption of new legal undertakings on enforcement. In congruence with that goal, the EU has inserted powerful intellectual property enforcement provisions in ambitious economic treaties. European Commission (2004) Strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries, 10 November 2004, Official Journal of the European Union, 26/6/2005, C 129/3–C 129/16.

  3. 3.

    Seuba (2013), pp. 409–434.

  4. 4.

    Both in the most restrictive notion of conflict, used by Jenks, or in the more flexible approaches adopted recently, for instance by the International Law Commission. See. International Law Commission, “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law”, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. Finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006, p. 19.

  5. 5.

    See Burrell and Weatherall (2008), p. 265.

  6. 6.

    Similarly, with respect to TRIPS, it was already noted that “countries that did not have enforceable intellectual property laws prior to joining the WTO had little reason to develop competition law to control right holders”. Dreyfuss (2004), p. 31.

  7. 7.

    In this line, the International Court of Justice has affirmed that “One basic principle governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith”, Nuclear Tests (New Zealand vs. France), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 473.

  8. 8.

    Roffe and Genovesi (2009), p. 12.

  9. 9.

    Mclachlan (2005), pp. 279–320.

References

  1. Burrell R, Weatherall K (2008) Exporting controversy? Reactions to the copyright provisions of the US-Australia free trade agreement: lessons for U.S. trade policy. J Law Technol Policy 2008(2):265

  2. Dreyfuss RC (2004) TRIPS-Round H: should users strike back? Univ Chic Law Rev 71:31

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mclachlan C (2005) The principle of systemic integration and article 31(1)(c) of the Vienna convention. Int Comp Law Q 54(2):279–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roffe P, Genovesi LM (2009) Propuesta de estrategia y plan de acción: implementación del Acuerdo de Promoción Comercial con los EEUU en el área de propiedad intelectual. BID, Washington, DC, p 12

  5. Seuba X (2013) Checks and balances in the intellectual property enforcement field: reconstructing EU trade agreements. In: Geiger C (Dir), Constructing European IP: achievements and news perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 409–434

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research funded by the Knowledge and Economy Department of the Catalan Government in the context of the COFUND Program of the EU Marie Curie Actions of the Seventh Framework Program.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xavier Seuba.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seuba, X. The Relevance of the Principles for Intellectual Property Provisions in Bilateral and Regional Agreements vis-à-vis European Preferential Trade Agreements. IIC 44, 943–947 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0127-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • European Union
  • Intellectual Property
  • Trading Partner
  • Intellectual Property Protection
  • Legal Tradition