Intellectual Property and Implementation of Recent Bilateral Trade Agreements in the EU

Chapter
Part of the MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law book series (MSIP, volume 20)

Abstract

The European Union (EU) has concluded—and still is in the process of negotiating—a number of bilateral trade agreements with extensive provisions on intellectual property rights that partially go beyond what is required by the WTO/TRIPS Agreement (so-called “TRIPS-plus standards”). These agreements include the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the CARIFORUM States, the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea, the Association Agreement with Central America and the Trade Agreement with Columbia and Peru. There is a general assumption that these agreements only oblige the other contracting parties to change their intellectual property laws, whilst there is no need for the EU to take any implementation measures. This chapter questions this latter assumption by analysing, in particular, the rules of these agreements on criminal sanctions, genetic resources, transfer of technology and competition law and the general principles on the enhancement of sustainable development.

Keywords

Europe Income Malaysia Argentina Peru 

References

  1. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement concluded between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Federation and the United States of America. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st12/st12196.en11.pdf. Accessed 31 Mar 2012
  2. Biadgleng ET, Maur JC (2011) The influence of preferential trade agreements on the implementation of intellectual property rights in developing countries: a first look. Issue Paper No. 33, UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development. http://ictsd.org/downloads/2011/11/the-influence-of-preferential-trade-agreements-on-the-implementation-of-intellectual-property-rights-in-developing-countries.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  3. Bucher S (2008) Der Schutz von genetischen Ressourcen und indigenem Wissen in Lateinamerika. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  4. Association Agreement with Central America (2011) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=689. Accessed 7 July 2012
  5. Centre for the Analysis of Regional Integration at Sussex & CUTS International (2007) Qualitative analysis of a potential Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and India, Annex 3: Regulatory Issues: 94–101. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/july/tradoc_135348.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  6. Council of the European Union (2011) Proposal for a Regulation of the Council and the European Parliament implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection including a Proposal for a Council Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st11/st11328.en11.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  7. Current state of EPA negotiations and implementation. Website of the EU Commission. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  8. De Beer J (2012) Implementing international trade agreement in federal systems: a look at the Canada–EU CETA’s intellectual property issues. Legal Issues Econ Integr 39:51–71Google Scholar
  9. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, 20Google Scholar
  10. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167, 10Google Scholar
  11. Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ 2004 L 195, 16Google Scholar
  12. Drexl J (1996) The TRIPs agreement and the EC: what comes next after joint competence? In: Beier FK, Schricker S (eds) From GATT to TRIPs – the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. VCH, Weinheim, pp 18–58Google Scholar
  13. Drexl J (2004) International competition policy after Cancún: placing a Singapore issue on the WTO development agenda. World Competition 27:419–457Google Scholar
  14. Drexl J (2010) Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht. In: Rixecker R, Säcker JS (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, vol 11. C.H. Beck, Munich, pp 1344–1491Google Scholar
  15. Drexl J (2012a) EU competition law and parallel trade in pharmaceuticals: lessons to be learned for WTO/TRIPS? In: Rosén J (ed) Intellectual property at the crossroads of trade. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drexl J (2012b) Counterfeiting and the spare parts issue. In: Geiger C (ed) Criminal enforcement and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part. OJ 2008 L 289, 3Google Scholar
  18. EU Centre in Singapore (2011) The EU-Korea FTA and its implications for the future of EU-Singapore FTA, Background Brief No 4, http://www.eucentre.sg/articles/296/downloads/BackgroundBrief-The%20EU-Korea%20FTA%20and%20its%20Implications%20for%20the%20Future%20EU-Singapore%20FTA.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  19. European Parliament (2012) ACTA before the European Parliament. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120217BKG38488/html/ACTA-before-the-European-Parliament. Accessed 7 July 2012
  20. European Commission (2009) EU to launch FTA negotiations with individual ASEAN countries, beginning with Singapore. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=504&serie=307&langId=en. Accessed 7 July 2012
  21. European Commission (2011) EU-Singapore free trade agreement negotiations progressing well. Joint statement by the EU and the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore Press. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=729. Accessed 7 July 2012
  22. European Commission (2012a) EU-Singapore free trade agreement negotiations progressing well. Joint statement by the EU and the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Singapore. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=729. Accessed 6 Dec 2012
  23. European Commission (2012b) EU and Vietnam move closer to start trade negotiations. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=792. Accessed 7 July 2012
  24. European Commission (2012c) Proposal of 4 October 2012 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union, COM(2012) 576 finalGoogle Scholar
  25. European Commission (2012d) EU and Singapore agree on landmark trade deal (16 December 2012). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=855. Accessed 15 Apr 2013
  26. Fox EM (2003) International antitrust and the Doha Dome. Virginia J Int Law 43:911–919Google Scholar
  27. Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part. OJ 2011 L 127, 6Google Scholar
  28. FTA Malaysia Information (2012) Global civil society rises up over FTAs. http://www.ftamalaysia.org/article.php?aid=270. Accessed 7 July 2012
  29. Gibson J (2012) The directive proposal on criminal sanctions. In: Geiger C (ed) Criminal enforcement of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffith J (2012) Criminal liability for intellectual property infringement in Europe: the role of fundamental rights. In: Geiger C (ed) Criminal enforcement of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 191–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2010) From TRIPS to ACTA: towards a New “Gold Standard” in criminal IP enforcement? Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 10–06. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1592104. Accessed 31 Mar 2012
  32. Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2012) Criminal enforcement and international IP law. In: Geiger C (ed) Criminal enforcement and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heinemann A (1996) Antitrust law of intellectual property in the TRIPs agreement of the World Trade Organization. In: Beier FK, Schricker G (eds) From GATT to TRIPs – the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property. VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  34. Hilty R et al (2006) Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Criminal Measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights. IIC 37(8):970–977Google Scholar
  35. ICTSD (2010) EU and Malaysia Kick Off Trade Talks 7 October 2010. http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/86149/. Accessed 7 July 2012
  36. Kokott J (2010) Participation in the World Trade Organization and foreign direct investment: national or European Union competences? In: Bekker PHF et al (eds) Making transnational law work in the global economy: essays in honour of Detlev Vagts. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 108–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Medaglia JC (2006) Costa Rica. In: Lewis-Lettington RJ, Mwanyiki S (eds) Case studies on access and benefit-sharing. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, pp 33–74Google Scholar
  38. Mylly T (2012) Criminal enforcement and European Union law. In: Geiger C (ed) Criminal enforcement of intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 213–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nagoya Protocol (2010) on Access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention of biological diversity, of 29 October 2010, http://www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  40. Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection. OJ 2012 L 361, 1Google Scholar
  41. Partnership agreement 2000/483/EC between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part. OJ 2000 L 317, 3Google Scholar
  42. Second Revision of the Cotonou Agreement – Agreed Consolidated Text (2010). http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/second_revision_cotonou_agreement_20100311.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2012
  43. Stewart T (2012) Regional integration in the Caribbean: the role of competition policy. In: Drexl J et al (eds) Competition policy and regional integration in developing countries. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 161–184Google Scholar
  44. Today Online (2012) EU-Singapore FTA talks to conclude by end-July. http://www.todayonline.com/Business/EDC120621-0000182/EU-Spore-FTA-talks-to-conclude-by-end-July. Accessed 7 July 2012
  45. Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Colombia and Peru (2012) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=691. Accessed 7 July 2012
  46. UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, signed by 19 February 2013, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/unitary/patent-court.html. Accessed 15 Apr 2013
  48. von Lewinski S (2008) Indingenous heritage and intellectual property: genetic resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Kluwer Law International, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. von Lewinski S, Walter MW (2010) European copyright law – a commentary. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition LawMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations