earticle

영어

On Jan. 1989, a dispute panel under the GATT found that Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act which provide the U.S. International Trade Commission may issue exclusion orders to certain imported goods infringing intellectual property rights violated international trade rules, especially national treatment doctrine of GATT article 4. Then U.S. Congress amended the article of Tariff Act. Early 2000, however the European Union (EU) alleged Section 337 of the act continued to violate U.S. obligations under the GATT and the TRIPs Agreement by not allowing national treatment to imported goods that allegedly infringe U.S. intellectual property rights. Specifically, the EU joining with Canada and Japan alleged that foreign companies confront with claims at the USITC as well as in U.S. federal courts, whereas U.S. firms may only be challenged in courts, and have fewer opportunities to encounter actions than domestic companies, because the article 337 of Tariff Act only governs imported goods, not exported goods, and therefore foreign companies are treated less favor than U.S. domestic companies. This double opportunity is a clear advantage for the domestic company then, would have to be regarded as a denial of national treatment to imported goods. Conclusively, it must not be ignored that successive enforcements are a way in which the complainant can involve the foreign respondent in lengthy and costly the proceeding and the litigation under USITC and U.S. Court. However, the article 337 of Tariff Act also protect foreign companies registering their intellectual property in the U.S. Also the enforcement of intellectual property against foreign infringement is not under the same situation as against the domestic infringement. Then, the article 337 of Tariff Act allegedly satisfy the necessary exceptions under article 20 (d) of GATT and article 3 of the TRIPs Agreement.