Legal Analysis Of The First WTO Case Of Sino-US Intellectual Property Dispute

April 9,2007,the United States decided on Sino-US intellectual property dispute to the WTO of China to prosecute,The United States to made three demands to Expert Group of WTO,first,the threshold of criminal responsibility is too high,second,to the infringing products have been seized,means of disposal of the Chinese Customs is not appropriate,third, China's refusal to protect the works that not been permitted to publish or disseminate of China.To the first demands of the United States,I think that China has always been committed to intellectual property protection,has developed a standardized system of intellectual property protection laws and regulations,"Criminal Law of the PRC" to a certain degree of intellectual property rights violations as criminal acts,such a legal provisions is consistent with China's national conditions,also in line with the "TRIPS","Berne Convention",and such a provision is sufficient to deter such criminal acts.To the second demands of the United States,I think that the Article 59 of "TIPIS" is aimed at import and export of goods,but,Measures of the Chinese Customs auction is aimed at import and export of goods,Chinese Customs has been agreed by the infringer and the characteristics of the infringement has been eliminated before the auction,so,it will not prejudice the commercial interests of the infringer,but also does not lead to commercial products from entering the channel,therefore,the practice of Chinese customs is fully consistent with the provisions of the "TRIPS" and "Berne Convention".To the third demands of the United States,I think the provisions of China's "restricted work" review is not only apply to foreign intellectual property rights also apply to domestic intellectual property rights of people,so it does not violate the principle of national treatment, the review does not mean that China does not protect the works to be reviewed or the works being reviewed,China's protection of intellectual property rights is never interrupted by the review,Thus,China did not violate the principle of automatic protection.