The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements

Jaeger, Thomas

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30888-8_7

Thomas Jaeger⁶

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 24))

2013 Accesses
5 Citations

Abstract

The EU’s third generation approach to international IP protection and enforcement is essentially TRIPS-plus driven, but it is considerably more balanced than, in particular, the EU’s domestic legislative approach. Nonetheless, significant imbalances persist. They arise from issues like enforcement universalism, a lack of sufficient ceilings woven into agreements under the third generation approach and an ensuing over-burdening of developing countries with high standards similar to those of the EU. Thus, overall there is still considerable leeway for fine-tuning and re-balancing the EU’s approach to IP protection and particularly enforcement in FTAs.

T. Jaeger: PD Dr., LL.M. (KUL), Senior Research Fellow.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 28 February 1975 (Lomé I), [1976] OJ L 25/2; renegotiated and renewed three times (Lomé II-IV) between January 1981 and December 1989 (Lomé Convention).
2.
Partnership agreement 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, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, [2000] OJ L 317/3 (Cotonou Agreement).
3.
Art. 31(c) Lomé Convention.
4.
See Art. 30 EC Treaty, [2006] OJ C 321E/1.
5.
See Art. 4 Lomé Convention.
6.
See Art. 46 Cotonou Agreement.
7.
Art. 46(1) Cotonou Agreement.
8.
Art. 46(3) Cotonou Agreement.
9.
See Art. 46(6) Cotonou Agreement.
10.
See Annex V Art. 2(2) Cotonou Agreement.
11.
See Art. 46(6) Cotonou Agreement.
12.
European Commission, Directorate for Trade 2005, Strategy for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries [2005] OJ C 129/3 of 26 May 2005 (Enforcement Strategy). See also European Commission (2004), EU strengthens fight against piracy and counterfeiting beyond its borders. Press release IP/04/1352 of 10 November 2004; see also Grosse Ruse-Khan et al. (2013), p. 879; de Beer (2013), pp. 884 ff.
13.
Annex I, Enforcement Strategy, p. 12, pt. 1.
14.
Annex I, Enforcement Strategy, p. 12, pt. 1.
15.
Both citations Annex I, Enforcement Strategy, p. 13, pt. 2.b.
16.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 7, pt. 4.
17.
Annex I, Enforcement Strategy, p. 12, pt. 2.b. Regarding the goals of the EU Trade Policy see also Pitschas (2014), pp. 209 et seq.; Maskus (2014), pp. 171 et seq.
18.
This is not to say that such studies were not conducted in other contexts. See, e.g., the essays assembled by Perez Pugatch (2006).
19.
See Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, [2004] OJ L 195/16 (Enforcement Directive).
20.
See Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, OJ 2003/L 196/7, as amended [Border Measures Regulation (BMR)].
21.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 3.
22.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 3.
23.
See Enforcement Strategy, p. 4, pt. 1; Annex I, p. 14, pt. 4.
24.
See European Commission (2008), Conference on counterfeiting and piracy: Frequently asked questions. Press release. MEMO/08/299 of 13 May 2008 (European Commission, MEMO/08/299).
25.
Annex I, Enforcement Strategy, p. 14, pt. 4.
26.
See Enforcement Strategy, pp. 4–7, pts 2–3.
27.
See European Commission press releases IP/07/1573 and MEMO/08/299. For an assessment of its norm-setting mechanism from the US perspective, see Katz and Hinze (2009), p. 24.
28.
See Enforcement Strategy, p. 5, pt. 2.
29.
See Enforcement Strategy, p. 6, pt. 2.
30.
See Enforcement Strategy, p. 7, pt. 4.
31.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 7, pt. 4.
32.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 9, pt. 5.
33.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 9, pt. 5.
34.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 9, pt. 5. See Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the WTO, [1994] OJ L 349/71, as amended (Trade Barriers Regulation or TBR).
35.
For more, see e.g., Bronckers and McNelis (2002), pp. 55 and 60 et seq.
36.
Art. 12(3) TBR.
37.
See Art. 3 1 and 2(1) TBR.
38.
See Bronckers and McNelis (2002), pp. 61 et seq.
39.
See Bronckers and McNelis (2002), pp. 60 et seq.
40.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 4, pt. 6.
41.
See Enforcement Strategy, p. 10 pt. 6.
42.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 11, pt 6.
43.
See Art. 4 et seq. Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, [2003] OJ L 196/7.
44.
See Enforcement Strategy, pp. 10 et seq.
45.
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Global Europe: Competing in the world: A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy, COM(2006) 567 final (European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567). See also the Commission of the European Communities (2006) Staff Working Document, Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Global Europe: Competing in the world: A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy SEC (2006) 1230 of 4 October 2006; and the European Parliament resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe: External aspects of competitiveness, INI/2006/2292.
46.
See, however, the G20 Leader’s Statement of 25 September 2009, The Pittsburgh Summit, 24–25 September 2009: ‘We are committed to bringing the Doha Round to a successful conclusion in 2010.’
47.
A current and comprehensive summary of the topics and the state of the Doha Development Agenda by the German Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie [Ministry of Industry and Technology] is available for download at http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Themen/Aussenwirtschaft/weltwirtschaftsgipfel,did=10284.html. Accessed 14 February 2013.
48.
European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567, p. 8, pt. 4.2.ii.
49.
European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567, p. 8, pt. 4.2.ii.
50.
European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567, p. 9, pt. 4.2.ii.
51.
See also European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567, p. 10, pt. 4.2.v.
52.
European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567, p. 9, pt. 4.2.ii.
53.
‘The Commission will reinforce its enforcement activity and co-operation with a number of priority countries in particular China, Russia, ASEAN, Korea, Mercosur, Chile and Ukraine; and we will work to improve enforcement in Turkey in the context of accession negotiations. This will include reinforcing customs co-operation, creating and strengthening IPR dialogues, reinforcing our presence on the ground, allocating more resources to support right-holders, in particular SMEs, and building awareness of IPR issues among EU companies, particularly those operating in China.’ Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006) p. 10, pt. 4.2.v.
54.
European Commission 2006, Communication: Global Europe, COM(2006)567, p. 12, pt. 5.
55.
See Fink (2009), pp. 15 et seq.; Draper (2007), p. 2.
56.
Two studies on the economic impact of EPA provisions for example fail to establish any such connection: see Position paper of 16 November 2007 on Sustainability Impact Assessment of EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements (Note: This first paper provides the reaction of Commission Services to the Sustainability Impact Assessment SIA of the EPAs between the EU and the ACP states: p. 1); An Impact Study of the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAS) in the six ACP Regions 2008 (EPA Impact Study 2008).
57.
See Fink (2009), p. 18; also Grosse Ruse-Khan et al. (2013), pp. 881 and 882; Yu (2014), pp. 118 et seq.
58.
See Fink (2009), p. 18.
59.
See Fink (2009), p. 11.
60.
See Enforcement Strategy, 16; likewise EPA Impact Study (2008), pp. 22 and 131.
61.
Both citations EPA Impact Study (2008), p. 22, n. 11.
62.
See Fink (2009), p. 19.
63.
See Fink (2009), p. 19.
64.
See recently Correa (2009), p. 59.
65.
See Correa (2009), p. 60; also Jaeger (2008), pp. 155, 207 et seq., and p. 218 et seq.
66.
See Correa (2009), p. 60.
67.
See Correa (2009), p. 60.
68.
Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part, [2009] OJ L. 272/2.
69.
See Commission summary of 12 September 2013, on 11 November 2013, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf.
70.
Free trade agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea (Korea-FTA), of the other part, [2011] 127/6; for more detail on that FTE cf. the contribution by Lim Heng Gee, this volume, Sect. 5.3.1 in particular.
71.
See European Commission 2007, MEMO/07/88.
72.
See Art. 37 Cotonou Agreement.
73.
This is the Forum of the Caribbean Group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. For more information see the CARICOM website, on 11 November 2013, available at http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community_organs/cariforum/cariforum_main_page.jsp?menu=cob.
74.
See Economic Partnership Agreement between the CARIFORUM States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, [2008] OJ L 289/3 (CEPA).
75.
For a current overview see a Commission summary of 12 September 2013, on 11 November 2013 available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.pdf.
76.
See Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on one part, and the East African Community Partner States, on the other part, Council document no. 17462/08 of 3 April 2009 (EAC-EPA).
77.
See Interim Agreement establishing a framework for an Economic Partnership Agreement between the Eastern and Southern Africa States, on the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, on the other part, Council document no. 5556/09 of 30 April 2009 (ESA-EPA).
78.
See Interim Agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Central Africa Party [Cameroon], of the other part, [2009] OJ L 52/2.
79.
See Interim Agreement with a view to an Economic Partnership Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the SAEPA States, of the other part, Council document no. 14062/08 of 2 February 2009.
80.
European Commission (2002), European Commission sets out negotiating strategy for new Economic Partnership Agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Press release IP/02/527 of 9 April 2002.
81.
See Art. 1 Cotonou Agreement.
82.
See Arts 35(d)(ii) and 37(e)(iv) EAC-EPA; Arts 35(d)(ii), 38(3)(g) and 53(e)(iv) ESA-EPA; Art. 58 Central African Party-EPA.
83.
All citations Preamble CEPA; similarly Art. 1 CEPA.
84.
Both citations Art. 131(2) CEPA.
85.
Art. 132(d) CEPA; identically Art. 139(2) CEPA.
86.
See Art. 139(1) CEPA.
87.
See Art. 139(4) CEPA.
88.
See Art. 139(4) CEPA.
89.
See Art. 140 CEPA.
90.
See Art. 143 CEPA.
91.
Originally, International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of 2 December 1961, which established the Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtensions Végétales (hence UPOV Convention).
92.
See Arts 147(1) and 149(2) CEPA.
93.
See also Arts 139(1) and 140 CEPA.
94.
See Art. 148 CEPA.
95.
See Art. 147(2) CEPA; WTO Ministerial Conference, Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 14 November 2001, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2, pt. 4 et seq.
96.
See Art. 150(3) CEPA.
97.
See Art. 15(2) UPOV Convention.
98.
Art. 149(2) CEPA.
99.
See Arts 144(D) and (E) and 146(A) CEPA.
100.
See Art. 144(B), (C) and (D) CEPA.
101.
See Art. 26(1) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 299 (entered into force 1 January 1995) Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (TRIPS Agreement).
102.
See Art. 146(D)(1) CEPA.
103.
See Art. 144(F) CEPA.
104.
See Art. 146(E)(1) CEPA.
105.
See Art. 26(3) TRIPS Agreement.
106.
See Art. 25(1) TRIPS Agreement.
107.
See Art. 146(C)(2) CEPA.
108.
See Art. 145(D) CEPA.
109.
See Fink and Smarzynska (2002), p. 410. It is a view that is, however, not undisputed, see Mara (2008); balanced, Musungu (2009), pp. 25 et seq.
110.
See Arts 139(1) and 140 CEPA.
111.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 3.
112.
Recital 10 Enforcement Directive, p. 17.
113.
See Jaeger (2008), pp. 213 et seq.
114.
See Art. 16 Enforcement Directive.
115.
Art. 2(1) Enforcement Directive.
116.
See Art. 131(2) CEPA.
117.
See Art. 139(3) CEPA; Arts 1 and 2 Enforcement Directive.
118.
In the meaning of Art 10bis of the Convention of 20 March 1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention), opened for signature 20 March 1883, 161 CTS 409 (entered into force 7 July 1884) (Paris Convention).
119.
Art. 10bis (2) Paris Convention.
120.
See Art. 139(3) CEPA.
121.
See Art. 1(2) TRIPS Agreement.
122.
See Arts 1 and 2(1) Enforcement Directive; also Statement by the Commission concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ 2005/L 94/37.
123.
See Art. 61 TRIPS Agreement.
124.
See Correa (2009), p. 58.
125.
See Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights, COM(2006) 168. For a discussion, see Jaeger (2008), pp. 213 et seq.
126.
See, e.g., Hilty et al. (2006), pp. 722 and 723.
127.
See, in this regard, the criticism voiced by Correa (2009), p. 58.
128.
See Art. 42 TRIPS Agreement.
129.
See Art. 4 Enforcement Directive; also Jaeger (2014), p. 193.
130.
All citations Art. 152 CEPA.
131.
See Art. 6(1) Enforcement Directive; Art. 43(1) TRIPS Agreement.
132.
Art. 153 CEPA; similarly Art. (2) Enforcement Directive.
133.
Art. 50(1)(b) TRIPS-Agreement.
134.
Art. 154 CEPA; Art. 7(1) Enforcement Directive.
135.
See Art. 7(5) Enforcement Directive.
136.
See Art. 155 CEPA; similarly Art. 8 Enforcement Directive.
137.
See Art. 47 TRIPS Agreement; also Jaeger (2014), p. 195.
138.
Art. 155(1) CEPA; identically Art. 8(1) Enforcement Directive.
139.
Art. 155(2) CEPA; identically Art. 8(2) Enforcement Directive.
140.
Art. 155(3) CEPA; identically Art. 8(3) Enforcement Directive.
141.
See Art. 155(1) CEPA; Art. 47 TRIPS-Agreement; Art. 8(1) Enforcement Directive.
142.
See Art. 155(3) CEPA; Art. 8(3) Enforcement Directive.
143.
See Art. 153 CEPA.
144.
See Art. 156(3) CEPA.
145.
See Art. 156 CEPA; Art. 50 TRIPS Agreement; Art. 9 Enforcement Directive; also Jaeger (2014), pp. 196 and 197.
146.
Art. 156(3) CEPA; Art. 9(2) Enforcement Directive.
147.
See Art. 9(4) Enforcement Directive.
148.
See Art. 50(2) TRIPS Agreement.
149.
See Art. 50(3) TRIPS-Agreement; Art. 9(3) Enforcement Directive.
150.
Art. 156(1) CEPA.
151.
See Art. 8(3) 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 167/10.
152.
See Arts 157, 158 and 159 CEPA; Arts 44 and 46 TRIPS Agreement; Arts 10, 11, 12 and 15 Enforcement Directive.
153.
See second sentence of Art. 46 TRIPS Agreement; first sentence of Art 10(1) Enforcement Directive; also Jaeger (2014), p. 198.
154.
See Art. 162 CEPA; similarly Art. 15 Enforcement Directive.
155.
See Art. 157(1) CEPA; Art. 46 TRIPS Agreement; similarly Art. 10(1) Enforcement Directive.
156.
See Art. 157(2) CEPA; similarly Art. 10(2) Enforcement Directive.
157.
Art. 158 CEPA; Art. 11 Enforcement Directive.
158.
See Art. 156(1) CEPA.
159.
See ECJ, Case C-275/06 – Promusicae (Productores de Música de España (Promusicae) v Telefónica de España) [2008] ECR I-271, para. 61 et seq.; similarly the question in pending Case C-557/07, LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten v Tele2 Telecommunicatons, OJ 2008/C 64/20.
160.
See Art. 44(1) TRIPS Agreement.
161.
See Art. 158 CEPA; similarly Art. 11 Enforcement Directive.
162.
See Art. 159 CEPA; Art. 12 Enforcement Directive.
163.
See Art. 159 CEPA; similarly Art. 12 Enforcement Directive.
164.
See Art. 159 CEPA; Art. 12 Enforcement Directive.
165.
See Art. 157 CEPA; second sentence of Art. 46 TRIPS Agreement; first sentence of Art. 10(1) Enforcement Directive.
166.
See Art. 50(2) and (3) TRIPS Agreement; similarly Art. 9(3) Enforcement Directive.
167.
See Art. 157(2) CEPA.
168.
See Art. 46 TRIPS Agreement.
169.
Art. 45(1) TRIPS Agreement.
170.
Art. 45(2) TRIPS Agreement; also Jaeger (2014), p. 201.
171.
See Art. 160(1) CEPA.
172.
Art. 160(1)(a) CEPA; Art. 13(1)(a) Enforcement Directive.
173.
See Art. 160(1)(b) CEPA; similarly Art. 13(1)(b) Enforcement Directive.
174.
See Art. 45(2) TRIPS Agreement.
175.
See Art. 160(2) CEPA; similarly Art. 13(2) Enforcement Directive.
176.
See Art. 51 TRIPS Agreement.
177.
See Art. 2(1) BMR.
178.
See Art. 163(1) n 1 CEPA.
179.
See Art. 163(1) n 1 CEPA.
180.
See Art. 51 TRIPS Agreement.
181.
See Art. 163(2) CEPA; similarly Art. 2(2) BMR.
182.
See Art. 51 TRIPS Agreement.
183.
Art. 163(1) CEPA; similarly Art. 1(1) BMR.
184.
See Art. 52 et seq. TRIPS Agreement.
185.
See Art. 153 and 156 CEPA.
186.
See Arts 43(1) and 50(3) TRIPS Agreement; similarly Arts 6(1) and 9(3) Enforcement Directive.
187.
See Arts 154 and 156 CEPA.
188.
See Art. 50(2) and (4) TRIPS Agreement; similarly Arts 7(1) and (4) Enforcement Directive.
189.
See Art. 154 CEPA.
190.
See Art. 50(3) TRIPS Agreement; similarly Art. 7(2) Enforcement Directive.
191.
See Art. 157(1) CEPA.
192.
See Art. 46 TRIPS Agreement; similarly Art. 10 Enforcement Directive.
193.
See Art. 152 CEPA.
194.
See Art. 160(1) CEPA.
195.
See Art. 154 CEPA.
196.
See Art. 154 CEPA.
197.
See Arts 151(1) and 242 CEPA; similarly Art. 2(3)(c) Enforcement Directive.
198.
See Art. 131(2) CEPA.
199.
See Art. 156 CEPA; Art. 9(4) Enforcement Directive.
200.
See Art. 50 TRIPS Agreement.
201.
See Art. 156(3) CEPA.
202.
See Art. 139(5) CEPA.
203.
See Art. 157 CEPA; first sentence of Art. 10(1) Enforcement Directive.
204.
See second sentence Art. 46 TRIPS Agreement.
205.
See Art. 157(2) CEPA.
206.
See Art. 7(5) Enforcement Directive.
207.
See Art. 139(5) CEPA.
208.
Art. 46(6) Cotonou Agreement.
209.
Similarly already Art. 8(2) TRIPS Agreement.
210.
See the agreements cited in nn. 73–76.
211.
See Art. 142(2) CEPA. Critically on the lack of an opening provision on IP abuse: Musungu (2009), p. 249.
212.
Enforcement Strategy, p. 3.
213.
See also Recital 13 and Art. 13(a)CEPA.
214.
All citations Art. 139(2) CEPA. See also the additional balancing with regard to implementation by least-developed countries in Art. 140 CEPA.
215.
See Art. 139(2) CEPA.
216.
Art. 139(2) CEPA.
217.
See Arts 7 and 8(1) TRIPS Agreement.
218.
The assessment by Musungu (2009), p. 263, however, is more pessimistic: ‘the introduction of such extensive provisions on enforcement […] runs directly counter to the EC stated position in its strategy on enforcement’ as to avoiding a ‘one-size-fits-it-all’ approach.
219.
Both citations Art. 139(2) CEPA.
220.
Art. 139(2) CEPA.
221.
See Arts 139(1), 151(1) and 242 CEPA.
222.
See Arts 31(1) and 32(b) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969 1155 UNTS 331 entered into force 27 January 1980.
223.
Art. 3(2)(b) CEPA.
224.
See Art. 3(3) CEPA; similarly Art. 9(1) Cotonou Agreement.
225.
See Art. 1(c) CEPA.
226.
See Art. 1 Cotonou Agreement.
227.
Art. 139(2) CEPA.
228.
See Art. 206 et seq. CEPA.
229.
See footnote 71, above.
230.
See Arts. 10.54 et seq., 10.62 et seq. and 10.67 Korea FTA respectively.
231.
See, e.g., the revealing result of a study by Leesti and Pengelly (2002), p. 20: ‘professional education and training in intellectual property subjects is not available anywhere in the entire Caribbean region.’
232.
For detailed figures on the costs of IP rights administration to developing countries, see Leesti and Pengelly (2002), pp. 38 et seq., according to which, e.g., Jamaica’s 1999/2000 expenditures significantly outweighed the respective revenues.

References

An Impact Study of the EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAS) in the six ACP Regions, Final report (January 2008). Prepared by Fontagne L, Mitaritonna C, Laborde D, for the Commission of the European Union, Directorate General for Trade. CEPII-CERIM, Paris, 2008 (EPA Impact Study 2008). http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/march/tradoc_138081.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Bronckers MCEJ, McNelis NM (2002) The EU trade barriers regulation comes of age. In: von Bogdandy A, Mavroidis PC, Mény Y (eds) European integration and international coordination: studies in transnational economic law in honour of Claus-Dieter Ehlermann. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 55–98
Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities (2006) Staff Working Document, Annex to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Global Europe: Competing in the world: A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy SEC (2006) 1230 of 4 October 2006 (SEC (2006) 1230)
Google Scholar
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions (2006) Global Europe: Competing in the world: A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy. COM (2006) 567 final (COM(2006) 567 fin)
Google Scholar
Correa C (2009) The push for stronger enforcement rules: implications for developing countries. In: Fink C, Correa C (eds) The global debate on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and developing countries. ICTSD Development IPRs and Sustainable Development Program. Issue paper no. 22. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, pp 26–80. http://ictsd.org/downloads/2012/02/the-global-debate-on-the-enforcement-of-intellectual-property-rights-and-developing-countries.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
de Beer J (2013) Applying best practice principles to international intellectual property lawmaking. Int Rev Intellect Prop Competition Law 44:884–901
Google Scholar
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, [2004] OJ L 195/16 (Enforcement Directive)
Google Scholar
Draper P (2007) EU-Africa trade relations: the political economy of European partnership agreements. Jan Tumlir policy essays, No 2 of 2007. European Centre for Political Economy (ECIPE), Brussels (ECIPE 02/2007)
Google Scholar
European Commission (2002) European Commission sets out negotiating strategy for new Economic Partnership Agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Press release IP/02/527 of 9 April 2002 (European Commission 2002, IP/02/527)
Google Scholar
European Commission (2004) EU strengthens fight against piracy and counterfeiting beyond its borders. Press release IP/04/1352 of 10 November 2004 (European Commission 2004, IP/04/1352)
Google Scholar
European Commission (2008) Conference on counterfeiting and piracy: Frequently asked questions. Press release MEMO/08/299 of 13 May 2008 (European Commission 2008, MEMO/08/299)
Google Scholar
Fink C (2009) Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights: an economic perspective. In: Fink C, Correa C (eds) The global debate on the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and developing countries. ICTSD Development IPRs and Sustainable Development Program. Issue paper no. 22. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva, pp 1–26. http://ictsd.org/downloads/2012/02/the-global-debate-on-the-enforcement-of-intellectual-property-rights-and-developing-countries.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Fink C, Smarzynska BK (2002) Trademarks, geographical indications, and developing countries. In: Hoekman B, Mattoo A, English P (eds) Development, trade and the WTO: a handbook. World Bank, Washington, pp 403–412
Google Scholar
Grosse Ruse-Khan H, Drexl J, Hilty R, Kur A, Bakhoum M, Jaeger T, Köklü K, Lamping M, Nadde-Phlix S, de Beer J, Correa C, Dinwoodie G, Frankel S, Flynn S, Hestermeyer H, Mercurio B, Roffe P, Seuba X, Yu P (2013) Principles for intellectual property provisions in bilateral and regional agreements. Int Rev Intellect Prop Competition Law 878–883
Google Scholar
Hilty R, Kur A, Peukert A (2006) Stellungnahme des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht zum Vorschlag für eine Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über strafrechtliche Maßnahmen zur des Rechts des geistigen Eigentums [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]. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (GRUR Int) 722–725
Google Scholar
Jaeger T (2008) Ein Königreich für ein Schwert? Kohärenz und Inkohärenz im Rechtsrahmen der Verfolgung von Immaterialgüterrechtsverletzungen in der Gemeinschaft [A kingdom for a sword? Coherence and incoherence in the legal framework for the pursuit of enforcement of intellectual property rights violations in the Community]. In: Hilty RM, Jaeger T, Kitz V (eds) Geistiges Eigentum: Herausforderung. Springer, Berlin, pp 155–219
Chapter Google Scholar
Jaeger T (2014) IP enforcement provisions in EU economic partnership agreements. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse-Khan H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse? Springer, Berlin, pp 189–205
Chapter Google Scholar
Katz E, Hinze G (2009) The impact of the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement on the knowledge economy. Yale J Int Law 35:24
Google Scholar
Leesti M, Pengelly T (2002) Institutional issues for developing countries in Intellectual Property policymaking, administration & enforcement, Study Paper 9, Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan017421.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Mara K (2008) Advocates say that geographical Indications will benefit developing nations. IP Watch, 11 July 2008. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/07/11/advocates-say-geographical-indications-will-benefit-developing-nations. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Maskus KE (2014) Assessing the development promise of IP provisions in EU economic partnership agreements. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse-Kahn H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse? Springer, Berlin, pp 171–188
Chapter Google Scholar
Musungu SF (2009) Innovation and intellectual property in the CARIFORUM–EU economic partnership agreement: lessons for other ACP regions. In: Qualman R (ed) How to ensure development friendly economic partnership agreements – lessons across regions’ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, 2009) pp 239–282. http://www.fes.de/cotonou/DocumentsEN/ThematicFocus/trade_finance_economy/DevelopmentFriendlyEPAs.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Perez Pugatch M (ed) (2006) The intellectual property debate: perspectives from law, economics and political economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Google Scholar
Pitschas C (2014) Economic partnership agreements and EU trade policy: objectives, competences, and implementation. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse-Kahn H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse? Springer, Berlin, pp 209–240
Chapter Google Scholar
Position paper of 16 November 2007 on Sustainability Impact Assessment of EU-ACP Economic Partnership Agreements. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2007/november/tradoc_136958.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013
Statement by the Commission concerning Article 2 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ 2005/L 94/37.
Google Scholar
Strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries, [2005] OJ C 129/3 of 26 May 2005, pp 3–16
Google Scholar
Yu K (2014) EU economic partnership agreements and international human rights. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse-Kahn H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse? Springer, Berlin, pp 109–132
Chapter Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Mr. Christoph Heinrich and Mr. Malte Symann for their valuable work on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany
Thomas Jaeger

Authors

Thomas Jaeger
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Jaeger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

School of Law Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia
Christoph Antons
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany
Reto M. Hilty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jaeger, T. (2015). The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements. In: Antons, C., Hilty, R. (eds) Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 24. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30888-8_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30888-8_7
Published: 05 November 2014
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30887-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30888-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics