English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88531/118073 (75%)
Visitors : 23457343      Online Users : 225
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118663

    Title: A Fake Right of Priority Under the Cross-Strait Agreement on Intellectual Property Right Protection and Cooperation
    Authors: 陳秉訓
    Chen, Ping-Hsun
    Contributors: 科管智財所
    Keywords: TRIPS Agreement;Right of Priority;Paris Convention;Taiwan;China
    Date: 2016
    Issue Date: 2018-07-13 17:00:13 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: On June 26, 2010, Taiwan and China entered into a Cross-Strait Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Cooperation and Protection (Cross-Strait IP Agreement). This Cross-Strait IP Agreement was renowned for China’s admission of a right of priority of Taiwanese patent applications or trademark applications. Under the TRIPS Agreement, China is obligated to admit a right of priority of Taiwanese applications, but it has never fulfilled such obligation. China’s particular concern is that a right of priority is rooted from the Paris Convention which only allows a state to join, so by admitting a right of priority of Taiwanese applications it may admit the statehood of Taiwan. This article is intended to argue that China provides a fake right of priority and still violates its duty to the TRIPS Agreement. First, the Agreement does not recite the TRIPS Agreement or Paris Convention. Second, the signing representatives are not regular representatives for international affairs or trade affairs in both countries. Third, China has not changed its IP laws to comply with the treaty requirements while Taiwan did so. Though, China promulgates regulations regarding a right of priority claimed by Taiwanese applicants. Those regulations are only applicable to Taiwanese applicants not to Taiwanese applications filed by a non-Taiwanese entity. Last, China does not treat the ECPA as a free trade agreement.
    Relation: Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 213-239
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    SSRN-id2970486.pdf589KbAdobe PDF62View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback