台灣早期係以農業為主的社會，加上位處亞熱帶，植物品種豐富，生長期長，稻作可一年三穫。又二十世紀初，台灣處於日治時期，製糖、樟腦、茶葉、稻米進入工業化生產時代，技術持續進步，產量也逐漸上升，奠定生產優良農產品的實力。另外一方面，台灣的花卉業也不容忽視，蝴蝶蘭的育種具有世界水準，而台灣與外界隔絕之海島地形，加上地處亞熱帶，具有豐富且特殊的生物基因資源，以上因素皆奠定台灣發展農業科技之基礎。 1980年代起，生物技術日益發達，基因轉殖或是基因改造的方法逐漸與傳統嫁接、配種等植物育種方法並行，隨著國際化的腳步、經濟的發展，農業技術的進步，植物新品種的培育愈來愈容易進行，且新品種樣態也愈來愈繁多。但另一方面，植物的流通日益複雜，熟悉育種技術者可由新品種植物種子、枝條、葉片等便於攜帶部位輕易繁殖，導致辛苦育成新品種的育種者心血結晶易被他人盜用，使育種人逐漸失去創造新品種之動力。為解決此問題，國際間有以植物新品種保護國際聯盟(UPOV)及與貿易相關之智慧財產權協定(TRIPS)規範之植物品種權及專利權制度保護育種者之智慧財產權，我國目前亦有植物品種及種苗法保護植物品種權，專利法則正在修法開放植物為專利標的。 然而，除了法律制度健全外，還需要有效的執行政策確保能實際達到立法目的，以植物相關智慧財產權法為例，需讓育種者了解自己有哪些權利、申請方式及行使方式，再遇到侵權事件時，能第一時間防止侵害、順利主張權利、請求賠償及去除侵害。再者，確保權利得以主張後，如何將此權利產業化、商品化以換取利益亦為重要課題。完成上述一連串政策後，才能順利達到提升產業、讓社會大眾享受到科技成果之目的。 由於農產品不同於電子或醫藥產業之產品可全球通行，依據不同地區有不同的主食及盛行作物，美國、中國、日本及歐洲等農村結構、農業技術、氣候及產品等亦大不相同，故國際間對於農業或植物相關智慧財產權之保護及商品化政策都因地制宜，不盡相同。 台灣的近鄰 --- 日本，有著與台灣類似的農村結構、飲食習慣及盛行作物，同時植物智財保護政策也對其高產值的精緻農業有所貢獻，例如日本特有的獨立行政法人植物種苗管理中心以及品種保護對策官(G-Men)制度，在行政上發揮有效的智慧財產管理作用。同時日本善用其地方文化結合農產品發展出地方特產、一村一特產等，提升國內外觀光潛力，使遊客聽到北海道即聯想到「夕張哈密瓜」、聽到京都即聯想到「宇治抹茶」，松坂市有「松阪牛」、青森有「青森蘋果」等等，以地名行銷農畜產品之方式相當成功。 綜上所述，本研究認為台灣在發展農業技術上之潛力不亞於日本，並期待「台灣」一詞有朝一日能在國際上代表「品質優良的農產品、水果、花卉及先進的農業技術」，使台灣之農產業能成為繼電子產業後另一項能在國際間發光之產業，故本研究以日本為研究對象，以植物相關智慧財產權政策之角度分析其精緻農業成功因素，並針對台灣之特色，提出因地制宜之政策變革方向。

歐美葡萄酒貿易協定於2006年3月10日經歐美雙方簽署後，對於延宕多年之數項關於雙方葡萄酒貿易上之爭議，達成了一定程度之妥協。然雙方所妥協之內容均與WTO協定之規範有衝突之處；然從另一方面觀之，該協定卻有助於美國在其葡萄酒產品使用歐盟地理標示之爭議上，朝向與TRIPS協定較為合致之方向去修正。 歐美葡萄酒貿易協定最主要之爭議可分為兩大部分，一為歐盟關於葡萄酒釀造製程上之規範；另一是美國葡萄酒產品使用歐盟地理標示，本文主要將針對此二議題與WTO協定間之合致性進行探討，以了解該協定所妥協之部分與WTO協定間之合致性。由於歐盟與美國係為WTO內最具影響力之兩大會員，本文最後將探討該協定對於WTO多邊架構以及爭端解決機制上之所衝擊與影響。 / The EU-US agreement on trade in wine was signed on March 10, 2006, marking the end of a first phase in wine trading discussions began in 1983. The Agreement addresses several key issues, such as oenological practices, import certification, the use of European geographical indication on the wine label which produced in US and other labeling issues. This thesis is to analyze the most controversial parts of this agreement. This agreement compromises 17 provisions, there are two parts most controversial: one is the mutual acceptance of the EU-US oenological practice regulations, which would facilitate the trading of wine between the two parties. And the other is that finally U.S. agreed to prohibit new brands from using these names on non-European wine and grandfather those existing uses. The oenological regulation of EU is more strictly and conservative compare to the related international standard. Moreover, EU ban the import of wine which is not conform with its oenological regulation unless the exporting country meet the Derogation requirement to allow the wine to be imported and circulated in the territory of EU. This article is to analyses the consistency of the EU oenological regulation with the TBT agreement, and the MFN treatment with this derogation. And the U.S. had allowed the use of specific EU geographical indications, which is called semi-generic names in U.S. regulation, on the wine label for the wine producing in the U.S in its labeling regulation. According to the TRIPS Agreement, the use of EU’s GI is in a continuous matter before 1994 can be excepted from the regulation of additional for GI. This thesis would like to clarify which part of the use of those semi-generic names may or may not except from the context of TRIPS agreement about GI. Since the wine agreement settle down several issues which violate the WTO agreement, this thesis would like to discuss the impact of the wine agreement to the WTO multilateral system.

Due to the globalization of economy, the protection of intellectual property rights becomes very important, not only on a national and local basis but also on an international basis. The evidence is coming from the negotiation and ultimately the inclusion of the TRIPS Agreement, or Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, into the World Trade Organization. In the TRIPS Agreement, one of the protections to a local intellectual property on an international level is the protection of geographical indications, and such protection can be found in Articles 22 through 24 of the TRIPS Agreement. Geographical indications identify goods as originating in a particular territory or region, and also indicate quality by letting consumers know that the goods come from an area where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to their geographical origin. The protection of geographical indications has always been on the table and been mentioned in various international treaties, and eventually came together under the TRIPS Agreement. The different ways for geographical indications protection is examined in order to understand the different national regulations used in various countries as a tool to protect the geographical indications, hence, to protect intellectual property rights. The major issue regards the scope of protection is the extension of the TRIPS Article 23; diverse opinions and suggestions are coming from US and EU, the two biggest sovereignties. This also can be seen in the result of the WTO dispute case of EC – Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The future developments such as the negotiations for a multilateral system of register for geographical indications, the progress of developing countries toward protection of geographical indications and the involvement of the traditional knowledge, all play very crucial roles on the enforcement of geographical indications protection. This paper will explore all these matters.