海峽兩岸自2008年6月恢復中斷近10年的制度化協商管道之後，迄2013年6月，兩岸兩會已舉行9次高層會談並簽署19項協議，以及達成2項共識，不僅建立了兩岸「機制對機制」、「官員對官員」的協商模式，亦創造兩岸在經貿、社會交流秩序等各項互動上的保障，為兩岸關係打造和平穩定之發展環境。在此氛圍下，已逐步奠定了兩岸互利互信之基礎，亦深化了雙方在政治、經濟、社會、文化等多層面之交流，也預示著兩岸未來之合作與發展將有無限可能。 在此特別值得一提的是，兩岸於2010年6月29日第5次江陳會談簽署「海峽兩岸經濟合作架構協議」(ECFA)之同時，亦簽署了「海峽兩岸智慧財產權保護合作協議」，復於2012年8月9日第8次江陳會談簽署了「海峽兩岸海關合作協議」。前揭協議之簽署為兩岸在「智慧財產權保護」以及「海關合作」兩議題建立了相互溝通之平臺。因此，研析與比較我國與中國大陸海關智慧財產權邊境保護相關措施及其異同點，對於兩岸海關未來在相關措施法制面與實務執行面之革新、發展與合作十分重要。 本文首先透過對於兩岸相關文獻之回顧、相關國際規範及其發展之認識，瞭解兩岸及國際間海關智慧財產權邊境措施之過去與現在，再分別針對我國與中國大陸海關智慧財產權邊境措施進行研究，以充分瞭解兩岸海關現行措施之法制面與實務執行情形，復透過對於兩岸之間海關關員之執法權力、海關緝獲之侵權貨物，以及智慧財產權邊境措施制度面之比較，研析雙方之異同，並提出改進意見，最後再綜合歸納以獲致研究成果。 / Since June 2008 when Taiwan and China resumed institutionalized negotiation that has been interrupted for nearly ten years till June 2013, the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) have held nine rounds of high-level talks, signed 19 agreements, and reached two consensuses. The resumption of bilateral talks has not only led to the establishment of “mechanism vs mechanism” and “official vs official” negotiation models, but has also safeguarded the security of economic and social activities in both sides and created a peaceful and stable environment for cross-strait relation. In this context, the two sides, which have gradually gained mutual trust, have deepened bilateral exchanges in political, economic, social and welfare aspects for mutual benefits. All of these forebode every possibility of future cooperation and development between the two sides. One thing worth our attention is the signing of the “Cross-Strait Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights Protection and Cooperation” on June 29th, 2010 when SEF and the ARATS officially signed the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement in the fifth round of Chiang-Chen talks. Furthermore, both sides signed the “Cross-Strait Customs Cooperation Agreement” on August 9th, 2012 in the eighth round of Chiang-Chen talks. The signing of the above agreements sets up a platform for both sides in implementing “IPR protection” and “Customs cooperation.” Therefore, the analysis and comparison of Cross-Strait Customs IPR protection border measures is very crucial to the innovation, improvement and cooperation of cross-strait Customs in terms of legal and practical aspects of relevant measures in the future. This study, through survey of cross-strait literature and knowledge of international standards and the development thereof, intends to comprehend the past and present of cross-strait Customs IPR border measures and international standards and then proceed to study IPR border measures of cross-strait Customs, so as to fully understand the legal and practical situation of current cross-strait Customs implementing IPR protection. Through comparing the legal authority of Customs officers, infringed commodities seized by Customs and IPR enforcement system of cross-strait Customs, this study also intends to analyze the discrepancies between the two Customs administrations and propose some personal opinions for improvement and present some conclusions as research results.

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.