Firstly, this Study focuses on ¡§Border Measures¡¨ in World Trade Organization¡]WTO¡^Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights¡]TRIPS¡^and in World Customs Organization¡]WCO¡^¡§Model Legislation¡¨. These two measures appear to form the backbone of China Intellectual Property Rights¡]IPR¡^ border protection for the time being. Other reasons for China Customs to implement IPR protection are U.S-China IPR MOUs. Secondly, after this explanatory study on China Customs¡¦ border measures, we find some structural problems existing in PRC¡¦s¡]People¡¦s Republic of China¡^General Administration of Customs¡]GAC¡^ that IPR infringements couldn¡¦t be eliminated at all. Owing to the PRC¡¦s special political-economic conditions, China Customs¡¦ IPR border measures cannot achieve the international standard. They cannot effectively limit the import/export of infringements or counterfeit goods. In their enactment as well as in enforcement of IPR border measures, China Customs still has a long way to go.

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.

No description available.

La construction de la propriété intellectuelle au Cambodge remonte à une date récente. Cetteconstruction se traduit, d’une part, par l’adoption d’un cadre juridique consacrant la notionjuridique de la propriété intellectuelle et, d’autre part, par l’élaboration des mécanismes deprotection de la notion consacrée.Comme la législation de la propriété intellectuelle a été adoptée pour assurer la conformité dudroit cambodgien aux exigences de l’OMC, il n’est pas surprenant de constater que la notion et lerégime juridique de la propriété littéraire et artistique et ceux de la propriété industriellecambodgiennes sont presque identiques à ceux qui sont prévus dans l’Accord ADPIC et dans lesTraités et Conventions administrés par l’OMPI. À cause des obstacles d’ordre juridique,économique et social, la plupart des lois cambodgiennes de la propriété intellectuelle ne connaitpas encore une application effective et correcte dans la pratique. En conséquence, la notion de lapropriété intellectuelle cambodgienne est très peu développée.Pour faire respecter le titre de propriété littéraire et artistique et celui de la propriété industrielle,les mécanismes légaux et judiciaires visant à prévenir les atteintes au droit exclusif dont disposentles titulaires du droit, à préserver les éléments de preuves et à réprimer des atteintes sont prévusdans la législation cambodgienne portant sur la propriété intellectuelle. Par ailleurs, le recours auxmodes alternatifs de règlements de litiges tels que l’arbitrage commercial, la médiation et laPreliminary Alternative Disputes Resolution est également possible. L’efficacité et l’effectivitéde la mise en oeuvre de ces mécanismes pour la protection de la propriété intellectuelle sur leterritoire cambodgien sont une question d’actualité. / The construction of intellectual property rights in Cambodia dates back to a recent time. This construction implies, on the one hand, the adoption of a specific legal framework that establishes the notion of intellectual property and, on the other hand, the elaboration of protection mechanisms of the established notion. As the legislation on intellectual property was adopted to ensure the conformity of Cambodian law with WTO requirements, it is not surprising that the notion and legal regime of literary and artistic property and that of industrial property are almost identical to what is provided under TRIPS Agreement and other Treaties and Conventions administered by the WIPO. Because of legal, economic and social barrier, most of Cambodian laws relating to intellectual property have not been effectively and correctly applied in practice. Consequently, the notion of intellectual property has not been well developed.To enforce the exclusive right of literary and artistic property and that of industrial property, the legal and judicial mechanisms aiming at preventing infringement, preserving the proofs and punishing the infringement are provided under Cambodian legislation relating to intellectual property. Moreover, utilization of alternative disputes resolutions mechanisms such as commercial arbitration, mediation and Preliminary Alternative Disputes Resolution, is also possible. The efficiency of these mechanisms for the protection of intellectual property in Cambodia is, however, a topical question.