Malgré l’amélioration du régime des droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) en Chine après l’accession de celle-ci à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) en 2001, la question relative aux DPI demeure l’un des « sujets de vive préoccupation » dans le commerce sino-européen. Selon la stratégie européenne visant à assurer le respect des DPI dans les pays tiers, adoptée en 2005 et renouvelée en 2014, la Chine est ciblée par la Commission européenne comme le premier pays tiers dans lequel les autorités locales ne prennent pas de mesure efficace pour s’attaquer aux problèmes de violations des DPI. En raison des enjeux politiques et économiques importants pour l’UE, son intervention est nécessaire pour améliorer le régime des DPI et l’environnement de l’investissement en Chine. L’analyse de l’action extérieure de l’UE s’appuie sur l’étude des instruments auxquels elle recourt en vue de renforcer la protection et le respect des DPI en Chine. L’objet de notre recherche est d’examiner la manière dont l’Union choisit d’exploiter les instruments à géométrie variable au sein des enceintes multilatérale et bilatérale. Deux axes distincts mais complémentaires orientent la mise en œuvre de l’action extérieure de l’UE vis-à-vis de la Chine : l’approche coopérative, d’une part, et de l’approche conventionnelle, d’autre part. L’approche coopérative vise d’abord à rapprocher le régime juridique chinois des standards les plus élevés du droit de l’UE. En dépit d’un certain nombre de difficultés limitant l’efficacité de l’action extérieure de l’UE, la coopération bilatérale avec la Chine permet de contribuer à l’amélioration du régime juridique chinois. La convergence normative devrait ensuite faciliter l’apparition d’une approche commune entre l’UE et la Chine sur le plan conventionnel. Il importe à cet égard de souligner la position divergente de la Chine face à la promotion de l’UE, par la voie conventionnelle, d’un renforcement de la protection et du respect des DPI. Malgré la convergence accrue des positions européenne et chinoise favorables à la protection « ADPIC-plus » des DPI, la Chine se montre réticente voire hostile envers les initiatives conventionnelles de l’UE tendant à renforcer les mesures relatives au respect des DPI. / Despite the improvement of China’s intellectual property rights (IPR) regime after this country’s World Trade Organization (WTO) accession in 2001, the IPR remains one of “major concerns” in Sino-European trade relation. According to European strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries, adopted in 2005 and renewed in 2014, China is identified by the European Commission as first priority country, in which the local authority does not take effective measures to tackle the problems caused by IPR violations. Taking into account the EU’s important political and economic concerns, his action is necessary in order to improve the IPR regime and the investment environment in China. The analysis of EU’s external action is based on the instruments used to strengthen IPR’s protection and enforcement in China. The purpose of our research is to examine the EU’s method to use the different instruments within the multilateral and bilateral fora. Two distinct but complementary axes orientate the undertaking of EU’s external action vis-à-vis China: cooperative approach, on the one hand, and the conventional approach, on the other hand. Firstly, the cooperative approach aims to bring Chinese legal system closer to higher standards in EU law. In spite of certain difficulties limiting the efficacy of EU external action, the bilateral cooperation with China can contribute to a better legal system in China. Then, the normative convergence should be able to facilitate the emergence of a common approach between the EU and China in the conventional framework. In this respect, it is important to emphasis Chinese divergent position with regard to EU’s conventional approach aiming to strengthen IPR protection and enforcement. Despite the increasing convergence of European and Chinese positions favorable toward “TRIPs-plus” protection, China seems reluctant even hostile to EU’s conventional initiatives intending to strengthen IPR enforcement measures.

In 2001 the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (‘Doha Declaration’), affirmed the right of member states of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) to interpret and implement the TRIPS Agreement as supportive of the protection of public health and, in particular, access to medicines. While initially well-received, consternation soon arose over the interpretation of a specific paragraph in the Doha Declaration dealing with compulsory licensing. After a further two years of deliberation, the WTO Decision on the Interpretation of Paragraph 6 (‘Paragraph-6 Decision’) was announced in August 2003 specifying when countries can import drugs produced elsewhere under compulsory licence. With one third of the world's population is still denied access to essential medicines - a figure which rises to over 50 per cent in Asia and Africa - the problems facing the public health community are two-fold. The first is the capacity of developing countries (‘DCs’) actually to use the flexibilities afforded under the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration, and the Paragraph- 6 Decision amid stark inequalities in health resources and the world trading system as a whole. These include provisions for compulsory licensing, parallel importation, and addressing imbalances in research and development (‘R&D’). The pending ratification of the Paragraph-6 Decision, from an interim solution to a permanent amendment, is accompanied by considerable uncertainty: will the protections be accessible under the system currently proposed? The second problem concerns the undermining of the above hard-won flexibilities by provisions adopted under various bilateral and regional trade agreements. Known as ‘TRIPS-plus’- or ‘WTO-plus’- measures, the level of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’) rights protection being negotiated and even adopted under other trade agreements are more restrictive as regards public health protection. These two sources of concern have led to an increase in rather than a lessening of tensions between the public health and trade policy communities. The thesis opens with a brief analysis of the interplay between patents and medicines. This includes an overview of the human rights framework and the right of access to medicines as a manifestation of human rights. The historical development of the TRIPS Agreement, its legitimacy, and the effect of the introduction of patents for pharmaceuticals are critically analysed. The terms of the Doha Declaration as it relates to public health, the Paragraph-6 Decision and its system, the December 2005 Amendment, and the progress made to date on the public health protections available under the TRIPS Agreement are reviewed and discussed in detail. The thesis describes how, despite these important clarifications, concerns as to the capacity of DCs to implement specific measures persist. This thesis further addresses the development of compulsory licensing in India and South Africa, and the legal framework for compulsory licensing in these countries. The role of competition law and constraints faced by DCs in implementing the flexibilities offered by the TRIPS Agreement and Doha Declaration are considered before turning to the threat posed by TRIPS-plus measures and calls for their critical reassessment. The thesis considers the role of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), the WHO Commission on IPRs, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), Patent Pools, and international and multilateral donors in access to medicines. The thesis concludes by reviewing potential ways forward to ensure that access to medicines by the poor living in DCs is secured in all trade agreements. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

In 2001 the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (‘Doha Declaration’), affirmed the right of member states of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) to interpret and implement the TRIPS Agreement as supportive of the protection of public health and, in particular, access to medicines. While initially well-received, consternation soon arose over the interpretation of a specific paragraph in the Doha Declaration dealing with compulsory licensing. After a further two years of deliberation, the WTO Decision on the Interpretation of Paragraph 6 (‘Paragraph-6 Decision’) was announced in August 2003 specifying when countries can import drugs produced elsewhere under compulsory licence. With one third of the world's population is still denied access to essential medicines - a figure which rises to over 50 per cent in Asia and Africa - the problems facing the public health community are two-fold. The first is the capacity of developing countries (‘DCs’) actually to use the flexibilities afforded under the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration, and the Paragraph- 6 Decision amid stark inequalities in health resources and the world trading system as a whole. These include provisions for compulsory licensing, parallel importation, and addressing imbalances in research and development (‘R&D’). The pending ratification of the Paragraph-6 Decision, from an interim solution to a permanent amendment, is accompanied by considerable uncertainty: will the protections be accessible under the system currently proposed? The second problem concerns the undermining of the above hard-won flexibilities by provisions adopted under various bilateral and regional trade agreements. Known as ‘TRIPS-plus’- or ‘WTO-plus’- measures, the level of intellectual property rights (‘IPRs’) rights protection being negotiated and even adopted under other trade agreements are more restrictive as regards public health protection. These two sources of concern have led to an increase in rather than a lessening of tensions between the public health and trade policy communities. The thesis opens with a brief analysis of the interplay between patents and medicines. This includes an overview of the human rights framework and the right of access to medicines as a manifestation of human rights. The historical development of the TRIPS Agreement, its legitimacy, and the effect of the introduction of patents for pharmaceuticals are critically analysed. The terms of the Doha Declaration as it relates to public health, the Paragraph-6 Decision and its system, the December 2005 Amendment, and the progress made to date on the public health protections available under the TRIPS Agreement are reviewed and discussed in detail. The thesis describes how, despite these important clarifications, concerns as to the capacity of DCs to implement specific measures persist. This thesis further addresses the development of compulsory licensing in India and South Africa, and the legal framework for compulsory licensing in these countries. The role of competition law and constraints faced by DCs in implementing the flexibilities offered by the TRIPS Agreement and Doha Declaration are considered before turning to the threat posed by TRIPS-plus measures and calls for their critical reassessment. The thesis considers the role of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property (IGWG), the WHO Commission on IPRs, Innovation and Public Health (CIPIH), Patent Pools, and international and multilateral donors in access to medicines. The thesis concludes by reviewing potential ways forward to ensure that access to medicines by the poor living in DCs is secured in all trade agreements. / Mercantile Law / LL.D.

時尚設計師出面控訴快時尚品牌抄襲的新聞層出不窮，不乏設計師出面指稱現行法規對其保護不足，而時尚設計、服裝設計領域近期不斷以新穎之技術、手法融入設計當中，呈現出更多以往不可能呈現的造型，使得服裝設計越來越像藝術品，並不單單只是為了使人穿著，進而引發是否有必要將服裝設計與傳統藝術作品區別保護之爭辯。 根據美國國會2016年的報告顯示，全球時尚產業每年產值約1.75兆美金，過去曾有紡織王國美稱的台灣，也開始從過去的委託製造（OEM）致力轉型於委託設計製造（ODM），至今努力發展自有品牌（OBM），如何成功打入國際為本土品牌未來應努力之方向。歐盟地區有歐盟共同體設計規定，予以服裝設計周全之設計權保護；美國則長期受制於實用性物品原則之可分離性判斷，而長期無法提供服裝設計之著作權保護；我國雖未明文不予服裝設計著作權保護，但也長期處於不明確之狀態。對設計師而言，不明確之保護即為一不確定風險，將阻礙具創意的新設計之出現，此為台灣推行文化創意產業、將本土品牌推向國際、培育新一代設計師所需解決之問題。 本研究主要分為五章，除第一章為緒論外，第二章為時尚設計產業與國際保護現況之概述，第三章主要論述美國著作權法基本結構且以服裝設計為重心，並就前述基礎由實務案例加以歸納評析美國實務對於服裝設計著作權保護之態度，第四章主要論述我國著作權法基本結構且以服裝設計為重心，並就前述基礎藉由實務案例加以歸納評析我國實務對於服裝設計著作權保護之態度，第五章提出本研究之結論與建議。 經研究發現著作權法並非全然對於服裝設計不予以保護，僅係因立法政策與解釋論上之不穩定見解，導致保護的不確定性，希望透過此篇論文能夠提供我國主管機關解釋上之建議。 / Nowadays, copycat, knock-off accusements appear frequently within fashion design industry. Some of the scholars, industrial representors comment that fashion design is not copyrightable and shall not be protected. However, it is indisputable that fashion is an innovative and orginal form of art. Furthermore, fahion design consists of artisic expression and other unique features. Thus fashion designers and other kind of artists shall not be treated unfairly. This study focuses on copyright protection both in Taiwan and United States. And discuss to what extent shall we protect garment design and how we can seafeguard talented fashion desingers’s creative works. The study is divided into five parts. The first part is the introduction part. The second part is talking about the featues of fashion design industry and international rules which are related to fashion design. The third part focuses on copright law, domestic theoretical legal analysis and cases on garment design infringement lawsuits in the United States. The fourth part focuses on copright law, domestic theoretical legal analysis and cases on garment design infringement lawsuits in Taiwan. In the end, this study provides several suggestions for the Taiwanese adminstrtion agencies and juditial authorities.