b If it m atch es th e principles of Berne Convention 1971 or Rome Convention... In addition, its -nember coun tries h av e to localize the regulations of TRIPS... Nguyễn Bá Diên, Hoàn t
Trang 1VNU JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ECONOMICS-LAW, IM01E 2004
PRO TECTING INTELLECTUAL PR O PER TY RIGHTS
ACCORDING TO T R IPS
1 TR IPS - An O verview
The rig h t to intellectual property
ow nership h a s become one of th e two types
of o w nership rig h ts of h u m a n beings - the
rig h t to m a te ria l p rop erty a n d the rig h t to
intellectual property T he rig h t to
intellectual prop erty ow nersh ip is a special
type of ow nership rig h t b u t h a s not
em erged an d become law u n til revolutions
of science a n d technology a n d u n til h u m a n
beings recognized profits re s u lte d in by
prop erty rig h ts consist of two main
categories: in d u s tria l rig h ts a n d a u th o r
rights According to th e in te rn a tio n a l
private laws, intellectual p roperty rig hts
are deem ed to consist of foreign elem ents
In tellectual property rig h ts a re thoroughly
territorial D espite th e ir different origins,
languages, histories a n d so on, p roducts of
intellectual inventions s h a re c ertain
common characteristics then' immaterialness
an d th e ir c apability of wide popularization
Therefore, it is n e cessary to a d ju st and
apply protective rig h ts on intellectual
p ro perty ow nership in ord e r to protect the
a u th o rs an d to p re v e n t violence to the
ow nership of th e in tellectu al property
effectively, as well as to esta b lish and
perfect th e m e ch an ism of exploiting
intellectu al in v entions for th e h ig h e st
social profits
n Assoc.Prof.D r., Faculty of Law, V ietnam National
U niversity, Hanoi.
N g u y en Ba D ie n (*‘
Along w ith th e rapid scientific- technological developm ents in the world
d u rin g the la st decade, protecting intellectual p rop erty rig h ts h a s gained a
n u m b e r of re m a rk a b le achievem ents WIPO an d its p re cursors m ade n u m e ro u s
a tte m p ts a t building an in te rn a tio n a l system of re g u la tio n s to protect intellectual p ro perty rights Some of
in te rn a tio n a l im p o r ta n t conventions were approved of, including Rome Convention
Stockholm Convention (1967, revised in 1979), B erne Convention (1971), etc
T o gether w ith th e world developm ents
of commerce an d economy, WTO was held
as a legal in s titu tio n to re g ulate global commercial-economic relationships It has increasingly developed its roles and effects
b a sin g on its p re c u rso rs ’ re g u la tio n s of the
la st 50 y e ars (a genera] a g re e m e n t on
ta riff a n d tra d in g - GATT) It o p e ra tes on four m ain principles: opening m arkets,
tr e a tm e n t of m ost-favoured nation,
tr e a tm e n t of favoured n a tio n an d fair
A g reem ents, WTO, an ‘in te rn a tio n a l pla y g ro u n d ’ of m odern rules, profoundly
re g u la te s exchanges of products and services, in v e s tm e n ts a n d intellectual prop erty rights
1 7
Trang 2N g u y e n Ba Dien _ _
-u
,rcot€t
aacU
a t tê1
ÌỊig th e existence of GATT, th e
on of in te lle ctu al p ro p e rty rig h ts
.t a s e p a r a te issu e to be a d ju sted in
,tional a g re e m e n ts a n d conventions
iS laid o ut of th e scope of GATT,
late 1970s a n d th e 1980s, most
n trie s h a v e been try ing ate in te rn a tio n a l conventions on
I f
J tual pro p e rty righ ts These
nit*e
t? failed due to a fierce p ro te st from
i t t t n l c ;
I )i]ig c o u n trie s w h e re a view w as
j-eld th e n t h a t th e developed
Qậ a tte m p ts to p ro te c t intellectu al
•n l ° ,
he late 19"
>inv‘
, f ialized cou
nad’1
ate in te rn
O) 1
oeeB
ti
zco\
pi?r'e
t W
wvln
»lc
por
y rig h ts a ctu a lly w ere to m a in ta in
]cm in a tin g roles N ot u n til 1984
t i e U SA declared to add th e
n<s of fau lty goods into GATT had
rejection of in te lle c tu a l property
t t h r
b^en officially ad d ed into GATT
rri*ts
eiits h a d been t h a t GATT ju s t
M UĨ
ịintà to deal w ith m a te ria l property
fftfw
fcb\
Ỵ ;niore, problem s of faulty goods
e( to WIPO, not to GATT itself
\ tyn
01, a fte rw ard s, developing countries
clanged th e ir p oints of view to
} h e
]
righ ts to th e ir ow n developm ents
)P*
(*e
the technology tra n s fe rre d from
d countries
rje U ruguay M u ltila te ra l N egotiation
.] in P u n t a Del E ste on 20/9/1986
cTt
j fnished w ith th e M a ra k e sh
rc
pi
9C4 T R IP S is one of its four
di'.es The re g u la tio n system of
*Q\\ủ p ro p e rty rig h ts w as b u ilt on
a iloV'iHg concepts:
- V alues of products an d services increasingly reflect factors of technologies
a n d c reation s inside them selves Thus, exchanges of products an d services include exchanges of in tellectu al values
- In th e u n ity of th e world economies, tra d in g develo pm en ts m igh t be affected if the c riteria in protectin g in tellectu al pro perty rig h ts given by different co u n trie s are varied F u r th e r m o re , in a d e q u a te
im p le m e n ta tio n of th e se rig h ts can lead to
in c reasin g ex changes of faulty goods and violence to copyrights
In o rd e r to reduce d e viation s and obstacles in in te rn a tio n a l tr a d in g activities, it is necessary to im prove the protection of intellectual p ro p erty rights,
m e a s u re m e n ts will n ot h in d e r legal tra d in g activities T h e re need to be new
re g u la tio n s on:
1) The capability to apply th e basic principles of GATT 1994 a n d oth er suitable in te rn a tio n a l a g re e m e n ts and
in tellectual p ro p e rty rights
2) D efining n o rm s a n d re g u la tio n s
re g a rd in g a ch ie v e m en t capability, scope
a n d em p lo y m e n t of intellectual p ro perty righ ts concerning tra d in g activities
3) D efining effective m e a s u re s to
im p le m e n t in tellectu al property rights which a re concerned with tr a d in g activities, and ta lk in g in to account the difference of law system am on g countries
VNU, Journal o f Science, Econom ics-Luw , N, lE , 2004
Trang 3Protecting intellectual property rights ac cording to TR IPs
1;
4) D efining effective procedures in
order to p re v e n t a n d deal with
controversies am ong countries; and
5) Defining re g ulatio ns in order to
achieve m a x im u m p a rtic ip a tio n to the
re su lts of negotiations
T ra d in g m a tte r s in WTO defined in
TR IPS a im to help e n h an c e innovating,
technologies, a n d bring profits to the
ow ners of intellectual property, bring
about social a n d economic profits, and
c reate th e b alan ce b etw een in te re s ts and
responsibilities
contents:
- The basic principles a n d general
responsibilities
- The c rite ria of m in im u m protection,
validity of protection a n d supervision, and
of protecting m e a s u re s a g a in s t
com petitions in contracts
- The m e a s u re m e n ts of tr a d in g limits
E n s u rin g im p le m e n ta tio n s of
in tellectual p ro perty rights
- A g reem ents on th e tra n s itio n a l stage
to im p le m e n t a t n a tio n a l levels
- A u th o r rig h ts a n d re le v a n t ones:
th e r e h av e not been such detailed
re g u la tio n s on protecting c o m p uter
prog ram s, building a n d b ro a d castin g
public m edia program s
* I n d u s tria l o w nership no rights: in
V ietnam , th e re have been p rotections of
intellectual pro p e rty rig h ts for bn
in te g ra te d circuits, coded satellite taiH fam ous good m a rk s a n d labels, g(,(
in stru c tio n s for wine, a n d strong drinks, a n d know-how
2 B a sic P r in c ip le s o f T R IP S
T rad in g re g u la tio n s a re based principles of WTO, ex p re ssin g the]
th ro u g h two categories First
in stitu tio n a lise d all a r e a s 0
mnr iêaàl:
^ohh> al>hhc
Mtkh iSvee TC(
in te rn a tio n a l tra d in g system , thhi
n lu both visible a n d invisible
ram ị
activities Second, tra d in g relativ, ■
raipp* are d ealt w ith u n d e r genera] J,r
^CỊeec
a n d th e re s tric tio n s of pr*ft
e iaa exceptions T R IP S is one of h
im p o r ta n t a g re e m e n ts w ith in th(
WTO; therefo re its principles a re b ’P 0 6 those of WTO Besides, T R IP S h*sseODn
re m a rk a b le re s u lts by apphin
in tellectu al p ro p e rty rig h ts -e« tra d in g activities In short, th(ĩ )r
of TR IPS a re th e concretizatioi, (f GATT a n d WTO in te rm s of th'i
iaecd hoe e<ngg
ess
«ir
10 lilf
>r< intellectual p ro p e rty rights ec)nn
2.1 M o st F a v o u r e d N a tio n ĩ (ịf^y
C lause 4 in T R IP S say?: ‘L
r lee iis,;, protection of in tellectual proper.y any privilege t h a t one m e m le gives to any citizen of a n y coaitr
im m ediately a n d u n c o n d itio n a l) b
to any o th e r citizens of othei 1
c ou ntries.’
u
T V m
ẽ-n 1
r r
This is deem ed to be tie
im p o r ta n t a n d f u n d a m e n ta l OÍ (A
i ' d
V N V Journal o f Science, Econom ics-Law , N„IE, 2004
Trang 420 N g u y e n Ba Dien
WTO, which e n s u re s eq uality am o n g th e ir
m em ber countries
exceptions a n d waivers According to its
Clause 4, M FN can be omitted:
a) B asing on th e in te rn a tio n a l
A greem ents a n d conventions on th e
im p le m e n ta tio n in g en eral m eaning, b u t
not ju s t u n d e r the re stric tio n on the
protection of intellectual p ro p e rty rights
b) If it m atch es th e principles of Berne
Convention (1971) or Rome Convention
c) In cases of the rig h ts belonging to
perform ers, producers of records a n d
broad castin g o rg anization s which a re not
defined by TRIPS
d) B asing on th e in te rn a tio n a l
A greem ents a n d conventions which took
effect before WTO A g re em en t did, on th e
condition t h a t th e y conformed to TR IP S
Com m ittee and do not b rin g a b out sloppy
countries
2.2 N a tio n a l T r e a tm e n t (N T)
Item 1 of C lause 3 in T R IPS says: ‘each
m em ber country h a s to give no less willing
tr e a tm e n ts to o th e r m e m b e r’s citizens t h a n
to those of its c o u n try re g a rd in g
intellectual prop erty rights
This is a fu n d a m e n ta l principle of all
in te rn a tio n a l conventions on th e protection
of in tellectual prop erty rig hts, a n d is also
defined in Clause 3 of GATT
FN in T R IP S h a s som e points w orth
a tte n d in g to as follows:
- According to th e legend of TR IPS, for WTO m em b ers w ith p riv a te custom s territories, th e te r m ‘citiz en ’ is a re s id e n t
or legal person re s id in g or ru n n in g effective in d u s tr ia l or commercial
e sta b lis h m e n ts w ith in th e ir custom s territories
- According to Ite m 1 of C lause 3, any
m em ber c o un try is deem ed to ha v e its responsibilities to give a n y approved rig hts
in th e A g re e m e n t to o th e r m em ber
c o u ntry’s citizens, r e g a rd le s s of w h e th e r this c o un try gives th e s e rig h ts to its own citizens or not
- Exceptions of F N of TR IP S are defined in P a ris C o n vention (1967), Berne Convention (1971), R om e Convention and conventions on in te lle c tu a l p roperty rig hts concerning in te g r a tin g circuits
According to Ite m 2 of C lause 3 in TRIPS, all m e m b e r c o u n trie s can employ
a d m in is tra tiv e j u d g e m e n ts only
- R eg a rd in g F N a n d MFN, TRIPS
m entions ‘m a x im u m exploiting s t a t e ’ of intellectual p ro p e rty righ ts According to Clause 6 of th e A g re e m e n t, no principles in the A g re em en t c a n be used to a d ju s t this
m a tte r on d e a lin g w ith originating problems
- W h a t h ave b e en m entio ned above on
M FN a n d FN a re n o t applied to any procedures defined in the M u ltila te ral
A gre em en t signed u n d e r the protection of
V NU, Journal o f Science, Econom ics-Law , N„IE, 2004
Trang 5Protecting intellectual p roperty rights ac co rd in g to TRIPs 2 1
WIPO which a re con cerned w ith gaining
and m a in ta in in g effects of intellectual
property rights
In th e context of V ie tn am , a lth o u g h N F
in principle receives r e m a rk a b le atte n tio n ,
th e re a re several o bstacles to overcome
R egarding th e p ro te c tio n of intellectu al
property rights, th e legal sy ste m of
V ietnam h a s not b e e n able to ad eq u a te ly
m atch TRIPS, for ex am ple, in se ttin g and
m a in ta in in g in d u s tr ia l ow n e rsh ip rights,
re g isterin g a u th o r rig h ts
b etw een th e P r o te c tio n o f I n te lle c tu a l
S o c ie ty 's In te r e s ts
C lauses 7 a n d 8 in T R IP S say:
- The protection a n d im p le m e n ta tio n of
intellectu al p ro p e rty rig h ts m u s t help
e n h an c e im proving, tra n s fe rrin g , and
popularizing technologies, re s u ltin g in
social and economic in te re sts T h is is an
im p o r ta n t objective of TRIPS
- On issuing a n d rev ising its laws, a
m e m b e r c o un try c an ta k e necessary
m e a s u re s in o r d e r to e n s u r e h e a lth
security for its people a n d im prove public
in te re s ts in c e r ta in vital issu e s for its
developm ents, on th e condition t h a t they
do not conflict w ith th e principles of the
A greem ent
Suitab le m e a s u r e s w ith in the
principles of th e A g re e m e n t can be
employed to p r e v e n t the a b u se s of
in tellectu al p ro p e rty rig h ts and w h a t may
h in d e r legal tra d in g activities
- M em b er co u n trie s can issue th e ir own laws on monopoly rights, goods tra d e
m a rk s a n d labels, in d u s tria l p a tte rn s in
A greem ent
I m p le m e n ta tio n o f T R IP S in its M em b er
C o u n tr ie s ’ N a tio n a l L a w S y ste m s
M em ber s R esp o n sib ility
According to C lause 1 in TRIPS:
“A/Z m em bers m u st com ply w ith all
clauses o f the A greem ent A ll m em ber
countries can, but are not necessarily
protections in th eir ow n law system s tha n
w h a t is d e fin e d in the Agreem ent, i f they do not conflict the A greem ent A ll m em ber countries are free to choose their suitable
m easures to im p le m en t the provisions
d efin ed in the A greem ent
On im p le m e n tin g TR IPS, some of its
m e m b e r co u n trie s m ay e n c o u n te r certain common problems To th e most general
ex ten t, t h e r e m ay be some differences betw een th e re g u la tio n s of TR IPS and those of its m e m b e r countries Solutions to
th e se problem s shall de pend on the positions a n d pow ers of in te rn a tio n a l conventions in th e ir law system s In some countries, in te rn a tio n a l conventions receive a priority as co m pared with any previous issu ed re g u la tio n s b u t not with ones issued later; while in some others,
V N U , Journal o f Science, E conom ics-Law , N J E , 2004
Trang 6ỈẴ N g u y en Ba Dien
n te rn a tio n a l conventions, in all cases,
;eceive the h ig h e st priority In addition, its
-nember coun tries h av e to localize the
regulations of TRIPS
On the o th e r h an d, T R IP S also ha s
some self-im plem enting a n d non-self-
countries h ave th e ir responsibilities for
accepting th e se re g u la tio n s in th e ir own
laws and issu in g su ita b le legal re g u la tio n s
so th a t th ey can be im p lem en ted This
m ean s in te rn a tio n a l law s do not care
about m easu res, b u t a b o u t th e re su lts
instead
In term s of responsibilities, Item 3 of
Clause 1 says: ‘M em b e r co u n trie s a re
d e e m e i to accept a n y tr e a t m e n t s defined
in the A greem ent a n d applied to o th e r
member c o u n trie s ’ citizens R egard in g the
rig hts corresponding in te lle ctu al property
ownership, citizens of o th e r m em b er
countries a re deem ed to be re s id e n ts or
legal men who m eet th e re q u ire m e n ts of
Convention (1971), Rome C onvention, a n d
any conventions on in te lle ctu al property
rig hts re g a rd in g in te g ra te d circuits Any
member co u n trie s employ the capability
definel Ite m of C lause 5 or Item 2 of
Clause 6 in Rome Convention, have to
inforrr the C om m ittee
a n d Eerne C onvention, R o m e C onvention
an d Peris C onvention
As m entioned above, T R IP S w as b u ilt
on the basis of co n tem p o rary conventions
relatirg to in te lle ctu al p ro p e rty rights,
including P a ris C onvention (1967) in te rm s
of th e protection of in d u s tria l ow nership righ ts, B erne Convention (1971) in term s
of copyrights of w orks of lite ra tu re , arts,
a n d Rome Convention (1961) in te rm s of
th e protection of perform ers, m a n u fa c tu re s
organizations The idea of T R IP S was not
to set up new re g u la tio n s b u t to combine old ones to g e th e r as its s t a r t i n g points Therefore, TR IPS h a s a close relatio nship
w ith th ese conventions W ith regard to
th is relationship, T R IP S h a s a clause (Clause 2) w ith th e following contents:
- According to P a r t II, III a n d IV of the
A greem ent, all m em ber co u n trie s are deem ed to comply w ith C la u se s 1-12 and
C lause 19 of P a ris C onvention (1967)
- None of the re g u la tio n s in P a rts I-IV
of th e A g re em en t affect th e existing responsibilities employed to a n y member
co un tries of P a ris Convention, Berne Convention, Rome C onvention and the convention on ow nership rig h ts which are concerned w ith in te g ra tin g circuits
- As re g a rd s a u th o r rig h ts a n d other
re le v a n t rights, m em b er c o u n trie s are still bound to B ern e C onvention a n d Rome
C onvention T R IPS m e m b e r cou ntries are
n ot obliged to join B erne Convention, but
a re deem ed to accept a n y responsibilities defined in th is convention
*
T R IP S is one of the most im p o rta n t ach ie v e m en ts of th e negotiation in
VNU, Journal o f Scienc e, EconomicS-Luw, N„!E, 2004
Trang 7Protecting intellectual property rights according to T R IPs
U ru g u a y on th e general A g re em en t on
custom ta riff a n d tra d in g (GATT) This can
be considered to be the first com prehensive
A greem ent on in te lle ctu al p ro p e rty rights
in te rn a tio n a l tr a d in g activities Therefore,
TR IPS h a s g ained f u r th e r step s th a n any
o th e r A g reem ents a n d conventions in thi- field C arefully stu d y in g th e basi-
principles a n d concepts of TR IPS will h e l’j
get access to the whole contents concerning
w ith intellectu al property rig h ts in th*
in te rn a tio n a l in tegratio n
REFERENCES
1 Bộ Ngoại giao, Tổ chức thương m ại th ế giới (WTO), NXB Chính trị Quôc gia, Hà Nội, 2 0 0 2
3 Nguyễn Bá Diên, Hoàn thiện hệ thống pháp luật về sở hữu trí tuệ trong điều kiện Vụt
Nam hội nhập quồc tế, Tạp chí nhà nước và Pháp lu ậ t, số 4/ 2001.
4 Kart Hinnok, Hiệp định T R IP S trong hệ thống pháp luật quốc g ia , Tài liệu Hội thảo \ẩ
Hiệp định TRIPS, Công ước Berne và Công ưốc Rome, Hà Nội ngày 12 - 14/ 6/ 2001
TAP CHÍ KHOA HỌC ĐHQGHN, KINH TỂ - LUẬT, sỏ' 1E, 2004
BẢO VỆ QUYỂN SỞ HỮU TRÍ TUỆ TRONG HIỆP ĐỊNH TRIPS
PGS TS N g u y ễn Bá D iến
Khoa L u ậ t, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
Ngày nay, qu y ề n sở h ữ u tr í tu ệ giữ vai trò q u a n trọn g tron g các quyền sở hữu bên cạni các quyền cơ b ả n của con người khi cuộc c án h m ạ n g khoa học công nghệ đang làm đổi tha/
t h ế giới Cho nên bảo vệ quyền sở h ữ u trí tuệ là cấp th iế t và q u a n trọ n g trong quá trìn h h<i
n h ậ p vào nền k in h t ế t h ế giới, và Việt N a m k h ô n g n ằ m ngoài q u á t r ì n h đó*
Tác giả chỉ rõ và p h â n tích n h ữ n g n guyên tắc cơ bản của Hiệp Đ ịnh TRIPS Ngoài r
tác giả còn chỉ r a các quy định và các lu ậ t củ a Việt N am không p h ù hợp ả n h hưởng tối hìệx
q u ả của việc thự c h iệ n quy ền sở h ữ u tr í tu ệ tro n g tương q u a n với hiệp định TRIPS
Tóm lại, tác giả n ê u ra các giải p h á p tức thời và về lâu dài để h o à n th iệ n hệ thống phá)
lu ậ t Việt N am về quyền sở h ữ u tr í tu ệ để hội n h ậ p n h a n h hơn nữa
V N U , Journal o f Science, Econom ic -L \ N ()Ỉ E, 2004