• Home
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Subscribe
    • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise
    • Advertise On IP Watch
    • Editorial Calendar
  • Videos
  • Links
  • Help

Intellectual Property Watch

Original news and analysis on international IP policy

  • Copyright
  • Patents
  • Trademarks
  • Opinions
  • People News
  • Venues
    • Bilateral/Regional Negotiations
    • ITU/ICANN
    • United Nations – other
    • WHO
    • WIPO
    • WTO/TRIPS
    • Africa
    • Asia/Pacific
    • Europe
    • Latin America/Caribbean
    • North America
  • Themes
    • Access to Knowledge/ Open Innovation & Science
    • Food Security/ Agriculture/ Genetic Resources
    • Finance
    • Health & IP
    • Human Rights
    • Internet Governance/ Digital Economy/ Cyberspace
    • Lobbying
    • Technical Cooperation/ Technology Transfer
  • Health Policy Watch

The Facts Speak

04/11/2004 by Isabelle Scherer for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

This table provides a sample of the recommendations offered by three of the major U.S. industry associations regarding the placement of countries in the Office of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) 2004 ‘Special 301’ Report. The far right-hand column lists the final USTR decision.

Country Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Recommendations
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA)
Recommendations
Biotech Industries Organization (BIO)
Recommendations
2004 USTR Special 301 Placements
Argentina Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List
Brazil Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List
China Section 306 Monitoring Section 306 Monitoring Priority Watch List Section 306 Monitoring
Egypt Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List
India Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List Priority Watch List
Indonesia Watch List Priority Watch List   Priority Watch List
Korea Priority Watch List     Priority Watch List
Kuwait   Priority Watch List   Priority Watch List
Lebanon Priority Watch List Priority Watch List   Priority Watch List
Pakistant Priority Watch List Priority Watch List   Priority Watch List
Philippines   Priority Watch List + Out-of-cycle USTR Review   Priority Watch List
Russian Fed. Watch List Priority Watch List + Out-of-cycle USTR Review   Priority Watch List
Taiwan Priority Watch List Priority Watch List + Out-of-cycle USTR Review   Priority Watch List
Turkey Priority Foreign Country Watch List   Priority Watch Liste
Ukraine   Priority Foreign Country   Priority Foreign Country

  • IIPA’s members are the Association of American Publishers (AAP), Business Software Alliance (BSA), The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), The Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA.), The Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
  • PhRMA groups some 50 leading research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in the United States.
  • BIO is a membership association of over 1,000 companies, academic institutions and biotechnology centres from around the world.

What is Special 301?

The ‘Special 301’ provisions of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974, as amended, require USTR to conduct an annual review of the IP practices of US trading partners, identifying countries which fail to provide adequate and effective levels of intellectual property protection or market access for U.S. persons relying on intellectual property.

In its Annual ‘Special 301’ report, USTR designates countries according to its assessment of how damaging their apparent malfeasances are to U.S. commercial interests:

  • Priority Foreign Countries: those countries that USTR believes have the most onerous or egregious policies with the greatest adverse impact on U.S. right holders or products. These countries are subject to accelerated investigations and possible sanctions.
  • Priority Watch List: those countries which do not to provide adequate IP protection and enforcement or market access for U.S. persons relying on intellectual property protection.
  • Watch List: those countries USTR believes merit bilateral attention to address the underlying IPR problems.
  • Section 306 Monitoring: those countries with which the United States has bilateral agreements to address specific problems raised in earlier reports.
  • Out-of-cycle Review: those countries that require further monitoring in addition to the annual review cycle.

The U.S. government’s deliberations in this respect are based on information obtained from a range of government agencies, the private sector, U.S. embassies and trading partners, and the National Trade Estimates report. No formal mechanism exists for soliciting direct input into the Special 301 decisions from non-business public interest groups within or outside the United States.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)

Related

Creative Commons License"The Facts Speak" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Filed Under: North America, WTO/TRIPS

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
My Tweets

IPW News Briefs

Saudis Seek Alternative Energy Partners Through WIPO Green Program

Chinese IP Officials Complete Study Of UK, European IP Law

Perspectives on the US

In US, No Remedies For Growing IP Infringements

US IP Law – Big Developments On The Horizon In 2019

More perspectives on the US...

Supported Series: Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities

Civil Society And TRIPS Flexibilities Series – Translations Now Available

The Myth Of IP Incentives For All Nations – Q&A With Carlos Correa

Read the TRIPS flexibilities series...

Paid Content

Interview With Peter Vanderheyden, CEO Of Article One Partners

More paid content...

IP Delegates in Geneva

  • IP Delegates in Geneva
  • Guide to Geneva-based Public Health and IP Organisations

All Story Categories

Other Languages

  • Français
  • Español
  • 中文
  • اللغة العربية

Archives

  • Archives
  • Monthly Reporter

Staff Access

  • Writers

Sign up for free news alerts

This site uses cookies to help give you the best experience on our website. Cookies enable us to collect information that helps us personalise your experience and improve the functionality and performance of our site. By continuing to read our website, we assume you agree to this, otherwise you can adjust your browser settings. Please read our cookie and Privacy Policy. Our Cookies and Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2019 · Global Policy Reporting

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.