The Administration's plan reflects an understanding that countries may be at different stages in recognizing the importance of adequate and effective intellectual property protection. The economic interests of the United States also require it to attach greater priority to certain foreign markets. Many countries have already made progress as a result of bilateral negotiations and consultations. Others may be at an earlier stage of entering into negotiations. Nevertheless, expeditious improvements will be sought from all countries.
The decision follows close consultations with key sectors of the U.S. business community that have been victimized by inadequate foreign intellectual property protection.
LEGAL DETERMINATIONS AND OTHER DECISIONS BY THE USTR UNDER SPECIAL 301
| –
|
The USTR, with the advice of the interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee, the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office, reviewed the intellectual property regimes of, and market access provided by, U.S. trading partners.
|
| –
|
As a result of this extensive review, the USTR concluded that no foreign country currently meets every standard for adequate and effective intellectual property protection as set forth in the U.S. proposal on intellectual property tabled in the Uruguay Round.
|
| –
|
Thus the USTR has determined that all countries are eligible for potential priority designation based on the standards of the U.S. Uruguay Round proposal, because all countries "deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights" within the meaning of the statute.
|
| –
|
Practices of particular concern have been communicated to each trading partner. Many of those practices were enumerated in the National Trade Estimate Report.
|
| –
|
The USTR further decided to establish a Watch List and a Priority Watch List of trading partners identified for further attention or scrutiny and action.
|
WATCH LIST
| –
|
The USTR decided that of all our trading partners, 17 countries should be placed on a Watch List for special attention (rather than be otherwise identified) because they maintain intellectual property-related practices or barriers to market access that are of particular concern.
|
