1. – Articles II (9)(a)(iv) and IV(4)© (iii) of the Appendix to the Bern Convention(1971). ↑

    1. – Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits Done at Washington, D.C., on May 26, 1989 ↑

    1. -Article 7(1) and (2), of the IPCI Treaty. ↑

    1. -The United States suggested in October 1998 a provision applying to trademark counterfeiting and copyright infringement that were” willful and commercial” (see document MTN. GNG/NG11/w/14/Rev.1). This suggestion was not taken up. A later US proposal, like certain other proposals, used the phrase” on a commercial scale” (see document MTN. GNG/NG11/w/70). ↑

    1. -United States’ first written submission, para. 110. This submission also interpreted” scale” : see paragraph 7. 659 below. ↑

    1. – Canada’s third party written submission, para.5. ↑

    1. – European Communities’ third party oral statement, paras 4 and 14 ↑

    1. – United States’ rebuttal submission.para.17. ↑

    1. – United States’ closing oral statement at the second substantive meeting, para. 15. ↑

    1. – United States’ response to Question No.63. ↑

    1. – Indeed, the United States expressed a similar view in order to explain why a reference to “exceptional cases” in Article 46 of the TRIPS Agreement is not a de minimis test (see paragraph 7.387 above). ↑

    1. – Ibid. Para.7.387,7.553 ↑

    1. – Brazil’s third party written submission, para. 36. ↑

    1. – Mexico’s third party oral statement,para.6. ↑

    1. – Korea’s third party written submission, para.27. ↑

    1. – Canada’s third party written submission, para. 7. ↑

    1. – China’s first written submission, paras 69-71. ↑

    1. – United States’s response to Question No.68. ↑

    1. – Appellate Body Report in EC- Chicken Cuts, para. 175, quoting Appellate Body Report in US- Softwood Lumber IV, para. 59, and referring to Appellate Body Reports in US- Offset Act (Byrd Amendment), para. 284, and US- Gambling, para. 166, and quoting mcnair, The Law of Treaties (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961), p.365. ↑

    1. ۲- for example, the Australian Patent Act 1990, s. 135(1) (mentioned in response to Third PartyQuestion No. 9); Indian Patents Act 1970, ss. 83-84; South African Patent Act 1978, s. 56; United KingdomPatent Act 1977-1988, s. 50; Zimbabwean Patents Act 1971, s. 31, in Exhibit CHN-198, and the patent laws of

      Other Commonwealth countries. Earlier, the United Kingdom Patents and Design Act 1919, s. 27, had referred

      To working a patent “on a commercial scale”. ↑

    1. ۲- See WIPO document C&P/CE/2 of 18, 19 February 1988, para. 17, set out in Exhibit CHN-43 ↑

    1. – China’s first written submission, para.64. ↑

    1. – Exhibits CHN-44, CHN-45, CHN-46 and CHN-47. ↑

    1. – China’s first written submission, para.72; rebuttal submission, para.76. ↑

    1. – VCLT, supra note 164,art. 31(3)(b). ↑

    1. – U.S. C §§ ۵۰۶(a)(1)(B).© (2005). Id.§§ ۵۰۶©-(e). ↑

    1. – U.S.C § ۵۰۶(a)(1)(A)(2005); Copyright Act of 1976, pub. L. No. 94-553, § ۵۰۶, ۹۰ Stat. 2541, 2586(codified as amended at 17 U.S.C.§ ۱۰۱ et seq.(1976).The copyright Act of 1976 revamped this criminal provision by changing the previous requirement, i.e.,” for profit,” to the “for purposes of commercial advantage” standard. This lowered the standard from requiring that the defendant actually profit from infringing activities to an intent to profit from the activity. See Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L.No.94553, §۵۰۶,۹۰ Stat. 2541,2586(codified as amended at 17 U.S.C.§ ۱۰۱ et seq.(1976);see also United States v. Lamacchia, 871 F. Supp.535, 539-40(D.Mass.1994)(nothing that an infringer acts for commercial advantage or private financial gain if he seek a profit.); 4 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT§ ۱۵٫۰[ ]A[ ]2[. ↑

    1. -U.S.C.§ ۵۰۶(a)(a)(B). ↑

    1. – ۲۰۲ U.S.C.§۲۳۱۹(b)(3)(2005). ↑

    1. – Apr.2004,http:// finds artivles.com/p/article/mi-mofwe/is-4-8/ai-n 6108144. ↑

    1. -.See U.S.SENTENCING GUIDELINGS MANUAL § ۲B5.3 cmt .n.2© (2007);DOJ IP MANUAL, supra note 8 at 71. See id. At 48. ↑

    1. – ۱۸٫U.S.C.§۲۳۱۹(b)(2),(d)(4). ↑

      1. – رهنمودها: (Directives)رهنمودهای اتحادیه اروپا اهداف نهایی خاصی را که باید توسط هر دولت عضو حاصل شود مشخص می‌کنند. مقامات ملی باید قوانین خود را برای تطابق با اهداف معینه تغییر دهند. اما ‌در مورد چگونگی انجام اقدامات در این راستا دارای اختیار می‌باشند. رهنمودها ممکن است یک یا چند و یا همه دول عضو را شامل گردد. هر رهنمود، ضمن در نظر گرفتن فرصت برای انجام اقدامات، حسب تفاوت شرایط ملی دول عضو و زمان مورد لزوم آن ها، تاریخی را که قوانین ملی باید با آن هماهنگ گردد معین می‌کند. تصویب رهنمودها برای هماهنگ سازی قوانین ملی متفاوت با یکدیگر بوده و خصوصاً ‌در مورد موضوعاتی که در عملیاتی کردن بازار واحد مؤثر هستند (مانند استانداردهای سلامت محصول) عمومیت دارند. ↑

    1. ۴- DIRECTIVE ۲۰۰۴/۴۸/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 ↑

    1. – See DUNOFF, RATNER & WIPPMAN, and INTERNATIONAL LAW: NORMS, ACTORS, PROCESS, A PROBLEM- ORIENTED APPROACH 256(2002). ↑

    1. -Council Directive No. 2004/48, 10, O.J.L 157/45,at 49(2004)(hereinafter ”Directive” or ”IP Enforcement Directive.”) ↑

    1. – Id. 28. The Directive also makes clear that it does not affect Member States’ international obligations under TRIPS relating to criminal penalties and procedures.Is.art.2 (3). ↑

    1. – See id. Arts.6 (2),8(1),and 9(2). ↑

    1. -Id. 14. ↑

    1. -Law No.94-102 of February 5, 1994, Journal Official de la Republique Françoise ]J.O.[ ]Official Gazette of France [, February 8, 1994, art 1335 -2 (Fr.).translated in http:// www.legifrance.gouv.fr(2003) Articles L335-3 to L335-7 set forth additional infringing acts. See id. Arts. L 335-3-L-335-7. ↑
موضوعات: بدون موضوع  لینک ثابت


فرم در حال بارگذاری ...