Office of the United States Trade Representative (2015)
|Office of the United States Trade Representative (2015)|
|Title:||Special 301 Report|
|Author(s):||Office of the United States Trade Representative|
|Citation:||Representative, U. T. (2015). Special 301 report. online: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2015-Special-301-Report-FINAL.pdf.|
|Link(s):||Definitive , Open Access|
|Key Related Studies:|
|About the Data|
|Data Description:||This Report follows intensive deliberations among all relevant agencies within the U.S. Government, informed by extensive consultation with participating stakeholders, foreign governments, the U.S. Congress, and other interested parties.
USTR, together with the Special 301 Subcommittee, conducts a broad and balanced assessment of U.S. trading partners’ IPR protection and enforcement, as well as related market access issues affecting IPR-intensive industries, in accordance with the statutory criteria set out by the U.S. Congress. (See Annex 1). The Special 301 Subcommittee, through the TPSC, provides country placement recommendations to the USTR based on this assessment. The Special 301 Subcommittee reviewed 72 trading partners during the 2015 Special 301 process. The Subcommittee received stakeholder input on nearly 100 trading partners, but focused its review on those submissions that responded to the request set forth in the notice published in the Federal Register to identify whether a particular trading partner should be named as a Priority Foreign Country (PFC), placed on the Priority Watch List (PWL) or Watch List (WL), or not listed in the Report. Following extensive research and analysis, USTR has listed 37 trading partners
|Data Type:||Primary data|
|Secondary Data Sources:|
|Data Collection Methods:|
|Data Analysis Methods:|
|Cross Country Study?:||Yes|
|Government or policy study?:||No|
|Time Period(s) of Collection:||
The Special 301 Report (Report) is the result of an annual review of the state of intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement in U.S. trading partners around the world, which the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts pursuant to Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. § 2242). This Report reflects the Administration’s continued resolve to encourage and maintain adequate and effective IPR protection and enforcement worldwide. The Report identifies a wide range of concerns, including: (a) the deterioration in IPR protection, enforcement, and market access for persons relying on IPR in a number of trading partners; (b) reported inadequacies in trade secret protection in China, India, and elsewhere, as well as an increasing incidence of trade secret misappropriation; (c) troubling “indigenous innovation” policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders in China; (d) the continuing challenges of online copyright piracy in countries such as Brazil, China, India, and Russia and trademark counterfeiting in China and elsewhere; (e) market access barriers, including nontransparent and discriminatory measures, that appear to impede access to products embodying IPR and measures that impede market access for U.S. entities that rely upon IPR protection; and (f) other ongoing, systemic IPR enforcement issues in many trading partners around the world.
Main Results of the Study
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
The Report serves a critical function by identifying opportunities and challenges facing U.S. innovative and creative industries in foreign markets and by promoting job creation, economic development, and many other benefits that effective IPR protection and enforcement support. The Report informs the public and our trading partners and can serve as a positive catalyst for change. USTR looks forward to working closely with the governments of the trading partners that are identified in this year’s Report to address both emerging and continuing concerns, and to continue to build on the positive results that many of these governments have achieved.
Coverage of Study
|Level of aggregation:||Country|
|Period of material under study:||2014-2015|