Russia's WTO accession signals multilateralism and IP protections, while SOPA signals protectionism

The major challenge to Russia's 18-year bid for World Trade Organization (WTO) membership was the nation's weak intellectual property (IP) protections. Russia's commitment to greater IP protections was a major requirement for U.S. support of its WTO membership. Russia now has until June 15, 2012 to domestically ratify its WTO Agreement, adopted on December 16, 2011 by WTO ministers. Thirty days after ratification, Russia will become a full member of the WTO.

 

As the Doha Development Rounds remain stalled, Russia's accession to the WTO signals a greater movement towards multilateralism in international trade; meanwhile, ironically, U.S. bills like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) indicate a move toward a more protectionist posture in resolving international IP infringement disputes.

 

“The multilateral trading system is at a crossroads,” said WTO Director General Pascal Lamy in an opening statement to the WTO's Eighth Ministerial Conference held December 15-17, 2011. Lamy stressed that advancements will be made "in the spirit of shared values and enhanced cooperation, or we will face a retreat from multilateralism, at our own peril.”

 

The U.S., along with dozens of other WTO member-nations in attendance at the WTO conference, affirmed a pledge against protectionism. The proposed SOPA anti-piracy legislation, now stalled before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, aims to protect the IP rights of U.S. parties against Internet piracy by imposing new requirements on search engines, advertising networks, ISPs and other key internet players. While the U.S. supports multilaterism before the WTO, a battle simultaneously rages over SOPA before Congress – a bill described by bloggers such as Richi Jennings of Computerworld as “DNS Balkanization”.

 

On November 18, 2011, the European Parliament adopted a strong resolution criticizing SOPA. The parliamentary resolution stressed “the need to protect the integrity of the global internet of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names”.

 

Russia's move toward ratifying its WTO Agreement includes harmonizing its IP laws with the multilateral agreement. Part of Russia's WTO obligations include introduction of a specialty court of first instance and cassation to resolve IP rights. The Russian IP court is slated to open by February 1, 2013 to adjudicate IP disputes, including patents and trademarks. Under Part 4 of the Russian Federation Civil Code, copyright and neighboring rights are currently beyond the court's jurisdiction.

 

Russia must also reduce its import tariffs and adhere to the WTO's rules on non-tariff barriers pursuant to Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). Russia will be bound by the TRIPS Agreement to protect IP rights. Also, data protection rules will protect IP data arising from pharmaceutical pre-clinical and clinical trials.

 

Economic issues addressed by Russia's WTO accession include the elimination of discriminating provisions under Russian law, such as patent fees that were four times greater for non-resident applicants. With WTO accession, equal fees will be introduced – though fees are generally projected to increase by 30 percent for certain government patent services.

 

Quantitative import restrictions, such as certain import license requirements, must be justified under WTO provisions. Price controls cannot be used to protect domestic products or services. Technical regulations must not be more restrictive than necessary to fulfill legitimate objectives under the TBT agreement.

 

Russia's accession to the WTO will mean more export opportunities for U.S. exporters in areas such as medical devices and pharmaceuticals. Among the world's largest economies, as Russia moves toward increased multilateralism, this is not the time for U.S. legislators to create national laws like SOPA that signal movement towards protectionism.

 

This article is for informational purposes only and not for legal advice.