Search Results

This chapter focuses on Japan's Anti-Monopoly Law. Topics discussed include the historical background of the law, an outline of the law, private monopolization, prevention of excessive concentration of economic power, unfair trade practices, problems of keiretsu (companies linked together by continuous business relations), application of the Anti-Monopoly Law on international transactions, and procedures and sanctions.

Peter Sutherland, as the head of GATT, played a masterful endgame, taking the stalled free trade talks to a final agreement in 1994, creating the World Trade Organization (WTO). Reflecting neoliberal values, the side agreements on intellectual property and trade in services, were largely driven by the corporate sector, and the behind-the-doors machinations are described. Sutherland welcomed the WTO treaty’s achievements, which he claimed introduced the rule of law into trade, and substantially reduced trade barriers. On closer examination, the final package was about freer not free trade, as international trade was corrupted by side agreements that served vested interests ahead of public interest. In addition, smaller countries discovered that there were practical barriers that severely limited their ability to impose trade judgements on major powers.

This chapter examines the interactions between the proposed Common European Sales Law (CESL) and domestic and other European law. It first discusses general issues relating to the application of the CESL. This includes the requirements that must be met for the CESL to apply to a contract; the consequences of any failed choice; the scope of the CESL; the consequences of a choice of CESL outside the situations envisaged by the Commission proposal; specific problems which a choice of CESL can cause before courts outside the European Union; the relationship between CESL provisions and other consumer protection provisions; and overriding mandatory provisions. The chapter then looks at how the CESL interfaces, from a conflict of laws viewpoint, with various areas of law, including the law of obligations; of unfair trade practices; property law; intellectual property law; and procedural law, including jurisdiction and collective proceedings against standard terms.

Trademark rights in Korea are based on registration. The Trademark Decree was promulgated in 1908 and the Trademark Act was firstly enacted and enforced on November 28, 1949. Since that time, the Trademark Act has been amended 39 times, with the most recent amendment on June 11, 2014 (this amendment took effect as of June 11, 2014). The Trademark Act is composed of ten chapters divided into General Provisions, Requirements and Application for Trademark Registration, Examination, Trademark Registration Fees and Trademark Registration, Trademark Rights, Protection of Owners of Trademark Rights, Trial, Retrial and Litigation, International Application under the Protocol, and Supplementary Provisions.

In 2018 panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted in nine disputes. The majority of the disputes concerned violations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994. Most disputes concerned unfair trade measures. They included another compliance dispute in the long-running Airbus/Boeing dispute series (the European Union was found not to have fully implemented the original rulings); a dispute concerning the Agreement on Safeguards (where the challenged duty turned out not be a safeguard measure); and a complaint against anti-dumping duties imposed by the European Union on biodiesel. In 2018, panel reports were also adopted in two of four complaints against Australia’s tobacco plain packaging regulations. In these reports, the panel had rejected all claims of violations under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. However, the other two complainants have appealed the panel report, so the case will continue past 2018. In the course of 2018, the composition of the Appellate Body was reduced to three members.