With the frequency connections for both sides, the types of IPR infringement, we’re used to neglected, towards to the tendency of dividing labor and join, owing to the evolution of the crime. In addition, the difference of regulation and ideology are the reasons why IPR infringement will become the cross-straits crime mode and loophole of law enforcement. Moreover than that, let the cross-straits are notorious for seminary of IPR infringement.
Owing to internationalization and transition of IPR, often influenced by factors of mass communications and technology development, no matter what differences we may have and how much effort trying to neglect the jurisdiction issue we’ve already involved. How to figure out the best way of judicial mutual assistance for both sides and try to fight with IPR infringement it’s more like an unsolved equation.
The thesis is divided into five chapters as following:
Chapter One: Introduction-to interpret motives, approaches, goals, interpretation, scope, limitation, procedures, structure and fruitful results of the research.
Chapter Two: Tendency and critical issues of IPR for both sides-to discuss the background of IPR for both sides, evolution, development and currency of judicial system, comparison IPR protection under WTO structure for both sides.
Chapter Three: Comparison of IPR infringement for both sides- to analyze types of IPR, characteristics of IPR infringement and the typology of IPR infringement for both sides, to discuss procedures and organizations which are dealing IPR issues, characteristics and difficulties of law enforcement,
Chapter Four: Discussion of currency and the best model of judicial mutual assistance for both sides-to discuss types, necessity, feasibility, difficulties of judicial mutual assistance for both sides, to come up with an ideal model and prospect of judicial mutual assistance with a view to the scope and principle of judicial mutual assistance for law enforcement reference.
Chapter Five: Conclusion and suggestion-the recommendations of the research would like to suggest are as following: to build a common consensus for IPR protection, to reinforce the interaction of law enforcement and feedback of the information-exchanging, to sign an agreement of judicial mutual assistance and set up the connections for protecting IPR issue in the long run.