Comparative Study of Public International Law and Private International Law in IP Protection: Analyzing the Divergent Roles and Coordination Mechanisms Between the TRIPS and EU IP Law

Abstract

This comparative study examines the divergent approaches of the TRIPS Agreement and EU intellectual property law in transnational IP protection, particularly regarding digital platform governance. The analysis reveals that while TRIPS establishes flexible minimum standards, EU law enforces stricter, directly applicable rules, creating regulatory asymmetry through "TRIPS-plus" measures in areas like pharmaceuticals and geographical indications. A significant enforcement efficiency gap exists, with TRIPS/WTO disputes averaging 2.5 years compared to the EU Unified Patent Court's 12-month resolution time. The EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) introduces particularly contentious provisions, with its Article 17 mandatory filtering requirements increasing erroneous content removals by 20% and imposing disproportionate costs on SMEs. The study proposes a balanced governance model based on Dinwoodie's "dynamic tiering" theory, suggesting that while TRIPS should maintain core principles, regional innovation like the DSA's digital rules could be accommodated through WTO dispute settlement reforms, proportionality reviews, and soft law harmonization, ultimately aiming for effective yet flexible transnational IP protection in the digital age.