Every World Trade Organization’s (WTO) member country is expected to commit itself into facilitating supplies from organizations based in other member countries. The GATS regulations are aimed at reducing restrictions while trading goods and services in the international market. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that allows the government of any state member to regulate the trading activities that takes place in its jurisdiction. This means that country A is at liberty to regulate the financial conduct of the banks that operate within its territory. Even so, GATS requires the governments to act realistically so that such regulations do not impede the free movement of goods and services, especially in situations where the impact of such endeavors to the economy appears to be insignificant (Gregg & Tessa, 2011).
In cases where disagreements ensue, Article 4 provides them with an avenue that would help in settling their diversities in an amicable manner. In this case, the US and country A ought to begin consulting within 30 days since the disagreements ensued. Should the matter remain unresolved for over 60 days, the complainant is at liberty to forward the case to the WTO. This enables the organization to convene a panel responsible to accelerate the consultations that the two nations have been engaging in. In most cases, such panels have facilitated accords that enable the nations to continue providing environments that are conducive to business engagements (Gregg & Tessa, 2011).
The goal of most profit-making organizations is to attract and retain as many customers as possible in order to maximize their income. Therefore, expansion to foreign and, sometimes, unexploited markets proves to be strategically useful for any organization with long-term objectives. The search for customers is one of the fundamental drives that prompted Flyboy Inc. into seeking operations in Pamonia. Expansion to such exotic markets as Pamonia is associated with a host of challenges. Pamonia is yet to adapt to the mainstream ways of conducting business activities. In Pamonia, foreign investors meet numerous legal and, at times, politically inspired challenges. Most of these challenges prompt corrupt dealings as these investors view bribery as the only way out of isolation. Some foreign companies have solicited Italian agents, who then utilize their significant connections with the authorities in a manner that secures investments into the jurisdiction, though at a price (Gregg & Tessa, 2011).
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Even so, being successful necessitates the Flyboy Inc. to establish a level of awareness relating to the territory’s customs and practices. The international business law requires all the players to desist from corrupt dealings as such dealings results into unjustifiable complication of the normal business practices. All acts of bribery are prohibited under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Flyboy Inc. is obliged to come up with programs that would safeguard its fundamental principles of fair business running even when venturing into such challenging markets like Pamonia. This would enable the organization to retain much of its corporate programs and comply with the FCPA with precision, despite the challenges of operating in a market such as Pamonia. Furthermore, the firm should not participate in any form of bribery or coercion.
The FCPA encourages the US enterprises to use intermediaries, such as distributing agents, who are trustworthy and experienced. The distributor must be certified and have an excellent past record. He must provide a proof of willingness to abide by the FCPA. Engaging such a distributor will generate a positive influence on the company’s profit margin. This is because the chosen distributor is prominent and has a well-established demand for its products and services. Agents with a bad reputation and history of improper payments can be unethical in regard to Flyboy Inc. (Gregg & Tessa, 2011).
The FCPA requires any party, whether from the USA or from any other country, to engage intermediaries in an open and corruption-free manner so as not to unfairly disadvantage other players. Moreover, partnering with credible parties ensures that a company, such as Flyboy Inc., is freed from unnecessary legal challenges that may eventually derail business engagements.
The Copyright Act
The main cause of counterfeiting and piracy is the unscrupulous traders’ greed for profits. Injunctive relief is a remedy available for companies whose intellectual properties have been fringed. This is particularly the case where the infringement may damage the reputation of the Rockers. The Copyright Act safeguards protection of intellectual property against misuse and other violations of the rights granted to the IP legal owner. This Act provides copyright owners with the exclusive right to control reproduction, distribution, and display of their copyrighted works. In addition, compensation and damages provide an adequate remedy (William, 2011).
The Rockers can commence a lawsuit against the alleged infringers. The Rockers are entitled to damages that adequately compensate for the harm caused by an infringement of the recording group’s intellectual property rights. “Grey market’s” products are sold outside established distribution agreements. Their purveyors take advantage of the fact that companies charge different prices for their products in various regions. The Rockers and Dacca Inc. can sue their competitors for damages suffered because of an intellectual property rights infringement. The amount of damage is what the infringer would have to pay for a license if one had been approved. Additionally, the court may assess the losses, which The Rockers and Dacca Inc. have suffered, which are conveniently estimated based on the profits made by the defendant. Another available remedy is impounding and destruction of all reproductions made in violation of the legal owner’s rights. The court then takes such records into custody.
The Paris Convention’s Article 9 allows to confiscate the goods that bear unlawful trade names immediately after their importation. The move is meant to protect such names while averting a situation where customers become disoriented and unsure of which of the products is genuine. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the French court to rule in favor of banning using the term “Method Wilson” by the Euro Wally World pork barbecue company.
Wilson-Style-Barbecue falls short of what ought to be protected as it lacks originality. It is not well-known internationally, and protecting it would be redundant, especially as it is yet to be registered. Therefore, Limited Wilbur should not be barred from extending its activities in France. However, it would be appropriate for them to confirm their trademark and emblems prior to the commencing commercial activities. It would be also appropriate to retain the original process of preparing the barbecue, a situation which may necessitate the importation of raw materials from their original source of North Carolina.
Imitation deprives the original inventors of their fair share of revenue, as its significant portion is lost to the imitators. This may result into the eventual collapse of the business enterprise as the clients may feel cheated of their money when they purchase substandard merchandise in the market. Imitators seek to benefit from another company’s reputation even if the quality of their services fails to meet that of the original organization. In the case of Raju’s “gmatplus.com” the judgment is enforceable since the international law prohibits such malpractices. Raju sought to benefit in an unfair manner by seeking to confuse the customers through the use of a website name that includes the registered GMAT trade name. Therefore, even though the Raju’s company is registered in India, the ruling is binding since it confuses customers in the traditional GMAT’s market (Gregg & Tessa, 2011).