Art 22 of Trips Agreement Administered by
The 2002 Doha Declaration reaffirms that the TRIPS Agreement must not prevent Members from taking the necessary measures to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible travel arrangements, such as licensing. B mandatory, are almost impossible to apply. Less developed countries, in particular, cited their nascent domestic manufacturing and technology industries as evidence of the brutality of politics. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international agreement between all member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It establishes minimum standards for the regulation of various forms of intellectual property (IP) by national governments, as applied to nationals of other WTO member states. [3] The TRIPS Agreement was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) between 1989 and 1990[4] and is administered by the WTO. A 2003 agreement relaxed the requirements of the domestic market and allowed developing countries to export to other countries where there is a national health problem, as long as the exported drugs are not part of a trade or industrial policy. [10] Medicines exported under such a regime may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from affecting developed country markets. The TRIPS Agreement introduced intellectual property law into the multilateral trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property. In 2001, developing countries, concerned that developed countries were insisting on too narrow an interpretation of TRIPS, launched a round table that resulted in the Doha Declaration.
The Doha Declaration is a WTO declaration that clarifies the scope of TRIPS and states, for example, that the TRIPS Agreement can and should be interpreted in light of the objective of “promoting access to medicines for all”. The terms of the TRIPS Plus Agreement, which prescribe standards that go beyond the TRIPS Agreement, were also discussed. [38] These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for pushing protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS Agreement. U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco, and Bahrain have expanded patentability by mandating the availability of patents for new uses of well-known products. [39] The TRIPS Agreement allows for compulsory licensing at a country`s discretion. U.S.
free trade agreements with Australia, Jordan, Singapore, and Vietnam have limited the application of compulsory licenses to emergencies, antitrust remedies, and cases of non-commercial public use. [39] In addition to the basic intellectual property standards established by the TRIPS Agreement, many countries have concluded bilateral agreements aimed at introducing a higher standard of protection. This set of standards, known as TRIPS+ or TRIPS-Plus, can take many forms. [20] The general objectives of these agreements are: 1. Members agree to open negotiations to improve the protection of individual geographical indications in accordance with Article 23. Paragraphs 4 to 8 may not be used by a Member to refuse to conduct negotiations or conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements. In the context of these negotiations, Members are prepared to consider the continued applicability of these provisions to individual geographical indications whose use has been the subject of such negotiations. Unlike other intellectual property agreements, the TRIPS Agreement has a powerful enforcement mechanism. States can be sanctioned by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Since the entry into force of travel, it has been criticized by developing countries, scientists and non-governmental organizations. While some of these criticisms are directed at the WTO in general, many proponents of trade liberalization also view the TRIPS Agreement as bad policy. The concentration effects of the TRIPS Agreement`s wealth (money from people in developing countries to copyright and patent holders in developed countries) and the imposition of artificial scarcity on citizens of countries that would otherwise have had weaker intellectual property laws are common ground for such criticism.
Other criticisms have focused on TRIPS` inability to accelerate the flow of investment and technology to low-income countries, an advantage advanced by WTO members in the run-up to the agreement. World Bank statements suggest that the TRIPS Agreement has not led to a demonstrable acceleration of investment in low-income countries, although this may have been the case for middle-income countries. [33] The long duration of TRIPS patents was assessed for an unreasonable slowdown in generic substitute market entry and competition. In particular, the illegality of preclinical studies or the submission of samples for approval until a patent expires have been accused of stimulating the growth of a few multinationals rather than producers in developing countries. The measures adopted for the implementation of this Section shall be without prejudice to the right or validity of the registration of a trade mark or the right to use a trade mark, provided that such trade mark is identical with or similar to a geographical indication. 2. The registration of a trademark for wines containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying wines or for spirit drinks containing or consisting of a geographical indication identifying spirit drinks shall be refused or declared automatically invalid if the legislation of a Member so permits or at the request of a Party concerned in respect of such wines or spirit drinks: which do not have this origin. The WTO website provides access to all TRIPS disputes (including those that have not given rise to panel reports) [1]. .
Recent Comments