From the Paris Convention (1883) to the TRIPS Agreement (1994): the history of the international patent agreements as a history of propertisation?

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Margrit Seckelmann
Keyword(s):  
Trips Agreement ◽  
International Patent ◽  
History Of ◽  
Paris Convention

scholarly journals Ch.7 Geographical Indications

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
World Trade ◽  
Geographical Area ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
The World ◽  
Basic Functions ◽  
The One ◽  
International Conventions ◽  
Paris Convention

This chapter describes how the adoption of the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement represented an important step for the international recognition of geographical indications. Geographical indications have three basic functions. They provide information about the name of a product; the geographical origin of the product; and a given quality, reputation, or characteristics attributable to a geographical area. Although such indications were covered under some prior international conventions—such as the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement, and the Lisbon Agreement—the scope and membership of such conventions offered a protection considerably more limited than the one granted by the TRIPS Agreement. However, significant controversies still dominate the discussion of this issue at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In particular, disagreement exists about the modes of implementing the registration of geographical indications under Article 23.4 of the Agreement. Moreover, a number of developed and developing countries have proposed to expand to other products the special protection only available today for wines and spirits.

Product Patent in Pharmaceuticals and Compulsory Licensing

2017 ◽  
pp. 108-123
Author(s):  
Jatinder Maan ◽  
Dinesh Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Compulsory License ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Intellectual Property Protection ◽  
Political Pressure ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Contentious Issue ◽  
History Of

The issue of patenting is a contentious issue. Different stakeholders hold opposite views. The pharmaceutical giants demand for stricter and longer Intellectual Property Protection for the promotion of research and development. They contend IP protection to be the “bedrock of their business”. While the health activists and governments of developing nations want greater flexibility in intellectual property protection and shorter patent period protection. Article 31 of the TRIPs agreement provides certain flexibilities to cater to certain situations. The countries are free to determine the grounds to issue provisions like compulsory licensing. But despite the provisions very few countries have used them. Pharmaceuticals giants with the backing of developed countries always try to denounce the practice of compulsory licensing with economic and political pressure. This chapter explains the concept and significance of Intellectual Property with reference to Pharmaceuticals. It also traces the little history of TRIPs agreement and explains the concept of Compulsory Licensing with trends in its use. It also discusses the few instances where compulsory License has been issued in different countries and tries to find the reasons of non issuance of Compulsory License.

Interface between IPR and Human Rights: A Study with Reference to International Law

2012 ◽  
Vol 01 (09) ◽  
pp. 14-17
Author(s):  
Nashat Mahmoud Abdalla Jaradat
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Industrial Property ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
International Perspectives ◽  
History Of ◽  
Variety Protection ◽  
Paris Convention

This research work aims to establish a link between IPR and human rights in the national and international perspectives. Furthermore, lack of implementation of legislations at the national level is one of the greatest setbacks in the history of human rights protection. Basically, the value of human rights is largely tested by it’s implementation. The earlier form of Industrial property underwent transformation after the Paris Convention to be nomenclature as Intellectual property. IPRs, such as patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, and trademarks, are exclusive monopoly rights over a creation that the society provides to the inventor for a period of time. While such monopoly protection obviously restricts the dissemination of knowledge, it is supposed to be counterbalanced by the incentive that it provides to innovate. Intrinsic, natural, interrelated, indivisible, inalienable, basic, instrumental and inherent rights are ought to be protected if required, for maintaining peace in the society. Imperialism, colonialism and inequalities among the states were some reasons of concern for the development of human rights.

Ch.11 Undisclosed Information

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Correa Carlos Maria
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Unfair Competition ◽  
International Regime ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Governmental Agencies ◽  
Paris Convention

This chapter studies Section 7, Part II, of the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, which contains specific provisions on ‘undisclosed information’. This is the first international regime on undisclosed information and, in this sense, it is one of the most significant innovations brought about by the TRIPS Agreement. Article 39.1 stipulates that ‘in the course of ensuring effective protection against unfair competition as provided in Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention’, parties shall protect undisclosed information and the ‘data submitted to governments or governmental agencies’ as a condition for approving the marketing of pharmaceutical and agrochemical products. Although Article 39.1 refers to ‘undisclosed information’ and to ‘undisclosed test’ or other ‘data submitted’ to governments as two separate issues, it seems clear that in the latter case, the data also need to be ‘undisclosed’ in order to be covered under the terms of the Agreement. According to Article 1.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, undisclosed information is a category of ‘intellectual property’, like patents, trademarks, and other modalities dealt with by the Agreement.

The International Registration of Non-traditional Trademarks: Compliance with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-140
Author(s):  
QIAN ZHAN
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
International Perspective ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Marketing Strategies ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Essential Difference ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Paris Convention

AbstractContemporary international trademark law is subject to a dynamic process. As communication and marketing strategies steadily evolve, enterprises seek to develop non-traditional signs as trademarks in international trade. Since non-traditional trademarks have received broad protection among WTO Members, the international registration of non-traditional trademarks has raised certain questions. This article focuses on issues of the registration of non-traditional trademarks from an international perspective. With a brief introduction to the new category of trademarks, Section 2 discusses whether non-traditional signs can constitute trademarks by analyzing the trademark definition that is stipulated in Article 15.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and introduces the current status of the legal protection afforded to non-traditional trademarks under the domestic trademark legislations in WTO Member states. Section 3 presents an in-depth analysis of Article 6quinquies of the Paris Convention and aims to address the significance of Article 6quinquies with regard to the international registration of non-traditional trademarks by comparing the essential difference between the two modes of international registration of trademarks. The conclusion provides strategical suggestions and practical guidance for both trademark applicants and competent authorities of WTO Members.

THE EUROPEAN PATENT: AN OLD AND VEXING PROBLEM

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justine Pila
Keyword(s):  
European Parliament ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
European Patent ◽  
International Patent ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Post War ◽  
Rich History ◽  
Vexing Problem

AbstractIn December 2012, the European Parliament supported the creation of a European patent with unitary effect. For the next year at least, the international patent community will be on the edge of its proverbial seat, waiting to see whether the proposal becomes a reality. If it does, it will be a significant event in both the long and rich history of patent law, and in the equally rich and understudied history of attempts to create a European patent system. In this article I consider the three post-war European patent initiatives of the most direct and enduring relevance in that regard with a view to answering the following questions. First, what drove them? Second, what issues confronted them? And third, how were those issues resolved and with what ultimate effect? In the concluding section I relate the discussion back to the present by offering some remarks on the current European patent proposal in light of the same.

scholarly journals AMENDING SECTION 84 PATENTS ACT 1983 TO ENCOMPASS THE HEALTH FLEXIBILITIES LEVERAGE ACCORDED BY ARTICLE 31bis TRIPS AGREEMENT

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Mohsin Hingun ◽  
Rahamatthunnisa Mohamed Nizamuddin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Compulsory License ◽  
Trips Agreement ◽  
Patent System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Secondary Sources ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Paris Convention

The significance of this study lies in its proposal to insert an appropriate provision into the Patents Act 1983 to embody the provisions of Article 31bis TRIPS Agreement. The methodology adopted in this study is library-based, and relies extensively on primary sources such as the Paris Convention, TRIPS Agreement and Patents Act 1983. This is further supported through secondary sources such as articles, books, websites and newspaper reports. The research question posed in this study aims to identify the most appropriate provision that should be incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 in addressing the public health flexibilities provided under Article 31bis. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that Article 31bis is best incorporated into the Patents Act 1983, under the right of the government mechanism rather than through the compulsory license mechanism. Furthermore, the scope of this study is limited to issues that address the abuse of monopoly, granted by the patent system, with respect to the dire needs of the public health. Hence, this paper discusses the mechanisms that address abuse of the patent system under Article 5(A) Paris Convention, Articles 31 and 31bis TRIPS Agreement, the relevant corresponding provisions under the Patents Act 1983, and subsequently formulates new proposed amendments to Section 84 Patents Act 1983 to buttress the public health flexibilities provided under Article 31bis. The outcome of this study proposes that the provisions of Article 31bis should be incorporated into the Patents Act 1983 under the right of the government mechanism, by replacing the current Section 84 Patents Act 1983 with a newly proposed Section 84.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document