Members of the WTO recently addressed a wide range of issues related to intellectual property rights (IPRs), extending a deadline for countries to ratify an agreement aimed at easing the export of essential medicines to poor nations, and looking at help for some of the poorest governments to implement their multilateral obligations.
At the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Trips) Council meeting held on October 23-24, the group of least-developed countries (LDCs) come out in support of a proposal to amend Trips-related rules to require patent applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources or traditional knowledge used in their inventions. Earlier, WTO members had agreed in November 2005 to allow LDCs to wait until July 2013 before having to enforce WTO protection for trademarks, copyright, patents and other intellectual property.
Sierra Leone and Uganda made submissions identifying their specific needs for reforms. Sierra Leone called for financial and logistical assistance to complement its ongoing IPR reforms. Uganda asked for help at setting up an IPR forum to help prepare a draft national policy framework, and highlighted the need to implement IP rules in a manner that is coherent with the objectives of other regional and international arrangements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) conventions, resolutions at the World Health Organization (WHO), and regional mechanisms like the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO).
Also discussed at the meeting were reports by developed countries on their performance at meeting WTO obligations to provide technical cooperation to developing countries and to encourage their enterprises and institutions to transfer technology to LDCs. The EU, US, Switzerland and Japan had reports to table. Brazil criticised some of the reports, suggesting that they described activities that pertained neither to assistance nor technology transfer. Brazil, China and India were particularly critical of the European Patent Office?s technical cooperation report, suggesting that it was both unfactual and patronising.
As many as 32 LDC members of the WTO announced support for the biodiversity-related Trips amendment proposed by a group of several developing countries, including Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, and South Africa. The proposal also has the support of the African Group. This potential addition to multilateral trade rules has been championed by Peru, one of the most vocal critics of the misappropriation of biological resources and traditional knowledge through patents (?bio-piracy?) without recompense. The delegation reiterated that a Trips amendment was necessary to combat bio-piracy. It stated that ?the patent system works only if the rights of those who made the invention possible are acknowledged…?
Brazil, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Tanzania and other supporters of the proposed new Trips article insisted that such requirements?with penalties including patent revocation?were necessary to support patent-related obligations arising from the CBD. The US and Japan are sceptical of claims that a mandatory disclosure requirement in the Trips Agreement is necessary, arguing that bio-piracy could be addressed by other means.
In discussions on the enforcement of IPRs, Japan complained that counterfeit or pirated goods were increasingly arriving in infrequently inspected small packages. Enforcement is a controversial issue, since several developing countries do not want it to be discussed at every Trips Council meeting. Brazil, China, India, South Africa and Argentina, for example, strongly oppose initiatives proposing stronger enforcement regulations. They argue that the Trips Agreement recognises countries? freedom to determine the appropriate method of implementation within their own legal systems.
There was also talk of extending geographical indication (GI) protection to several other products with geographic links (like Parma ham). The issue has broadly pitted the New World against the Old World. Opponents of GI extension, such as Argentina, Canada and the US, argue that it would hurt producers to prohibit them from using long-used product names such as Gruy?re cheese. Switzerland and the EU, though, believe that expanded GI protection could win their farmers price premiums that would soften the blow of subsidy and tariff cuts. India has said that GI extension could curb bio-piracy.
?The author is trade professor at Icfai Business School, Chandigarh. Email: vasu022@gmail.com
