TRIPS and its place in international intellectual property law making

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement negotiated during the 1986-94 Uruguay Round of international trade talks. The agreement was instrumental in introducing intellectual property rules into the multinational trading system for the very first time. The WTO-TRIPS Agreement attempts to standardize 150 national laws dealing with intellectual property rights and to apply common international rules for regulating intellectual property throughout the world.
Intellectual property rights are state created monopolies conferred on individuals or companies over the creations of their minds. Intellectual property rights can be broadly divided into three main categories (although there are additional types such as trade secrets, geographic indicators, integrated circuits, etc.):
- Copyright and related rights – create rights of authors of literary and artistic wo rk such as music, video, photos, and text. Very generally, copyright gives owners the exclusive right to reproduction, distribution, adaption, public display/performance of a creative work. There are important limitations to an author’s rights under copyright, such as fair use rights and first sale privileges. The rights granted under copyright have increased significantly in recent years, particularly in terms of the scope and duration of those rights, while the number of limitations and exceptions that allow for flexibility and innovation are eroding.
- Trademarks – create rights to distinctive signs, marks, logos, and geographical indications used in commerce. Trademarks are used to identify the origin of products and services in the stream of commerce. They were originally intended to protect consumers from confusion as to the source of products or services, but can be mis-used to prevent discussion and competition, particularly on the Internet.
- Patent rights – govern inventions and designs, processes or methods of doing business, and in the US, patents have been extended to regulate software.
TRIPS establishes minimum levels of protection that each WTO member nation must provide to the intellectual property of fellow WTO members. The TRIPS agreement therefore is often called a “minimum standards agreement,” allowing members to provide greater restrictions on the use of intellectual property if they so wish.
The TRIPS Agreement covers five broad areas:
• Application of the basic principles of the trading system and other international intellectual property agreements
• Adequate protection to intellectual property rights
• Enforcement of intellectual property rights adequately in their own territories
• Settlement of disputes on intellectual property between members of the WTO
• Special transitional arrangements during the period when the new system is being introduced.
Non discrimination is a prominent feature of the TRIPS agreement and among its most basic principles are included the National treatment requirement (which means treating one’s own nationals and foreigners equally), and the Most Favored Nation treatment requirement (which means equal treatment for nationals of all 150 trading partners in the WTO.)
In setting the intellectual property rules that WTO member nations must follow, TRIPS builds upon the international agreements of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which existed prior to the formation of the WTO. The WTO-TRIPS Agreement also gives special emphasis to the agreements of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (trademarks patents, industrial designs, etc), the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works (copyrights), and the Rome Convention on broadcasting.
TRIPS requires member governments to ensure that intellectual property rights can be enforced under national laws and that the penalties of infringement are severe enough to deter further violations. The agreement describes in detail how enforcement should be handled, including rules for obtaining evidence, provisional measures, injunctions, damages and other penalties. The agreement also suggests how each member nation’s courts should behave when faced with certain cases involving counterfeit or infringing goods. TRIPS further requires member governments to ensure that intellectual property rights owners receive the assistance of customs authorities to prevent imports of counterfeit goods.
When the WTO agreements took effect on 1 January 1995, “developed countries” were given one year to ensure that their national laws and practices conform to the TRIPS Agreement. “Developing countries” and (under certain conditions) transition economies were given five years, until 2000 to comply. “Least-developed countries” were given 11 years, until 2006 — now extended to 2016 for drug patents to change their laws. Subject to certain exceptions, the general rule is that obligations in the agreement apply to intellectual property rights that existed at the end of a country’s transition period as well as to new ones.
The TRIPS Agreement also set up a TRIPS Council comprising of all WTO members that is responsible for monitoring the operation and enforcement of the rules established under the agreement. The council is also a forum that the member nations can use to consult on problems arising under the TRIPS agreement. There is no avenue of meaningful participation in the WTO-TRIPS law-making process for public-interest NGO’s. TRIPS was drafted by a small number of representatives from the intellectual property industry, and agreement is reached in secret at the TRIPS Council, without any public input or dialogue among stakeholders. The WTO is head-quartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
16 Feb, 2009: WTO Panel Decision on IP Case Favorable to China, Experts Say (TWN)
"The World Trade Organization on 26 January issued a panel report in a case brought by the US challenging China's enforcement of intellectual property rights. While the case has been commonly reported as a victory for the US, careful and detailed analysis of the panel ruling indicates that China's intellectual property laws have been
vindicated in the most important areas that ...
27 Jan, 2009: WTO Issues Final Decision On US-China Copyright Dispute (IP-Watch)
China has been found in violation of two of its responsibilities under international rules on trade and intellectual property, and in partial violation of one more, said a World Trade Organization panel report on the US-China dispute over copyright and customs matters released Monday. But the panel did not make a decision on some of the US claims. The ...
27 Jan, 2009: Why the U.S. Lost Its WTO IP Complaint Against China. Badly.
The World Trade Organization yesterday released its much-anticipated decision involving a U.S. complaint against China over its protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The U.S. quickly proclaimed victory, with newspaper headlines trumpeting the WTO panel's requirement that China reform elements of its intellectual property laws. For its part, China was conciliatory and offered to work with the ...
26 Jan, 2009: WTO Decision in US v. China on IPR (China won on key points, US won minor points)
Read the WTO Decision Here. The WTO, on 26 January 2009, issued the report of a panel that had examined United States’ complaint against “China — Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights” (DS362).
17 Sep, 2008: US Says China To Sign Bilateral Cooperation Deals On IP Enforcement (IP-Watch)
High-level officials from China and the United States on Tuesday reiterated their joint commitment to “strategic cooperation” on copyright and trademark protection and enforcement, and agreed to hold further meetings of a joint intellectual property working group in the near future. The 19th United States - China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) met on 16 September in ...
9 Jul, 2008: G8 Declaration on the World Economy
Read Text of GB Declaration on a World Economy and G8's Pledge to Increase Intellectual Property Rights and International Enforcement and to Deputize Customs Agents to Search and Seize Laptops, iPods, and PDA's of Unsuspected Citizens in Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
27 Jun, 2008: Member Nations Balk At World Customs Organization IP Enforcement Push IP-Watch)
Concerns ran high in some developing countries last week that their voices have been largely absent from a draft set of standards for heightened intellectual property enforcement advancing rapidly at the World Customs Organization. With the draft standards sent early - and, some say, without mandate - to decision-making bodies at the WCO, the organisation looks poised to become the ...
3 Apr, 2008: “Reflections from Fordham 2008 ” from Howard Knopf
The annual Fordham International Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference has just taken place, as always The First Thursday and Friday After Easter.™ The following is a very limited and personal take on a very complex and comprehensive conference.
25 Mar, 2008: IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
In 2007 a select handful of the wealthiest countries began a treaty-making process to create a new global standard for intellectual property rights enforcement, the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). ACTA is spearheaded by the United States, the European Commission, Japan, and Switzerland -- those countries with the largest intellectual property industries. Other countries invited to participate in ...
25 Mar, 2008: IP Justice White Paper on the Proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
Anti-Consumer and Anti-Public Interest Treaty Proposed by Intellectual Property Industry, US, Europe, Switzerland, and Japan
- View all entries under WTO-TRIPS
16 Feb, 2009: WTO Panel Decision on IP Case Favorable to China, Experts Say (TWN)
"The World Trade Organization on 26 January issued a panel report in a case brought by the US challenging China's enforcement of intellectual property rights. While the case has been commonly reported as a victory for the US, careful and detailed analysis of the panel ruling indicates that China's intellectual property laws have been
vindicated in the most important areas that ...
27 Jan, 2009: WTO Issues Final Decision On US-China Copyright Dispute (IP-Watch)
China has been found in violation of two of its responsibilities under international rules on trade and intellectual property, and in partial violation of one more, said a World Trade Organization panel report on the US-China dispute over copyright and customs matters released Monday. But the panel did not make a decision on some of the US claims. The ...
27 Jan, 2009: Why the U.S. Lost Its WTO IP Complaint Against China. Badly.
The World Trade Organization yesterday released its much-anticipated decision involving a U.S. complaint against China over its protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. The U.S. quickly proclaimed victory, with newspaper headlines trumpeting the WTO panel's requirement that China reform elements of its intellectual property laws. For its part, China was conciliatory and offered to work with the ...
26 Jan, 2009: WTO Decision in US v. China on IPR (China won on key points, US won minor points)
Read the WTO Decision Here. The WTO, on 26 January 2009, issued the report of a panel that had examined United States’ complaint against “China — Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights” (DS362).
17 Sep, 2008: US Says China To Sign Bilateral Cooperation Deals On IP Enforcement (IP-Watch)
High-level officials from China and the United States on Tuesday reiterated their joint commitment to “strategic cooperation” on copyright and trademark protection and enforcement, and agreed to hold further meetings of a joint intellectual property working group in the near future. The 19th United States - China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) met on 16 September in ...
28 Nov, 2007: WTO Launches Probe On China Distribution; Reviews Thai IP Policies (IP-Watch)
The World Trade Organization has launched an investigation into allegations that China is unfairly limiting the flow of copyrighted material from the United States into the country. Meanwhile, the WTO issued the periodic review of Thailand’s policies including a discussion of intellectual property rights. US concerns in the new dispute are that China provides “less favourable distribution opportunities for ...
24 Nov, 2007: WTO Panel on Chinese Content Distribution Delayed (IP-Watch)
"The formation of a World Trade Organization panel requested by the United States on China’s distribution of American copyrighted material was delayed this week after a procedural move on an unrelated matter. The US panel request was to be considered by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on 19 November, but the agenda for the meeting was blocked by Taiwan ...
8 Nov, 2007: US Lawmakers Seek To Fuel International IP Enforcement Activities (IP-Watch)
Lawmakers in the United States concerned that global counterfeiting and piracy are hurting American business on Wednesday introduced two bills aimed at curbing the practices, and said they want more international cooperation to do so. Senators Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, and George Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio, introduced the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act, which would establish an ...
19 Oct, 2007: China antipiracy battle ‘will take generations’ (Reuters)
"China's battle against intellectual-property rights piracy will take "generations," a senior official said Thursday, adding that the main victims are Chinese and that other countries should stop politicizing the issue....It was only in 2000 that the Chinese expression for IPR protection started appearing in dictionaries, Tian said...."
18 Oct, 2007: US should be more rational about IPR issues - China official UPDATE (Forbes.com)
"Speaking to reporters, Tian said that China's IPR legal system will take some time to evolve, noting that Western IPR concepts took some time to mature. 'China's IPR legal system has only existed for 20 years,' he said. 'Britain took 300 years and America 200 years. We need at least another generation.'
- View all entries under US v. China 2007