Author name: Guest

Blog

The South Centre Publishes Resources from the "30 Years of TRIPS" Side Event at the WTO on Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding=”22px|||||” custom_margin=”-66px|auto||auto||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”] On March 19th, 2025, an informal group of countries known as “Intellectual Property (IP) for Development” -Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India and Pakistan- hosted an informal side event, on the margins of the regular TRIPS Council session. The South Centre published the following commentary, program, presentations, and photos from this side event at this link, which are also shared below:   Delegates and experts were invited to an initial discussion to reflect on the history of the TRIPS negotiations, 30 years after their conclusion. The formal Council for TRIPS session will hear a brief summary of the event and its key takeaways and reflections. The event took place in Room SI at the WTO and online, with participation of over 150 persons. The presentations, program, photos. [and videos] are available below:  W718 Side Event draft document Presentation: History of the TRIPS Agreement by Carlos Correa TRIPS Side Event Speech by Jayashree Watal Presentation: Restoring and Adding to the TRIPS Balance by Joshua Sarnoff Presentation: TRIPS restrictions on exports or imports when there is non-voluntary use of a patented invention by James Love Presentation: Non-disclosed information and trade secrets by Ellen ‘t Hoen Presentation: TRIPS and Copyright by Sean Flynn Presentation on Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS as well as Article 66 of TRIPS by Sangeeta Shashikant Event Photos Google Drive with Video Recordings Programme 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM | Welcome & Light Snacks 2:00 PM – 2:05 PM | Opening Remarks & Introduction –Ambassador Tareq Md. Ariful Islam, Bangladesh 2:05 PM – 2:35 PM | A History of the TRIPS Negotiations –Dr. Carlos Correa, South Centre 2:35 PM – 3:15 PM | Experiences of National NegotiatorsAmbassador Guilherme Patriota, BrazilMs. Jayashree Watal, India 3:15 PM – 4:25 PM | Panel: Key Issues & Provisions in TRIPS NegotiationsModerator: Dr. Viviana Munoz Tellez, South Centre Prof. Joshua Sarnoff (DePaul College of Law)Mr. James Love (Knowledge Ecology International – KEI)Dr. Ellen ’t Hoen (Medicines Law & Policy)Mr. Sean Flynn (American University)Ms. Sangeeta Shashikant (Third World Network – TWN) 4:25 PM – 4:30 PM | Closing & Summary – Amb. Ninad Deshpande, DPR India 4:30 PM – onwards | Farewell & Light Snack [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Blog

Knowledge Ecology International Publishes Highlights from WIPO Discussions on Graphical User Interfaces

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_margin=”-95px|||||”] The 48th session of the WIPO Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) is considering two submissions from various delegations on Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). A recent Knowledge Ecology International post authored by Thiru highlighted the key details from WIPO discussions on GUIs, and can be read at this link, or below:   [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Blog, Traditional Knowledge

Why the WIPO IGC Deadlocked

[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”] [et_pb_row admin_label=”row”] [et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”] By: Chidi Oguamanam Chidi Oguamanam, representative of Nigeria and University of Ottowa Professor of Law, provides analysis of the failure to endorse a new consolidated text by the 50th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC). The article was originally published by ABS Canada, and is reprinted here with the author’s permission.   Link to article Discord over Rights and Measures-Based Approaches to the Protection of TK and TCEs Scuttles WIPO IGC 50 By: Chidi Oguamanam Backdrop to the 50th WIPO IGC Session At the 50th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC), delegates arrived with expectations for a better outcome. However, after one week of deliberations from March 3-7, 2025, experts and diplomats failed to achieve consensus over an improved working text of international legal instrument(s) for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions (TK/TCEs). The last session of the WIPO-IGC (the 49th session) was stalemated because the majority of delegates agreed that they failed to narrow gaps in the working texts of TK and TCEs from the 47th WIPO-IGC session. At the 49th session, delegates resolved not to transmit any instruments to the 50th session, which meant that they would fall back to the text of the 47th session to the collective disappointment of the Committee and its Finnish Chair, Anna Vuopala, at the December 2024 meetings. The 50th WIPO-IGC session was chaired by Brazilian diplomat Ms. Erika Patriota, who was invested in breaking the jinx of the 49th session. Despite her best efforts through a methodology that relied heavily on informal sessions as well as drew from the facilitation skill of the Filipino Friend of the Chair, Anne Adlon, the session’s intended purpose to narrow gaps and deliver on an improved text of negotiating instruments was not met. A hopeful start on the first couple of days resulted in ridding the two working texts (TK and TCEs) of a few redundant and unsupported alternative articles. However, a methodological failure arising from not reining in delegates who were determined to contribute new textual language, and who were determined to even substitute in wholesale fashion some existing articles, pushed the Committee off-balance away from narrowing gaps. Rights and Measures-Based Approach is Now a Critical Schism There was a palpable ideological schism among delegates on the perennial high level conceptual question over the nature of the instrument in relation to intellectual property rights. On one side are demandeur delegations who favour negotiating the TK/TCEs instruments as sui generis, or what one delegate characterizes as “IP+.”  On the other side are those who prefer that the instruments be in sync with conventional IP rights – with term limits, elaborate exceptions and limitations, and accommodation of the so-called “vibrant public domain.” More prominently and equally worrisome at the 50th WIPO-IGC session was a palpable division among delegates along “rights-based” and “measures-based” approaches to the protection of TK and TCEs. In simple terms, the rights-based approach is premised on the recognition of inalienable and existing rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to their TK and TCEs as a fundamental anchor for the protection of those rights and the premise upon which any consequential measures are based. On the other hand, proponents of the measures-based approach, who are mainly non-demandeurs led by the United States and its allies in Group B (Japan, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, UK), the EU, the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS), etc., are inclined toward a measures-based approach. The latter group of proponents of the measures-based approach proactively emphasizes and promotes a list of policy, regulatory, persuasive, and non-binding measures to encourage the “safeguarding” of TK and TCEs. In the opinion of these proponents, a soft-law (i.e., non-binding) approach is the preferred nature of such measures. The argument is that, in accordance with its mandate, the Committee should not prejudge the nature of the instrument that will result from its work. For most non-demandeurs, a measures-based approach is a suitable pathway to a non-binding treaty. For the demandeurs, that is, IPLCs as well as mostly developing countries of the global south who coalesce around the mainly fluid category of like-minded countries (LMCs), the African Group, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), India, China, and some members of the Asia Pacific Group (APG), a rights-based approach is preferred. The demandeurs support a stronger and binding instrument in the nature of the already-concluded treaty from the work of the Committee – the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. For this group, the fact that the Committee is required not to prejudge the outcome of its deliberations does not preclude designing a binding instrument. For demandeurs, the narrow focus of non-demandeurs on a non-binding instrument misses the other consideration regarding the outcome of the Committee’s work, which relates to whether it would result in a single or multiple instruments. At the beginning, the Committee set out on a pathway to three instruments, namely, TK, TCEs and Genetic Resources (GRs).  It has agreed on only one instrument so far, which is the binding instrument on GRs. Cut-and-Paste Merger for Artificial Consolidation Despite a lack of consensus, the 50th IGC attempted to merge the two remaining negotiating instruments on TK and TCEs into one document, in contrast to their being negotiated in parallel, which has been the practice. It is not as if no attempt has been made in the past at consolidating the two remaining documents. In February 2023 and March 2023, the Jamaican Chair of the IGC, Lilly-Clair Bellamy, raised the Chair’s Consolidated Texts of TK and TCEs, which some delegations wanted to be used as a working instrument at the aborted 49th session of the IGC. The attempt at the equally aborted 50th session to merge both texts in a cut-and-paste merging approach reflects the potential inclination of delegations toward a consolidated instrument. The Committee appears

Scroll to Top