essay on trips agreement

The Arguments For and Against the TRIPS Agreement

Following the culmination of the Uruguay Round of trade talks, the World Trade Organisation entered into existence on 1 January 1995. Alongside agreements on goods (GATT) and services (GATS), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) forms one of the three pillars of the new multilateral trading system (WTO, 2008: 24). While it represents the first comprehensive and enforceable global agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), it has since its inception been the subject of much criticism (Sell & Prakash, 2004). This paper outlines the main arguments both for and against TRIPS, and in so doing provides a sceptical assessment of its legitimacy and effectiveness. It begins, firstly, with the principal arguments in favour of TRIPS, before critically examining the recent history of the agreement and IPRs more generally. The paper then moves on to discuss the impact of TRIPS on economic development, and concludes that criticism of the agreement is broadly persuasive.

The WTO position

The standard line in support of TRIPS stems from recognition of the contemporary significance of the knowledge economy, and private intellectual property (IP) as a major component of international trade (WTO, 2008: 39). Disagreements over, and absence of, IPR protection constitute significant non-tariff barriers to trade, and TRIPS is the result of the need for a robust multilateral framework to replace what was an ineffective patchwork of pre-existing IPR agreements[i] (Matthews, 2002: 10-12). For the first time, therefore, TRIPS has put in place a global minimum standard of IP protection that all WTO members must adhere to. This covers copyrights, trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indications, patents, integrated circuit designs, trade secrets, and anti-competitive contract restrictions. Like other WTO agreements, it applies the fundamental principles of non-discrimination – most-favoured-nation treatment (no discrimination between trading partners) and national treatment (giving foreigners the same treatment domestically as one’s own nationals).

Various wider benefits to society are said to accrue from the imposition of temporary monopolies and other limitations that result from private IPRs (WTO, 2008: 39; CIPR, 2002: 14-18). By instituting legal protection – tackling piracy and counterfeiting – the disclosure of new knowledge and creativity is encouraged, and the significant costs associated with the creative process (such as with research and development) can therefore be recouped and remuneration earned. Innovation is thus both rewarded and further promoted. The scope and reliability offered by a global IPR regime should not only stimulate domestic innovation, but the security offered to developed world patent holders and others can also encourage foreign direct investment, technology transfer and licensing, and the diffusion of knowledge to the developing world (Matthews, 2002: 108-111). TRIPS is therefore able to play a significant role in the overall promotion of trade and economic development.

The agreement also takes care to recognise the differing position of member states vis-à-vis their relative economic status, administrative capabilities, and technological base. As per other WTO agreements, developing countries were afforded special and differential treatment as detailed in Part VI of the agreement under ‘transitional arrangements’. While developed countries had to ensure compliance by 1 January 1996, developing and post-communist countries were instead allocated a further four years to achieve this (with another five years granted for new patents products). Under Article 66.1, least-developed countries (LDCs) were given until 2006 to enact TRIPS, with the possibility of further extensions; the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health has also subsequently allowed a further ten years for pharmaceutical products for LDCs (WTO, 2001). Article 66.2 meanwhile explicitly encourages technology transfer from developed states to the LDCs so as to assist in the establishment of a viable technological base, and Article 67 obliges developed countries to provide technical and financial assistance to facilitate implementation of the agreement.

A further advantage inherent within TRIPS is the ‘flexibility’ offered to all members in interpreting various articles of the agreement (Vandoren, 2001). Article 27.3, for example, allows members to exclude certain inventions and subject matter from patentability, and permits the protection of others – such as plant varieties – through compatible sui generis systems. The Doha Declaration reiterated that developing countries have the right to grant compulsory licences or allow parallel importing for pharmaceutical products under Article 31 to tackle ‘national emergencies or other circumstances of extreme urgency’ –  and that public health crises such as HIV/AIDS , malaria, and other epidemics can be declared as such (WTO, 2001).

Crucially, TRIPS also represents a significant improvement on previous IPR agreements in having considerable monitoring, enforcement, and dispute settlement capabilities (Matthews, 2002: 79-95). A TRIPS Council – comprising all WTO members – reviews national legislation and implementation of the agreement. Should serious disputes occur, any member may ultimately bring a case to the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body, which has the power to issue punitive trade sanctions to ensure compliance. Successful cases launched by Ecuador and Brazil show that the dispute resolution mechanism works for both developed and developing countries alike (MIP, 2010). TRIPS is therefore seen by its supporters as representing an enforceable global system of IPR protection that plays an essential role in the modern global information society. By rewarding and encouraging innovation, it facilitates international trade, spurs economic growth, and enables technological progress and the dissemination of knowledge, ultimately benefiting both producers and users throughout the developed and developing world.

A critical perspective

Carla Hesse (2002: 26) usefully reminds us, however, that “the concept of intellectual property – the idea that an idea can be owned – is a child of the European Enlightenment”. Unlike physical property, knowledge is generally not rivalrous and can be shared without loss of utility: one person’s contemporaneous use of it does not detract from another’s ability to do so. The institution of intellectual property therefore involves the ‘construction of scarcity’ where none necessarily exists (May & Sell, 2006: 17-20). As noted above, granting of private IP rights is intended to protect and encourage innovation; a balance is consequently to be struck between the private rights of ownership and the public good of shared knowledge, for the broader welfare of society.

The TRIPS agreement is however predicated on a particular conception of intellectual property as an idea, and internationalising this can be problematic. This may be in the narrow sense that different societies afford greater priority to the public good on a variety of issues, and in the broader sense that some forms of ‘traditional knowledge’ (TK) as shared amongst indigenous communities do not conform to the codified Western model of individual and exclusive ownership (Michalopoulos, 2003: 17-18). The recent progress made in biotechnology-based products has notably highlighted this contrast: for Western advocates, modern genetic research aimed at increasing human welfare is entirely respectable ‘bioprospecting’, a form of IP that fits within the TRIPS framework. For indigenous peoples, by way of contrast, the patenting of TK resources such as neem extract[ii] can be seen as a form of ‘biopiracy’, and represents the “disingenuous repackaging of traditional knowledge in order to secure monopoly rents for the biopirate while excluding the original innovator from a claim of these rents” (Isaac & Kerr, 2004). TRIPS, crucially, does not currently provide an agreed interpretation of either what constitutes traditional knowledge, or how it should be protected (CIPR, 2002b: 73-87).

It is also vital to note that the concept of intellectual property as contained within the TRIPS agreement stems from a particular interpretation of IPRs that has developed within the Western tradition over the last few decades alone. Intellectual property was initially highlighted an international issue in the 1960s and 1970s by the G77 group of developing countries, when as part of the push for a New International Economic Order they unsuccessfully sought the dilution of existing IPR protection in order to narrow the technology gap with the developed world (May & Sell, 2006: 155-156). This debate, however, also galvanised various corporate actors in the USA – and to a lesser extent in Europe and Japan – who were becoming increasingly concerned about losses stemming from trade in counterfeit goods.

While pressure from the likes of the chemical, pharmaceutical, and entertainment industries led to a ‘silent revolution’ in stricter IPR protection within the USA from the 1970s onward, corporate lobbyists also sought to move the issue to the global level (Archibugi & Filippetti, 2010). American government policy-makers, concerned about the country’s trade deficit and loss of competitiveness, became increasingly receptive to their lines of argument. International IPRs as based on protection and exclusion, rather than competition and diffusion, were thus promoted as a means of maintaining a comparative advantage in emerging knowledge-based, high-technology sectors of the global economy. Business groups succeeded in placing IP protection on the Uruguay Round agenda, and – through claiming unrivalled expertise in arcane ‘technical’ matters of IP legislation – they managed to play a key role in shaping the terms of the agreement (Matthews, 2002: 7-28).

Developing countries, on the other hand, had little input, although while many were initially sceptical of the proposals, resistance to a deal on TRIPS was gradually overcome (Drahos, 2002). The promise of greater access to agricultural and textile markets, economic coercion via threat of American sanctions, the potential development of restrictive bilateral IPR agreements, and an overall lack of  awareness of the content of proposals, all played their part (May & Sell, 2006: 157-158).  TRIPS therefore reflected the interests of particular global corporate actors, and it is only through acknowledgement of this that it can be properly understood (Matthews, 2002: 4-5). It is the specific view of intellectual property as promoted by Western transnational corporations, and supported by governments, that became embedded within the agreement. The fine balance between private gain and the public good – the purpose and scope of IPRs – may therefore have been tilted too far toward the former at the expense of the latter, and the consequences of this for how TRIPs functions in spite of its stated objectives are what we now turn to.

TRIPS and development

One of the principal criticisms made of the TRIPS agreement is that it offers an inappropriate uniform standard across a diverse range of states. Developed countries generally already possess suitable levels of IPR protection, and are home to the overwhelming majority of IP rights-holders that stand to benefit from increased protection (Chang, 2001: 23). Most developing countries, on the other hand, may incur significant costs from raising domestic standards to the required level – taking scarce resources away from other crucial sectors – and from the increased payments to be made to developed world rights-holders. A 2001 World Bank report suggested that in the short term TRIPS effectively constitutes an annual $20 billion transfer of wealth from technology-importing developing countries to technology-exporting developed countries (cited in Dutfield & Suthersanen, 2004). Similarly, Philip McCalman (2005) estimates that the beneficiaries of TRIPS are just a handful of developed countries: primarily the USA and various Western European states. Countries from India to Brazil – and even South Korea – meanwhile suffer through their reliance on technology imports. While most countries could still benefit in the long-term, McCalman argues that the advantages will nonetheless be distributed overwhelmingly amongst the leading developed countries. The Commission on Intellectual Property Rights also arrived at similar conclusions in its 2002 report on IPRs and development – assessing the argument that a stronger IPR regime would offset short-term implementation costs over the long-term, they concluded that:

“…for most developing countries with weak technological capacity, the evidence on trade, foreign investment, and growth suggests IP protection will have little impact. Nor is it likely that the benefits of IP protection will outweigh the costs in the foreseeable future. For more technologically advanced developing countries, the balance is finer. Dynamic gains may be achieved through IP protection, but at cost to other industries and consumers.”

(CIPR, 2002a: 12)

The Commission emphasised that developing countries do require different IP strategies as depending on their level of development. Contrary to the claims of TRIPS advocates, “rapid growth is more often associated with weaker IP protection” and does not start to become important until a country is well into upper-middle income category (CIPR, 2002b:22). So, while the WTO may claim to take developing countries needs into account, its emphasis on the need for a single high standard of IPRs appears to run contrary to the historical evidence. Indeed, Ha-Joon Chang observes of Europe and the USA that they themselves were “still routinely violating the IPRs of other countries’ citizens well into the twentieth century” (2001: 10). The flexible use of IP regimes to further economic interests was also successfully adopted by East Asian states such as Korea and Taiwan until very recently, where imitation and reverse-engineering were all considered important methods for developing technological and innovative capacity (CIPR, 2002b: 19-20). Strong IPR protection therefore appears to be a consequence, rather than a cause, of economic development.

The potential social cost of TRIPS for poorer countries has meanwhile been particularly evident over the issue of access to medicines, most notably with regard to antiretroviral drugs (Lanoszka, 2003). Before TRIPS, many countries either did not patent medicines or provided less than the robust 20-year protection subsequently introduced. Contemporary TRIPS rules, however, drive up costs to unaffordable levels by enabling monopoly pricing and excluding cheaper ‘generic’ alternatives. In 2001, by way of example, a group of 39 pharmaceutical companies took the South African government to court to prevent their use of compulsory licensing of generics, although intense public pressure did eventually force them to abandon the case (Sell & Prakash, 2004). However, the incident showed how multinational corporations attempt to use TRIPS to pursue private gain at clear cost to the public good[iii]. While some flexibilities in interpreting the agreement in light of public health concerns have since been established, as mentioned above, they often remain unused owing to cost, complexity, and the threat of trade ‘retaliation’ (O’Farrell, 2008).

The few allowances that are granted to developing countries in the TRIPS agreement can therefore be seen as insufficient, and the numerous limitations far too restrictive. As Constantine Michalopoulos (2003) notes, TRIPS does not actually offer the same range of ‘special and differential treatment’ (SDT) as other WTO agreements. Once the transition periods have expired, developing countries must implement the same rules on scope and duration of protection – regardless of circumstances – as the most advanced developed countries[iv]. Any form of permanent SDT is not an option: LDCs can no longer exempt sectors from protection, or reduce patent duration, as a means of addressing social or economic concerns. The flexibilities within the agreement, as seen above, therefore offer only limited room for manoeuvre.

Robert Wade (2003) suggests that as a result this constitutes a distinct ‘shrinking of the development space’: a reduction in states’ policy-making autonomy that denies them the paths to development that were taken by others before them. Furthermore, the agreement is “vague at points where vagueness benefits the developed countries, and precise at points where precision works against developing countries” (Wade, 2003: 630). The obligations of developing countries and the rights of developed are both enforceable to a far greater extent than the rights of the developing and the obligations of the developed. There is, for example, despite the clearly stated objective of Article 66.2 regarding technology transfer, little evidence of a sustained effort by developed states to honour such commitments (Moon, 2008).

The legitimacy and effectiveness of the TRIPS agreement is clearly vulnerable to numerous criticisms, particularly so with regard to developing countries. It is noteworthy that even prominent free trade advocates such as Martin Wolf (2005: 217) criticise the ‘hypocrisy’ of TRIPS, seeing it as a rent extraction device for many developing countries, with potentially devastating effects on education, public health, and economic development. Even within those countries who appear to gain most from the agreement, the benefits may only accrue to particular sections of society, so that “the real winners from TRIPS are not advanced countries, but rather the large corporations that pressed for its adoption” (Archibugi & Filippetti, 2010: 144). TRIPS has also not provided a solution to policy-makers’ concerns, as trade balances have continued to erode, while the recent emphasis on private rights may even serve to inhibit innovation and the spread of knowledge in developed countries in the long term (Hesse, 2002). While Archibugi & Filippetti (2010) caution against attributing too much importance to TRIPS, it is apparent that the agreement does not function as advertised. From a global perspective, it seems clear that adopting a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to IPRs is entirely inappropriate. A tiered system, offering more substantive special and differential treatment according to countries’ developmental needs, would have been more suitable. However, it remains to be seen whether major reform of the agreement is likely, given that TRIPS is now firmly established within the WTO system.

Bibliography

Archibugi, D. and Filippetti, A. (2010) ‘The Globalisation of Intellectual Property Rights: Four Learned Lessons and Four Theses’, Global Policy , 1, 2, 137-149.

Botov, I. E. (2004) ‘From the Paris Convention to the TRIPS Agreement: A One-Hundred-and-Twelve-Year Transitional Period for the Industrialized Countries’, Journal of World Intellectual Property , 7, 1, 115-130.

Chang, H-J. (2001) Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development – Historical Lessons and Emerging Issues . Third World Network: Penang.

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) (2002a) Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy: Executive Summary . CIPR: London.

Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) (2002b) Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy: Full Report . CIPR: London.

Drahos, P. (2002) ‘Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-Setting’, Journal of World Intellectual Property , 5, 5, 765-789.

Dutfield, G. and Suthersanen, U. (2004) ‘Harmonisation or Differentiation in Intellectual Property Protection? The Lessons of History’, Occasional Paper 15 , Quaker United Nations Office: Geneva. [Online] http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/economic/Occassional/Harmonisation-or-Differentiation.pdf, accessed 10 March 2011.

Hesse, C. (2002) ‘The rise of intellectual property, 700 B.C. – A.D. 2000: an idea in the balance’, Daedalus , Spring 2002, 26-45.

Isaac, G. E. and Kerr, W. A. (2004) ‘Bioprospecting or biopiracy? Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge in Biotechnology Innovation’, Journal of World Intellectual Property , 7, 1, 35-52.

Lanoszka, O. (2003) ‘The Global Politics of Intellectual Property Rights and Pharmaceutical Drug Policies in Developing Countries’, International Political Science Review , 24, 2, 181-197.

Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) (2010) Peter Drahos: How TRIPs reshaped IP norms. 1 st June 2010 p44 .

Matthews, D. (2002) Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPs Agreement . Routledge: London.

May, C. and Sell, S. K. (2006) Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History . Lynne Rienner Publishers: Boulder.

Michalopoulos, C. (2003) ‘Special and Differential Treatment of Developing Countries in TRIPS’, TRIPS Issues Paper 2 , Quaker United Nations Office: Geneva. [Online]

http://www.quno.org/geneva/pdf/economic/Issues/Special-Differential-Treatment-in-TRIPS-English.pdf, accessed 10 March 2011.

O’Farrell, G. (2008) ‘One Small Step or One Giant Leap Towards Access to Medicines for All?’, European Intellectual Property Review , 30, 6, 211-215.

Sell, S. K. and Prakash, A. (2004) ‘Using Ideas Strategically: The Contest Between Business and NGO networks in Intellectual Property Rights’, International Studies Quarterly , 48, 143-175.

Vandoren, P. (2001) ‘The TRIPS Agreement: A Rising Star’, Journal of World Intellectual Property , 4, 3, 307-322.

Wade, R. (2003) ‘What strategies are viable for developing countries today? The World Trade Organization and the shrinking of ‘development space’, Review of International Political Economy , 10, 4, 621-644.

Wolf, M. (2005) Why Globalization Works . Yale University Press: London.

World Trade Organisation (WTO) (2001) ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’, World Trade Organisation. [Online] http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm, accessed 10 March 2011.

World Trade Organisation (WTO) (2008) Understanding the WTO . World Trade Organisation: Geneva.

World Trade Organisation (WTO) (2011) ‘Frequently asked questions about TRIPS in the WTO’, World Trade Organisation. [Online]  http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/tripfq_e.htm, accessed 10 March 2011.

[i] The main agreements – the Paris and Berne Conventions of 1883 and 1886 respectively – have been subsumed within TRIPS, as have parts of the 1961 Rome Convention and the 1989 Washington Treaty (WTO, 2011).

[ii] Neem is a tree from South Asia whose extract has long been used as a form of natural medicine, pesticide, and fertilizer (CIPR, 2002b: 76)

[iii] As Chang (2001: 15-16) notes, the industry argument that profit through such strict patent protection is critical for innovation remains unconvincing. Scientific curiosity and common humanity are often sufficient motivation, while public funds are often provided to assist private sector research, and profits can also still accrue via ‘natural protective mechanisms’ (e.g. imitation lag and reputational advantage).

[iv] Botov (2004) describes how developed countries had over a century – from the Paris Convention in 1883 to the WTO agreement in 1995 – to fully develop their IPR regimes, and suggests the same latitude should be extended to today’s developing countries.

Written by: Ben Willis Written at: University of Plymouth Written for: Piers Revell Date written: March 2011

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• TRIPS-Plus Provisions and the Access to HIV Treatments in Developing Countries
• Indian Perspective on Iran-China 25-year Agreement
• Poliheuristic Analysis: 2008 Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement
• A Pareto Optimal Peace: How the Dayton Peace Agreement Struck a Unique Balance
• Intermestic Realism: Domestic Considerations in International Relations
• Is Universal Health Coverage Always the Best Solution to Health Challenges?

Please Consider Donating

Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.

E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!

Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz

Literature Review

• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

The Trips Agreement and Geographical Indication, Research Paper Example

Pages: 17

Words: 4772

Hire a Writer for Custom Research Paper

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The TRIPS Agreement, was enacted on January 1 st , 1995, and it is currently considered to be the most all-encompassing multilateral agreement on intellectual property. The TRIPS Agreement  covers intellectual property issues, specifically as it relates to copyright, patents, trademarks, appellations of origin, industrial designs patents, geographical indications, and undisclosed information like test data or secrets of trade.  Some of the general provisions of TRIPS entails   Article 1.3, which defines members who are subject to the regulations within the TRIPS agreement.  Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the TRIPS agreement cover the key regulations governing the treatment of foreign nationals by the favoured and most favoured member countries as they relate to all aspects of intellectual property issues. The World Trade Organization notes that Article 22.1 of the TRIPS Agreement defines geographical indications as factors that “identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin”  The main premise of this definition is that geographical indication is not just reliant on branding or patent, but also applies to characteristic factors inherent in a product that can only be attributed to a specific geographical location. If the quality, reputation or other aspects of the product’s existence are fundamentally tied to its geographical place of origin then that product may claim protection under geographical indications. There are fundamental differences in a wide range of products which claim protection under the TRIPS Agreement. The reason these differences exist is due to the fact that the TRIPS Agreement sets minimum standards allowing member countries to expand on these standards as they see fit. One of the key reason why brands need protection internationally has to do with the marketability of products. This can specifically be seen with developing countries which largely rely on the marketing, manufacturing and exportation of their products. In regards to pharmaceutical products, brand infringement can lead to health issues, or even death. International products under the guides of the TRIPS agreement are perceived as more or less different due to geographical indication. The reason geographical indication plays such a significant role in the rationale behind why brands are claimed as being more or less different is due to the fact that geographical indications are directly tied to the reputation, quality and other characteristics of particular regions or member countries from which the products originate .

Thesis statement

The following will assess existing treaties on intellectual property rights to establish an understanding of their effectiveness in handling matters of geographical indication; the findings will provide a further assessment as to whether or not the current European proposal to strengthen mechanisms of enforcement for “denominations of origin” is necessary.

Introduction

In Taubman, Wager, and Jayashree’s handbook, the authors describe the historical legal background of the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement, the authors assess the true nature of the agreement as it relates to international intellectual property rights and globalization over the years. When, in 1994, near the end of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the government settled on a range of agreements that ultimately established and defined the guidelines associated with the WTO. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, otherwise known as TRIPS Agreement, was established as a treaty to stand on its own without entering into “legal force on its own,” but is one of the multilateral trade agreements (MTAs) to comes out of the far reaching Marrakesh Agreement Established by the World Trade Organization” (Taubman, Wager, and Jayashree, xx). The authors further point out that in 1995, the TRIPS Agreement entered into force, in part as set of trade agreements that collectively bind countries that make the decision to join the WTO. The WTO Agreement applied guidelines and regulations to dispute processes related to international intellectual property rights, specifically in regards to trade. On the issue of why TRIPS was needed in the first place:

Almost A Decade Ago, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was the pennant of the Uruguay Round trade agreements,2 and regarded by most commentators as the most significant development in international intellectual property, certainly of the twentieth century.3 Much like its notable predecessors, 4 the TRIPS Agreement was anineluctable consequence of increased global economic interdependence. (Okediji, 22).

The three main features of the Agreement entail standards, enforcements, and disputes. Standards entail the minimum requirements each member must provide in regards to protection, such as the proposed subject-matter that needs to be protected, the duration of the protection, and the rights awarded to and permissible exceptions to those rights, and the minimum duration of protection. The Agreement establishes standards through mandating that the requirements set by the conventions of the WIPO, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) as well as the requirements set in the convention in Berne, which over-sought issues regarding the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. With the exception of the provisions of the Berne Convention on moral rights, All provisions associated with the WIPO convention are incorporated as integral parts of the TRIPS Agreement making them mandatory requirements to be followed by all TRIPS Member countries; such provisions can be found in Articles 2.1 and 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, as these are the main terms adapted from the Berne and Paris conventions. In addition to these provisions, the TRIPS Agreement also stipulates a significant number of requirements based on pre-existing conventions. This is why the TRIPS Agreement is often referred to as “the Berne and Paris-plus agreement” (The World Trade Organization, 1).

The second key aspect of the TRIPS is Enforcement. These provisions entail factors dealing with solutions regarding the enforcement of intellectual property legislation as well as those associated with domestic procedures. The TRIPS agreement sets out the principles related to all aspects of intellectual property rights enforcement guidelines and relevant procedures, as well as guidelines related to administrative and civil procedures and the necessary steps to lead to their resolution. The enforcement section of TRIPS also entails procedures and requirements associated with the criminal prosecution process and border regulations. These guidelines enable intellectual, copyright, and trademark right holders to and criminal procedures, which specify, in a certain amount of detail, the procedures and remedies that must be available so that right holders can effectively enforce their rights.

The final and third aspect of TRIPS relates to the dispute settlement process and all guidelines related to it. The TRIPS agreement ensures all conflicts between WTO Members must be evaluated based on TRIPS WTO dispute guidelines. In addition to this there are specific principles which allow for, “national and most-favoured-nation treatment, and some general rules to ensure that procedural difficulties in acquiring or maintaining IPRs do not nullify the substantive benefits that should flow from the Agreement” (The World Trade Organization, 1). While these requirements apply equally to all member countries, developing countries are allotted more time to incorporate them into national policy. TRIPS also provides developing countries transitional support that have no patent protection in place for pharmaceutical products as the unregulated distribution of such products could have a hazardous impact on global health as a whole. It should also be noted that the TRIPS Agreement just sets minimum standards and countries are encouraged to establish even stricter legislation to oversee international patent right and copyright issues.

Primary to the topic of international intellectual property rights is its importance. In Keith Eugene Maskus’s text “ Intellectual property rights in the global economy,” he notes that, policy makers and economists are recognizing more and more that managing the powerful shifts that arise in technological change and market globalization entails a need to setup legal institutions that can support change while limiting it from getting out of control. He further states that:

“central to this challenge is international reform of intellectual property rights (IPRs)—patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secretes—which provide the foundation for building and extending markets for new technologies. Indeed, the construction of such institutional architecture is arguably becoming more important than liberalization of traditional barriers to market access, including tariffs and quotas” (Maskus, ix)

Integral within Maskus’s assessment of the current climate in regards to intellectual property rights across borders is the idea of quality and how the quality of certain products in itself can and should be trademarked. This places products within the conversation of geographical indication, as there are many products where the quality is largely reliant on, or associated with, their place of origin.  It also brings into question whether or not geographical indication is even necessary within the TRIPS Agreement, if trademark regulation can simply cover it. Maskus does an assessment of the significance of trademark legislation within the TRIPS Agreement. He notes that three of the key advantage of trademark legislation is that there is little room for monopolies as there are an endless supply of trademarks, and that legal structures in regards to trademarks tend to be supplemental to trademarks being driven by quality as opposed to capital. Finally, the true measure of quality is the consumer (Suh, Jeongwook, and MacPherson, 581). When certain trademarks fall out of favour with the consumer, it becomes necessary to improve the quality of the product or risk losing market share. Maskus also notes that “unauthorized duplication of a mark or use of a confusingly similar name or mark constitutes trademark infringement” (Maskus, 49). This is very similar to geographical indication as regulations within the TRIPS Agreement protect against the false representation of a product’s place of origin. Maskus goes on to talk about the importance of protecting trade secrets, another valued asset that falls within the realm of geographical indication.

In Lesser’s study on the impact of TRIPS on the economic activity of developing countries, he notes that December 31, 1999, marked the deadline:

“for all but the least-developed countries to comply with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requirements of the WTO2 for extending and harmonizing Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Many countries have complied in full while others are in process in some regards, but virtually all developing countries are asking, what are the economic implications of compliance?” (Lesser, 24).

Improved insights into the potential benefits of intellectual property rights can assist national governments to draft more effective economic policy. This will enable them to provide a counter objectives to voices concerns like those heard in Seattle in 1999, which are roundly condemning much of the globalization taking place under the WTO process. In the developing countries, strengthened IPR are a particular target of that rhetoric. Lesser notes how international intellectual property rights have changed in previous years pointing out that since the 1970’s, a substantial number of foreign countries are now technologically advanced when it comes to business operations in certain sectors. Despite this, Lesser further points out that there are still many developing countries that still need to take advantage of products produced by the developed western world, resulting in developed countries emphasizing the importance of stronger IPR regulations. In addition to the fact that innovation is an important aspect of international trade, there is the risk that too much regulation could impeded innovative process. The TRIPS Agreement allows for governments to treat the fine line between enforcing intellectual property law while enabling innovators to create and advance markets.

Lesser points out the fact that strong Intellectual property rights tends to lead to increased international foreign investment in developing nations. He attributes this concept to the fact that strengthening intellectual property rights (IPR) can leads enhanced internationalization due to the fact that more multinational corporations are willing to do business with regions they know protect their patents. He states that “clearly the protection aspect is significant, for IPR tend to be more important for more valuable and readily copied inventions” (Lesser, 21). Yet a major aspect of the score used here and in prior studies is based on the transparency of legal systems – the options to protect one’s properties in whatever forms. Hence, improvements in IPR can provide for analysis to supplement other legal and governmental initiatives. This is especially true in regards to how countries engage in bilateral agreements and programs where countries are forced to interact with one-another. At the same time, investors might look to the operation of property rights systems as an indicator of the general system for protecting property rights. Others have suggested this role for IPRs for a long time; in Pen words, “it may be that cooperation in the [patent] system on the part of less developed countries will help them to obtain the cooperation of [multinational] firms” (Lesser, 21). Lesser’s results reveal that international investors, seeking to invest in developing and emerging markets, are deeply concerned with how countries handle their intellectual property rights. In this respect, elements like geographical indication serve as another layer of protection, further increasing the value and appeal the results in general combined with the survey results do support the view that investors are very aware of IPR systems in individual countries and act carefully within that context. Countries wishing to attract that group are advised to strengthen the IPR systems accordingly (Lesser, 21).

Geographical Indication & International Treaties

Geographical indication represents a distinct classification of intellectual property that has evolved since the culmination of certain treaties being drafted. One very distinct and unique aspect of geographical indication is noted by Hughes in his text “Surrendering Words to the EU,” where he talks about how the final decision on how geographical indication will be handled is still up in the air. Hughes points out that the main difference between copyrights and patents and how they are handled within the TRIPS Agreement verses how TRIPS deals with geographical indication is that language of the law is much more forward thinking in respect to geographical indication. Hughes attributes the forward looking nature of policy language associated with geographical indication to the fact that the WTO acknowledges there will most likely be need to account for ever evolving international norms. When he points out how adaptable and easily modifiable the policy is within the TRIPS agreement. He notes that, “The European Union has used this opening to propose a system in which any one WTO member can announce a new geographical indication and every other country must protect the new GI” (Hughes, 2). This proposed amendment to geographical indication functions as a policy within the TRIPS Agreement is just one of many adaptions to the concept that have been proposed or drafted from treaties throughout the year.

The main treaties relevant to Geographical indication are the 1883 Paris Convention on Intellectual Property, the 1891 Madrid Agreement on indications of source, the 1958 Lisbon Agreement, the 1891 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, and of course the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The Paris Convention was the very first multilateral agreement to place an emphasis on source indication and origin appellation (O’Connor, 2). It’s noted that while the Paris Convention does identify geographical indication as an intellectual property right within itself, separate from other concerns. Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention specifically states that, “the protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellation of origin, and the repression of unfair competition” (O’Connor, 2). Despite the fact that the Paris Convention places a distinctive emphasis on the importance of geographical indication, the treaty provides no detailed definition of the concept, or real ramifications for infringing on the policy. The 1891 Madrid Agreement is the first multilateral Agreement to apply specific regulations to implement in enforcement of violations for those who falsely deceive their indication of source. The 1958 Lisbon Agreement extended protections and provided a detailed definition of appellation of origin, referring to it as, “the geographical name of a country, region, or locality, which serves to designate a product originating therein, the quality and characteristics of which are due exclusively or essentially to the geographic environment, including natural and human factors” (O’Connor, p.4). This is the first time a comprehensive detailed definition of location indication legislation was applied to the policies of a treaty. Finally, the WTO Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), further expanded the definition of appellation of origin, redefining it as geographical indication stating that “… indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin” (O’Connor, 6). This definition expands on those stipulations put in place within the Lisbon Agreement, extending it to include the term “indication”. The problem with geographical indication and the debate that stems from whether or not it’s necessary is that, as Hughes points out, “control of production standards is not needed to foster traditional production” (Hughes, 21). Hughes further points out that on the industrial scale level, production of many of Europe’s most coveted wines and cheeses reveals that geographical indication is incapable of guarding and securing the sanctity of traditional agriculture. This is largely why many critics of the policy promote the need for European policy that emphasizes denomination of origin.

When a policy focuses on geographical place of origin, it focuses specifically on the location, and disregards the indication of that location which also includes culture and distinct characteristics associated with that region. This distinction still applies the minimal protection under the TRIPS Agreement while it is still possible and in some cases necessary for member countries within the agreement to setup bilateral arrangements that provide further protection under geographical indication. These bilateral agreements are usually established additionally between the European Community and a particular country and they are referred to as bilateral agreements concluded by the EC for the protection of geographical indication and they focus on denominations.

European Proposal-Denominations

In many ways, denomination of origin represents the EU’s addendum to geographical indication, as it works as a final step in bilateral agreements to strengthen pre-existing language drafted in the TRIPS Agreement in respect to geographical indication. In Juan Gonzalez Blasco’s report on the 40 th European Congress (European Monetary Union and Regional Policy), he addresses the fundamental views and objectives behind the European Commission’s push to legally emphasize denominations of origin. He points out that the core objective the European policy seeks to accomplish to increase diversification of agriculture and food production, in addition to promoting the significance of other types of products based on their place of origin. It should be noted that the denomination of origin is a European policy that applies as a supplemental additive to geographic indication and related policies within the TRIPS Agreement. The first aspect of the policy relates to the denomination of a product that links it to a particular origin based on a specific stage of production. This ties into what the TRIPS agreement refers to as geographical indication. The second aspect of the denomination of origin EU policy is that (Blasco, 2).

The author notes that according to the specific ruling, first published on July 14 th , 1992, “denomination of origin is understood as being the name of a region, a specific place or, exceptionally, a country which is used to designate an agricultural product or foodstuff” (Blasckp, 2). Similar to the definition of geographical indication, denomination of origin seeks to add credibility and legal support to products, brands or key exports of regions that might otherwise go unprotected or be loosely protected under the TRIPS Agreement (Watal, 20). An example of European denomination of origin can be seen with the European Commission’s recent registration of “Sklandrausis ”  as a Traditional Specialties Guaranteed item. Sklandrausis is a Latvian pie that holds significant value within Latvian culture. Through the denomination of origin, the food item’s name is now protected at the EU level. The products itself if traditionally eaten with milk or tea and it’s served cold. It’s composed out rye flour dough and then filled with layers of carrot filling and boiled potato. The denomination is added to the list of over 1,100 products, which are protected by the legislation governing geographical indication. If the quality, reputation or other aspects of the product’s existence are based primarily on its location of origin, then geographical indication comes into play as a significant factor (Taubman, 5). Within the guidelines of  geographical indications, within TRIPS, all parties involved in the distribution of products must put in place the legal recourses necessary to ensure they do not infringe on the geographical indications of other products or mislead the public in regards to how they represent the geographical origin of a certain good.

Some of the general provisions of TRIPS entail Article 1.3, which defines members who are subject to the regulations within the TRIPS agreement.  These members are referred to as “nationals” but it includes all persons, natural or legal entities, who are closely connected to one another. The basis used to establish whether a person can be a member that benefits from the protection setup by the agreement is decide by guidelines drawn out in the WIPO conventions (Bronckers, 1246).  These guidelines pay respect to all WTO Members. The conventions from which regulations are taken and applied to members specifically are the Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention), the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty), the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, and the International Convention for the Protection of Performers. This puts in place a system that has both favoured and unflavoured nationals.

Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the TRIPS agreement covers the key regulations governing the treatment of foreign nationals by the favoured and most favoured member countries as they relate to all aspects of intellectual property issues (Dreyfuss,  21). These articles cover substantive standards of protection as well as all matters influencing the availability, scope, maintenance, acquisition, and the actual implementation of intellectual property rights. . Discrimination among members is forbidden by the “most-favoured-nation treatment clause.”

The core objectives of the TRIPS Agreement are collected within the Preamble of the Agreement. This introductory section sets out all of the basic negotiating established through the  Uruguay Round objectives documented  in the TRIPS area by the 1986 Punta del Este Declaration, as well as the 1988/89 Mid-Term Review (Dreyfuss,  21).  The policies laid out entail the reduction of impediments and distortions to international trade, as well as the efficient safeguarding of intellectual property rights. These objectives also see that no actions taken to implement protocols become barriers in the process of legal trade. In this way the TRIPS Agreement ensures that intellectual property rights do not violate the rights of members, but also do not prevent or limit technological innovation.

It is essential to note that the TRIPS Agreement only covers minimum protection within policy so that it could be seen as necessary to provide further protection through EC denominations (Reichman, 41).  This is largely due to the fact that through EC denomination countries can better protect their main exports through which they are most commonly known. The articles provided within the TRIPS Agreement enable countries to establish bilateral agreements that can essentially result in establishing these denomination policies.

As previously revealed by Lesser, a legitimate measurement of whether a country has sound intellectual property rights can be seen in their level of Foreign Direct investment. Lesser finds there is a direct correspondence between FDIs and the efficiency with which a country pursues intellectual property rights. This includes securing the legitimacy of trademarks, brands, and geographical indication. The study identifies some of the following factors as variables influencing why foreign direct investors will chose one country over another distinctively respective of how well they enforce intellectual property laws, for businesses both international and domestic. Lesser notes that, “based on the preceding, the independent variables can be grouped into three categories as follows:

“1. Classical ‘gravity’-type variables describing business justifications for selecting one country over another, such as market size, costs openness and taxation, 2. Agglomeration benefits like infrastructure, FDI stock and degree of industrialization, and 3. Riskiness, such as the rule of law and exchange rate variability” (Lesser, 22).

The dependent variables in Lesser’s assessment are represented by all if the exports and foreign direct investors reported for every TRIPS Agreement member country.  Lesser utilized additional dependent variables, like tech exports and residuals earned or paid where data is available. What Lesser reveals is that enhanced intellectual property protection improves the economic development of a region through making it more appealing to investors.

In sum, international products under the guides of the TRIPS agreement are perceived as less different due to geographical indication. The reason geographical indication plays such a significant role in regards to intellectual property law is due to the fact that brands, trademarks and copyrights fail to take into account the unique characteristics are claimed as being more or less different is due to the fact that geographical indications are directly tied to the reputation, quality and other characteristics of particular regions or member countries from which the products originate . Improvements in intellectual property law can provide for analysis to supplement other legal and governmental initiatives. This is especially true in regards to how countries engage in bilateral agreements and programs where countries are forced to interact with one-another. In assessing the existing treaties, on intellectual property rights to establish an understanding of their effectiveness in handling matters of geographical indication, the findings revealed that treaties have progressively expanded aspects of international intellectual property rights, improving on their distinct definitions of policy. The natural progression of this transition has resulted in the European proposal to strengthen mechanisms of enforcement for “denominations of origin” which essentially empowers bilateral agreements to be more effective in safeguarding TRIPS member countries from having their trademarks violated through infringement of geographical indication. The data shows that denomination of origin adds an extra layer of policy to geographical indications of the TRIPS Agreement, while supplementing avenues for innovation and market entry. Currently, denomination of origin is used in bilateral agreements to enhance both awareness about, and ensure the quality of, certain trademark products that tie their production quality and notoriety to a particular region of the world. Many of these products are the ones most prone to being counterfeited for their marketability which does not just negatively impact the impression of the product but the country as well. In this respect, denomination of origin serves provides a much needed layer of regulatory enforcement and accountability that can produce policy that is shaped perfectly for the members involved.

Agarwal, Sanjeev, and Michael J. Barone.  Emerging issues for geographical indication branding strategies . Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center, Iowa State University, 2005.

Blasco, Juan, Gonzalez. “40 th European Congress (European Monetary Union and Regional Policy).” Dept. of Applied Economics . University of Granada.

Bramley, Cerkia, Estelle Biénabe, and Johann Kirsten. “The economics of geographical indications: Towards a conceptual framework for geographical indication research in developing countries.”  The Economics of Intellectual Property  (2009): 109.

Bronckers, Marco CEJ. “The impact of TRIPS: Intellectual property protection in developing countries.”  Common Market Law Review  31.6 (1994): 1245-1281.

Correa, Carlos M. “The TRIPS Agreement and Developing Countries.” The World Trade Organization: Legal, Economic and Political Analysis. Springer US, 2005. 2010-2046

Dreyfuss, R. C. (2004). TRIPS-Round II: should users strike back.  U. Chi. l. reV. ,  71 , 21.

Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper, and Andreas F. Lowenfeld. “Two achievements of the Uruguay

Lesser, William. “The effects of TRIPS-mandated intellectual property rights on economic activities in developing countries.”  World Intellectual Property (WIPO) Studies  1 (2001): 1-24.

Hughes, Justin. “Surrendering words to the EU.”  Managing Intellectual Property  129 (2003).

Maskus, Keith Eugene.  Intellectual property rights in the global economy . Peterson Institute, 2000.

Maskus, Keith E., and Jerome H. Reichman, eds.  International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime . Cambridge University Press, 2005.

O’Connor, B. “Geographical indications and TRIPs: 10 Years Later… A roadmap for EU GI holders to get protection in other WTO Members.”  Brussels: European Commission  (2007).

Okediji, Ruth L. “Back to bilateralism? Pendulum swings in international intellectual property protection.”  U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J.  1 (2004): 127.

Round: putting TRIPs and dispute settlement together.”  Va. J. Int’l L.  37 (1996): 275.

Reichman, Jerome H. “TRIPS Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries, The.”  Case W. Res. J. Int’l L.  32 (2000): 441.

Suh, Jeongwook, and Alan MacPherson. “The impact of geographical indication on the revitalisation of a regional economy: a case study of ‘Boseong’green tea.”  Area  39.4 (2007): 518-527.

Taubman, Antony, Hannu Wager, and Jayashree Watal, eds.  A handbook on the WTO TRIPS agreement . Cambridge University Press, 2012.

The World Trade Organization. TRIPS: A More Detailed Overview of The TRIPS Agreement . Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.

Watal, Jayashree. “Access to essential medicines in developing countries: does the WTO TRIPS agreement hinder it?.”  Science, Technology and Innovation Discussion Paper  8 (2000)

Stuck with your Research Paper?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Jean Piaget's Four Stages of Development, Research Paper Example

Determining Star Distance, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Research Paper Samples & Examples

The risk of teenagers smoking, research paper example.

Pages: 11

Words: 3102

Impacts on Patients and Healthcare Workers in Canada, Research Paper Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1839

Death by Neurological Criteria, Research Paper Example

Words: 2028

Ethical Considerations in End-Of-Life Care, Research Paper Example

Pages: 5

Words: 1391

Ethical Dilemmas in Brain Death, Research Paper Example

Words: 2005

Politics of Difference and the Case of School Uniforms, Research Paper Example

Pages: 2

Words: 631

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: International business and the TRIPS Agreement

Essay details and download:.

• Subject area(s): Law essays
• Reading time: 3 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 15 October 2019*
• File format: Text
• Words: 833 (approx)
• Number of pages: 4 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 833 words. Download the full version above.

“International business is claimed to be as old as the history of mankind itself” Even Hammurabi’s Code of laws contained some rules which are related to business law in 2000 BC. Another example is The Rhodian maritime code or Lex Rhodia was introduced by the Mediterranean community, in the second or third century BC, which was used by Greeks and Romans, is a renowned code which on record incorporated within its tenets the principle of maritime law and maritime insurance. A business is making goods or providing services by any organisation. Goods are physical products such as phones, cars but services are non-physical products such as cleaning services or security services. According to Companies House a record breaking 581,173 businesses were registered with Companies House last year showing an accelerated increase on previous years with 526,447 and 484,224 recorded in 2013 and 2012 respectively. This statistic shows that how the business develops amazingly in the local area. Another character of business situated international business which across the international borders, Robock and Simmonds defined international business as “international business as a field of management training that deals with the special features of business activities that cross national boundaries”. Also Daniels and Radebaugh define international business as “all business transactions that involve two or more countries” it is possible to divide up international business into three categories trade, investment (e.g. direct or indirect), intellectual licensing of technology and intellectual property (e.g. trademarks, patents, and copyrights) such as well known brands are McDonald’s, Nike. There is various kind of sources of international business law. The role of international business law is to assist in the conduct of international business. Article of 38 of the Statue of the International Court of Justice (1945) illustrates of the source of international law which are, International conventions, international custom or general practice, general principles of law recognized by civilized nations and judicial decision and scholarly writing. Related with international and international business, the law exists to create reliable standards for companies to follow**. It is essential to establish an order in international business law and it comes to mean one purpose of the international business law is establishing standards, being said that It is the standardization of fundamental business practices worldwide. In international relations more significant international agreements are called treaties. Such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (1994) and known as TRIPS Agreement. TRIPS Agreement serves to standardization of intellectual property. David Nimmer described TRIPS as “the highest expression to date of binding intellectual property law in the international area”. Additionally, this kind of treaties serve to minimize the risk because every international business transaction might have carried some risks. Also, the purpose of international business law tries to minimize the possible risk with TRIPS Agreement in the area of intellectual property. For instance, a company which enters a licensing agreement in a country which is a member of TRIPS Agreement in willing to enter a business in a foreign country. The problem might have occurred here because it is important to know that intellectual property is under protection in that country or easy to be disclosure by the rivals. If the company decided to enter a business in a foreign country which is member of TRIPS Agreement, risk on company’s shoulder will decrease but in a foreign country which is not a member of TRIPS Agreement, it is possible to withdraw to enter a business because of possible risks as mentioned above. Especially this problem might occur in less developed countries and TRIPS Agreement creates a balance between developed countries and developing countries. Ratification of the TRIPS Agreement has a significant role in intellectual property rights’ reforms in developing countries. TRIPS Agreement constitutes minimum standards for the protection of intellectual rights such as copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, patent and industrial design, integrated circuit layout design and undisclosed information (known as trade secrets or confidential information). Even ratified TRIPS Agreement is one step, a condition for international peace. Closely related to this point, in article 67 regulates technical cooperation between members, especially between develop and developing countries, one of the highest priority of the Agreement. Also, one of TRIPS Agreement’s feature is including about Dispute Settlement. Disputes arising under the TRIPS Agreement will involve an examination into the consistency of a Member’s domestic intellectual property laws and the TRIPS Agreement. Dispute settlement related to intellectual property,  sixteen countries apply for the dispute settlement so far and the most countries who applied for dispute settlement are European Communities with seven disputes, the USA with six disputes and Australia with eight disputes, although, as less developed countries, only Pakistan, India and Indonesia applied for the dispute settlement. According to information from WTO, mostly dispute of TRIPS Agreement appeared between highly developed countries. This essay will examine the scope and purpose of the international business law, and in this respect it is hoped to explain how international business law achieved its any purpose with TRIPS Agreement is related to intellectual property.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, International business and the TRIPS Agreement . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/law-essays/2015-11-25-1448460473/> [Accessed 20-04-24].

These Law essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

EU proposes youth mobility agreement with UK to help youngsters travel, work and live in both areas

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

The European Commission proposed Thursday to start negotiations with the United Kingdom to allow young people to move freely, work and study in both regions after Brexit — the U.K.’s departure from the EU four years ago.

According to the EU, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU following a referendum in 2016 has damaged mobility between the two areas.

“This situation has particularly affected the opportunities for young people to experience life on the other side of the Channel and to benefit from youth, cultural, educational, research and training exchanges,” the Commission said.

When the U.K. was still a member of the economic and political bloc, its nationals had the right to live and work freely in the EU, with reciprocity for EU nationals in the U.K. Under the agreement proposed by the EU’s executive arm, EU and UK citizens between 18 and 30 years old would be eligible to stay up to four years in the destination country.

The deal would also allow equal treatment of EU and UK students in the field of university tuition fees. Most EU students must now pay international tuition fees if they want to study in the U.K. The Commission says these vary between 11,400 and 38,000 pounds ($14,200-$47,300) per year and are a strong deterrent for EU students who generally don’t have to pay as much within the bloc.

The Commission’s recommendation will be discussed by EU member countries who must give the green light before the executive arm can start negotiations with the UK.

“We have successful Youth Mobility Schemes with 13 countries, including Australia and New Zealand, and remain open to agreeing them with our international partners, including EU member states,” the British government said in a statement.

The U.K. has its own Youth Mobility Scheme, which it has offered to some EU member states. The Commission believes the British plan is less ambitious than its own proposal.

“Our agreements provide a valuable route for cultural exchanges providing partner countries are also willing to offer the same opportunities for young British people,” the British government added.

Follow AP’s coverage of Brexit at https://apnews.com/hub/brexit

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

US says a UN agency has agreed to help in distribution of aid to Gaza via sea route

The U.N. World Food Program has agreed to help deliver aid for the starving civilians of Gaza once the U.S. military completes a pier for transporting the humanitarian assistance by sea

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

North Korea says it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands its military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea

What we know about the shooting of an Uber driver in Ohio and the scam surrounding it

Authorities in Ohio say a man fatally shot an Uber driver because he wrongly assumed she was part of a scam to extract $12,000 in supposed bond money for a nephew

Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows

West Virginia will not face $465M COVID education funds clawback after feds OK waiver, governor says

West Virginia will not face a clawback of $465 million in COVID-19 money from the federal government, alleviating concerns raised by state lawmakers during the legislative session in March

April 19, 2024

Idaho group says it is exploring a ballot initiative for abortion rights and reproductive care

A new Idaho organization says it will ask voters to restore abortion access and other reproductive health care rights in the state after lawmakers let a second legislative session end without modifying the strict abortion bans

• Latin America
• Expat Living
• Art and Culture
• Science and Tech
• Classifieds
• Advertise with Us

COSTA RICA'S LEADING ENGLISH LANGUAGE NEWSPAPER

Costa Rica, UAE Sign Economic Partnership Agreement

Why costa rica farmers are going out of business, netflix spends $1.2m on security for costa rica filming, costa rica denies receiving asylum seekers from the uk, costa rica among nations targeted for uk’s asylum seeker deportation plan.

Costa Rica and the United Arab Emirates signed an Economic Partnership Agreement on Trade and Investment. The Minister of Foreign Trade of Costa Rica, Manuel Tovar Rivera, and the Minister of Foreign Trade of the United Arab Emirates, Dr. Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, represented their respective nations.

The UAE Minister of Foreign Trade arrived in the country on Monday afternoon with a delegation of 28 representatives from both the public and private sectors, including tourism, finance, and infrastructure.

The Agreement aims to stimulate foreign direct investment, boost bilateral trade, and establish Costa Rica as the United Arab Emirates’ gateway to the Latin American region.

During their visit, the UAE delegation held meetings with Costa Rica’s Minister of Foreign Trade, representatives from the Foreign Trade Promotion Agency ( PROCOMER ) and engaged in a business roundtable with Costa Rican counterparts to explore commercial opportunities.

“Costa Rica has embraced trade openness, charting a clear path towards greater diversification and integration into the global economy,” said Minister Tovar.

He also highlighted that once the treaty comes into force, it could strengthen Costa Rica’s global value chain participation and position it as a preferred partner for agricultural and food products in a high-purchasing-power economy. Dr. Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi expressed enthusiasm for the potential opportunities opening up for both countries.

“Our agreement with Costa Rica is set to usher in a productive new era of economic collaboration between our nations. Costa Rica is one of the region’s most impressive growth stories, with a diversified, service-driven economy that has gained recognition for its commitment to sustainability and innovation,” he said.

According to the UAE representative, Costa Rica is one of the most investment-friendly economies in Latin America. He also mentioned that this deal will promote greater investment, collaboration, and knowledge sharing in high-priority sectors such as tourism, renewable energy, food security, information technology, and manufacturing.

Weekly Recap

Costa rica weekly news recap april 14, 2024: pineapples, airports and the jabiru.

Latest Articles

Guess who is accused of costa rica’s ongoing water crisis, costa rica wildlife – i finally saw a baird’s tapir, panama papers lawyers face 12-year prison sentence, chirripó national park temporarily closes reservations.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen addresses a media conference at the conclusion of an EU Summit in Brussels, Friday, March 22, 2024. European Union leaders on Friday discussed plans to boost investment and the economy. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

• Copy Link copied

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Commission proposed Thursday to start negotiations with the United Kingdom to allow young people to move freely, work and study in both regions after Brexit — the U.K.'s departure from the EU four years ago.

According to the EU, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU following a referendum in 2016 has damaged mobility between the two areas.

“This situation has particularly affected the opportunities for young people to experience life on the other side of the Channel and to benefit from youth, cultural, educational, research and training exchanges,” the Commission said.

When the U.K. was still a member of the economic and political bloc, its nationals had the right to live and work freely in the EU, with reciprocity for EU nationals in the U.K. Under the agreement proposed by the EU’s executive arm, EU and UK citizens between 18 and 30 years old would be eligible to stay up to four years in the destination country.

The deal would also allow equal treatment of EU and UK students in the field of university tuition fees. Most EU students must now pay international tuition fees if they want to study in the U.K. The Commission says these vary between 11,400 and 38,000 pounds ($14,200-$47,300) per year and are a strong deterrent for EU students who generally don’t have to pay as much within the bloc.

The Commission’s recommendation will be discussed by EU member countries who must give the green light before the executive arm can start negotiations with the UK.

“We have successful Youth Mobility Schemes with 13 countries, including Australia and New Zealand, and remain open to agreeing them with our international partners, including EU member states,” the British government said in a statement.

The U.K. has its own Youth Mobility Scheme, which it has offered to some EU member states. The Commission believes the British plan is less ambitious than its own proposal.

“Our agreements provide a valuable route for cultural exchanges providing partner countries are also willing to offer the same opportunities for young British people,” the British government added.

Follow AP’s coverage of Brexit at https://apnews.com/hub/brexit