Masthead header

Article 2.1 Trips Agreement

The 2002 Doha Declaration confirmed that the TRIPS agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary steps to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as mandatory licensing, are almost impossible to obtain. The least developed countries, in particular, have made their young domestic manufacturing and technological industries proof of the infallible policy. Unlike other IP agreements, TRIPS have an effective enforcement mechanism. States can be disciplined by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. The ON TRIPS agreement is a minimum model agreement that allows members to more broadly protect intellectual property protection on demand. Members are free to determine the appropriate method of transposing the provisions of the agreement into their own legal and practical order. An agreement reached in 2003 relaxed domestic market requirements and allows developing countries to export to other countries with a public health problem as long as exported drugs are not part of a trade or industrial policy. [10] Drugs exported under such regulations may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from affecting the markets of industrialized countries.

Section 26.1 requires members to grant the holder of a protected commercial design the right to prevent third parties from not having the owner`s consent, from manufacturing, selling or importing objects bearing or embodying a design that is a copy or, in essence, a copy of the protected design when such acts are committed for commercial purposes. The ON TRIPS agreement requires Member States not only to protect the design of integrated circuits in accordance with the provisions of the IPIC Treaty, but also to clarify and/or build four points. These points relate to the duration of protection (10 years instead of eight, Article 38), the applicability of protection to articles that violate integrated circuits (last sub-clause of Article 36) and the treatment of innocent offenders (Article 37.1). The terms of the ADPIC agreement in Article 31 apply mutatis mutandis to the compulsory or non-compulsory granting of a layout licence or to its use by or for the government without the authorisation of the right holder instead of the provisions of the IPIC compulsory licensing contract (Article 37.2). Trips-plus conditions, which impose standards beyond TRIPS, have also been verified. [38] These free trade agreements contain conditions that limit the ability of governments to introduce competition for generic drug manufacturers. In particular, the United States has been criticized for promoting protection far beyond the standards prescribed by the TRIPS. The U.S. free trade agreements with Australia, Morocco and Bahrain have expanded patentability by making patents available for new uses of known products. [39] The TRIPS agreement authorizes the granting of compulsory licences at the discretion of a country.

BACK TO TOP CONTACT ME EMAIL POST TO FRIEND