Propiedad intelectual

Le 05 septembre 1997, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Inde - Protection conférée par un brevet pour les produits pharmaceutiques et les produits chimiques pour l’agriculture”.

On 28 April 1997, the EC requested consultations with India in respect of the alleged absence in India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications of and provide exclusive marketing rights for such products. The EC contended that this is inconsistent with India’s obligations under Article 70, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar US complaint in WT/DS50, where the Panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 1998).

On 16 June 2020 the WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Qatar in “Saudi Arabia — Measures concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights” (DS567).

Le 18 septembre 2000, l’Organe d’appel a publié son rapport sur l’affaire “Canada - Durée de la protection conférée par un brevet”.

El 16 de junio de 2020 la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial encargado de la diferencia planteada por Qatar en el asunto “Arabia Saudita — Medidas relativas a la protección de derechos de propiedad intelectual” (DS567).

Le 15 mars 2005, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Communautés européennes - Mesures relatives à la protection des marques et indications géographiques pour les produits agricoles et les denrées alimentaires”.

On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with Canada in respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were filed in Canada before 1 October 1989. The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to grant a term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying protection, and requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. The US alleged that under the Canadian Patent Act, the term granted to patents issued on the basis of applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is issued. The US contended that this situation is inconsistent with Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.

Le 15 juin 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “États-Unis - Article 110 5) de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur”.

El 15 de marzo de 2005, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Comunidades Europeas - Protección de las marcas de fábrica o de comercio y las indicaciones geográficas en el caso de los productos agrícolas y los productos alimenticios”.

El 26 de enero de 2009, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “China- Medidas que afectan a la protección y observancia de los derechos de propiedad intelectual”.

On 26 January 1999, the European Communities requested consultations with the United States in respect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27 October 1998. The European Communities contended that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act permits, under certain conditions, the playing of radio and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants, etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee. The European Communities considered that this statute is inconsistent with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention. The dispute centred on the compatibility of two exemptions provided for in Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows certain limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition that such limitations are confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work in question and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder: The so-called “business” exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5), essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a payment of a fee, by food service and drinking establishments and by retail establishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit. It also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met. The so-called “homestyle” exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they use only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).

On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EC. The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. The US considered this situation to be inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement...

On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in respect of the latter’s prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US made a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits.

El 18 de septiembre de 2000, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Canadá - Período de protección mediante patente”.

El 15 de junio de 2000, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Artículo 110(5) de la Ley derecho de Autor de los Estados Unidos”.

El 9 de junio de 2020, el Órgano de Apelación emitió sus informes en los asuntos planteados por Honduras y la República Dominicana en “Australia — Determinadas medidas relativas a las marcas de fábrica o de comercio, indicaciones geográficas y otras prescripciones de empaquetado genérico aplicables a los productos de tabaco y al empaquetado de esos productos” (DS435 y DS441).

El 02 de enero de 2002, el Órgano de Apelación hizo público el informe sobre el caso “Estados Unidos - Artículo 211 de la Ley Omnibus de Asignaciones de 1998”.

On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in respect of the latter’s prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US made a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits.

El 05 de septiembre de 1997, la OMC hizo público el informe del Grupo especial sobre el caso “India - Protección mediante patente de los productos farmacéuticos y los productos químicos para la agricultura”.

Le 17 mars 2000, l’OMC a publié le rapport du Groupe spécial dans l’affaire “Canada - Protection conférée par un brevet pour les produits pharmaceutiques”.

El 28 de junio de 2014 la OMC distribuyó el informe del Grupo Especial en los asuntos planteados por Honduras, la República Dominicana, Cuba e Indonesia “Australia — determinadas medidas relativas a las marcas de fábrica o de comercio, indicaciones geográficas y otras prescripciones de empaquetado genérico aplicables a los productos de tabaco y al empaquetado de esos productos” (DS435, DS441, DS458 y DS467)

This WTO working paper studies availability and affordability of new and innovative pharmaceuticals in a post-TRIPS era. The WTO’s TRIPS Agreement (TRIPS) makes it obligatory for WTO members– except least-developed country members (LDCs) - to provide pharmaceutical product patents with a 20-year protection term. Developing country members, other than LDCs, were meant to be compliant with this provision of TRIPS by 2005.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-Cov-2, was declared to be a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020. Since then, the issue of the relationship between patent protection and the development of and access to medical treatments and technologies – a longstanding and enduringly important public policy issue – has become central to the debate on the linkages between IP, innovation, access, and public health between stakeholders with divergent interests.

The WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers is a peer-reviewed academic journal, published jointly by the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization each year since 2010. Providing a uniquely representative and diverse showcase for emerging IP scholarship from across the globe, the journal aims to stimulate analysis and debate on intellectual property (IP) issues particularly of interest to developing countries. And it offers an avenue for the dissemination of a broader and more geographically diverse and representative range of scholarship than is common in much of the academic literature on IP law and policy.

The WIPO-WTO Colloquium Papers is a peer-reviewed academic journal, published jointly by the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization each year since 2010. Providing a uniquely representative and diverse showcase for emerging IP scholarship from across the globe, the journal aims to stimulate analysis and debate on intellectual property (IP) issues particularly of interest to developing countries. And it offers an avenue for the dissemination of a broader and more geographically diverse and representative range of scholarship than is common in much of the academic literature on IP law and policy.