Ipr Global Ip Governance Frameworks
Global IP Governance Frameworks
1. TRIPS Agreement – India v. US (Pharmaceuticals & Compulsory Licensing, 2012)
Framework:
TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) under WTO sets minimum global IP standards for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and enforcement.
It allows flexibilities, such as compulsory licensing for public health crises.
Case Study:
India issued a compulsory license to Natco Pharma for Bayer’s cancer drug Sorafenib due to high cost.
Bayer challenged the licensing, arguing TRIPS infringement.
Legal Outcome:
Indian courts and the patent office upheld the license, emphasizing TRIPS flexibilities for public health.
Compulsory licensing allowed generic production while respecting patent rights.
Key Takeaway:
TRIPS provides a global governance framework but allows nations to adapt enforcement to local public health needs.
2. WIPO Copyright Treaty – Google Books Project (EU & US, 2015)
Framework:
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) governs digital rights and copyright in the digital age.
Emphasizes protection of authors and digital reproduction rights.
Case Study:
Google scanned millions of books for Google Books. Authors sued, claiming copyright violation.
Both the U.S. and EU courts analyzed compliance with WIPO standards.
Legal Outcome:
U.S. courts approved the project under fair use doctrine, balancing copyright with public access.
EU courts were more cautious, requiring licensing agreements with authors.
Key Takeaway:
Global IP frameworks like WIPO provide guidelines, but enforcement is nationally contextualized.
3. Madrid System – International Trademark Governance (Adidas v. Shenzhen Brand, 2018)
Framework:
Madrid Protocol allows international registration of trademarks across multiple jurisdictions.
Provides a single application process recognized by member states.
Case Study:
Adidas filed a Madrid Protocol trademark for the iconic three-stripe logo.
A Chinese company, Shenzhen Brand, sold counterfeit shoes using similar stripes.
Legal Outcome:
The Chinese courts enforced Adidas’ trademark based on the international registration.
The Madrid system facilitated cross-border enforcement and damages claims.
Key Takeaway:
Global trademark governance allows multinational brands to protect IP efficiently in multiple jurisdictions.
4. Hague Agreement – Industrial Design Enforcement (Apple v. Samsung, EU & US, 2012–2018)
Framework:
Hague Agreement allows international protection of industrial designs across signatory countries.
Focuses on aesthetic designs rather than functionality.
Case Study:
Apple claimed Samsung’s smartphones infringed on iPhone design patents.
Apple used the Hague framework for industrial design rights in Europe and the U.S.
Legal Outcome:
EU courts partially sided with Apple; some designs were protected, others not.
U.S. courts also awarded damages for design patent infringement.
Enforcement required coordination between multiple jurisdictions.
Key Takeaway:
Hague Agreement provides a structured pathway for industrial design protection, but outcomes depend on local courts.
5. Berne Convention – Digital Content Enforcement (YouTube Music Copyright Disputes, 2016)
Framework:
Berne Convention governs copyright protection internationally.
Requires automatic copyright protection without formal registration.
Includes moral rights, protecting creators’ reputation.
Case Study:
YouTube faced lawsuits globally for hosting copyrighted music.
Artists invoked Berne Convention principles in multiple countries.
Legal Outcome:
YouTube implemented Content ID and licensing frameworks, paying royalties.
Courts in the EU, U.S., and India confirmed that global governance rules can be enforced via platform mechanisms.
Key Takeaway:
Berne Convention enforcement depends on national implementation and platform-level compliance.
6. WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) – Pharmaceutical Innovation (Pfizer v. Generic Companies, 2010)
Framework:
PCT facilitates international patent applications and preliminary examination.
Encourages global innovation and IP standardization.
Case Study:
Pfizer filed a PCT application for a new antibiotic.
Multiple generic manufacturers challenged the novelty in different countries.
Legal Outcome:
PCT enabled coordinated examination across jurisdictions.
Some countries granted patents; others refused due to prior art.
Pfizer successfully licensed patents in compliant jurisdictions.
Key Takeaway:
PCT allows streamlined global patent filing and governance, but national laws determine ultimate enforcement.
7. UNESCO & Traditional Knowledge – Turmeric Patent Case (India, 1997–2000)
Framework:
UNESCO and WIPO frameworks recognize traditional knowledge and cultural IP.
Prevents biopiracy through international awareness and documentation.
Case Study:
W.R. Grace & Co. patented turmeric for wound healing in the U.S.
India challenged using documented traditional knowledge (Ayurveda texts).
Legal Outcome:
U.S. patent was revoked after India submitted prior evidence.
Set precedent for global IP governance incorporating traditional knowledge.
Key Takeaway:
Global IP governance increasingly integrates indigenous knowledge protection alongside modern patents.
8. WTO Dispute Settlement – US v. EU (Hormone-Treated Beef, 1998)
Framework:
WTO’s Dispute Settlement Mechanism enforces compliance with TRIPS and SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) measures.
Ensures trade-related IP compliance internationally.
Case Study:
EU banned hormone-treated beef from the U.S., citing safety concerns.
U.S. claimed WTO violations and requested dispute resolution.
Legal Outcome:
WTO ruled partially in favor of the U.S., citing insufficient scientific justification.
The case highlighted conflicts between IP, trade, and regulatory policies.
Key Takeaway:
Global IP governance intersects with trade and regulatory frameworks, requiring multilateral enforcement.
Summary of Insights
Global IP governance frameworks (TRIPS, WIPO treaties, Madrid, Hague, Berne, PCT) provide standardized IP protection.
Implementation depends heavily on national laws and courts, leading to variable outcomes.
Enforcement involves multiple tools: litigation, licensing, administrative measures, and platform mechanisms.
Emerging areas like digital content, biotechnology, traditional knowledge, and renewable energy show global governance evolving to meet modern challenges.
International cooperation and treaties are critical for cross-border IP disputes.
RELATED Blog
comments