TRIPs

Gender and household life cycle together affect daily travel behavior. Although this makes intuitive sense, transportation planners and policy makers have done little to understand what effect and impact these factors have on daily transportation choices. The 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey was used to examine trip-chaining behavior of adult men and women traveling Monday through Friday. The data show that women continue to make more trips to perform household-sustaining activities such as shopping and family errands to a greater extent than men. Women, especially with children in the household, are more likely to chain these household-sustaining trips to the trip to and from work. Women’s participation in the labor force is at an all-time high, but women’s patterns in travel to work are different from men’s patterns, and they vary with family and life-cycle status. The type and location of jobs that women take are likely affected by their greater household and family...

Increasingly, the economy of industrialised countries moves away from being based on a multiplicity of independent innovators to one characterised by cross-licensing and the pooling of intellectual property (IP) rights. Competition law is accorded a more limited role. Refusals to license or restrictive licence terms are tolerated. This paradigm emphasises the innovation at the expense of the dissemination rationale of IP and competition law. The pressure on developing countries is to follow suit. However, this approach jeopardises overcoming the technology dependence of these states. Yet, the political consensus underlying the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) was that, in exchange for IP rights protection, a transfer and dissemination of technology benefiting the global South would occur. This has not taken place so far. Taking this promise seriously requires according an enhanced, more social role to competition law. Articles 8(2), 31 and 40 of TRIPS – the TRIPS competition rules – could be interpreted in a way to accomplish this. This article argues in favour of a “prodevelopment” approach to IP-related competition law. This could be viewed as a demand of the rule of law at the international level. On the one hand, treaties such as TRIPS are to be interpreted in good faith. On the other, public interest and human rights considerations justify, as it were, require, such an approach. Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS can play a crucial role in this regard. They reflect such public interest considerations as “object and purpose” of TRIPS. They also provide a link to international human rights law (IHRL). IHRL protects a (group) right to development, confirming “policy space” for World Trade Organization (WTO) members and the freedom to opt for a competition law model that facilitates dissemination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) further protects various economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (REBSPA). These rights may be said to give rise to “transfer and dissemination of technology” as a human right. Duties under the right to development and “territorial” and “extraterritorial” human rights obligations (ETOs) under the ICESCR support an understanding of competition law which is pro development, which takes account of local access and welfare needs. The article concludes with a set of 10 consolidated considerations for a “prodevelopment” IP-related competition law.

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in its design and implementation procedures, does not reflect a human rights approach. There is an ever-growing community of critical voices, however, requiring that human rights should serve as a corrective to intellectual property rights and their implementation in the context of TRIPS. The crucial question is, of course, how this goal may be accomplished. Under TRIPS, human rights constitute non-essential exceptions to intellectual property rights. However, obligations under international human rights law (IHRL) can only be a relevant consideration if either the World Trade Organisation (WTO) itself or its members, when acting as such—or both—are bound by IHRL. If this should be the case, the question as to the exact relationship between the norms under TRIPS and those of IHRL will arise. Is IHRL hierarchically superior to WTO law? This chapter will show that both the WTO and its members, as such, are the bearers of obligations under IHRL and that, in many instances, norms of IHRL will have to be held to rank above “international trade law”. This should have consequences in particular for the way the WTO enforces TRIPS within its dispute settlement system. The rules of treaty interpretation under customary international law (as codified in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969) offer substantial scope for human rights considerations to play a role in WTO dispute settlement. Attempts at establishing conformity between TRIPS and IHRL should, moreover, take account of extraterritorial obligations flowing from the various UN human rights treaties, specifically also the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966, and their implications for state conduct. States parties to the ICESCR are not only obliged to observe Covenant provisions where the effects of any of their actions are confined to the domestic level, but also if their conduct, for example within the WTO, affects the economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) of populations in other countries. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the body of independent experts supervising implementation of the ICESCR—which so far has proven highly capable of advancing the cause of ESCR globally—should adopt a more proactive approach in defining extraterritorial obligations under the ICESCR, also in relation to WTO law, and should further be bold enough to adopt a clear stance in cases of conflict between TRIPS and IHRL.

British pie aficionados associate the town of Melton Mowbray with the production of pork pies of exceptional quality. The “Melton Mowbray” name became a Geographical Indication (GI) in 2009. However, the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association (MMPPA), formed to obtain GI status, was founded as long ago as 1998. This paper uses the Melton Mowbray case to explore the GI model that operates in the European Union (EU). Articles 22, 23 and 24 of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement are actualised through the national legislation of each World Trade Organization (WTO) member. This occurred in the EU at the time of the Melton Mowbray example via Regulation 2081/92. The paper draws upon material gleaned from interviews with the Melton Mowbray producers and Chairman of the MMPPA which are supplemented by transcripts of the legal conflict which pitted the MMPPA against a powerful rival manufacturer. The MMPPA argued that its adversary was too distant from Melton Mowbray and that it applied inauthentic methods of production. The out-of-place producer, in response, claimed that the “Melton Mowbray” name was generic and hence ineligible for GI protection. This detailed study of one of Britain’s most iconic regional foods investigates the conceptual and legal infrastructure that is common to all GIs. It provides an in-depth analysis of the constructions of place, boundaries and tradition that are deployed to generate GIs and legitimise the system. Moreover, this work demonstrates that the intricacies and nuances of the GI model can result in differing interpretations of these notions and thus lead to legal challenges from aggrieved producers.

The use of tobacco entails negative health consequences. In fact, it is reported that had the ill effects of tobacco been known much earlier in time, tobacco would have been a banned substance. Yet, in today's context tobacco has become part of legitimate trade, and the livelihoods in countries that export tobacco heavily depend on trade in tobacco. In the circumstances, could governments intervene on health and public policy grounds and regulate the manner in which tobacco products are marketed and sold? If so, to what extent? These are precisely the questions that fuel the gruelling dual between tobacco companies and health conscious countries, such as Australia that has recently enacted legislation making mandatory the plain packaging of tobacco products from December 2012. The Australian legislative measure, namely the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (Cth), is currently under attack in several fronts, including the World Trade Organisation, though recently the Australian High Court upheld the constitutionality of the plain packaging legislation. The purpose of this paper is to approach the question of the legality of government intervention in totally prohibiting the striking elements of tobacco packaging from a purely international trademark law point of view. First, the paper identifies the scope of trademark protection as set out in the Agreement on the Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPs”) and then goes on to analyse the Australian plain packaging law in the context of its own trademark legislation. Thence, the paper considers whether the Australian plain packaging legislation complies with the core provisions on trademark protection enshrined in TRIPs, and lastly provides a possible compromise to reconcile the competing interests.

Though the UN has envisaged that accessibility to essential medicines is a basic human right, a large number of people in developing countries are denied access to essential medicines. MNCs having the branded medicines have a tendency to choke the supply chain of cheaper generic medicines using the weapon of intellectual property rights. The TRIPS Agreement has set the minimum standard of protection of Intellectual Property but it has provisions of flexibilities such as compulsory licenses, parallel imports limitations to patent rights, etc., which can be used by member states to provide access to these essential medicines to their people. However, countries like US are using provisions which are over and above the flexibilities incorporated in TRIPS to deny access to essential medicines to people in developing countries. The accessibility of essential medicines to the population in developing countries as affected by these FTAs, ACTA, TPP and TTIP agreements have been examined in this paper and a case has been made out for the unity of the developing and least developed countries to deter US from choking the supply lines of the essential medicines to poor and needy.

The article uses the case of Basmati to identify a number of problems concerning geographical indications, including the interface with trademarks and the issue of genericity. Attempts to enter and free-ride on Basmati's premium rice market include the use of ...

Prompt and affordable access to essential medicines is a component of almost all domestic and global public health models. As is now well known, the availability and costs of both brand and generic drugs are a function of traditional patent law incentives. Less known, however, is that generic entry is controlled increasingly through an emerging form of global intellectual property law referred to as “linkage regulations.” Linkage regulations tie generic drug approval and, thus, access to essential medications to existing drug patents through potentially long and costly litigation. The linkage regime is in the process of rapidly spreading worldwide through international free trade agreements. Even so, very little is known about how the regulations work in developed nations let alone how they impact public health systems across international borders. The authors constitute a network of eleven health policy experts and practicing lawyers in nine countries including those with mature linkage regulations, those with new regulations, those without regulations but with practices that parallel linkage, and those where regulations are currently subject to intense public debate and litigation.

O presente artigo aborda o sistema de proteção à propriedade industrial vigente no Brasil e sua relação com a política de acesso universal a medicamentos para tratamento da AIDS. Ainda, apresenta as principais estratégias de atuação de um grupo da sociedade civil brasileira - GTPI/REBRIP - em relação aos principais problemas e desafios identificados.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, the promise of ‘informational development’ is proclaimed. The global governance of intellectual property rights (IPRs), however, currently structured through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement and overseen by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), makes much software expensive to deploy. There is an alternative: open-source and/or free software ameliorates many of the cost problems countries in Africa have anticipated as they have changed their laws to protect IPRs; using non-proprietary software will enable them to deploy extensive computerisation without making large payments to suppliers from the developed countries. By escaping the TRIPs’ trap, many Africans will be better able to enjoy the potential benefits of ‘informational development’.

This study examines the influence of socioeconomic characteristics of commuters on their level of bus accessibility and usage in Kaduna metropolis, Nigeria. Structured questionnaires and past literature were used as sources of data. This study used systematic random sampling to select eight major bus terminals from which 324 bus commuters were purposively selected for interview. Correlation and multiple regression models were used to analyze the data collected. The study revealed that trip frequency is positively correlated to the income of commuters with value (0.324)). This implies that as commuters' income increases so also is their bus service accessibility increases. Trip frequency is also found to be negatively correlated to gender with value of (-0.190) which implies that women travel less frequently than men and they also travel shorter distances than men. The study further reveals that women rely more on bus services than men. The regression model also shows that marital status and monthly income are found to be positively significant with P-value of (0.001) and (0.000) at 5% significant level respectively. The study therefore recommends that a public transportation system that is responsive to meet gender differentials in transport needs of commuters should be introduced in Kaduna City.

This article investigates the implications of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which reached full-fledged implementation in 2005, for the patenting activity of Indian biopharmaceutical companies. The Indian biopharmaceutical industry is well-known for its generic
producers, whose business models capitalize on the opportunity to reverse engineer patented compounds and produce them at low costs through process innovation. By strengthening intellectual property rights, TRIPS determined a
major regulative change, which presents the characteristics of an institutional shock. The examination of the patenting and alliance activity of 123 Indian biopharmaceutical firms between 1999 and 2009 reveals two important insights. First, the innovation outcome of Indian biopharmaceuticals has sharply
increased during the transition to TRIPS-compliant regulation, suggesting that Indian companies have been capable and willing to transit from an imitation-based to an innovation-based business model. Second, those biopharmaceutical
firms holding cross-border alliances to foreign partners have proved significantly more successful at enhancing their innovative capability. This research delivers a multifold contribution to the policy debate surrounding the enforcement of TRIPS in emerging economies. First, it suggests that such regulatory change may have encouraged biopharmaceutical innovation in India, despite the sceptical voices who did not foresee any benefits because of inherent inertia of the
industry. Second, by arguing and testing the advantages of foreign partnerships, this research highlights that the much feared return of pharmaceutical foreign companies to India could instead favour adaptation to institutional change.
Implications for Indian public health are particularly critical. The impact of TRIPS on drug pricing and on the capability—and willingness—of Indian biopharmaceuticals to invest in local health conditions are two crucial points of discussion.

Thomas Pogge has argued that typical citizens of affluent nations participate in an unjust global order that harms the global poor.  This supports his conclusion that there are widespread negative institutional duties to reform the global order.  I defend Pogge’s negative duty approach, but argue that his formulation of these duties is ambiguous between two possible readings, only one of which is properly confined to genuinely negative duties.  I argue that this ambiguity leads him to shift illicitly between negative and positive duties, and ultimately to overstate the extent of the negative ones.  I also argue that recognition of this ambiguity makes it possible to draw a meaningful distinction between the relevant positive and negative duties, and that Pogge’s analysis can therefore be revised in a way that reveals substantial negative institutional duties to the global poor, albeit less extensive ones than Pogge asserts.  In order to demonstrate this, I discuss two aspects of the global order that Pogge has criticized: the system of intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals and the rights of de facto rulers to dispose of a nation’s natural resources.  In each case, although I do not specify the relevant negative institutional duties precisely, I try to identify intelligible questions whose answers would reveal genuinely negative duties and show that their likely answers are distinct from the conclusions asserted by Pogge and suggested by his analysis.

Copyright, patents and trademarks are well-known types of Intellectual Property (IP). However, there is another form of IP known as Geographical Indications (GIs). Foods, drinks and agricultural products can be certified as GIs. The quality of each GI is considered to exclusively or significantly derive from the
supposedly unique physical attributes of the defined and bounded locations from which they originate. The use of GIs discriminates between producers who are categorised as in-place or out-of-place. This determines the firms that are permitted to invoke economically valuable geographical names. Producers
of GIs rely on notions of place, boundaries and terroir to validate their claims to GI status. These are intrinsically geographical factors with which our discipline has long engaged. However, the GI system itself has rarely been studied from a geographical perspective. This paper interrogates the constructions of place, boundaries and terroir common to the conceptual infrastructure of all GIs. It employs Stilton Cheese – one of Britain’s most iconic territorial foods – to illustrate these ideas. The Stilton case also
shows that taken-for-granted ideas of place and production methods can be challenged by motivated adversaries who introduce new evidence in their quest to destabilise this GI. The overall aim of this work is to draw attention to the geographical infrastructure of this expanding regulatory system and more fully
reveal the interests served by the GI model.

Access to medicine is at the forefront of multilateral debates surrounding the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). This paper argues that bilateralism allows the United States to circumvent these debates and to set standards that serve and protect the pharmaceutical industry. In addition to the TRIPs requirements, recently-concluded US Free Trade Agreements (FTA) prescribe the patentability of new uses of known medicines, strengthen the protection of undisclosed data, extend the term of protection to compensate administrative procedures, prohibit some exceptions to the conferred rights, define circumstances for compulsory licensing, proscribe the doctrine of international exhaustion, and restrict the grounds for revocation. Although these “TRIPs-plus provisions” are not incompatible with the Doha Declaration on Public Health, they are additional barriers for the entry of generic medicines.

The rapid emergence of transnational networks in world politics calls for an analysis of their power dynamics. By combining the advocacy network literature and the two-level game theory in an innovative manner, this paper provides a theoretical conceptualization of the interplay between intra- and inter-network interactions. It argues that the strength of networks as agent springs from their force as a structure. A network win-set is determined by its internal games, thereby affecting both its bargaining power and its chance to reach a consensual agreement with other networks. The issue of access to medicines is used as a factual background to illustrate how the flow of influence within networks affects influence among networks.

As a result of the unexpectedly quick development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19, the Canadian government was pulled in two opposite directions. On the one hand, Canadians exerted extreme pressure on the government to purchase and roll out vaccines as fast as possible for domestic immunization. On the other hand, it sought to promote global access to the vaccine, which would save more lives. This article examines how the Canadian government responded to this quandary, why it made those choices, to what effect and what a better approach would have been. I argue that, by adopting a resolute “Canada First” approach for electoral reasons, while also rhetorically espousing equitable global access, the government tried to satisfy both sides. However, by focusing overwhelmingly “doing good” for Canadians, the government is also indirectly “doing harm” to vulnerable people abroad and prolonging the pandemic globally and for Canadians too. Canadian “vaccine nationalism” is also harmful to Canadian economic interests and claims of global leadership, and will reduce Canada’s “soft power”. The solution, from both an ethical and a pragmatic standpoint, would be to share vaccines more equitably and support intellectual property waivers and other measures to accelerate global vaccine production and immunization.

Tobacco companies have expressed concern that Australia’s plain cigarette packaging initiative breaches international trade obligations. This article begins by providing a background to cigarette packaging. It then examines developments worldwide and in Australia that have led to this initiative, and finally examines the claim of cigarette companies that the move is incompatible with the TRIPS Agreement. It concludes that the general move towards plain packaging in Australia and elsewhere falls within the scope of permissible regulation under Article 20 of the TRIPS Agreement and that concerns about plain packaging violating the TRIPS Agreement should not prevent WTO Members from placing plain packaging firmly on the public health agenda.

The presence of foreign investment and the subsequent development of a commercial culture that facilitates participation in the global marketplace can have an adverse impact on indigenous culture. The “Coca-colonization” of non-Western, non-capitalist societies has become the new economic imperialism of developed countries. From eco-tourism to cultural tours and souvenir artifacts, culture has been transformed into a commodity that can be merchandised and sold across international borders. This “commodification” of culture is often achieved without the consent or participation of the holders of such cultural rights, particularly when those holders are indigenous peoples. This Article contends that even though the commodification and de-culturization of native and indigenous culture may be enhanced by the intellectual property protection regimes enacted by the developing countries at the behest of foreign investors, intellectual property does not have to play so narrow a role. To the...