ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS BY - VIKRAM KUMAR MALVIYA
ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS IN PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
AUTHORED BY -
VIKRAM KUMAR MALVIYA
ABTSRACT
This paper tends to discuss the
international institutions which protects the intellectual property rights.
The paper initially discusses the exigency of protection of IPR in
contemporary time and how various economic activities are influenced by the
same. Further, it unfolds international institutions aiming at gatekeeping the
Intellectual Property Rights specifically emphasising on World Intellectual
Property Organisation’s contribution. Also at last their will be certain case
laws to understand why protection of Intellectual Property Rights is important
is today’s world.
Key words: Intellectual
Property, Patent, WIPO, TRIPS, WHO
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Ideas, innovations, and creative expressions
on the basis of which there is a public desire to grant the status of property
are referred to as intellectual property rights (IPR). In order for the
inventors or developers of that property to profit commercially from their
creative endeavours or reputation, IPR grant them specific exclusive rights.[1]
According to WIPO the term connotes to International Property Rights the
“creation of mind” which incorporates Inventions, literary and artistic works,
designs, and symbols, names, and pictures used in business.[2] The
following are currently included among internationally recognised IPRs:
patents, copyrights and related rights, industrial designs, trademarks, trade
secrets, rights of plant breeders, geographical indications, and rights to
integrated circuit layout designs. The most economically significant of them
are probably patents, copyrights, and trademarks. IP protection is important
because it provides a financial incentive for creativity and innovation. By
allowing creators and inventors to control the use of their work and reap the
rewards, IP protection encourages investment in research and development and
fosters creative expression. Additionally, IP protection helps to ensure that
the public has access to new and innovative products and services.[3]
However, enforcing IP rights can be
difficult, especially in the digital age. The ease of copying and distributing
digital works has led to widespread piracy and infringement of copyrights. This
has resulted in ongoing efforts by governments and industry groups to update IP
laws and regulations to better protect IP in the digital world. One way to
protect IP is to register it with the relevant government agency. IP disputes
often arise when one party believes that their IP rights have been infringed
which can lead to legal proceedings, such as lawsuits and arbitration.[4]
The outcome of IP disputes can have significant consequences, including
financial damages, injunctions, and criminal penalties.
RESEARCH QUESTION
·
Whether
protection of IPR is need of the hour.
·
Whether
World Trade Organisation is self-sufficient to protect IPR.
·
How WHO
contributes to protecting Intellectual Property?
·
How
effective is WIPO in protecting IPR?
The European Commission estimates
that SMEs make up 99 percent of all companies in the EU. SMEs with IP rights
had a 68 percent higher revenue per employee than those without IP rights, even
after controlling for pertinent variables like nation or industry sector.[5]
Additionally, SMEs that possess all three types of IP rights—patents,
trademarks, and registered designs—generate nearly twice (98 percent) as much
money per employee as businesses that do not. The European Union Intellectual
Property Office (EUIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) report on
intellectual property rights and firm performance in the EU affirms the close
association between a company's possession of various IP rights and its
financial success.[6]
Not every business operates in the
same environment. While some have the necessary technology resources, others
must work with other knowledge sources to complete the innovation process.
The exclusivity and protection given
by IP rights can be crucial for innovative SMEs to appropriate the value of
their ideas and assure a return on their investments in intangible assets in a
closed innovation model, where the entire innovative process is carried out
internally by enterprises.[7]
But under an open innovation approach, when collaboration with other
businesses, research and technology groups, or universities is used to produce
novel solutions, intellectual property rights become utterly strategic.
Intellectual property rights have the advantage of preventing unauthorised use
of trademarks, designs, and other developments. But open innovation also has a
lesser-known advantage that enables businesses to safely share their technology
and products. IP rights play a crucial role in facilitating appropriate
technology transfer, or, to put it another way, the selling or licencing of the
IP rights to another organisation, in the context of open innovation. They also
help to decrease operational risks and promote knowledge exchange.
There are two factors at play when
such intellectual property is granted protection:
·
First, to
give context to the moral sentiment that a creator, such as a craftsman, should
partake in the benefits of his creation.
·
Second, to
promote the allocation of talent, time, money, and other resources to
innovative activities in a way that benefits society. These goals are
accomplished by granting him a set of time-limited exclusive rights and
protection for his intellectual property, allowing him to regulate how it is
used.
The promotion of innovation depends
on IP protection. Owning IP rights will give a business a stronger competitive
edge and legal defence against copying. Such legal protection is essential,
especially for businesses looking to export to untapped regions. Additionally,
businesses with IP rights have the option to sell or licence those rights,
which lowers operational risks and promotes knowledge sharing in open
innovation scenarios.[8]
Whether World
Trade Organisation is self-sufficient to protect IPR.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is
an international organization that helps regulate and promote global trade. One
of its key functions is to promote and protect intellectual property rights
(IPRs) through the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS).
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
TRIPS
The United States and several
European nations expressed their severe displeasure with what they considered
to be insufficient safeguard of intellectual property in many developing
countries during the 1980s and the early 1990s. The Uruguay Round of trade
negotiations saw the developed nations place a high priority on improving
intellectual property rights (IPRs). The 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), one of the key outcomes of the
Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), is probably
the most significant legal document on IPRs at the international level.[9]
It is overseen by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO). TRIPS
establishes enforceable global minimum (and high) standards of protection and
enforcement for virtually all of the most important IPRs in a single agreement.[10]
TRIPS sets minimum standards for the
protection and enforcement of IPRs, including copyrights, trademarks, patents and
trade secrets. This agreement seeks to balance the rights of intellectual
property owners with the larger public interest and the promotion of
technological innovation. One of the key objectives of TRIPS is to ensure that
IPRs are protected in a manner that contributes to the promotion of
technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology,
to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and
in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of
rights and obligations.
TRIPS also provides for the
enforcement of IPRs through civil and administrative procedures, including
injunctions and damages and provides for the possibility of border measures to
prevent the import and export of counterfeit and pirated goods.[11]
While TRIPS provides a basic minimum
level of IP protection, it is not sufficient on its own to guarantee full
protection of intellectual property rights. There are a number of reasons for
this. Firstly, TRIPS allows for some flexibility in the way that its provisions
are implemented, which means that there can be significant differences in the
level of protection provided by different countries.
Secondly, TRIPS do not cover all
forms of IP, and there are some important gaps in the agreement, particularly
in the area of new technologies and digital IP. This means that certain forms
of IP may not be fully protected under TRIPS.
Thirdly, TRIPS do not provide a
mechanism for dispute resolution in the event of disputes over IP rights. This
means that in the event of a dispute, parties must rely on national courts and
legal systems, which can lead to inconsistent interpretations and enforcement
of IP rights.
World
Health Organisation
The
World Health Organization (WHO) plays a significant role in the protection of
intellectual property rights (IPR) related to health and medicine. The
organization works to balance the interests of public health and innovation by
promoting access to essential medicines and supporting the development of new
and improved treatments.
WHO’s
main role in IPR is to promote access to essential medicines and health
technologies, especially in low- and middle-income countries. This includes
advocating for the use of compulsory licenses, which allow governments to
override patents in the interest of public health. WHO further supports the
development of intellectual property policies that promote the availability and
affordability of health technologies, while also promoting innovation. Health
technology patents have been widely exploited, particularly by the
pharmaceutical industry.[12]
In
fact, the reliance on patents by the pharmaceutical industry to recover R&D
costs sets it apart. The purpose of patents is to encourage investment in
invention and to provide a mechanism to ensure that the information included in
the patent documents is available to the public. Patents can be used to
organise and specify[13].
The
organization also plays a key role in promoting the transparency of the
pharmaceutical patent landscape. This helps governments, health providers, and
researchers to understand the existing patents and to determine the feasibility
of producing generic medicines. Additionally, WHO works to ensure that the data
generated during the development of new medicines is used to improve public
health, by promoting the sharing of data between researchers and stakeholders.
WHO also provides technical assistance to countries on intellectual property
and public health. This includes helping countries to develop and implement
national policies and strategies on access to essential medicines, as well as
advising on the negotiation of international agreements on intellectual
property.
In
addition, WHO collaborates with other international organizations, such as the
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade
Organization (WTO), to promote the protection of public health in the context
of intellectual property. The organization also participates in international
negotiations on IP and health, such as the World Health Assembly and the World
Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on
Intellectual Property and Public Health.
The
Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health
(CIPIH) was created in 2003 by a resolution WHA5627 passed by WHO member
states. [14]
The CIPIH made recommendations to WHO, including that it “develop a global plan
of action to secure enhanced and sustainable funding for developing and making
accessible products to address diseases that disproportionately affect
developing countries and continue monitoring from a public health perspective,
the impact of intellectual property rights pm the development of novel products
and access to medicines and other health care products in developing
countries.”[15]
The WHO-WIPO-WTO trilateral cooperation, an interagency collaboration on public
health, intellectual property, and trade, was launched in 2009 as a result of
these recommendations, which also led to the adoption of the Global
Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation, and Intellectual
Property (GSPOA-PHI).[16]
TRIPS
also acknowledges the need to limit the exclusive rights of IPRs owners in
specific circumstances, such as for the protection of public health. The Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health confirmed the right of WTO
members to use compulsory licensing and parallel importing of patented
pharmaceuticals in order to address public health crises, such as HIV/AIDS,
tuberculosis, and malaria.[17]
How effective is WIPO in protecting IPR?
In terms of the effectiveness of WIPO
in protecting IP rights, it is widely recognized that WIPO has played a
significant role in advancing the global IP system. The organization has helped
to create and administer a number of important IP treaties, including the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Berne Convention for
the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and the Patent Cooperation
Treaty (PCT).[18]
These treaties provide a harmonized framework for the protection of IP rights
and have been widely adopted by WIPO’s member states. Along with enforcing the
abovementioned conventions the Organisation is responsible for 2 more crucial
patent treaties[19];
The Budapest Treaty; allows deposit
of micro-organisms or biotechnology products for purpose of patent. The
Strasbourg agreement relating to international patent classification; aims at
coordinating the international search and retrieval of patents along with
technical documents.
One of the key strengths of WIPO is
its ability to bring together IP stakeholders from around the world to discuss
and address important IP issues. This has allowed for the creation of
international norms and standards for IP protection, and has helped to reduce
the risk of IP-related disputes between countries.
WIPO also provides a range of
services to support IP rights owners in obtaining and managing their rights.
For example, WIPO’s Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) provides a streamlined
process for obtaining patent protection in multiple countries, while WIPO’s
Madrid System provides a centralized system for obtaining trademark protection
in multiple countries. These services have been widely used by IP rights owners
and have been instrumental in helping to simplify and streamline the process of
obtaining IP protection.
WIPO
Green platform is another example, which helps to connect innovators and
investors in the field of green technologies, including those related to health
and the environment. This platform provides a space for innovators to showcase
their technologies and connect with potential investors, as well as access to
relevant information and resources related to IPR.[20]
CHALLENGES
In his 2010 assessment, Professor
Hargreaves said it succinctly: “IP rights cannot succeed in their basic
economic function of encouraging innovation if rights are ignored or are too
expensive to enforce.” “The absence of any rights regime is preferable to an
ineffective one.”[21]
It is also important to note that the effectiveness of WIPO in protecting IP
rights is limited by the willingness of its member states to adopt and
implement its treaties and recommendations. While WIPO can provide a framework
for IP protection, it ultimately depends on each individual country to put
these provisions into practice. This can be a challenging process, as the laws
and regulations governing IP protection can vary greatly between countries.
Another issue that has been raised in
terms of the effectiveness of WIPO is its ability to respond to the rapidly
evolving landscape of IP and technology. With the advent of new technologies
such as artificial intelligence and blockchain, the IP system is being
challenged in new and innovative ways. This requires WIPO to be flexible and adaptable
in its approach, and to continue to evolve its services and procedures to
ensure that they remain relevant and effective.
Additionally, the issue of IP
enforcement is a key challenge facing WIPO and its member states. While WIPO
can provide a framework for IP protection, it is ultimately up to each country
to enforce its IP laws and regulations. This can be a complex and costly
process, and can be hindered by a lack of resources and political will.
Furthermore, IP enforcement can be complicated by cross-border issues, such as
the movement of goods and services across borders, and the increasing use of
online platforms.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Some of the key recommendations
provided by WIPO include[22]:
Adoption of comprehensive IPR
legislation: WIPO recommends that Member
States adopt comprehensive IPR legislation to provide effective protection and
enforcement of IPR.
Establishment of specialized IPR
courts: WIPO recommends that Member
States establish specialized IPR courts to ensure that IPR cases are handled by
judges with expertise in IPR law.
Training for IPR officials and
practitioners: WIPO recommends that Member
States provide training for IPR officials and practitioners to ensure that they
have the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively protect and enforce IPR.
Promotion of public awareness of IPR: WIPO recommends that Member States promote public
awareness of IPR and the importance of respecting IPR in order to encourage
innovation and creativity.
Cooperation with other countries: WIPO recommends that Member States cooperate with
each other and with international organizations in the protection and
enforcement of IPR to ensure effective cross-border protection of IPR.
These are just some of the
recommendations provided by WIPO. The organization also provides technical
assistance and support to Member States to help them implement these
recommendations and develop their IPR systems.
CASE LAW
BACARDI and Co. LTD vs. BAHETY OVERSEAS Pvt. Ltd and Others
FACTS
The
plaintiff of the case is a known alcoholic beverage manufacturer whose products
with numerous fruit essences are sold under the mark “BREEZER”. Whereas,
defendants are also a beverage manufacturer but majorly fruit-based that is
non-alcoholic and sells it under the name “FREEZ Mix”. The present suit of
trademark infringement and passing off has been filed by Bacardi (Plaintiff)
against Bahety (Defendant). It was alleged that the defendant has been using
the mark “FREEZE” and trademark “FREEZMIX” in such a manner that it explicitly
infringes the registered word mark along with the shape mark of the plaintiff.
As a result, the plaintiff filed for an injunction against the defendant’s
product.
ISSUES
·
Whether the defendants’ mark constitutes an infringement
of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
·
Whether injunction shall be granted.
RULES
Section
9(3), Section 28(1) Section 29 and Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
(‘Act’).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Contention
The
counsels appearing on behalf of the plaintiff presented five-fold contentions
majorly. Firstly, the defendants’ action of continuing usage of the device mark
“FREEZ” even after failing to secure its registration. It was claimed that they
persisted in infringing the plaintiff’s trademark even after a month of
receiving a desist notice. The second contention that was presented was related
to the similarity between the shapes of the bottles which both parties
manufacture. It was submitted that the defendants copied the varied features of
the bottle that the plaintiff manufactures. Thirdly, the factor of colour, as
the flavour of the plaintiff’s beverage and the colour of the bottle are in
correspondence, it was contended that the same is being followed by the
defendants.
Further,
it was asserted that there was a phonetic and visual similarity between the
mark “BREEZER” and “FREEZE”. It was claimed that the word “mix” in the mark
“FREEZ mix” are written in a non-discernible manner which is challenging to
identify and is not visible in an instance. Indicatively, it seems like an
intentional attempt to jeopardize the plaintiff’s goodwill.
Lastly,
the counsels contended that the defendants have deliberately designed their
product in an almost similar manner to deviate and create confusion among the
consumers. As a result, this would lead to a misconception among the consumers
to believe that there is an association between the products.
Defendant’s Contention
The
counsels appearing on behalf of defendants highlighted Section 9(3) and stated
that the Act bars the registration of the bottle’s shape as a trademark because
the same is familiar to the business. Thus, mere similarity in shape does not
constitute a case of trademark infringement.
Further,
the counsels denied the claim of any visual or phonetic similarity between the
logo. It was pointed that the term “BREEZER” consists of two syllables, whereas
“FREEZ” includes only one syllable. Also, it was submitted that the place of
selling and the targeted consumers for both the products are entirely different
as the plaintiff’s product is an alcoholic beverage and the defendant’s product
is non-alcoholic.
Moreover,
countering the claim of colour similarity, the counsels’ responded that the
plaintiff’s product uses all the seven primary colours, and hence, there stands
no claim on its exclusivity. Therefore, the trade dress and the products of
both the parties are entirely different and could not be claimed as confusing
to one another.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
The
fact that despite the defendants being aware of the plaintiff’s registered
trademark did not seek for the revocation of its mark was observed to be
unjust. On the other hand, as the plaintiff has registered the “shape mark” and
the trade mark “BREEZER” u/s 31(1), it does provide exclusivity to use the
same. As a result, the court observed that if any party uses the shape which is
deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s product and has the tendency to confuse
the public, then it does lead to infringement as according to Section 29(2)(b)
of the Act.
Hon’ble
J. Hari Shankar observed that though the defendants registered for the
trademark “FREEZEMIX”, but herein the word “FREEZE” is majorly depicted to the
public in inexplicably large letters with the word “mix” written in comparatively
much smaller letters. This, in particular, cannot be believed to not have
caused any confusion among the mark of both parties. Thus, it was stated that
the same tends to portray an association between the plaintiff and the
defendants.
Hence,
by virtue of Section 29(2), it was stated that the defendant’s mark is likely
to cause confusion among the public; further, by relying on the judgment Amritdhara
Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta[23],
it was quoted that “when the test of phonetic similarity is applied, then in
such case one shall compare the marks for the viewpoint of a person of
imperfect recollection, and not one who is familiar with the marks”.
Conclusively, the court found a phonetic similarity and observed the defendants
had adopted a trade dress similar to that of the plaintiff.
CONCLUSION/JUDGEMENT
It
was concluded that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of Bahety
Overseas to establish such a trademark that resembles Bacardi’s. The court
observed a similarity in the marks as well as in the designs, which tended to
lead an unfamiliar customer to presume that there exists an association between
the two marks. Hence, the court granted an interlocutory injunction in the
plaintiff’s favor and restrained the defendants to further use the mark “FREEZE
mix” and associated trade dress. The injunction shall remain in force till
further order.
CONCLUSION
The protection of intellectual
property is crucial to encourage innovation and creativity. By providing a
financial incentive for creators and inventors, IP protection fosters
investment in research and development and promotes the creation and
dissemination of new products and services. However, enforcing IP rights can be
challenging, especially in the digital age. To protect IP, it is important to
understand and comply with relevant laws and regulations, and to take action if
IP rights are infringed.
WHO plays a crucial role in the
protection of IPR related to health and medicine. Through its efforts to
promote access to essential medicines, the development of intellectual property
policies, and the provision of technical assistance, the organization
contributes to the advancement of public health. WHO’s work helps to ensure
that the interests of public health and innovation are balanced, and that the
rights of patients to access essential medicines and health technologies are
protected. The cooperation between WIPO and WHO supports the WHO’s goal of
ensuring universal access to health and is an important step towards addressing
the challenges of the global health crisis and promoting innovation in the
health sector. By working together, WIPO and WHO can help to ensure that IPR policies
are aligned with public health goals and that access to health technologies is
not restricted by IPR.
The WTO and its TRIPS agreement play
a crucial role in promoting and protecting IPRs globally. It sets minimum
standards for the protection and enforcement of IPRs and seeks to balance the
interests of intellectual property owners with the public interest and
technological innovation. However, the agreement also acknowledges the need to
limit IPRs in specific circumstances, such as public health emergencies.
WIPO has been successful in advancing
the global IP system and providing a range of services to support IP rights
owners, its effectiveness in protecting IP rights is limited by the willingness
of its member states to adopt and implement its provisions, and by the ongoing
challenges posed by the evolving landscape of IP and technology. Nevertheless,
WIPO continues to play a critical role in promoting the protection of IP rights
around the world, and is likely to remain an important player in this field for
many years to come.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Christophe
Bellmann Et. al., Trading in Knowledge: Development Perspectives on TRIPS,
Trade and Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. ProQuest Ebook
Central.
WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, WIPO., No. 489 (E), 2 ed.,
2008.
ARTICLES
Chandra
Nath Saha, Et. al., Intellectual property rights: An overview and
implications in pharmaceutical industry, J Adv Pharmaceutical Technology
and Research, v.2(2) 88–93, Apr-Jun 2011.
Maria Julia Oliva Et. al., A Guide to
Intellectual Property Issues in Access and Benefit-sharing Agreements,
WIPO; Geneva, 2018.
Maria
del Coro Gutierez Pla Et. al., Managing intellectual property rights in
innovation: the key to reaching the market, WIPO Magazine, March 2021.
Marion
Motari Et. al., The role of intellectual property rights on access to
medicines in the WHO African region: 25?years after the TRIPS agreement,
BMC Public Health 21, 490, 2021.
Gerald
J. Mossinghoff Et. al., The World Intellectual Property Organization: A
United Nations Success Story, Sage Publications, Inc, World Affairs, FALL
1997, Vol. 160, No. 2 (FALL 1997), pp. 104-108 JSTOR.
Amy
Dietterich, WIPO GREEN: supporting green innovation and technology transfer,
World Trade Organisation, WIPO Magazine, March 2020,
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2020/01/article_0003.html.
Baroness
Neville-Rolfe, The challenge of protecting intellectual property, WIPO
Magazine, Special Issue 11/2016, November 2016.
REPORT
Intellectual
property rights and firm performance in the European Union, Firm-level analysis
report, European Union Intellectual Property Office, February 2021.
WEBSITES
What
is Intellectual Property?, About IP, WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/.
Settling
Disputes and Enforcing IP Rights, WIPO,
https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/settle-ip-disputes.html.
Overview:
the TRIPS Agreement, WTO,
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm.
CONVENTION
Agreement
on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995.
[1]Chandra
Nath Saha, Et. al., Intellectual property rights: An overview and
implications in pharmaceutical industry, J Adv Pharmaceutical Technology
and Research, v.2(2) 88–93, Apr-Jun 2011.NCBI.
[3] Maria Julia Oliva Et. al., A Guide to
Intellectual Property Issues in Access and Benefit-sharing Agreements,
WIPO; Geneva, 2018.
[4] Settling
Disputes and Enforcing IP Rights, WIPO,
https://www.wipo.int/sme/en/settle-ip-disputes.html.
[5] Maria
del Coro Gutierez Pla Et. al., Managing intellectual property rights in
innovation: the key to reaching the market, WIPO Magazine, March 2021.
[6]
Intellectual property rights and firm performance in the European Union, Firm-level
analysis report, European Union Intellectual Property Office, February 2021.
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Supra note 5.
[9] Marion
Motari Et. al., The role of intellectual property rights on access to
medicines in the WHO African region: 25?years after the TRIPS agreement,
BMC Public Health 21, 490, 2021.
[10] Christophe
Bellmann Et. al., Trading in Knowledge: Development Perspectives on TRIPS,
Trade and Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Group, 2003. ProQuest Ebook
Central.
[12] Hans
Georg Bartels Et. al., Medical technologies: the innovation dimension, Promoting
Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation Intersections between public
health, intellectual property and trade, Intellectual Property: WHO-WIPO-WTO.
[13] Ibid.
[14]
Public health, innovation and intellectual property rights, Commission on
Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health, World Health
Organisation, 2006.
[15] Ellen
’t Hoen, Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights,
Innovation and Public Health: a call to governments, Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 84 (5), May 2006.
[17] WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2,
Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, Doha WTO Ministerial
2001: Trips, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm.
[19] Gerald
J. Mossinghoff Et. al., The World Intellectual Property Organization: A
United Nations Success Story, Sage Publications, Inc, World Affairs, FALL
1997, Vol. 160, No. 2 (FALL 1997), pp. 104-108 JSTOR.
[20] Amy
Dietterich, WIPO GREEN: supporting green innovation and technology transfer,
World Trade Organisation, WIPO Magazine, March 2020.
[21] Baroness
Neville-Rolfe, The challenge of protecting intellectual property, WIPO
Magazine, Special Issue 11/2016, November 2016.
[22]
WIPO, WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook, WIPO., No. 489 (E), 2 ed.,
2008.
[23] Amritdhara
Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449.