Linkedin-in Youtube X-twitter

Blog

Your blog category

Blog

WTO Event on 30 Years of TRIPS

/

On March 19, 2025, a side event will take place during the regular WTO TRIPS Council session, organized by Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India, and Pakistan. The event will review 30 years of the TRIPS agreement, focusing on its history, national experiences, and impact on public interest and development in member countries. Key segments include a historical overview by Carlos Correa of the South Centre, a discussion on national experiences, and a panel featuring experts from academia and civil society. Virtual participation will be available – for full details, please see the original article published by Knowledge Ecology International below: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, India, and Pakistan to convene WTO TRIPS Council Side event – 30 Years of TRIPS: Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries Update: On Tuesday, 11 March 2025, the World Trade Organization published an addendum (IP/C/W/718/Add.1) which stated: “By means of a communication dated 10 March 2025, the delegation of Pakistan has requested to be added to the list of sponsors of the submission circulated in document IP/C/W/718.” On Monday, 10 March 2025, the World Trade Organization (WTO) published a communication (IP/C/W/718) from Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, and India entitled: “IP and Public Interest – Intellectual Property For Development Group – Side Event: 30 Years of TRIPS: Expectations and Concerns of Developing Countries”. The cover note to the submission notes: “The informal group of countries known as “Intellectual Property (IP) for Development” plans to host an informal side event, on the margins of the regular TRIPS Council session on the afternoon on 19 March, one day before the TRIPS Council session of the 20 and 21 March 2025. The signing Members invite delegates and experts to an initial discussion to reflect on the history of the TRIPS negotiations, 30 years after their conclusion” (Source: IP/C/W/718). The convenors will enable virtual participation; a link will be provided. The group has signalled their intent to promote “a discussion on its evolution and impact will help to improve the available information, providing valuable insights and reflections for assessing the expectations of developing countries and the outcomes of implementation of TRIPS” (Ibid). The hybrid event will take place on Wednesday, 19 March 2025 from 13:00 CET to 16:30 CET in Room S1 of the World Trade Organization. Carlos Correa, Executive Director of the South Centre will provide a history of the TRIPS negotiations including the context, main actors, and the process of the negotiations during the first segment from 14:00 to 14:30 CET. Section 2 of the side event will focus on national experiences; this panel will feature Celso Amorim and Jayashree Watal and will run from 14:30 to 15:15 CET. Celso Amorim is currently Chief Advisor to the President of Brazil for Foreign Policy. Jayashree Watal is currently Visiting Professor at the National Law University, Delhi and an Adjunct Professor at the Georgetown University Law Center. Section 3 of the side event will a panel comprised of experts including Joshua Sarnoff, Raymond P. Niro Professor of Intellectual, Property Law, DePaul College of Law (online), James Love, Director of Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)- (in-person), Ellen ‘t Hoen, Director of Medicines Law & Policy, (in-person), Sean Flynn, Director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University (in-person), and Sangeeta Shashikant Third World Network –TWN- (in-person). Section 3 will run from 15:15 to 16:15 CET.

Blog, Traditional Knowledge

Why the WIPO IGC Deadlocked

/

By: Chidi Oguamanam Chidi Oguamanam, representative of Nigeria and University of Ottowa Professor of Law, provides analysis of the failure to endorse a new consolidated text by the 50th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC). The article was originally published by ABS Canada, and is reprinted here with the author’s permission.   Link to article Discord over Rights and Measures-Based Approaches to the Protection of TK and TCEs Scuttles WIPO IGC 50 By: Chidi Oguamanam Backdrop to the 50th WIPO IGC Session At the 50th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO-IGC), delegates arrived with expectations for a better outcome. However, after one week of deliberations from March 3-7, 2025, experts and diplomats failed to achieve consensus over an improved working text of international legal instrument(s) for the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions (TK/TCEs). The last session of the WIPO-IGC (the 49th session) was stalemated because the majority of delegates agreed that they failed to narrow gaps in the working texts of TK and TCEs from the 47th WIPO-IGC session. At the 49th session, delegates resolved not to transmit any instruments to the 50th session, which meant that they would fall back to the text of the 47th session to the collective disappointment of the Committee and its Finnish Chair, Anna Vuopala, at the December 2024 meetings. The 50th WIPO-IGC session was chaired by Brazilian diplomat Ms. Erika Patriota, who was invested in breaking the jinx of the 49th session. Despite her best efforts through a methodology that relied heavily on informal sessions as well as drew from the facilitation skill of the Filipino Friend of the Chair, Anne Adlon, the session’s intended purpose to narrow gaps and deliver on an improved text of negotiating instruments was not met. A hopeful start on the first couple of days resulted in ridding the two working texts (TK and TCEs) of a few redundant and unsupported alternative articles. However, a methodological failure arising from not reining in delegates who were determined to contribute new textual language, and who were determined to even substitute in wholesale fashion some existing articles, pushed the Committee off-balance away from narrowing gaps. Rights and Measures-Based Approach is Now a Critical Schism There was a palpable ideological schism among delegates on the perennial high level conceptual question over the nature of the instrument in relation to intellectual property rights. On one side are demandeur delegations who favour negotiating the TK/TCEs instruments as sui generis, or what one delegate characterizes as “IP+.”  On the other side are those who prefer that the instruments be in sync with conventional IP rights – with term limits, elaborate exceptions and limitations, and accommodation of the so-called “vibrant public domain.” More prominently and equally worrisome at the 50th WIPO-IGC session was a palpable division among delegates along “rights-based” and “measures-based” approaches to the protection of TK and TCEs. In simple terms, the rights-based approach is premised on the recognition of inalienable and existing rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) to their TK and TCEs as a fundamental anchor for the protection of those rights and the premise upon which any consequential measures are based. On the other hand, proponents of the measures-based approach, who are mainly non-demandeurs led by the United States and its allies in Group B (Japan, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, UK), the EU, the Central European and Baltic States (CEBS), etc., are inclined toward a measures-based approach. The latter group of proponents of the measures-based approach proactively emphasizes and promotes a list of policy, regulatory, persuasive, and non-binding measures to encourage the “safeguarding” of TK and TCEs. In the opinion of these proponents, a soft-law (i.e., non-binding) approach is the preferred nature of such measures. The argument is that, in accordance with its mandate, the Committee should not prejudge the nature of the instrument that will result from its work. For most non-demandeurs, a measures-based approach is a suitable pathway to a non-binding treaty. For the demandeurs, that is, IPLCs as well as mostly developing countries of the global south who coalesce around the mainly fluid category of like-minded countries (LMCs), the African Group, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC), India, China, and some members of the Asia Pacific Group (APG), a rights-based approach is preferred. The demandeurs support a stronger and binding instrument in the nature of the already-concluded treaty from the work of the Committee – the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. For this group, the fact that the Committee is required not to prejudge the outcome of its deliberations does not preclude designing a binding instrument. For demandeurs, the narrow focus of non-demandeurs on a non-binding instrument misses the other consideration regarding the outcome of the Committee’s work, which relates to whether it would result in a single or multiple instruments. At the beginning, the Committee set out on a pathway to three instruments, namely, TK, TCEs and Genetic Resources (GRs).  It has agreed on only one instrument so far, which is the binding instrument on GRs. Cut-and-Paste Merger for Artificial Consolidation Despite a lack of consensus, the 50th IGC attempted to merge the two remaining negotiating instruments on TK and TCEs into one document, in contrast to their being negotiated in parallel, which has been the practice. It is not as if no attempt has been made in the past at consolidating the two remaining documents. In February 2023 and March 2023, the Jamaican Chair of the IGC, Lilly-Clair Bellamy, raised the Chair’s Consolidated Texts of TK and TCEs, which some delegations wanted to be used as a working instrument at the aborted 49th session of the IGC. The attempt at the equally aborted 50th session to merge both texts in a cut-and-paste merging approach reflects the potential inclination of delegations toward a consolidated instrument. The Committee appears open to consider a single TK/TCE instrument to complement the

Blog, Broadcast Treaty, Technical Assistance

The (Long) Road to the Broadcast Treaty: A Brief History

/

Lokesh Vyas; Luca Schirru; Sean Flynn  Members of the research team from the Program of Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP)’ Geneva Center published a “Documentary History of the Broadcast Treaty in the SCCR” (2025). Joint PIJIP/TLS Research Paper Series. 145. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/145/ The document traces the discussions and statements made by Member States across all SCCR and General Assembly meetings from the launch of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights in 1998 to the 45th meeting of the committee in 2024. The history can be used to analyze the evolution in the statements, positions, and proposals of countries over this long history. This note describes the pre-history of the Broadcasting Treaty before the creation of the SCCR. Berne Convention Broadcasting entered the international copyright scene in the 1928 Rome Revision of the Berne Convention, with the introduction of Article 11bis to the Berne Convention: “Article 11bis: (1) Authors of literary and artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the communication of their works to the public by radio-diffusion.(2) The national legislations of the countries of the Union may regulate the conditions under which the right mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be exercised, but the effect of those conditions will be strictly limited to the countries which have put them in force. Such conditions shall not in any case prejudice the moral right (droit moral) of the author, nor the right which belongs to the author to obtain an equitable remuneration which shall be fixed, failing agreement, by the competent authority.”[2] The exclusive right in 11bis is limited to communications “to the public” by the particular means of “radio-diffusion.” It thus did not cover issues such as rebroadcasts by other means (e.g. cable, internet, etc.) or one-to-one transmissions. Article 11bis(2) gives governments flexibility in how to regulate the right. The importance of public interest regulation was emphasized by the Sub-Committee on Broadcasting which discussed the issue at the conference.[3]  In 1948, Article 11bis(1) was expanded to cover additional technologies, and Article 11bis(3) was introduced, creating an exception for “ephemeral recordings made by a broadcasting body by means of its own facilities and used for its own emissions”.[4] The provision also permitted legislation to authorize the preservation of such recordings in official archives if they held exceptional documentary value.  The 1967 Stockholm Revision brought further modifications: Article 11bis(1) was revised to include the terms “broadcasting” and “rebroadcasting”. Article 11bis(2) remained unchanged; the wording of Article 11bis(3) was slightly modified, though without any substantial legal effect. Rome Convention The International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome, 1961) convened jointly by two UN agencies: ILO and UNESCO, as well as BIRPI (WIPO’s predecessor), included a related right of broadcasting organizations. As James Love has described:  “Broadcasting organizations made a discrete case for inclusion in the treaty as a beneficiary, even when making no creative contribution. Backed by sheer lobbying power, broadcasters claimed that, unlike theater owners, record or bookstores, they were tasked with making works available to the public without direct compensation from listeners, often with additional public service obligations, and were entitled to rights, even when none existed for the works broadcast.”[5] The treaty defined “broadcasting” as “the transmission by wireless means for public reception”[6] and “rebroadcasting” as “the simultaneous broadcasting by one broadcasting organisation of the broadcast of another broadcasting organisation”.[7] The treaty was thus limited to the protection of live broadcasts by traditional wireless means. The Rome Convention included a list of permissible limitations and exceptions.[8] Brussels Convention As Delia Lipszyc noted with the rise of orbiting or geostationary satellites in international telecommunications since 1965, broadcasting organizations expressed the need for adequate protection against the ‘piracy of signals’ when their television programmes were transmitted by space satellites.[9] The Rome Convention left ambiguity on this issue as it only covered “wireless” transmissions, raising doubts about whether it applied to broadcasts relayed through satellites.  International discussions on the legal challenges of “intercontinental broadcasts of television programmes by satellite” began in 1968 and 1969. Following these meetings, UNESCO and BIRPI jointly convened a Committee of Governmental Experts to examine copyright and related rights issues affecting performers, phonogram producers, and broadcasters due to satellite transmissions. The committee met three times—in Lausanne (1971), Paris (1972), and Nairobi (1973)—laying the groundwork for the 1974 Diplomatic Conference in Brussels.[10] In the 1974 Brussels Diplomatic Conference Report, Lipszyc notes that the General Rapporteur highlighted the issue’s urgency, as recognized by the three Committees of Governmental Experts. They explored several possible solutions, including: 1.) the revision of the International Telecommunication Convention or of the annexed Radio Regulations; the revision of the Rome Convention (1961); 2.) the adoption of a new multilateral Convention; or 3.) some other formula, such as the confirmation of the existing international agreements or 4.) the adoption of a straightforward resolution condemning the piracy of signals. Quoting from Lipszyc:  “As the preparatory work progressed, a consensus emerged in favour of the third solution; even though some countries considered that the Rome Convention granted broadcasters protection against unauthorized rebroadcasting of their signals transmitted by satellites, it was still clear that, because of the few accessions to that Convention, it did not immediately lend itself to a solution of this problem at world level. … At the meetings of the three Committees of Experts, discussions focused mainly on a number of drafts of a new multilateral convention designed to prevent the rebroadcasting of signals transmitted via satellites by distributors for whom they were not intended; but it proved particularly difficult to arrive at a general consensus on the content and terms of this Convention”. The above-referred Report highlighted that the main difficulty arose at the meeting of the First Committee of Governmental Experts (Lausanne, 1971) and took up a great deal of the proceedings of all three preparatory meetings. The problem was to know whether, if exclusive rights were granted to the originating broadcasting organizations in the sphere of private law and within a new international

Blog

Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance Released at World Intellectual Property Organization

/

The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance were released today at the 50th meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The principles were drafted at a retreat with copyright academics, stakeholders and computational researchers who gathered in the Cradle of Humankind to address the goal of enabling African and other Global South uses of digital research tools without promoting “data colonialism” concerns. The Cradle Principles express that knowledge governance systems but must be seen as composed of various fields of information regulation including “international, constitutional, traditional knowledge, intellectual property, media and telecommunications, privacy, competition, biodiversity, and other laws, and are also composed of non-governmental cultural practices and norms, including traditional systems governing the use of community-held knowledge.” The Principles conclude that such systems, taken together, should further the following goals: -promote the goals of sustainable development, social justice, and human rights; -provide balanced frameworks that protect and promote access to, and use of information for research, scientific inquiry, analysis, translation, and preservation of cultures and languages; -promote the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities’ in the knowledge economy, including their right to self-determination, inclusion, cultural integrity, data sovereignty and sustainable development; -ensure sovereignty over knowledge resources to combat unidirectional information resource extraction and misappropriation that aggravates inequalities and injustice in the ability to access and use information and knowledge;. The Principles include a table of considerations to help determine when knowledge should be subject to more protection to safeguard the rights of traditional cultures and when knowledge should be more freely available for research, education and other public interest uses. The IGC is currently negotiating a treaty on the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. Although the principles do not contain any specific language for the IGC’s work, they may nonetheless be useful in identifying options and considerations for balancing important public interests in the negotiation, including for the crafting of limitations and exceptions to any exclusive rights that may be included in a final treaty. See complete document here: https://knowledgegov.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Cradle-Principles-V8.pdf

Blog, Traditional Knowledge

WIPO Debate Stalls Over Including the Genetic Resources Treaty in the PCT Framework

/

By Andres Izquierdo, Yara Misto, & Haddija Jawara The latest session of the WIPO Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group was marked by intense debate over agenda item 16, which addressed the implications of the recently adopted WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty). Brazil formally appealed the Chair’s ruling on the matter, ultimately resulting in the indefinite suspension of the session due to a lack of quorum for a vote. During the 18th Session of the PCT Working Group, member states discussed document PCT/WG/18/16, which examines the potential integration of disclosure requirements for genetic resources (GR) and associated traditional knowledge (ATK) into the PCT framework. The discussions on PCT/WG/18/16 exposed a divide among WIPO members. Brazil, Colombia, and Egypt pushed for amendments to the PCT, stressing the importance of aligning its framework with the newly adopted GRATK Treaty. In contrast, Canada, France, and Norway maintained that such discussions were premature, arguing that any modifications should be postponed until the Treaty officially enters into force. With no consensus reached, the issue was deferred for future discussions. Brazil’s Procedural Appeal and the Deadlock Brazil objected to the closure of the agenda item, emphasizing its importance to multiple member states and interest groups. Invoking Rule 14 of WIPO’s procedural guidelines, Brazil asserted its right to appeal the Chair’s ruling, which—under WIPO rules—must be put to an immediate vote. The Chair’s decision would stand unless overturned by a majority of delegations. However, procedural complications arose when it became clear that the session lacked the necessary quorum to conduct a vote on Brazil’s appeal. Without the required quorum, the appeal remained unresolved. Acknowledging the deadlock, the Chair announced the indefinite suspension of the meeting, with the issue to be revisited in a future session. Statements from Member States & Brazil’s Appeal Below is the transcript of statements from member states and the full text of Brazil’s appeal: Colombia (GRULAC) “Madam Chair, Delegation of Colombia has the honor of presenting this statement on behalf of the majority of the country’s members of GRULAC.We would like to express our gratitude to the WIPO Secretariat, the Director General, for the initiative of having this agenda item and the preparation of the document PCT/WG/18/16.We appreciate their efforts to look into the challenges of the implementation of this Treaty on Genetic Resources and Related Traditional Knowledge within the PCT with regard to patents.The option in having the GRTK in 2024, it was a very great achievement for the majority of the GRULAC countries in order to guarantee that Intellectual Property Systems in our region reflect in a balanced way the interests of all stakeholders including states, indigenous peoples and local communities.In this context, we believe that it would be appropriate for the PCT Working Group to take the opportunity to see how the procedures of the PCT can be aligned with the established provisions of Article 7 of the GRTK Treaty.Obviously, we need to ensure that we facilitate harmonization and guarantee the applicability in effective terms.The Secretariat’s initiative is particularly relevant given that both the process leads to the amendment of any PCT process or provision can take a long time.It is, therefore, useful to have the technical discussions and an open debate so that we can have key information provided by Member States so that they are able to ratify the Treaty and also know what requirements may come up in terms of amendments to the PCT’s own regulations.So we would like to thank the IB and suggest that we do indeed come back at the next PCT meeting with a proposed amendment which would enable us to foresee challenges that may come up.We, therefore, call upon Member States to support the proposal made in 18/16 so that those modifications amendments that will facilitate the implementation, particularly with regard to diverging sources within the PCT system.” Namibia (African Group) “I thank you, Chair, for the floor.I’m taking the floor on behalf of the African Group.We join other Delegations in congratulating you on your appointment as the Chair and we are looking forward to a productive meeting.And on the onset African Group wishes to commend WIPO for their efforts and work done this far in ensuring implementation of international instruments for protection of patents.Patents are powerful tools in fostering innovation and providing economic value to businesses and investors.Patent protection helps to secure commercial benefits of new inventions and ultimately ensuring sustainable innovations.The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge adopted in May 2024 marked a significant milestone in advancing legal instrument for protection or emerging issues of Intellectual Property law.The Treaty addresses the relationship between Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources as well as Traditional Knowledge as subject matter that has been at the center of multilateral discussion over the years.The Treaty emphasizes the need for a framework that respects the rights of Indigenous People and local communities over their Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge while promoting fair and equitable access and benefit-sharing conventions resulting from the use of those resources.Therefore, it is crucial for the Working Group to consider amendment to the PCT regulations to include the disclosure requirements prior informed consent and benefit-sharing mechanism in the PCT system.Those steps are vital to ensure that the use of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge in patent applications acknowledges the rights of Indigenous People and local communities as well as the broader global objectives of sustainable development.To move forward, the Working Group must assess how those amendments can be integrated into the PCT framework to fulfill the objectives of the Treaty.” Japan “Thank you, Madam Chair.Japan would like to express our position on this agenda item.At this stage, the new GOA TK Treaty has not come into effect nor is there any clear prospect of when it will.Additionally, it remains uncertain how each potential contracting party will implement the Treaty in the national laws or rules.Therefore, Japan believes under these circumstances it is premature to consider amending the regulations.We are

Blog, Design Law Treaty

Developing Countries' Accomplishments in the WIPO Design Law Treaty

/

Last year, two new intellectual property treaties were adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization — one on the disclosure of uses of genetic resources in patent applications and a second on applications for design law protection. Although the design law treaty was promoted by wealthy countries of the global north, the final outcome shows the impact of developing countries who advocated for deleting or softening provisions that regulated substantive design law while protecting the ability to require information related to Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs), Traditional Knowledge (TK), or biological and genetic resources (GR).  Opening the closed list for application criteria  The main intent of the Design Law Treaty was described as harmonizing procedures and formalities for applying for design law protection. There is very little substantive international law on design protection, and the treaty was not billed as creating such minimum requirements. However, by proposing to restrict the elements that may be requested in a design law application, the basic proposal for the treaty in effect restricted what elements could be considered in granting protection.  The basic proposal for the treaty followed the Trademark Law Treaty in proposing a closed list of elements that could be required in an application. The closed nature of the list was made clear in subsection 2 of what was ultimately included as Article 4 of the treaty, which states:  “[Prohibition of Other Requirements] No indication or element, other than those referred to in paragraph (1) and in Article 10, may be required in respect of the application.” The problem with a closed list of application criteria is that it limits the substantive criteria that governments can rely upon in granting design law protection. As Bagley (2018, 995-996) argued: “by delineating a closed list of application requirements that countries can impose on applicants, the DLT in effect moves beyond formalities to placing substantive limits on countries in relation to design registration”. In the early stages of consideration of the Treaty, developing countries focused on the lack of language in the closed list allowing countries to require disclosure of traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge, or genetic resources used in the design seeking protection. The basic proposal for the DLT included two alternatives on these issues:  “ALTERNATIVE A [(ix) a disclosure of the origin or source of traditional cultural expressions, traditional knowledge or biological/genetic resources utilized or incorporated in the industrial design;]” “ALTERNATIVE B [(ix) an indication of any prior application or registration, or of other information , of which the applicant is aware, that is relevant to the eligibility for registration of the industrial design;]” During the negotiation, Knowledge Ecology International raised other issues that the United States and other laws require disclosure of in design law applications that were not included in the closed list. These included, for example, requirements to disclose uses of public funding and artificial intelligence in the creation of the design.  There was considerable opposition from the “Group B” wealthy countries of the global north to the language in Alternative A including reference to “biological/genetic resources” in the permitted elements of an application. Delegations argued that such resources were not relevant to design law.  In the end, the compromise text excluded direct mention of genetic resources but adopted open language that permits countries to require any application element deemed “relevant” to the registration of the design:   Article 4 … (2) [Indication of Information] A Contracting Party may require, where permitted under the applicable law, that an application contain an indication of any prior application or registration, or of other information, including information on traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge, of which the applicant is aware, that is relevant to the eligibility for registration of the industrial design. (3) [Prohibition of Other Requirements] No indication or element, other than those referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) and in Article 12, may be required in respect of the application. The final outcome thus permits countries to allow disclosures of genetic resource information as well as information about uses of public funding, artificial intelligence, and other elements that a country deems relevant to the registration.  Eliminating Term of Protection The basic proposal for the DLT included two options for requiring a term of protection. Term of protection is indisputably substantive, and many countries opposed its inclusion in the treaty on this basis. But two other treaties — the Hague Agreement and the WTO’s TRIPS agreement — have minimum terms of protection of 5 years and 10 years respectively.  A proposal by the USA would have harmonized members to a minimum 15-year term, which is the present US law. [Article 9Bis Term of protection A Contracting Party shall provide a term of protection for industrial designs of at least 15 years from either: (a) the filing date, or (b) the date of grant or registration.], proposed by USA.[Article 9Bis Term of protection Contracting Parties shall have the option to comply with Article 17 of the Hague Convention or Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement.], proposed by Nigeria. There was united opposition to any term of protection in the agreement by the Africa Group, GRULAC, and APG. As a result, fairly early on in the negotiation, Article 9bis was dropped from the negotiating text and no term of protection was included in the final treaty. Making the Grace Period Optional The basic proposal included language on grace periods during which a design could be disclosed without affecting its registerability. There are no regulations of grace periods in the Patent Law Treaty, Trademark Law Treaty, or the Hague Agreement.  Concerns were raised that this provision may disproportionately favor larger firms in weather countries that “can afford to disclose their designs publicly without immediately filing for protection, potentially stalling local competitors who lack the financial or legal capacity to navigate complex intellectual property landscapes”.  The final text established a grace period of 12 months but made this provision subject to a reservation. Thus, countries may join the agreement without binding themselves to the grace period

Blog

G20 Final Declaration

/

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||” theme_builder_area=”post_content”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” custom_margin=”-92px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}” theme_builder_area=”post_content”] Allan Rocha de Souza [1] and Luca Schirru [2] On November 18 and 19, the G20 highest representatives met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when they issued the 2024 conclusive document of the Brazilian Presidency, the Leaders of the G20 Declaration. It was preceded by different sector declarations, of which the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture is especially relevant and has been commented upon here.   There was a call for action on three main priorities: “(i) social inclusion and the fight against hunger and poverty; (ii) sustainable development, energy transitions and climate action; and (iii) the reform of global governance institutions.” (p. 03 – item 13). There are plenty of references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) of the 2030 Agenda, and the recognition that the actions to reach them are lagging behind. (p.01 – item 03).   “Development” in general was linked to a variety of settings: Agendas, Goals, Frameworks, Cooperation, Trade, Banks, Funds, Policies, Programs and so on. Nonetheless, sustainability and climate are the main focus. And a broad concept of development and high goals guide the concluding remark, when the Leaders affirmed that “(We) remain resolute in our commitment to fighting hunger, poverty, and inequality, promoting sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and reforming global governance.” (p. 22 – item 85)  There were serious concerns around the uses and social, economic and political effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. So much so it earned a chapter of its own. The impacts on labor and workers, gender gap, people in vulnerable situations and the digital divide were central preoccupations, but their worries were also extended to intellectual property, data protection, and privacy:   “As AI and other technologies continue to evolve, it is also necessary to bridge digital divides, including halving the gender digital divide by 2030, prioritize the inclusion of people in vulnerable situations in the labor market, as well as ensure fairness, respect for intellectual property, data protection, privacy, and security.” (p. 20 – item 78).  While the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture was intense on copyright and AI, the Leaders’ Declaration has been less assertive in its goals, broadly calling for “a strengthened and effective global engagement on the discussion of copyright and related rights in the digital environment and the impacts of AI on copyright right holders.” (p. 08, item 28)   Cultural workers were also acknowledged as the G20 Leaders, as they reaffirmed the “commitment to support policies that promote the contribution of those working in the culture, arts and heritage sectors and call on countries to strengthen cooperation and dialogue addressing social and economic rights and artistic freedom, both online and offline.” (p. 08, item 28)   Interestingly, IP and labor rights were conjugated to highlight concerns of fair pay and working conditions of cultural workers, as policies that promote their status should be deployed “in accordance with intellectual property rights frameworks and international labor standards, for the enhancement of fair pay and decent working conditions.” (p. 08, item 28).  While the G20 Leaders’ Declaration approach to IP and cultural rights was less assertive than the Salvador da Bahia Declaration, it underscores the importance of fair policies for cultural workers. With a stronger focus on sustainability and inclusion, it approaches development from multiple angles, tries to foster international cooperation, while reaffirming the commitment to achieving the SDGs. Looking ahead, South Africa holds the G20 Presidency in 2025. [1] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), Brazil. He also teaches Copyright of the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ). Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral), a copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), and a lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. [2] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776.        [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Perspectives from the ABPI (Brazilian Intellectual Property Association) Forum on AI and IP

/

By: Luca Schirru [1] and Allan Rocha de Souza [2] On December 11, 2024, the Brazilian Association of Intellectual Property (ABPI) organized and hosted the Forum “Decoding Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” in São Paulo. The event was on December 11th, just one day after the Brazilian Senate approved the AI Bill (Bill No. 2338/23). The bill will now be returned to the House of Representatives for further discussion and, if approved, will be submitted for presidential sanction. The forum brought together a diverse group of stakeholders: IP rightsholders, technology companies, researchers, and legal practitioners to explore some of the most pressing issues at the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence (AI). Discussions were particularly focused on the complex challenges posed by generative AI in the realm of copyright. The adequacy – or not – of the AI Bill in addressing issues such as remuneration, opt-out mechanisms, transparency, and text and data mining was a central topic of discussion, featuring insights from national and international speakers. The panels covered issues regarding AI inputs, outputs, and the balance between copyright protection and the need for innovation and development. The Brazilian Copyright Institute was represented by Allan Rocha and Luca Schirru.    Bertin Martens offered an economic perspective and reasons why opt-out mechanisms and restrictions on AI training may be economically inefficient, also referring to the provision in the Brazilian AI Bill. Luca Schirru addressed the challenges related to training AI systems and text and data mining. He highlighted how the current text of the Bill fails to adequately promote research due to several shortcomings, such as (i) the lawful access requirement and (ii) the fact that the copyright exception is restricted to institutions and (iii) excludes university-companies partnerships.  Caroline Tauk addressed key copyright challenges related to AI-generated outputs, such as authorship, ownership, originality, and potential copyright infringement claims. Professor Pamela Samuelson provided an overview of the legal challenges and their competing arguments presented in U.S. court cases. Samuelson’s insights spanned both input-related issues, such as data used for training AI systems, and output-related concerns, highlighting the complexity of navigating copyright in the context of AI.   The approval of the AI Bill faced criticism since the final version of the text was made available less than a week before the vote, as noted by Andriei Gutierrez, who considered it to be “irresponsible that the bill passed in the Senate. The text was approved last Thursday by a minimum number of senators, and the rest had until Tuesday to approve it.” (see here and here) Finally, Allan Rocha de Souza presented a critical perspective on the AI Bill and explained why, as it is, it does not strike a good balance between the promotion of research, authors’ remuneration, or an innovation environment, and suggested that it could be greatly improved with minor changes.    The legislative year will resume in March 2025 and given the broad criticism towards the approved AI Bill from various stakeholders, further discussions and revisions to the copyright provisions are expected in the House of Representatives.  [1] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776.   [2] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), and in the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ), Brazil. Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral). Copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ). Lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. 

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Brazil Urges Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms for AI and IP Rights

/

Brazil’s statement at WIPO CDIP 33 emphasized AI’s transformative potential in IP while highlighting challenges like copyright violations and the need for fair remuneration. Advocating for global governance and legislative reforms, Brazil called on WIPO to ensure transparency, equity, and inclusive policies that protect creators’ rights and provide equitable access to AI benefits. Brazil CDIP 33rd Statements BRAZIL: Thank you, Madam Chair. We thank WIPO for the opportunity to discuss AI in the context of development. We note the many number of WIPO representatives at the podium now including ADG Natsumi which we thank very much for a time showing that this is a cross organizational aspect and expresses the correctness of treating this topic at the CDIP without prejudice to the specific technical committees of WIPO.  Now, Madam Chair, the rapid pace of development of AI technology has put it under the spot. In 2022, sorry, we were all stunned by the launch of generative AI systems which we all assumed were years away and now we as countries and we as international organizations are analyzing its implications, potential uses and the necessity of regulating it. AI, of course, can be of significant assistance to IP offices in the process of registration and management of industrial property rights such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs. The translation of technical documents is another area where AI can be widely applied with the assistance of WIPO. Some such uses were explored recently in the last session of the SCP and application of AI in PCT activities are also being discussed at the PCT Working Group. But another area of analysis is the constitution and exercise of Intellectual Property Rights. So on the patent side, the use of AI systems can have an impact on new discoveries, increasing innovation. It also raises questions about patentability and ownership of the innovation resulting from such systems. This was explored previously by the Secretariat. So AI can assist research with the potential to result in a large number of patent applications. Additionally, it may be used to boost anti-competitive strategies adopted by specific industries to file patents for incremental modifications aiming to block competitors’ R&D, so-called patent tickets. So in this context, legislative changes in the patent legislation may be necessary to encompass and address such challenges and opportunities. But the speed with which this technology develops is, of course, a challenge for us as regulators. Now, I would like to address specific copyright-related issues on AI. As we all know, AI systems, especially generative AI, demand vast amounts of data, the most valuable of which is copyright protected. Copyrighted works such as music, books and movies contain organized expression of ideas which are vital for AI systems to develop their capacities to, so to speak, mimic human behavior. Of course, generative AI can be a tool for creation and like any new tool, it has benefits and risks. It raises a series of ethical, aesthetic, technical and legal questions that we have the responsibility of examining. Now, in many countries, including Brazil, the United States and others, the protection of an author’s right is a constitutional clause. Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which the person is the author. So we see a strong basis for discussing the protection of author’s rights in AI systems. There’s a trend towards the reduction of the value of creative works, the so-called commoditization of creative works, which affect the enjoyment and exercise of the copyright protection to authors, artists and creators. A study by CISAC published just last week shows that copyright right holders will lose 22 billion euros until 2020 in the music and audiovisual sectors alone. This figure does not include losses to writers, photographers, interpreters or producers of phonograms. Another study by German and French collective management organizations estimated that music authors will lose 27% of the royalties due to generative AI by 2028, four years away. Similar negative effects have been estimated in Australia and New Zealand. Now, what are the causes of such losses? They will be due to the substitution of human labor for AI, the competition of AI produced content with copyrighted works and the lack of payment for the use of protected works in the training of AI systems. This raises a particularly important question relating to the long-term production of works. AI systems demand a diversity of cultural production, but how could we generate it without authors, performers, creators and humans? How can we continue to have the production of works if we don’t have the necessary economic incentives for human authors in the copyright system? Further, how do we differentiate authentic human work from AI-generated works? Considering this scenario, it is without a surprise that authors demand a fair remuneration for the use of the works. Many letters, public manifestations have proliferated with thousands and thousands of artists, performers and their associations signing. At the same time, tech companies argue this would stem innovation, but the individual market value of a leading AI company can reach 250 billion U.S. dollars. Reports in the media also indicate that companies such as Google and Microsoft spend every few months 10 billion U.S. dollars on data centers and AI infrastructure. Further, as I had mentioned, copyrighted works are one of the most important, if not the most important input for generative AI systems. It would be not only illegal but absurd if AI companies did not pay for other basic inputs such as energy, data centers, or software. Why would this be the case with copyrighted works? And according to reports by authors, artists and even representatives from AI companies in the media, use of protected works is happening without authorization from rights holders. As a consequence of this, companies developing AI systems may have violated in each work used at least five rights granted to authors by copyright legislation. The first

Blog, Latin America / GRULAC

Copyright, Cultural Rights and Research in the “Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture”

/

Allan Rocha de Souza [1] and Luca Schirru [2] On November 18 and 19, the G20 highest representatives met in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, when they issued the 2024 conclusive document of the Brazilian Presidency, the Leaders of the G20 Declaration. It was preceded by different sector declarations, of which the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture is especially relevant and has been commented upon here.  There was a call for action on three main priorities: “(i) social inclusion and the fight against hunger and poverty; (ii) sustainable development, energy transitions and climate action; and (iii) the reform of global governance institutions.” (p. 03 – item 13). There are plenty of references to the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) of the 2030 Agenda, and the recognition that the actions to reach them are lagging behind. (p.01 – item 03) “Development” in general was linked to a variety of settings: Agendas, Goals, Frameworks, Cooperation, Trade, Banks, Funds, Policies, Programs and so on. Nonetheless, sustainability and climate are the main focus. And a broad concept of development and high goals guide the concluding remark, when the Leaders affirmed that “(We) remain resolute in our commitment to fighting hunger, poverty, and inequality, promoting sustainable development in its economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and reforming global governance.” (p. 22 – item 85)  There were serious concerns around the uses and social, economic and political effects of artificial intelligence (AI) systems. So much so it earned a chapter of its own. The impacts on labor and workers, gender gap, people in vulnerable situations and the digital divide were central preoccupations, but their worries were also extended to intellectual property, data protection, and privacy:   “As AI and other technologies continue to evolve, it is also necessary to bridge digital divides, including halving the gender digital divide by 2030, prioritize the inclusion of people in vulnerable situations in the labor market, as well as ensure fairness, respect for intellectual property, data protection, privacy, and security.” (p. 20 – item 78)  While the Salvador da Bahia Declaration of the G20 Ministers of Culture was intense on copyright and AI, the Leaders’ Declaration has been less assertive in its goals, broadly calling for “a strengthened and effective global engagement on the discussion of copyright and related rights in the digital environment and the impacts of AI on copyright right holders.” (p. 08, item 28)   Cultural workers were also acknowledged as the G20 Leaders, as they reaffirmed the “commitment to support policies that promote the contribution of those working in the culture, arts and heritage sectors and call on countries to strengthen cooperation and dialogue addressing social and economic rights and artistic freedom, both online and offline.” (p. 08, item 28)   Interestingly, IP and labor rights were conjugated to highlight concerns of fair pay and working conditions of cultural workers, as policies that promote their status should be deployed “in accordance with intellectual property rights frameworks and international labor standards, for the enhancement of fair pay and decent working conditions.” (p. 08, item 28).  While the G20 Leaders’ Declaration approach to IP and cultural rights was less assertive than the Salvador da Bahia Declaration, it underscores the importance of fair policies for cultural workers. With a stronger focus on sustainability and inclusion, it approaches development from multiple angles, tries to foster international cooperation, while reaffirming the commitment to achieving the SDGs. Looking ahead, South Africa holds the G20 Presidency in 2025. [1] Copyright Professor at the Graduation Program on Public Policy, Strategies and Development (PPED/UFRJ) and the Civil Law and Humanities Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (DDHL/ITR/UFRRJ), Brazil. He also teaches Copyright of the IP Specialization Course at Pontifícia Universidade Católica (PUC-RJ). Scientific Director of the Brazilian Copyright Institute (IBDautoral), a copyright consultant at Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), and a lawyer. Contact: allan@rochadesouza.com – ORCID: 0000-0002-6549-0085. [2] Executive Director and Researcher at the Brazilian Copyright Institute. Postdoctoral researcher at INCC. Copyright Professor at the Specialization Program on Intellectual Property Law at PUC-RJ. Lawyer. Contact: luca.schirru@ibdautoral.org.br – ORCID: 0000-0002-4706-3776. 

Scroll to Top