The final award in Bridgestone v. Panama (dated 14 August 2020) is the latest instalment in a line of cases where corporate actors have challenged intellectual property measures and court decisions affecting intellectual property rights before investment tribunals. Bridgestone involved the latter i.e. a court decision involving intellectual property rights. The facts of the case… Continue reading Bridgestone v. Panama: Investment Tribunals are not Appellate Courts
In this post, the last of a series on the recent decision of the WTO’s Appellate Body in the Australia – Plain Packaging case, I want to focus on how both the panel and the Appellate Body approached the issue of the legal status of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 2001. … Continue reading The Legal Status of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health
Last week, I blogged about the recent decision of the WTO’s Appellate Body that upheld Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measures. While the Appellate Body largely agreed with the earlier interpretation of both Articles 16(1) and 20 of the TRIPS Agreement by a dispute settlement panel (hereinafter, panel), there are some notable differences in the way… Continue reading Does Article 20 of TRIPS require a Rigid & Exact Set of Factors to Determine Whether an Encumbrance is Unjustifiable?
This is a quick update regarding the Australia – Plain Packaging case. I have commented on the earlier decision of the WTO’s dispute settlement panel in a short piece available here. In its report, the panel upheld Australia’s tobacco plain packaging measures (TPP measures) as compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. However, two of the complainants… Continue reading NEWSFLASH: WTO’S Appellate Body Upholds Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Measures
This is a blog about International Intellectual Property Law and Policy… Stay tuned for more updates…