2022 · COVID-19 · European Union · Intellectual Property · International Intellectual Property Law · IP Policy · Patents · TRIPS Agreement · Uncategorized · Vaccines · WTO

The TRIPS COVID ‘Waiver’ Decision: Rhetorical Action or Realistic Solution?

Now that the WTO members have finally been able to agree on a TRIPS ‘waiver’ for covid-19 at the 12th Ministerial Conference, it is time to critically evaluate this waiver decision. To start with, the only key waiver in this decision is in its paragraph 3(b) which permits an eligible member to waive Article 31(f)… Continue reading The TRIPS COVID ‘Waiver’ Decision: Rhetorical Action or Realistic Solution?

Uncategorized

Saudi Arabia and Qatar Mutually Agree to Suspend IP Dispute at the WTO

In July 2020, I blogged about Saudi Arabia’s appeal of the panel report in the Saudi Arabia – Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights dispute. There is now an update regarding this dispute. The parties to the dispute, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have both agreed to suspend the appellate proceedings and any proceedings… Continue reading Saudi Arabia and Qatar Mutually Agree to Suspend IP Dispute at the WTO

2020 · International Intellectual Property Law · International Investment Law · International Trademark Law · Uncategorized

Bridgestone v. Panama: Investment Tribunals are not Appellate Courts

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

2020 · Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health · Intellectual Property · International Intellectual Property Law · IP Policy · TRIPS Agreement · Uncategorized

The Legal Status of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health

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

2020 · Intellectual Property · International Trademark Law · IP Policy · Tobacco Plain Packaging · Trademark · Uncategorized

Does Article 20 of TRIPS require a Rigid & Exact Set of Factors to Determine Whether an Encumbrance is Unjustifiable?

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?

2020 · International Trademark Law · IP Policy · Tobacco Plain Packaging · Trademark · Uncategorized

NEWSFLASH: WTO’S Appellate Body Upholds Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Measures

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