The Journal of World Intellectual Property Wiley Online Library : The Journal of World Intellectual Propertyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F%28ISSN%291747-1796John Wiley & Sons, Incen© Blackwell Publishing Ltd1422-22131747-17962012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00January 20121511101Biodiversity Fetishism and Biotechnology Promises in Brazil: From Policy Contradictions to Legal Adjustmentshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00434.xBiodiversity Fetishism and Biotechnology Promises in Brazil: From Policy Contradictions to Legal AdjustmentsGeoffroy Filoche2012-02-13T03:23:10.412846-05:00doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00434.xJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00434.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00434.xOriginal Articlen/an/a

This article retraces the development of the Brazilian legal framework with regard to access and benefit sharing and the protection by patent of biotechnological innovations. It demonstrates that 20 years on from the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Brazil no longer has the same attitude or the same expectations with regard to its genetic resources. The control of the State over access procedures and restrictive regimes in terms of patents are increasingly out of step with the concerns of national researchers and companies alike, and are the target of both criticisms and reforms. The scientific community is seeking to acquire prerogatives for managing genetic heritage, while the State is seeking to strengthen the national biotechnology sector. How is the legal environment adjusting to new and sometimes contradictory issues? What is the new interplay between public and private rights when it comes to genetic resources and natural-based products? To what extent are “commons” systems emerging—both in terms of accessing biodiversity and in terms of protecting innovations?

]]>This article retraces the development of the Brazilian legal framework with regard to access and benefit sharing and the protection by patent of biotechnological innovations. It demonstrates that 20 years on from the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Brazil no longer has the same attitude or the same expectations with regard to its genetic resources. The control of the State over access procedures and restrictive regimes in terms of patents are increasingly out of step with the concerns of national researchers and companies alike, and are the target of both criticisms and reforms. The scientific community is seeking to acquire prerogatives for managing genetic heritage, while the State is seeking to strengthen the national biotechnology sector. How is the legal environment adjusting to new and sometimes contradictory issues? What is the new interplay between public and private rights when it comes to genetic resources and natural-based products? To what extent are “commons” systems emerging—both in terms of accessing biodiversity and in terms of protecting innovations?The Right of Access in Digital Copyright: Right of the Owner or Right of the User?http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00433.xThe Right of Access in Digital Copyright: Right of the Owner or Right of the User?Marcella Favale2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00433.xJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00433.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00433.xOriginal Article125

In the last decade, copyright scholarship has been suggesting the existence of a new right in copyright law: the right of access—that is, the right to control access to copyright works for the rightholder, and the right to access copyright works for the user. According to some authors, this new right was effected through the implementation and the legal protection of technological protection measures (TPMs). On the other hand, advocates of freedom of expression suggest that users have the right to access and use copyright works.

This article investigates whether a right of access exists either for owners or users of copyright works in the European Union (EU) law or international law impacting on it. It finds that no express reference to a right of access can be detected, on either side. However, the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD) gives de facto copyright holders the possibility of controlling access and use of copyright works beyond their exclusive rights, which is not counterbalanced by a user's right of access in the occurrence of copyright limits. Legislative action therefore needs to be taken to re-establish this balance. This action can be shaped by universal principles recognized in international human rights treaties and charters. From both owners’ and users’ side, the limits of the right of access can be drafted by bearing in mind the ultimate goal of copyright protection: the circulation of culture.

]]>In the last decade, copyright scholarship has been suggesting the existence of a new right in copyright law: the right of access—that is, the right to control access to copyright works for the rightholder, and the right to access copyright works for the user. According to some authors, this new right was effected through the implementation and the legal protection of technological protection measures (TPMs). On the other hand, advocates of freedom of expression suggest that users have the right to access and use copyright works.This article investigates whether a right of access exists either for owners or users of copyright works in the European Union (EU) law or international law impacting on it. It finds that no express reference to a right of access can be detected, on either side. However, the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD) gives de facto copyright holders the possibility of controlling access and use of copyright works beyond their exclusive rights, which is not counterbalanced by a user's right of access in the occurrence of copyright limits. Legislative action therefore needs to be taken to re-establish this balance. This action can be shaped by universal principles recognized in international human rights treaties and charters. From both owners’ and users’ side, the limits of the right of access can be drafted by bearing in mind the ultimate goal of copyright protection: the circulation of culture.International Norms for Compulsory Licensing and the Indian Copyright Lawhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00432.xInternational Norms for Compulsory Licensing and the Indian Copyright LawT. G. Agitha2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00432.xJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00432.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00432.xOriginal Article2650

In the context of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 of India, this paper explores the feasibility in the international context, of compulsory licence, to ensure information dissemination while safeguarding the interests of copyright owners and the Indian legal position in this respect. Though India pioneered the pressure group for ensuring recognition of compulsory licence in international norms in the discussions of the Berne Convention, it is interesting how her own laws were drafted and how the new Bill is addressing this issue. The problem of access to the information from the developed countries in the context of The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the interpretation to the open-ended three-step test to facilitate such access are the focal point of this paper.

]]>In the context of the Copyright Amendment Bill, 2010 of India, this paper explores the feasibility in the international context, of compulsory licence, to ensure information dissemination while safeguarding the interests of copyright owners and the Indian legal position in this respect. Though India pioneered the pressure group for ensuring recognition of compulsory licence in international norms in the discussions of the Berne Convention, it is interesting how her own laws were drafted and how the new Bill is addressing this issue. The problem of access to the information from the developed countries in the context of The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and the interpretation to the open-ended three-step test to facilitate such access are the focal point of this paper.TRIPS Compatibility of Sri Lankan Trademark Lawhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00430.xTRIPS Compatibility of Sri Lankan Trademark LawAlthaf Marsoof2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00430.xJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00430.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00430.xOriginal Article5172

Having been a contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) since 1948, Sri Lanka ratified the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) in June 1994, and became one of its founding Members. Since then, Sri Lanka has striven to bring its local laws into conformity with the standards imposed by the WTO. In the context of intellectual property (IP), the former Code of Intellectual Property of 1979 was replaced by the Intellectual Property Act of 2003. This legislative change was particularly important in discharging Sri Lanka's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which forms one of several WTO covered agreements, to which Sri Lanka is party. The purpose of this paper is to assess the extent that the Sri Lankan trademark law is in conformity with the standards imposed by TRIPS. The focus, in particular, is on the aspects of acquisition and cancellation of trademark rights and the nature and scope of these rights.

]]>Having been a contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) since 1948, Sri Lanka ratified the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) in June 1994, and became one of its founding Members. Since then, Sri Lanka has striven to bring its local laws into conformity with the standards imposed by the WTO. In the context of intellectual property (IP), the former Code of Intellectual Property of 1979 was replaced by the Intellectual Property Act of 2003. This legislative change was particularly important in discharging Sri Lanka's obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which forms one of several WTO covered agreements, to which Sri Lanka is party. The purpose of this paper is to assess the extent that the Sri Lankan trademark law is in conformity with the standards imposed by TRIPS. The focus, in particular, is on the aspects of acquisition and cancellation of trademark rights and the nature and scope of these rights.TRIPS-plus Border Measures and Access to Medicineshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00431.xTRIPS-plus Border Measures and Access to MedicinesAnna Giulia Micara2012-01-01T00:00:00-05:00doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00431.xJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.10.1111/j.1747-1796.2011.00431.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-1796.2011.00431.xOriginal Article73101

In 2008, Dutch customs authorities blocked generic medicines in transit in the Dutch territory on suspicion of their being counterfeit. India and Brazil subsequently claimed that external transit control of medicines is inconsistent with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health and international provisions on access to medicines. This article aims to shed light on the consistency of external transit control of generics with international law, and on the interrelations between issues of intellectual property, free trade and public health at the international level; it shows that TRIPS makes possible a broad extension of IP rights protection while ceilings present some weaknesses.

]]>In 2008, Dutch customs authorities blocked generic medicines in transit in the Dutch territory on suspicion of their being counterfeit. India and Brazil subsequently claimed that external transit control of medicines is inconsistent with the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health and international provisions on access to medicines. This article aims to shed light on the consistency of external transit control of generics with international law, and on the interrelations between issues of intellectual property, free trade and public health at the international level; it shows that TRIPS makes possible a broad extension of IP rights protection while ceilings present some weaknesses.