Is there only one effective sui generis protection that meets the obligation set out in article 27(3)(b) of trips?

Main Article Content

Autores

Erwin Cruz Saldivar

Resumen

In view of a wide use of alternative plant variety protection systems in Asia, in this paper I critically analyse whether the UPOV system is the only effective sui generis protection that is compatible with Article 27(3)(b) of TRIPS. This article provides an overview of the UPOV Convention and Article 27(3)(b), and critically analyses whether, nowadays, the 1991 Act of the upov Convention is the only effective sui generis protection of plant varieties.

Palabras clave:

Article Details

Referencias

Primary sources

Case law

Novartis/Transgenic Plant [1999] epor 123.

Novartis/Transgenic Plant [2000] epor 303.

Legislation

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Marrakesh, Morocco, 15 April 1994.

Convention on Biological Diversity, Nairobi, 1992.

Council Regulation (2100/94) on Community plant variety rights [1994] O. J. L 227.

Directive (98/44/EC) on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions [1998] O.J. L 213.

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome 3 November 2001.

The 1961 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

The 1978 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

The 1991 Act of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. UPOV Council, ‘Guidance for the preparation of laws based on the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention’ UPOV/INF/6/3, 24 October 2013.

Secondary sources

Books

Drahos, and R. Mayne (ed), Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2002).

Llewelyn, M. & M. Adcock, European Plant Intellectual Property (Oxford, Hart, 2006).

Wipo, Introduction to intellectual property: theory and practice (Kluwer Law International, London, 1997).

Journal articles and reports

Blakeney, M., ‘Access to Genetic Resources, Gene-based Inventions and Agriculture’ Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Study Paper 3b (2002).

Brahmi, P. and V. Chaudhary, ‘Protection of plant varieties: systems across countries’ (2011) 9 (3) Plant Genetic Resources, pp. 392-403.

Cullet, P., ‘Monsanto v. Schmeiser: A Landmark Decision concerning Farmer Liability and Transgenic Contamination’ (2005) 17(1) Journal of Environmental Law, pp. 83-108.

Downes, G., ‘TRIPS and food security: Implications of the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement for food security in the developing world’ (2004) 106 (5) bfj, pp. 366-379.

Lertdhamtewe, P., ‘Asian approaches to international law: focusing on plant protection issues’ (2013) 8 (5) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, pp. 388-398.

Lertdhamtewe, P., ‘Plant variety protection in Thailand: The need for a new coherent framework’ (2013) 8 (1) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, pp. 33-42.

Llewelyn, M., ‘From gatt to gatt: Intellectual Property Rights & Genetics Fifty Years After Crick & Watson Part I’ (2003/4) 6 (3) Bio/Science Law Review, pp 107-117.

Llewelyn, M., ‘From gatt to gatt: Intellectual Property Rights & Genetics Fifty Years After Crick & Watson, Part II’ (2003/4) 6 (4) Bio/Science Law Review, pp. 142-162.

Plahe, J.K., ‘TRIPS Downhill: India’s Plant Variety Protection System and Implications for Small Farmers’ (2011) 41 (1) Journal of Contemporary Asia, pp. 75-98.

Rangnekar, D., ‘Geneva Rhetoric, National Reality: The Political Economy of Introducing Plant Breeders’ Rights in Kenya’ (2014) 19 (3) New Political Economy, pp. 359-383.

Raustiala, K. and D.G. Victor, ‘The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources’ (2004) 58 (2) International Organization, pp. 277-309.

Robinson, D., ‘Sui Generis plant variety protection systems: liability rules and non-UPOV systems of protection’ (2008) 3 (10) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, pp. 659-665.

TRIPS Council, ‘Communication from the European Communities and their member States’ Review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, and the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (cbd) and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, A Concept Paper. IP/C/W/383, 17 October 2002.

TRIPS Council, ‘Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(B): Summary of Issues Raised and Points Made’ IP/C/W/369/Rev.1, 9 March 2006.

UPOV Council, ‘Examination of the conformity of the Draft ARIPO Protocol for the protection of new varieties of plants with the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention’, 31 Extraordinary Session, Geneva, April 11, 2014. C(Extr.)/31/2.

Zerbe, N., ‘Biodiversity, ownership, and indigenous knowledge: Exploring legal frameworks for community, farmers, and intellectual property rights in Africa’ (2005) 53 Ecological Economics, pp. 493-506.

Other relevant resources

UPOV, Members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Status on June 10, 2014. [http://www.UPOV.int/export/sites/UPOV/members/en/pdf/pub423.pdf] (accessed 18 June 2014).

WTO, TRIPS: Issues, Article 27.3b, traditional knowledge, biodiversity. [http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/TRIPS_e/art27_3b_e.htm] (accessed 20 June 2014).

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.