Abstract
The issues of protecting Intellectual Property Rights become contentious and led to fierce debates
and conflicts between developed countries and developing countries. These conflicts were due to
divergent interests with regard to International Trade and Development. While the developed
Countries felt that their Commercial and Industrial interests could be at loss without proper
protection for IPR issues, the developing countries perceived that their development would be
hampered once the TRIPs framework was agreed upon and operationalised.
Reference
- Jayashree Watal, 'Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and the Developing Countries' Oxford University press, New Delhi (2001) Page 17 and Chakravarthi Raghavan (1990), “Recolonization: GATT, the Uruguay Round & the Third World”, Zed Books Ltd., London; Page 37.
- Ministerial declaration on the Uruguay Round (GATT Doc. No. Min, December 1986) at Punta Del Este, Uruguay. In part-I under title 'Negotiations on Trade in goods' mentions of TRIPs.
- Deepak Nayyar (1992), 'Intellectual property Rights and LDCs some strategic Issues' Economic and political weekly (EPW) Bombay, February 8-15. The like United States not only insisted that the developing countries participate fully in the new trading regime negotiations on the basis of reciprocity, but also clamped down a series of unilateral measures against some of the major developing countries like India and Brazil. These measures were related to unfair trade practices and inequal trade quantum from Special 301and Super 301 sections of US Trade Act of 1988. These measures have believed to have scuttled the unity among the developing nations on issues of TRIPs.
- Bhaumik T.K., (2006) 'The WTO - A Discordant Orchestra' (2006) sage publication, New Delhi.
- Alokesh Barua & Rober M. Stern., (Ed), (2010) 'The WTO and India Issues and Negotiating strategies', Orient Black Swan, Hyderabad, Page 36 -51.
- The Hindu, (December 15, 2006) 'Road map to peace in intellectual property war, Hyderabad Edition. Page 13.
- Devinder Sharma, (1999) 'GATT to WTO seeds of despair', Vikas Publishers, Bombay, page 45-51.
- Vijaya Kathi, (1999) 'New Trading Opportunities under the Uruguay Round: Agriculture, Manufacturing and Services”; in Seattle & beyond: The unfinished Agenda by Bhattacharya (Ed.), BR Publishers, New Delhi.
- Siddhartha Deva, (2002), 'Doha Declaration and the TRIPs: importance of Article 30' in The Hindu (Hyderabad Edition) March 14, 2002.
- Malini Reddy & Shilpa Deekshit, (2007), 'Agricultural Bio technology and Traditional knowledge,' an unpublished paper submitted in a Seminar on opportunities & Challenges to Indian Agriculture at Osmania University 2007, March.
- Nanjundaiah & Rajendran (2008), 'Intellectual Property Rights and protection of indigenous Environmental knowledge of Indigenous community' in Institutional policy option for sustainable agricultural Development (Ed) by Prof. G. Gopal Reddy, Department of Economics, Osmania University-Hyderabad Page 172 - 173.
- The Hindu 9th March 2005, 'India wins Neem Patent Case'.
- Rajan Dhanjee and Laurence Charzourmes (2990), “Trade related aspects of Intellectual property Right (TRIPS): Objectives, Approaches and Basic Principles of the GATT and Intellectual property conventions' in Journal of World Trade Vol 24, October 1990.
- Jagadish Kumar Patnaik (1997), 'India and the GATT; origin, Growth and development” : APH publishing corporation, New Delhi. Page 131.
Dr Pulapalli Venkataramana
Associate Professor in Political Science, Government Degree College, Kukatpally, T.S.
Received: 06-08-2018, Accepted: 25-09-2018, Published Online: 25-10-2018