Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
This paper endeavours to dispel the logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights and aims to show that the term “international intellectual property” may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort.
To suggest that “there is no such thing as international intellectual property” may have been particularly reasonable prior to the end of the 19th century when there was little or no international obligations to protect intellectual property. Nowadays, however, the term “international intellectual property” is, at the very least, misunderstood, if not a clear term that has worked its way into the international legal lexicon with each international intellectual property agreement entered into since the beginning of the beginning of the international period.
It is quite plain that individual intellectual property rights such as copyright, patents, registered designs, and registered and unregistered trade mark rights are not international in scope or nature. It is also quite clear that intellectual property rights are territorial in nature as they are derived from national law and are governed exclusively within jurisdictions of such law. This principle is trite and was better observed in a World Intellectual Property Organization survey:
Each country determines, for its own territory and independently from any other country, what it is to be protected as intellectual property, who should benefit from such protection, for how long and how protection should be enforced.
Despite an apparently logical conclusion which one may draw from the territorial nature of intellectual property rights, the term “international intellectual property” may infer something more than this. Rather than confining the term to basic interpretation of the words which make the term, international intellectual property may refer to the underlying products of intellect which give rise to rights granted internationally and which are, themselves, rights of a different sort. While the standards of recognition and rights granted in relation to such products of intellect may vary between nations, the source of such products remains the same and it is such property which various international agreements seek to govern. It is given through developments in international intellectual property agreements, that a definition of the term may be implied, if not derived.
In this paper, I endeavour to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property. As such, I will first establish that there is such a thing as „intellectual property,” despite arguments against the term. I will then move on to establish that there is such thing as international intellectual property, particularly in light of the developments in international intellectual property agreements.
1 Peter Drahos, “The Universality of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins and Development”, WIPO Panel Discussion Papers, (London: 1999).Google Scholar
2 as per Drahos, ibid at 3.Google Scholar
3 Chow & Lee, International Intellectual Property – Problems, Cases and Materials (Thomson West, St Paul 2006) 2.Google Scholar
4 i.e. there is no such thing as an international copyright, international patent etc.; <http://www.researchcopyright.com/copyright-basics-international-copyright-protection.php>; http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/RiceGenome/g2/3544.html.;+http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/RiceGenome/g2/3544.html.>Google Scholar
5 J. Ginbsurg and A. Lucas, “The Role of Private International Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution” in Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues, WIPO Report WIPO/INT/02 at ¶283.Google Scholar
6 as will be addressed below.Google Scholar
7 for the sake of simplicity and convenience, in this paper, I shall refer to International Conventions, Treaties, Agreements, Classifications and Global Protection Systems as international agreements.Google Scholar
8 While it is not desired that we venture into arguments with regards to semantics and literal interpretations of the statement in question, and it is preferred that I base my critical evaluation of whether there is such thing as international intellectual property primarily on the state of the law, given the exercise at hand, it will be useful to dispose of the obvious arguments which stem from the plain language of the term “international intellectual property.”Google Scholar
9 N. Stephan Kinsella, “Against Intellectual Property”, (Ludwig von Mises Institute 2008); Richard M. Stallman, “Did You Say ‘Intellectual Property'? It's a Seductive Mirage” (2006) Policy Futures in Education, 4(4), 334; Gregory Engels, “There is no Such Thing as “Intellectual Property”, International Liberty Conference, (Milan 11–12 October 2010).Google Scholar
10 Richard M. Stallman, “Did You Say ‘Intellectual Property'? It's a Seductive Mirage” (2006) Policy Futures in Education, 4(4), 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Merrill Matthews, Jr. and Tom Giovanetti, “Why Intellectual Property is Important”, IPI Centre for Technology Reform, (July 8, 2002).Google Scholar
12 Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v Netherlands (12633/87)Unreported October 4, 1990, cited by Geiger, “Intellectual “property” after the Treaty of Lisbon: towards a different approach in the new European legal order?” (2010) 32(6) E.I.P.R. 255 at 256.Google Scholar
13 Anheuser-Busch Inc v Portugal [2006] E.T.M.R. 43; (2007) 44 E.H.R.R. 42, confirmed par ECHR, Grand Chamber, [2007] E.T.M.R. 24;(2007) 45 E.H.R.R. 36; (2007) J.I.P.L.P. 197, cited by Geiger supra 12 at 256.Google Scholar
14 Paeffgen GmbH v Germany (25379/04, 21722/05 and 21770/05) Unreported September 18, 2007 ECHR, s.5, cited by Geiger supra 12 at 256.Google Scholar
15 First Additional Protocol to The European Convention on Human Rights, 20 March 1952, Paris.Google Scholar
16 Balan v Moldova [2009] E.C.D.R. 6, cited by Geiger supra 12 at 256.Google Scholar
17 A.A. Lipscomb and A.E. Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 13, (Washington, D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), pp. 326–38 as cited in N. Stephan Kinsella, “Against Intellectual Property”, (Ludwig von Mises Institute 2008) at 32.Google Scholar
18 supra 12.Google Scholar
19 Gregory Engels, “There is no Such Thing as “Intellectual Property””, International Liberty Conference, (Milan 11–12 October 2010); supra 10.Google Scholar
20 supra 10.Google Scholar
21 It is submitted that definitions in agreements such as Article 1(2) of TRIPs is not appropriate as such definition is for the purposes of the operation of the instrument, not a proper definition as contemplated by the suggestion that there is no such thing as international intellectual property.Google Scholar
22 Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.).Google Scholar
23 supra 1.Google Scholar
24 supra 3 at 3.Google Scholar
25 World Trade Organization Website, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/-tripse/intel1_e.htm.Google Scholar
26 Peter Drahos, “Bilateralism in Intellectual Property”, (London: Oxfam UK, 2001); J. Jackson, “The World Trading System”, (1997) The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., London, 158.Google Scholar
27 K Paas, “Compulsory Licensing under the TRIPs Agreement - a Cruel Taunt for Developing Countries?”, (2009) 31:12 European Intellectual Property Review 609–613; Peter K Yu, “Access to Medicines, BRICS Alliances, and Collective Action”, (2008) 34 American Journal of Law & Medicine 345–394; S K Sell, “TRIPS and the Access to Medicines Campaign”, (2002) 20 Wis. Int'l L.J. 481; Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)DEC/2, November 20, 2001 (Doha Declaration).Google Scholar
28 Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, U.N. Doc. UNEP/Bio.Div./N7-INC5/4,31 I.L.M. 818 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Laurence R. Heifer, “Report on the International Patent System”, (2004) 29 Yale Journal of International Law at 28–34.Google Scholar
30 Union pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales”1961, amended in 1978 and 1991.Google Scholar
31 Enrico Bonadio, Crop breeding and intellectual property in the global village, (2007) 29(5) E.I.P.R. 167–171; supra 29 at 35; Frederick M. Abbott, “The WTO Medicines Decision: World Pharmaceutical Trade and the Protection of Public Health”, (2005) 99 AM. J. INT'L L. 317, 324–26.Google Scholar
32 WIPO Secretariat, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Seventeenth Session, Geneva, December 6 to 10, 2010, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/4.Google Scholar
33 Laurence R. Heifer, “Towards a Human Rights Framework for Intellectual Property” (2007) 40 U.C. Davis Law Review, 971.Google Scholar
34 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948.Google Scholar
35 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, April 15, 1994, (1994) 33 I.L.M. 1197Google Scholar
36 supra 29; Peter Drahos, “Developing Countries and International Intellectual Property Standard-Setting”, (2002) 5 J. World Intell. Prop. 765 at 769–70Google Scholar
37 supra 29 at 7. It is noted that Heifer acknowledges that regime shifting is adopted by developing countries, developed countries and NGOs. However, it was highlighted that “it is widely believed that powerful states are far more adroit at shaping regimes to reflect their interests—a belief borne out by the success of the United States and the EC in shifting intellectual property lawmaking from WIPO to GATT to TRIPs”Google Scholar
38 Fiona Rotstein, “Is there an international intellectual property system? Is there an agreement between states as to what the objectives of intellectual property should be?” (2011) 33(1) E.I.P.R. 1Google Scholar
39 G B Dinwoodie, “The Architecture of the International Intellectual Property System” Chicago Kent L. Rev., (2002) 77, 993 at 995–996.Google Scholar
40 Peter K. Yu, “Currents and Crosscurrents in the International Intellectual Property Regime” (2004) 38 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 323.Google Scholar
41 Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, April 14, 1891, as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Nice on June 15, 1957, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979; and Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, June 27, 1989, as amended on October 3, 2006 and on November 12, 2007.Google Scholar
42 Patent Cooperation Treaty, June 19, 1970, Washington, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001.Google Scholar
43 Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973.Google Scholar
44 supra 38 at 2.Google Scholar
45 Peter K. Yu, “The Global Intellectual Property Order” (2009) W.I.P.O.J. No. 1 at 3.Google Scholar
46 supra 3 at 3.Google Scholar
47 For a more detailed discussion of the history of international co-operation with regards intellectual property see supra 1; see also S. Ricketson, “The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works: 1886–1986” (Center for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary College, Kluwer, 1987).Google Scholar
48 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, March 20, 1883, revised at Stockholm July 14, 1967, 828 U.N.T.S. 305.Google Scholar
49 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, September 9, 1886, revised at Paris July 24, 1971, 828 U.N.T.S. 221.Google Scholar
50 supra 1 at 7.Google Scholar
51 Madrid Agreement (Marks), 1891; Madrid Agreement (Indication of Source), 1891.Google Scholar
52 Hague Agreement, 1925.Google Scholar
53 Rome Convention, 1961.Google Scholar
54 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Acts of 1961 and 1991.Google Scholar
55 Patent Cooperation Treaty, June 19, 1970, Washington, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001.Google Scholar
56 Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, 1989.Google Scholar
57 TRIPs came into effect on 1 January 1995 – World Trade Organization Website http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm.Google Scholar
58 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, April 15, 1994, (1994) 33 I.L.M. 1197.Google Scholar
59 supra 45.Google Scholar
60 Article 2 and 9 TRIPs.Google Scholar
61 International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, October 26, 1961, Rome.Google Scholar
62 Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, May 26 1989, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
63 Berne Convention; Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite done at Brussels on May 21, 1974; Madrid Agreement for the Repression of False or Deceptive Indications of Source on Goods of April 14, 1891; Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol adopted at Nairobi on September 26, 1981; Paris Convention; Patent Law Treaty adopted at Geneva on June 1, 2000; Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms of October 29, 1971; International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations done at Rome on October 26, 1961; Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks; Trademark Law Treaty adopted at Geneva on October 27, 1994; Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits done at Washington, D.C., on May 26, 1989; WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996; Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure done at Budapest on April 28, 1977, and amended on September 26, 1980; Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs; Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration of October 31, 1958, as revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979; Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, April 14, 1891, as revised at Brussels on December 14, 1900, at Washington on June 2, 1911, at The Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Nice on June 15, 1957, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and as amended on September 28, 1979; and Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, June 27, 1989, as amended on October 3, 2006 and on November 12, 2007; Patent Cooperation Treaty done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001; Locarno Agreement Establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs signed at Locarno on October 8, 1968 as amended on September 28, 1979; Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of June 15, 1957, as revised at Stockholm on July 14, 1967, and at Geneva on May 13, 1977, and amended on September 28, 1979; Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification of March 24, 1971, as amended on September 28, 1979; and Vienna Agreement Establishing an International Classification of the Figurative Elements of Marks done at Vienna on June 12, 1973 as amended on October 1, 1985.Google Scholar
64 for example, the Patent Law Treaty; Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks; International (Nice) Classification of Goods and ServicesGoogle Scholar
65 World Trade Organization Website. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/-whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm.Google Scholar
66 World Intellectual Property Organization Website http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15.Google Scholar
67 World Intellectual Property Organization Website http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=2.Google Scholar
68 These attributes have been identified by a number of authors including Fiona Rotstein, supra 38; Chow & Lee, supra 3; C. Correa and S. Musungu, “The WIPO Patent Agenda: The Risks for Developing Countries” (South Centre 2002) 1; Peter Drahos, “The Universality of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins and Development”, WIPO Panel Discussion Papers, (London 1999).Google Scholar
69 supra 39 at 994.Google Scholar
70 Known as the “monist” approach, adopted by countries such as Argentina, France and the Netherlands – see Resource Book on TRIPs and Development: An Authoritative and Practical Guide to the TRIPs Agreement, (2005) Part 1 Section 4: Basic Principles; and Rotstein supra 38.Google Scholar
71 Known as the “dualist” approach, adopted by countries such as the United Kingdom – see Resource Book on TRIPs and Development: An Authoritative and Practical Guide to the TRIPs Agreement, (2005) Part 1 Section 4: Basic Principles; and Rotstein supra 38.Google Scholar
72 Adopted by countries such as the United States – see Resource Book on TRIPs and Development: An Authoritative and Practical Guide to the TRIPs Agreement, (2005) Part 1 Section 4: Basic Principles.Google Scholar
73 for example, the Preamble and Article 1.1 TRIPs.Google Scholar
74 supra 39 at 995.Google Scholar
75 C. Correa and S. Musungu, “The WIPO Patent Agenda: The Risks for Developing Countries” (South Centre, 2002) 1.Google Scholar
76 supra 38.Google Scholar
77 Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973.Google Scholar
78 Article 8 Patent Cooperation Treaty, June 19, 1970, Washington; amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001.Google Scholar
79 Article 3 TRIPs.Google Scholar
80 supra 3 at 39.Google Scholar
81 Article 4 TRIPs.Google Scholar
82 Articles 4(a), (b), (c) and(d), Article 14 TRIPs.Google Scholar
83 J. Ginbsurg and A. Lucas, “The Role of Private International Law and Alternative Dispute Resolution” in, Intellectual Property on the Internet: A Survey of Issues (Geneva: WIPO, 2003), paragraph 278.Google Scholar
84 Jane C. Ginsburg, “International Copyright: From a “Bundle” of National Copyright Laws to a Supranational Code?” (2000) 47 J. Copyright Society USA. 265Google Scholar
85 supra 40.Google Scholar
