Trips Agreement South Africa

Although the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the three-step test for copyright restrictions and exceptions has not been the subject of extensive examination by the WTO, the panel established to examine the case of United States – Section 110(5) Copyright Act (WT/DS160/R) gives some interpretation of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Article 11a, paragraph 1(iii) and Article 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Agreement (1971). The panel found that the three-step test required three separate, independent, and cumulative tests for copyright restrictions and exemptions. There are disagreements with this interpretation among academic scholars and how this is reflected in state practice. It would be useful to look at the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the three-step test for copyright restrictions and exceptions, in order to further clarify the flexibility granted to members in meeting their obligations in implementing the objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement (IP/C/W/663, paragraph 8). The 2002 Doha Declaration reaffirmed that the TRIPS Agreement should not prevent members from taking the necessary measures to protect public health. Despite this recognition, less developed countries have argued that flexible TRIPS provisions, such as compulsory licensing, are almost impossible to enforce. Less developed countries, in particular, cited their young domestic manufacturing and technology industries as evidence of the imprecision of the policy. The TRIPS Agreement introduced intellectual property rights into the multilateral trading system for the first time and remains the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property to date. In 2001, developing countries, concerned about the industrialized countries` insistence on an overly narrow interpretation of TRIPS, launched a round table that resulted in the Doha Declaration. The Doha Declaration is a WTO declaration that clarifies the scope of TRIPS and, for example, states that TRIPS can and should be interpreted with the aim of “promoting access to medicines for all”.

A 2003 agreement eased the requirements of the domestic market and allows developing countries to export to other countries where there is a national health problem as long as the exported medicines are not part of a trade or industrial policy. [10] Drugs exported under such a regime may be packaged or coloured differently to prevent them from harming the markets of industrialized countries. . . .