By Abdul Hameed Iqbal

There are several international treaties on intellectual property rights, the most common among them are World Intellectual Property Organization-WIPO, World Trade Organization-WTO, General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade-Gatt, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights-Trips, Berne Convention, Paris Convention, Patent Cooperation Treaty-PCT, and the recent-most Trademark Law Treaty-TLT.

Pakistan has yet to sign the TLT but since we played an active role in development of this treaty, it only makes sense that we understand the pros and cons of this document. But before we do that, we must have a background of all the other major international treaties.

Firstly, the convention establishing WIPO, signed at Stockholm on July 14, 1967 and later amended on September 28, 1979. Pakistan adopted this convention upon signing the same on January 06, 1977. There are 180 other contracting countries. The objective of this organization, as is mentioned in its documents, is “to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world through cooperation among states and, when appropriate, in collaboration with any other international organization”. It is often said that its roots are in the World Trade Organization, by far the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world. By promoting the so-called free-trade agenda of multinational corporations above the interests of local communities, the WTO has systematically undermined democracy around the world.

Unlike United Nations treaties, the International Labor Organization conventions, or multilateral environmental agreements, WTO rules can be enforced through sanctions, WTO rules can be enforced through sanctions. This gives the WTO more power than any other international body. The WTO’s authority even eclipses national governments.

In November 1999, 50,000 people went to Seattle to challenge this corporate agenda and to demand a more democratic, socially-just and environmentally sustainable global economy. The protests succeeded in shutting down the WTO talks being held there, and derailing the expansion of the organization.

The forth ministerial meeting of the organization took place next year in Qatar, a country where free-speech rights are effectively nonexistent. Behind close doors and out of the civil-society and media spot-light, hard pressure was applied. Empty promises were made that this round of negotiation would focus on development and the needs of the poorest countries – an implicit acknowledgement of the unfairness of the current system. The US and the EU thus succeeded in launching the so-called Doha Development Round, a misnomer of epic proportions.

In 2003, the process moved Cancun, Mexico, where the rich countries sought to expand the scope of the WTO. But a remarkable new alliance of developing countries argued that the unfair global agricultural system had to be cleaned up first, before new issues could come on to the table. The tragic suicide of Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae brought the collective range of outside civil-society mobilization inside the close gates of the negotiating halls. Most important, an alliance of the poorest countries stood their ground. The talks fell apart on the last day.

Then, in the summer of 2004, the most powerful countries cobbled together a minimum consensus to get the negotiations back on track by giving false assurances that agriculture would be fairly reformed.

In 2005, negotiations continued on key issues including agriculture, services, and market access, for industrial goods and natural resources, but were mired in controversy.

The WTO has held its next ministerial on December 13-18, 2005 in Hong Kong, China, with no fruitful result. The predecessor of the WTO, General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) was first signed in 1947. The agreement was designed to provide an international forum that encouraged free trade. GATT membership now includes more than 110 countries.

Consideration of GATT’s relationship to environmental policy is an emerging concern in trade and environmental policy circles. Until the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, the word environment did not appear in the GATT text. Several provisions and sections of GATT may be relevant to environmental issues.

These things may not have any apparent relevance to the intellectual property issues, but they clearly show how the relevant treaties see the world – only from the point of view of the powerful, rich, corporate perspective, and not from the point of view of the world at large. TRIPS agreement is no different.

Object of the “Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights” agreement is to reduce distortions and impediments to international trade, and account the need to promote effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and to ensure that measures and procedures to enforce such rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade; and to establish a mutually supportive relationship between the WTO and WIPO. The IP-related conventions and treaties have another history in the Berne Convention of 1886. The Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works was signed on September 9, 1886. It was completed in Paris, earlier, on May 4 of that year, and was later revised at Berlin on November 13, 1908. It was completed at Berne on March 20, 1914, revised again at Rome on June 2, 1928, at Brussels on June 26, 1948, and at Stockholm on July 17, 1071, and amended on September 28, 1979.

Pakistan signed this Convention on July 5, 1948.

The objective of this convention is to create a union for the protection of literary and artistic work and give protection to the indivisible of the member states.

The convention to protect industrial property such as patent, utility models, industrial designs, trade marks, service marks, trade names, indication of source or appellations of origin and the repression of unfair competition, was signed first in Paris on March 10, 1883. It was revised at Brussels on December 13, 1900, at Washington on June 1, 1911, at the Hague on November 6, 1925, at London on June 2, 1934, at Lisbon on October 31, 1958, and at Stockholm on July 14, 1967. This document too was amended on September 28, 1979. Pakistan signed the Paris Convention on July 22, 2004.

The Patent Cooperation Treaty is one of the later documents to have been introduced at the international IP discussion. It was first signed at Washington on June 19, 1970 and amended on September 28, 1079, modified on February 3, 1984 and October 3, 2001. it has been made applicable from April 1, 2002 but Pakistan has yet to sign this treaty.

This treaty claims to help scientific and technological progress by providing “perfect” protection to inventions.

And now the Trademarks Law Treaty, Pakistan has not yet to sign this document though it took an active part in the diplomatic conference for the adoption of a revised version of the treaty, held in Singapore from March 13-31, 2006. A credentials committee was established on March 14 by the conference. The committee met on March 16, with the following members: Hekmatullah Ghorbani Ghorbanifar from Iran (President), Francisco Javier Mejin of Honduras (Vice President), while one member was taken each from Australia, China, Kyrgyzstan, and South Africa. The treaty was finally signed by 37 countries, namely Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia, Burkina Faso, Congo, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic Of Korea, Democratic People’s Republic Of The Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Ghana, Guinea, Haiti, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Mozambique, Portugal, Republic Of Moldova, Romania, Senegal, Serbia And Montenegro, Slovenia, Suriname, Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav, Republic Of Macedonia, United Kingdom And Zambia.

This treaty shall apply to trademarks only to the extent of goods and services as available in the member state and not otherwise. It is just like PCT and provides an economical way to the proprietor of a mark to get registration of the mark on worldwide basis. In the age of globalization, one cannot remain blind from such treaties, but it is desirable that government should look into their all effects, and must not take a decision without taking the stakeholder in confidence.