http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/11958 Search the Channel search http://nopr.niscair.res.in/simple-search http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/11977 Title: TRIPS, WTO and IPR: Recent Happenings in WTO <br/> <br/>Authors: Nair, M D <br/> <br/>Abstract: The World Trade Organization (WTO) was set up in 1995 and has been the custodian of all matters related to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement endorsed by 153 member countries. WTO is therefore the most important body which monitors and influences working of global intellectual property rights protection in all its member countries. This opinion discusses recent happenings in WTO. <br/> <br/>Page(s): 267-269 http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/11976 Title: The Competition-IP Dichotomy: Emerging Challenges in Technology Transfer Licenses <br/> <br/>Authors: Kutty, Aditya A; Chakravarty, Sindhura <br/> <br/>Abstract: Technology transfer agreements are necessary to fulfil technological needs that are impossible to meet with local technical capabilities. Traditional devices of licence transfer often fall within the purview of antitrust scrutiny and are deemed anti-competitive practices in general trade, as in the case of territorial restrictions in licensing. Antitrust laws, although fit to evaluate general trade agreements, often fail to address intricate problems involving IPR and therefore, lack the tools to adequately solve them. The blanket protection approach to IP as provided by Section 3(5) of the Indian Competition Act is equally ineffective due to lack of a mechanism to deal with IP-related unfair trade practices. The TRIPS under Article 40, permits member states to prevent abuse of IP through anti-trust legislations. India has permitted cross licensing under its patent laws but has failed to prevent its anti-competitive fallout in technology licensing. This article draws from the EU TTBE 2004 Regulations as well as the US antitrust guidelines to highlight the need for a balance between the two conflicting interests of competition policy and the protection of technological know-how. It further purports to set forth an adaptation of guidelines for India, keeping in mind the anti-trust laws of other jurisdictions. <br/> <br/>Page(s): 258-266 http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/11975 Title: Collective Marks and Geographical Indications - Competitive Strategy of Differentiation and Appropriation of Intangible Heritage <br/> <br/>Authors: Silva, Elizabeth Ferreira da; Peralta, Patrícia Pereira <br/> <br/>Abstract: This article aims to evaluate the potential use of collective marks and geographical indications as forms of protection for ownership and differentiation of handicraft production in Brazil, considered as intangible heritage. Although, the instruments of intellectual property are, <i style="">a priori</i>, suitable only for products with industrial application, the above instruments of IPR could be applied to traditional crafts as well. Geographical indications and collective marks are forms of intellectual property protection that are associated with reputation protection and market distinctiveness. Apparently, they could be effectively used to protect and appropriate benefits of economic exploitation in the case of craftsmanship as in Brazilian artisan products <br/> <br/>Page(s): 246-257 http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/11974 Title: A Critical Review of China’s Approach to Limitation of the Internet Service Provider’s Liability: A Comparative Perspective <br/> <br/>Authors: Liu, Wenqi <br/> <br/>Abstract: In an information society, granting the Internet Service Provider (ISP) exemption from liability under certain circumstances is an important approach to strike a balance between the interests of the copyright holder, the ISP and the public. Although many countries conditionally provide safe harbour protection for online services, the certainty, feasibility and efficiency of the relevant provisions are different from one country to another. This article reviews China’s approach to limitation of the ISP’s liability from a perspective of legislation and judicial practice, compares differences in this context between China, the US and EU, and based on which discusses the feasible options for China to increase the certainty of law and inconsistency in judicial practice. <br/> <br/>Page(s): 235-245