Paris Convention:

National treatment:

The Convention in Article 2 states that:- in regard to the protection of industrial property, each
Contracting State must grant the same protection to nationals of other Contracting States that it
grants to its own nationals. Nationals of non-Contracting States are also entitled to national
treatment under the Convention if they are domiciled or have a real and effective industrial or
commercial establishment in a Contracting State.

e.g- A national of state B who has an effective industrial or commercial establishment in

Contracting State A, is entitled to receive the same protection that the national of state A is
entitled to receive.

Trips:

Works which originate in one Contracting States shall avail the same protection in each of the
other Contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of
"national treatment").

The protection must not be conditional upon compliance with any formality (principle of
"automatic" protection).

Protection is independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work
(principle of "independence" of protection). If, however, a Contracting State provides for a
longer term of protection than the minimum prescribed by the Convention and the work ceases to
be protected in the country of origin, protection may be denied once protection in the country of
origin ceases

e.g- A national of state B who has an effective industrial or commercial establishment in

Contracting State A, is entitled to receive the same protection that the national of state A is
entitled to receive. The protection for the national comes to force automatic and is not based
condition. Where if the protection in the origin state is more favourable than that of the
protection provided in the convention, the national can opt for protection provided by the origin
state, or if the protection provided by the other nation is better than the protection policy of the
origin state, the state can opt for the better protection policy.

Thus it is clear that both the conventions aim’s at protecting the work of a person in another
state. Where both the convention states that the work of a person of another nation has to
protected as that of the work of a person of that nation. Where the Paris convention states that the
national of another nation is entitled to the protection that the work of the national of that
particular nation is entitled to (national treatment). Where the TRIPS convention also hints at the
same concept “national treatment” with additional points, where the TRIPS convention states
that the protection available is more like automation and not based on compliance to any of the
conditions (ie) ones the work of the person is finished it is entitled to protection automatically,
and the “most favoured nation” concept which states that as per convention the country has to
adopt the protection policy of the other national if it is better that the protection provided by it or
if the protection provided by the state is better that the protection provided by that of the
commonly agreed protection under the convention, the country has the option to opt for a better
protection.