The TRIPS Agreement, which came into effect on 1 January 1995, is to date the most comprehensive multilateral agreement

on intellectual property. The areas of intellectual property that it covers are: copyright and related rights (i.e. the rights of performers, producers of sound recordings and broadcasting organizations); trademarks including service marks; geographical indications including appellations of origin; industrial designs; patents including the protection of new varieties of plants; the layout-designs of integrated circuits; and undisclosed information including trade secrets and test data.

TRIPS not well liked by developing countries

requires complex legal structure unwillingness to pay high prices for

medicines worries about patenting of biological organisms

TRIMS benefits foreign MNCs in bargaining with local governments

FDI incentives can no longer be balanced

by requirements

Ari Kokko

Protection of trade-related intellectual property (TRIPS) - copyrights, trade marks, patents Including trade-related investment measures (TRIMS) under GATT rules

prohibitions for investment rules that distort

trade patterns, eg. local content and export requirements

Clearer principles for use of safeguards

Ari Kokko

Standards. In respect of each of the main areas of intellectual property covered by the TRIPS Agreement, the Agreement sets out the minimum standards of protection to be provided by each Member. Each of the main elements of protection is defined, namely the subject-matter to be protected, the rights to be conferred and permissible exceptions to those rights, and the minimum duration of protection.

Enforcement. The second main set of provisions deals with domestic procedures and remedies for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Agreement lays down certain general principles applicable to all IPR enforcement procedures. In addition, it contains provisions on civil and administrative procedures and remedies, provisional measures, special requirements related to border measures and criminal procedures, which specify, in a certain amount of detail, the procedures and remedies that must be available so that right holders can effectively enforce their rights.

Dispute settlement. The Agreement makes disputes between WTO Members about the respect of the TRIPS obligations subject to the WTO's dispute settlement procedures.

The negotiation on the trade-related investment measures (TRIMS) was one of the major issues during the Uruguay Round (1986-1993). This issue had attracted quite serious attention from many participants, in particular developed and developing countries. They, however, did not have an adequate background of picture and basic understanding about the TRIMS. It is therefore understandable that the negotiation on this issue had been regarded as one of the most difficult subject in the agenda of the negotiations. During the negotiations, it was not a surprise to see that this agenda was the most frustrating and least productive.

1)The United States' long endeavor to place investment issues in the agenda of GATT has at last been successful when the Uruguay Round was launched. 2)Nevertheless, the conflict between the developed and developing countries to great extent remained exist in the negotiations on this issue. The main conflict was the different views between the developed and developing countries concerning the nature of TRIMs. Some industrialized countries contended that TRIMs conflicted with various GATT articles. 3)On the other hand many developing countries. They held that investment measures (TRIMs) were not designed to distort trade, but were made to meet certain development objectives, including industrialization and development. 4)In addition, there was another view, which contended that governments around the world had increasingly resorted to the use of investment measures.

5)This view argued that close examination of the operation of GATT articles was warranted to ensure the adequate protection of the rights of contracting parties. 6)Another divergent view was relating to the objective of the negotiation. The industrialized countries intended to develop a new and broader rule on TRIMS. By contrast, the developing countries opposed to this view. They argued that the negotiation should be confined to elaborating existing GATT articles that might be operable to TRIMS. These countries also demanded that the negotiation should provide greater opportunity and freedom for these countries taking into account its development objectives. 7)Despite the developed countries' enthusiastic to have this new issue regulated under the GATT discipline, the Uruguay Round mandate as described in the Punta Del Este Declaration was not as broad as developed countries, in particular, United States expected