Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intellectual Property and Human Rights: A Taxonomy of Their Interactions

  • Article
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present work offers a taxonomy that organizes the interactions between human rights and intellectual property. Three main patterns of interaction occur between the two sets of rights: “Recognition” takes place when the law elevates intellectual property to the ranking of human rights, “conflict” when intellectual property and human rights interfere with each other and “cooperation” when they operate synergistically. While these three broad categories are known to commentators, the research further divides them into several subcategories. Each of them shows unique characteristics and features, which are validated through empirical data. This leads to a taxonomy with multiple levels of complexity which better conceptualizes the multiple interactions between intellectual property and human rights, and expands our understanding of the relationship between the two systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. At least six edited books have been published in the last 15 years on the topic: Griffiths and Suthersanen (2005); Sinjela (2007); Grosheide (2010); Helfer and Austin (2011); Geiger (2015a, b); and Torremans (2015). Among the published monographs, Sakulin (2011) has authored one on trademarks and free speech, and Netanel (2008) one on copyright and freedom of expression. The list of journal contributions on the topic is endless.

  2. Sganga (2015).

  3. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 65–89.

  4. E.g. Yu (2007a, b) and (2016).

  5. American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, Art. 13 (1948).

  6. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 27 (1948).

  7. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 15(1)(b)–(c) (1966).

  8. See Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – “Protocol of San Salvador”, Art. 14 (1988).

  9. Constitution of Bhutan, Art. 7(13) (2008); Constitution of Burundi, Art. 58 (2005); Constitution of Congo, Art. 29 (2002); Constitution of Croatia, Art. 69 (1990).

  10. Helfer (2007), p. 976; High Commissioner (2001), p. 5.

  11. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 33.

  12. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 32.

  13. High Commission on Human Rights (2001), pp. 16–19; Derclaye (2010), p. 140; Papadopoulou (2011), p. 273.

  14. Art. 7 (1994) TRIPs Agreement.

  15. See Yu (2009), pp. 979–1046; Papadopoulou (2011), p. 273.

  16. Art. 8(1) (1994) TRIPs Agreement.

  17. Delimatsis (2014); Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), p. 173; Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), pp. 174–177.

  18. TRIPs Agreement, Arts. 13 and 30 (1994).

  19. Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/W/2 (2001).

  20. High Commissioner (2001), p. 5.

  21. Preamble, WIPO Copyright Treaty (1996); Preamble, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (1996).

  22. Helfer (2003), pp. 49–51; Okediji (2018), pp. 240–241; Shaheed (2014), p. 3.

  23. Helfer (2003), pp. 49–51.

  24. Sganga (2015), pp. 561–563; CESCR (2006); CESCR (2009).

  25. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 33.

  26. Derclaye (2010), p. 134; Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 32.

  27. High Commissioner (2001), p. 26; Grover (2009); Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 56; Shaheed (2014), p. 3; Papadopoulou (2011), p. 262.

  28. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 53–56.

  29. ECOSOC (2002), Resolution 2000/7 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/7; Commission on Human Rights (2003); Commission on Human Rights (2002).

  30. Hugenholtz (2000); Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 34–65, Nwauche (2016); Sganga (2015), p. 560. Among many, specifically on the conflict between health and IP, see Roffe et al. (2005); Deere (2008); Yamane (2011).

  31. See, for instance, Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2000), Resolution 2000/7 UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/2000/7.

  32. Yigzaw (2015), p. 4.

  33. High Commission on Human Rights (2001), p. 14; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001), pp. 5–6; Torremans (2015), p. 226; Heins (2007), p. 228; Austin (2018), p. 220; Carpenter (2012), p. 312; Sganga (2015), p. 569; Shaver (2010), pp. 133–134.

  34. Gervais (2015), p. 89.

  35. Gervais (2015), p. 89; Drahos (2016), pp. 47–83.

  36. See ICESCR, Arts. 6 and 7 (1966).

  37. Shaver (2010), p. 147; Gervais (2015), p. 89; Drahos (2016), pp. 85–109.

  38. Rozhkova (2016), p. 1137.

  39. (1946) Recital No. 1, Constitution of the World Health Organization.

  40. Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2000); Human Rights Committee (2002).

  41. Human Rights Council (2017).

  42. ECHR, Art. 1, Protocol 1 (1950).

  43. Ostergard (1999), p. 34.

  44. O’Mellin (2007), p. 144.

  45. UDCHR, Art. 27 (1955); ICESCR, Art. 15(1)(c) (1966).

  46. Shaver (2010), pp. 144–147; Rosen (2007), p. 356; Carpenter (2012), p. 317; Yu (2007a, b), p. 714.

  47. See Yu (2007a, b), pp. 713–715.

  48. Saul et al. (2014), p. 1225.

  49. CESCR (2006), p. 1.

  50. Ibid., p. 2; Shaver (2010), p. 150.

  51. Ibid., p. 2.

  52. Shaheed (2014), p. 11.

  53. Carpenter (2012), p. 322; Yu (2007a, b), p. 727.

  54. Shaheed (2015), pp. 9–10; Yu (2007a, b), pp. 722–725; Yu (2015), p. 461; Janewa Osei Tutu (2015), p. 19.

  55. Dreyfuss (2006).

  56. CESCR (2006), p. 1; Derclaye (2010), p. 139.

  57. Yu (2016), pp. 61–63.

  58. CESCR (2006), p. 13.

  59. Berne Convention, Art. 6bis (1886).

  60. E.g. Constitution of Belarus, Art. 51 (1991); Constitution of Colombia, Art. 61 (1991); Constitution of Kenya, Art. 69 (2010); Constitution of Kyrgyzstan, Art. 49 (2010); European Charter on Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 17(2) (2000).

  61. E.g. Constitution of Costa Rica, Art. 47 (1949); Constitution of Montenegro, Art. 76 (2007); Constitution of Panama, Art. 53 (1972); Constitution of Paraguay, Art. 110 (1992); Constitution of Peru, Art. 2(8) (1993); Constitution of the Philippines, Art. 14 (1987).

  62. Peukert (2015), p. 143; Rosen (2007), p. 356.

  63. Peukert (2015), p. 143.

  64. E.g. Constitution of Sweden, Art. 16 (1974); Constitution of Lithuania, Art. 42 (1992); Constitution of Albania, Art. 58 (2008); Constitution of Algeria, Art. 38 (2016); Constitution of Portugal, Art. 42(2) (1976).

  65. Dreyfuss (2006), p. 75.

  66. See Constitution of Bulgaria, Art. 54(3) (1991); Constitution of Estonia, Art. 39 (1992); Constitution of Latvia, Art. 113 (1998); Constitution of Slovakia, Art. 43(1) (1992); Constitution of Slovenia, Art. 60 (1991); Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 17(2) (2000).

  67. This is particularly frequent in the constitutions of South-East Asia, e.g. Laos (1991); Thailand (1997); Viet Nam (2013).

  68. Ghidini and Stazi (2015), p. 412.

  69. See Constitution of Armenia, Art. 60(7) (2015); Constitution of El Salvador, Art. 103(2) (1983); Constitution of Tunisia, Art. 41(2) (2014); UK Human Rights Act, Protocol 1 (1998); Constitution of Fiji, Art. 163 (2013); Constitution of Nepal, Art. 25 (2015).

  70. See Constitution of Azerbaijan, Art. 30 (2009); Constitution of Brazil, Art. 5(27) (1988); Constitution of Chile, Art. 19(25) (1981); Constitution of Colombia, Art. 61 (1991); Constitution of Panama, Art. 53 (1972).

  71. Janewa Osei Tutu (2015), p. 21; Heins (2007), p. 217.

  72. Geiger (2015a, b), p. 118; Gervais (2015).

  73. Ibid., footnote 69.

  74. E.g. 2017/172 and 2018/32 K, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey (2018); Germania 3: Ghosts at the Dead Man, Constitutional Court of Germany (1996); B1080/93, Constitutional Court of Austria (1993); Laserdisken Aps v. Kulturministeriet, C-479/04, CJEU (2007); Promusicae v. Telefonica de España SAU, C-275/06, CJEU (2008); Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile, Intra-American Court of Human Rights, at 102 (2005).

  75. European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 1, Protocol 1 (1954).

  76. University of Illinois v. The Netherlands, App. No. 12048/86, ECmHR (1988).

  77. Beyeler v. Italy, App. No. 33202/96, ECtHR, at 100 (2000); Matos and Silva Lda. v. Portugal, App. No. 15777/89, ECtHR, at 75 (1996); Former King of Greece v. Greece, App. No. 25701/94, at 60 (2000); Tsirikakis v. Greece, App. No. 46355/99, at 53 (2002); Forrer-Niedenthal v. Germany, App. No. 47316/99, ECtHR, at 32 (2003); Broniowski v. Poland, App. No. 31443/96, ECtHR, at 129 (2004); Öneryildiz v. Turkey, App. No. 48939/99, ECtHR, at 124 (2004).

  78. Kopecký v. Slovakia, App. No. 44912/98, ECtHR, at 144 (2004).

  79. Helfer (2008), p. 8.

  80. Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v. the Netherlands, App. No. 12633/87, ECmHR (1990).

  81. Lenzing AG v. United Kingdom, App. No. 38817/97, ECmHR (1998).

  82. Aral and Tekin v. Turkey, App. No. 24563/94, ECmHR, at 4 (1998).

  83. A.D. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 21962/93, ECmHR (1994).

  84. Melnychuk v. Ukraine, App. No. 28743/03, ECtHR, at 3 (2001).

  85. Dima v. Romania, App. No. 58472/00, ECtHR, at 8–26 (2007).

  86. Ibid., at 88.

  87. Ibid., at 92–93.

  88. Ibid., at 92.

  89. Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal, App. No. 73049/01, ECtHR, at 13–24 (2007).

  90. Ibid., at 77.

  91. Ibid., at 76–78.

  92. Ibid., at 78.

  93. Kopecký v. Slovakia, App. No. 44912/98, ECtHR, at 50–2 (2004).

  94. Anheuser-Busch Inc., ibid., at 78.

  95. Balan v. Moldova, App. No. 19247/03, ECtHR, at 34 (2008).

  96. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2015a, b), pp. 79–81.

  97. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 221–314; Geiger (2007), pp. 317–27; Yu (2015).

  98. Borges-Barbosa and de Avila Plaza (2015), p. 248.

  99. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 316–63; Foster (2015), pp. 335–366; Papadopoulou (2011), p. 276. See the German Constitutional Court in Kirchen und Schulgebrauch, GRUR 481 (1972).

  100. Shaheed (2015); Shaver (2010); Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 33; Yu (2016), pp. 77–78; Sganga (2015), pp. 560–576; Brown and Waelde (2015), pp. 577–602.

  101. Crook (2005), pp. 524–50; Matthews (2015), pp. 499–512; Wager and Watal (2015), p. 161.

  102. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 364–430; Chiarolla (2015), pp. 521–543; Wager and Watal (2015), pp. 164–168.

  103. Borges Barbosa and de Avila Plaza (2015), p. 240; Ghidini and Stazi (2015), pp. 410–420.

  104. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 64–65; Papadopoulou (2011), p. 291.

  105. Helfer and Austin (2011), pp. 98–104.

  106. Constitution of Liberia, Art. 15 (1986).

  107. Okediji (2018), p. 254.

  108. Geiger and Izyumenko (2014), pp. 317–318; Izyumenko (2016), p. 116; Rosen (2007), p. 356; Kur (2011), p. 209.

  109. Shaheed (2014), pp. 13–17; Matthews (2015), p. 499.

  110. Rosen (2007), p. 356.

  111. Senftleben (2013).

  112. Arnold and Rosati (2015), pp. 741–749.

  113. Kur (2011), p. 211.

  114. See TRIPs Agreement, Art. 13 (1994); Rome Convention, Art. 15 (1961); Title II, Directive 2019/970 EU.

  115. Kur (2011), p. 212; Senftleben (2015), pp. 362–363.

  116. Leaffer (2015), p. 398; Izyumenko (2016), p. 116; Rosen (2007), p. 356.

  117. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 359.

  118. Kur (2011), p. 212.

  119. Kur (2011), p. 212.

  120. Rosen (2007), p. 371.

  121. Spiegel Online GmbH v. Volker Beck, C-516/17, CJEU, at 54 (2019); Technische Universität Darmstadt v. Eugen Ulmer KG, C-117/13, CJEU, at 43 (2014); Deckmyn, C-201/13, CJEU, at 26 (2014).

  122. Synodinou (2019); Spiegel Online, at 59.

  123. Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(3).

  124. Regulation 2017/1001/EC, Art. 14(b).

  125. Jaenichen (2015).

  126. TRIPs, Art. 28 (1994).

  127. TRIPs, Art. 31 (1994).

  128. Carvalho (2008), pp. 319–320.

  129. Chiarolla (2015), p. 21.

  130. Halajian (2013); Chiarolla (2015), p. 21.

  131. Rosen (2007), p. 356.

  132. General Comment No. 17, 20–23; Grosse Ruse-Khan (2015a, b), pp. 185–186; Christoffersen (2015), pp. 19–37.

  133. Geiger and Izyumenko (2014), pp. 330–331; Izyumenko (2016), p. 120.

  134. Voorhoof (2015), pp. 18–29.

  135. SK 19/16, Constitutional Court of Poland (2018); 2017/172 and 2018/32 K, Constitutional Court of the Republic of Turkey (2018).

  136. Lili Marlene, German Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 34 (1985); CB-Infobank, German Federal Supreme Court, GRUR 464 (1997); Lila Postkarte, German Federal Court of Justice (2005); Germania 3: Ghosts at the Dead Man (1996), in: Adeney and Antons (2013).

  137. Painer C-145/10, CJEU (2013); Deckmyn v. Vandersteen, C-201/13, CJEU (2014); Funke Medien NRW GmbH, C-469/17, CJEU (2019); Spiegel Online GmbH v. Volker Beck, C-516/17, CJEU (2019).

  138. Promusicae v. Telefonica de España SAU, C-275/06, CJEU (2008); Scarlet Extended v. Sabam, C-70/10, CJEU (2011); Bonnier Audio AB and others v. Perfect Communications Sweden, C-461/10, CJEU (2012); UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v. Constantin Film Verleih GmbH, Case C-314/12, CJEU (2014).

  139. Societe Nationale de France 2 v. France, App. No. 30262/96, ECmHR (1997).

  140. Ibid.

  141. Ashby Donald and others v. France, App. No. 36769/08, ECtHR (2013).

  142. Ibid., at 39–41.

  143. Ibid., at 39.

  144. Neij and Kolmisoppi v. Sweden, App. No. 40397/12, ECtHR, at 11 (2013).

  145. Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, ibid., at 66 (2006); News Verlags GmbH and Co. GK v. Austria, App. No. 31457/96, ECtHR, at 54 (2000).

  146. Österreichischer Rundfunk v. Austria, ibid., at 65–73 (2006); News Verlags GmbH and Co. GK v. Austria, App. No. 31457/96, ECtHR, at 54–55 (2000); VerlagsGruppe News GmbH v. Austria, App. No. 10520/02, ECtHR, at 36–40 (2006).

  147. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 65; Papadopoulou (2011), p. 286.

  148. Chiemsee Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions v. Boots, Joined cases C-108/97 and C-109/97, CJEU, at 25 (1999); Senftleben (2015), pp. 354–355; von Kapff (2015), p. 301.

  149. von Kapff (2015), p. 301.

  150. E.g. EUIPO (2017) “Guidelines for Examination of European Union Trademarks”, Part B, Sect. 4, Chapter 7, at 2.1.

  151. Neuapostolische Kirche International, C-510/2013-1, EUIPO BoA (2015).

  152. Ibid., at 49-5.

  153. Leela Forderkreis E.V. and others v. Germany, App. No. 58911/00, ECtHR, at 81 (2015).

  154. Osho Lotus Commune v. EUIPO, T-670/15, EGC, at 115 (2017).

  155. Yu (2007a, b), p. 711.

  156. Aust (2000), p. 258; Krajewski (2017), p. 13.

  157. Salcedo (1999), pp. 589–590.

  158. Aust (2000), p. 258.

  159. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 66. Mutatis mutandis Yigzaw (2015), p. 3.

  160. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 66.

  161. E.g. Art. 10(2) European Convention on Human Rights.

  162. Case No. 28/98, Constitutional Court of Lithuania (2000).

  163. Case No. 952, Constitutional Court of Venezuela (2000); Primera Sala, 1917/2008 Mexican Supreme Court (2009).

  164. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 285; Kozinski (1993), p. 961.

  165. Metronome Music v. Music Point Hokamp, C-200/96, CJEU (1998).

  166. Laserdisken Aps v. Kulturministeriet, C-479/04, CJEU, at 65 (2007).

  167. Mylly (2015), pp. 109–111.

  168. Heins (2007), p. 227.

  169. High Commission on Human Rights (2001), at 31; UN Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health (2008), at 25.

  170. Preamble No. 11, Directive 98/44 EU.

  171. High Commission on Human Rights (2001), at 37; Heins (2007), p. 228.

  172. See Harper & Row, Publishers Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 US (1985); Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 US (2003).

  173. Rosen (2007), p. 355; Nwauche (2015); Yu (2007a, b), p. 720.

  174. Derclaye (2010), p. 157; Austin (2018), p. 229.

  175. Helfer and Austin (2011), p. 316.

  176. Shaheed (2014), pp. 3–4.

  177. De Geillustreerde Pers N.V. v. The Netherlands, App. No. 5178/71, ECmHR (1976).

  178. Ibid., at 84.

  179. Ibid., at 86.

  180. Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, IACtHR, at 107 (2005).

  181. Ibid., at 106.

  182. Whistler v. Eden, French Supreme Court (1990). See also Rigamonti (2006), p. 374.

  183. Decision C-871-10, Constitutional Court of Colombia (2010); 451/2019, Supreme Court of the Netherlands (2019). See also Rigamonti (2006), p. 366.

  184. Geiger (2009)), p. 112; Rosen (2007), p. 358.

  185. Rigamonti (2006), pp. 392–398.

  186. Rigamonti (2006), pp. 383–384.

  187. Rigamonti (2006), p. 361.

  188. Derclaye (2010), p. 156; Rigamonti (2006), p. 361.

  189. Strohal v. Austria, 20871/1992 ECmHR (1994); Kazakov v. Russia, App. No. 1758/02 ECtHR (2009); Gillberg v. Sweden, App. No. 41723/06 ECtHR (2012).

  190. Rigamonti (2006), p. 362.

  191. Rigamonti (2006), pp. 362–363.

  192. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. (2017).

  193. Ibid.

  194. See Art. 10 ECHR (1950).

  195. Sakulin (2011), p. 3; Ricolfi (2015), p. 471; Griffiths (2015), p. 449; von Kapff (2015), p. 303.

  196. Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Ficken) v. OHIM, T-52/13, EGC, at 40 (2013); Efag Trade Mark Company GmbH & Co. KG (Ficken Liquors) v. OHIM, T-52/13, EGC, at 44 (2013).

  197. Sakulin (2011), p. 3; Ricolfi (2015), p. 471; Griffiths (2015), p. 449.

  198. Dor v. Romania, App. No. 55153/12, ECtHR (2015).

  199. Screw you, R 495/2005-G, EUIPO BoA, at 15 (2006); Paki, T-R 1805/2007-1, EUIPO BoA, at 17 (2009); Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union, R 1509/2008-2, EUIPO BoA, at 33 (2010).

  200. Basic Trade Mark SA’s Application, ETMR 24 (2006); Scranage’s Application, ETMR 43 (2008); xJack Schitt Limited’s Application, O-066-11 (2011); French Connection Limited’s Application, ETMR 8, at 60 (2007).

References

  • Adeney E, Antons C (2013) The Germania 3 decision translated: the quotation exception before the German Constitutional Court. EIPR 35(11):646–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold J, Rosati E (2015) Are national courts the addressees of the three steps tests? JIPLP 10(10):741–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Aust A (2000) Modern treaty law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin G (2018) Authors’ human rights in the intellectual property framework. In: Dreyfuss R, Siew-Kuan Ng E (eds) Framing intellectual property in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 210–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges-Barbosa D, de Avila Plaza C (2015) Intellectual property decisions of constitutional courts of Latin American countries. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 236–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown A, Waelde C (2015) Human rights, persons with disabilities and copyright. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 577–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter M (2012) Intellectual property: a human (not corporate) right. In: Keane D, McDermott Y (eds) The challenge of human rights: past, present and future. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 312–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiarolla C (2015) Right to food and IP protection for plant genetic resources. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 521–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoffersen J (2015) Human rights and balancing: the principle of proportionality. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Human Rights (2002) Access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS. Resolution 2002/32, UN Doc. E/2002/23- E/CN.4/2002/200

  • Commission on Human Rights (2003) Access to medication in the context of pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Resolution 2003/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2003/29

  • Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001) Statement on human rights and intellectual property. UN Doc. E/C.12/2001/15

  • Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (2006) General comment no. 17: the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author (art. 15, para. 1c of the Covenant). E/C.12/GC/1712

  • Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (2009) General comment no. 21: right of everyone to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1a of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). E/C.12/GC/21

  • Crook J (2005) Balancing intellectual property protection with the human right to health. BJIL 23(3):524–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Deere C (2008) The implementation game: the TRIPS agreement and the global politics of intellectual property reform in developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Delimatsis P (2014) The principle of necessity in the WTO. Tilburg Law School Research Paper No. 04/2014. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375596. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

  • Derclaye E (2010) Intellectual property rights and human rights: coinciding and cooperating. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 133–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos P (2016) A philosophy of intellectual property. ANU Press Textbooks, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfuss R (2006) Patents and human rights: where is the paradox? New York University Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 06-29. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=929498. Accessed 29 Oct 2019

  • ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, Statement of the Lutheran World Federation, Habitat International Coalition & International NGO Commission on Human Rights in Trade and Investment (2002) The realization of economic, social and cultural rights. UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/NGO/14. ECOSOC

  • Foster S (2015) The conflict between the human right to education and copyright. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 335–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2007) Trade marks and freedom of expression—the proportionality of criticism. IIC 3:317–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2009) Intellectual property shall be protected!? Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: a mysterious provision with an unclear scope. EIPR 31(3):113–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2015a) Reconceptualizing the constitutional dimension of intellectual property. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rjin, pp 115–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2015b) Implementing intellectual property provisions in human rights instruments: towards a new social contract for the protection of intangibles. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 661–689

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Izyumenko E (2014) Copyright on the human rights’ trial: redefining the boundaries of exclusivity through freedom of expression. IIC 45:316–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais D (2015) Human rights and the philosophical foundations of intellectual property. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G, Stazi A (2015) Freedom to conduct a business, competition and intellectual property. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 410–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths J (2015) Is there a right to an immoral trademark? In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property law and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 425–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths J, Suthersanen U (eds) (2005) Copyright and free speech. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosheide W (ed) (2010) Intellectual property and human rights: a paradox. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2011) Assessing the need for a general public interest exception in the TRIPS Agreement. In: Kur A (ed) Intellectual property in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 167–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2015a) Overlaps and conflict norms in human rights law: approaches of European courts to address intersections with intellectual property rights. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 70–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse Ruse-Khan H (2015b) Proportionality and balancing within the objectives for intellectual property protection. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property law and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 185–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Grover A (2009) Report of the special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. A/HRC/11/12

  • Halajian D (2013) Inadequacy of TRIPS and the compulsory license: why broad compulsory licensing is not a viable solution to the access medicine problem. BJIL 38(3):1191–1231

    Google Scholar 

  • Heins V (2007) Human rights, intellectual property and struggles for recognition. HRR 9:213–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (2003) Human rights and intellectual property: conflict or coexistence? MLR 5(1):47–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (2007) Towards a human rights framework for intellectual property. UCDLR 40:971–1020

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L (2008) The new innovation frontier? Intellectual property and the European Court of Human Rights. HILJ 49:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer L, Austin G (2011) Human rights and intellectual property: mapping the global interface. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • High Commissioner on Human Rights (2001) The impact of the Agreement on the Trade–related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights on human rights. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2001/13

  • Hugenholtz P (2000) Copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. In: Dreyfuss RC et al (eds) Innovation policy in an information age. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 343

    Google Scholar 

  • Human Rights Council (2017) The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution UN Doc. A/HRC/35/L.18/Rev.1

  • Izyumenko E (2016) The freedom of expression contours of copyright in the digital era: a European perspective. JWIP 19(3–4):115–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaenichen H (2015) Research exemption/experimental use in the European Union: patents do not block the progress of science? CSPHPM 5(2):a020941

    Google Scholar 

  • Janewa Osei Tutu J (2015) Corporate human rights to intellectual property protection? SCLR 55(1):1–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozinski J (1993) Trademarks unplugged. NYULR 68(4):930–960

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski M (2017) Ensuring the primacy of human rights in trade investments and policies. CIDSE. https://www.business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/documents/CIDSE_Study_Primacy_HR_Trade_%26_Investment_Policies_March_2017.pdf. Accessed 22 Nov 2019

  • Kur A (2011) Limitations and exceptions under the three-step test—how much room to walk the middle ground? In: Kur A (ed) Intellectual property in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 208–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaffer M (2015) Fair use, transformative use and the First Amendment. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property law and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 397–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews D (2015) Right to health and patents. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 496–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylly T (2015) The constitutionalization of the European legal order: impact of human rights on intellectual property in the EU. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 103–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Netanel N (2008) Copyright's paradox. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwauche ES (2015) Right to intellectual property. Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nwauche ES (2016) Right to Intellectual Property, Oxford Constitutional Law. https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e149. Accessed 6 Feb 2019

  • O’Mellin L (2007) Software and shovels: how the intellectual property revolution is undermining traditional concepts of property. UCLR 76:143–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Okediji R (2018) Intellectual property in the image of human rights: a critical review. In: Dreyfuss R, Siew-Kuan Ng E (eds) Framing intellectual property in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 234–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostergard R (1999) Intellectual property: a universal human right? HRQ 21:156–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulou F (2011) TRIPS and human rights. In: Kur A, Levin M (eds) Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert A (2015) The fundamental right to intellectual (property) and the discretion of the legislature. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 132–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Pires De Carvalho N (2008) Interpreting and implementing the TRIPS Agreement: is it fair? The TRIPS regime of antitrust and undisclosed information. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricolfi M (2015) Trade marks and human rights. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property law and human rights. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 453–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigamonti C (2006) Deconstructing moral rights. HILJ 47(2):354–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Roffe P, Spenneman C et al (2005) Resource book on TRIPS and development: the TRIPS agreement, drafting history and analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen J (2007) Copyright and freedom of expression in Sweden—private law in a constitutional context. In: Torremans P (ed) Copyright law: a handbook of contemporary research. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 355–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozkhova M (2016) Difficulties of differentiating between intellectual property rights and human rights on the basis of the case-law research report “Internet: case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”. JARLE 5(19):1136–1141

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakulin W (2011) Trademark protection and freedom of expression. Wolters Kluwer, AH Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Salcedo J (1999) Reflections on the existence of a hierarchy of norms in international law. EJIL 8(4):583–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Saul B et al (2014) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: commentary, cases and materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2013) Comparative approaches to fair use: an important impulse for reforms in EU copyright law. In: Dinwoodie G (ed) Methods and perspectives in intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 30–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben M (2015) Free signs and free use: how to offer room for freedom of expression within the trademark system. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 354–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Sganga C (2015) Right to culture and copyright: participation and access. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 560–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaheed F (2014) Report of the special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: copyright policy and the right to science and culture. General Assembly of the United Nations, A/HR/C/28/57, p 3

  • Shaheed F (2015) Report of the special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights: patent policy and the right to science and culture. General Assembly of the United Nations, A/70/279, pp 9–10

  • Shaver L (2010) The right to science and culture. WLR 1:121–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinjela M (ed) (2007) Human rights and intellectual property rights: tensions and convergences. Martin Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Synodinou T (2019) Reflections on the CJEU’s judgment in Spiegel Online. http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/09/23/reflections-on-the-cjeus-judgment-in-spiegel-online-is-there-a-golden-intersection-between-freedom-of-expression-and-eu-copyright-law-part-i/. Accessed 6 Feb 2020

  • Torremans P (2015) Copyright (and other intellectual property rights) as a human right. In: Torremans P (ed) Intellectual property and human rights. Kluwer Law International, London, pp 221–254

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (2000) Intellectual property and human rights. Resolution 2000/7

  • Von Kapff P (2015) Fundamental rights in the practice of the European Trade Mark and Design Office (OHIM). In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 273–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Voorhoof D (2015) Freedom of expression and the right of information: implications for copyright. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 331–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Wager H, Watal J (2015) Human rights and international intellectual property rights. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 149–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamane H (2011) Interpreting TRIPS: globalization of intellectual property rights and access to medicines. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Yigzaw D (2015) Hierarchy of norms: the case for the primacy of human rights over WTO law. IJIL 1(1):1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu P (2007a) Ten common questions about intellectual property and human rights. Ga St UL Rev 23:709–753

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu P (2007b) Reconceptualizing intellectual property interests in a human rights framework. UCDLR 40:1039–1149

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu P (2009) The objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement. HLR 46:979–1046

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu P (2015) Digital copyright enforcement measures and their human rights threats. In: Geiger C (ed) Research handbook on human rights and intellectual property. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 455–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu P (2016) The anatomy of the human rights framework for intellectual property. SMULR 69:37–96

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Intellectual Property Commercialization Council, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR

    Gabriele Spina Alì

Authors
  1. Gabriele Spina Alì
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Spina Alì.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The research that led to this article was carried out during the author’s postdoctoral fellowship at the EW Barker Centre for Law & Business (National University of Singapore). The author would like to thank Prof. David Tan for the feedback given to the research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spina Alì, G. Intellectual Property and Human Rights: A Taxonomy of Their Interactions. IIC 51, 411–445 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00925-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00925-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation