India’s Participatory Role in the Database Debate at WIPO



The year 1996 at WIPO marked the beginning of a prolonged debate surrounding the proposal of an International Treaty protecting non-original databases. After a space of eight years, there was no consensus amongst the Member Countries of the WIPO and the proposal was finally removed from the agenda of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. This proposal, which was largely based on the framework of the European Database Directive (96/9/EC), received severe opposition from countries who were not convinced with the requirement of a special protection for non-original databases. The opposition included countries like India who raised voice against the proposed International Treaty. In relation to the proposed International Treaty on non-original databases, this chapter intends to revisit the history of events that happened at the WIPO and the overall role that India played in the debates that lasted for almost nine years.


European database directive WIPO International Treaty India at WIPO Non-original databases Sui generis database right 



The author is thankful to Mr. Dipesh Ashok Jain, Research Assistant, O.P. Jindal Global University, for his assistance


  1. Davison M (2003) The legal protection of databases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Derclaye E (2008) The legal protection of databases: a comparative analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gervais DJ (2007) The protection of databases. Chicago-Kent Law Rev 82(3):1109–1139Google Scholar
  4. Hamilton MA (2000) Database protection and the circuitous route around the united states constitution. In: Rickett CEF, Austin GW (eds) International intellectual property and common law world. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  5. Herr RE (2008) Is the sui generis right a failed experiment? A legal and theoretical exploration of how to regulate unoriginal database contents and possible suggestions for reform. DJØF Publishing, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  6. Leistner M (2002) Legal protection for the database maker—initial experience from a German point of view. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 33(4):439–458Google Scholar
  7. Narayanan AS (1993–1994) Standards of protection for databases in the European community and the United States: Feist and the myth of creative originality. George Wash J Int Law Econ 27:457–482Google Scholar
  8. Oriola TA (2005) Electronic database protection and the limits of copyright: what options for developing countries. J World Intellect Prop 7(2):201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Reichman JH, Samuelson P (1997) Intellectual property rights in data? Vanderbilt Law Rev 51Google Scholar
  10. Reinbothe J (1997) The new WIPO treaties: a first resume. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 19:171–184Google Scholar
  11. Reinbothe J, Lewinski SV (2002) The WIPO treaties 1996: ready to come into force. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 24(4):199–208Google Scholar
  12. Samuelson P (1997) The U.S. digital agenda at WIPO. Va J Int Law 37:369Google Scholar
  13. Stamatoudi IA (1997) The EU database directive: reconceptualising copyright and retracting the future of sui generis right. Hellenic Rev Int Law 50:441Google Scholar
  14. Vanovermeire V (2000) The concept of the lawful user in the database directive. Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 31(1):63Google Scholar
  15. Winn J, Tian YJ (2009) Re-thinking intellectual property: the political economy of copyright protection in the digital era. Routledge-Cavendish Publishing, London, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer (India) Pvt. Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.O.P. Jindal Global UniversitySonipatIndia

Personalised recommendations