The Role of the Appellate Body of the WTO in Preserving the ‘Glocal’ Space in International Intellectual Property Law

Oke, Emmanuel Kolawole

doi:10.1007/8165_2021_72

Emmanuel Kolawole Oke³³

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EUROYEAR,volume 12))

454 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces a novel way of conceiving the international intellectual property system and it contends that the system can be conceptualised as consisting of three spaces i.e. the global space, the glocal space, and the local space. The focus of this chapter is on the glocal space. The glocal space is the space available to states to experiment and adjust global rules to suit their local needs. The glocal space is thus an important space in the international intellectual property system. Building on the work of sociologists with regard to the concept of glocalisation, this chapter makes two key contributions. First, it critically explores how viewing glocalisation as an autonomous concept can be applied in the context of international intellectual property law and, in this regard, it contends that the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) should not be conceptualised as simply a global agreement but as an agreement that contains both global and glocal spaces. Secondly, the chapter critically analyses the role that the WTO’s Appellate Body has played in preserving the glocal space in international intellectual property law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 139.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 179.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Matthews (2002); Sell (2003); Archibugi and Filippetti (2010), p. 137; Yamane (2011); Seuba (2017).
2.
Monica de Bolle and Jeromin Zettelmeyer, ‘Measuring the Rise of Economic Nationalism’ Working Paper 19-15, Peterson Institute for International Economics (August 2019). https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/documents/wp19-15.pdf (last accessed 17 May 2021).
3.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, April 1994, 1869 U.N.T.S. 3; 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994).
4.
Kennedy (2016).
5.
Gervais (2018), pp. 494–516.
6.
Evans (2007), pp. 1127–1162.
7.
Robertson (2012), p. 191.
8.
Robertson (2012), p. 199.
9.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 392.
10.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 392.
11.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 393.
12.
Roudometof (2016b), pp. 48–49.
13.
Ritzer (2003), p. 193.
14.
Ritzer (2003), p. 194.
15.
Ritzer (2003), p. 194.
16.
Ritzer (2003), p. 207.
17.
Ritzer (2003), p. 207.
18.
Ritzer (2003), p. 207.
19.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 397.
20.
Roudometof (2016b), p. 54.
21.
Calhoun (2007), p. 9; Rodrik (2011), p. 208.
22.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 397; Roudometof (2016b), p. 59.
23.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 397.
24.
Roudometof (2016a), pp. 397–398.
25.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 398.
26.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 399.
27.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 400.
28.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 401.
29.
Drahos (1995), p. 6; Drahos and Braithwaite (2002); Sell (2003); May and Sell (2006).
30.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 402.
31.
Roudometof (2016a), p. 402.
32.
Oke (2015), p. 82.
33.
Slade (2016), p. 998.
34.
Khondker (2005), p. 197.
35.
WTO, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS50/AB/R (19 December 1997).
36.
WTO, Canada – Term of Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS170/AB/R (18 September 2000).
37.
WTO, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS176/AB/R (2 January 2002).
38.
WTO, Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS435/AB/R, WT/DS441/AB/R (9 June 2020).
39.
Article 65(3) of the TRIPS Agreement.
40.
Canada – Patent Term, Appellate Body Report, para 92.
41.
Canada – Patent Term, Appellate Body Report, para 101.
42.
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883, as last revised at Stockholm in 1967 and as amended in 1979, 828 U.N.T.S. 305.
43.
WTO, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, Panel Report, WT/DS50/R (5 September 1997), para 7.22.
44.
India – Patent Protection, Panel Report, para 7.18.
45.
India – Patent Protection, Panel Report, para 7.20.
46.
India – Patent Protection, Panel Report, para 7.21.
47.
India – Patent Protection, Panel Report, para 7.21.
48.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 45.
49.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 45.
50.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 45.
51.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 36.
52.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 36 (emphasis in the original).
53.
WTO, “‘Non-Violation’ Complaints (Article 64.2)”, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/nonviolation_e.htm (last accessed 13 January 2021).
54.
WTO, “TRIPS Non-Violation and Situation Complaints Moratorium,” General Council Decision, WT/L/1080 (11 December 2019).
55.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 41.
56.
WTO, “Non-Violation and Situation Nullification or Impairment under the TRIPS Agreement,” Communication from Argentina and others, IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 (27 May 2015) 1.
57.
WTO, “Non-Violation and Situation Nullification or Impairment under the TRIPS Agreement,” Communication from Argentina and others, IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 (27 May 2015) 2.
58.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 42 (emphasis in the original).
59.
India – Patent Protection, Appellate Body Report, para 48 (emphasis in the original).
60.
Canada – Patent Term, Appellate Body Report, para 101.
61.
Canada – Patent Term, Appellate Body Report, para 101.
62.
WTO, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, Panel Report, WT/DS114/R (17 March 2000).
63.
Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents, Panel Report, para 7.26.
64.
US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, Panel Report, para 8.57.
65.
WTO, European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (US), Panel Report, WT/DS174/R (15 March 2005) para 7.210; WTO, European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (Australia), Panel Report, WT/DS290/R (15 March 2005) para 7.246.
66.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, paras 7.2403–7.2404.
67.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.648.
68.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.648.
69.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.649.
70.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.649.
71.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 129.
72.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 128.
73.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 129.
74.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 129.
75.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 132 (emphasis in the original).
76.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 139.
77.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 141 (emphasis added).
78.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 147.
79.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 155.
80.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 155.
81.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 156 (emphasis in the original).
82.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 159.
83.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 165.
84.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 178.
85.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 175.
86.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, paras 175–176.
87.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 187.
88.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, paras 188–189.
89.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.586.
90.
WTO, European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs (US), Panel Report, WT/DS174/R (15 March 2005) para 7.210 and para 7.611, footnote 558; Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, para 7.1978.
91.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, para 7.2005; Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.592.
92.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, para 7.2029; Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, paras 6.601–6.602.
93.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, para 7.2430.
94.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, para 7.2430 (emphasis added).
95.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Panel Report, para 7.2441 (emphasis added).
96.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.651, footnote 1683.
97.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, paras 6.651, 6.659.
98.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.652.
99.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.652.
100.
Australia – Plain Packaging, Appellate Body Report, para 6.653.
101.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 216.
102.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 216.
103.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 216.
104.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 221 (emphasis in the original).
105.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 226 (emphasis in the original).
106.
US – Appropriations Act, Appellate Body Report, para 226.

References

Archibugi D, Filippetti A (2010) The globalisation of intellectual property rights: four learned lessons and four theses. Global Policy 1(2):137–149
Article Google Scholar
Calhoun C (2007) Nations matter: culture, history, and the cosmopolitan dream. Routledge, London
Book Google Scholar
Drahos P (1995) Global property rights in information: the story of TRIPS at the GATT. Prometheus 13(1):6–19
Article Google Scholar
Drahos P, Braithwaite J (2002) Information feudalism: who owns the knowledge economy? Earthscan, London
Google Scholar
Evans G (2007) Substantive trademark law harmonization by means of the WTO Appellate Body and the European Court of Justice: the case of trade name protection. J World Trade 41(6):1127–1162
Article Google Scholar
Gervais D (2018) Does the WTO Appellate Body ‘make’ IP law? In: Geiger C, Nard CA, Seuba X (eds) Intellectual property and the judiciary. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 494–416
Chapter Google Scholar
Kennedy M (2016) WTO dispute settlement and the TRIPS Agreement: applying intellectual property standards in a trade law framework. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Khondker H (2005) Globalisation to glocalisation: a conceptual exploration. Intellect Discourse 13(2):181–199
Google Scholar
Matthews D (2002) Globalising intellectual property rights: the TRIPS Agreement. Routledge, London
Google Scholar
May C, Sell S (2006) Intellectual property rights: a critical history. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
Google Scholar
Oke E (2015) Exploring the flexibilities in TRIPS: lessons from India’s pharmaceutical patent law. Commonwealth Law Bull 41(1):82–106
Article Google Scholar
Ritzer G (2003) Rethinking globalization: glocalization/grobalization and something/nothing. Soc Theory 21(3):193–209
Article Google Scholar
Robertson R (2012) Globalisation or glocalisation? J Int Commun 18(2):191–208
Article Google Scholar
Rodrik D (2011) The globalization paradox: why global markets, states, and democracy can’t coexist. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Roudometof V (2016a) Theorizing glocalization: three interpretations. Eur J Soc Theory 19(3):391–408
Article Google Scholar
Roudometof V (2016b) Glocalization: a critical introduction. Routledge, London
Book Google Scholar
Sell S (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Seuba X (2017) The global regime for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Slade A (2016) The objectives and principles of the WTO TRIPS Agreement: a detailed anatomy. Osgoode Hall Law J 53(3):948–998
Google Scholar
Yamane H (2011) Interpreting TRIPS: globalisation of intellectual property rights and access to medicines. Hart, Oxford
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
Emmanuel Kolawole Oke

Authors

Emmanuel Kolawole Oke
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel Kolawole Oke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
Jelena Bäumler
Bundeswehr University Munich, Neubiberg, Germany
Christina Binder
Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Marc Bungenberg
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Markus Krajewski
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Giesela Rühl
University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Christian J. Tams
Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
Jörg Philipp Terhechte
Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
Andreas R. Ziegler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Oke, E.K. (2021). The Role of the Appellate Body of the WTO in Preserving the ‘Glocal’ Space in International Intellectual Property Law. In: Bäumler, J., et al. European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2021. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_72

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2021_72
Published: 29 October 2021
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05082-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05083-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics