WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
9 March 2006 
 
 (06-1046) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights  
 
 
 
THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIO NAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE 
 
SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED AND POINTS MADE 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 
Revision  
 
 
 
   
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS        PAGE No. 
 
I.
 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... .1 
II. GENERAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL 
KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................................................................... ...2 
III. THE GRANT OF PATENTS IN RESPECT OF TRADITIONAL 
KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................................................................... ...9 
IV. CONSENT AND BENEFI T SHARING ...............................................................................12  
A. USE OF THE EXISTING IPR  SYSTEM ...........................................................................................13  
B. PROTECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE UNDER A SUI GENERIS  SYSTEM ................................16  
V. INFORMATION ON MEMBERS' NATIONAL LEGISLATION, PRACTICES 
AND EXPERIENCES ............................................................................................................18  
ANNEX .......................................................................................................................... .......................19  
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. At its meeting of 17-19 September 2002 the Counc il for TRIPS requested the Secretariat to 
periodically update its summary notes of issues rais ed and points made in the Council's work on three 
items of its agenda:  namely the review of the prov isions of Article 27.3 (b);  the relationship between 
the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD);  and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore.  It was requested  that this be done not after every meeting, but 
when significant new material had been presented.  The present document, which replaces the earlier 
summary note in IP/C/W/370, responds to this requ est with respect to the protection of traditional 
knowledge and folklore. This document has been prepa red under the Secretariat's own 
responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of Members 
and to their ri ghts and obli gations under the WTOIP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
  2. This note, like the original note, seeks to su mmarize the relevant material presented to the 
Council for TRIPS, whether in written or oral form, a nd lists all the relevant documentation tabled in 
the Council since 1999.  To avoid undue duplication,  cross-references to the other two notes or to 
other sections of this note have been made in certain places.  In accordance with the mandate given to the Secretariat, the note only contains issues raised  and points made by delegations in the Council for 
TRIPS and does not cover the documentation of th e Committee on Trade and Environment and of the 
General Council, unless the relevant paper has also b een circulated as a Council for TRIPS document.  
Nor does it cover the discussions in the Direct or-General's consultative process on outstanding 
implementation issues. 
3. The Council for TRIPS documentation relevant to its  work on all the three issues is listed in 
the Annex to this note.  Specific documents are al so referred to in the footnotes which reflect the 
sources for the points made in the compilation.  In many cases, the same point has been made more 
than once;  the footnotes do not purport to contain refe rences to all such occasions.  Where a group of 
delegations has made submissions, the footnotes use an abbreviated reference rather than listing the 
sponsoring delegations in full.  The full lis ts can be found in the Annex to this note. 
4. It is emphasized that this note is an attempt to  summarize the work done so far.  By its very 
nature, it cannot include a full reflection of all the in terventions made and documents submitted.  It is 
structured around the issues raised rather than the positions of individual Members.  Therefore any 
reader wishing to appreciate fully the position of a particular Member should consult the statements 
made and any papers submi tted by that Member.   
5. This note is divided into three major sections.  The first concerns general issues relating to the 
protection of traditional knowledge;  the second con cerns the granting of patents in respect of 
traditional knowledge;  and the third con cerns consent and benefit sharing.   
6. The title of this paper covers both traditiona l knowledge and folklore as indicated in 
paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.
1  However, most of what has been said so far in the 
Council for TRIPS has related only to traditional kno wledge and relatively little has been said with 
respect to folklore.  Therefore, most of this not e pertains to traditional knowledge.  However, it is 
possible that for some delegations, the issues rai sed and points that were made in relation to 
traditional knowledge were also in tended to apply to folklore.  For example, one proposal has 
included, in its definition of traditiona l knowledge, the term "cultural expressions"2 and another 
submission has referred to the protection of d esigns, music and other art forms generated by 
traditional communities.3  
II. GENERAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL 
KNOWLEDGE 
7. This section primarily sets out views that have been expressed on two issues: 
- why there is need for international action on the protection of traditional knowledge and 
folklore;  and 
 
- the international forum/forums most appropriate to pursue such a work. 
 
8. The concerns expressed about the present situati on by the proponents of international action 
to protect traditional knowledge and folklore  can be put into two main categories: 
                                                      
1 WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1.  
2 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, IP/C/W/165. 
3 Australia, IP/C/W/310.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  - concern about the granting of patents or other IPRs covering traditional knowledge to 
persons other than those indigenous peopl es or communities who have originated and 
legitimately control the traditional knowledge; 
 - concern that traditional knowledge is bei ng used without the authorization of the 
indigenous peoples or communities who have originated and legitimately control it and 
without proper sharing of the benefits that accrue from such use. 
 
9. The reasons that have been put forward for why international action should be taken  to 
remedy these problems can be summarized as follows: 
- Common economic interest.  It has been sai d that traditional knowledge is a valuable 
global resource and hence intern ational efforts to secure its protection should be actively 
supported.
4  More specifically, it has the potential of being translated into commercial 
benefits by providing leads for the development of useful products and processes, in particular in the pharmaceutical and agricu ltural sectors, saving time and cost for the 
biotechnology industry.
5  For these reasons it is in the common interest of mankind to 
provide conditions that would be favourable to the preserva tion of traditional knowledge 
and the continuing vitality of the peoples a nd communities which generate and develop 
it.6  
 - Equity.  It has been said that, given the important economic value of traditional 
knowledge, the holders of trad itional knowledge should share in the economic benefits 
derived from that knowledge.
7  Given that the TRIPS Agreement requires countries with 
traditional and indigenous communities to pr ovide intellectual property protection for a 
broad range of subject-matters  including new ones such as plant varieties, biological 
materials, lay-out designs and computer software, it is only equitable that traditional 
knowledge should be gi ven legal recognition.8  Indeed, it is the responsibility of the 
international community to create an egalitari an system for the availability, acquisition, 
maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights, which does not a priori  
exclude any section of the society.9 
 - Food security.   Local farming communities have over the years developed knowledge 
systems for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including 
through the selection and breeding of plant va rieties.  The well-established practices of 
saving, sharing and replanting seeds sustain these communities and ensure their food security.
10  International recognition and protecti on of traditional knowledge would help 
maintain and promote such systems.  
 
                                                      
4 Bolivia, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 241;  Indonesia, IP/C/M/32, para. 134;  Kenya, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 254;  Switzerland, IP/C/W/284;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/49, para.82, IP/C/M/48, para. 18;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/32, para. 136. 
5 Brazil, IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/28, para. 136;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/48, para. 18;  India, 
IP/C/W/198.  
6 Ecuador, IP/C/M/30, para. 184;  Peru, IP/C/M/30, para. 153. 
7 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru , IP/C/W/165;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/48, 
para. 18. 
8 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, IP/C/W/165;  Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay and 
Venezuela, IP/C/W/166. 
9 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, IP/C/W/165;  Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay and 
Venezuela, IP/C/W/166;  India, IP/C/M/28, para. 128. 
10 Kenya, IP/C/M/28, para. 142;  the African Group, IP/C/W/206;  Peru, IP/C/M/29, para. 175. IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  - Culture.  The traditional knowledge of traditi onal communities is put into practice in a 
way which is part of the day-to-day lives of  these peoples and thus part of their culture.
11  
International action to protect traditional knowledge would help sustain such cultures.12 
 - Environment .  The traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities is 
central to their ability to operate in an envi ronmentally sustainable way and to conserve 
genetic and other natural resources.  Protec tion of traditional know ledge is therefore 
closely linked to the protection of the environment.
13 
 - Development.  The point has been made that for the various reasons set out above, 
protection of traditional knowledge  could contribute significantly to the fulfilment of 
developmental objectives.
14 
 - Coherence of international and national law.   International recognition of traditional 
knowledge, including farmers' rights, as pr otectable subject-matter would be in 
conformity with the obligation to respect,  preserve and maintain  knowledge, innovations 
and practices of indigenous and local commun ities provided for under Article 8(j) of the 
CBD.
15  Other international systems such as the International Undertaking on Plant 
Genetic Resources16 and the model law of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) also 
recognize and protect the rights of local comm unities, farmers and breeders and there is a 
need to reconcile these with the TRIPS Agreement which c onsiders intellectual property 
rights to be private rights.17  Without the existence of an international mechanism, 
national and regional laws wh ich acknowledge the collective rights of indigenous and 
local communities over their traditional knowle dge and folklore could be undermined.18  
Moreover, the legal protection of traditional knowledge would improve confidence in the 
international intellectual property system.19 
 
- Transboundary use of traditional knowledge.  Misappropriation of traditional knowledge 
often involves the acquisition of such know ledge in one country and the seeking of 
patents in other countries.  Such actions ma y be illegal under the law of the country of 
origin, but nothing could be done under that  law once the knowledge is being used and 
patented outside that jurisdiction.20  Transparency and predictability in the regime of 
protection of traditional knowledge could be  established only through international 
                                                      
11 India, IP/C/M/28, para. 125. 
12 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Bolivia, IP/C/M/38, para. 246, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 241;   
India, IP/C/M/28, para. 127, IP/C/M/25, para . 70;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/48, para. 18. 
13 Ecuador, IP/C/M/30, para. 184. 
14 Venezuela, IP/C/M/29, para. 201. 
15 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, IP/C/W/165. 
16 Now the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Reso urces for food and Agriculture (2001) adopted on 
3 November 2001 in Rome.  See www.fao.org/biodiversity/doc_en.asp. 
17 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  Cuba, Honduras, Paragu ay and Venezuela, IP/C /W/166;  Indonesia, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 217;  the African Group, IP/C/W/206, IP/C/W/163. 
18 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Peru, 
Thailand, Venezuela, IP/C/W/403 (her einafter Bolivia et al IP/C/W/403);  China, IP/C/M/40, para. 120;  
Ecuador, IP/C/M/30, para. 184;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/48, para. 18. 
19 EC, IP/C/M/35, paras. 238-239, IP/C/M/30, para. 145. 
20 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Brazil, IP/C/M/46, paras. 79-81, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 238, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 220;  India, IP/C/M/48, pa ra. 49, IP/C/M/46, para. 38, IP/C/M/45, para. 25, 
IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 223;  Indonesia, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 217;  Kenya, IP/C/M/42, para. 114;  Pakistan, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 211;  Peru, IP/C/M/46, para. 50, IP/C/M/40, para. 84, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 203.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  action, which could regulate the relationshi ps between entities, persons and activities 
taking place in different countries.21     
 
10. In response, it has been said that establishing national regimes of protection of traditional 
knowledge is essential befo re engaging in discussion of international action.22  The following reasons 
have been put forward in support of this view:    
- using laws currently in force and those al ready well understood will enable holders of 
traditional  knowledge to protect such knowledge immediately;23   
- there is very little concrete evidence at this  stage that national regimes for regulating 
access to traditional knowledge and benefit sharing are per se  insufficient to deal with 
misappropriation of traditional knowledge;  24 
- it is prudent for Members to share thei r national experiences, determine areas of 
inadequacy, and conduct cost-benefit analyses before further considering international 
action;25          
- a national system can be internati onal in its outlook and may contain, inter alia , choice of 
forum, choice of law or international arb itration provisions relevant to cross-boundary 
dispute or enforcement issues.26 
- international regimes need to be supported by  the widespread implementation of national 
regimes.27 
11. In response to these points, it has been said that owing to the transboundary nature of the 
issue of the protection of traditional knowledge, na tional regimes can only be supplementary to an 
international mechanism28 and will not be effective unless an in ternational mechanism is established.29  
12. It has been said that the Council for TRIPS should look into ways of providing both defensive 
and positive protection of  traditional knowledge,30 and special consideration should be given to fully 
                                                      
21 Brazil and India, IP/C/W/443.  
22 Australia, IP/C/W/310, IP/C/M/46, para. 62, IP /C/M/38, para. 236, IP/C/M/36, para. 222;  
New Zealand, IP/C/M/49, para. 119, IP/C/M/48, para. 79, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 249;  United States, 
IP/C/W/449, IP/C/M/48, para. 30.  
23 United States, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 250.  
24 Australia, IP/C/M/46, para. 65, IP/C/M/40, para. 101;  Canada, IP/C/M/47, para. 66, IP/C/M46, 
para. 55, IP/C/M/40, para. 115;  Japan, IP/C/M/46, pa ra. 77;  New Zealand, IP/C/M/47, para. 54, IP/C/M/46, 
para. 61; Switzerland, IP/C/M/47, para. 75;  United St ates, IP/C/W/434, IP/C/M/47, para. 48, IP/C/M/46, 
para. 36, IP/C/M/43, para. 55.   
25 Australia, IP/C/M/42, para. 118, IP/C/M/40, paras.  99, 101;  United States, IP/C/W/449, IP/C//M/48, 
para. 30. 
26 United States, IP/C/W/449. 
27 New Zealand, IP/C/M/49, paras. 118-119.   
28 The African Group, IP/C/W/404.   
29 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Bolivia, IP/C/M/37/ Add.1, para. 241;  Brazil, IP/C/M/48, para. 40, 
IP/C/M/47, para. 27, IP/C/M/46, paras. 79-81, IP/C/M/4 0, para. 90, IP/C/M/39, para. 126, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 238, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 220;  Brazil and India, IP/C/W/443;  Colombia, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 209;  
China, IP/C/M/40, para. 120;  India, IP/C/M/48, para. 53, IP/C/M/47, para. 34, IP/C/M/45, para. 25, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 223;  Indonesia, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 217;  Kenya, IP/C/M/42, para. 114;  Pakistan, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 211;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/W/441/Rev.1, IP/C/M/48, para. 18, IP/C/M/40, paras. 84, 
85, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 203;   Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 201.     
30 Bolivia, IP/C/M/38, para. 246, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 241;  Brazil, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 221;  
Brazil, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, Zambia, IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
  engaging and respecting the concerns of indigeno us peoples and local communities in developing the 
international mechanism.
31   
13. On the question of the appropriate international forum/forums  for further development of 
the protection of traditional knowledge and fo lklore, two main views seem to exist: 
- priority should be given to the ongoing work  in WIPO and other re levant international 
forums, and the WTO should come back to th is matter when this work has sufficiently 
clarified conceptual issues and possible options; 
 - all relevant forums, including the Council fo r TRIPS, should pursue work on this matter 
in parallel and in a mutually supportive way. 
 
14. The following reasons have been put forward for the view that emphasis should be put, at this 
stage, on the work of WIPO and other re levant intergovernmental organizations:  
- WIPO is already engaged in a very subs tantive programme in the Intergovernmental 
Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditiona l Knowledge and Folklore, which has 
already yielded concrete results, includi ng a decision to prepare a document on the 
elements of a sui generis  system for the protection for traditional knowledge.  It is, 
therefore, necessary to follow closely this discussion and to avoid duplication of efforts.
32  
The discussion in WIPO will be informative for deliberations in the Council for TRIPS.33    
The Council for TRIPS should only deal with issues not tackled, or not fully tackled, in WIPO;
34  
 
- indigenous communities, whose views vary widely with regard to both the main 
problems and the possible solutions, are involved in WIPO's work;35  
- at this stage the WTO is not the right place to negotiate a fully fledged system of 
protection for a complex new, and as ye t undefined, subject-matter like traditional 
knowledge or folklore.36  It is important to try to clarify the definition of traditional 
knowledge,37 the objectives of protection38 and modalities.39  Once self-standing 
solutions as discussed in the appropriate foru m are in place, attention could then be 
                                                                                                                                                                     
Zimbabwe, IP/C/W/356, IP/C/W/356/Add.1 (hereinafter Brazil et al, IP/C/W/356);  Peru, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 252, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 203.   
31 New Zealand, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 247;  Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 201.   
32 Australia, IP/C/M/46, para. 64, IP/C/M/39, para. 140;  Canada, IP/C/M/47, para. 67, IP/C/M/46, 
para. 54, IP/C/M/42, para. 116;  EC, IP/C/W/383, IP/C/W/254, IP/C/M/43, para. 41, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 242, IP/C/M/35, paras. 238, 239;  Japan, IP/C/M /45, para. 46, IP/C/M/43, para. 48, IP/C/M/40, para. 96, 
IP/C/M/37, para. 216, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 226;  Korea, IP/C/M/49, para. 121, IP/C/M/46, para. 52;  New Zealand, IP/C/M/46, para. 61;  Switzerland, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1, IP/C/M/42, para. 99, IP/C/M/40, para. 73;  
United States, IP/C/M/35, paras. 241-242. 
33 United States, IP/C/M/49, para. 98, IP/C/M/43, para. 55.  
34 Australia, IP/C/M/28, para. 150;  Switzerland, IP/C/M/35, para. 247. 
35 United States, IP/C/M/35, paras. 241-242. 
36 EC, IP/C/W/383, IP/C/M/44, para. 28, IP/C/M/43, para. 41, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 242, IP/C/M/35, 
paras. 238-239;  Japan, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 226, IP/C/M/26, para. 62;  Singapore, IP/C/M/26, para. 74. 
37 EC, IP/C/M/43, para. 41;  Japan, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 226;  New Zealand, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 247;  Switzerland, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1, IP/C/M/40, pa ra. 73;  Thailand, IP/C/M/42, paras. 105, 115;  
United States, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 250.   
38 Switzerland, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1, IP/C/M/40, para. 73 ;  New Zealand, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 247;  
Thailand, IP/C/M/42, para. 105.   
39 EC, IP/C/W/383, IP/C/W/254, IP/C/M/35, paras. 238-239;  Japan, IP/C/M/25, para. 93;  Korea, 
IP/C/M/28, para. 164, IP/C/M/25, para. 95;  United States, IP/C/M/35, paras. 241-242.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  focused on examining how and to what ex tent these need to be included in the 
TRIPS Agreement;40  
- WIPO, as the specialized UN agency respons ible for the promotion of intellectual 
property worldwide, is from a technical point  of view, the most appropriate forum to 
tackle the issue of legal protection of trad itional knowledge, especially if the purpose is 
to create a new "intellectual-property-like" protection regime.41  W I P O  h a s  m o r e  
expertise and capacity to do more technical work in this area and they have been 
exploring this issue for some time.42  The issue of traditional knowledge does not involve 
trade and therefore handling it in the WTO would be inappropriate;43 
- reference has been also been made to the work of the Working Group on Article 8(j) of 
the CBD and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 
Agriculture of the FAO.44 
15. The reasons that have been advanced for the view  that work should pro ceed in parallel in all 
relevant forums are as follows: 
- the WTO has its own mandate under the Doha Declaration and specific time-frame;45  
pursuing the work in other forums would be inconsistent with the mandate and 
instructions given to the Council for TRIPS.46  Besides, the pertinent paragraphs of the 
Doha Ministerial Declaration refer to the need to take into account the development 
dimension of these issues, which is importan t and not found in the mandates contained in 
other forums;47   
- the work in WIPO is proceeding slowly and still far from realisable, and it is not 
appropriate to defer action manda ted under the Doha Declaration;48   
- the ongoing work at WIPO should not be a reason for delaying work at the WTO,49 as in 
any case any conclusions reached at WIPO will not automatically become applicable in 
the WTO;50  
                                                      
40 EC, IP/C/W/383, IP/C/M/35, paras. 238-239, IP/C/W/254;  Japan, IP/C/M/25, para. 93;  Korea, 
IP/C/M/28, para. 164, IP/C/M/25, para. 95;  United States, IP/C/M/35, paras. 241-242. 
41 EC, IP/C/M/43, para. 64, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 242, IP/C/M/35, para. 239. 
42 Canada, IP/C/M/40, para. 116;  EC, IP/C/M/43, para . 64;   Japan, IP/C/M/48, para. 75, IP/C/M/45, 
para. 46;  United States, IP/C/M/40, para. 123. 
43 Canada, IP/C/M/25, para. 91. 
44 Switzerland, IP/C/W/284. 
45 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Brazil, IP/C/M/46, para. 78, IP/C/M/43, para. 61, IP/C/M/40, 
paras. 90, 132, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 207, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 219;  Brazil and India, IP/C/W/443;  
Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela, 
IP/C/W/429, IP/C/W/429/Rev.1, IP/C/W/429/Rev.1/Add.1-3 (hereinafter Bolivia et al, IP/C/W/429/Rev.1);  Chile, IP/C/M/40, para. 126;  China IP/C/M/43, para. 56, IP/C/M/40, para. 120, IP/C/M/39, para. 136, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 227;  India, IP/C/M/48, para. 52, IP/C/M/40, para 83;  Malaysia, IP/C/M/44, para. 40; 
Pakistan, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 211;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/48, para. 91, IP/C/M/43, para. 45;  Thailand, 
IP/C/M/47, para. 56;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/43, para. 49, IP/C/M/40, para. 102, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 208;  
Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/43, para. 46 , IP/C/M/40, para. 80;  Boli via et al,  IP/C/W/403.  
46 Brazil, IP/C/M/43, para. 61.  
47 Brazil, IP/C/M/43, para. 61;  India, IP/C/M/47, para. 40;  Peru, IP/C/M/47, para. 72, IP/C/M/43, 
para. 45.    
48 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  India, IP/C/M/48, para. 52;  Peru, IP/C/M/48, para. 91;  
Venezuela, IP/C/M/40, para. 102;  Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/40, para. 78.   
49 Norway, IP/C/M/38, para. 241;  Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/40, para. 78. IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  - it would be inappropriate to have issues and problems arising out of the 
TRIPS Agreement dealt with by WIPO.
51  Indeed, the Council for TRIPS has a valuable 
role to play in shedding light on these issues and in looking for practical and equitable responses to the concerns raised, while minimizing duplication of efforts by dealing with issues not dealt with at all or only inadequately at WIPO;
52  
- the WTO must, for its part, find measures that are in line with its unique way of 
functioning, particularly in regard to the manner in which disputes are settled.53  A 
solution to the concerns relating to pate nting that constitutes a misappropriation of 
traditional knowledge should similarly take the form of obligations that are enforceable 
within the WTO framework;54 
- conflicts in the implementation of the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement, including on the 
subject of traditional knowledge, demand a systemic solution that should be addressed as part of the review of Article 27.3(b).
55   
- lack of definition or clarity of the concep t of traditional knowledge should not prevent 
WTO Members from establishing multilateral disciplines, just as it did not do so in the 
case of "micro-organisms".56  Therefore, it is neither useful nor necessary to define the 
term "traditional knowledge".57  Indeed, the exercise was called for precisely because 
there was a lack of clarity;58   
- the WTO is an appropriate forum to discuss traditional knowledge as work on this issue 
is being carried out not only in the Counc il for TRIPS but also in the Committee on 
Trade and Environment.59  The WTO does not lack the necessary expertise either in the 
Secretariat or in the delegations;60 
- it is important for the Council for TRIPS to take note of the discussions elsewhere on this 
subject, so as to avoid dupli cation of efforts and to cr eate the basis for the necessary 
synergies between the work done in the Council for TRIPS and WIPO, the CBD, the FAO and other relevant inte rgovernmental organizations;
61   
- a resolution adopted by WIPO Assembly in 2003 clearly indicates that WIPO is not the 
sole forum for the discussion on traditional knowledge and that the work done in WIPO 
should not have any negative effect on the discussion in other forums.62  The work in 
                                                                                                                                                                     
50 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/40, para. 78. 
51 Brazil, IP/C/M/28, para. 168;  India, IP/C/M/28, para. 167;  Australia and Norway stated that the 
Council for TRIPS should deal with issues that touc hed on the TRIPS Agreement - IP/C/M/28, para. 151 and 
IP/C/M/27, para. 133, respectively. 
52 Venezuela, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 244;  Austra lia, IP/C/M/28, para. 150;  Switzerland, IP/C/M/35, 
para. 247. 
53 Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/43, para. 45.  
54 The African Group, IP/C/W/404. 
55 Brazil, IP/C/M/28, para. 185. 
56 Brazil, IP/C/M/30, para. 183. 
57 Dominican Republic, IP/C/M/40, para. 110;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/40, para. 103.   
58 India, IP/C/M/28, para. 128. 
59 Venezuela, IP/C/M/26, para. 73. 
60 Brazil, IP/C/M/43, para. 61;  Peru, IP/C/M/48, para. 91.    
61 Brazil, IP/C/M/26, paras. 62, 64;  the African Grou p, IP/C/W206;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/26, para. 84.  
Others supported coordination with other relevant organizations: EC, IP/C/M/30, para. 146;  New Zealand, IP/C/M/26, para. 69;  Switzerland, IP/C/M/29, para. 176. 
62 Venezuela, IP/C/M/43, para. 49.   IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  WIPO will be strengthened by the results that will emerge from the Council for TRIPS 
and vice versa.  It is not desirable to study this issue in one single organization.63  
16. In regard to the point concerning conflicts between the implementation of the CBD and the 
TRIPS Agreement, it has been said that, even if true, the point would only be relevant for that part of 
traditional knowledge dealt with by the CBD, namely that relating to the conservation and sustainable 
use of biological diversity.64 
17. It has been suggested that as a way forwar d the Council for TRIPS consider adopting a 
decision on traditional knowledge which would be a r esult of the review of Article 27.3(b) of the 
TRIPS Agreement.65  The decision would reflect Members' common understanding on certain issues, 
including the definition of traditional knowledge, rights conferred, docum entation of traditional 
knowledge, and institutional arrangements.66 
III. THE GRANT OF PATENTS IN RESPECT OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE67  
18. As indicated earlier, a concern that has been expressed in the discussions in the Council for 
TRIPS is about the grant of patents or other IPRs  covering traditional knowledg e to persons other than 
the indigenous peoples or communities who have orig inated the knowledge and legitimately control 
it.  Several patents have been cited as exam ples, including in regard to turmeric, neem68 and 
ayahuasca vine.69 
19. The view has been expressed that the granti ng of patents on traditional knowledge already in 
the public domain or without the consent of i ndigenous peoples and local communities amounts to 
unauthorized appropriation of the knowledge.70  It has been said that this  occurs particularly in the 
case where Members do not follow appropriate defi nitions of the criteria for patentability or 
appropriate procedures.71    
20. Two areas where it has been said that the patent system is not working well enough in 
connection with the granting of patents covering traditional knowledge have been referred to: 
- one is in connection with the definition of prior art  used to determine whether a 
claimed invention meets the novelty standard fo r patentability.  In this connection, it has 
been said that some Members define novelty in a manner that does not recognize 
information available to the public through u se or oral traditions outside their domestic 
jurisdictions.72  To ensure that traditional knowledge is not included in patent claims, the 
concept of novelty under the TRIPS Agreemen t must be interpreted to include prior 
publication and use anywhere in the world.73   
                                                      
63 Kenya, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 233;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 244. 
64 United States, IP/C/W/257. 
65 The African Group, IP/C/W/404.  A draft decision on traditional knowledge is included as annex to 
document IP/C/W/404.   
66 The African Group, IP/C/W/404. 
67 This Section should be read with Section III of the Secretariat's revised summary note on the 
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (IP/C/W/368/Rev.1). 
68 India, IP/C/W/198, IP/C/M/48, paras. 57-59. 
69 Brazil, IP/C/W/228. 
70 Peru, IP/C/W/447;  India, IP/C/M/30, para. 170. 
71 India, IP/C/M/39, para. 122, IP/C/M/28, para. 126;  Kenya, IP/C/M/28, para. 141;  Peru, 
IP/C/W/447. 
72 India, IP/C/M/39, para. 122, IP/C/M/28, para. 126;  Kenya, IP/C/M/28, para. 141. 
73 India, IP/C/M/39, para. 122.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
  - the second concerns the adequacy of the information on prior art  available to patent 
examiners.  It has been said that the inst ances of patents wrongly granted show that the 
prior art in the case of traditional knowledge originating in one country is not widely known or documented and available to patent offices all over the world.
74  O f t e n  
traditional knowledge exists only in oral fo rm or, if documented, is available in 
languages that the patent authorities are not familiar with.75 
21. In response, it has been said that: 
- if the criteria for patentability  are properly applied, the granting of erroneous patents 
would be avoided;76   
- Under the patent laws of many Members, prior art  comprises not only earlier disclosures 
in writing but also what is already publicly known or used anywhere in the world;77 
- patent applicants can be required to disclose information which is material to 
patentability;78 
- if patents are improperly granted, the pa tent system provides remedies, such as post-
grant opposition or re-examination proceedings,  as demonstrated by the revocation of 
the neem and turmeric patents.79  Were parties other than traditional knowledge holders to 
obtain patent protection, th e patent should be cancelled.80   
22. In response, it has been said that post-granted opposition or re-examination proceedings 
would be insufficient, complicated and expensive,  especially for developing countries, and therefore 
economically infeasible.81  In the turmeric and neem cases, the challenges could be sustained owing to 
the engagement of the government and a c onsortium of non-governmental organization.82     
23. With regard to patent applications, not fo r traditional knowledge itself but when traditional 
knowledge is used as a basis for further innovations wh ich meet the relevant criteria, it has been said 
that these innovations are perfectly patentable.  Howe ver, the existence of a patent would not override 
accompanying national requirements to obtain aut horization from the owners of the traditional 
knowledge from which the invention is derived and to  reward them for the use of it or share the 
benefits of its use.83   
24. In response, it has been said that , even if the national laws applicable do not allow patents on 
inventions based on traditional knowle dge, patents in other regimes that allow such patents reduce the 
economic value of the knowledge of local communiti es and may constrain the development and use of 
                                                      
74 United States, IP/C/W/209;  Switzerland, IP/C/W/284. 
75 Brazil, IP/C/M/48, para. 37;  India, IP/C/M/39, para. 123;  EC, IP/C/M/32,  para. 137;  Switzerland, 
IP/C/M/30, para. 164. 
76 Switzerland, IP/C/M/30, para. 164. 
77 Japan, IP/C/W/236. 
78 United States, IP/C/W/449, IP/C/W/434, IP/C/M/49, para. 105, IP/C/M/48, para. 33. 
79 United States, IP/C/W/449, IP/C/W/434, IP/C/M/49,  para. 105, IP/C/M/48, para. 33, IP/C//M/46, 
para. 35, IP/C/M/32, para. 131;  Japan, IP/C/M/48, para. 76, IP/C/M/29, para. 157. 
80 EC, IP/C/W/254. 
81 Bolivia, IP/C/M/48, para. 83; Bolivia et al, IP/C/W/403;  Brazil, IP/C/M/48, para. 37, IP/C/M/39, 
para. 126;  Brazil et al, IP/C/W/356;  India, IP/C/M /48, paras. 51, 56, IP/C/M/46, para. 42;  Indonesia, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 217;  Pakistan, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 211;  Peru, IP/C/M/46, para. 51, IP/C/M/43, 
para. 44.   
82 India, IP/C/M/48, para. 60. 
83 EC, IP/C/W/254.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  their knowledge in the market-place or may facilita te others' use or explo itation of their knowledge 
without any rewards to them.84 
25. It has been suggested th at the development of databases on traditional knowledge  would 
help patent examiners discover relevant prior art so as to improve examination of patent applications 
and prevent the grant of patents for subj ect-matter that should not be patentable.85  Databases would 
also help potential licensees in terms of searching for knowledge, innovations and practices.86  Some 
specific suggestions have been made fo r the features of such databases:    
- access to these databases for pa tent authorities and relevant judicial authorities could be 
facilitated through the establishment of an in ternational gateway fo r traditional knowledge, 
which would electronically link these databases;87 
- at least a minimum harmonization of the structure and contents for these databases should be 
achieved;88     
- databases should be searchable over the Internet;89  
- to the extent that traditional knowledge is alread y recorded in databases and print media, it is 
important to ensure that patent examin ers are made familiar with these resources;90   
- databases should only disclose traditional knowledge already in the public domain or 
traditional knowledge for which prior informed consent has been obtained.91  This would 
ensure that databases do not themselves facilitate piracy;92   
- access to these databases s hould not involve costly or burdensome procedures.93   
26. In this regard, concerns have been  expressed about the following:   
- the responsibility for bearing the co st of maintaining these databases;94   
- while serving as a repository of information, da tabases cannot be completely exhaustive as 
they may not contain knowledge held by local co mmunities in oral form or knowledge that is 
continuously evolving through informal innovations within a community.95 
                                                      
84 India, JOB(00)/6091. 
85 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Brazil, IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 255;  Bolivia et al, 
IP/C/W/403;  China, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 228, EC, IP /C/W/383, IP/C/M/43, para. 39, IP/C/M/40, para. 94, 
IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 242, IP/C/M/32, para. 137;  India, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 253, IP/C/W/198;  Japan, 
IP/C/M/48, para. 76, IP/C/M/32, para. 142;  Korea, IP/C/M/49, para. 121;  Switzerland, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1, 
IP/C/W/284, IP/C/M/42, para. 98, IP/C/M/30, para. 164 ;  United States, IP/C/W/449, IP/C/W/434, IP/C/W/257, 
IP/C/W/209, IP/C/M/48, para. 33, IP/C/M/46, para. 34;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 243;  Zimbabwe, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 201. 
86 United States, IP/C/W/257. 
87 Switzerland, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1, IP/C/W/284.  
88 Switzerland, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1, IP/C/W/284.  
89 Switzerland, IP/C/M/42, para. 98, IP/C/M/3 0, para. 164;  United States, IP/C/W/434. 
90 United States, IP/C/W/209. 
91 Brazil, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 255;  Bolivia et al, IP/C/W/403;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 244.  
92 Brazil, IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para 255, IP/C/M/32, para. 130, IP/C/M/28, para. 136;  India, 
IP/C/W/198, IP/C/M/29, para. 164, 165;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 244, IP/C/M/32, para. 136. 
93 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  Switzerland, IP/C/W/284, IP /C/M/32, para. 124;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/32, 
para. 136. 
94 Venezuela, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 244.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  - while databases may help forestall the grant of  inappropriate patents, they cannot address the 
problem of the non-accrual to the holders of traditional knowledge of  economic benefits 
resulting from the use of that knowledge;
96  
- reference to databases by patent examiners would be voluntary and patent examiners in 
Member countries would have no obligation to co nsider this information in their prior art 
searches.97  Obligations, guidelines or recommendations  should be establis hed to improve and 
substantially tighten up search systems in respect of information that is relevant to traditional knowledge so as to evaluate novelty and inventiveness.
98   
27. It has also been suggested that a requirement  on patent applicants to disclose in their 
applications any traditional knowledge  used in the invention in question could help in the assessment 
of novelty and also assist countries with possible cl aims to examine the application and oppose the 
patent in time.99  The discussion on this suggestion, which has also been made in regard to prior 
informed consent and benefit sharing with regard to  genetic resources, is set out in the Secretariat's 
revised summary note on the relationship betwee n the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on 
Biological Diversity (IP/C/W/368/Rev.1). 
IV. CONSENT AND BENEFIT SHARING 
28. As indicated earlier, one of the major concer ns expressed has been th at traditional knowledge 
is being used without the authorization of the i ndigenous peoples or commun ities who have originated 
and legitimately control it and without proper shari ng of the benefits that accrue from such use.  
Several suggestions have been  put forward with a view to addressing this concern: 
 - Use of the  existing IPR system .  It has been suggested that a starting-point should be to 
explore possibilities for making more effective use of the existing IPR system for 
protecting the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities;100 
  - Contracts .  It has been suggested that the b est way of addressing these concerns would 
be through systems based on bilateral contr acts between holders of  traditional knowledge 
and persons or companies wishing to acce ss and use that knowledge.  Such systems 
could be backed up by suitable national or local legislation;
101 
 
- Disclosure requirement .  It has been suggested that app licants for patents for inventions 
that use traditional knowledge associated with  genetic resources s hould be required to 
disclose the source102, or the origin or source103, of the traditional knowledge in their 
patent applications.  Additionally, it has been  suggested that patent applicants be also 
required to provide evidence that they ha ve obtained any necessary prior informed 
                                                                                                                                                                     
95 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Brazil, IP/C/M/ 48, para. 39;  Bolivia et al, IP/C/W/403;  Brazil 
and India, IP/C/W/443;  India, IP/C/M/39,  para. 123, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 253. 
96 Brazil, IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/32, para. 130;  India, IP/C/M/29, para. 164;  Pakistan, IP/C/M/28, 
para. 159.  
97 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  India, IP/C/M/45, para. 20. 
98 Peru, IP/C/W/447.   
99 Brazil, IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/48, para. 38, IP/C/M/3 3, para. 121, IP/C/M/32, para. 128;  India, 
IP/C/W/195, IP/C/M/29, paras. 164-165. 
100 Australia, IP/C/W/310;  EC, IP/C/W/383;  Japan, IP/C/M/29, para. 157. 
101 United States, IP/C/W/434, IP/C/W/393, IP/C/W/341, IP/C/W/257. 
102 Switzerland, IP/C/W/433, IP/C/W/423, IP/C/W/400/Rev.1. 
103 EC, IP/C/383, IP/C/M/44, para. 29, IP/C/M/42, para. 107, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 228.    IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  consent from the competent authority in the c ountry of origin of that knowledge and have 
entered into appropriate be nefit-sharing arrangements;104   
  - Sui generis  system of protection .  It has been suggested that only a system of protection 
of traditional knowledge which provides proprieta ry rights can ensure that market forces 
will operate to generate  fairness and equity.
105  
 29. The subsections that follow summarize the discussion on the first and last of these 
suggestions.  The suggestions concerning contracts and disclosure, which have also been made in 
regard to genetic material used in inventions that  are the subject of patent applications, are discussed 
in more detail in the Secretariat's revised su mmary note on the relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (IP/C/W/368/Rev.1). 
30. A general point that has been made is on the importance of educating indigenous and local 
communities to be able to protect their interest s by effectively negotiating contracts and using 
intellectual property systems.
 106 
A. USE OF THE EXISTING IPR  SYSTEM  
31. The view has been expressed that, while ther e is a need to examine ways of improving 
protection for traditional knowledge, the starting-poi nt should be to explore possibilities for making 
more effective use of the existing legal framework , particularly the intellectual property system.107  
Beyond the patent system several other IPRs such  as copyright and related rights, trademarks and 
certification marks can be used.108  Since traditional knowledge is often a combination of elements 
such as cultivation of genetic resources, use of tr aditional knowledge, ritual chants and ritual dress, 
protection can be most effective by using a comb ination of intellectual property and other laws.109  
Under the existing system, traditional artists and cr eators have legal rights through which they can 
exclude unauthorized use by others and obtain financ ial benefits for their efforts, including in the 
international market.  Points that have been ma de and some examples cited in the discussion so far 
that relate to specific IPRs are set out below: 
- Copyright and related rights.  While it is claimed that copyright laws illustrate the 
existing system's inability to accommodate the concept of traditional knowledge, for 
example on account of communal ownership, a ttention has been drawn to some recent 
court cases that have extended legal rights ov er copyright to traditional knowledge in 
certain circumstances, thus demonstrating that  creative use of the current legal system can 
provide for such protection.110  These cases including ones involving the unauthorized use 
                                                      
104 The African Group, IP/C/W/404;  Andean Community, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 231; Brazil, 
IP/C/M/32, para. 128, IP/C/M/33, para. 121, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 219, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, paras. 205, 237-238, IP/C/M/38, para. 230, IP/C/M/39, para. 126, IP/C /M/42, para. 101, IP/C/M/46, para. 81, IP/C/W/228;  
Bolivia et al, IP/C/W/403;  Brazil et al, IP/C/W/356;  China, IP/C/M/43, para. 56, IP/C/M/42, para. 119, 
IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 229, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 228;  Colombia, IP/C/M/46, para. 57, IP/C/M/40, para. 127, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 209;  India, IP/C/M/45, para. 25, IP/C/M/40, para. 81, IP/C/M/39, para. 122, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 214, IP/C/M/24, para. 81, IP/C/W/195;  Indonesia, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 217;  
Kenya, IP/C/M/42, para. 114, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 239;  Pakistan, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 211;  Peru, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/M/43, para. 45;  Thailand, IP/C/M/42, para. 105;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/40, para. 102, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 208. 
105 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  Indonesia, IP/C/M/32, para. 134. 
106 United States, IP/C/W/209. 
107 Australia, IP/C/W/310;  Japan, IP/C/M/29, para. 157. 
108 Australia, IP/C/M/28, para. 152.   
109 United Status, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 250.  
110 Australia, IP/C/W/310. IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 14  
 
  of a photograph of an indigenous dance group,  the unauthorized reproduction of spiritual 
rock art images and the distortion of artistic works containing pre-existing cultural clan 
images.
111  In addition, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) 
provides for the protection of performances of traditional music and is the only neighbouring rights treaty to explicitly in clude the protection of performers of 
expressions of folklore;
112 
 
- Patents, plant variety protection and utility models.  It has been argued that, when 
combined with voluntary contracts, obtaining patents around the world on commercial products that use traditional knowledge would prov ide a firm legal basis for the sharing of 
benefits, whereas the absence of such protection would mean that anyone would be free 
to use the technology without any obligation to share benefits.
113  It has also been said 
that sui generis  systems for protecting plant varieties can be designed so as to recognize 
traditional knowledge and farmers' rights, fo r example those that take the form of 
selecting, breeding, using and sustaining plant varieties.  The example of the OAU Model 
Law has been cited as protecting the rights of local communities, farmers and breeders.114  
It has been suggested that a footnote might be added to the TRIPS Agreement to clarify 
that any sui generis  law for plant variety protection can provide for the protection of the 
innovations of indigenous and local farming communities in developing countries and the 
continuation of traditional farming practices.115  The view has also been expressed that the 
TRIPS Agreement does not exclude the possibilit y of protecting farmers' varieties under a 
system separate from that providing effective protection for commercially bred plant 
varieties116 and that farmers' rights and breeders ' rights would have to be balanced;117 
 
- Unfair competition and trade secrets .  Some examples have been given in the discussion 
involving the use of unfair competition laws or remedies against passing off, in 
conjunction with, for example, copyright and re lated rights to deal with the protection of 
traditional knowledge.118  It has been said that trade secret law is particularly appropriate 
in helping indigenous and local communities ma intain limitations on the circulation of 
their knowledge, innovations and practices;119 
 
- Industrial designs.  It has been said that th e extent to which indi genous groups have used 
design law to protect their indigenous cultural expression, through registration and 
enforcement of indigenous designs and symbols,  is the subject of a study in one Member 
country.  An example has been given of the unauthorized reproduction of an indigenous artist's work embodying clan designs, on imported fabric.  It has been said that this case 
involves examining the ability of another party to bring an action as co-applicant, as a 
representative of the clan involved;
120 
 
- Trademarks and certification marks.   Examples have been given of the use  of trademarks 
by indigenous arts centres and galleries for the protection of artistic works and other 
forms of indigenous knowledge.121  Another example has been given of a national label 
                                                      
111 Australia, IP/C/W/310. 
112 United States, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 251.  
113 United States, IP/C/W/257. 
114 The African Group, IP/C/W/206. 
115 The African Group, IP/C/W/163. 
116 Switzerland, IP/C/W/284. 
117 Malaysia, IP/C/M/29, para. 206. 
118 Australia, IP/C/W/310. 
119 United States, IP/C/W/257. 
120 Australia, IP/C/W/310. 
121 Australia, IP/C/W/310.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  of authenticity registered as a certifica tion trademark for indigenous art and art 
products;122 
 
- Geographical indications .  The view has been expressed that under certain circumstances 
geographical indications could be a particul arly important way of protecting traditional 
knowledge,123 for example for identifying products originating from a "p rotected area" as  
defined in Article 1 of the CBD where producers decide to link their collective production standards and related traditi onal knowledge to conservation goals.
124  It has 
been said that since traditional knowledge is constantly developing and has its own 
dynamism, it should be protected in th e same way as geographical indications, 
particularly with respect to the term of protection.125  In response, it has been said that 
while there are some similarities between geographical indications and traditional knowledge, such as their links with local communities, there is still a fundamental 
difference between them.  Geographical indica tions protect denominations or indications 
of products, while traditional knowledge is re lated to knowledge.  The protection of 
geographical indications cannot prevent others  from making the same products so long as 
they use a different denomination.  Moreove r, as traditional knowledge can be important 
to scientific development, it will not be jus tified to grant exclusive rights that allow 
people to prevent the use of such knowledge for an unlimited period of time.
126  
 
32. The view has been expressed that, while the ex isting IPR system may be usable in certain 
circumstances, it cannot provide for suffic ient protection of traditional knowledge.127  Several reasons 
have been given to support this argument: 
- IPRs protect individual prope rty rights whereas traditional knowledge is by and large 
collective;128 
 
- traditional knowledge is devel oped over a period of time and is intergenerational and, 
therefore, may not meet the criteria of novelty or originality or inventive step required by 
IPRs;129 
 
- communities often hold this knowledge in para llel which makes it difficult to determine  
title holders;130  
 
- communities lack adequate education, awar eness and resources to take advantage of 
IPRs;131 
 
- communities do not use scientific methods but trial and error over time.132 
 
                                                      
122 New Zealand, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 248;  Australia, IP/C/W/310. 
123 EC, IP/C/W/254;  South Africa, IP/C/M/43, para. 66;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/32, para. 136. 
124 EC, IP/C/W/254. 
125 Venezuela, IP/C/M/43, para. 50. 
126 EC, IP/C/M/43, paras. 42, 65. 
127 Brazil, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 255. 
128 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  India, IP/C/W/198;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/25, para. 86. 
129 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  India, IP/C/W/198. 
130 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  India, IP/C/W/198. 
131 India, IP/C/W/198. 
132 Venezuela, IP/C/M/25, para. 86. IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 16  
 
  B. P
ROTECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE UNDER A SUI GENERIS  SYSTEM  
33. It has been suggested that only a system of protection of traditional knowledge that provides 
proprietary rights can ensure that market for ces will operate to generate fairness and equity.133  A 
proprietary protection appro ach could provide protection erga omnes , in the sense that, even if the 
knowledge is in some way publicly disclosed, there c ould be mechanisms available to prevent its use 
by all third parties.134 
34. In response, it has been said that any discussion of such a system would require clarity as to 
the definition and scope of the term traditional knowledge.135  There would also be considerable 
hurdles to overcome regarding issues of the determination and m odalities of ownership.136  It has also 
been said that careful thought would need to be given before establishing different systems of 
intellectual property protection for public domain traditional knowledge developed by industrial and 
non-industrial communities.137  In response, it has been argued th at the absence of clarity as to the 
meaning of some terms or the limited amount of experience with national legislation should not be 
used to justify a refusal to discuss, any more th an they had deterred Members from agreeing to the 
protection of a range of subjects in the TRI PS Agreement that were new to many Members.138 
35. The point has been made that there is nothing  in the TRIPS Agreement that prevents WTO 
Members from setting up a specific protection regime for traditional knowledge that regulates or enforces access to, prohibition of, and rewards for the use of traditional knowledge.
139  Support has 
been expressed for developing an intern ational model for such legislation.140 
36. With regard to action at the multilateral leve l, views have been expressed that national 
systems will not be sufficient and that there is a ne ed to explore an international system of minimum 
standards of protection of traditional knowledge, dr awing on synergies with the work of CBD, WIPO, 
FAO and UNCTAD.141  Another view in this connection is  that once WIPO has completed work on 
model national legislation, atten tion could be focused on how and to what extent the protection of 
traditional knowledge can be included in the TRIPS Agreement.142 
37. Some more specific suggestions have been made on what such a sui generis  system should 
cover: 
- a possible definition put forward states that traditional knowledge consists largely of 
innovations, creations and cultural expressions  generated or preserved by its present 
possessors, who may be defined and identified as hol ders of rights who are either individuals 
                                                      
133 Brazil, IP/C/W/228;  Indonesia, IP/C/M/32, para. 134. 
134 Brazil, IP/C/W/228, para. 34. 
135 EC, IP/C/M/43, para. 41, IP/C/W/383;  New Zealand, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 246;  Japan, 
IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 226, IP/C/M/29, para. 157;  Switzerland, IP/C/M/40, para. 73;  Thailand, IP/C/M/42, 
paras. 105, 115;  United States, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 250. 
136 EC, IP/C/M/35, paras. 238-239. 
137 Singapore, Job(00)7853. 
138 Brazil, IP/C/M/30, para. 183;  Dominican Republic , IP/C/M/40, para. 110;  Venezuela, IP/C/M/40, 
para. 103. 
139 Bangladesh, IP/C/M/42, para. 102;  EC, IP/C/M/ 43, para. 39, IP/C/W/254;  Malaysia, IP/C/M/40, 
para. 128;  Zimbabwe, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 201. 
140 EC, IP/C/W/254. 
141 Brazil, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, paras. 199, 220,  IP/C /W/228;  Colombia, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 231.  
142 EC, IP/C/W/254.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  or whole communities, natural or legal persons.143  It should cover products as well as 
services;144 
- the rights provided should follow those provided in Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement so as 
to give exclusive rights to prevent third par ties not having the owner's consent from the acts 
of making, using, offering for sale, or importing the covered product or process;145  
- creating a system for registration of innovations and giving the registered owner the right to 
challenge any use of the innovations without prior permission.  It has been said that for novel 
and useful innovations, some kind of a petty  patent system should be implemented.146 
38. The draft decision on traditional knowledge s ubmitted by the African  Group as a basis for 
further discussion includes, inter alia , the following elements:  
- traditional knowledge includes, but is not lim ited to, knowledge systems, innovations and 
adaptations, information, and practices of local communities or indigenous communities 
relating to medicine or cures, agriculture, u se and conservation of biological material and 
diversity, and other aspects of economic, social, cultural, aesthetic or other value;   
- the rights relating to traditional knowledge in clude, in relation to local communities or 
traditional practitioners, the right for such comm unities or practitioners to be respected for 
their will and decisions on whether or not to co mmercialize their knowledge;  to be  respected 
and honoured of sanctity they attach to their knowledge;  to give prior informed consent for access to and intended use of their traditional know ledge;  to obtain full remuneration for their 
knowledge;  and to prevent third parties from us ing, offering for sale, selling, exporting, and 
importing their knowledge or any article or pr oduct in which their knowledge is an input, 
unless all the requirements under the decision have been met;   
- the existence of traditional knowledge in any form  or at any stage shall defeat the novelty and 
inventiveness requirements for patents and the or iginality requirement for copyright.  No 
intellectual property right should be granted to i nventors or creators, if they used traditional 
knowledge without due recognition of it or without compliance with the requirements 
provided for in the CBD;   
- the WTO shall adopt a programme and establish a committee to review and develop the 
protection of traditional knowledge;   
- Members may document traditional knowledge in their territories and designate a competent 
authority to carry out this exercise.  They ma y also maintain registers of local communities 
and traditional practitioners administrative purposes.
147   
39. In response, it has been said that it would be di fficult to implement this suggestion in practice 
if the parameters of traditional knowledge protection are not defined.148   
40. It has been suggested that the Council shoul d consider the proposals on possible components 
of a sui generis  system for protection of traditional knowledge addressed in a seminar held by the 
                                                      
143 Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru, IP/C/W/165. 
144 Thailand, IP/C/W/36/Add.1, para. 218.  
145 Indonesia, IP/C/M/32, para. 134. 
146 India, IP/C/W/198. 
147 The African Group, IP/C/W/404.     
148 Thailand, IP/C/M/42, para. 115.  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 18  
 
  Government of India and UNCTAD on the protec tion and commercialization of traditional knowledge 
in New Delhi on 3-5 April 2002.
149 
V. INFORMATION ON MEMBERS' NATIONAL LEGISLATION, PRACTICES AND 
EXPERIENCES 
41. Eight Members have provided information with regard to their legislation, practices and 
experiences, with respect to the protection of tr aditional knowledge or have described these in the 
Council meetings.  These are Australia, Chinese Taipei, the European Communities, India, 
New Zealand, Norway, Peru and the United States.150 
_______________ 
                                                      
149 Brazil, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 221;  Brazil et  al, IP/C/W/356;  Thailand, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, 
para. 218.  
150Australia, IP/C/W/310, IP/C/M/46, para. 63;  Chines e Taipei, IP/C/M/43, para. 58;  EC, IP/C/M/43, 
para. 39, IP/C/M/42, para. 108;  India, IP/C/W/198, IP/C/M/48, paras. 57-59, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 253;  Norway, IP/C/M/49, para. 120, IP/C/W/48, para. 81,  IP/C/M/43 para. 54, IP/C/M/40 paras. 87-88, IP/C/M/39 
para. 121;   New Zealand, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, para. 248;  Peru, IP/C/W/458, IP/C/W/447, IP/C/W/441/Rev.1, 
IP/C/W/246, IP/C/M/49, paras. 81-84, IP/C/M/47, paras. 16-23, IP/C/M/45, para. 31, IP/C/M/38, para. 245, IP/C/M/36/Add.1, para. 204;  United States, IP/C/W/393, IP/C/W/341,  IP/C/M/42, para. 110, IP/C/M/37/Add.1, 
para. 251.     IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
DOCUMENTS OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRIPS WITH RESPECT TO THE REVIEW OF 
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B), THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRIPS  
AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND THE  
PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE  
AND FOLKLORE 
  
 The reports on the meetings of the Council fo r TRIPS held during the period January 1999 to 
January 2006 (IP/C/M/21-35, 36/Add.1, 37/Add.1, 38 -40 and 42-49) reflect the work done so far in 
the Council for TRIPS with respect to three agenda items, namely, the review of the provisions of 
Article 27.3(b);  the relationship between the TR IPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD);  and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore (List A).  The substantive 
discussions in the Council for TRIPS on these issues ha ve been recorded in the reports of the meetings 
held from August 1999 to January 2006 (IP/C/M /24-35, 36/Add.1, 37/Add.1, 38-40 and 42-49). 
 Other documents that have been made available include: 
  - Members' submissions relating to specific issues.  Over the period December 1998 to 
November 2005, 51 papers have been subm itted by Members or groups of Members 
(List B). 
 - Information on national legislation, pr actices and experiences provided by eight 
Members (List C) 
- Responses to the questionnaire on Artic le 27.3(b) from 25 Members (List D). 
 - Information provided on work in inte rgovernmental organizations (List E). 
 - Notes by the Secretariat on relevant issues under discussion in the Council for TRIPS 
(List F). 
     
 
    IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 20  
 
  LIST A – Records of the work of the Council for TRIPS 
IP/C/M/21-35, 36/Add.1, 
37/Add.1, 38-40 and  42-49 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meetings 22 January 1999 - 
31 January 2006 
 
LIST B - Members' submissions relating to the agenda items 
2005 
Bolivia, 
Brazil, 
Colombia, 
Cuba, India, and Pakistan IP/C/W/459 The Relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection 
of Traditional Knowledge - Technical 
Observations on US Submission IP/C/W/44918 November 2005 
Peru IP/C/W/458 Analysis of Potentia l Cases of Biopiracy 7 November 2005 
United States IP/C/W/449 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and 
Folklore 10 June 2005 
Peru IP/C/W/447 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 8 June 2005 
Switzerland IP/C/W/446 The Relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD, and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge  and Folklore and 
the Review of Implementation of the TRIPS 
Agreement under Article 71.1 30 May 2005 
Brazil, India IP/C/W/443 The Relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge:  Technical Observations on Issues Raised in a Communication by the United States 
(IP/C/W/434) 18 March 2005 
Bolivia, 
Brazil, 
Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, 
India, Peru, Thailand IP/C/W/442 The Relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity (CBD) and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge - Elements of the Obligation to Disclose Evidence of Benefit-Sharing under the Relevant National Regime18 March 2005 
Peru  IP/C/W/441/ 
Rev.1 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 19 May 2005 
Peru IP/C/W/441 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and 
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and 
Folklore 8 March 2005  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  LIST B - Members' submissions relating to the agenda items 
Dominican 
Republic IP/C/W/429/ 
Rev.1/Add.3 Request of the Dominican Republic to be 
added to the List of Sponsors of Document IP/C/W/429/Rev.1 10 February 2005 
Colombia IP/C/W/429/ 
Rev.1/Add.2 Request of Colombia to be added to the List 
of Sponsors of Document IP/C/W/429/Rev.120 January 2005 
2004 
Bolivia, 
Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, India, 
Pakistan, Peru, 
Thailand, Venezuela IP/C/W/438 The Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge - 
Elements of the Obligation to Disclose 
Evidence of Prior Informed Consent under the Relevant National Regime 10 December 2004 
United States IP/C/W/434 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and the 
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and 
Folklore 26 November 2004 
Switzerland IP/C/W/433 Further Observations by Switzerland on its 
Proposals regarding the Declaration of the Source of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge in Patent Applications 25 November 2004 
Bolivia IP/C/W/429/ 
Rev.1/Add.1 Request from Bolivia to be added to the List 
of Sponsors of document IP/C/W/429/Rev.1 14 October 2004 
Brazil, Cuba, 
Ecuador, India, 
Pakistan, 
Peru, Thailand and Venezuela IP/C/W/429/ 
Rev.1 Revised Version of Document IP/C/W/429 
and Request from Cuba and Ecuador to be added to the List of Sponsors 27 September 2004 
Brazil, India, 
Pakistan, Peru, Thailand and 
Venezuela IP/C/W/429 Elements of the Obligation to Disclose the 
Source and Country of Origin of Biological Resources and/or Traditional Knowledge Used in an Invention 21 September 2004 
Switzerland IP/C/W/423 Additional Comments by Switzerland on its 
Proposal Submitted to WIPO Regarding the Declaration of the Source of Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge in Patent Applications 14 June 2004 
Bolivia IP/C/W/420/ 
Add.1 Request of Bolivia to be added to the List of 
Sponsors of Document IP/C/W/420 5 March 2004 
Brazil, Cuba, 
Ecuador, 
India, Peru, 
Thailand and Venezuela IP/C/W/420 The Relationship Between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on 
Biological Diversity (CBD) - Checklist of 
Issues 2 March 2004 IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 22  
 
  LIST B - Members' submissions relating to the agenda items 
2003 
African Group IP/C/W/404 Taking Forward the Review of Article 
27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement 
 26 June 2003 
Bolivia, 
Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, 
India, Peru, Thailand, Venezuela IP/C/W/403 The Relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge 24 June 2003 
Switzerland IP/C/W/400/ 
Rev.1 Article 27.3(b), the Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Protection of 
Traditional Knowledge 18 June 2003 
Switzerland IP/C/W/400 Article 27.3( b), the Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge 28 May 2003 
United States IP/C/W/393 Access to Ge netic Resources Regime of the  
United States National Parks 28 January 2003 
2002 
European 
Communities 
and member 
States IP/C/W/383 Review of Article 27.3(B) of the 
TRIPS Agreement, and the Relationship 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 17 October 2002 
Peru IP/C/W/356/ 
Add.1 Request of Peru to be added to the List of 
Sponsors of Document IP/C/W/356 1 November 2002 
Brazil, China, 
Cuba, 
Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, 
Thailand, 
Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe IP/C/W/356 
 The Relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity and the Protection of Traditional 
Knowledge  24 June 2002 
United States IP/C/W/341 Technology Transfer Practices of the US 
National Cancer Institute’s Departmental Therapeutics Programme 25 March 2002 
2001 
Australia IP/C/W/310 Communication from Australia:  Review of 
Article 27.3(b) 2 October 2001  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  LIST B - Members' submissions relating to the agenda items 
EC IP/C/W/254 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) o f 
the TRIPS Agreement:  Communication from the European Communities and their Member States  13 June 2001 
Norway IP/C/W/293 Communication from Norway:  Review of 
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement:  The Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity 29 June 2001 
Switzerland IP/C/W/284 Communication from Switzerland:  Review 
of Article 27.3(b):  The View of Switzerland 15 June 2001 
United States IP/C/W/257 Communication from the United States - 
Views of the United States on the 
Relationship between the Convention on 
Biological Diversity and the TRIPS Agreement 13 June 2001 
2000 
Brazil IP/C/W/228 Review of Article 27.3(b) - Communication 
from Brazil 24 November 2000 
India IP/C/W/195 Communication from India 12 July 2000 
India IP/C/W/196 Communication from India 12 July 2000  
India JOB(00)/6091 Non-paper by India:  Issues for Discussion 
under the Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement 5 October 2000 
Japan  IP/C/W/236 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -  
Japan's View  11 December 2000 
Mauritius IP/C/W/206 Communication from Mauritius on behalf of 
the African Group 20 September 2000 
Singapore JOB(00)/7853 Non-paper by Singa pore - Article 27.3(b) 11 December 2000 
United States IP/C/W/209 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Further Views of the United States - Communication from the United States 3 October 2000 
1999 
Andean Group IP/C/W/165 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Proposal on Protection of the Intellectual 
Property Rights Relating to the Traditional Knowledge of Local and Indigenous Communities - Communication from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Peru 3 November 1999 
Canada, EC, 
Japan and the United States IP/C/W/126 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Communication from Canada, the European Communities, Japan and the United States 5 February 1999 
Brazil IP/C/W/164 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -  
Communication from Brazil 29 October 1999 IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 24  
 
  LIST B - Members' submissions relating to the agenda items 
Cuba, 
Honduras, Paraguay and Venezuela IP/C/W/166 Review of Implementation of the Agreement 
under Article 71.1:  Proposal on Protection of the Intellectual Property Rights of the Traditional Knowledge of Local and 
Indigenous Communities 5 November 1999 
India IP/C/W/161 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Communication from India 3 November 1999 
African Group IP/C/W/163 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Communication from Kenya on behalf of the African Group 8 November 1999 
Norway IP/C/W/167 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Communication from Norway 3 November 1999 
United States IP/C/W/162 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Communication from the United States 29 October 1999 
1998 
Mexico Job No. 6957 Non-paper from Mexico:  Application of 
Article 27.3(b)  8 December 1998 
 
LIST C – Information on national legislation, practices and experiences 
2006 
Norway IP/C/M/49, 
para. 120 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 31 January 2006 
Peru IP/C/M/49, 
paras. 81-84 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 31 January 2006 
2005 
Peru  IP/C/W/458 Analysis of Poten tial Cases of Biopiracy 7 November 2005 
India IP/C/M/48, 
paras. 57-59 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 15 September 2005 
Norway IP/C/M/48, 
para. 81 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 15 September 2005 
Peru IP/C/W/447 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 8 June 2005 
Peru  IP/C/W/441/ 
Rev.1 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and 
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 19 May 2005 
Peru IP/C/M/47, 
paras. 16-23 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 3 June 2005 
Peru IP/C/W/441 Article 27.3(b), Relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 8 March 2005 
Australia IP/C/M/46, 
para. 63 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 11 January 2005  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  LIST C – Information on national legislation, practices and experiences 
2004 
Peru IP/C/M/45, 
para. 31 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 27 October 2004 
Chinese 
Taipei IP/C/M/43, 
para. 58 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 7 May 2004 
EC IP/C/M/43, 
para. 39 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 7 May 2004 
Norway IP/C/M/43, 
para. 54 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 7 May 2004 
EC IP/C/M/42, 
para. 108 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 4 February 2004 
United States IP/C/M/42, 
para. 110 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 4 February 2004 
2003 
Norway IP/C/M/40, 
paras. 87-88 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 22 August 2003 
Norway IP/C/M/39, 
para. 121 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 21 March 2003 
Peru IP/C/M/38, 
para. 245 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 5 February 2003 
United States IP/C/W/393 Access to Ge netic Resources Regime of the  
United States National Parks 28 January 2003 
2002 
India  IP/C/M/37/ 
Add.1, para. 253 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 8 November 2002 
New Zealand IP/C/M/37/ 
Add.1, para. 248 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 8 November 2002 
Peru IP/C/M/36/ 
Add.1, para. 
204 Minutes of the Council for TRIPS Meeting 10 September 2002 
United States IP/C/W/341 Technology Transfer Practices of the US  
National Cancer Institute’s Departmental Therapeutics Programme - Communication from the United States 25 March 2002 
2001 
Australia IP/C/W/310 Communication from Australia:  Review of 
Article 27.3(b) 2 October 2001 
Peru IP/C/W/246 Communication from Peru:  Peru's 
Experience of the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Access to Genetic Resources14 March 2001 
2000 
India IP/C/W/198 Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional 
Knowledge - The Indian Experience 14 July 2000 
 
 IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 26  
 
  LIST D - Information on Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) 
2004 
Moldova IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.24 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -  
Information from Members - Addendum 26 January 2004 
2002 
Lithuania IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.23 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -  
Information from Members - Addendum 22 July 2002 
2001 
Czech 
Republic IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.8/Suppl.1 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Members - Supplement 18 September 2001 
Thailand IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.22 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Members - Addendum 10 August 2001 
Hong Kong, 
China IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.21 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Members - Addendum 10 July 2001 
Estonia IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.20 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Members - Addendum 2 July 2001 
2000 
Iceland  IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.19 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Members - Addendum 17 July 2000 
1999 
Slovak 
Republic IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.18 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 27 July 1999 
Norway IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.17 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 19 May 1999 
South Africa IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.16/Corr.1 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum -
Corrigendum 25 May 1999 
South Africa IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.16 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 21 April 1999 
Switzerland IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.15 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 13 April 1999 
Morocco IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.14 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 20 April 1999 
Australia IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.13 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 16 March 1999 
Canada IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.12 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 12 March 1999 
Poland IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.11 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 12 March 1999 
Slovenia IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.10 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 16 February 1999 
Korea IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.9 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 16 February 1999 
Czech 
Republic IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.8 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 16 February 1999 
Japan IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.7 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 12 March 1999 
Romania IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.6 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 16 February 1999  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  LIST D - Information on Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) 
United States IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.5 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 20 April 1999 
European 
Communities IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.4 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 10 February 1999 
Zambia IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.3 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 10 February 1999 
New Zealand IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.2 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 12 February 1999 
Hungary IP/C/W/125/ 
Add.1 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members - Addendum 16 February 1999 
Bulgaria IP/C/W/125 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) -
Information from Members 3 February 1999 
 
LIST E - Information on the work of intergovernmental organizations 
            2002 
UPOV IP/C/W/347/ 
Add.3 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b), 
Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement 
and the Convention on Biological Diversity and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 11 June 2002 
UNCTAD IP/C/W/347/ 
Add.2 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b), 
Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement 
and the Convention on Biological Diversity 
and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 10 June 2002 
CBD IP/C/W/347/ 
Add.1 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b), 
Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and 
Folklore 10 June 2002 
FAO IP/C/W/347 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b), 
Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement 
and the Convention on Biological Diversity and Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore 7 June 2002 
2001 
WIPO IP/C/W/242 Statement by the World Intellectual Property 
Organization (WIPO) on Intellectual Property, Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge 6 February 2001 
2000 
UNCTAD IP/C/W/230 Document Prepared by the UNCTAD 
Secretariat for the Expert Meeting on Systems and National Experiences for Protecting Traditional Knowledge, 
Innovations and Practices which took place 
from 30 October to 1 November 2000 in Geneva:  Outcome of the Expert Meeting 14 December 2000 IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
Page 28  
 
  LIST E - Information on the work of intergovernmental organizations 
International 
Bureau of WIPO IP/C/W/218 Document Prepared by the International 
Bureau of WIPO for the Meeting on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, which took place on 17 and 18 April 2000 in 
Geneva:  Intellectual Property and Genetic 
Resources - An Overview 18 October 2000 
International 
Bureau of WIPO IP/C/W/217 Document Prepared by the International 
Bureau of WIPO for the Roundtable on Intellectual Property and Traditional 
Knowledge, which took place on 1 and 2 
November 1999 in Geneva:  Protection of Traditional Knowledge:  A Global Intellectual Property Issue 18 October 2000 
1999 
CBD IP/C/W/130/ 
Add.1 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Intergovernmental Organizations  - Addendum 16 March 1999 
FAO IP/C/W/130/ 
Add.2 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Intergovernmental Organizations  - Addendum 12 April 1999 
UPOV IP/C/W/130 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - 
Information from Intergovernmental 
Organizations   17 February 1999 
 
LIST F - Notes by the Secretariat 
2003 
IP/C/W/273/ 
Rev.1 Review of the Provision of Article 27.3(b):  Illustrative List 
of Questions Prepared by the Secretariat - Revision 18 February 2003 
2002 
IP/C/W/370 The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore - 
Summary of Issues Raised and Points Made 8 August 2002 
IP/C/W/369 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b) - Summary of 
Issues Raised and Points Made 8 August 2002 
IP/C/W/368 The Relationship between  the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity - Summary of Issues Raised and Points Made 8 August 2002 
JOB(02)/60 The Protection of Trad itional Knowledge and Folklore - 
Summary of Issues Raised and Points Made 18 June 2002 
JOB(02)/59 Review of the Provision of Article 27.3(b) - Summary of 
Issues Raised and Points Made 18 June 2002 
JOB(02)/58 The Relationship between  the TRIPS Agreement and the 
Convention on Biological Diversity - Summary of Issues Raised and Points Made 18 June 2002 
2001 
Job No. 2689 
IP/C/W/273 Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b):  Synoptic Tables 
of Information provided by Memb ers - Informal Note by the 
Secretariat 5 June 2001  IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  LIST F - Notes by the Secretariat 
2000 
JOB(00)/7517 The Relationship between the Convention on Biological 
Diversity and the TRIPS Agreement:  Checklist of Points Made - Note by the Secretariat 23 November 2000 
1999 
Job no. 2627 UPOV-WIPO-WTO Joint Symposium on the Protection of 
Plant Varieties under Article 27.3(b) of the 
TRIPS Agreement:  Texts of presentations 7 May 1999 
1998 
IP/C/W/122 Illustrative Questions:  Review of the Provisions of 
Article 27.3(b) 22 December 1998 
 
__________