Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/99587723/Intellectual-Property-and-Genetic-Resources-Traditional-Knowledge-and-Traditional-Cultural-Expressions
Timestamp: 2016-08-31 16:06:36
Document Index: 664158996

Matched Legal Cases: ['Sui Generis', 'art_04', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'Sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis', 'sui generis']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreIntellectual Propertyand Genetic Resources,
and Traditional Cultural
contact WIPO at www.wipo.int
Tel:	+ 4122 338 91 11
Fax:	+ 4122 733 54 28
WIPO Publication No. 933E
ISBN 978-92-805-2587-8
© World Intellectual Property Organization, 2015.
Certain rights reserved. WIPO authorizes the partial reproduction, translation and dissemination
of this publication for non-commercial and non-profit scientific, educational or research purposes,
provided that WIPO and the publication are properly identified and acknowledged. Permission to
substantially reproduce, disseminate and/or translate this publication, or compile or create derivative works therefrom, in any form, whether for commercial/for profit or nonprofit purposes, must be
requested in writing. For this purpose, WIPO may be contacted at www.wipo.int under “Contact us.”
Certain images used in this publication have been obtained from commercially available databases
to which WIPO subscribes.
This publication does not necessarily represent the views of WIPO or any of its Member States. This
publication is not a substitute for legal advice. Its purpose is limited to providing basic information.
Medicinal plant, Bhutan/Fei Jiao
Photographer documenting cultural heritage, Jamaica/Brigitte Vézina
Traditional Jewelry, Oman/Brigitte Vézina
Zambian dancers/Wend Wendland
and Genetic Resources,
List of Boxes 3
Why Use this Booklet? 5
Background to the Need for the
and Genetic Resources 9
The Issue in a Nutshell: Intellectual
Property for Traditional Forms of
What are Traditional Knowledge,
and Genetic Resources? 13
Traditional Knowledge 13
Traditional Cultural Expressions 15
Genetic Resources 18
Who are the Holders of Traditional
Knowledge and Traditional Cultural
Expressions? 20
What does “Protection” Mean? 20
Protection of Traditional Knowledge and
Traditional Cultural Expressions 20
Two Approaches to Intellectual Property
Protection of Genetic Resources 24
What is the Objective of Protection? 26
Options for the Intellectual
Property Protection of Traditional
Knowledge and Traditional
Cultural Expressions 29
Existing Conventional Intellectual
Property Systems 31
Existing Intellectual Property to Protect
Traditional Cultural Expressions 31
Copyright and Related Rights 31
Distinctive Signs, Designs and Unfair
Traditional Knowledge 34
Adaptation of Existing Intellectual
Sui Generis Systems 36
The Work of WIPO in the Field of
Traditional Knowledge, Traditional
Cultural Expressions and Genetic
The Intergovernmental Committee 44
Projects and Activities: the Practical
Work of WIPO 45
Indigenous Participation in WIPO 47
Box 1 The Public Domain 10
Box 2 A Broad Policy Context 12
Box 3 Note on Definitions and Terminology 13
Box 4 A Holistic View of Traditional Knowledge 13
Box 5 Examples of Traditional Knowledge 14
Box 6 Examples of Traditional Cultural Expressions 17
Box 7 The Meaning of “Traditional” 17
Box 8 The Convention on Biological Diversity 18
Box 9 Protection, Preservation and Safeguarding 21
Box 10 Patent Examination and Defensive Protection 23
Box 11 Prior Informed Consent and Equitable Benefit-Sharing 25
Box 12 Cultural Heritage and Economic Development 26
Box 13 Intellectual Property and Cultural Institutions 27
Box 14 Respect for Customary Laws and Practices 30
Box 15 Legitimate Inspiration and Inappropriate Adaptation 31
Box 16 Key questions to be considered when developing
a national policy on TK and TCEs 37
Box 17 Documentation of Traditional Knowledge 38
Box 18 Intellectual Property and Arts Festivals 46
Box 19 Alternative Dispute Resolution 46
The objective of this booklet is to offer general and basic information on the interface
between intellectual property (IP) and
traditional knowledge (TK), traditional
cultural expressions (TCEs), and genetic
resources (GRs). It briefly addresses the
most important questions that arise when
considering the role that IP principles
and systems can play in protecting TK
and TCEs from misappropriation, and in
generating and equitably sharing benefits
from their commercialization, and the
role of IP in access to and benefit-sharing
•	What are TK, TCEs and GRs?
•	Why provide IP protection to TK,
TCEs and GRs?
•	What does “protection” mean?
•	Who should benefit from the IP
protection of TK and TCEs?
However, this booklet does not delve into
all the specific issues that can emerge
when addressing the IP protection of
TK, TCEs and the relationship of IP with
GRs; it is complemented by a series of
“Briefs” (indicated in italics throughout
this booklet) that tackle in greater detail
•	Traditional Knowledge and
•	Intellectual Property and the
Documentation of Traditional
•	Policy Options for National Systems
•	The WIPO Intergovernmental
and Genetic Resources, Traditional
Knowledge and Folklore (IGC)
•	Intellectual Property and Arts
•	Customary Law and the Protection
of Traditional Knowledge and
•	Traditional Medical Knowledge
Other resource documents are also available for those interested in obtaining
more information on particular topics.
These are also referenced throughout
the booklet and are indicated in italics.
This booklet also gives an overview of
the work of WIPO in this vast area and
can serve as a guide to navigate through
the complex policy, legal, and practical
concerns that surface when exploring
traditional creativity and innovation.
More information is available on the WIPO
website at www.wipo.int/tk, including an
FAQ and a Glossary of key terms. The
Traditional Knowledge Division may be
contacted at grtkf@wipo.int.
for Traditional Forms of
IP refers to creations of the mind such as
inventions, designs, literary and artistic
works, performances, plant varieties, and
names, signs and symbols.
In recent years, indigenous peoples, local
communities, and governments—mainly
in developing countries—have demanded
IP protection for traditional forms of
creativity and innovation, which, under
the conventional IP system, are generally
regarded as being in the public domain,
and thus free for anyone to use. Indigenous
peoples, local communities and many
countries reject a “public domain” status
of TK and TCEs and argue that this opens
them up to unwanted misappropriation
Box 1 The Public Domain
The debate about appropriate protection
centers on whether, and how, changes
should be made to the existing boundary
between the public domain and the
scope of IP protection. Hence, an integral
part of developing an appropriate policy
framework for the IP protection of TK/
TCEs is a clear understanding of the role
and boundaries of the public domain.
•	a traditional remedy could be
appropriated by a pharmaceutical
company and the resulting invention
patented by that company;
•	an indigenous folk song could be
adapted and copyrighted, without
any acknowledgement of the
indigenous community which
created the song and without sharing
any of the benefits arising from the
exploitation of the song with the
Importantly, human rights form a crucial
part of the context for protection of TK,
•	inventions derived from GRs could
TCEs and GRs, insofar as the needs and
be patented by third parties, raising
interests of their holders are concerned.
In 2007, the United Nations General
between the patent system and the
Assembly adopted the United Nations
biodiversity and the equitable sharing Peoples. The Declaration recognizes that
“indigenous peoples and individuals are
free and equal to all other peoples and
Recognizing those traditional elements individuals and have the right to be free
as protectable IP would enable their hold- from any kind of discrimination, in the
ers to have a say in their use by others. exercise of their rights, in particular that
This does not mean that conventional based on their indigenous origin or idenIP systems are being forced upon TK, tity” (Article 2). Article 31 provides that
TCEs and GRs, but rather that values and indigenous peoples “have the right to
principles embedded in IP law (such as maintain, control, protect and develop
that creations of the human mind should their Intellectual Property over such
be protected against misappropriation) cultural heritage, traditional knowledge
could be adapted and redeployed for new and traditional cultural expressions.” The
subject matter and for new beneficiaries. Declaration is frequently referred to in
WIPO’s work.
The term “public domain” refers to elements of IP that are ineligible for private
ownership and the contents of which any
member of the public is legally entitled
to use. It means something other than
“publicly available” – for example, content
on the Internet may be publicly available
but not in the “public domain” from an
A WIPO document, Note on the
Meanings of the Term “Public Domain”
in the Intellectual Property System with
Special Reference to the Protection of
Traditional Knowledge and Traditional
Cultural Expressions/Expressions of
Folklore, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/17/INF/8, provides a detailed analysis of the application
of this concept to the protection of TK
and TCEs. See www.wipo.int/edocs/
mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_17/wipo_grtkf_ic_17_inf_8.pdf
But indigenous peoples and local communities have unique needs and expectations
in relation to IP, given their complex
social, historical, political and cultural
dimensions and vulnerabilities. They face
challenges unlike any other that IP law
has yet presented: the protection of TK
and TCEs intersect every category of IP
and often involve other legal issues, as
well as ethical and cultural sensitivities,
reaching well beyond IP.
Box 2 A Broad Policy Context
TK and GRs are discussed in the area of biological diversity, where several important international instruments exist. These include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing
of Benefits Arising from their Utilization, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture of the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Union for
the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), and the 1994 UN Convention to Combat
TK, TCEs and GRs are also raised in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). While the
TRIPS Agreement has no specific provisions on the issue of TK, the Doha Declaration, in
2001, instructed the TRIPS Council to examine the protection of TK and TCEs. Furthermore,
discussions on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are taking place
within the TRIPS Council since the built-in review of Article 27.3 (b) in 1999.
The protection of TCEs raises issues related to the preservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage, notably within the ambit of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Convention (1972) and Convention for
the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). It also forms part of the context of
the promotion of cultural diversity and of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and
Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005).
TCE protection is discussed in such contexts as the respect for cultural rights, the promotion
of artistic development and cultural exchange and the promotion of tradition-based creativity
and innovation as ingredients of sustainable economic development.
Knowledge, Traditional
Genetic Resources?
The term “traditional knowledge” or its
abbreviation “TK” is sometimes used
as shorthand for the entire field of TK
and TCEs.
However, nowadays, WIPO most often
distinguishes between TK and TCEs,
because, from an IP standpoint, a different set of policy questions arises and
distinct legal tools are likely to apply for
TK is a living body of knowledge that
is developed, sustained and passed on
from generation to generation within
a community, often forming part of its
cultural or spiritual identity. In a few
words, TK is understood as:
•	knowledge, know‑how, skills,
innovations or practices;
•	that are passed between generations;
•	in a traditional context; and
•	that form part of the traditional
lifestyle of indigenous and local
communities who act as their
guardian or custodian.
Box 3 Note on Definitions
No single definition would do justice fully
to the diverse forms of knowledge and
expressions that are held and created
by indigenous peoples and local communities throughout the world. Their
living nature also means that they are
There is not, as yet, any generally accepted, formal definition of these terms.
Instead, WIPO uses working descriptions.
Similarly, the terms used in this booklet
are not intended to suggest any consensus on their validity or appropriateness.
A WIPO Glossary proposes definitions of
the terms used most frequently in the field.
Box 4 A Holistic View of
While in discussions about IP protection,
TCEs are generally discussed distinctly
from TK, this is not to suggest that these
are distinguished in the traditional context.
The distinction between TK and TCEs
does not necessarily represent any of
the particular holders’ holistic comprehension of their own integrated heritage.
For many holders, TK and its form of
expression are seen as an inseparable
whole. For example, a traditional tool
may embody TK but also may be seen
as a TCE in itself because of its design
•	knowledge about traditional
•	traditional hunting or fishing
•	knowledge about animal migration
patterns or water management.
Thai traditional healers use the plao-noi
plant to treat ulcers
The San people use the hoodia plant to
stave off hunger while out hunting
Sustainable irrigation is maintained
through traditional water systems such
as the aflaj in Oman and Yemen, and
the qanat in Iran
The Cree and Inuit maintain unique bodies of knowledge of seasonal migration
patterns of particular species in the
Indigenous healers in the western
Amazon use the Ayahuasca vine to prepare various medicines, imbued with
sacred properties.
The Hoodia plant © istockphoto - Sproetniek
Box 5 Examples of
TK can be, for example, agricultural, environmental or medicinal knowledge, or
knowledge associated with GRs. Examples
include, among thousands of others:
TCEs are, succinctly, the forms in which
traditional culture is expressed. They can
be, for example, dances, songs, handicraft,
designs, ceremonies, tales or many other
artistic or cultural expressions.
TCEs may be either tangible, intangible,
or, most usually, a combination of the
two. Indeed, in any material object, there
is often a symbolic or religious element
from which it cannot be separated. An
example would be a woven rug (a tangiTCEs are seen as integral to the cultural ble expression) that expresses elements
and social identities and heritage of indig- of a traditional story (an intangible exenous and local communities, reflecting pression).
Although “expressions of folklore” was
TCEs are handed down from one gen- the term used most commonly in ineration to another, and are maintained, ternational discussions and is found in
used or developed by their holders. They many national laws, some communities
are constantly evolving, developing and have expressed reservations about the
negative connotations associated with
the word “folklore.” WIPO nowadays uses
the term “traditional cultural expressions”
(or simply “TCEs”). Where it is used, “expressions of folklore” is understood as a
synonym of TCEs.
Box 6 Examples of Traditional
Verbal expressions: stories, tales, poetry, riddles, signs, elements of languages,
such as names, words, symbols and
Musical expressions: songs and instrumental music
Expressions by actions: dances, plays,
artistic forms of rituals, etc.; whether or
not reduced to a material form
Tangible expressions: drawings, paintings, carvings, jewelry, metalware, textiles,
designs, carpets, sculptures, pottery,
terracotta, crafts, mosaic, needlework,
basket weaving, woodwork, costumes;
musical instruments, architectural forms,
Box 7 The Meaning of “Traditional”
What makes knowledge or cultural expressions “traditional” is not their antiquity: much TK and many TCEs are not
ancient or inert, but a vital, dynamic part
of the lives of many communities today.
The adjective “traditional” qualifies a form
of knowledge or an expression which has
a traditional link with a community: it is
developed, sustained and passed on
within a community, sometimes through
specific customary systems of transmission. In short, it is the relationship with
the community that makes knowledge
or expressions “traditional.”
For example, the essential characteristics
of “traditional” creations are that they
contain motifs, a style or other items
that are characteristic of and identify a
tradition and a community that still bears
and practices it. They are often regarded
Thai dancer © istockphoto - Bearstudio
as “belonging” to the community.
GRs are defined in the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD). In short, they
are parts of biological materials that:
•	contain genetic information of value;
•	are capable of reproducing or being
Examples include material of plant, animal, or microbial origin, such as medicinal
plants, agricultural crops and animal
Some TK is closely associated with GRs:
through the utilization and conservation
of the resource, often over generations,
and through their common use in modern scientific research, because TK often
provides researchers with a lead to isolate
valuable active compounds within GRs.
Box 8 The Convention on
In 1992, in Rio de Janeiro, the Rio
Declaration on Environment and
Development establishing the
(CBD) was adopted to promote the
and the fair and equitable sharing of
GRs. Provisions on the respect and
recognition of TK are a key element of
the CBD, and important work is underway within the CBD framework to
implement these provisions. Likewise,
IP protection of TK is deeply linked to
the objectives of the CBD. See www.
cbd.int.
Orchid © istockphoto - alxpin
Who are the Holders of
What does “Protection”
Protection of Traditional
One central issue in the debate over the
protection of TK and TCEs is the identity
of their owners, bearers or custodians. “Protection” can mean different things,
It is generally agreed that protection term is used, but WIPO is concerned
should principally benefit TK/TCEs hold- with a very specific understanding of the
ers, in particular the indigenous peoples term: the use of IP tools and principles to
and local communities that develop, main- prevent unauthorized or inappropriate
tain and identify culturally with them and uses of TK/TCEs by third parties. Put
seek to pass them on between generations. differently, the form of protection being
developed at WIPO is the application of
TK/TCEs are generally regarded as col- IP law, values and principles to prevent
lectively originated and held, so that misuse, misappropriation, copying, adany rights and interests in this material aptation or other kind of illicit exploitashould vest in communities rather than in tion. The objective, in short, is to make
individuals, including in cases where TK/ sure that the intellectual innovation and
TCEs are developed by an individual creativity embodied in TK or TCEs are
member of a community. In some in- not wrongly used.
stances though, beneficiaries may also
include recognized individuals within the IP protection can entail recognizing and
communities, such as certain traditional exercising exclusive rights, i.e., excluding
healers or individual farmers working others from carrying out certain acts. IP
within the community. Typically, this protection can also include non-proprirecognition arises through customary un- etary forms of protection like moral rights,
derstandings, protocols, laws or practices. equitable compensation schemes and
It could be that more than one community
qualifies for protection of their TK/TCEs,
including communities which share the
same or similar TK/TCEs in different
In summary, IP laws typically establish:
•	exclusive property rights in
•	grant control over their exploitation,
particularly commercial exploitation;
•	provide incentives for further
•	other forms of protection,
•	moral rights protection;
•	equitable compensation; and
•	protection against unfair competition.
IP-type protection could make it possible,
for example, to protect traditional remedies and indigenous crafts and music
against misappropriation, and enable
communities to control and benefit collectively from their commercial exploitation.
Protection is different from “preservation”
or “safeguarding,” which are the identification, documentation, transmission,
revitalization and promotion of knowledge and cultural heritage in order to
ensure its maintenance or viability. The
objective, in that case, is to make sure
that the TK or TCEs do not disappear,
are not lost or degraded, and to ensure
that they are maintained and promoted.
Box 9 Protection, Preservation
“Protection,” “preservation” and “safeguarding” are not mutually exclusive.
Having different objectives, they may
be implemented in conjunction with one
another and help promote each other.
However, these different forms of protection may also conflict. Preservation
efforts through the documentation of TK/
TCEs, particularly digitization, can make
them more accessible and vulnerable to
uses that are against the wishes of their
holders, thereby undermining the efforts
to protect them in an IP sense.
Care needs to be taken to ensure that
acts of preservation do not inadvertently
facilitate the misappropriation or illegitimate use of the TK/TCEs. Management
of IP during such processes is therefore
Background Brief 9: Documentation of
Cultural Expressions looks at these
The WIPO Creative Heritage Training
Program also addresses these questions. See www.wipo.int/tk/en/resources/
Two Approaches to Intellectual
A second approach — “defensive protection”— is designed to prevent the illegitimate acquisition or maintaining of IP
The IP system can be approached from rights by third parties. Stated otherwise,
two different angles to ensure protection defensive protection aims to stop people
of TK and TCEs. These two approaches— outside the community from acquiring
generally referred to as “positive” and IP rights over TK and TCEs. India, for
“defensive” protection—can be undertaken example, has compiled a searchable datogether in a complementary way.
tabase of traditional medical knowledge
that can be used as evidence of prior art
Under a first approach — “positive protec- by patent examiners when assessing
tion”— the IP system is designed to enable patent applications. Defensive strategies
holders, if they so wish, to acquire and might also be used to protect sacred
assert IP rights in their TK and TCEs. This cultural manifestations, such as sacred
can allow them to prevent unwanted, un- symbols or words, from being registered
authorized or inappropriate uses by third as trademarks.
parties (including culturally offensive or
demeaning use) and/or to exploit TK/ In short, a range of IP tools can be used
TCEs commercially, for example through to protect TK and TCEs. For their holders,
the granting of licenses, as a contribution positive protection means making use
to their economic development. In brief, of these tools for their own purposes.
positive protection is the granting of Defensive protection, in contrast, means
rights that empower communities to preventing anyone else from having access
promote their TK/TCEs, control their to these tools, when it would go against
uses by third parties and benefit from the interests of TK and TCE holders.
Box 10 Patent Examination
and Defensive Protection
TK and defensive protection:
TK constitutes an increasingly relevant
body of prior art. Therefore, its effective
United States Patent 5,401,504 was
initially granted with a main claim directed
at “a method of promoting healing of a
wound in a patient, which consists essentially of administering a wound-healing
agent consisting of an effective amount
of turmeric powder to said patient.” The
patent applicants acknowledged the
known use of turmeric in traditional
medicine for the treatment of various
sprains and inflammatory conditions. The
patent application was examined, and
the claimed invention was considered
novel at the time of application on the
basis of the information then available
to the examining authority. The patent
was subsequently challenged and found
invalid, as further documentation was
made available (including ancient Sanskrit
texts) that demonstrated that the claimed
invention was actually already known TK.
identification is of growing importance for
the functioning of the IP system.
Existing international patent law already
requires some patent information to be
disclosed by the applicant. Some claim
that patent applicants should in some
way disclose TK and GRs used in the
claimed invention or that are otherwise
related to it. There are several proposals
to extend and focus these requirements
and to create specific disclosure obligations for TK and GRs.
WIPO’s search tools and patent classification systems take TK into account.
See for example the International Patent
Classification System (www.wipo.int/
classifications/ipc/en/index.html) and
the Patent Cooperation Treaty Minimum
Documentation (www.wipo.int/standards/
en/part_04.html).
Another, perhaps more controversial,
aspect of this issue concerns the
possible disqualification of patent
applications that do not comply with
CBD obligations related to prior
informed consent (PIC), mutually
agreed terms, fair and equitable
benefit-sharing, and disclosure of
The relationship between IP and GRs is
perhaps less clear than that between IP
and TK/TCEs. GRs are subject to access
and benefit-sharing regulations, in particular within the international frameworks defined by the CBD and its Nagoya
Protocol, as well as by the International
Treaty on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture of the United Nations Food •	Consistency and synergy between
the IP system and the CBD: a
number of countries have enacted
domestic legislation putting into
Furthermore, GRs as encountered in
effect the CBD obligations that access
nature are not IP. They are not creations
to a country’s GRs should depend
of the human mind and thus they cannot
on securing that country’s PIC
be directly protected as IP. Therefore,
and agreeing to fair and equitable
WIPO is not involved in the regulation of
benefit-sharing (Article 15). The
access to GRs or their direct “protection”
question arises as to whether, and
as such. However, inventions based on or
to what extent, the IP system should
developed using GRs (associated with TK
be used to support and implement
or not) may be patentable or protected by
these obligations. One of the options
is to develop mandatory disclosure
requirements, in other words, to
There are nevertheless two main IP issues
make it mandatory for patent
directly associated with GRs:
applications to show the source or
origin of GRs, as well as evidence of
•	The “defensive protection” of GRs:
PIC and a benefit‑sharing agreement.
this refers to preventing patents
from being granted over inventions
based on or developed using GRs (and
associated TK) which do not fulfill
the existing patent requirements of
novelty and inventiveness. In this
context, to help patent examiners
find relevant prior art and avoid
the granting of erroneous patents,
WIPO is looking at different options,
such as the implementation and
use of databases and guidelines,
and the adjustment of search tools
and patent classification systems.
Box 11 Prior Informed Consent and Equitable Benefit-Sharing
The principle of PIC concerning access to GRs is one of the cornerstones of the CBD (See
Article 15, which recognizes that States have sovereign rights over their GRs). Given the
close relationship between GRs and some forms of TK, this same principle is also used
in a number of national laws concerning access to and use of TK, as well as use of TCEs
According to the principle of PIC, holders should be fully consulted before their knowledge/
expression/genetic resource is accessed or used by third parties and an agreement should
be reached on appropriate terms; they should also be fully informed about the consequences of the intended use. The agreed scope of use may be set out in contracts, licenses or
agreements, which may specify how benefits arising from the exploitation should be shared.
In WIPO discussions, many argue that use of protected subject matter ought to be subject to
PIC especially for sacred and secret materials. However, others fear that granting exclusive
control over traditional cultures could stifle innovation, diminish the public domain and be
difficult to implement in practice.
The idea of an equitable balancing of interests is common to many legal systems. In IP law,
this is often phrased in terms of a balancing of the interests of right holders and the general
public. According to this principle, the TK/TCEs/GRs holders receive an equitable share of
the benefits that arise from the use of the TK/TCEs/GRs, which may be expressed in terms
of a compensatory payment, or other non-monetary benefits. (See the Bonn Guidelines
on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising
from their Utilization, www.cbd.int/abs/bonn/). An entitlement to equitable benefit-sharing
may be particularly appropriate in situations where exclusive property rights are considered
WIPO has gathered examples of model
IP clauses which may be considered for
inclusion in contractual agreements when
mutually agreed terms are being negotiated. WIPO regularly updates, on its website,
an online database of relevant contractual
practices (Database of Biodiversity-related
Access and Benefit-sharing Agreements).
WIPO also has draft guidelines on IP
clauses in access and benefit-sharing agreements (Intellectual Property
Guidelines for Access and Equitable BenefitSharing), a set of Case studies related to
IP and GRs (WIPO Pub. No. 769) and a
Technical study on the disclosure requirement proposal (WIPO Pub. No. 786).
Box 12 Cultural Heritage and
TCEs are also a source of inspiration
for creative industries, such as the entertainment, fashion, publishing, crafts
Protection of TK/TCEs is not undertaken
as an end in itself, but as a means to reach
broader policy goals and to respond to
the needs of their holders.
While the artistic heritage of a community
plays significant social, spiritual and
cultural roles, it can also play a role in economic development. The use of TCEs as
a source of contemporary creativity can
lead to the establishment of community
enterprises, local job creation, skills development, appropriate tourism, and foreign earnings from community products.
and designs industries. Many businesses
today create wealth using the forms and
materials of traditional cultures. IP could
assist communities in putting a commercial value on their TCEs and entering into
commercial relations, notably through
the use of IP licenses and other kinds
of legal agreements.
Stakeholders have expressed a variety of
policy objectives underlying the protection of TK and TCEs, including:
•	Wealth creation, trading
opportunities and sustainable
promotion of equitable benefitsharing from use of TK/TCEs;
•	Preservation, promotion and
development of TK/TCEs;
•	Prevention and repression of
misappropriation and unauthorized
exploitation, illicit use and abuse, as
well as other unfair and inequitable
uses of TK/TCEs;
•	Protection of tradition-based
•	Recognition of value of and
promotion of respect for TK/
TCEs and the communities that
preserve them; including prevention
of insulting, derogatory and/or
culturally and spiritually offensive
•	Safeguarding of the cultural identity
and values of communities;
•	Empowerment of TK/TCEs holders;
•	Prevention of false and misleading
claims to authenticity and origin;
prevention of third party failure to
•	Promotion of cultural diversity.
IP can enable communities to commercialize their tradition-based creations,
should they wish to do so, and to exclude
free-riding competitors. Communities
may thus use their IP to exercise control
over how their TCEs are used, and to
defend against insensitive and degrading
use of traditional expressions.
The marketing of artisanal products also
represents a way for communities to
strengthen their cultural identity and
contribute to cultural diversity. IP can
assist in differentiating artisanal products
and handicrafts, certifying their origin,
or by combating the passing off of fake
products as “authentic.”
Background Brief 5 Intellectual Property
& Traditional Handicrafts provides insight
Box 13 Intellectual Property
The growing interests of indigenous
peoples and traditional communities
in owning, controlling and accessing
documentation of their cultures held by
museums, libraries and archives raises
a number of IP issues. For example, to
Cultural institutions play an invaluable
role in the preservation, safeguarding
and promotion of collections of TCEs,
such as photographs, sound recordings,
films and manuscripts, which document
communities’ lives, cultural expressions
and knowledge systems.
Institutions in many countries are developing frameworks for understanding the
implications of caring for TK and TCEs.
Many museums, libraries and archives
have established best practices to deal
with IP issues.
The WIPO publication Intellectual Property
and the Safeguarding of Traditional
Cultures—Legal Issues and Practical
Options for Museums, Libraries and
Archives (WIPO Pub. No. 1023) presents
legal information and best practices from
whom do the TCEs in the collections
belong? To whom do the rights in the
TCEs belong? Who should determine
the conditions for display, access and
use of the material in the collections?
How should an institution respond to
the cultural and customary needs of
the traditional holders of the TCEs in its
collection? How could traditional holders
gain more control on the representation
of their culture by institutions? And the
Diversity is the very essence of TK and
TCEs, precisely because they are so closely
intertwined with the cultural identity of
many diverse communities. It is therefore
not surprising that no single template or
comprehensive “one-size-fits-all” solution
is likely to suit all the needs of holders
in all countries. This diversity requires
flexibility in fashioning an international
Background Brief 3 Developing a National
Strategy on Intellectual Property and
Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources
provides detailed information on the possibilities for creating a system of protection at the national level. Very succinctly,
the options for IP protection include:
•	existing IP laws and legal systems;
•	extended or adapted IP rights
It is true that no form of legal protection
specifically focused on TK/TCEs; and
system can replace the complex systems •	new, stand-alone sui generis systems
that sustain TK and TCEs within their traspecifically designed for TK/TCEs.
ditional and customary context. Indeed,
customary laws, protocols and practices Non-IP options are also available, such
often define how traditional communities as trade practices, consumer protection
develop, hold and transmit TK and TCEs. and labeling laws, the use of contracts,
customary and indigenous laws and protocols, cultural heritage preservation, civil
Box 14 Respect for Customary
liability and common law remedies such
as unjust enrichment, rights of privacy,
blasphemy, as well as criminal law.
Some uses of TK and TCEs can be protected through the existing IP system.
Various holders have already found existing IP rights useful and their protection
strategies make some use of the IP system.
WIPO Gap Analyses provide some in-depth
analysis of the protection of TK and TCEs
by existing, conventional IP law at the
to Protect Traditional Cultural
TCEs can sometimes be protected by
existing systems, such as copyright and
related rights, geographical indications
(GIs), trademarks and certification and
Customary law is the set of customs,
practices and beliefs that are accepted
as obligatory rules of conduct by a community. Customary law forms an intrinsic
part of social and economic systems
and the way of life of indigenous and
IP protection recognizes and complements traditional patterns of TCE and
TK systems, and operates beyond the
original community: it is not aimed to
supplant or imitate the community’s own
Background Brief 7 Customary Law and
Traditional Knowledge may be consulted
Contemporary original adaptations of
TCEs — made by members of the communities or by third parties — may be
copyrightable. Copyright protects the
products of creativity against certain uses
such as reproduction, adaptation, public
performance, broadcasting and other
forms of communication to the public.
Performances of TCEs may come under international related rights protection, such as that provided under the
Treaty, 1996, and the Beijing Treaty on
Audiovisual Performances (2012) which
grant performers of folklore the right
to authorize recordings of their performances, and the right to authorize certain
dealings with those recordings.
Box 15 Legitimate Inspiration
and Inappropriate Adaptation
In a dynamic and creative context, it
is often difficult to know what constitutes independent creation. Yet, under
current copyright law, a contemporary
expression derived from or inspired by
pre-existing traditional materials and
which incorporates new elements can
often be sufficiently original to qualify
as a copyright work and thus benefit
from copyright protection. However, the
protection afforded to such “derivative”
works vests only in their new material
While the adaptation of a protected work
is the exclusive right of the copyright
holder, this does not prevent, in general,
creators from being inspired by other
works or from borrowing from them.
Copyright indeed supports the idea that
new artists build upon the works of others.
Distinguishing between borrowing or
inspiration, on the one hand, and adaptation and copying, on the other, is not
always easy. The nature of the protection
of TCEs will vary depending on where
the line is drawn between legitimate borrowing and unauthorized appropriation.
The indigenous artist of this well-known
work, based on traditional creation stories, (depicted on the left) successfully
claimed infringement of copyright against
the maker of the carpet (depicted on the
right). Because of cultural and spiritual offence, the court awarded extra damages
to be shared by the artist’s community
according to its customary law.
Author: Ms. Banduk Marika. All rights reserved.
This work is the copyright of the artist and may
permission of the artist and the clan concerned.
Article 15.4 of the Berne Convention for
the Protection of Literary and Artistic
Works (1886) provides a mechanism for the
international protection of unpublished
and anonymous works, including TCEs.
Copyright can also provide protection
against insulting, derogatory, offensive,
demeaning or degrading use of a work,
an issue that is often of concern in relation to TCEs which embody spiritual
qualities and the very cultural identity
of a community. Preventing such misuse,
and promoting respect for cultural and
spiritual values, may be the principal goal
of protection for some.
Distinctive Signs, Designs and
Laws for the protection of marks, GIs,
and industrial designs, as well as unfair
competition law may offer direct or indirect protection to TCEs. These branches
of IP aim at the protection of established
reputation, distinctiveness and goodwill,
such as may be enjoyed by a traditional
community in the production of handicrafts, artworks and other traditional
products. Hence, some indigenous and
traditional signs and symbols can be
protected as trademarks.
One of the kinds of appropriations that
communities often complain about is the
use of false and misleading claims as to
authenticity and/or origin. For example, a
cheaply made souvenir item may carry a
label falsely indicating that it is “authentic”
or originates from a particular community. Certification marks can be used to
safeguard the authenticity and quality of
authentic indigenous arts. For instance,
the registered certification mark “Toi Iho”
was launched in 2002 in New Zealand to
promote and market authentic, quality
The Indian Arts and Crafts Act, 1990, of
the United States of America protects
Mr. Cun Fablao, a designer from the
Yunnan Province, China, received in-
Native American artisans by assuring the
authenticity of Indian artifacts under the
authority of an Indian Arts and Crafts
Board. The Act, a ‘truth-in-marketing’ law,
prevents the marketing of products as
‘Indian made’ when the products are not
made by Indians as defined by the Act.
dustrial design protection for his tradition-based silver-plated tea-set
Unfair competition law, as well as trade
practices and labeling laws, are also
helpful. Unfair competition and trade
practices laws allow for action to be taken
against false or misleading claims that
a product is authentically indigenous, or
has been produced or endorsed by, or is
otherwise associated with, a particular
TCEs often have a strong link with a specific region or locality. This means that
GIs can be used, in particular for tangible
products such as handicrafts that have
qualities or characteristics derived from
their geographical origin.
The design, shape and visual characteristics of textiles, carvings, sculptures,
pottery, woodwork, metalwork, jewelry,
basket weaving and other handicraft
could be protected as industrial designs.
In South India the medicinal knowledge of the Kani tribes led to the development of a sports
drug named Jeevani, an anti-stress and anti-fatigue agent, based on the herbal medicinal
plant arogyapacha. Indian scientists at the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute
used the tribal know-how to develop the drug. The knowledge was divulged by three tribal
members, while the customary rights to the practice and transfer of certain traditional medicinal knowledge within the Kani tribes are held by tribal healers, known as Plathis. The
scientists isolated 12 active compounds from arogyapacha, developed the drug Jeevani,
and filed two patent applications on the drug. The technology was then licensed to the Arya
Vaidya Pharmacy, Ltd., an Indian pharmaceutical
manufacturer pursuing the commercialization of
Ayurvedic herbal formulations. A trust fund was
established to share the benefits arising from
the commercialization of the TK-based drug.
Kani tribal member identifies components of the arogyapaacha plant.
The arogyapaacha plant from which the Jeevani drug was developed and subsequently patented by the Indian research institute.
JEEVANI is a product of the Arya Vaidya Pharmacy, an Indian company.
Existing Intellectual Property to
Distinctive names, signs and symbols
associated with TK can be protected
under trademark law and safeguarded
Existing IP laws have been successful- against third parties’ claims.
ly used to protect against some forms
of misuse and misappropriation of TK, For instance, the Seri people of Mexico,
including through the laws of patents, faced with competition from mass productrademarks, GIs, industrial designs, un- tion, registered the “Arte Seri” trademark
fair competition and trade secrets or to protect authentic ironwood products
that are produced by traditional methods
from the Olneya tesota tree. Conservation
When people innovate within the tradi- of this unique species of tree was also a
tional framework, they may use the patent factor in creating the trademark. Also in
system to protect their innovations. In Mexico, the appellations of origin olinalá
other words, innovations based on TK may and tequila are used to protect lacquered
benefit from patent protection. Equally, wooden products and the traditional
systems have been developed to ensure spirit derived from the blue agave plant,
that illegitimate patent rights are not both products of TK that derive their
granted over TK subject matter that is unique characteristics also from the GRs
not a true invention.
The law of confidentiality and trade secrets Adaptation of Existing
has been used to protect non-disclosed TK, Intellectual Property
including secret and sacred TK. Courts
may award remedies for breach of con- Policy debate has underlined the limitafidence when customary laws of secrecy tions of existing IP laws in meeting all
the needs and expectations of TK/TCEs
holders. For example, TK/TCEs are often
For example, publication of sacred-secret held collectively by communities, rather
materials has been successfully prevent- than by individual owners – collective
ed using a breach of confidence action. ownership of rights is often alien to most
In Foster v Mountford members of the current IP systems. Certain adaptations
Pitjantjatjara Council obtained an inter- or modifications to IP law may be needed
locutory injunction, on the basis of breach to better accommodate the interests of
of confidence, to restrain the publication TK/TCEs holders.
of a book entitled Nomads of the Australian
Desert. The plaintiffs successfully argued For example, many countries and several
that the book contained information regional organizations have elected to
that could only have been supplied and protect TCEs through adaptation of their
exposed in confidence to the anthropol- copyright law; most have done so followogist Dr Mountford, 35 years earlier. The ing largely the Model Provisions, 1982. In
plaintiffs also successfully argued that 1982, an expert group convened by WIPO
the “revelation of the secrets contained and UNESCO developed a sui generis
in the book to their women, children model for the IP-type protection of TCEs:
and uninitiated men may undermine the WIPO-UNESCO Model Provisions,
the social and religious stability of their 1982. Prior to that, in 1976, the Tunis
hard-pressed community.” (Case Study Model Law on Copyright for Developing
from “Stopping the Rip-offs”, Australian Countries was adopted and also includes
Attorney-General’s Department at www. sui generis protection for TCEs.
ag.gov.au).
A Database of Official Insignia of Native
American Tribes prevents others from
registering these insignia as trademarks
in the United States of America. New
Zealand’s trademark law prevents the
registration of trademarks that cause
offence, and this applies especially to
Maori symbols.
India’s Patent Act clarifies the status of
TK within patent law. The Chinese State
Intellectual Property Office has a team
of patent examiners specializing in traditional Chinese medicine.
In most cases, conventional IP systems
and adaptations thereof are not considered sufficient to cater to the unique
character of TK/TCEs. For example, when
At the international level, the principal community members innovate within
tool for locating technical information for the TK framework, they may use the patpatent purposes, the International Patent ent system to protect their innovations.
Classification (IPC), has been expanded However, TK “as such”—knowledge that
to take better account of TK subject mat- has ancient roots and is often informal
ter, in particular concerning medicinal and oral—is not protected by conventional
products based on plant extracts. This IP systems.
increases the likelihood that patent examiners locate already published TK that is This has prompted a number of countries
relevant to claimed inventions in patent and regions to develop their own distinct
application, without adversely affecting sui generis (specific, special) systems for
the legal status of TK from the point of protecting TK/TCEs.
view of TK holders.
Sui generis measures are specialized meaThe Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), a sures aimed exclusively at addressing the
WIPO-administered treaty for interna- characteristics of specific subject matter,
tional cooperation in the field of patents, such as TK or TCEs. What makes an IP
provides for an international search and system a sui generis one is the molding
examination, which takes into account of its features to properly accommodate
TK-related information resources, thus special characteristics and specific policy
increasing the likelihood that relevant needs.
TK will be located at an early stage in the
life of a patent. See also Box 10 “Patent The online Database of Legislative Texts
Examination and Defensive Protection.” on the Protection of Traditional Cultural
Expressions, Traditional Knowledge and
Genetic Resources is a selection of national
and regional laws, regulations and model
laws on the protection of TK and TCEs
against misappropriation and misuse, as
well as legislative texts relevant to GRs.
Box 16 Key questions to be
considered when developing a
national policy on TK and TCEs
•	What TK and TCEs should be protect-
For more information, see Background
Brief 3 Developing a National Strategy
on Intellectual Property and Traditional
ed? What form and characteristics do
TK and TCEs have?
•	What objectives are sought to
be achieved through according IP
•	Who should benefit from any such
protection or who holds the rights to
protectable TK/TCEs?
•	What forms of behavior in relation to
the protectable TK/TCEs should be
considered unacceptable/illegal?
•	How can the existing IP system be
used to protect TK and TCE-related
•	Are there gaps in the protection available, and if so, could those gaps be
filled by adapting the existing IP framework, or would TK and TCEs be better
protected by a distinct sui generis
•	For how long should protection be
accorded?
•	Should there be any formalities?
•	Should there be any exceptions or
limitations to rights attaching to protectable TK/TCEs?
•	What sanctions or penalties should
apply to behavior or acts considered
unacceptable/illegal?
•	Should newly recognized rights in TK
and TCEs have retrospective effect?
•	How should foreign rights holders/
beneficiaries be treated?
Box 17 Documentation of Traditional
There are many initiatives underway
around the world to document TK, TCEs
and GRs. Many holders and several
governments are involved in a wide range
of collections, databases, inventories,
registries, lists and other forms of documenting and recording. In most cases the
purpose is preservation or safeguarding
rather than legal protection.
There are nevertheless concerns that
if documentation makes TK, TCEs and
GRs more widely available to the general
public, especially if they can be accessed
on the Internet, this could lead to misappropriation and use in ways that were not
anticipated or intended by their holders.
In an IP context, documentation can help
protect TK, TCEs and GRs, for example,
by providing a confidential or secret
The World Intellectual Proper t y
Organization Traditional Knowledge
Documentation Toolkit provides practical assistance to TK holders and custodians of GRs in managing the IP implications of their documentation work.
The Cultural Documentation and IP
Management Training Program provides training on the technical aspects
of documentation and on the IP management related thereto: www.wipo.int/
tk/en/resources/training.html
The Creative Heritage Digital Gateway
showcases examples of indigenous
and traditional creativity documented
with the support and IP advice of WIPO.
Background Brief 9 Documentation of
Cultural Expressions may be consulted
record of TK reserved for the relevant
community only. Some formal registries
support some sui generis protection
systems, while databases of TK and GRs
can play a role in defensive protection
within the existing patent system, such as
India’s database on traditional medicinal
knowledge: the Traditional Knowledge
These examples demonstrate the importance of ensuring that documentation
is linked to an IP strategy and does not
take place in a policy or legal vacuum.
TK and environmental planning
The Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC)
has been mapping wildlife populations,
human use and areas of archaeological
significance while examining land use
issues. This mapping work combines
the TK of the Inuit with the latest computer mapping technology. The database
resulting from this work includes the
Nunavut Environmental Database (NED),
which is a subset of the Arctic Institute
of North America’s Arctic Science and
Technology Information System (ASTIS)
database). NED has been prepared for the
Nunavut Planning Commission by selecting ASTIS records about Nunavut. NPC
has made the Nunavut Environmental
Database available on the Internet for
search and retrieval. Practical information on intellectual property implications
and technical modalities of such public
disclosure was required in light of the
NPC’s plans to develop a comprehen-
© istockphoto - jerom400
sive documentation strategy for all TK
in Nunavut and possible incorporation
WIPO in the Field
WIPO’s Traditional Knowledge Division:
•	facilitates a normative process among
Member States aimed at developing
an international legal instrument: the
Resources, Traditional Knowledge
•	provides complementary capacitystrengthening; and
•	maintains inter-agency and external
relations (with OHCHR, CBD,
UNESCO, WTO, FAO, UNCTAD,
Indigenous Issues, etc.).
Because the existing international IP
system does not fully protect TK and
TCEs, many communities and governments have called for a legal instrument
or instruments to provide sui generis
protection. Many argue that, because
of the international scale of the misappropriation and misuse of TK, TCEs and
GRs, there is a need for well-established,
culturally appropriate and predictable
rules at the international level.
Negotiations on an international legal instrument take place within the WIPO IGC
and address the linkages between the IP
system and the concerns of practitioners
and custodians of TK, GRs, and TCEs.
Although the negotiations underway have
been initiated and propelled mainly by
developing countries, the discussions are
not neatly divided along “North-South”
lines. Communities and governments
do not necessarily share the same views,
and some developed countries, especially
those where indigenous peoples live, are
WIPO members are developing an international legal instrument (or instruments)
that would give TK and TCEs effective
protection and that would regulate the
interface between IP and access and
benefit-sharing in GRs. An international
legal instrument would define what is
meant by TK and TCEs, who the rights
holders would be, how competing claims
by communities would be resolved, and
what rights and exceptions ought to apply.
Working out the details is complex and
there are divergent views on the best ways
forward, including whether IP-type rights
are appropriate for protecting traditional
forms of innovation and creativity.
All meeting reports and relevant documents of the IGC are available online: www.
wipo.int/tk/en/igc. Background Brief 2 The
WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore may
also be consulted for more information
and an overview of the negotiation process.
the Practical Work of WIPO
In addition to administering and facilitating the IGC process, WIPO offers
practical assistance and technical advice
to enable stakeholders to make more
effective use of existing IP systems and
participate more effectively in the IGC’s
negotiations. Beneficiaries of WIPO’s
technical capacity-building activities
range from governments to indigenous
and local communities, research, scientific and cultural institutions, academia,
other members of civil society.
As part of this program, upon request,
and within its budgetary limits, WIPO
organizes workshops and seminars,
develops information material as well
as other types of resources, including
information databases, and provides
legislative advice, education and training. WIPO’s work includes assistance to
develop and strengthen national and
regional systems for the protection of TK
(policies, laws, information systems and
practical tools). WIPO also offers training,
such as the Cultural Documentation
and IP Management Training Program.
Furthermore, WIPO has a distance learning program on IP and TK, TCEs and GRs,
in cooperation with the WIPO Academy.
Box 18 Intellectual Property
and Arts Festivals
Box 19 Alternative
Effective IP management is an important
aspect of the planning process that
festival organizers need to address to
both safeguard and promote their own
long-term interests and those of festival
Disputes between holders and third
party users of TK, GRs and TCEs over
ownership and control, access and benefit-sharing can emerge. Such disputes are
complex and bring about not only legal,
but also cultural or ethical questions. For
example, inappropriate use of a sacred
cultural artifact, symbol or design may
not cause financial loss but can cause
considerable spiritual offence. Therefore
remedy through litigation in a national
court is not always possible or desirable.
As part of its capacity-building activities,
WIPO is working with organizers of events
to develop appropriate IP management
strategies and tools to deal with the
various IP issues that can arise before,
during and after such events. Background
Brief 4 Intellectual Property and Arts
Festivals and the Intellectual Property
and Folk, Arts and Cultural Festivals
– Practical Guide identify the main IP
challenges organizers face and outline
some practical elements of an effective
IP management strategy for festivals.
offers an option for tackling the disputes
that arise in relation to TK, TCEs and GRs.
The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation
Center can assist parties in the resolution
of disputes and has a dedicated service
for art and cultural heritage issues: www.
wipo.int/amc/en/center/specific-sectors/art. It also has specific Mediation
Rules developed in cooperation with the
Background Brief 8 Alternative Dispute
Resolution for disputes related to
may be consulted for further details.
The WIPO Indigenous Intellectual
Property Law Fellowship builds on a
series of initiatives to ensure that indigWIPO’s work is founded on extensive enous peoples are actively and effectively
consultation with representatives of in- involved in the work of WIPO on issues
digenous peoples and local communities that matter to them. It recognizes the
and other NGOs which are permanent ob- strong legal expertise that exists within
servers to WIPO or specifically accredited indigenous communities, and offers an
to the IGC. Accredited representatives opportunity both for a professional exare assisted by the WIPO Voluntary Fund perience and a practical role within the
for Accredited Indigenous and Local WIPO Secretariat, including the WIPO
Communities to attend the WIPO talks, IGC and related consultations and proand their active participation is crucial for gram activities. For details, visit: www.
a successful outcome of the negotiations. wipo.int/tk/en/indigenous/fellowship
WIPO’s work often refers to and takes into
consideration the UN Declaration on the For more information in an indigenous
perspective, see the Indigenous Portal:
www.wipo.int/tk/en/indigenous
Sessions of the IGC commence with presentations by a panel of representatives
of indigenous and local communities.
These presentations are a rich source of
information on the experiences, concerns
and aspirations of indigenous and local
communities. Presentations are available
online: www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/panels.html
The law and practice of IP is of increasing
interest to indigenous peoples, stemming
from concerns that indigenous cultural
heritage and knowledge systems should be
recognized and dealt with in conformity
with the interests, values and customary
practices of their custodians.
This booklet draws from many documents,
studies and other materials prepared and
consulted within the context of WIPO’s
work, and all of which are available from
WIPO at: www.wipo.int/tk/en/ and, particularly, www.wipo.int/tk/en/resources/.
Many of those resources are referenced
in italics throughout this booklet.
Further WIPO materials include:
Back g round Brief 1: Trad itiona l
Background Brief 2:The Intergovernmental
Background 3: Developing a National
Strategy on IP and TK, TCEs and GRs
Background 4: IP and Arts Festivals
Background 5: IP and Handicrafts
Background 6: IP and Traditional Medical
Background 7: Customary Law and
Background 8: Alternative Dispute
Resolution for Disputes Related to IP
and TK, TCEs and GRs
Background 9: Documentation of
resources/pdf/tk_brief9.pdf
Draft Intellectual Property Guidelines for
Access to Genetic Resources and Equitable
Sharing of the Benefits arising from their
resources/pdf/redrafted_guidelines.pdf
Biodiversity-related Access and Benefitsharing Agreements
www.wipo.int/tk/en/databases/contracts/ www.wipo.int/tk/en/igc/gap-analyses.html
Case studies related to IP and GRs
www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/769/
http://wipo.int/tk/en/resources/glossary.
Consolidated Analysis of the Legal
Protection of Traditional Cultural
Expressions/Expressions of Folklore
Intellectual Property and Folk, Arts and
Cultural Festivals—Practical Guide
Customary Law, Traditional Knowledge
and Intellectual Property: Outline of
www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/resources/pdf/overview_customary _law.pdf
Intellectual Property and the Safeguarding
of Traditional Cultures—Legal Issues and
Policy Options for Museums, Libraries
www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/1023/
Database of Legislative Texts relevant
to Traditional Knowledge, Traditional
www.wipo.int/tk/en/legal_texts/
Intellectual Property Guidelines for
Access and Equitable Benefit-Sharing
www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.
Documenting Traditional Medical
Intellectua l Propert y Needs and
Expectations of Traditional Knowledge
Holders: Report on Fact-finding Missions
Knowledge (1998-1999)
www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/768/
wipo_pub_768.pdf
Marketing Crafts and Visual Arts: The Role
of Intellectual Property – A practical guide
www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/itc_p159/wipo_pub_itc_p159.pdf
Minding Culture: Case Studies on
National Experiences with the Protection
of Traditional Cultural Expressions/
Expressions of Folklore - India, Indonesia,
Note on the Meanings of the Term “Public
Domain” in the Intellectual Property
System with Special Reference to the
and Traditional Cultural Expressions/
www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf _ic_17/wipo_grtkf _ic_17_inf _8.pdf
Technical study on the disclosure requirement proposal
www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/tk/786/
The World Intellectua l Proper t y
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)483 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionGeneral information on the interface between intellectual property (IP) and traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), and genetic resources (GRs). It briefly addresses th...General information on the interface between intellectual property (IP) and traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), and genetic resources (GRs). It briefly addresses the most important questions that arise when considering the role that IP principles and systems can play in protecting TK and TCEs from misappropriation, and in generating and equitably sharing benefits from their commercialization, and the role of IP in access to and benefit sharing in GRs.Interests: Types, Business/LawRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedBackground Brief N°1: Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Propertyby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO - Making IP Workby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Madrid Yearly Review: International Registrations of Marksby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)What is Intellectual Property?by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Traditional Knowledge & Indigenous Peoples / Традиционное знание & коренные народыby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Intellectual Property in Asian Countries: Studies on Infrastructure and Economic Impactby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Protecting Your Marks Abroad: The Madrid Systemby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Intellectual Property and the Safeguarding of Traditional Cultures: Legal Issues and Practical Options for Museums, Libraries and Archives by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)A Stronger Voice for Indigenous and Local Communities in WIPO's work on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic Resources: The WIPO Voluntary Fundby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)The Role of Customary Law in Access and Benefit-sharing and Traditional Knowledge Governance: Perspectives from Andean and Pacific Island Countriesby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief N°3: Developing a National Strategy on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions, and Genetic Resourcesby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief N°2 : The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folkloreby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief N°4: Intellectual Property & Arts Festivalsby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Intellectual Property and the 11th Festival of Pacific Arts Solomon Islands 2012by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Intellectual Property and Folk, Arts and Cultural Festivals - A Practical Guideby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Интеллектуальная собственность, генетические ресурсы, традиционные знания и традиционные выражения культуры - Вводный курсby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 6: Intellectual Property and Traditional Medical Knowledgeby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 9: Documentation of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressionsby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 3 Issue 1by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Rulesby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 5: Intellectual Property & Traditional Handicraftsby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 7: Customary Law and Traditional Knowledgeby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 3 Issue 2by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Guide to WIPO Domain Name Dispute Resolutionby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Hague Yearly Review 2013: International Registrations of Industrial Designsby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Guide to WIPO Mediationby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Background Brief No. 8: Alternative Dispute Resolution for
Expressions and Genetic Resourcesby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Best Practices for the Application Service Provider Industry: Executive Summaryby World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)Similar to Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural ExpressionsBackground Brief N°1WIPO - Making IP WorkMadrid Yearly ReviewWhat is Intellectual Property?Traditional Knowledge & Indigenous Peoples / Традиционное знание & коренные народыIntellectual Property in Asian CountriesProtecting Your Marks AbroadIntellectual Property and the Safeguarding of Traditional CulturesA Stronger Voice for Indigenous and Local Communities in WIPO's work on Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions and Genetic ResourcesThe Role of Customary Law in Access and Benefit-sharing and Traditional Knowledge GovernanceBackground Brief N°3Background Brief N°2 Background Brief N°4Intellectual Property and the 11th Festival of Pacific Arts Solomon Islands 2012Intellectual Property and Folk, Arts and Cultural Festivals - A Practical GuideИнтеллектуальная собственность, генетические ресурсы, традиционные знания и традиционные выражения культуры - Вводный курсBackground Brief No. 6Background Brief No. 9WIPO Journal - 2011 Volume 3 Issue 1WIPO Arbitration and Mediation RulesBackground Brief No. 5Background Brief No. 7WIPO Journal - 2012 Volume 3 Issue 2Guide to WIPO Domain Name Dispute ResolutionHague Yearly Review 2013Guide to WIPO MediationBackground Brief No. 8Dispute Avoidance and Resolution Best Practices for the Application Service Provider IndustryGuide to WIPO Arbitration