Needed, a More Equitable Intellectual Property Order

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 3- Indian economy

Introduction

The U.S. decision to initiate a Section 301 investigation into Vietnam’s intellectual property (IP) framework has revived debate on the role of IP in international trade. Vietnam’s designation as a “Priority Foreign Country” and India’s continued presence on the USTR Priority Watch List have raised questions about how IP compliance is assessed. The discussion now extends beyond enforcement to issues of fairness, consistency, traditional knowledge, and benefit-sharing.

USTR’s IP Monitoring and Enforcement Framework

1. Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR): The USTR is the U.S. agency responsible for trade policy and trade negotiations. It also monitors IP protection and enforcement practices in trading partner countries.
2. Special 301 Report: The USTR uses the Special 301 Report to assess IP protection and enforcement. Countries with serious concerns may face closer scrutiny.
3. Priority Foreign Country Designation: Vietnam was identified as a “Priority Foreign Country” in the 2026 Special 301 Report. This designation reflected unresolved concerns regarding IP protection and enforcement.
4. Priority Watch List: India remains on the USTR Priority Watch List along with several developing economies. This reflects long-standing concerns raised by the United States on aspects of IP protection and enforcement.
5. Section 301 Investigation Mechanism: Section 301 allows the USTR to investigate foreign practices that may be unreasonable, discriminatory, or burdensome to U.S. commerce. Such investigations can lead to trade actions.

Vietnam Investigation and Questions of Fairness

1. Reasons for Vietnam’s Identification: The USTR cited weak enforcement against online piracy, counterfeiting, inadequate border enforcement, limited action against unlicensed software use, and lack of criminal measures against cable and satellite signal theft.
2. Previous Efforts to Resolve Concerns: The United States had earlier addressed these issues through proposed IP Work Plans in 2020 and 2023. The concerns were also discussed during negotiations on reciprocal and balanced trade.
3. Improvement in Enforcement Record: Administrative enforcement violations involving IP-infringing goods and goods of unknown origin or inferior quality in Vietnam declined by 50% in 2025 compared to 2024.
4. Investigation Process and Timeline: The USTR initiated the Section 301 investigation on May 29, 2026 and requested consultations with Vietnam. A determination is generally required within six months, with a possible extension of three months.
5. Potential Trade Measures: Interested parties may submit comments on possible tariff and non-tariff actions. This shows how IP-related concerns can directly affect trade relations.

Consistency in Global IP Enforcement

1. Legitimate Need for Enforcement: Piracy, counterfeiting, and infringement remain genuine concerns. Effective enforcement continues to be an important part of the IP system.
2. Uneven Application of Standards: The continued focus on developing countries has raised questions about whether IP enforcement standards are applied equally across countries.
3. Need for Equal Accountability: Accountability should apply to all countries and not only to developing economies.
4. Implications for Trade Governance: Since IP assessments can influence trade measures, the credibility of the system depends on transparency and consistency in evaluation.

Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and the WIPO Treaty

1. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRTK) marks an important step towards establishing mandatory international disclosure requirements for patent applicants. It aims to prevent biopiracy and ensure fair access and benefit-sharing..
2. New WIPO Treaty: The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge seeks to address concerns relating to traditional knowledge and genetic resources.
3. Disclosure Requirements: The treaty introduces disclosure requirements regarding the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. This aims to improve transparency in patent systems.
4. Addressing Misappropriation: The treaty responds to concerns regarding the misuse of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. It broadens the discussion beyond conventional infringement issues.
5. Expanding the Scope of Scrutiny: Scrutiny should also cover misappropriation of traditional knowledge and genetic resources.
6. Link with Global IP Governance: The treaty highlights that IP governance is not only about protecting rights holders but also about ensuring transparency and fairness in the use of knowledge and resources.

India’s Concerns and the Need for a Balanced IP Regime

1. Legal Framework for Intellectual Property Rights and TRIPS Compliance: India’s intellectual property regime is governed by the Patents Act, 1970, Copyright Act, 1957, Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. India has aligned these laws with the TRIPS Agreement while retaining safeguards such as compulsory licensing under the Patents Act, 1970 to balance intellectual property protection with access to essential goods and medicines.
2. Concerns Regarding Biopiracy: India has long raised concerns about the commercial use of biological resources and traditional knowledge without proper acknowledgement.
3. Prior Informed Consent and Benefit-Sharing: Concerns arise when resources and knowledge are used without prior informed consent or equitable benefit-sharing arrangements.
4. Accountability of Institutions and Corporations: Questions remain regarding the accountability of research institutions, corporations, and innovation systems when inventions rely on resources and knowledge originating in developing countries.
5. Beyond Private Intellectual Property Rights: The IP system should not be viewed only through the protection of private rights. Broader concerns also require attention.
6. Protection of Community Knowledge Systems: A balanced framework should support fairness, transparency, biodiversity conservation, benefit-sharing, and the protection of community-held knowledge systems.

Conclusion

The Vietnam investigation highlights the need for a more balanced intellectual property system. Effective action against piracy and infringement remains important, but equal attention is also needed for traditional knowledge, genetic resources, and benefit-sharing. As the WIPO treaty moves towards implementation, global IP governance should promote fairness, transparency, accountability, benefit-sharing, and consistent standards across countries.

Question for practice:

Discuss the need for a more equitable intellectual property order in the context of the USTR’s investigation into Vietnam and growing concerns over the protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources.

Source: Businessline