trips un

Browse Subjects

• Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, including Trade in Counterfeit Goods (1994)
• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
• TRADE AGREEMENTS
• DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
• COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
• TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
• TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS
• CASE STUDIES
• CONFIDENTIALITY
• ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS
• INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
• COMPETITION LAW

Enter your UVP User ID above to start / resume / save your progress on the onboarding portal.

• Update your profile
• Accept your offer
• Secure visa and clearances
• Complete medical, online courses, and banking update
• Contact host entity, and UNV for allowances and travel
• Get security clearance and accept your contract
• Your Benefits, Allowances, and Support Systems as a UN Volunteer
• Learn about the UN and UNV
• Guidance on preventing and reporting misconduct
• Your first day on assignment
• Your first week(s)
• Your first month
• Your first six months
• Document Library

Remember to get security clearance before you travel

Accept your contract in uvp.

• See guide on how to complete and upload your security clearance in UVP ( Interactive , web , PDF version )

Before you start your assignment, ensure that you:

This step marks the completion of your recruitment process. 

Congratulations! you are now all cleared to start your assignment as a UN Volunteer.  

• youtube-play

This website benefits from the continuous support of Online Volunteers. UNV is administered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

UNV Scam Alert

UNV Privacy Policy

UNV Website Terms of Use

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Home   |  About WTO   |  News & events   |  Trade topics   |  WTO membership   |  Documents & resources   |  External relations

Contact us   |  Site map   |  A-Z   |  Search

• trade topics

Overview: the TRIPS Agreement

The TRIPS Agreement, which came into effect on 1 January 1995, is to date the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on intellectual property.

> General provisions > Standards of protection > Copyright > Related rights > Trademarks > Geographical indications > Industrial designs > Patents > Integrated circuits > Undisclosed information > Anti-competitive licences > Enforcement > General obligations > Procedures and remedies > Provisional measures > Border measures > Criminal procedures > Other provisions > Acquiring and maintaining rights > Transitional arrangements > Protecting existing matter

The three main features of the Agreement are:

• Standards . In respect of each of the main areas of intellectual property covered by the TRIPS Agreement, the Agreement sets out the minimum standards of protection to be provided by each Member. Each of the main elements of protection is defined, namely the subject-matter to be protected, the rights to be conferred and permissible exceptions to those rights, and the minimum duration of protection. The Agreement sets these standards by requiring, first, that the substantive obligations of the main conventions of the WIPO, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) in their most recent versions, must be complied with. With the exception of the provisions of the Berne Convention on moral rights, all the main substantive provisions of these conventions are incorporated by reference and thus become obligations under the TRIPS Agreement between TRIPS Member countries. The relevant provisions are to be found in Articles 2.1 and 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which relate, respectively, to the Paris Convention and to the Berne Convention. Secondly, the TRIPS Agreement adds a substantial number of additional obligations on matters where the pre-existing conventions are silent or were seen as being inadequate. The TRIPS Agreement is thus sometimes referred to as a Berne and Paris-plus agreement.
• Enforcement . The second main set of provisions deals with domestic procedures and remedies for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Agreement lays down certain general principles applicable to all IPR enforcement procedures. In addition, it contains provisions on civil and administrative procedures and remedies, provisional measures, special requirements related to border measures and criminal procedures, which specify, in a certain amount of detail, the procedures and remedies that must be available so that right holders can effectively enforce their rights.
• Dispute settlement . The Agreement makes disputes between WTO Members about the respect of the TRIPS obligations subject to the WTO's dispute settlement procedures.

In addition the Agreement provides for certain basic principles, such as national and most-favoured-nation treatment, and some general rules to ensure that procedural difficulties in acquiring or maintaining IPRs do not nullify the substantive benefits that should flow from the Agreement. The obligations under the Agreement will apply equally to all Member countries, but developing countries will have a longer period to phase them in. Special transition arrangements operate in the situation where a developing country does not presently provide product patent protection in the area of pharmaceuticals.

The TRIPS Agreement is a minimum standards agreement, which allows Members to provide more extensive protection of intellectual property if they so wish. Members are left free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of the Agreement within their own legal system and practice.

Certain general provisions 

As in the main pre-existing intellectual property conventions, the basic obligation on each Member country is to accord the treatment in regard to the protection of intellectual property provided for under the Agreement to the persons of other Members. Article 1.3 defines who these persons are. These persons are referred to as “nationals” but include persons, natural or legal, who have a close attachment to other Members without necessarily being nationals. The criteria for determining which persons must thus benefit from the treatment provided for under the Agreement are those laid down for this purpose in the main pre-existing intellectual property conventions of WIPO, applied of course with respect to all WTO Members whether or not they are party to those conventions. These conventions are the Paris Convention, the Berne Convention, International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention), and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty).

Articles 3, 4 and 5 include the fundamental rules on national and most-favoured-nation treatment of foreign nationals, which are common to all categories of intellectual property covered by the Agreement. These obligations cover not only the substantive standards of protection but also matters affecting the availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance and enforcement of intellectual property rights as well as those matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically addressed in the Agreement. While the national treatment clause forbids discrimination between a Member's own nationals and the nationals of other Members, the most-favoured-nation treatment clause forbids discrimination between the nationals of other Members. In respect of the national treatment obligation, the exceptions allowed under the pre-existing intellectual property conventions of WIPO are also allowed under TRIPS. Where these exceptions allow material reciprocity, a consequential exception to MFN treatment is also permitted (e.g. comparison of terms for copyright protection in excess of the minimum term required by the TRIPS Agreement as provided under Article 7(8) of the Berne Convention as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement). Certain other limited exceptions to the MFN obligation are also provided for.

The general goals of the TRIPS Agreement are contained in the Preamble of the Agreement, which reproduces the basic Uruguay Round negotiating objectives established in the TRIPS area by the 1986 Punta del Este Declaration and the 1988/89 Mid-Term Review. These objectives include the reduction of distortions and impediments to international trade, promotion of effective and adequate protection of intellectual property rights, and ensuring that measures and procedures to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade. These objectives should be read in conjunction with Article 7, entitled “Objectives”, according to which the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations. Article 8, entitled “Principles”, recognizes the rights of Members to adopt measures for public health and other public interest reasons and to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.

Substantive standards of protection 

Copyright Back to top

During the Uruguay Round negotiations, it was recognized that the Berne Convention already, for the most part, provided adequate basic standards of copyright protection. Thus it was agreed that the point of departure should be the existing level of protection under the latest Act, the Paris Act of 1971, of that Convention. The point of departure is expressed in Article 9.1 under which Members are obliged to comply with the substantive provisions of the Paris Act of 1971 of the Berne Convention, i.e. Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. However, Members do not have rights or obligations under the TRIPS Agreement in respect of the rights conferred under Article 6 bis of that Convention, i.e. the moral rights (the right to claim authorship and to object to any derogatory action in relation to a work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation), or of the rights derived therefrom. The provisions of the Berne Convention referred to deal with questions such as subject-matter to be protected, minimum term of protection, and rights to be conferred and permissible limitations to those rights. The Appendix allows developing countries, under certain conditions, to make some limitations to the right of translation and the right of reproduction.

In addition to requiring compliance with the basic standards of the Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement clarifies and adds certain specific points.

Article 9.2 confirms that copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.

Article 10.1 provides that computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971). This provision confirms that computer programs must be protected under copyright and that those provisions of the Berne Convention that apply to literary works shall be applied also to them. It confirms further, that the form in which a program is, whether in source or object code, does not affect the protection. The obligation to protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that only those limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to computer programs. It also confirms that the general term of protection of 50 years applies to computer programs. Possible shorter terms applicable to photographic works and works of applied art may not be applied.

Article 10.2 clarifies that databases and other compilations of data or other material shall be protected as such under copyright even where the databases include data that as such are not protected under copyright. Databases are eligible for copyright protection provided that they by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations. The provision also confirms that databases have to be protected regardless of which form they are in, whether machine readable or other form. Furthermore, the provision clarifies that such protection shall not extend to the data or material itself, and that it shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.

Article 11 provides that authors shall have in respect of at least computer programs and, in certain circumstances, of cinematographic works the right to authorize or to prohibit the commercial rental to the public of originals or copies of their copyright works. With respect to cinematographic works, the exclusive rental right is subject to the so-called impairment test: a Member is excepted from the obligation unless such rental has led to widespread copying of such works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred in that Member on authors and their successors in title. In respect of computer programs, the obligation does not apply to rentals where the program itself is not the essential object of the rental.

According to the general rule contained in Article 7(1) of the Berne Convention as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement, the term of protection shall be the life of the author and 50 years after his death. Paragraphs 2 through 4 of that Article specifically allow shorter terms in certain cases. These provisions are supplemented by Article 12 of the TRIPS Agreement, which provides that whenever the term of protection of a work, other than a photographic work or a work of applied art, is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person, such term shall be no less than 50 years from the end of the calendar year of authorized publication, or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the making of the work, 50 years from the end of the calendar year of making.

Article 13 requires Members to confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. This is a horizontal provision that applies to all limitations and exceptions permitted under the provisions of the Berne Convention and the Appendix thereto as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement. The application of these limitations is permitted also under the TRIPS Agreement, but the provision makes it clear that they must be applied in a manner that does not prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Related rights Back to top

The provisions on protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations are included in Article 14. According to Article 14.1, performers shall have the possibility of preventing the unauthorized fixation of their performance on a phonogram (e.g. the recording of a live musical performance). The fixation right covers only aural, not audiovisual fixations. Performers must also be in position to prevent the reproduction of such fixations. They shall also have the possibility of preventing the unauthorized broadcasting by wireless means and the communication to the public of their live performance.

In accordance with Article 14.2, Members have to grant producers of phonograms an exclusive reproduction right. In addition to this, they have to grant, in accordance with Article 14.4, an exclusive rental right at least to producers of phonograms. The provisions on rental rights apply also to any other right holders in phonograms as determined in national law. This right has the same scope as the rental right in respect of computer programs. Therefore it is not subject to the impairment test as in respect of cinematographic works. However, it is limited by a so-called grand-fathering clause, according to which a Member, which on 15 April 1994, i.e. the date of the signature of the Marrakesh Agreement, had in force a system of equitable remuneration of right holders in respect of the rental of phonograms, may maintain such system provided that the commercial rental of phonograms is not giving rise to the material impairment of the exclusive rights of reproduction of right holders.

Broadcasting organizations shall have, in accordance with Article 14.3, the right to prohibit the unauthorized fixation, the reproduction of fixations, and the rebroadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of their television broadcasts. However, it is not necessary to grant such rights to broadcasting organizations, if owners of copyright in the subject-matter of broadcasts are provided with the possibility of preventing these acts, subject to the provisions of the Berne Convention.

The term of protection is at least 50 years for performers and producers of phonograms, and 20 years for broadcasting organizations (Article 14.5).

Article 14.6 provides that any Member may, in relation to the protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations, provide for conditions, limitations, exceptions and reservations to the extent permitted by the Rome Convention.

Trademarks Back to top

The basic rule contained in Article 15 is that any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, must be eligible for registration as a trademark, provided that it is visually perceptible. Such signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs, must be eligible for registration as trademarks.

Where signs are not inherently capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services, Member countries are allowed to require, as an additional condition for eligibility for registration as a trademark, that distinctiveness has been acquired through use. Members are free to determine whether to allow the registration of signs that are not visually perceptible (e.g. sound or smell marks).

Members may make registrability depend on use. However, actual use of a trademark shall not be permitted as a condition for filing an application for registration, and at least three years must have passed after that filing date before failure to realize an intent to use is allowed as the ground for refusing the application (Article 14.3).

The Agreement requires service marks to be protected in the same way as marks distinguishing goods (see e.g. Articles 15.1, 16.2 and 62.3).

The owner of a registered trademark must be granted the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner's consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion must be presumed (Article 16.1).

The TRIPS Agreement contains certain provisions on well-known marks, which supplement the protection required by Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention, as incorporated by reference into the TRIPS Agreement, which obliges Members to refuse or to cancel the registration, and to prohibit the use of a mark conflicting with a mark which is well known. First, the provisions of that Article must be applied also to services. Second, it is required that knowledge in the relevant sector of the public acquired not only as a result of the use of the mark but also by other means, including as a result of its promotion, be taken into account. Furthermore, the protection of registered well-known marks must extend to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which the trademark has been registered, provided that its use would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark, and the interests of the owner are likely to be damaged by such use (Articles 16.2 and 3).

Members may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties (Article 17).

Initial registration, and each renewal of registration, of a trademark shall be for a term of no less than seven years. The registration of a trademark shall be renewable indefinitely (Article 18).

Cancellation of a mark on the grounds of non-use cannot take place before three years of uninterrupted non-use has elapsed unless valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use are shown by the trademark owner. Circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner of the trademark, such as import restrictions or other government restrictions, shall be recognized as valid reasons of non-use. Use of a trademark by another person, when subject to the control of its owner, must be recognized as use of the trademark for the purpose of maintaining the registration (Article 19).

It is further required that use of the trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements, such as use with another trademark, use in a special form, or use in a manner detrimental to its capability to distinguish the goods or services (Article 20).

Geographical indications Back to top

Geographical indications are defined, for the purposes of the Agreement, as indications which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin (Article 22.1). Thus, this definition specifies that the quality, reputation or other characteristics of a good can each be a sufficient basis for eligibility as a geographical indication, where they are essentially attributable to the geographical origin of the good.

In respect of all geographical indications, interested parties must have legal means to prevent use of indications which mislead the public as to the geographical origin of the good, and use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention (Article 22.2).

The registration of a trademark which uses a geographical indication in a way that misleads the public as to the true place of origin must be refused or invalidated ex officio if the legislation so permits or at the request of an interested party (Article 22.3).

Article 23 provides that interested parties must have the legal means to prevent the use of a geographical indication identifying wines for wines not originating in the place indicated by the geographical indication. This applies even where the public is not being misled, there is no unfair competition and the true origin of the good is indicated or the geographical indication is accompanied be expressions such as “kind”, “type”, “style”, “imitation” or the like. Similar protection must be given to geographical indications identifying spirits when used on spirits. Protection against registration of a trademark must be provided accordingly.

Article 24 contains a number of exceptions to the protection of geographical indications. These exceptions are of particular relevance in respect of the additional protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits. For example, Members are not obliged to bring a geographical indication under protection, where it has become a generic term for describing the product in question (paragraph 6). Measures to implement these provisions shall not prejudice prior trademark rights that have been acquired in good faith (paragraph 5). Under certain circumstances, continued use of a geographical indication for wines or spirits may be allowed on a scale and nature as before (paragraph 4). Members availing themselves of the use of these exceptions must be willing to enter into negotiations about their continued application to individual geographical indications (paragraph 1). The exceptions cannot be used to diminish the protection of geographical indications that existed prior to the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreement (paragraph 3). The TRIPS Council shall keep under review the application of the provisions on the protection of geographical indications (paragraph 2).

Industrial designs Back to top

Article 25.1 of the TRIPS Agreement obliges Members to provide for the protection of independently created industrial designs that are new or original. Members may provide that designs are not new or original if they do not significantly differ from known designs or combinations of known design features. Members may provide that such protection shall not extend to designs dictated essentially by technical or functional considerations.

Article 25.2 contains a special provision aimed at taking into account the short life cycle and sheer number of new designs in the textile sector: requirements for securing protection of such designs, in particular in regard to any cost, examination or publication, must not unreasonably impair the opportunity to seek and obtain such protection. Members are free to meet this obligation through industrial design law or through copyright law.

Article 26.1 requires Members to grant the owner of a protected industrial design the right to prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from making, selling or importing articles bearing or embodying a design which is a copy, or substantially a copy, of the protected design, when such acts are undertaken for commercial purposes.

Article 26.2 allows Members to provide limited exceptions to the protection of industrial designs, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the normal exploitation of protected industrial designs and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the protected design, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.

The duration of protection available shall amount to at least 10 years (Article 26.3). The wording “amount to” allows the term to be divided into, for example, two periods of five years.

Patents Back to top

The TRIPS Agreement requires Member countries to make patents available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology without discrimination, subject to the normal tests of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. It is also required that patents be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention and whether products are imported or locally produced (Article 27.1).

There are three permissible exceptions to the basic rule on patentability. One is for inventions contrary to ordre public or morality; this explicitly includes inventions dangerous to human, animal or plant life or health or seriously prejudicial to the environment. The use of this exception is subject to the condition that the commercial exploitation of the invention must also be prevented and this prevention must be necessary for the protection of ordre public or morality (Article 27.2).

The second exception is that Members may exclude from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals (Article 27.3(a)).

The third is that Members may exclude plants and animals other than micro-organisms and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, any country excluding plant varieties from patent protection must provide an effective sui generis system of protection. Moreover, the whole provision is subject to review four years after entry into force of the Agreement (Article 27.3(b)).

The exclusive rights that must be conferred by a product patent are the ones of making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing for these purposes. Process patent protection must give rights not only over use of the process but also over products obtained directly by the process. Patent owners shall also have the right to assign, or transfer by succession, the patent and to conclude licensing contracts (Article 28).

Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties (Article 30).

The term of protection available shall not end before the expiration of a period of 20 years counted from the filing date (Article 33).

Members shall require that an applicant for a patent shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out the invention known to the inventor at the filing date or, where priority is claimed, at the priority date of the application (Article 29.1).

If the subject-matter of a patent is a process for obtaining a product, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the defendant to prove that the process to obtain an identical product is different from the patented process, where certain conditions indicating a likelihood that the protected process was used are met (Article 34).

Compulsory licensing and government use without the authorization of the right holder are allowed, but are made subject to conditions aimed at protecting the legitimate interests of the right holder. The conditions are mainly contained in Article 31. These include the obligation, as a general rule, to grant such licences only if an unsuccessful attempt has been made to acquire a voluntary licence on reasonable terms and conditions within a reasonable period of time; the requirement to pay adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the licence; and a requirement that decisions be subject to judicial or other independent review by a distinct higher authority. Certain of these conditions are relaxed where compulsory licences are employed to remedy practices that have been established as anticompetitive by a legal process. These conditions should be read together with the related provisions of Article 27.1, which require that patent rights shall be enjoyable without discrimination as to the field of technology, and whether products are imported or locally produced.

Layout-designs of integrated circuits Back to top

Article 35 of the TRIPS Agreement requires Member countries to protect the layout-designs of integrated circuits in accordance with the provisions of the IPIC Treaty (the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits), negotiated under the auspices of WIPO in 1989. These provisions deal with, inter alia , the definitions of “integrated circuit” and “layout-design (topography)”, requirements for protection, exclusive rights, and limitations, as well as exploitation, registration and disclosure. An “integrated circuit” means a product, in its final form or an intermediate form, in which the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and some or all of the interconnections are integrally formed in and/or on a piece of material and which is intended to perform an electronic function. A “layout-design (topography)” is defined as the three-dimensional disposition, however expressed, of the elements, at least one of which is an active element, and of some or all of the interconnections of an integrated circuit, or such a three-dimensional disposition prepared for an integrated circuit intended for manufacture. The obligation to protect layout-designs applies to such layout-designs that are original in the sense that they are the result of their creators' own intellectual effort and are not commonplace among creators of layout-designs and manufacturers of integrated circuits at the time of their creation. The exclusive rights include the right of reproduction and the right of importation, sale and other distribution for commercial purposes. Certain limitations to these rights are provided for.

In addition to requiring Member countries to protect the layout-designs of integrated circuits in accordance with the provisions of the IPIC Treaty, the TRIPS Agreement clarifies and/or builds on four points. These points relate to the term of protection (ten years instead of eight, Article 38), the applicability of the protection to articles containing infringing integrated circuits (last sub clause of Article 36) and the treatment of innocent infringers (Article 37.1). The conditions in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement apply mutatis mutandis to compulsory or non-voluntary licensing of a layout-design or to its use by or for the government without the authorization of the right holder, instead of the provisions of the IPIC Treaty on compulsory licensing (Article 37.2).

Protection of undisclosed information Back to top

The TRIPS Agreement requires undisclosed information -- trade secrets or know-how -- to benefit from protection. According to Article 39.2, the protection must apply to information that is secret, that has commercial value because it is secret and that has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret. The Agreement does not require undisclosed information to be treated as a form of property, but it does require that a person lawfully in control of such information must have the possibility of preventing it from being disclosed to, acquired by, or used by others without his or her consent in a manner contrary to honest commercial practices. “Manner contrary to honest commercial practices” includes breach of contract, breach of confidence and inducement to breach, as well as the acquisition of undisclosed information by third parties who knew, or were grossly negligent in failing to know, that such practices were involved in the acquisition.

The Agreement also contains provisions on undisclosed test data and other data whose submission is required by governments as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products which use new chemical entities. In such a situation the Member government concerned must protect the data against unfair commercial use. In addition, Members must protect such data against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use.

Control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences Back to top

Article 40 of the TRIPS Agreement recognizes that some licensing practices or conditions pertaining to intellectual property rights which restrain competition may have adverse effects on trade and may impede the transfer and dissemination of technology (paragraph 1). Member countries may adopt, consistently with the other provisions of the Agreement, appropriate measures to prevent or control practices in the licensing of intellectual property rights which are abusive and anti-competitive (paragraph 2). The Agreement provides for a mechanism whereby a country seeking to take action against such practices involving the companies of another Member country can enter into consultations with that other Member and exchange publicly available non-confidential information of relevance to the matter in question and of other information available to that Member, subject to domestic law and to the conclusion of mutually satisfactory agreements concerning the safeguarding of its confidentiality by the requesting Member (paragraph 3). Similarly, a country whose companies are subject to such action in another Member can enter into consultations with that Member (paragraph 4).

UN Tourism | Bringing the world closer

A united vision for nature - 'nature positive' report marks new collaborative era in travel & tourism, un general assembly hosts tourism for sustainable development event, new study on rural tourism and development in europe, un tourism and croatia to establish research centre for sustainable tourism, un tourism launches tourism investment guidelines for albania, the first global dashboard for tourism insights.

As society progresses, the tourism sector, much like many other sectors, needs to transform to serve as a catalyst for prosperity at a universal scale. Enhancing the well-being of individuals, safeguarding the natural environment, stimulating economic advancement, and fostering international harmony are key goals that are the fundamental essence of UN Tourism. The organization takes on the role of driving a sustainable force that is now central to many economies

Opens Calls for Best Tourism Villages 2024

According to the first UNWTO World Tourism Barometer of the year, international tourism ended 2023 at 88% of pre-pandemic levels, with an estimated 1.3 billion international arrivals.

The multi-dimensional nature of the tourism sector, combined with the dynamics of the source of investment capital presents a complex picture for understanding and measuring tourism investments.

"UN tourism is leading the way forward in growing investments into the tourism sector. We serve as the bridge between investors and destinations, and we guide investments where they will have the biggest impact in making tourism more resilient, inclusive and sustainable."

Mr. Zurab Pololikashvili UN Tourism Secretary-General

UN Tourism Events

* The designations employed in this section of the website do not imply the expression of any opinions whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Yerevan, Armenia

8th un tourism global conference on wine tourism, victoria falls, zimbabwe, first un tourism regional forum on gastronomy tourism for africa, 2nd un tourism regional conference on brand africa under the theme: "p..., cebu, the philippines, first un tourism regional forum on gastronomy tourism for asia and the..., cebu, the philippines, 36th cap-csa and first un tourism regional forum on gastronomy tourism..., the 50th un tourism regional commission for the middle east and the co..., un tourism session on opening eyes and building contact: tourism conne..., bali, indonesia, 2nd un tourism regional conference on the empowerment of women in tour..., 69th meeting of un tourism regional commission for the americas, tourism brings progress. as one of the biggest sectors in the global economy, it has great power to bridge cultures, generate new opportunities and promote sustainable development., newsletters, un tourism news 82: sustainable development of tourism, am news | vol. 63 april 2024, un tourism news 81: global tourism investments trends and opportunities, un tourism news 80: diversification, innovation and sustainability.

Search form

Official travel, official travel of staff members and their eligible family, family visit travel, education grant travel.

Search the United Nations

Official travels of the secretary-general.

• SG/T/3383 , Jordan, 24 March 2024 to 25 March 2024
• SG/T/3382 , Egypt, 22 March 2024 to 24 March 2024
• SG/T/3381 , Belgium, 19 March 2024 to 22 March 2024
• SG/T/3380 , Saint Vincent and Grenadines, 29 February 2024 to 04 March 2024
• SG/T/3379 , Switzerland, 25 February 2024 to 26 February 2024
• SG/T/3378 , Qatar, 17 February 2024 to 20 February 2024
• SG/T/3377 , Germany, 14 February 2024 to 16 February 2024
• SG/T/3376 , Uganda, 19 January 2024 to 21 January 2024
• SG/T/3375 , Switzerland, 15 January 2024 to 18 January 2024
• SG/T/3374 , United Arab Emirates, 10 December 2023 to 13 December 2023
• SG/T/3373 , Qatar, 09 December 2023 to 10 December 2023
• SG/T/3372 , United Arab Emirates, 29 November 2023 to 04 December 2023
• SG/T/3371 , Chile / Antarctica, 21 November 2023 to 26 November 2023
• SG/T/3370 , United Kingdom, 01 November 2023 to 02 November 2023
• SG/T/3369 , Nepal, including a stopover in Qatar, 27 October 2023 to 01 November 2023
• SG/T/3368 , Egypt, 19 October 2023 to 22 October 2023
• SG/T/3367 , China, 17 October 2023 to 18 October 2023
• SG/T/3366 , Cuba, 14 September 2023 to 15 September 2023
• SG/T/3365 , India, 08 September 2023 to 11 September 2023
• SG/T/3364 , Indonesia, 06 September 2023 to 08 September 2023
• Daily Schedule
• Appointment Process
• Role of the Secretary-General
• Former Secretaries-General
• Official Travels
• Deputy Secretary-General
• Senior Management Group
• Global Leadership
• Messengers of Peace
• Annual Report on the Work of the Organization
• Coordinator for Multilingualism
• Public Disclosure
• Opinion pieces/Op-eds
• Secretariat
• Department of Global Communications
• Spokesperson's Office
• Scientific Advisory Board

• Asia - Pacific
• Middle East - Africa
• Apologetics
• Benedict XVI
• Catholic Links
• Church Fathers
• Life & Family
• Liturgical Calendar
• Pope Francis
• CNA Newsletter
• Editors Service About Us Advertise Privacy

Pope Francis may visit United States in September after UN invitation

By Andrea Gagliarducci

Rome Newsroom, Apr 25, 2024 / 07:22 am

Pope Francis is reportedly considering returning to the United States in September to speak before the United Nations General Assembly.

The news was initially reported by the French Catholic newspaper La Croix and has not yet been officially confirmed by the Vatican. A source from the Vatican Secretariat of State, meanwhile, told CNA this week that “a formal invitation has arrived from Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and Pope Francis seems inclined to respond positively.”

If the New York trip occurs, the pope would visit the United Nations during its “Summit of the Future,” which the international body will convene from Sept. 22–23.

The possible trip to the United States could change the pope’s already-busy September travel schedule. The Holy See Press Office has announced that Pope Francis will be in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Timor Leste, and Singapore from Sept. 2–13.

Pope Francis is also expected at the end of September in Belgium, where he is scheduled to celebrate the 600th anniversary of the University of Louvain, which has been divided into two different linguistic entities since the 1960s. The Holy Father told Mexican television network Televisa last December that he intended to travel to Belgium in 2024.

According to a source familiar with the planning of papal trips, Pope Francis’ trip to Louvain could be postponed to 2025. The postponement of the journey would leave room at the end of September for the visit to the United Nations.

During his planned stay in Belgium, Pope Francis will also celebrate Mass at the national shrine of Koelkenberg. There are also rumors that the pontiff will stop in Luxembourg, one of the small nations favored by the pope for trips to Europe. Luxembourg officials have denied the visit, but the Vatican Secretariat of State has indicated the trip is possible.

The September summit’s objective is to strengthen the structures of the United Nations and global “governance” to face more fully the “new and old challenges” of the coming years, the U.N. has said. 

The meeting will lead a “pact for the future” to advance rapidly toward realizing the U.N.’s “sustainable development goals.”

In a meeting with students in April, Pope Francis described the summit as “an important event,” with the Holy Father urging students to help ensure the plan “becomes concrete and is implemented through processes and actions for change.”

Pope Francis, who is 87, has undergone two surgeries in the last four years and is under regular medical screening. A planned trip to Abu Dhabi to participate in the COP28 meeting was canceled last December due to health reasons. 

The pope was last in the United States in 2015, during which he also appeared before the United Nations.

• Catholic News ,
• Papal Visits ,
• Pope Francis ,
• United Nations

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

Our mission is the truth. join us.

Your monthly donation will help our team continue reporting the truth, with fairness, integrity, and fidelity to Jesus Christ and his Church.

You may also like

Cisco CEO meets Pope Francis, signs AI ethics pledge at Vatican

Chuck Robbins, the chief executive of the multinational digital communications conglomerate, met privately with Pope Francis on April 24.

Priests’ talk show that sparked controversy over Pope Francis remarks now back on YouTube

Nearly two months ago, the priests featured on the Spanish-language talk show voluntarily suspended the program in the wake of a firestorm over one priest’s remarks.

Historic St. Mark’s Basilica in Venice, Italy, will host Pope Francis this weekend

Pope Francis will celebrate Mass in St. Mark’s Square this Sunday in Venice and then privately venerate the relics of St. Mark the Evangelist inside the basilica.

Israel Cancels DC Trip After US Allows Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution at UN

(Bloomberg) -- The Israeli government called off a US trip by senior officials after the Biden administration decided not to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, a decision reflecting a shift of approach by Washington.

Fourteen of 15 Security Council members voted in favor of the resolution, which was jointly proposed Monday by the 10 elected members of the council. The US abstained, citing the measure’s failure to explicitly condemn Hamas for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The office of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had demanded a US veto of the resolution, and said it would “suspend” the visit by two of his top aides to Washington in response. 

Monday’s resolution marks the first time the Security Council has openly endorsed a cease-fire since Israel began its campaign to wipe out Hamas after the attack by the militant group, which is considered a terrorist organization by the US and the European Union. 

Until now, President Joe Biden’s administration had blocked multiple resolutions calling for a cease-fire in Gaza in the almost six months since the Israel-Hamas war began. The US has long been steadfast in championing Israel at the UN, voting against dozens of resolutions seen as going against its ally’s interests.

The last time the US openly defied Israel’s position in a major UN debate came in 2016, when the Obama administration abstained on a Security Council resolution that called Israeli settlements illegal and demanded a halt to their expansion.

The text that was adopted Monday demands “an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan,” which started March 10, and contends that should lead to a “lasting” and “sustainable” cease-fire. It also calls for the “immediate and unconditional release of all hostages” but doesn’t call that a requirement for a cease-fire. 

Netanyahu’s office said in a statement that the US failure to veto the resolution “gives Hamas hope that international pressure will force Israel to accept a cease-fire without the release of our hostages, thus harming both the war effort and the effort to release the hostages.”

Without condemning Hamas by name, the resolution deplores “all violence and hostilities against civilians, and all acts of terrorism,” adding that the “taking of hostages is prohibited under international law.”

Samuel Žbogar, the Slovenian envoy to the UN and one of the co-authors of the text, called it “a small step in rebuilding trust” at the Security Council. “We will need more of this unity for Gaza as well as for many other conflicts,” Žbogar said.

Rafah Invasion

After the action at the UN, Netanyahu’s office called off a US visit by Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi. They were due to leave Monday evening for meetings with Biden administration officials on Israel’s planned invasion of the southern Gaza city of Rafah and ways to greatly increase humanitarian aid to the embattled area. 

“There’s no reason for this to be seen as some sort of escalation,” John Kirby, spokesman for the US National Security Council, told reporters after the UN vote. “Nothing has changed about our policy, nothing. We still want to see a cease-fire. We still want to get hostages out.”

Read More: US Says Major Israel Attack on Rafah Would Be ‘Huge Mistake’

Kirby added that the US is “very disappointed” the Israeli delegation won’t be visiting Washington “to allow us to have a fulsome conversation with them about viable alternatives to going in on the ground in Rafah.”

The Biden administration was perplexed by Israel’s backlash to the US abstention at the UN, according to a US official, who described Netanyahu’s response as a total overreaction. The official said the US stance at the UN didn’t mark a major change in US policy toward the war and suggested Israel’s reaction may have been the result of domestic political pressures. Netanyahu didn’t call Biden ahead of time to inform the president of his decision, according to the official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity.

Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant did visit Washington on Monday to meet with officials including National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the White House. Commenting on the UN vote, Gallant said “we have no moral right to stop the war while there are still hostages held in Gaza. The lack of a decisive victory in Gaza may bring us closer to a war in the north.”

The US had hinted at its evolving position at the UN on Friday, when it proposed a resolution that cited “the imperative of an immediate and sustained cease-fire” — while not openly calling for one. Russia and China vetoed that text, alleging it was still too weak and one-sided toward Israel.

Netanyahu told visiting Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday that Israel would go ahead with that invasion even without US support because taking apart the remaining Hamas battalions there is necessary to destroy its military and governing structure.

Earlier: Blinken Persists in ‘Groundhog Day’ Travels Seeking Gaza Results

The US and other governments have been urging Israel to hold off on any Rafah attack because more than 1 million Palestinians are taking shelter there. At the same time, talks are underway in Qatar for a possible exchange of hostages for Palestinian prisoners as part of a six-week cease-fire.

French President Emmanuel Macron told Netanyahu Sunday any forced transfer of people out of Rafah would be a war crime, and said his country intends to propose its own Security Council resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. The French text would be complementary to Monday’s resolution and would offer a framework for the post-war reconstruction of the strip.

--With assistance from Jordan Fabian, Justin Sink, Galit Altstein and Jennifer Jacobs.

(An earlier version of this story corrected the duration of the war in the first paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg

• Trump’s Net Worth Hits $6.5 Billion, Making Him One of World’s 500 Richest People
• Trump Vows to Pay Fraud Trial Bond Cut by 68% to $175 Million
• Vital Baltimore Bridge Collapses After Being Struck by Ship
• After Exposing Realtors, Eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction
• Biden Gains Ground Against Trump in Six Key States, Poll Shows

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.

Rwandan Tutsi genocide survivor Faina Iligoga plans memorial after Churchill Fellowship research trip

Thirty years since the genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda, survivors Faina Iligoga and Aubert Ruzigandekwe plan to create a permanent documentation and healing centre in their adopted home of Tasmania.

As recipients of the prestigious Churchill Fellowship, Ms Illigoga and Mr Ruzigandekwe, both Tutsi, this year travelled overseas to research examples of documentation and healing from genocide.

The two visited European countries and returned to Rwanda for research.

In the lead-up to Hobart commemorations of the genocide against the Tutsi, Mr Ruzigandekwe said the experience of the Tutsi people of Rwanda was a lesson the world should not forget.

Painful memories provide sense of purpose

In 1994, mainly Tutsi minority group members, but also moderate Hutu and Twa group members, were killed in the genocide.

The exact number of people who died in the horrifying event is contested, with the United Nations estimating  800,000 people were killed and other expert estimates reaching more than a million.

Three decades on from the eruption of violence spurred on by the Hutu majority, its brutal legacy is still keenly felt by survivors.

For Ms Iligoga and Mr Ruzigandekwe, each anniversary is a reminder of what could have been.

"You look back and you wonder how life would be if it didn't happen," Ms Iligoga said.

"You reflect on what you've missed out on, what your families have missed, your children.

"It hits you again."

Surviving an atrocity comes with its own complications.

Ms Iligoga and Mr Ruzigandekwe question why they lived when so many friends and family members were killed.

"What is your contribution, as a person who experienced this?" Ms Iligoga said.

"Who knows what it is to lose people, who knows that unfairness, injustice?

"Every survivor feels the need to contribute to peace, to the world being better … it feels like you survived for that purpose." 

Planned centre a first for Australia

A permanent documentation and healing centre for the genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda is planned for Hobart. If created it will be the first of its kind in Australia.

Ms Iligoga said it was her mission to raise awareness and teach people about the Tutsi experience in context to a wider conversation on genocide and other crimes against humanity.

A long time in planning, an important step has been achieved in travel overseas to visit "some of the best" museums, memorials, and documentation centres.

"[We travelled] to Belgium to visit [Holocaust memorial] Kazerne Dossin [and] in France we visited the Shoah Foundation," Ms Iligoga said.

"Both are memorials, documentation centre and museums at the same time."

In Rwanda, they visited genocide memorials, museums and an organisation that works with youth who are descendants of survivors and perpetrators of the Tutsi genocide.

In Tasmania, Ms Iligoga and Mr Ruzigandekwe plan to share the history of the Tutsi genocide alongside other crimes against humanity.

She said the centre would also be a space for healing and remembering those lost to genocide.

They hope to garner support form historians, curators, and other academics to shape the project.

"The centre will be a home to everyone," Ms Iligoga said.

"[It will be] a place where everyone who has had similar losses would come and have a moment to reflect."

Finding a location has proven difficult. Ms Iligoga and Mr Ruzigandekwe are hopeful an appropriate site will be found.

Ahead of a commemorative walk in Hobart on Saturday, Ms Iligoga said much could still be learned from the atrocity 30 years on.

"In the current world, where crimes against humanity are increasing, these centres help people to learn, especially younger generations, from lived stories of survivors," Ms Iligoga said.

"And hopefully prompt them to [think critically] and fight against discrimination and crimes against humanity.

"We're just hoping that the community of Hobart will get behind us and support it because it's an important centre that will help not only survivors, but the whole community."

"It will be a healing centre for all."

ABC Hobart in your inbox

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

'i'm lucky to be here': rwandans in tasmania selling coffee to help massacre survivors.

• War Victims

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What to Know About Venice’s Fees for Day Trips

Venice is trying to mitigate overtourism with a small fee on busy days. City leaders hope it will make visitors more aware of the city’s fragility.

By Elisabetta Povoledo

Reporting from Rome

After years of debate , Venice on Thursday began charging day visitors five euros to visit its fragile historic center on peak days, making it the first city in the world to adopt such a measure to counter overtourism.

Critics question whether a nominal fee will put people off from visiting one of the world’s most desired destinations. But officials hope that it might encourage some to rethink their plans and decide to come on weekdays or in the off-season.

That might help mitigate the impact of the estimated 20 million visitors who descended last year on the city’s beleaguered residents, who number fewer than 50,000, according to municipal statistics . About half of those visitors came only for the day, city officials said. Overnight guests are exempt from the fee.

The spirit of the initiative, city officials have said, is to make people aware of the uniqueness — and fragility — of Venice. Overtourism is creating an economy solely based on tourism that risks killing the city by pushing its dwindling residents out, said Nicola Camatti, an economics professor and expert in tourism at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.

When will Venice start charging?

The fee went into effect on Thursday, a holiday in Italy. For 2024, city officials have singled out 29 peak days when single-day travelers in Venice between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. have to pay. The days run until mid-July and are mostly on national holidays and weekends. The access-fee website provides a list of the dates.

Who must pay?

While just about everyone visiting the city has to register to obtain a QR code, not all visitors have to pay the fee. Overnight guests at registered accommodations like hotels or Airbnbs are exempt, because they already pay a daily tourist tax, as are people who study or work in Venice and those visiting relatives. There are other exemptions as well.

Residents of Venice, those born there and minors under 14 are among those who do not have to register. But they must have documents that prove their status.

It is possible that different fees will apply next year on a sliding scale that will depend on how many people city officials expect on any one day. City officials said the fees could be as high as 10 euros per day.

How will the system work?

Before coming to Venice on peak days, visitors should use the website to register and get a QR code.

The code will be scanned at points where visitors enter, like the train station, the city parking lot, the airport and the sprawling waterfront along the San Marco basin where boats dock. The access points will have one line for tourists and another for residents and what officials call city users, who are coming into Venice for reasons other than sightseeing.

At least for now, those who do not register ahead of time can do so at some access points or on their cellphones, officials said. Assistants will be available.

Initially, the controls will be “very soft,” said Michele Zuin, the municipal councilor responsible for the city’s budget.

Speaking to reporters at the foreign press association in Rome this month, Mayor Luigi Brugnaro said the fee was not about cashing in on tourists. “The costs of the operation are higher than what we’re going to make,” he said.

Why is Venice doing this?

City officials hope to relieve some of the stress that tourists put on the city by encouraging them to come on less busy days. They also say that by knowing ahead of time how many visitors to expect, the city can better deploy services.

“We want to better manage the numbers of tourists and disincentivize mass tourism” that makes it difficult for residents and visitors to “live in this city,” Mr. Zuin said this month.

To track the flow of visitors, the city already monitors them via phone location data and surveillance cameras, a system some critics have likened to Big Brother .

Venice has also fallen under the scrutiny of the United Nations’ culture agency, UNESCO, whose experts are concerned that not enough is being done to protect the city. Last year, Venice risked being added to UNESCO’s list of Endangered World Heritage Sites after experts at the agency listed mass tourism , along with climate change and development, as a major threat to its future. It urged City Hall to take steps to ameliorate the damage.

The municipal council approved the access fee just days before UNESCO was to vote on its status, and Venice stayed off the “in danger” list . But UNESCO officials said in a statement that “further progress still needs to be made” to conserve Venice.

Critics of the access fee note that officials have not capped the number of visitors, and they say that the nominal fee is hardly a deterrent. As recently as Friday, city officials said that about 80,000 visitors swelled the city’s narrow calli, as the streets are known, and the gardens of the 2024 Venice Biennale , still the world’s principal place to discover new art .

How else is Venice trying to restrict visitors?

Venice also has taken other steps it hopes will reduce what city officials call “mordi e fuggi” tourism, or “eat and flee,” referring to those who seek the city’s greatest hits — the Rialto Bridge and St. Mark’s Square — and who bring packed lunches and dump their garbage, contributing little to the local economy.

After years of heated debate and protests by vocal Venetians, the city banned cruise ships from its inner canals in 2021 , though Mr. Camatti, the tourism expert, said the ban on the ships had not reduced the number of day visitors.

This year, the city imposed a limit of 25 people per tour group and also banned the use of megaphones.

Elisabetta Povoledo is a reporter based in Rome, covering Italy, the Vatican and the culture of the region. She has been a journalist for 35 years. More about Elisabetta Povoledo