Open Access
Subscription Access
Limitations of Existing IPR Legislations in Managing Emerging Environmental Issues
Along with numerous mandatory conditions, current IPR legislations defined the criteria for granting right o f intellectual property including the criteria o f environmentally sound or damage proof invention (u/s 3(b), 3(c) and 3(j) o f Indian Patent Act, 1970) to the pioneer. But the criteria o f environmental wellbeing is being frequently overlooked considering novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness o f the inventions with respect to the socio-economic benefits by the competent authority meant for granting the approval. There are incidences where rights were granted to the intellectual property (IP) in the form o f patents, trade secrets etc. which created significant socio-economic improvement but caused irreversible environmental damages. The weak description o f environmental protection criteria in patent granting process is the biggest limitation of the present IPR legislations. Inventions for environmental protection, inventions without or minimum destruction and inventions for sound environmental management is the urgent need o f present world. The various environmental laws are secondary enforcement, while the intellectual property laws could be first enforcement to avoid the effect o f inventions having potential to cause significant threat to the environment. On this ground, it can be concluded that, the provisions under present IPR legislations are inadequate to overcome the forthcoming environmental issues arising from inventions escaped from environmental criteria for granting IP approval. Thus, incorporation o f stringent criteria regarding environmental protection, conservation and management in the present IPR legislations for granting intellectual property rights to the pioneer is needed for sustainable development o f mankind.
Keywords
IP Limitations, Environmental Issues, Sustainable Development, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Persistent Organic Pollutant, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
User
Font Size
Information
- WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2: Fields o f Intellectual Property Protection (2008).
- Lemley M A & Shapiro C, Probabilistic patents, Journal o f Economic Perspectives, Stanford Law and Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 288, 19 (2005) 75.
- Section 3(b), 3(c) and 3(j), The Patents Act, 1970.
- Shawn K, The environmental and public health impacts of U.S. Patent Law: Making the case for incorporating a precautionary principle, Comment, Environmental Law, (36) (2006) 221-256.
- Theo C et al., Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, And Survival? A Scientific Detective Story, 243 (1996).
- Glenn B R, Future development, Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the ozone layer: Conference calling for accelerated phase-out o f ozone-depleting chemicals is planned for 1992, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 5 (1992) 363, 365-366.
- US Pat No 1,833,847 (filed 8 February 1930) (issued 24 November 1931); US Pat No 1,886,339 (filed 31 December 1928) (issued 1 November 1932).
- DDT, A Review o f Scientific and Economic Aspects o f the Decision to Ban its Use as a Pesticide, Report by EPA to U.S. House of Representative (1975).
- US Pat No 2,329,074 (filed 4 March 1941) (issued 7 September 1943).
- Rachel C, Silent Spring (1962).
- Elizabeth B B, Reclaiming our future: International efforts to eliminate the threat o f persistent organic pollutants, Hastings International and Company Limited Review, 20 (1997) 855, 856 (describing compounds classified as POPs and their global effects).
Abstract Views: 324
PDF Views: 160