Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Notion of ‘Ownership’ in IP: Protection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge vis-a-vis Protection of T K and Cultural Expressions Act, 2016 of Kenya


Affiliations
1 Strathmore University Law School, P.O. Box 59857-00200, Nairobi, Kenya
 

The existing intellectual property (IP) regime is, by and large, inapt and inadequate for the protection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). One of the reasons behind the IP regimes inappropriateness in protecting TEK, is its anchorage in notions of ‘ownership’. Thus, there is need to examine the notion of ownership in protecting TEK. This article articulates the challenges that are bound to arise in Kenya by applying the concept of ‘ownership’ to TEK protection. An extensive review of literature on TEK and IP is done before an analysis of the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act of 2016 of Kenya is conducted to illustrate the incongruences, complexities and contradictions that ensue with the usage of the concept of ownership. The article finds that since TEK is holistic, and TEK holders are merely custodians on behalf of past, present and future generations, customary law and traditional governance structures are more suitable in protecting those custodial rights rather than vesting ownership rights on TEK holders. Lastly, the article concludes that there is need to review Kenyan law on TEK so as to clarify the legal status and relationship that exists between TEK holders, their knowledge and their ecosystems.

Keywords

Protection of Traditional Knowledge And Cultural Expressions Act, 2016, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Traditional Cultural Expressions, Convention on Biological Diversity, Collective Bio Cultural Heritage, Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Ownership.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Haughen H M, Traditional knowledge and human rights, Journal of World Intellectual Property, 8 (1) (2005) 663-677.

  • Cross J T, Property rights and traditional knowledge, Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 13 (4) (2010) 12-47.

  • Roht-Arriaza N, Of seeds and shamans: The appropriation of the scientific and technical knowledge of indigenous and local communities, Michigan Journal of International Law, 17(1) (1996) 919.

  • Muller M R, Protecting Shared and Widely Distributed Traditional Knowledge: Issues, Challenges and Options (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue paper No. 39), 2013, 19.

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act of Kenya, No. 33 (2016).

  • Farran S, Access to knowledge and the promotion of innovation: Challenges for Pacific Island States’ in Indigenous Knowledge & Intellectual Property edited by Caroline Ncube & Elmien du Plessis (JUTA, South Africa), (2016), 15-16.

  • Blakeney M, Protecting the knowledge and cultural expressions of Aboriginal Peoples, University of Western Australia Law Review, 39 (2) (2015) 180-207.

  • WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/INF/5 (March 27, 2006).

  • WIPO Glossary of Key Terms Related to Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/28/5, (5 July 2018).

  • Article 8(j) refers to knowledge, innovations and practices as a sort of a single, all-embracing concept.

  • With this analysis, TK may be seen as know-how, practices may be likened to processes and innovations to inventions, Tobin B, The Role of Customary Law in Access and BenefitSharing and Traditional Knowledge Governance: Perspectives from Andean and Pacific Island Countries (WIPO and United Nations University), 2008.

  • WIPO, Intellectual Property Needs and Expectations of Traditional Knowledge holders, WIPO Report on Factfinding Missions on Intellectual Property and Traditional Knowledge (WIPO), (2001).

  • Berkes F, Folke C & Gadgil M, Traditioinal Ecological Knowledge, Biodiversity, Resilience and Sustainability, 297, http://www.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/pubs/mg/pdfs/mg138.pdf, (accessed on 20 April 2016).

  • Whyte K P, On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: A philosophical study, Whyte Ecological Processes, 2 (7) (2013).

  • Widenhorn S, Towards Epistemic Justice with Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge? Exploring the potentials of the convention on biological diversity and the philosophy of Buen Vivir, Development, 56 (3) (2014) 378-386.

  • McGregor D, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Sustainable Development: Towards Coexistence in In the Way of Development: Indigenous Peoples, Life Projects and Globalization edited by Feit HA and McRae G (International Development Research Center, Commonwealth University), (2004).

  • Natural Justice, Imagining a traditional knowledge commons; A community approach to sharing traditional knowledge for non-commercial research (International Development Law Organisation), (2009) 12-13.

  • Shemdoe G S & Mhando L, National Policies and Legal Frameworks Governing Traditional Knowledge and Effective Intellectual Property Systems in Southern and Eastern Africa: The Case of Traditional Healers in Tanzania (African Technology Policy Studies Network, Research Paper No.17, Nairobi, Kenya), (2012) 15.

  • Howden H, Indigenous traditional knowledge and native title, UNSW Law Journal, 24 (1) (2001).

  • IIED Interim Report, Protecting Community Rights over Traditional Knowledge: Implications of Customary Laws and Practices (2005-2006), http://pubs.iied.org/G01253/(accessed on 6 April 2016).

  • Dudgeon R C & Berkes F, Local understanding of the land: Traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous knowledge, in Nature across cultures: Views of nature and the environment in non-Western Cultures edited by Selin H (Springer Science & Business Media), (2003) 75-96.

  • Pierotti R & Wildcat D, Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The Third Alternative (Commentary), Ecological Applications, 10 (5) (2000).

  • Posey D A, Selling Grandma: Commodification of the Sacred through Intellectual Property Rights, in Claiming The Stones/Naming The Bones: Cultural Property and The Negotiation of National and Ethnic Identity edited by Barkan E & Bush R (Getty Publications, California), 2002.

  • Osei Tutu J, Emerging Scholars Series: A sui generis regime for traditional knowledge: The cultural divide in intellectual property law, Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 15 (1) (2011) 147-215.

  • Uprety Y, Asselin H, Bergeron Y, Doyon F & Boucher J, Contribution of traditional knowledge to ecological restoration: Practices and applications, Ecoscience, 19 (3) (2012) 225-237.

  • Tauli-Corpuz V, Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge and Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Intellectual Property Rights Series, No.5, Malaysia), 2003.

  • Wekundah J M, Why Protect Traditional Knowledge? (African Technology Policy Studies Network Biotechnology Trust Africa, Special Paper Series No.44, Nairobi), 2012.

  • Sackey E & Kasilo O, Intellectual Property Approaches to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge in the African Region (The African Health Monitor – Special Issue: African Traditional Medicine), 2010.

  • Rose C, Possession as the origin of property, The University of Chicago Law Review, 52 (1) (1985) 52-73.

  • Weir M, Concepts of property, The National Legal Eagle, 7 (1) (2001).

  • Honore A M, Ownership in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence edited by Guest A (Clarendon Press, Oxford), (1961), 107.

  • Duguit L, Les transformations generals du droit prive le code Napoleon, Chinese version translated by Xu Diping, China University of Political Science and Law Press, Beijing, (2017), 144-45.

  • Cheng T, The origin of ownership and the legitimacy of the existence and continuation of the system: A civil law person’s interpretation of the private property protection system in the basic law of the Macao SAR, http://www.ipm.edu.mo/cntfiles/upload/docs/research/comm on/1country_2systems/issue1/p120.pdf (18 May 2018).

  • Honore A M, Ownership in Readings in the Philosophy of law edited by Coleman J (Garland Publishing), (1999) 562-574.

  • Sprankling J G, Understanding Property Law (Carolina Academic Press, 3rd edition), 2012, 4-7.

  • Merryman J, Ownership and estate: Variations on a theme by Lawson, Tulane Law Review, (1974) 48(1).

  • Helfer L R, Mapping the Interface Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property, in Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property edited by Geiger C (Edward Elgar, Northampton, USA), (2015), 12-13.

  • Spence M, Intellectual Property (Oxford University Press, New York), (2007), 25.

  • Article 9(2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights adopted on 15 April 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994) [TRIPS Agreement]. Section 22(3) & (5), Copyright Act No. 12 of 2001.

  • Article 27(1) of the TRIPS Agreement. Sections 22-29, Industrial Property Act Chapter 509, Laws of Kenya.

  • Okediji R, Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain (Center for International Governance Innovation Papers No.176, Canada), 2018, 1-16 at 5.

  • Cottier T & Panizzon M, Legal perspectives on traditional knowledge: The case for intellectual property protection, Journal of International Economic Law, 7 (2) (2004) 375-376.

  • Andanda P, Striking a balance between intellectual property protection of traditional knowledge, cultural preservation and access to knowledge, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17 (1) (2012) 547-558.

  • Raustiala K, Density and conflict in international intellectual property law, University of California Davis Law Review, 40 (1) (2007) 1021, 1033.

  • Ragavan S, Protection of traditional knowledge, Minnesota Intellectual Property Review, 2 (1) (2001) 35.

  • Varadarajan D, A trade secret approach to protecting traditional knowledge, Yale Journal of International Law, 36 (2) (2011) 378.

  • Jopela A, Traditional custodianship: A useful framework for heritage management in Southern Africa? Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 13 (2-3) (2011) 108.

  • Yu P, Cultural Relics, Intellectual Property, and Intangible Heritage, Temple Law Review, 81(1) (2008) 468.

  • Oguamanam C, Tiered or Differentiated Approach to Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions: The Evolution of a Concept (Center for International Governance Innovation Papers No. 185, Canada), 2018, 13.

  • Milius D, Justifying intellectual property in traditional knowledge, Intellectual Property Quartely, 2 (1) (2009) 193-194.

  • Merges R P, Locke for the masses: Property rights and the products of collective creativity, Hofstra Law Review, 36 (1) (2008) 1190.

  • Law 27811, for the protection of collective knowledge in Peru (2001).

  • Feris L, Protecting traditional knowledge in Africa: Considering African approaches, 4 African Human Rights Law Journal, 4 (1) (2004) 248.

  • Cullet P, Human rights, knowledge and intellectual property protection, Journal of Intellectual Property, 11 (1) (2006) 11.

  • Heald P J, The rhetoric of biopiracy, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11 (1) (2003) 519-546.

  • Munzer S R & Raustiala K, The uneasy case for intellectual property rights in traditional knowledge, Cardozo Arts & Entertainment, 27 (1) (2009) 40.

  • Swiderska K, Traditional Knowledge and Recognition of Customary Law: Policy Issues and Challenges (background paper for the Planning Workshop on Protecting community rights over traditional knowledge: implications for customary laws and practices, London) 4-5 May 2004 at 7.

  • No.33 of 2016.

  • Section 2, Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act No. 33 of 2016.

  • Harrington J & Hughes L, The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Bill https://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiS1fut_6LkAhWLPFAK HTW8DtQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fipkenya.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F12%2F16%2Fcomments-ontheprotection-of-traditional-knowledge-and-traditionalculturalexpressions-bill-2015%2F&usg=AOvVaw2MDp5TsTih0rhLd9wZTN_L (accessed on 18 May 2018).

  • The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Bill, Section 9.

  • Section 6, Swakopmund Protocol.

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Section 2.

  • Harrington J & Deacon H, Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act 2016, The Star, https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2016/12/03/traditional-knowledge-andcultureexpressions-act-2016_c1465106, (accessed on 3 December 2016).

  • Sections 6 and 14, Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act No. 33 of 2016.

  • Kiene K, The Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge in the Pharmaceutical Field: An Intercultural Problem on the International Agenda (Waxmann Verlag Publishers, Germany), 2011, 60.

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Sections 19(2) and 21(4).

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Sections 18, 20, 22 and 24.

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Section 28(1).

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Section 7(1).

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Section 13.

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Section 4.

  • Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, Section 5.

  • Harrington J, Traditional Medicine and the Law in Kenya in Nicola K Gale & Jean V McHale, Routledge Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine-Perspectives From Social Science and Law, 180-201.

  • The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Bill (2015) Sections 2, 4, 5 and 7(7).

  • The Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Bill (2015 Section 12(1). Section 12 (1) Swakopmund Protocol.

  • Dutfield G, Protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples: Can Prior Informed Consent help? in Indigenous Peoples, Consent and Benefit Sharing: Lessons from the San-Hoodia Case edited by Wynberg R, Schroeder and Chennells R (Dordrecht: Springer) (2009) 60.

  • Section 31(5), Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act No. 33 (2016).

  • Tobin B, Now you see it now you don’t-The rise and fall of customary law in the IGC in Protecting Traditional Knowledge: The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore edited by Robinson DF et al. (Taylor & Francis), (2017) 192-215.

  • Deacon H, Trans-boundary knowledge and regional cooperation in the protection of Traditional Knowledge in Kenya Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (2017) 1-10.

  • WIPO, Customary Law and Traditional Knowledge (WIPO, Background Brief No. 7), 2017.


Abstract Views: 112

PDF Views: 92




  • Notion of ‘Ownership’ in IP: Protection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge vis-a-vis Protection of T K and Cultural Expressions Act, 2016 of Kenya

Abstract Views: 112  |  PDF Views: 92

Authors

Francis Kariuki
Strathmore University Law School, P.O. Box 59857-00200, Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract


The existing intellectual property (IP) regime is, by and large, inapt and inadequate for the protection of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). One of the reasons behind the IP regimes inappropriateness in protecting TEK, is its anchorage in notions of ‘ownership’. Thus, there is need to examine the notion of ownership in protecting TEK. This article articulates the challenges that are bound to arise in Kenya by applying the concept of ‘ownership’ to TEK protection. An extensive review of literature on TEK and IP is done before an analysis of the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act of 2016 of Kenya is conducted to illustrate the incongruences, complexities and contradictions that ensue with the usage of the concept of ownership. The article finds that since TEK is holistic, and TEK holders are merely custodians on behalf of past, present and future generations, customary law and traditional governance structures are more suitable in protecting those custodial rights rather than vesting ownership rights on TEK holders. Lastly, the article concludes that there is need to review Kenyan law on TEK so as to clarify the legal status and relationship that exists between TEK holders, their knowledge and their ecosystems.

Keywords


Protection of Traditional Knowledge And Cultural Expressions Act, 2016, Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, Traditional Cultural Expressions, Convention on Biological Diversity, Collective Bio Cultural Heritage, Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Ownership.

References